NOTICE OF MEETING

To All Members of Asset Management Committee

Councillor T Wasylenko – Presiding Member Councillor Turelli Councillor Nguyen – Deputy Presiding Member Councillor Randall Her Worship the Mayor, Angela Keneally (ex officio) Councillor Campbell Councillor Agius Councillor Ghent Councillor Scheffler

I wish to advise that a meeting of the Asset Management Committee will be held in the:

Committee Meeting Rooms 2 and 3 (CC2 & CC3) 72 Woodville Road, Woodville

commencing at 6.00 pm on Monday, 20 July 2015.

PHILIP HEWITT ACTING GENERAL MANAGER ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Dated 16 July 2015

Please advise Jenny Watson if you are unable to attend this meeting or will be late. Telephone 8408 1510.

We acknowledge that the land we meet on today is the traditional land of the Kaurna people. We respect their spiritual relationship with this land. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as traditional custodians of the Kaurna land. We will endeavour, as Council, to act in a way that respects Kaurna heritage and the cultural beliefs of the Kaurna people.

City of Charles Sturt 1. AM Agenda 20/07/15

AGENDA

1. COMMITTEE OPENING

1.1 Apologies for absence.

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday, 15 June 2015.

3. BUSINESS Page No.

(i) Items to be starred.

(ii) All unstarred items to be adopted.

“That having read and considered the reports in the agenda related to items (list the number of each item and its title) adopt the recommendations as printed.”

3.77* WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION (B863) 1

Brief

This report presents the Western Adelaide Regional Sports Facility Strategic Framework for information.

3.78 POINT MALCOLM RESERVE AND BEACHWAY RESERVE – STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (B435) 10

Brief

The report seeks Council endorsement to accept the funding from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for reserve improvements to Beachway Reserve and to upgrade the play facilities at Point Malcolm Reserve.

City of Charles Sturt 2. AM Agenda 20/07/15

3.79 REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK (B1559) 14

Brief

To report on the outcome of investigations into the regulated Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus caldocalyx) located on the side alignment of 7 Glenwood Crescent, in Hampton Court, Kidman Park.

3.80 PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT (B8440) 27

Brief

This is a progress report to inform Council of the monthly progress of the Henley Square Redevelopment. The report also includes a Project Forecast to Complete with details of the scope of works completed under the contract.

3.81 RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE (B435) 37

Brief

To consider the request to rename Drainage Reserve North and South to Grange Lakes Linear Park, or Railside Reserve.

3.82 LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH - FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND (B712) 43

Brief

The existing footpath along the frontage boundary of 2 Lexington Road, Henley Beach South is located on private land. This report recommends that Council purchase land from the abutting property owner to enable the footpath to be retained in its present location.

3.83 UPGRADE BEVERLEY WASTE AND RECYCLING CENTRE (B8394) 48

Brief

This report is to address the options for the future of the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre. These options include potential upgrades necessary to comply with mandatory requirements of Environmental Protection Authority policies and Work Place Health and Safety obligations versus options of selling or leasing the facility.

The proposed upgrade will include covering the disposal area to ensure compliance with current EPA policies as well as future proof the centre against potential further EPA and Workplace Health and Safety requirements and licencing conditions. The upgrade would also include the introduction of a supervised “Sort’n’Save” recycling process, improving way finding, customer service and addressing safety risks associated with the current saw-tooth layout design.

City of Charles Sturt 3. AM Agenda 20/07/15

3.84 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE (B8678) 71

Brief

This report advises Council that the pedestrian crossing with traffic lights in Valetta Road Kidman Park at Kooralla Grove is no longer needed and it could be replaced with pedestrian refuge crossing for safe crossing to bus stops on Valetta Road between Frogmore Road and Findon Road. The report seeks approval to include renewal of the school crossing with traffic lights in Mitton Avenue Henley Beach near Buckingham Avenue 2015/2016 Electronic Renewals Project.

3.85 STATUS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS (B7512) 82

Brief

To update Council regarding the current status and future review schedule of Asset Management Plans for the major asset classes.

3.86 ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES CAPITAL WORKS & OPERATING PROGRAM VARIATIONS (B7502, B536) 86

Brief

This report identifies capital works & operating program variations that have occurred in response to consultation outcomes, changed scope of works or tendering processes and recommends variations to enable works to proceed and identifies funding reallocations to be referred to the Corporate Services Committee as part of the quarterly review.

3.87 ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 (B3994) 89

Brief

To report on the activities of the Asset Management Services Division for the quarter April May and June 2015.

3.88 WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES (B5420) 153

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the minutes of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Board meeting held on Thursday 25 June 2015.

City of Charles Sturt 4. AM Agenda 20/07/15

4. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

5. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

6. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

[As previously identified and agreed by the Presiding Member]

7. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

8. BUSINESS – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

9. MEETING CLOSURE

City of Charles Sturt 1. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Manager Open Space, Recreation & Property

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.77* WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION (B863)

Brief

This report presents the Western Adelaide Regional Sports Facility Strategic Framework for information.

Recommendation

That the report, along with the Western Adelaide Regional Sporting Facilities Strategic Framework, be received and noted.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Community Wellbeing • Create a safe, healthy and supportive community which encourages participation, creativity and diversity - Provide welcoming and accessible community facilities that offer diverse opportunities for community members to engage in cultural, recreational, sporting and lifelong opportunities

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Increase open space and seek opportunities for shared use to respond to the recreational and sporting needs of the community - Ensure that community facilities are developed and well maintained on an equitable basis

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Ensure finances and asset are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way City of Charles Sturt 2. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 Continued

Relevant Council policies are:

• Sporting and Community Clubs Fees Policy

Background

The Cities of Charles Sturt, Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens, along with Adelaide Shores, provide a significant range of sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for the wider western Adelaide population. Western Metropolitan Adelaide, over time, has established a range of local and region sporting facilities to cater for diverse community needs, and this has been appropriate given the importance of active and healthy communities.

Long term financial planning and infrastructure asset management have been identified as two key challenges facing local government. All Councils have very large stocks of assets relative to their revenue base. A high proportion of these assets, most noticeably sporting and recreation facilities, are reaching the stage where they will require upgrading or replacing in the foreseeable future. These issues and potential impacts on communities and sports have reached a critical stage.

Accordingly, Council must balance competing demands to:

• Maintain existing (often ageing) sport and recreation facilities to a standard at least adequate for local community purposes; • Upgrade some existing facilities to higher standards, e.g. for regional competitions; • Provide new facilities, or replace old facilities with new; and • Keep rate rises to a minimum.

Compounding the asset situation is a lack of funding through other levels of government and a reliance on local government to plan for, provide and upgrade facilities at the local and regional level. Equally, now more than ever, the western region is experiencing increased pressure and often conflicting community demands on the use of open space for sporting, recreation and other amenity.

It was therefore considered timely to undertake a region study to ascertain the existing supply and demand of sporting facilities, therefore allowing each municipal to strategically determine future facility provision, not only within their own boundaries, but at a regional level.

In 2013 the western region Councils of Cities of Charles Sturt (project leader), West Torrens, and Port Adelaide Enfield along with Adelaide Shores and the Office of Recreation and Sport partnered to scope and plan the Western Adelaide Sporting Facility Supply and Demand Study. City of Charles Sturt 3. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 Continued

By February 2014 a consultancy was engaged to undertake the project in defined phases being:

1. Audit and Gap Analysis Phase 2. Strategy Development Phase

The Strategy Development Phase is now completed with the preparation of the ‘Western Adelaide Sporting Facility Supply & Demand Study – Strategic Framework 2015’ ready for the Councils to consider.

Report

The study analysed existing sporting facilities across the Western Adelaide Region (including schools and churches) and forecasts future demand, required upgrades and improved regional coordination for provision and management of sporting facilities.

In particular, the Western Adelaide Regional Sports Facility Strategic Framework in Appendix B responds to forecast increased population density which is expected to intensify sporting facilities demand requiring the strategic approach being considered.

The proposed regional framework includes criteria and an assessment tool to identify priority sites for:

• New or upgraded facilities; • Improved access to non-Council owned sites; and • Consolidation of activities to facilitate greater diversity of sports to meet future needs.

A more detailed study titled ‘The Western Adelaide Sporting Facility Supply & Demand Study’ has been prepared to inform the Strategic Framework report and copies are available upon request.

The Strategic Framework identifies many factors influencing the viability, accessibility and availability of sports facilities across Western Adelaide. These are discussed the context section of the Strategic Framework, (pages 5-6) being:

• Lifestyle Influences on Sport • Asset Management • Sporting Organisation Viability • Participation Trends • Age profile • Cultural Diversity • Socio Economic Diversity • Population Density and Growth City of Charles Sturt 4. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 Continued

A sporting facility provision analysis was also conducted using a series of benchmarks, ratios and standards developed by Parks and Leisure Australia. This exercise was conducted to measure the level of current sporting facility provision in the western Adelaide region and to identify areas of over or under provision. Key findings include:

There is a significant gap in the provision of indoor facilities for basketball and other indoor sports;

• There is an overprovision of lawn bowls greens and a need to consolidate lawn bowls facilities across the region;

• There is an overprovision of local netball court facilities in the region and a need to consolidate netball facilities into larger and more functional sites;

• There is an overprovision of local tennis court facilities and a need to shift away from providing smaller and limited functionality sites to larger and more sustainable regional level facilities;

• There is adequate provision of soccer pitches provided access to school soccer pitches is achieved. A key strategy to meet the future needs for soccer will be to work closely with the schools (public and independent) to upgrade and develop their facilities to cater for community level soccer, which would include ancillary facilities such as changerooms and lighting;

• Increasing the level of community access to school sporting facilities will be a key consideration for some sporting associations. This is due to increasing facility demands and the variable levels of community access currently available across the region;

• Australian Rules football is adequately provided for currently and with a slight increase in provision over the next decade the current provision of ovals should meet demand;

• Baseball and Softball is adequately provided for currently and over the next decade;

• Cricket is well catered for currently and there is unlikely to be a demand for additional cricket ovals in the next decade;

• Hockey is well catered for currently and no additional local or regional level hockey pitches are required in the region for the next decade;

• A series of additional sports were also analysed as part of the facility provision analysis with no major gaps identified. City of Charles Sturt 5. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 Continued

Impacts on City of Charles Sturt The Strategic Framework contains priority actions for facilities across the Western Region. These are categorised into:

• Enhance capacity and quality of existing facilities • Consolidate similar activities to facilitate diversity • Priority School Facilities

Those specific to Charles Sturt are summarised in Appendix A.

Financial and Resource Implications

There are no finance or resource implications identified.

Customer Service and Community Implications

Sport contributes to community identity, serving as a focal point for engagement, pride, and achievement. The diversity of sports and sporting activities (including social sport and physical recreation) offers the potential to reach every age-group, culture, and socio- economic background.

The community benefits of sport go beyond the personal benefits derived from sports participation. Sport is a popular focal point for strategies that underpin government policy for community development and social inclusion

Environmental Implications

No environmental implications have been identified.

Community Engagement/Consultation

Stakeholders consulted during this Study included the Elected Members and staff of the Cities of Charles Sturt, Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens (including an Elected Member workshop on Thursday, 22 May 2014); Adelaide Shores; Office for Recreation and Sport, sports clubs and associations, state sporting bodies, schools (public and independent), churches, Department for Education and Child Development, Sport SA, and the Local Government Association through the Local Government Sport and Recreation Facilities Sustainability Group.

Key methods of consultation included face to face interviews, workshops and the development and distribution of online surveys for facility owners and users including sports clubs/associations/peak bodies and schools. City of Charles Sturt 6. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 Continued

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

No risk management or legislative implications have been identified.

Conclusion

The Cities of Charles Sturt, West Torrens, and Port Adelaide Enfield along with Adelaide Shores and the Office of Recreation and Sport have partnered to scope and develop the Western Adelaide Sporting Facility Study and Strategic Framework.

The Strategic Framework was completed in April 2015 and presents the regional context for sports participation, community sports provision, and sports facility management.

This context informed priority actions for facility enhancement and consolidation, and identified school sites considered to be important to the mix of potential community accessible sports facilities across the Western Adelaide Region.

Council staff will now assess the recommendations and present any future opportunities to the Asset Management Services Committee for further consideration. City of Charles Sturt 7. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 APPENDIX A

Priority Actions Related to Sporting Facilities Within the City of Charles Sturt

Enhance capacity and quality of existing facilities

1. St. Clair (includes 2, 3, & 4 and Recreation Centre precinct) • Continue to enhance as a regional community sports hub with a focus on cricket, soccer (indoor and outdoor), basketball, tennis, netball and other indoor sports (e.g. skating, fitness, volleyball, badminton); • Redevelopment of the indoor recreation centre in accordance with Master Plan (once finalised); • Further integrate facilities with adjoining Woodville High School; • Review aging sports hall (1court); and • Provide fit for purpose sports lighting and ancillary facilities.

2. Jubilee Reserve / West Lakes Shore Oval (precinct) • Continue to enhance as a regional community sports hub with a focus on soccer, lawn bowls, tennis, cricket, Australian rules football and baseball; • Provide fit for purpose sports lighting and ancillary facilities; and • Prepare a precinct Master Plan to guide future facility development.

3. Grange Recreation Centre • Continue to enhance as a regional community sports hub with a focus on soccer, cricket and hockey; • Provide fit for purpose sports lighting and ancillary facilities; and • Prepare a precinct Master Plan to guide future facility development.

Consolidate similar activities to facilitate diversity

1. Smith Reserve (Tennis Facility) • Consider relocation of club and determine future land use of vacant site.

2. Grant Place Reserve (Tennis Facility) • Consider relocation of club and determine future land use of vacant site.

3. Jetty Street, Grange (Netball Courts) • Consider facility relocation from Jetty St location to Adelaide Shores or the Adelaide University playing grounds if they were developed to accommodate netball.

4. Grange Bowling Club • Continue to investigate suitable site for re-location. City of Charles Sturt 8. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 APPENDIX A Continued

Priority School Facilities

1. Seaton High School • Potential for additional indoor multi-use court provision; • Continual enhancement of baseball facilities; and • Investigate additional use for soccer.

2. Nazareth Catholic College – Flinders Park Secondary Campus • Investigate potential to expand indoor sport facilities; and • Investigate additional use for soccer.

3. St Michaels College – Henley Beach Secondary Campus • Investigate additional use for soccer; • Investigate potential to expand indoor sport facilities; and

4. Henley High School • Explore opportunities to develop additional indoor sporting facilities on adjacent John Mitchell Reserve courts.

5. Woodville High School • Improve integration with adjoining St. Clair precinct; and • Review existing sports hall provision (consider integration with proposed St. Clair Recreation Centre redevelopment).

City of Charles Sturt 9. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN ADELAIDE SPORTING FACILITY SUPPLY & DEMAND STUDY AND PRESENTATION Item 3.77 APPENDIX B

Appendix A consists of 29 pages and has been uploaded separately. City of Charles Sturt 10. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Manager – Open Space Recreation & Property

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.78 POINT MALCOLM RESERVE AND BEACHWAY RESERVE – STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (B435)

Brief

The report seeks Council endorsement to accept the funding from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for reserve improvements to Beachway Reserve and to upgrade the play facilities at Point Malcolm Reserve.

Recommendation

That Council accept the funding of $250,000 from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for reserve improvements to Beachway Reserve and to upgrade the play facilities at Point Malcolm Reserve.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Community Wellbeing • Create a safe, healthy and supportive community which encourages participation, creativity and diversity - Provide welcoming and accessible community facilities that offer diverse opportunities for community members to engage in cultural, recreational, sporting and lifelong opportunities - Encourage and support a healthy, safe and welcoming community

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Create public spaces that add interest and vibrancy for residents and visitors to our city - Create quality adaptable and integrated open space - Ensure that community facilities are developed and well maintained on an equitable basis City of Charles Sturt 11. AM Report 20/07/15

POINT MALCOLM RESERVE AND BEACHWAY RESERVE – STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING Item 3.78 Continued

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Promote, protect, rehabilitate and expand natural ecosystems - Preserve and enhance our trees and vegetation

Relevant Council policies are:

• Play Space Policy

Background

The State Government have recently announced funding to improve public open spaces through an investment program focusing on improving playgrounds and local reserves (Appendix A). The Government has identified both Beachway and Point Malcolm Reserve (Semaphore Park) as early recipients for this funding.

Report

The State Government has recently offered funding to the value of $250,000 for reserve development works in Semaphore Park, with the funding proposed to be spent between Beachway Reserve and Point Malcom Reserve.

Council has recently upgraded the recreational facilities and playground on Beachway Reserve Semaphore Park through its asset renewal program. It is recommended that further enhancement to the reserve now be undertaken, with the installation of additional ancillary reserve infrastructure, such as a shelter and picnic table, be undertaken.

It is also recommended that Council uses the balance of funds to upgrade the play facilities at the Point Malcolm Reserve, situated on Military Road. Council’s draft Open Space Strategy has earmarked Point Malcom Reserve as a high quality recreation destination, proposing that consideration be given to creating a regional play destination with nature based play. The funding allocation from the State Government would complement this recommendation.

Financial and Resource Implications

All funding for these projects is from a $250,000 approved grant from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. No additional funding is required from the Council. Design and project management will be undertaken by council staff, with all expenses to be within the grant funding.

Customer Service and Community Implications

There are no customer service or community implications. City of Charles Sturt 12. AM Report 20/07/15

POINT MALCOLM RESERVE AND BEACHWAY RESERVE – STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING Item 3.78 Continued

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications.

Community Engagement/Consultation

Consultation will be undertaken with key stakeholders and elected members to inform the design process of play spaces at Beachway Reserve and Point Malcolm Reserve.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

There are no risk management or legislative implications.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council accepts the $250,000 grant funding from the Department of Planning, Transport and infrastructure to implement reserve improvements at Beachway Reserve and to upgrade the play facilities at Point Malcolm Reserve. City of Charles Sturt 13. AM Report 20/07/15

POINT MALCOLM RESERVE AND BEACHWAY RESERVE – STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING Item 3.78 APPENDIX A

City of Charles Sturt 14. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Technical Officer - Arboriculture

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.79 REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK (B1559)

Brief

To report on the outcome of investigations into the regulated Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus caldocalyx) located on the side alignment of 7 Glenwood Crescent, in Hampton Court, Kidman Park.

Recommendation

That the regulated Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus caldocalyx) located on the road reserve adjacent 7 Glenwood Crescent in Hampton Court, Kidman Park assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 be retained.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Achieve change in our urban form in a way that enhances and complements existing character, aspirations and environments - Create public spaces that add interest and vibrancy for residents and visitors to our city - Create quality adaptable and integrated open space

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Promote, protect, rehabilitate and expand natural ecosystems - Preserve and enhance our trees and vegetation

Relevant Council policies are:

• Tree and Streetscape Policy City of Charles Sturt 15. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

Executive Summary

The Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) is located in the nature strip on the side alignment of 7 Glenwood Crescent, in Hampton Court, Kidman Park.

Council has received correspondence on behalf of the adjoining property primarily in relation to recent and potential branch failure.

The tree is classified as being a regulated significant tree under the Development Act 1993 as the tree has a circumference of over three metres at one metre above natural ground level.

The tree is in good health and in fair structural condition which does not pose an unacceptable risk to personal safety and to property.

The tree was assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 subsequently resulting in the recommendation to retain the tree.

Background

The subject tree, Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) is located in the Hampton Court nature strip sited 2.5 metres from the side boundary fence adjoining 7 Glenwood Crescent, Kidman Park. (Refer to Appendix A).

The tree is classified as being a regulated significant tree and has been assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993. The tree has a circumference of greater than three metres, measured at one metre above natural ground level.

The tree had been initially assessed by Council’s arboricultural officer in November 2014 following branch failure onto the nature strip. The tree was assessed against Council’s Tree & Streetscape Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 subsequently resulting in the recommendation to retain the tree and undertake general maintenance pruning as it was in good health with a fair structural status (refer to Appendix B). The tree at the time of inspection was not deemed to represent an unacceptable risk to public and or private safety.

Council initially received correspondence in March 2015 from the Ward Councillor on behalf of the adjoining property owner at 5 Glenwood Crescent primarily in relation to the recent and potential branch failure and its directional growth over the roadway. In addition it was requested that the large stem over the road be significantly pruned.

Additional correspondence was received in May 2015 further requesting the removal of the subject tree and its replacement with an appropriate semi-mature street tree. No additional information was provided to support the case for removal. City of Charles Sturt 16. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

Two consulting arborists have recently been engaged to provide an independent assessment and recommendation of the tree in question (refer to Appendix C & Appendix D). The independent arborists engaged by Council were;

• Tree Environs Pty Ltd, Mr Michael Palmountain, Relevant qualifications include Bachelor of Science and Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture). • Symatree, Mr Sam Cassar, relevant qualifications include Bachelor of Applied Science (Horticulture) and Diploma in Horticulture (Horticulture & Arboriculture).

It was requested that the consulting arborist provide the following information;

• Assess the trees general health and structural condition. • Risk assessment in relation to personal safety and to property. • Assess the tree against the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 relating to regulated trees. • Recommend appropriate action for both the immediate and ongoing management of the tree.

Report

Description of the tree species

Eucalyptus cladocalyx – Sugar Gum are indigenous to the Southern Flinders Ranges, Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. This tree species may grow to 25 in height under ideal conditions. The species generally forms a straight smooth trunk which sheds its bark, leaving irregular white, yellow and grey patches. It has long erect branches that have glossy green foliage mainly towards the ends, with creamy white flowers appear during the summer.

This tree species has been commonly planted within the Adelaide metropolitan area due to its adaptability to a wide range of areas. The tree makes a good windbreak, and is tolerant of salty coastal winds. It can tolerate a variety of soil condition and is moderately drought tolerant.

The following attributes were consistently identified in the arboricultural assessments; • The Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) is classified as being a regulated significant tree under the Development Act 1993. The tree has a circumference of greater than three metres, measured at one metre above natural ground level. • The tree is in good health with foliage density and vigour normal and typical of the species. The tree is free of notable pest and disease. • The tree is 9-11 metres in height with a crown spread of 11-14 metres and is a mature specimen with an estimated age of 30 years or more (refer to Appendix B). • The south-western stem/trunk extends over the roadway and has the potential to obstruct to some degree clear passage for large vehicle (garbage truck) movements. • Tree recently sustained branch failure in November 2015 (refer to Appendix A)

City of Charles Sturt 17. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

The outcome of the consulting arboricultural report by Tree Environs when assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 has been to remove the subject tree as the following observations were identified (refer to Appendix C); • The regulated tree has aesthetic attributes worthy of preservation. • The tree is in good health and does not have a short life expectancy. • The tree has a pattern of defective bark inclusions present in the branching framework and subsequently recent failure was as a result of a defective inclusion. • The overall risks associated with branch failure are moderate however the likelihood of impact is considered to be low. Furthermore the impact on parked cars is overall moderate risk rating. The overall tree risk rating for this tree is moderate, concluding that the tree is an unacceptable risk to public safety. • The pruning required to mitigate the risk will adversely affect the overall appearance and long term health and subsequently tree removal was recommended.

The outcome of the consulting arboricultural report by Symatree has been to retain the subject tree as the following observations were identified (refer to Appendix D); • The regulated tree has aesthetic attributes worthy of preservation. • The tree is in good health and does not have a short life expectancy. • The primary and secondary unions appear sound and are free of significant structural flaws other than previous wounds. Branches likely to fail are considered minor in nature with the likelihood of failure considered to be possible. • The overall tree risk rating for this tree is also moderate however it is perceived to be an acceptable risk to public and personal safety. • It is recommended that the tree’s health, structural stability and management requirements be assessed every two to three years.

Council’s arboricultural assessment identified that the trees structural status was fair and had not developed significant structural flaws. Accordingly the risks associated with the tree were also deemed to be moderate however these risks were identified as being acceptable considering the trees location at the entry leading into the cul-de-sac of Hampton Court.

Low traffic volumes are expected in the cul-de-sac of Hampton Court. Larger vehicles would generally be limited to garbage collection trucks. Minor mechanical damage is evident on the underside of the branch overhanging the road pavement however no claim for damages has been received by Council. In addition bird chewing activity is likely to be the cause of cambium damage to the secondary branches and branch unions to the south west.

Risk Management

The primary stem of the subject tree does extend over the roadway to the south-west and verge area to the east. Potential targets should branch failure occur (refer to Appendix C & D); • Pedestrians using the roadway or verge – Hampton Court is a short local street with no through traffic. People are likely to be present for short periods of time and on an infrequent basis. City of Charles Sturt 18. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

• Vehicles and cyclists - Hampton Court is a short local street with no through traffic. Vehicle movement is considered to be low. • Parked cars – Parked cars may be present adjacent to the tree for an extended period. • No structures of significant value are located under the canopy of the subject tree.

Council’s tree hazard assessment adapted by Matheny and Clark (1994) identifies three key components.

Failure Potential:

• The tree does not have any identifiable significant structural flaws. • The tree sustained recent branch failure 350 millimetres in diameter. • Small branch failure evident which is typical of mature tree species.

Size of Part (an environment that may contribute to that failure):

• The tree does not have any identifiable significant structural flaws. • Recent medium sized branch failure was 350 millimetres in diameter. • Generally small (<50mm in diameter) branch failure is common on larger trees however the tree does not have an ongoing history of medium-large branch failures.

Target Rating (a person or object that would be injured or damaged):

• The tree is located on verge area near the entry of the Hampton Court, a cul-de-sac primarily used by local residents residing in the street. • The main portion of canopy is weighted to the south-west over the road pavement. • Smaller portion of the canopy overhangs the verge and the adjoining private garden.

The following table is a guide for risk assessment:

Failure 1 = Low 2 = Medium 3 = High 4 = Severe Potential

Size of Part 1 = 150mm 2 = 150-450 3 = 450-750mm 4 = >750mm (branches) mm

Target 1 = Occasional 2 = 3 = Frequent Use 4 = Constant Use Rating Use Intermediate Use

Any tree with a rating of 10 or over requires immediate attention. Risk Appraisal for Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) Failure potential 2 + Size of part 2 + Target 3 = 7 Hazard Rating.

In summary, the hazard rating is 7/12. City of Charles Sturt 19. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

Regulated Trees/Legislative Implications

Regulated trees with a trunk circumference greater than 3.0m qualify as a regulated significant tree under the Development Act 1993.

Assessment of the Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) adjacent 7 Glenwood Crescent in Hampton Court, Kidman Park, against the relevant Principles of Development Control;

1. The conservation of regulated trees that provide important aesthetic and environmental benefit. 2. The conservation of significant trees in balance with achieving appropriate development.

Principles of Development Control

1. Development should preserve the following attributes where a significant tree demonstrates at least one of the following attributes:

Objectives Comply? Comments Y/N (a) Makes an important contribution to No The medium sized mature Sugar Gum the character or amenity of the (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) does not make local area a significant contribution to the character and amenity of the local area. (Confirmed by Council’s Landscape Architect). (b) Is indigenous to the local area and its No The tree species is not indigenous to species listed under the National the local area and is not listed as rare or Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 as a endangered under the National Parks rare or endangered native species and Wildlife Act.

(c) Represents an important habitat for No The tree does not exhibit unusual native fauna characteristics such as hollows that would be utilised as nesting sites for native fauna. (d) Is part of a wildlife corridor or a No The tree is not part of a wildlife corridor remnant area of native vegetation or a remnant area of native vegetation

(e) Is important to the maintenance of No The tree species is not indigenous to biodiversity in the local the local area therefore it is important environment to the maintenance of biodiversity. (f) Forms a notable visual element to the No The mature Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus landscape of the local area cladocalyx) does not form a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area (Confirmed by Council’s Landscape Architect). City of Charles Sturt 20. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

Principles of Development Control

3 Significant trees should be preserved, and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken, unless:

Principles of Development Control Comply? Comments Y/N

(i) the tree is diseased and its life No The tree is not diseased and its expectancy is short; or overall life expectancy is not short.

(ii) the tree represents an unacceptable No The mature tree has not developed risk to public safety or private significant structural flaws. safety; or

(iii) the tree is within 20 metres of a No The tree is within 20 metres of a residential, tourist accommodation residential dwelling. However it is or habitable building and is bushfire not within a Bushfire Prone Area. hazard within a Bushfire Prone Area; or

(iv) the tree is shown to be causing or No No evidence has been provided threatening to cause substantial that the tree is causing or damage to a substantial building or threatening to cause damage to structure of value; the adjoining dwelling.

(v) All other reasonable remedial Yes General maintenance pruning treatments and measures have completed November 2014. been determined to be ineffective; and (vi) It is demonstrated that all reasonable N/A alternative development options and design solutions have been considered to prevent substantial tree-damaging activity occurring.

Financial and Resource Implications

The Parks & Arboriculture recurrent budget funds all horticultural and arboricultural tree maintenance activities. The independent arborist reports cost $980.00.

Customer Service and Community Implications

The Customer Service Team will be notified in relation to the outcome of the report City of Charles Sturt 21. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79 Continued

Environmental Implications

Trees within the urban environment ensure that amenity, habitat and biodiversity needs of the city are also maintained.

Whilst the primary role of trees is for the most part, amenity, they also provide shade, improve air quality, carbon sequestration, some water conservation and water quality benefits.

Street and reserve trees, where thoughtful planning and design processes are in place, can provide corridors for birds and other wildlife with links to larger reserves, River Torrens Linear Park and the coast. In addition, trees can soften, complement and enhance architecture.

Trees can reduce glare and reflection and can direct pedestrian activity. Trees improve the local climate, reducing the air temperature and increase humidity. Collectively, they reduce the urban heat island effect and provide shade for buildings and hard surfaces.

Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff)

There is no requirement for community engagement or consultation.

Conclusion

The Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) was assessed as being in good health with a fair structural status and does not pose an unacceptable risk to personal safety or property. The tree was assessed against Council’s Tree & Streetscape Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 and therefore recommended that the tree be retained and assessed every two to three years. City of Charles Sturt 22. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79

APPENDIX A

City of Charles Sturt 23. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79

APPENDIX B

City of Charles Sturt 24. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79

APPENDIX B Continued

Recent failed branch

Lower picture depicts tree prior to tree pruning and location of recent branch failure City of Charles Sturt 25. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79

APPENDIX C Appendix C consists of 17 pages.

TREE REPORT

Assessment of a Eucalyptus cladocalyx in Hampton Ct,

Kidman Park

Prepared for: Chris Taras Technical Officer – Arboriculture City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Rd Woodville SA 5011

3 June 2015

Prepared by: Michael Palamountain Consulting Arborist Tree Environs Pty Ltd Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Summary

The Eucalyptus cladocalyx is a significant tree with attributes worthy of preservation. The tree is in good health and does not have a short life expectancy. The tree has a pattern of defective bark inclusions present in the branching framework. A recent large branch failure was a result of such a defective bark inclusion. Based on my risk assessment of the situation, the overall risk associated with branch failure by this tree is moderate and unacceptable. This tree is therefore recommended to be removed.

Page 2 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Introduction

Brief

I carried out an assessment of a significant tree adjacent to 7 Glenwood Crescent (tree standing in Hampton Court) Kidman Park on the 25th May 2015 following a request from Chris Taras, Technical Officer – Arboriculture at the City of Charles Sturt.

I was requested to assess the following with this tree:

· Assess the trees general attributes and expanding on detail relating to tree health and structural condition. · Risk assessment in relation to personal safety and to property. · Assess the tree against the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993 relating to regulated trees (including tree damaging activity). · Recommend appropriate action for both the immediate and ongoing management of the tree.

Qualifications

I have based this report on my site observations and the information provided to me. I have sixteen years experience in the field of arboriculture, both as a practicing (climbing) and consulting arborist. A summary of my qualifications includes:

· Bachelor of Science (Botany and Ecology) – University of Sydney (1994) · Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture) (2005) · Certified Arborist (#AU – 0007A) – International Society of Arboriculture (2003) · Tree Risk Assessment Qualification - International Society of Arboriculture (2013)

Relevant background information

A resident who lives across the road from the tree has expressed his concerns about the tree to Council. I spoke with the resident (of 5 Glenwood Crescent) who advised me of the following:

· The resident and his family have resided at the site since 1983 (32 years). · A large branch failed from the tree approximately 6 weeks prior to my assessment (mid- April 2015). The branch landed on the verge and in the side garden of the property at 7 Glenwood Cr. The foliage landed on the roof of the dwelling, but did not cause any notable damage to the property. · Several other branches have fallen from the tree over the years, allegedly up to ~200mm in diameter. · A low stem to the west is growing into the roadway and interferes with the movement of larger vehicles and the garbage truck.

Page 3 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Observations

Site visit

I carried out the assessment on the 25th May 2015 in the presence of the resident from 5 Glenwood Crescent. I had full access to the tree in question. I carried out a level 2 assessment of the tree and all observations were from what was visible from the roadwaya. All dimensions marked (~) are estimates. All distances are taken from the centre of the trunk unless otherwise indicated.

Identification of tree

The tree in question is a Eucalyptus cladocalyx subsp. cladocalyx or bushy sugar gum which is one of the geographical variants of sugar gum characterised by a lower and broader branching habit, relatively short and often broader adult leaves and larger fruit. This subspecies occurs in the hills of southern and eastern Eyre Peninsula. Sugar gums are collectively characterised by a lack of a lignotuber, smooth mottled trunk, discolourous glossy leaves and white flowers in multiples of 7-11 developing on leafless sections of the branchletsb. It is widely planted in Adelaide and well suited to the climatic conditions.

It is located in the council verge adjacent to 7 Glenwood Cr, Kidman Park as follows.

· In the 4.5m wide grassy verge on the eastern side of Hampton Court. · Adjacent to 7 Glenwood Crescent to the east (3m from the boundary and 7m from the dwelling). · Adjacent to the kerb and edge of roadway to the west.

Page 4 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Tree dimensions

Height ~11m Crown spread ~14m Trunk circumference 1m above ground level ~3.90m (2 stems) Difficult to measure due to the near horizontal branches at 1m. Estimated Age 40 years

Legal requirements

Trees with a trunk circumference greater than 3.0m qualify as a significant treec under the Development Act 1993.

The Principle of Development Control Significant trees - 1 of the City of Charles Sturt Development Plan (consolidated 25th September 2014) states:

Where a significant tree has one or more of the following attributes, development should preserve these attributes.

The following table indicates my opinion on how the significant tree at the site relates to these attributes.

(a) Do the trees make an important Yes This medium sized tree at the entry point to contribution to the character or amenity of the street provides a wide range of human the local aread? and environmental benefits in the locality. (b) Are the trees indigenous to the local No area and the species listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a rare or endangered native species? (c) Do the trees represent an important No This species is not indigenous to the local habitat for native faunae? area. It has some, but not important habitat value. (d) Are the trees part of a wildlife corridor No of a remnant area of native vegetation? (e) Are the trees important to the No This species is not indigenous to the local maintenance of biodiversity in the local area. It has some, but not important environment? biodiversity value. (f) Do the trees form a notable visual Yes This medium sized tree at the entry point to element to the landscape of the local the street is clearly visible to local residents areaf? and some passers-by and is considered to form a notable visual element in the landscape of the local area.

In my opinion, this tree possesses attributes worthy of preservation.

Page 5 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Tree health

This tree is in good health.

Foliage colour, density and distribution are normal.

There are a small number of small diameter dead branches in the crown, as regular pruning has removed most of the larger dead branches.

The tree is free of notable pests or diseases.

Tree structure

This tree’s structure consists of a single trunk with a lean towards the SW towards and over the roadway. The primary branchesg emerge from the main trunk at ~1m above the ground to form a compact, stout and irregular crown with a notable bias towards the SW.

Surface roots are clearly visible on the northern side and are growing larger on this side in response to the lean that is present in the tree. While there is some superficial damage on the top side of some of these roots, they are largely intact and functioning normally.

A smaller upright branch emerges on the north side of the leaning trunk. A larger trunk is growing on a lean towards the SW over the road. There is evidence of a minor bark inclusionh present between these two tree parts (see arrows in image below).

Page 6 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

I also found evidence of bark inclusions between other branches in the mid and upper crown.

I also found evidence of dead vascular tissue (possibly from bird chewing) in the branch unions of various branches, particularly in the upper crown to the SW.

Page 7 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

This tree has a history of branch failure as follows;

1. Alleged branch failures of up to ~200mm in diameter over the roadway, as advised by the resident at 5 Glenwood Cr. While I did not find evidence of branch failures to that size, I did observe several smaller branch failure points in the upper crown. Previous pruning may have removed evidence of previous branch failures. 2. A primary stem at ~1m to the SE failed ~6 weeks prior to my assessment (mid-April 2015) towards the SE, landing on the verge and coming into contact with the roof of the dwelling at 7 Glenwood Crescent. I was advised that there was no notable damage to the roof of the dwelling, nor any other property damage or personal harm. The branch failure occurred partly due to the presence of an included bark crotch, evident in the remainder of the tree (indicated by arrows in the image below).

Page 8 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

I was advised by the resident of 5 Glenwood Cr that the tree has been pruned on several occasions in the past. I saw evidence of past pruning as follows:

· Removal of a low primary branch to the west at ~1m, probably to provide clearance to the road in past. Please note that this pruning cut is partially occluded and is in the region of the recent branch failure to the SE (opposite side) and the emerging large branch to the SW.

· Removal of several secondary branches in the mid crown to the west, to provide clearance to the road in past and in recent years. · Removal of larger dead branches throughout the crown.

Page 9 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

I also observed mechanical damage on the western side of the trunk overhanging the roadway, caused by larger trucks coming into contact with it. While assessing the tree, I observed a garbage truck coming into very close proximity to the tree, and having to drive carefully to negotiate the tree and parked cars.

Page 10 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Appraisal

This sugar gum qualifies as a significant tree and possesses several attributes worthy of preservation.

The tree is currently in good health. It is a long lived species that has the potential to remain growing at the site for another 40 years or more. It is not considered to be diseased with a short life expectancy.

However, there are a range of structural issues with this tree.

The first of these relates to the habit of the tree where it overhangs the roadway and interferes with the reasonable movement of larger trucks into and out of the street. Restricting car parking on the opposite side of the road may alleviate this to some degree, but may not be a reasonable option, given that parking at the front of one’s property seems a reasonable thing to do. Given the large size of the tree part in question, pruning would remove a significant proportion of the crown (60%+), which is likely to have an adverse impact on the overall appearance and long term health of the tree. In my view, this is not appropriate for the tree. While this tree poses an impediment to reasonable vehicle movement, there are no relevant principles of development control that would allow for tree removal on this basis that I am aware of. However, it is a factor for consideration.

Of more concern is the pattern of defective branch attachments in the main branching framework of the tree. The recent branch failure is a result of such a defective included bark crotch. Given that there is evidence of a similar bark inclusion in the main branch overhanging the roadway, and that there is also an old pruning wound in the vicinity of the past failure and remaining branching point, the likelihood of the large branch to the SW over the road failing is elevated. The recent loss of the branch to the SE has also altered the overall form of the crown and the associated wind dynamics, placing increase wind exposure on the remaining tree parts. After considering all of these factors, I consider the likelihood of failure of the large branch overhanging the roadway to be ‘probable’ within the next 3 years.

Tree risk assessment

The ISA Tree risk assessment method has been used to determine the risk posed by this tree at the site to persons and property over the defined tree assessment timeframe (3 years) during ‘normal’i weather conditions.

I am a qualified user of the ‘tree risk assessment’ method. More information about this method can be found in the American Standard ANSI A300 Part 9: - Tree Shrub and other woody plant management – Standard Practices (Tree risk assessment a. Tree structure assessment) and Tree Risk Assessment Manual by International Society of Arboriculture 2013.

Tree risk is calculated in 2 steps:

Part 1- Likelihood matrix

The likelihood of a failure occurring x The likelihood of the failure impacting a target

Page 11 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Factors taken into account during the visual tree assessment include the location of targets relative to the tree condition of concern, surrounding site factors, tree age, health and vigour, species profile, response growthj, loads on the defect, history of failurek and the likelihood of failure. The target occupancy ratel, branch fall characteristics and factors that may protect the target are also consideredm.

In this tree risk assessment, I have considered the following specific factors in the likelihood matrix:

· There is an included bark cotch present in the union of the main branch overhanging the roadway. · It forms a large part of the tree and has a high level of leverage. · A similar branch failed ~6 weeks ago with a similar bark inclusion at the union. · The form and wind dynamics of the tree have been altered as a result of the recent branch failure, which has increased the level of exposure, increasing leverage on the part of concern. · The likelihood of failure of the large branch over the road is considered to be probable. · Targets in the vicinity of the tree include the following: o People – This is a short street with no through traffic and a small number of local residents. People are likely to be present for small periods of time on an infrequent basis. The likelihood of impact is considered to be low. o Similarly, vehicle movement under the tree is considered to be low due to the small number of vehicles moving under the tree. The likelihood of impact is considered to be low. o Parked cars may be present next to the tree for several hours at a time on a daily basis, and the likelihood of impact is considered to be medium.

The likelihood matrix below is used to determine the likelihood of a branch failing and impacting the targets;

Likelihood of Likelihood of impacting target failure Very low Low Medium High Somewhat Imminent Unlikely Likely Very likely likely Somewhat Probable Unlikely Unlikely Likely likely Somewhat Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

The likelihood of a large branch failing and impacting a person is Probable x low = unlikely

The likelihood of a large branch failing and impacting a moving car is Probable x low = unlikely

The likelihood of a large branch failing and impacting a parked car is Probable x medium = somewhat likely

Page 12 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Part 2 – Risk rating matrix The likelihood of failure and impact (carried over from part 1) x The consequences of the failure

The consequences are determined by a complex of all the variable factors at the site. These include the size of the tree part of concern, fall characteristics, factors that may protect the target, the level of damage or injury that could be expected and the significance of the target value, be it monetary or otherwise.

The risk rating matrix is used to assign an overall tree risk rating.

Likelihood of Consequences failure & Negligible Minor Significant Severe impact Very Likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low

The overall risk from a large branch failing and impacting a person is Unlikely x severe = low

The overall risk from a large branch failing and impacting a moving car is Unlikely x significant = low

The overall risk from a large branch failing and impacting a parked car is somewhat likely x significant = moderate

The overall tree risk rating for this tree is moderate. This equates to an unacceptable risk to public safety that requires remedial action.

Given that tree pruning is likely to be excessive and will adversely affect the overall appearance and long term health of the tree, tree pruning is not considered to be a reasonable remedial option.

I therefore consider tree removal to be the most appropriate remedial solution in this situation.

The removal of this tree will provide an opportunity to plant a new tree at the site. At the same time, a similar tree should also be planted in the vacant verge across the road.

Page 13 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Conclusions

· The Eucalyptus cladocalyx is a significant tree with attributes worthy of preservation.

· The tree is in good health and does not have a short life expectancy.

· The tree has a pattern of defective bark inclusions present in the branching framework.

· A recent large branch failure was a result of such a defective bark inclusion.

· Based on my risk assessment of the situation, the overall risk associated with branch failure by this tree is moderate and unacceptable.

· This tree is therefore recommended to be removed.

Recommendations

I recommend that the sugar gum be removed. This removal should occur under the principles of development control of the City of Charles Sturt Development Plan (consolidated 25th September 2014) as follows;

Significant trees – 3 Significant trees should be preserved, and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken, unless: (a) in the case of tree removal: (ii) the tree represents an unacceptable risk to public or private safety.

If you have any further queries regarding the information contained in this report please feel free to contact me.

Michael Palamountain B.Sc., Dip. Hort. (Arboriculture) (m) 0412 174 507 ISA Certified Arborist (AU007A) (e) [email protected] Member: ISA, Arboriculture Australia, SASA Tree Environs Pty Ltd.

Page 14 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

Endnotes

a A visual tree assessment (VTA) is an analytical process undertaken by a qualified Arborist or other suitably trained person to determine the structural soundness of a tree. Biological and mechanical components of trees are assessed, including tree health; presence of pests and diseases, die-back, foliage density and distribution, and vitality; growth rate, wound wood development, capacity to respond to improved conditions. Mechanical components include trunk lean, crown bias, bark inclusions, wounds, hollowing, trunk bulges, ribs, cracks, branch form, failure history, pruning history, condition of trunk flare, and other existing defects. All these factors are examined to determine if internal weaknesses may be present. If abnormalities are detected, we may conduct further investigations using a range of tools. These include sounding mallets, long thin drill bits, Resistograph, Sonic Tomograph, Air spade and other tools as required. Ref: Mattheck. Claus & Breloer, Helga. The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook for Failure Analysis. Department of the Environment. London 1997.

b Nicolle, Dean. Native Eucalypts of South Australia Dean Nicolle 2013.

c Significant tree means (as defined in Section 4 Interpretation (1) of the Development (Regulated Trees) Amendment Act 2009) (a)a tree declared to be a significant tree, or a tree within a stand of trees declared to be significant trees, by a Development Plan (whether or not the tree is also declared to be a regulated tree, or also falls within a class of trees declared to be regulated trees, by the regulations); or (b)a tree declared to be a regulated tree by the regulations, or a tree within a class of trees declared to be regulated trees by the regulations that, by virtue of the application of prescribed criteria, is to be taken to be a significant tree for the purposes of this Act; 6A—Regulated and significant trees (as defined in the Development (Regulated Trees) Variation Regulations 2011) (1) Subject to this regulation, the following are declared to constitute classes of regulated trees for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of regulated tree in section 4(1) of the Act, namely trees within the designated area under subregulation (3) that have a trunk with a circumference of 2 metres or more or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks, that have trunks with a total circumference of 2 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level. (2) Subject to this regulation— (a) a prescribed criterion for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of significant tree in section 4(1) of the Act is that a regulated tree under subregulation (1) has a trunk with a circumference of 3 metres or more or, in the case of a tree with multiple trunks, has trunks with a total circumference of 3 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level; and (b) regulated trees under subregulation (1) that are within the prescribed criterion under paragraph (a) are to be taken to be significant trees for the purposes of the Act.

d Trees and shrubs are proven to provide a range of social, environmental, economic and psychological benefits that improve the pleasantness of a local area that positively affect human wellbeing. The amenity value of trees include gaseous and particulate pollution mitigation, amelioration of climatic extremes (shading, cooling and wind speed reduction), mitigation of heat islands, attenuation of noise pollution, store and sequester carbon (reducing greenhouse gasses), improve air quality, improve water quality, stormwater mitigation and erosion control, visual screening of undesirable views, aesthetically enhance local areas, aesthetically enhance urban structures, improve property values, reduce urban glare, improve human health, wellbeing and relaxation, reduce stress and anxiety, reduce crime and improve healing rates of patients. In addition, locally indigenous plants provide further benefits including; provide important habitat for local fauna, maintain biodiversity in the local environment, provide wildlife corridor links with areas of native and indigenous vegetation.

Page 15 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

e Important habitat and biodiversity value is considered to be present when the tree is indigenous to the local area and provides an opportunity for native animals to perch, nest, breed, feed and shelter in the tree. Animals that may use the tree include native birds, mammals, insects and other invertebrates, lizards and other reptiles. Australian native trees will also provide some of these benefits, but are not considered to be as important as locally indigenous trees. Exotic trees can also provide some of these benefits, but are considered to provide limited habitat and biodiversity value. f This opinion may need to be verified by a qualified landscape architect. g Branching order describes the divisions between successively smaller branches in a tree. The main trunk is what emerges from the ground and is not considered a branch. First order branches (or primary branches) emerge from the main trunk and are the main scaffold branches of the tree. Second order branches (or secondary branches) emerge from these first order branches, followed by third order branches (tertiary branches) and so on. Successive branching is usually characterised by a reduction in branch diameter at each division. Draper, D and Richards, P. Dictionary for Managing Trees in Urban Environments CSIRO Publishing and Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturalists 2009. h Included Bark Crotches are potential structural weaknesses that occur in trees between the main stem and a branch or between stems of equal size (co dominant stems). Bark between the stems turns downwards and prevents the interlocking of wood fibres rather than upwards (as in structurally sound crotches) to form a branch bark ridge. This defect is under genetic control and may be repeated throughout the tree, or occur in only one crotch. The position of an included bark crotch in the main framework plays an important part in the tree’s overall structural stability. Low included bark crotches may be more serious than those higher in a tree. Depending upon the severity of the defect, the tree’s age and the species involved, it may be possible to prune the affected portion and/or install protective cables in trees with bark inclusions in order to reduce the risk of failure. Bark inclusions that do not display signs of structural instability, or occur in species known to be resistant to IBC failure and/or are in trees at sheltered locations are unlikely to fail and may not warrant Arboricultural intervention. i Tree failures during ‘normal’ weather conditions (storms of similar strength occurring one to many times annually) are often predictable and preventable. However any tree, containing weaknesses or not, will fail if forces applied exceed the strength of the tree or its parts. j Reaction wood (or response growth) is a type of wood that is usually laid down in wider annual increments than ordinary wood, commonly in an asymmetric or elliptical shaped cross-section. In broad leaved trees a type of reaction wood known as tension wood develops. It has high tensile strength and resists elongation far more than ordinary wood. Tension wood develops along the tops of branches in response to gravity in most broad leaved species, as well as at the sides of vertical trunks and branches of broad leaved and coniferous trees in response to swaying movement or bending stress. Compression wood forms on the underside of branches in Coniferous trees and on the compression side of vertical trunks and branches in any tree in response to tree movement and stresses. Both ‘Tension’ and ‘Compression’ wood provide the tree with increased structural strength. The development of these tissues can also indicate structural instability when combined with defects, decay or wounding. Whether or not trees with such tissues are considered to indicate weakness or strength depends upon many factors, including species characteristics, tree form, growing conditions, growth rates and tree health generally.

· Mattheck. Claus & Breloer, Helga . The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook for Failure Analysis. Department of the Environment. London 1997. · Debenham, C. The Language of Botany Society for Growing Australian Plants. · Shigo, Alex. Modern Arboriculture, a systems approach to the care of trees. Shigo and Trees, Associates 1991. · Harris, R. Clark J. R. Matheny N. P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines. ISBN 0-13-044280-1 4th Edition 2004 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Page 16 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

Tree Assessment at Hampton Court Kidman Park – May 2015 ______

k Prior evidence of limb or leader failure in the form of branch stubs, cracked limbs, limb failure scars or hanging limbs (history of failure) is a good indicator as to the future structural behaviour of a tree. Similarly the absence of these problems is a good sign as to the likely structural performance of a tree in the future. l ISA Occupancy rates – The amount of time one or more targets are within the target zone.(Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, pp 39-42) Rare · Sites not commonly used by people. · Areas well away from actively used parts of sites. Occasional · Infrequent or irregular use. Country roads, low use foot paths, low use sections of parks. · Seldom used areas, frequently used for short periods. Cemeteries, low use areas where special events occur. Frequent · The target zone is occupied for a large portion of the day or week, e.g., suburban streets that receive moderate volumes of traffic, car parks or facilities that are open during the daytime only, sidewalks in shopping areas, and busy delivery areas. Constant · Targets are present at nearly all times, 24hrs/day, 7 days/week. Can include static immovable targets (buildings) or a steady stream of targets, moving through the target zone. m Targets and likelihood of impact. The likelihood of a failed tree or tree part impacting a target of concern.(Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, p42). Very Low · The likelihood of the failed tree or part impacting the target is remote. · Rarely used sites fully exposed to the assessed tree, or occasionally used sites partially protected by other trees or structures. · Examples include a rarely used trail in a rural area or occasionally used area that has some protection against being struck by the tree failure. Low · It is not likely that the failed tree or part will impact the target. · This is the case in an occasionally used area that is fully exposed to the assessed tree, a frequently used area that is partially exposed to the assessed tree or a constant target that is well protected from the assessed tree. · Examples include a little-used service road next to the tree, or a frequently used public street that is protected by another tree. Medium · The failed tree or part is as likely to impact the target as not. · This is the case in a frequently used area that is fully exposed on one side to the assessed tree, or a constantly occupied area that is partially protected from the assessed tree. · Examples include a suburban street next to the assessed tree or a house that is partially protected from the assessed tree by an intervening tree. High · The failed tree or part is will most likely impact the target. · This is the case when a fixed target is fully exposed to the likely failure or the likely failure is over a high-use road or walkway.

Page 17 of 17 Managing trees in the urban landscape

City of Charles Sturt 26. AM Report 20/07/15

REGULATED TREE LOCATED IN HAMPTON COURT KIDMAN PARK Item 3.79

APPENDIX D

Appendix D consists of 13 pages.

Street Tree Assessment 7 Glenwood Crescent (Hampton Court frontage), Kidman Park

Report prepared for Mr Chris Taras Technical Officer – Arboriculture The City of Charles Sturt June 2015

Report prepared by

Sam Cassar Cert. (Hort), Dip. (Hort), Dip. (Arb), B.App. Sc (Hort), Grad. Dip. Design (Land.) Member Australian Arboriculture and South Australian Society of Arboriculture

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3

Observations ...... 4

Appraisal ...... 8

Objectives and Principles of Development Control ...... 10

Conclusion ...... 11

Appendix A - Aerial Image ...... 12

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 2 of 13 Introduction

Instructions

I was instructed to assess a mature Sugar Gum located within the Hampton Court road reserve adjacent to 7 Glenwood Crescent, Kidman Park. My brief was to undertake the following:

 Assess tree health and structural condition.  Assess the tree against the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1993.  Recommend appropriate action for both the immediate and ongoing management of the tree.

Site Visit

I carried out a site inspection on the 15 June 2015.

Limitations

This report is limited to the time and method of inspection. The tree was inspected from ground level only. Neither a climbing inspection or a below-ground investigation was performed. No soil or plant material samples were taken for laboratory analysis.

This report reflects the state of the tree as found on the day. Any changes to site conditions or surrounds, such as construction works undertaken after the inspection, may alter the findings of the report.

The inspection period to which this report applies is three months from the date of the site visit, on the basis that current site conditions remain unchanged.

Date of Report

This report was written on the 16 June 2015.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 3 of 13 Observations

Figure 1 Subject tree, viewed from the north-west Location of tree

The tree is located within the road reserve, Hampton Court frontage eastern side (refer Figure 1).

The subject trees’ approximate location is identified on the aerial image provided in Appendix A.

Species

Eucalyptus cladocalyx commonly referred to as a Sugar Gum

Crown attributes

Height (clinometer): 9 metres

Width (from trunk measured out): south 9.5 metres, north 4.0 metres, west 7.0 metres and to the east 4.0 metres.

Tree Age

Mature Specimen, approximately 30 plus years old

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 4 of 13 Observations (cont)

Circumference at one metre above natural ground level

Single trunk: 4.28 metres

The tree is considered ‘significant’ under the current provisions of the Significant Tree legislation.

Structure/Condition

The subject tree consists of a single vertical trunk to a height of approximately 1.08 metres at which point main branching arises to form a broad spreading canopy that has a bias towards the south-west. The main leaders are held to the south-west, which is the dominant and the other near centrally.

The subject tree recently experienced branch failure. With the loss of a second order branch from the south-eastern side of the tree, 1.08 metres from ground with approximate diameter of 300mm (refer Figure 2). Poor attachment in the form of an included bark union is the most likely cause of this failure.

The trunk is stable and solid when sounding with a mallet. No evidence of termites or borer damage. A bulbous base is note with exposed woody roots present on the tree’s northern, north- eastern and south-eastern sides. Some of the roots on the south-eastern side have been scalped in the past.

A medium diameter pruning scar is noted on the tree’s north-western side adjacent to the primary union. A number of smaller diameter pruning scars were evident, upper south-western crown, eastern side. Appears this pruning occurred to provide clearance from adjacent private property.

The canopy appears to be in good health with foliage density and vigour normal and typical of the species. All leaders and lateral branches are healthy and actively growing. The canopy is free from notable pests and diseases. Some small diameter dead wood is present within the crown of the tree.

The primary stem union and most secondary branch unions appear to be sound and free of any recognizable significant structural flaws or weaknesses, except some wounding. The wounding is evident, first attachment south-western main leader (refer Figure 3). Wounding is also noted on the outer face of the south-western secondary branch. These wounds appear consistent with parrot grazing.

In addition to the most recent branch failure two other failure wounds were noted. Both these failures occurred sometime ago. These failures include:

 A third order branch, western side, south-western leader, approximately 3.0 metres from ground with an approximate diameter of 120 mm (refer Figure 4).

 A third order branch, western side, central leader, approximately 3.0 metres from ground with an approximate diameter of 100 mm (refer Figure 5). A tear wound is noted at the failure point.

Some descending horizontally orientated small diameter branches are noted at various points throughout the crown.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 5 of 13 Observations (cont)

Figure 2. Most recent branch failure point, circled in red.

Figure 3. Necrotic scar, highlighted in red. Tree viewed from the north-west.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 6 of 13 Observations (cont)

Figure 4. Branch failure western side, south- Figure 5. Branch failure, western side, central western leader leader

Property Damage

Heaving to adjacent kerb and water table and a concrete path (refer Figure 6) leading into private residents was observed.

Figure 6. Heaving to concrete path, path viewed from the south.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 7 of 13

Appraisal

The subject tree is considered Significant under the current provisions of the Development Act, 1993 and in my opinion possesses attributes worthy of retention. This tree has a strong visual presence within the streetscape and is a prominent feature given the lack of other mature trees planted within the road reserve and on private properties and location. Therefore this tree has a high aesthetic value and makes an important contribution to the amenity of the local area.

The subject tree is a mature specimen, in good health and has no significant structural defects that indicate to me it can be considered an unacceptable risk to public safety or is the tree causing damage to property of significant value. The tree is expected to offer a reasonably long useful life expectancy in the order of 20 plus years.

Given these findings and the fact that this tree provides a high level of amenity to the locality, I do not believe it meets any of the relevant Principles of the City of Charles Sturt’s Development Plan that would justify its removal at this time.

Risk Assessment

The subject tree does extend over the roadway to the west and verge area to the east. Potential targets, if branch failure were to occur include:

 Pedestrians using the roadway or verge;  Vehicles and bicyclist; and  Park cars.

The road (Glenwood Crescent) would be considered to have an occasional occupancy rate. Glenwood Crescent is a quiet residential street with low traffic volumes.

No structures of significant value are located under the canopy of the subject tree. Parked cars would be considered the most likely target if further branch failure were to occur.

The branches most likely to fail are considered minor in nature with the likelihood of failure considered to be possible. Based upon my observations branches most likely to fail are approximately 10 to 50 mm in diameter.

The International Society of Arboriculture tree risk assessment was applied to determine a risk rating posed by this tree to public safety.

The method calculates risk in two steps; the likelihood of a failure occurring and the likelihood of the failure impacting a target. The matrixes determine the likelihood of the possible failing part or parts impacting a target; the chosen values have been underlined and highlighted.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 8 of 13 Appraisal (cont)

Matrix 1. Li kelihood matrix.

Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very likely likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Matrix 2 Risk rating matrix

Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very Likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat Likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low

The result of this risk assessment was an overall moderate risk rating.

Pruning Requirements

The subject tree does not require any essential pruning at this stage.

I do however recommend an assessment of tree health, stability and management requirements occur every two to three years, subject to the growth rate of the tree with future pruning necessary as this tree continues to mature. .

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 9 of 13 Objectives and Principles of Development Control

The subject trees have been identified as significant trees. The following comments have been made in regards to Principle 1 (a) – (f) of Council’s Significant Tree Controls (September 2014):

 The location, height and spread of crown and lack of other trees within the immediate locality gives this tree a strong visual presence. The tree is considered a prominent feature in the landscape.  Sugar Gums are a species that originates from the Flinders Ranges, Eyre Peninsula and on Kangaroo Island and therefore are not considered a local indigenous native species to the locality or listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a rare or endangered.

 The tree would not be considered an important habitat for native fauna. No hollows suitable for nesting were identified within the crown of the subject tree.  There is no visual evidence to indicate the tree is part of a wildlife corridor.

 The tree is not important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment; given the tree is an introduced native species.

 The tree can be viewed from a number of vantage points from within the locality. The subject tree forms a notable visual element in the landscape of the local area, and is clearly visible from surrounding streets and properties as one travels from any direction away from the subject tree.

Regarding the Principle 3 (a) (i) – (v) of Council’s Significant Tree Controls (September 2014) these additional comments have been made:

 The tree is not diseased and is expected to have a relatively long useful life expectancy under existing environmental and site conditions and with on-going management and maintenance by qualified arborists.

 The trees currently represent a moderate risk to private safety which is deemed acceptable at this time. It is my view with on-going management and maintenance by a qualified arborist and ongoing monitoring, the likelihood of branch failure is considered acceptable at this time.

 The tree is within 20 metres of a residential building but is not bushfire hazards within a bushfire protection area.

 No obvious damage that can be attributed to the subject tree to a dwelling or structure of significant value was observed. Only minor damage to surrounding infrastructure was observed.

 It has not been demonstrated that all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures such as pruning have been determined to be ineffective.

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 10 of 13 Conclusion

The subject tree is a mature specimen, in good health with no significant structural defects that indicate it can be considered an unacceptable risk to public safety at this time or causing obvious damage to property of significant value. A moderate risk rating was determined when the International Society of Arboriculture tree risk assessment model was applied.

The subject tree does possess attributes worthy of protection. The tree significantly contributes to the visual amenity of the local area and is considered notable visual element.

On the basis of the factors outlined, I consider the subject tree is worthy of retention.

I wish to stress that trees are natural living organisms and it would not be professional or prudent to guarantee the absolute safety of any tree. This is not possible unless trees were made from inert substances and most reasonable people would not make that choice.

Even with appropriate canopy management, I cannot give an absolute guarantee that further branch failure/s will not occur in the future. However, it is my view with on-going management and maintenance by a qualified arborist, the likelihood of future branch failure is considered acceptable at this time.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report. Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sam Cassar

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 11 of 13

Appendix A Aerial Image

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 12 of 13

7 Glenwood Crescent Kidman Park Page 13 of 13 City of Charles Sturt 27. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Coordinator Urban Design

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.80 PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT (B8440)

Brief

This is a progress report to inform Council of the monthly progress of the Henley Square Redevelopment. The report also includes a Project Forecast to Complete with details of the scope of works completed under the contract.

Recommendation

That the report be received and noted.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Achieve change in our urban form in a way that enhances and complements existing character, aspirations and environments - Create public spaces that add interest and vibrancy for residents and visitors to our city - Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists - Create quality adaptable and integrated open space

Economic Prosperity • Build an economically thriving and competitive city - Support and promote local economic growth and development - Revitalise key precincts including main streets, to facilitate successful business opportunities - Support and facilitate local economic development by focusing on tourism and events City of Charles Sturt 28. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Implement innovative techniques to facilitate opportunities for listening to the community, engagement and communications - Make decisions based on evidence, broad views and the aspirations of our diverse communities - Strive for business excellence through continuous improvement and creativity

Relevant Council policies are:

• Public Consultation Policy • Prudential Review Policy • Risk Management Policy • Procurement Policy

Background

The following table details relevant reports previously presented to Council and Committee meetings:

AMC 14/06/2015 Item 3.75 CL 25/06/2012 Item 6.104 AMC 18/05/2015 Item 3.66 AMC 08/08/2011 Item 3.57 CL 28/07/2014 Item 6.112 CL 23/05/2011 Item 6.97 CL 11/03/2014 Item 6.30 CL 11/04/2011 Item 6.64 CL 24/02/2014 Item 6.22 CDC 05/03/2007 Item 3.18 CL 09/12/2013 Item 6.200 CDC 05/02/2007 Item 3.9 CL 08/07/2013 Item 12.8 AMC 27/03/2006 Item 3.26 CL 13/05/2013 Item 6.76 AMC 27/02/2006 Item 3.10

Since 2011 Council and staff have completed a comprehensive engagement with public, stakeholders and traders within the Henley Precinct, to inform the redevelopment of the Henley Precinct. This has included workshops, open days, the forming of the Henley Precinct Community Reference Group (HPCRG) and Henley Beach Business Association (HBBA), targeted consultation with key stakeholders, discussion with government departments, the hosting of a design competition and the successful presentation of concepts for the redevelopment of Henley Square.

Following an extensive procurement process BMD constructions were awarded the contract for the construction works. City of Charles Sturt 29. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Report

This monthly progress report represents the works completed and a summary of the current Project status for the reporting period incorporating activities up to 31 May 2015. The information presented in this report has been prepared by CCS staff with input from BMD.

Table Executive Summary status of project management

Description Status last month Status this month

Design

Budget

Programme / Schedule

Scope

Procurement

Risk

Quality

Communications and Promotions

Resources

Implementation is highly problematic. Implementation failure has occurred or is likely and/or the initiative has not had the desired effect. Initiatives which receive a red rating require specific Red intervention (e.g. revisit objectives and develop a different strategy/approach) and resolution may not be within the project manager’s control.

There are real or potential implementation difficulties and risks which will be escalated to the Steering Groups/Advisory Boards even if the initiative is being well managed. This includes: (a) problematic implementation timeframes, delays, stakeholder and/or budget issues; and Amber (b) major problems and/or barriers, regardless of whether they were foreseen, how well they are being managed, or whether they are within the projects control. A measure receiving an amber rating may still be successfully implemented if it receives the right level of attention, and/or the risks are effectively managed Implementation is on track or only requires minor refinement; there are no significant difficulties Green and/or risks emerging

City of Charles Sturt 30. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Status Overview – Current Month

Description Progress/Issue Comment on Status GREEN Design 100% detailed design completed Issues effecting delivery; DPTI approval of works to Seaview Road, pending. Items identified at VM to be completed via shop drawings, some re-design of the toilet facility required.

Budget 2014/15 Capital: Green $2M Council funding committed. $2M State Gov. Grant received. $2M Federal Gov. Grant pending (RDA).

2014/15 AMP: $550,000 Council AMP committed (car park re-seal)

2015/16 Capital: $2M budget bid committed Council contribution.

Funding to be reconciled into one account via AM Committee variation for ease of reporting.

GREEN Programme / Off-site fabrication and contractor site office commenced Schedule and established Early works package commenced 7 April 2015 Phase One works underway Elements of phase one behind schedule no impact on expected PC date Phase two works commenced Elements of phase one behind schedule no impact on expected PC date, delay due to SA Water conflict to be confirmed. GREEN Scope Outcome of VM with BMD VM matrix and changes agreed and approved. Design refinement to occur through shop drawings. Refinement has included minor changes to the furniture, shelters, tree pits and retaining wall. Costs for refinements currently cost neutral. PC items being drawn on for MSB modification and SA Water rectification.

City of Charles Sturt 31. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Issues Register: refer 13/308089 Henley Square GREEN Risk Redevelopment - Governance Plan.

Risk Assessment (BRS) refer: 14/46672 Henley Square Redevelopment Risk Assessment Report

Risk register (CCS) refer: 13/12191 Henley Square Urban Design Competition - Risk Assessment

Risk Register (contractor) : refer key risks outlined below:-

Key risks:

Traders Impact of construction site on traders business

Mitigation Strategy: Regular meetings and contact with traders will ensure issues that may impact business are dealt with in a timely manner and appropriate measures in place to mitigate business impacts.

Contractor Lack of project understanding at tender phase.

Mitigation Strategy: Detailed review of tender documentation at construction phase will assist with early identification of omissions. Elevation and detailed forecasting of any omissions will assist in mitigating further losses.

Contractor Reduced stability of excavations due to the presence of groundwater

Mitigation Strategy: • Wellpoint Dewatering around the Sea Wall concrete steps will assist in the management of ground water when working in the area;

City of Charles Sturt 32. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

• On site testing will determine whether

treatment prior to discharge is necessary; Construction methodology for excavation and placement of temporary structure to reflect presence of groundwater Consult with engineering consultants on the installation of temporary structures and dewatering systems. Elevation of any high risk items to BMD management for internal approval prior to proceeding.

Contractor Damage to unknown cultural remains

Mitigation Strategy: • Use of spotter for all excavation works;

• If any cultural heritage items are found, implement the Cultural Heritage; Environmental Management Plan;

Contractor Damage to Heritage Buildings due to

construction works

Mitigation Strategy: • Dilapidation report to be conducted before and after construction project; Correspondence with subcontractors prior to mobilisation regarding the presence of Heritage Listed buildings in the area. BMD to ensure Subcontractor methodology incorporates appropriate plant and methodology;

• Temp protection of the building facades while works proceed around the locations of the heritage structures if requiring;

• Visual monitoring of the Heritage Listed building facades by BMD staff and reporting if changes occur;

City of Charles Sturt 33. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

•Engineer inspection and advice from

CCS consultant team during excavation works adjacent existing building, footings and to mitigate any issues.

Contractor Little to no information on the structural information and integrity of the existing sea wall

Mitigation Strategy: • No vibratory machinery to be used adjacent the sea wall;

• No alterations to be made to sea wall;

• Lift plans to be conducted when lifting / craning on promenade path dilapidation of existing seawall to be completed prior to works commencing in the area.

BMD preparing further quality check of documents. GREEN Quality

Communication plan developed, to be further refined in GREEN Communications consultation with contractor; and Promotions Contractor communications developed. Site signage installed. On-going discussions with traders and establishment of promotions website through yoursay.

Internal staff resources required to deliver contract GREEN Resources administration.

City of Charles Sturt 34. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Henley Precinct Community Reference Group – Status update

1. Budget Current Funding All funding secured as stated, no change in current period. Variations to contract and Prime Cost (PC) sums PC items identified for MSB modifications and SA Water diversion. Variations include additional costs for CA inspection and reporting from W&G and troppo and establishment of site amenities to promote the traders and open for business

2. Program/Schedule Risks to program/schedule All project risks identified and mitigated no change in the period.

3 Scope Risks to project scope No change in the period VM matrix and changes agreed and approved. Design refinement to occur through shop drawings.

4. Risk Risks register Increased mitigation measures implemented to minimise impact on traders, including: • Open for business’ site signage being developed. • ‘Open for business’ messenger advert booked • VMS trailer to be installed on site to assist with traffic navigation • ‘P’ directional signage being installed to direct traffic.

5. Quality Inspection Test Plan (ITP) and hold/witness point register No change in the period, ITP and hold/witness point register being developed by BMD for various phases of the project.

6. Communications and Promotions Marketing/Communication Strategy • site signage established • Kaleidoscope article for June finalised • Media Release announcing works to begin published • Social media updates about onsite works begun, will continue all winter • weekly meetings established with traders • stakeholder updates provided through daily updates • FAQ being developed for website • DL developed for contractor handout. • ‘Open for business’ site signage being developed. • ‘Open for business’ messenger advert booked • VMS trailer to be installed on site to assist with traffic navigation • ‘P’ directional signage being installed to direct traffic. City of Charles Sturt 35. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 Continued

Financial and Resource Implications

The project is funded as described in the report and internal staff resources are committed.

Customer Service and Community Implications

A communication strategy has been developed by both the contractor and staff to direct the on-going communication for the project.

Environmental Implications

The contractor has prepared and enacted an environmental plan as per the contract.

Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff)

The community will receive regular updates on the works as per the communication strategies.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

Significant risks exist that are associated with the timing and staging of the construction works. To minimise disruption to the traders site works are anticipated to occur from April 2014 to December 2015. Regular meetings and contact with traders will ensure issues that may be detrimental to business are dealt with in a timely manner and appropriate measures in place to mitigate business impacts.

Conclusion

These monthly reports provide an overview of the Project Management services and any contractual issues completed on the Henley Square Redevelopment in the previous month, and flag issues that may require action in the next period to continue to deliver the Project. City of Charles Sturt 36. AM Report 20/07/15

PROGRESS REPORT HENLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT Item 3.80 APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 1 page.

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2690 - Henley Square Redevelopment 2014/15 Period 12 Jamie Hosking ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment

Contractor engaged, Federal Government Funding secured, Early works commenced Stage 1 works comenced Activities Completed Stage 2 works commenced

Early Works - April - July 2015 The Edge – Early April to Late July Promenade (Beach / West Side) Main Works - July – November 2015 Ramp – late July to late August North Car Park – early June to mid August Seaview Road – early June to late July Promenade (East Side) & Big Lawn – early August to late October Henley Square / Plaza – early June to late October Upcoming Activities South Car Park – late August to late October

Relevant Dependencies Federal Government funding and reporting requirements to secure income stream Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $8,400,000.00

Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Project to occur across two financial years, additional budget to be allocated in 2015/16, federal funding to be received progressively through-out project. Budget car park allocated to separate budget line, budget lines to be reconciled in 2015/16.

Estimate date of Project completion Practical completion anticipated 1/12/2015, defects liability period 1/12/2016 Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 6,000,000 Total Project Budget: $ (4,000,000) YTD Budget: $ 6,000,000 YTD Budget: $ (4,000,000) YTD Actual: $ 682,485 YTD Actual: $ (2,000,000) YTD Commitments: $ 7,572,051 YDT Actuals (Incl Commit) 8,254,536 YTD Variance: $ 2,254,536 Budget Status

% Variance 38%  Variance Explanation Delay in commencement of site works to avoid summer period. Funding commitment received from Federal Government, funding Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons 5,500,000 Total expenditure - delay in commencement of site works to avoid summer

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation 19/08/2014 19/08/2014 GREEN Completed Release of Request for Tender to shortlisted Completed 10/10/2014 10/10/2014 GREEN contractors Evaluate and appoint contractor for Completed 13/02/2015 13/02/2015 GREEN constructed work Stage 1 23/10/2015 23/10/2015 GREEN North Car Park 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 GREEN Works commenced on schedule Seaview Road 31/07/2015 31/07/2015 GREEN South Car Park 23/10/2015 23/10/2015 GREEN Stage 2 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Ablutions 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Plaza 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Works brought forward ahead of schedule Promenade 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN West Side (South) 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 GREEN Commenced with early works package West Side (North) 05/08/2015 05/08/2015 GREEN East Side 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN North Lookout Area 26/10/2015 26/10/2015 GREEN Beach Access 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN Works commenced as early works package Edge 20/07/2015 20/07/2015 GREEN Works commenced as early works package Beach Access Ramp 27/08/2015 27/08/2015 GREEN Beach Access Stairs (Deleted) 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN SLSC Surrounds 27/10/2015 27/10/2015 GREEN

Page 1 of 1 Printed 13/07/2015 City of Charles Sturt 37. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Sport and Recreation Project Officer

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.81 RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE (B435)

Brief

To consider the request to rename Drainage Reserve North and South to Grange Lakes Linear Park, or Railside Reserve.

Recommendation

1. That Community Consultation in the form of a survey be conducted to determine the view of the local community in relation to renaming Drainage Reserve North (Appendix A), being lot 96, Volume 3865, Folio 89 and Drainage Reserve South (Appendix B), being lot 124, Volume 5553, Folio 449 to either ‘Railside Reserve’ or ‘Grange Lakes Linear Park’.

2. That Public Consultation is undertaken in accordance with Council’s ‘Reserve Naming Policy’.

3. That the survey and any written responses received be reported to a future meeting of Council’s Asset Management Committee.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Community Wellbeing • Create a safe, healthy and supportive community which encourages participation, creativity and diversity - Provide welcoming and accessible community facilities that offer diverse opportunities for community members to engage in cultural, recreational, sporting and lifelong opportunities - Collaborate with the community to provide services, programs and initiatives that create a socially connected community - Encourage and support a healthy, safe and welcoming community

City of Charles Sturt 38. AM Report 20/07/15

RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE Item 3.81 Continued

Relevant Council policies are:

• Reserve naming Policy

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• Local Government Act 1999

Background

On the 13th May 2014 Community Consultation took place regarding the Grange Lakes Shared Use Path and it was found that the preferred name for Drainage Reserve North and South be ‘Grange Lakes Linear Park’ (refer Appendix A and Appendix B for location).

Subsequently, the Council has received a request from Adam Hanson to consider renaming Drainage Reserve North and South to ‘Railside Reserve’ due to the unsavoury name, negative connotation and subsequently the lack of positive appeal.

Report

Drainage Reserve North and South follow the old water course that connected the Upper Port Reach with the Reedbeds and Torrens (before Breakout Creek was constructed).

Drainage Reserve North and South are located between Trimmer Parade and Terminus Street, Grange and occupies an area of 26,491m2. It is classified as a Local Park.

On the 13 of May 2014 community consultation took place regarding the Grange Lakes Shared Use Path. A total of 25 people attended this consultation. The general consensus was that Drainage Reserve should be renamed. Their preferred name was ‘Grange Lakes Linear Park’ in alignment with its location and the future work to be undertaken in the area.

Subsequently, a petition was received in April 2015 with 32 signatures requesting a name change to Council (refer CL11/05/15 Item 5.8 ‘Request for Drainage Reserve to be renamed Railside Reserve’) with the following motion:

“1. That the petition be received and referred to the Asset Management Committee.

2. That Council notify the head petitioner of Council’s decision.”

The head petitioner, Mr Hanson, highlights that ‘Drainage Reserve’ is a very poor description of the area and deemed as being ‘unsavoury’ and depicting a negative connotation and lack of positive appeal. The local community feels that a name change is necessary. City of Charles Sturt 39. AM Report 20/07/15

RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE Item 3.81 Continued

Council’s Reserve Naming Policy states that requests for naming/renaming a Reserve will be considered if they meet the following criteria:

“• The proposed name recognises and individual who as provided outstanding service to the community for a period in excess of 10 years and either the individual or relatives of the individual approved the use of the name; or

• The name reflects the character, landscape, function or history of the area of site; or

• The name is unique in the City and is not similar to the name of another site so as to cause confusion.

Requests for naming/renaming a Reserve will not be considered if one of the following situation applies:

• The Reserve has been named/renamed by a previous resolution of Council; or

• The Reserve has been named in an approved land division; or

• The Reserve has been named by the Geographical Naming Board or other relevant authority or is listed in the State Gazette Database of Place Names in South Australia.”

Both ‘Grange Lakes Linear Park’ and ‘Railside Reserve’ are unique names and will not cause confusion with other reserve names throughout the City. There are no existing resolutions or agreements that specifies that this reserve name cannot be changed.

Financial and Resource Implications

Two new reserve signs will need to be installed at both reserves at a cost of $200.

Customer Service and Community Implications

The Customer Service Team will be notified in relation to the outcome of this report prior to any official name change.

Environmental Implications

There are no risk management or legislative implications.

Community Engagement/Consultation

The appropriate process has been followed in relation to the Reserve Naming Policy, investigation and the associated Community Consultation process. A public notice will be displayed in the local newspapers should the reserve renaming be approved? City of Charles Sturt 40. AM Report 20/07/15

RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE Item 3.81 Continued

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

There are no risk management or legislative implications.

Conclusion

Two options for renaming Drainage Reserve North and South have been presented and both clearly depict a more welcoming and suitable name than the existing which portrays negative thoughts and connotation. ‘Railside Reserve’ has been suggested by a local resident petition while ‘Grange Lakes Linear Park’ was a suggestion deriving from Community Consultation taking place in May 2014. It is recommended that appropriate community consultation takes place presenting both options and a further report be brought to Council in regard to renaming Drainage Reserve North and South. City of Charles Sturt 41. AM Report 20/07/15

RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE Item 3.81 APPENDIX A Drainage Reserve North

City of Charles Sturt 42. AM Report 20/07/15

RESERVE RENAMING - DRAINAGE RESERVE Item 3.81 APPENDIX B Drainage Reserve South

City of Charles Sturt 43. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Project Coordinator Property Services

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.82 LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH - FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND (B712)

Brief

The existing footpath along the frontage boundary of 2 Lexington Road, Henley Beach South is located on private land. This report recommends that Council purchase land from the abutting property owner to enable the footpath to be retained in its present location.

Recommendation

1. That Council purchase portion of 2 Lexington Road, Henley Beach South, (being approximately 6.6 sq. metres of land) to enable the existing footpath to be retained and that the subject land be converted to ‘public road’ (Refer Appendix A).

2. That Council pay to the owner of 2 Lexington Road, Henley Beach South, $10,000 (Plus GST) for the subject land, currently forming portion of Certificate of Title 5998/593.

3. That all costs associated with the purchase of the land be borne by Council.

4. That the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and attach the Council seal to all documents relevant to the matter (or to implement this recommendation).

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists - Advocate for a connected, safe and well maintained major road network and public transport system City of Charles Sturt 44. AM Report 20/07/15

LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH - FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND Item 3.82 Continued

Relevant Council policies are:

• Path Policy

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• Local Government Act 1999

Background

In November 2013, the owners of 2 Lexington Road contacted Council officers to discuss an encroachment of a public footpath on their land. That situation became apparent when an identification survey was undertaken for the property.

Subsequently, the owners advised that they were prepared to negotiate with Council for the sale of that portion of land that is occupied by the footpath.

At the Asset Management Committee of 16 March 2015 (Item 3.32), Council resolved:

‘1. That Council seeks to purchase the land being the subject of the footpath encroachment and hold negotiations with the owners of 2 Lexington Road.

2. That once discussions are completed, a further report be presented to the Asset Management Committee seeking approval of the negotiated terms and cost for the land purchase.”

Report

Council obtained a valuation report from Maloney Field Services that determined the market value of the land (6.6 sq. metres) as being $5,000 (plus GST).

The property owners rejected the offer but did indicate that they would accept an offer of $10,000 (plus GST) for the land.

The property owners did not provide an independent valuation report but calculated the value by using land sales in the locality.

If there were no extenuating circumstances, it would be inappropriate to offer any amount above $5000. Given that the footpath is in good condition and will cost $20,000 to relocate it is cheaper to accept the counter-offer even with survey and transfer costs. City of Charles Sturt 45. AM Report 20/07/15

LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH - FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND Item 3.82 Continued

Financial and Resource Implications

In the previous report to Council the costs of relocating the footpath were set out and totalled $20,000.

The option of purchasing the subject land and retaining the existing path would amount to: • Land purchase $10,000 (plus GST) • Surveying conveyancing costs $6,000 (approx.)

The purchase option will result in a net benefit of $4,000 and without the disruption of associated roadworks (est. 4 days).

The cost of the land purchase will be funded from the general ledger budget.

Customer Service and Community Implications

The property boundary extends over almost the entire width of the existing concrete path at the intersection of Lexington Road and Military Road. There is a large stobie pole on the corner that restricts accessible width of the public verge to approximately 0.5m between the property boundary and the roadway. If the property boundary was not re-aligned and the path removed, pedestrians would be forced to walk on the roadway.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications.

Community Engagement/Consultation (Including with community, Council members and staff)

The owner of the subject land has been consulted and has agreed to a purchase price.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

Should the footpath be removed from the private land, the accessible verge is only 0.5m wide (due to a stobie pole) which forces pedestrians to walk on the roadway.

There is no legislative requirement to provide a footpath, but Council’s Path Policy recommends a path in each verge in Collector Roads. City of Charles Sturt 46. AM Report 20/07/15

LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH - FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND Item 3.82 Continued

Conclusion

The existing footpath outside 2 Lexington Road, Henley Beach South encroaches onto that private property. The property owners have asked Council to remove the path, or purchase the land. The cost of purchasing the land, including all transfer costs is $16,000. The cost of relocating the path is $20,000.

It is concluded that the Council, hence the community, will be $4,000 better off it Council purchases the land. City of Charles Sturt 47. AM Report 20/07/15

LEXINGTON ROAD, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH-FOOTPATH ENCROACHMENT OVER PRIVATE LAND Item 3.82 APPENDIX A

City of Charles Sturt 48. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Manager Field Services

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.83 UPGRADE BEVERLEY WASTE AND RECYCLING CENTRE (B8394)

Brief

This report is to address the options for the future of the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre. These options include potential upgrades necessary to comply with mandatory requirements of Environmental Protection Authority policies and Work Place Health and Safety obligations versus options of selling or leasing the facility.

The proposed upgrade will include covering the disposal area to ensure compliance with current EPA policies as well as future proof the centre against potential further EPA and Workplace Health and Safety requirements and licencing conditions. The upgrade would also include the introduction of a supervised “Sort’n’Save” recycling process, improving way finding, customer service and addressing safety risks associated with the current saw-tooth layout design.

Recommendation

1. That the report be received and noted, including the analysis of the risks and potential benefits of selling or leasing the facility to the private sector.

2. That the issues currently facing the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre including non-compliance with EPA Regulations and public safety relating to the counter-sunk saw tooth design be noted, along with proposed strategies to upgrade the site’s layout and design to improve user safety, stormwater management and recycling.

3. That the anticipated impacts on future gate pricing be noted, with more information on the pricing model to be prepared for Council’s consideration at a later date, to determine the preferred approach and adoption for inclusion in the Fees and Charges Register.

4. That the upgrade of the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre, with new concrete floor, roof, improved water treatment and vehicle circulation (Appendix B - Option 2) be endorsed.

5. That the timing of the proposed upgrade be noted, including the intention to manage on-site works and associated costs across the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years as follows: a. $1,350,000 in 2015/16 (existing budget bid. b. estimated $1,050,000 to be included in the 2016/17 budget, plus project contingency of $300,000 (with this figure to be refined following receipt of tenders).

City of Charles Sturt 49. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Lead by example, educate and support the community to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste - Implement sustainable stormwater management practices

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Build a strong team between Elected Members and staff working together on behalf of the community - Influence other levels of government on behalf of the wider Charles Sturt community - Strive for business excellence through continuous improvement and creativity - Ensure finances and assets are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way - Provide a safe work environment that attracts, develops and retains quality staff to deliver great customer service

Relevant Council policies are:

• Fees and Charges Register 2014/15

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• Environment Protection Act 1003 (SA) • Environment Protection Authority Stormwater Management and Water Quality Policy (WQP) • Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2014 (includes landfill bans that relate directly to the operation of this facility) • ‘Environmental Guidelines for Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Depots’ • Development Act 1993 (SA) • Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Commonwealth)

Executive Summary

Council has previously resolved to upgrade the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre to meet EPA Regulations.

This report provides information relevant to the upgrade including a Business Case outlining justification, benefits and risks along with a cost recovery approach and compares this to the potential benefits and risks of selling or leasing the facility. City of Charles Sturt 50. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

The option to sell or lease the facility is not recommended as the facility provides an important role in Council’s day-to-day field services operations representing in the order of 50% of the facility’s turnover.

Whilst the lease option would provide annual rent revenue for council and the sell options would enable the council to retire debt with the proceeds of the sale, cost modelling indicate that council would incur considerable additional annual costs particularly to dispose of its internal waste from its field operations.

If the facility was leased or sold and remained as a waste facility then cost modelling indicates that council would incur additional annual costs of approximately $600,000. Conversely if the facility was sold as a potential development site and no longer operating as a waste facility, then cost modelling indicates that council would incur additional annual costs of approximately $1.3 million - Options modelled in Appendix C.

Two upgrade options are canvassed with the second of these (the establishment of a safe and enclosed flat floor system) recommended for Council endorsement. This option addresses the current issues of non-compliance with mandatory requirements of Environmental Protection Authority policies as well as future proofing the centre against the potential introduction of more stringent Environmental and Work Place Health and Safety requirements in the near future.

The recommended option would have substantial benefits to Council and the community, and would significantly reduce the potential for accidents and injuries at this site that could occur given its current out dated saw tooth design.

The full cost of the proposed upgrade (to be staged over two financial years) is $2.4 million plus a $300,000 contingency plus 1.5FTE staff to provide improved sort and save opportunities that will ultimately reduce costs associated with waste to landfill and increase potential income related to improved recycling practices.

The Business Case shows that the Centre would break even when taking into account depreciation and operating costs along with a changed gate price structure. Appendix C

It is proposed that the upgrade commence in the second half of 2015/16 and be completed in the first half of 2016/17.

Background

At the Asset Management Committee meeting of 17 June 2013 a presentation and report was presented to the Committee Item 3.56 – Review of Beverley Waste Management Centre – Presentation.

City of Charles Sturt 51. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

At that time, the Asset Management Committee resolved the following:

“That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Receive a presentation from the Coordinator Waste + Sustainability on the review of the Beverley Waste Management Centre and the State Government’s announcement to cease operations of Zero Waste SA. 3. Agree to pursue a full cost recovery approach (Option 3) at the Centre, and to rename the centre ‘Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre’, with new signs to be developed and installed to match this approach. 4. Agree that a further report will be provided to the Asset Management Committee in coming months, providing further detail about the design options being considered. 5. That the presentation be included in the Minutes.”

Report

Services provided by the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre The Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre was established following the closure of the former landfill on this site in the late 1970s. It has successfully provided a range of services and functions for the benefit of the City of Charles Sturt Council and community since that time.

It has been licensed by the EPA as a waste transfer station since the early 1990s. The latest review of that license was issued in 2011.

Services provided at the site include:

• providing Council’s Field Services division with a well-priced and convenient drop-off point for waste and recycling, and for the management of green organic material, prunings and mulch • providing local residents and business with a well-priced and convenient drop-off point for waste and recycling • providing a focus for the introduction of new services to our community as required, including in response to State Government landfill bans (such as for televisions and computers)

At present, the Centre receives the following wastes for recycling or disposal:

• General Waste Minimum Charge of $35.00 (for up to 250 kg) • Green Waste Minimum Charge of $20.00 (for up to 260 kg) • Concrete & Unclean Fill Waste Minimum Charge of $25.00 (for up to 300 kg) City of Charles Sturt 52. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

City of Charles Sturt Fees and Charges Register 2014/15

Whilst the majority of green waste received at the centre is mulched and used internally for councils landscapes and garden beds throughout the city, the site also offers mulch product for sale to the community at a price of $40 per cubic metre (when available).

The following free drop-off recycling services are also available to Council and our community, to assist them to comply with recently introduced State Government landfill bans:

• old televisions and computers and peripherals (this service forms part of the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme and is provided at no charge to Council or residents) • old fluorescent and mercury containing lighting (this service is paid for by Council through general waste charges at the Centre) • other electrical and electronic wastes (this service is provided by Council at no charge)

In addition to these waste and recycling services, the site also operates as an adjunct and support to Council’s Beverley Works Depot, by providing the following additional functions:

• a wash-down bay for the efficient cleaning of heavy fleet vehicles and equipment (to current SA Water and environmental standards) • a large storage area for materials used by the engineering and works areas City of Charles Sturt 53. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Who uses the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre? Council records indicate that the user-mix for transactions at the site over the past six months is as follows:

Site user No. of Tonnes $ % of all transactions transactions (by $ value) City of Charles 4031 2336 $217,949 50% Sturt Contractors and 9080 1883 $219,887 50% general public

Suburb data collected at the weighbridge suggests that, of the contractors and general public using the site, 75-80% of users live or work within the City of Charles Sturt.

This is consistent with what one would expect for a small site such as this, which draws some custom from beyond the local area, but in relatively modest quantities. Further custom both locally and from beyond the local area could be improved if increased advertising and marketing of the services provided by the centre was implemented

In recent years, for example, the site drew a large number of customers from outside this Council area in response to the very high demand for recycling services for televisions and computers following the digital switch-over. Since that time, and given the expansion of similar services elsewhere within metropolitan Adelaide, this has decreased significantly.

Why upgrade the facility? The transfer station is located on a former landfill, which ceased to receive waste for burial in the late 1970s. The waste transfer capability was enhanced through the construction of the drop-off area (sawtooth with vertical walls) in 1983.

These changes, including some subsequent upgrades, are summarised as follows:

• landfill operations ceased – late 1970s • sawtooth arrangement constructed – 1983 • installation of original wash-down bay – 1989 • installation of old grease arrester in former wash-down bay – 1993 • installation of weighbridge – 2002/03 • installation of upgraded wash-down bay to SA Water requirements – 2008/09

As is clear from the above list, while the wash-down bay has been upgraded on numerous occasions in the intervening years, the transfer station operation itself has not been significantly upgraded since the sawtooth was installed 32 years ago.

This facility is well-used, both by Council’s operations and by local businesses and residents. It is now in need of a significant upgrade to bring it up to a modern standard of operations. City of Charles Sturt 54. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Issues identified include: a. the current configuration of the centre does not comply with mandatory Environmental Protection Authority Regulations for Stormwater and Leachate Management (EPA - Water Quality Policy) – primarily associated with the saw tooth design located at the centre of the sites operations. b. safety issues for site users and operators (Council staff) – again associated with the saw-tooth design at the centre. c. limited ability to recycle (and by extension, to comply with the suite of landfill bans that have been progressively introduced by the State Government in recent years). d. poor layout and design creating operational inefficiencies on site and confusion for external customers entering, exiting and navigating their way around site to the correct disposal location.

Each of these issues is discussed in more detail below.

A. Water Management In addition to the Environment Protection Act itself, the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (Water Quality EPP) includes a range of legal provisions that aim to prevent pollution entering South Australia’s waterways. As a piece of subordinate legislation (similar to Regulations under an Act), compliance with the Water Quality EPP is mandatory.

The Water Quality EPP prohibits allowing contaminated stormwater to enter a waterway. The definition of ‘waterway’ includes a “public stormwater disposal system”.

In addition, the current EPA licence for this site includes the following provision:

“The licensee must ensure that stormwater does not drain towards or collect within waste receipt areas or waste storage areas.”

In order for Council to satisfy its obligations, it is therefore important that Council take all reasonable and practicable steps to prevent pollution entering the stormwater system from this facility.

The current sawtooth area contains a drain that accepts stormwater that has entered, and drained from, within the waste storage bins. This drain leads directly to the public stormwater disposal system, and provides a means by which pollution from the bins may enter that system.

From the sawtooth area, the water passes directly to the stormwater system. It then passes through the wetland system at the Royal Adelaide Golf Course. While some of this water will be treated in that wetland, some will by-pass that system and drain directly to West Lakes.

It is now standard practice for waste receiving areas at transfer stations to be covered with a roof or similar structure to prevent water from entering the waste material and becoming polluted. This would be required by the EPA for all new transfer station developments, and is considered a minimum approach for any upgrade to this site. City of Charles Sturt 55. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

This minimum compliance option is represented in Appendix B to this report as ‘Option 1’.

Conversely, Option 2 (which addresses non- compliance with EPA Water Policy regulations along with all the other identified risks) is considered to provide the best value for the proposed investment as it also addresses public safety issues relating to the conflict between commercial and industrial vehicles and private domestic vehicles; potential risk of public falling into the disposal bins; processing times through the weigh bridge. Option 2 future-proofs the centre from further imminent Environmental Protection Authority and Workplace Health and Safety requirements in upcoming years. This is in spite of the total investment ($2.3-$2.7m) being considerably higher in absolute terms than Option 1.

B. Safety issues for site users and operators By their nature, waste management operations involve the movement of vehicles and deposit of waste material. These activities carry risks that can be increased or reduced depending on the design, layout and use of the facility by the range of site users.

In the case of the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre, a large proportion of site users (50%) are members of the general public (including residents and local businesses). These users may not be experienced in managing the kinds of risks that are present within a transfer station, and are not subject to training in the same way Council staff would be.

These users are therefore less likely to be fully aware of the risks, and the range of safe behaviours most appropriate in this environment.

This is exacerbated by the design of the existing saw-tooth area. While a common design for transfer stations in the 1980s, the risk of falls from a height with this style of facility have become evident since that time. There have been a number of incidents at this site, and others, which have reinforced the importance of restricting site users from directly accessing the saw-tooth area, where this can be avoided.

Experiences at our site and at similar sites elsewhere confirm that falls into large waste bins do sometimes occur.

Some examples of recent, poor use of the saw-tooth area were photographed during the 3 day audit of the facility by KESAB, undertaken in September 2014. Some photos illustrating these issues are included in Appendix A.

The photos illustrate both the extent and frequency of risk-taking behaviour by site users. While none of these users were injured, the frequency of these behaviours is of concern.

Action has been taken since an incident at another similar facility to limit, but not eliminate access to the saw-tooth by the site using temporary barriers. These safety barriers have required the redeployment of a full time staff member to assist in the transfer station’s operation (increasing the number of staff present at the Centre at any given time from 2 to 3). This action has impacted on the delivery of services in the field and this report proposes to increase staff at the facility permanently if the facility is to be upgraded. These measures were only temporary measures required by SAFEWORK SA and further more permanent measures would be required in the future if the saw tooth set up was to be retained. City of Charles Sturt 56. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

C. Limited ability to recycle (compliance with landfill bans) The Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2011 (‘Waste to Resources EPP’) introduced a range of landfill bans that must be adhered to at this site.

While Council has made efforts to provide opportunities for recycling, the use of a sawtooth arrangement (and the associated large steel bins) can make this difficult to achieve. This is because, once deposited (perhaps incorrectly) in a waste bin, recyclable material is difficult and in many cases unsafe to retrieve.

As a result, compliance by site users with landfill bans at the site is at relatively low levels. This also has flow-on cost impacts on Council.

The extent of this problem was investigated by an on-site waste audit, undertaken for Council by KESAB in September 2014. The chart below represents the contents of the general waste bins over the 3 days of this site audit. It demonstrates the very high percentage of recyclables (including wood, vegetation, cardboard, concrete and metal) being placed into general waste bins for subsequent disposal to landfill.

City of Charles Sturt 57. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

While the legal and environmental implications of this practice are significant in themselves, it is also worth noting the financial impacts of this practice. While the majority of recyclables can be processed at very low cost (and can in some cases be sold by Council to processors), landfilled waste costs Council in the order of $100 per tonne for disposal. When added to their sale value, this lost revenue can be up to $190 per tonne of recyclable waste.

Better recovery of these ‘lost’ recyclables therefore provides a significant opportunity for Council to reduce disposal costs, and use these savings to offset the costs of upgrading the facility. This opportunity has been estimated (conservatively) and these estimates used in the preparation of the attached financial assessment to support the upgrade of the facility (Appendix C).

D. Operational inefficiencies The current site layout relies on each user entering over the weighbridge, depositing their waste, and exiting again via the same weighbridge (in the reverse direction) to be re- weighed and the appropriate charge applied. Whilst the current layout allows very accurate weights to be recorded for all material deposited on site, it is inefficient in processing customers and optimising recycling opportunities.

The disadvantage of this approach is that it requires a high volume of traffic over the weighbridge in both directions, when compared with other systems that are less reliant on weights to determine appropriate charges.

A more common approach with more modern Recycling and Waste Centres is to charge by volume (e.g. by the size of the vehicle/trailer) for small loads, which comprise the majority of transactions. While these vehicles will still enter the site via the weighbridge, they will not be required to re-visit the weighbridge before departing. These customers will be charged in advance for the waste they intend to dispose, and then supervised within the disposal area to ensure the waste is left in the appropriate areas (and containers).

Larger loads will continue to be weighed in and out as per the current practice, with regular customers recording a standard TARE weight for their vehicles to allow them to be charged by weight with a single pass over the weighbridge, as appropriate.

In this way, a smoother flow of traffic through the site can be achieved. This will improve wait times for customers during peak periods of demand. It is expected that this approach should reduce customer confusion and all but eliminate queueing at the weighbridge for the majority of working days.

Alternatives to upgrading the facility – Sale to the private sector

The presentation to Committee in June 2013, discussed the option for sale or lease to the market with Council opting to have staff investigate the option to upgrade the facility with a preferred break even approach. Given that there are a number of new Councillors since the previous decision was made and there was interest shown at the recent briefing in relation to the proposed upgrade of the Beverley Waste and Recycling Centre this report explores the option for sale or lease to the market. City of Charles Sturt 58. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

While the majority of larger metropolitan Councils own or co-own a transfer station, it is not uncommon for Councils that do not own a facility to enter into commercial arrangements with privately owned transfer stations to provide services to their Field Services areas through appropriate procurement approaches to market.

If Council were to sell or lease the facility, Council would then become a customer of the facility, and pay commercial pricing for the services it uses

The option to sell the option to sell the facility would enable the Council to retire a portion of debt with the proceeds of the sale, however cost modelling indicates that Council would incur additional annual costs of approximately $600,000 should the centre remain as a waste facility. Conversely if the facility was sold as a potential development site and no longer operating as a waste facility, then cost modelling indicates that Council would incur additional annual cost of approximately $1.3millon.

The increased additional costs with this option are as a result of the requirement for internal field maintenance and construction teams to trave further to dispose of waste. This is explained further in this report, however this modelling does not take into account potential reduction in service levels or addition resource requirements to offset the operational inefficiencies should the conveniently located Beverley site close as a waste facility. Refer Appendix C

There are a number of potential benefits of this approach. The first is the sale price, which based on previous sales of similar facilities over the past decade may be between $2.5 - $3.2m, minus the value associated with the contamination liability (see below). Based on experiences on other sites, it is possible that the liability associated with the site would significantly reduce any sale price that could be achieved.

The second is the avoided obligation to spend money to upgrade the facility, resulting in an additional saving of $2.4m. This responsibility (and the associated risks of not upgrading) would pass to the new owner and could reduce the sale price given the capital investment that would be required by a future owner to meet EPA Regulations and public safety improvement or result in higher prices charged to Council by the private owner/operator for the various services Council requires from the site, and the lost opportunity to generate income through sales.

The following table illustrates Council’s current fees for the range of services we currently access at the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre to support our own operations, compared with commercial fees currently available at similar facilities within the inner western suburbs of Adelaide. City of Charles Sturt 59. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

These have been estimated on the basis of a standard commercial return on sales approach, when applied to a facility of this size, and checked against pricing paid by other Councils within Adelaide for similar commercial services

Service Frequency Current price Commercial price Additional cost requirement (similar facilities) (per annum) Mulch purchase 8000m3 $40.00 $52.00 $96,000 General waste disposal 2000t $150.00 $200.00 $100,000 Disposal of concrete and 900t $85.00 $114.00 $26,100 unclean fill Wash down bay 4400 $10 $60.00 264,000 vehicles Annually Dewatering 1300 - $60/tonne $78,000 sweepers tonnes E-waste recycling (Council and 240t $0 $775.00 $186,000 illegally dumped material) Total additional cost (per annum) $750,100

This analysis indicates that the additional cost increases would outweigh any benefits achieved by the sale of the facility. This does not take into account additional costs associated with lost time if routine access to Wingfield is required (see discussion further below – estimated impact of $672,000 per annum in addition to that identified above).

In addition to these fee increases, the following risks would apply should the facility be sold: 1. Future fee increases, which would be beyond Council’s control 2. Future reductions in the service offering (such as removing e-waste recycling services both to Council and to our community) 3. Future closure of the facility (leading to longer travel times for Field Services crews). This issue would also apply if the purchaser of the land sought to use the facility for a use other than a Transfer Station. 4. Potential for future costs associated with the site’s contamination. It is anticipated that a purchaser would seek to negotiate with Council that the liability related to this land remain with Council (this would be reflected in purchasing price). 5. Inability of Council to introduce new services for our residents (loss of policy control) 6. Increased illegal dumping of waste (due to increased prices if the facility continues to operate, and potentially also reduced convenience of disposal services if it were to close)

It is likely that, should the site be offered to the private sector for sale, a buyer could be found. In spite of this, given the short term nature of the financial benefits, the permanency of the impacts and the high degree of Council’s exposure to the risks of sale (as outlined above), this option is not recommended. City of Charles Sturt 60. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Alternatives to upgrading the facility – lease to the private sector Another alternative is for Council to explore the option of leasing the facility to the private sector. While this may reduce any immediate financial benefits of the site’s sale, it would also reduce the long term risks to Council. The responsibility to manage site contamination would remain with Council.

It would theoretically be possible for Council to negotiate the site’s lease with a private sector partner, and include as part of that arrangement a favourable set of commercial terms that would apply throughout the term of that lease.

These terms may cover a range of aspects, including for example:

• the requirement to upgrade the facility to modern standards • maintenance of current pricing for the City of Charles Sturt (for waste disposal, wash- down bay access, etc.) • a framework for collaboration on questions relating to service offerings throughout the lease period

While it is unlikely that Council could unilaterally determine the nature of services a private sector lessee would offer at the site, Council’s influence would be greater in this scenario.

The potential lack of a potential private sector partner is considered the main risk associated with this approach. The site is not a large one, and total tonnes through the facility are low. As the City of Charles Sturt represents a 50% share of all transactions at the site, any profits would need to be generated from the remaining 50% (comprising primarily of City of Charles Sturt ratepayers – our local businesses and residents).

The option to lease out the facility enables Council to retain the site but handover the rights to running the Waste Centre as a business under a 10 year lease. The Council effectively becomes the landlord and whilst it would receive appropriate annual rental revenue, it would then have to pay the tenant fees to process Council waste at commercial rates. A preliminary financial analysis indicates that council would incur additional annual costs in excess of $600,000 with this lease option. Refer Appendix C.

These higher prices could, in turn, limit the throughput of customers to the facility, as they seek cheaper pricing elsewhere.

These factors all impact the site’s attractiveness to a potential commercial partner.

For obvious reasons, price increases for local residents and businesses are significantly higher than those previously recommended to the Asset Management Committee to support the facility’s upgrade on a break-even (cost neutral) basis.

Preliminary feedback has been sought from an experienced private sector waste facility operator on the attractiveness of this approach to a private sector partner. That advice indicates that significant price increases during the term of the lease would be required for this option to become viable. City of Charles Sturt 61. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

In summary, this preliminary analysis demonstrates that this approach: • would add additional annual waste disposal costs for council as well as for our ratepayers (local businesses and residents) • may not be considered a good commercial prospect by the private sector (resulting in difficulty in Council finding a suitable commercial partner), unless linked with price increases for services to Council

Operational implications of sale or lease to the private sector Additional to the risks listed above, there are a number of operational implications of selling or leasing the facility to the private sector.

1. Alternative Locations If the Beverley facility were to close, or become financially unviable for use by Council, then alternate waste disposal arrangements would need to be sourced for all Council vehicles. There are two main options for the alternative locations; namely Wingfield and more locally, at Welland.

The facility at Welland is extremely small and would not be suitable for receiving the full volume of council traffic. However, the facility is deemed suitable for dropping off smaller loads such as those collected by Rapid Response. On this basis, it would be expected that all other council traffic would have to utilise the various waste facilities located at Wingfield.

Wingfield is located 8.5km from the facility at Toogood Avenue, Beverley. In average traffic conditions, it would be estimated to be approximately a one hour turnaround from our facility (located centrally within the City). This trip may be slightly longer or shorter depending on where within the City of Charles Sturt the vehicle is departing from, and returning to.

The majority of vehicles carry two members of staff and including cost of vehicle, would equate to an average of $84/hour per vehicle. Using this figure to calculate time lost, at an estimated 8000 transactions per annum, there would be a potential direct resource cost of $672,000 per annum. This would have further implications too, in terms of reducing our ability to meet service levels, having an average loss of 16,000 man hours per annum.

2. Wash-down Bay Facilities The current facility also houses the Council wash-down bay which is used by Council trucks, sweepers, jetvac, tractors and other miscellaneous vehicles, for dewatering (sweepers), cleaning (all) and filling (generally sweepers & jetvac). If council did decide to sell or lease the facility at its full potential, the use of the washdown bay would become very problematic, both for Council and the new operator and at best, would require designated access points through the area (resulting in loss of through flow and real estate to any potential purchaser/leaseholder).

It would be recommended to Council that should the option of sale or lease be pursued, the wash-down bay area (as well as an allowance for access) be maintained as a Council asset, under Council management, to ensure effective management of our fleet. The closest facility should this option not be feasible, would be at Wingfield where the express truck wash costs $45 and a fleet truck wash costs $75 (per vehicle). City of Charles Sturt 62. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

At an estimated average of 20 vehicles per day currently using the wash-down bay for 220 days of the year, this equates to between $198,000 and $330,000 without allowance for the time and resource lost by travelling the further distance, not to mention the time taken to wash the vehicles once at the facility (with Council having no control over times accessed and use by other vehicles).

Also, by not having the wash-down bay as a facility in which to de-water our sweepers, the sweepers would have to attend the facilities at Wingfield for dewatering, thus increasing the turnaround time between sweeps by up to one hour. Additional to the time, there would also be an extra cost in disposal of the water at these other facilities, currently priced at $60/tonne. The volume of water requiring disposal would vary dependent on the time of year and weather, but would on average be approximately one tonne per vehicle per day (for morning shift vehicles); an additional cost of $80,000 per annum, not including actual debris disposal.

Currently, the jetvac dewaters at a commercial waste facility at Wingfield, as we do not have the capacity to de-water at the washdown bay. However, as part of the upgrade, the intention is that we can dewater the jetvac at the washdown bay in the future, either through the addition of more storage capacity or organising with SA Water to dewater to the trade waste or sewer system. Therefore, by enabling upgrade of the facility, there would be cost savings available in the waste disposal.

3. Impact on Illegal Dumping Council have endeavoured over the last 18 months to reduce the volume of illegal dumping across the City and have had up to a 60% success rate in take backs by people dumping the rubbish, with some seasonal variation. It would be expected that should an alternative operator be sought that gate rates would have to rise to enable the facility to become a commercially viable venture (or the facility closed altogether).

Given that gate rates are currently at a minimum level and illegal dumping remains to be a problem, it would be a reasonable assumption that should the gate rates rise, or the facility close, that the volume of illegal dumping would increase. This would then have an on-cost to Council, both in the collection (by our Rapid Response Team) and the disposal fees, potentially to an external facility.

Given the above implications, this approach is not recommended.

The options of selling or leasing the facility are both significant decisions with potentially long term implications for council operations.

Should Council wish to pursue either of these options further, additional work and investigations should be undertaken to test the market and fully understand the cost implications prior to making a decision.

This work would need to take into account the impact on Council if the site were sold, and then no longer used as a waste management facility. City of Charles Sturt 63. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Site contamination considerations The transfer station was constructed on a site formerly used as a landfill. It is therefore a site which brings with it some limitations on future use, and some responsibilities.

Previous experience suggests that these factors would impact and reduce the sale price that could be achieved for the site. This is because Council would seek to assign liability for the future management of contamination on the site to the purchaser. This would require the agreement of the EPA.

While the methane flare on this site is still in place, there is a noticeable reduction in methane present at the flare location over recent years. It is anticipated that the flare may be decommissioned shortly. This is currently the subject of discussions with the EPA.

The presence of buried waste on the site also impacts the construction process to be used for future works, and their costs. For this reason, and to help ensure these extra costs can be managed, a contingency of $300,000 has been allocated to this project. The core project budget also allows for up to $100,000 of site investigations and testing to be undertaken, with reference to contamination issues.

The degree of current uncertainty relating to this future liability would be a significant deterrent to any potential purchaser of the site. As a minimum, this could be expected to impact the sale price that could be achieved. The EPA’s position on this question has not been sought at this stage of considerations.

Proceeding with the upgrade – timing and next steps Based on the advice of the previous Council that an upgrade was the preferred option for this site, considerable work has been undertaken to move towards this outcome.

This includes:

• engagement of an experienced waste industry professional to guide site design and assist in preparations to submit a Development Application for assessment and approval • preparation of site concept plans for Option 1 (not recommended) and Option 2 (recommended) – these are provided in Appendix B • sourcing price estimates for the construction of the preferred option (Option 2) from an experienced commercial construction company – also summarised in Appendix B • liaison with relevant staff of the Environment Protection Authority, regarding the possible upgrade and related issues (such as the future management and decommissioning of the methane flare which currently operates on the site) • preliminary liaison with social enterprise entity with regard to the potential future set- up of a ‘tip-shop’ or ‘recycle shop’ at the site (note: due to spatial limitations, this could not be pursued until after the methane flare has been decommissioned and the site upgrade completed) City of Charles Sturt 64. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Council is therefore well placed to move forward with the plans to upgrade the facility. If this approach is endorsed by the Committee and Council at this time, and the budget for 2015/16 approved for the upgrade to commence, the following timing is indicated:

Month Activity March & May 2015 Council workshop July 2015 Asset Management Committee August 2015 Finalise concept design (including geotech) September 2015 DA submission October/November 2015 DA assessment and approval November - December 2016 EPA review and licence January 2016 to November 2016 Design/construction contract

Includes: - tender – January 2016 - award/commence – February 2016 - detailed design completed – April 2016 - Building Approvals – May 2016 - construction period – May – Nov 2016

Proposal for Early Contractor Involvement – design/construct

Initially it was expected that once a preferred concept upgrade option had been determined and endorsed by council that a detailed design and specification would be developed to enable a tender to be let for the construction upgrade works.

A preferred upgrade option has now been recommended for council to consider, however throughout the concept design process it was recommended by our waste consultant that that a design and construct tender may be a better option to deliver the upgrade of the centre in the desired timeframes and at the most competitive price. The consultant that we have engaged throughout the development of concept plans and cost modelling for the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre upgrade has been directly involved in a number of similar recycling and waste centre construction projects.

Should one of the options to upgrade the centre be supported by Council then there would still be funds of around $80,000 available from the 2014/15 capital budget which was intended to be used for a detailed design and specification. These capital budget savings available through choosing a design and construct option could still be used to develop a detailed specification and the remaining budget could be reallocated to cover the required planning and licencing approvals.

Financial and Resource Implications

Appendix B provides a summary of the upgrade options, with Option 2 recommended at a cost of $2.4m over the coming 2 financial years, plus an estimated contingency of approximately $300,000. City of Charles Sturt 65. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

This would be covered in full by adjustments to the gate pricing at the facility, the details of which will be further reviewed at a later time.

As a result, the proposal to upgrade the facility is put forward to Council on a cost neutral basis, with payback achieved over the life of the new asset.

Financial implications associated with the possible sale or lease of the facility are also provided in Appendix C. These options are not recommended at this time, due to the range of risks associated with each, as outlined within this report.

Customer Service and Community Implications

Upgrading the facility to meet modern standards of transfer station practice would provide significant benefits to the community. These include ongoing access to the wide range of waste and recycling services provided at the centre, at affordable pricing as determined by Council.

Significant public safety benefits will also be achieved by upgrading the facility (these are detailed within the report and the risks illustrated in Appendix A).

Environmental Implications

The upgrade of this facility will secure significant environmental benefits, including:

• eliminating (as far as is reasonable and practicable) the potential for contaminated stormwater from the facility from entering local waterways • increasing the recycling rate that can be achieved (and providing for a higher degree of compliance with State Government landfill bans)

Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff)

As the upgrade will require a Development Application, a level of community engagement will be undertaken as required by law.

Beyond that, there is no requirement for community engagement/consultation.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

Upgrading the facility has the potential to significantly reduce a range of risks, including:

• reduced risk of being subjected to an EPA compliance process, or fine (refer environmental implications, above) • reduced risk of a member of staff becoming injured at the facility • reduced risk of a member of the public becoming injured at the facility • • reduced risk of future uncontrolled price increases (by upgrading rather than selling or leasing the site) City of Charles Sturt 66. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 Continued

Conclusion

Council has previously resolved in favour of upgrading the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre.

This report provides information relevant to this upgrade, including its justification, benefits and risks. These are compared with the potential benefits and risks of selling or leasing the facility, and the upgrade is recommended.

Two upgrade options are canvassed with the second of these (the establishment of a safe and enclosed flat floor system) recommended for Council endorsement - Option 2 Appendix B City of Charles Sturt 67. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 3 pages.

Photo 1: There are inherent risks in operating large equipment in close proximity to pedestrians. This photo illustrates the need for the plant operator to cease compaction of a bin’s contents while a user completes the process of unloading their waste. (which is current practice but reduces operational efficiency within the facility)

Photo 2: Not all users are confident reversing their trailers up to the bins. As a result, some

vehicles stop very close to the bin’s side edge. This photograph illustrates 2 people unloading a bin – one standing on the edge of the steel bin and the other from within the trailer. Given the proximity to the bin’s edge, risks include falling into the bin itself (and onto previously disposed waste), and also falling to the ground alongside the bin.

There have been a number of incidents at similar facilities in which whole vehicles or trailers have been reversed into (and fallen into) bins.

Photo 3: Most site users are confident of their abilities to safely unload trailers and vehicles, but may underestimate the risks associated with standing on concrete barriers and/or the use of inappropriate footwear (such as thongs).

Photo 4: While a small concrete plinth has been installed to reduce the risk of vehicles being reversed into bins, experience at a number of sites indicates that this remains a risk.

There have been numerous reports, both at this site and other similar sites within South Australia, of whole vehicles being accidentally reversed over the edge of the loading area and into bins.

This risk is currently being managed by the use of temporary barriers that prevent most site users from directly accessing the tipping face.

Photo 5: Green organic material is shown being raked into a bin by two men, one of whom is standing on a sloping, wet surface.

Photos 6 and 7: These photographs clearly illustrate the risks of standing on the top of the steel bin while unloading waste from trailers.

While the fall distance in this case is relatively short, falling on waste carries a degree of unpredictability. The nature of the potential risk will vary with the nature of the waste below you, some of which may not be easy to see.

City of Charles Sturt 68. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 APPENDIX B Option 1 – RETAIN EXISTING SAWTOOTH WITH NEW ROOF – CAPITAL COST $1.05m + $200k + 1.5 FTE Not recommended

City of Charles Sturt 69. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83 APPENDIX B Option 2 – NEW ENCLOSED FLAT FLOOR SYSTEM – CAPITAL COST $2.3m + $400k + 1.5 FTE Recommended

City of Charles Sturt 70. AM Report 20/07/15

UPGRADE OF BEVERLEY RECYCLING AND WASTE CENTRE Item 3.83

APPENDIX C

Financial assessment of Sale, Lease and Upgrade options for the facility

Appendix C consists of 1 page.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 10 Year Lease Option Sell Option Sell Option Proposed Transfer Station Development costs 1,205,000 2,700,000 as a going concern as a going concern as a non waste facility Cap upgrade and Retain facility Cap upgrade and Retain facility 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 22.00% Mark Up 27.50% Mark Up 10% 5% 5% Busine ss a s Status Quo Same Charging New WMS Status Quo Same Charging New WMS Usua l Volumes Structure plus % Charging Volumes Structure plus % Charging Actual & Pricing to achieve Regime & Pricing to achieve Regime 2013-14 With New Plant Modest Surplus With Upgraded Plant With New Plant Modest Surplus With New Plant 1350 - Waste management fees 540,602 540,602 659,534 702,783 540,602 689,268 702,783 1835 - Sale of Recycled Materials 11,254 11,254 11,254 11,254 21,830 21,830 21,830 2535 - Waste management centre recovery 572,153 572,153 698,027 743,799 572,153 729,495 743,799 Estimated Lease Rental Revenue 300,000 Interest Return on Capital Sale 150,000 100,000 Total Waste Tfer Statiion Related Revenue 1,124,009 1,124,009 1,368,815 1,457,836 1,134,585 1,440,593 1,468,412 300,000 150,000 100,000

3015 - Long service leave 4,598 7,155 7,155 7,155 7,155 7,155 7,155 3020 - Overtime 44,607 69,411 69,411 69,411 69,411 69,411 69,411 3025 - salaries and wages 188,829 188,829 188,829 188,829 188,829 188,829 188,829 3035 - Superannuation 15,855 24,671 24,671 24,671 24,671 24,671 24,671 3350 - Workers comp premiums 7,396 11,509 11,509 11,509 11,509 11,509 11,509 Incremental FTE Costs re New Facility (1.5) 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000

3110 - Agency Costs 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 3125 - contractors 353,191 353,191 353,191 353,191 743,799 743,799 743,799 - transport - - - 140,264 140,264 140,264 672,000 - compost - - - 208,043 208,043 208,043 - Inert - - - 32,636 32,636 32,636 3180 - waste dumping fees 344,090 344,090 344,090 344,090 219,510 219,510 219,510 3210 - Electricity 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 Incremental General Operating Costs NA 27,000 27,000 27,000 54,000 54,000 54,000

Plant Depreciation 28,359 38,359 38,359 38,359 38,359 38,359 38,359 38,359 Building Depn 26,087 56,212 56,212 56,212 93,587 93,587 93,587 56,212 Financing Cost @ 65,250 65,250 65,250 140,000 140,000 140,000 65,250 3254 - Irrigation materials 3262 - Loose tools 3266 - Printing/Stationery 3270 - Protective clothing 3272 - Food/Entertainment 3294 - Staff Amenities 3296 - Minor equipment purchases 4,998 4,998 4,998 4,998 4,998 4,998 4,998 3322 - Communication 3332 - Subscriptions 3348 - Statutory fees 2,910 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 General Site Structural Maint 10,000 3354 - Insurance 2,482 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 5,000

4530 - Estimated Plant Hire & Internal Overhead 50,000 51,500 51,500 51,500 81,554 81,554 81,554

Estimated Net Operating Results (58,125) (232,398) 12,408 101,429 (294,173) 11,835 39,653 (618,620) (593,799) (1,315,799) Unfav Unfav Fav Fav Unfav Fav Fav Unfav Unfav Unfav

ASSUMPTIONS:

General Assumption notes…

All Items in green highlighted boxes are variable input assumptions that enable sensitivity analysis to be performed.

Financing Cost Rate Assumption 5% Resulting in Financing Costs re Row 39 This rate is based on current Long Term Fixed rate Offered by Local Government Finance Authority

Refer Comments in specific cells with top left hand corners highlighted in red.

Approximate Net Increase to 2014-15 Charges 15% Change this cell to reflect the impact of most recent pricing changes per attached worksheet tab ( New Price Structure ) below. If you leave this cell at 0% it reflects forecast 2014-15 result. If % is change is inserted per Average New Price Structure it will then reflect the overall benefit to the bottom line. Any incresae has to also a reflect an increase in operating costs in cell A80

Approximate Net Increase to 2014-15 Operating Costs 3% Change this cell to reflect the impact of operating cost increases from 2014-15 to 2015-16. Suggest 3 % Operating Cost Increase of changing cell A74 from 0% City of Charles Sturt 71. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Civil Engineer

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.84 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE (B8678)

Brief

This report advises Council that the pedestrian crossing with traffic lights in Valetta Road Kidman Park at Kooralla Grove is no longer needed and it could be replaced with pedestrian refuge crossing for safe crossing to bus stops on Valetta Road between Frogmore Road and Findon Road. The report seeks approval to include renewal of the school crossing with traffic lights in Mitton Avenue Henley Beach near Buckingham Avenue 2015/2016 Electronic Renewals Project.

Recommendation

1. That the pedestrian actuated crossing on Valetta Road Kidman Park near Kooralla Grove be decommissioned.

2. That a pedestrian refuge crossing be constructed in place of the crossing on Valetta Road Kidman Park near Kooralla Grove.

3. That the school Koala crossing in Mitton Avenue Henley Beach near Buckingham Avenue be included in the 2015/2016 Electronic Crossings Renewals Project.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Ensure finances and asset are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way City of Charles Sturt 72. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 Continued

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• N/A

Background

Council owns a number of electronic traffic controls on its local streets. These are being managed by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) for the Council. DPTI has advised that the controllers and lamps at many of them are now obsolete and unable to be repaired in the event of failure.

A project bid has been included in the budget to commence equipment changeover to avoid long term service failure and to improve crossing design to comply with current standard.

Report

Valetta Road crossing near Kooralla Grove There are two pedestrian actuated crossings, (PAC) in Valetta Road. This report deals with the PAC near Kooralla Grove which was constructed in 1978 outside the Kidman Park High School. It was needed because of the number of vehicles on Valetta Road and the number of students needing to cross it. Appendix A shows its location.

The Kidman Park High School was closed in the early 1990s and the site is now an Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) complex. The complex services all of Adelaide and students arrive by motor vehicle or by bus.

Council appointed Austraffic to perform pedestrian and vehicle surveys which were carried out on Thursday the 26th of March 2015. The survey recorded five people using the PAC on that day. Results are attached in Appendix B.

The DPTI’s ‘Manual of Legal Responsibilities and Technical Requirements for Traffic Control Devices’ contains a table of thresholds for crossings. The type of crossing required depends upon two one-hour separate periods of a typical weekday. The thresholds and recordings are in the table below:

Requirement Threshold Recording pedestrians crossing per hour actually cross 60 or more 7am and 8am - 1 person the road and could reasonably be expected 3pm and 4 pm – 1 person to use the crossing Peak: 2pm and 3pm – 3 persons vehicles per hour pass the site during the 600 or more 663 same two hours where the pedestrians cross the road The product of the number of pedestrians 90,000 1989 per hour and vehicles in the same hour exceeds City of Charles Sturt 73. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 Continued

The number of vehicles just meets the threshold, but the number of people using the PAC is well below the threshold so the product of 1,989 is below the 90,000 threshold for a PAC and it makes very little contribution to road safety and it should be removed.

There some bus passengers crossing Valetta Road to access either the inbound or outbound bus stops which are approximately 100 metres away. Council has a legislative responsibility to ensure all bus stops are DDA compliant prior to 2022. The installation of a pedestrian refuge crossing will assist council in meeting this obligation. A concept plan of the pedestrian refuge crossing is shown in Appendix C.

Mitton Avenue near Buckingham Avenue A pedestrian survey found that in morning and afternoon peak times 25 and 29 students utilise the school Koala crossing to cross Mitton Avenue Henley Beach. Results are shown in Appendix E. This Koala crossing will be scheduled for renewal in 2015/2016 financial year instead of the Valetta Road PAC as it is readily used by students. According to the Department for Education and Child Development Fulham Gardens Primary School has 101 students, hence approximately 25% - 30% of students use the school crossing at Mitton Avenue.

Financial and Resource Implications

The budget provided to renew the PAC and improving the crossing design on Valetta Road near Kooralla Grove is $100,000. As this asset is not warranted these funds may be reallocated to another pedestrian crossing with traffic signals which are also obsolete.

The school Koala crossing located at Fulham Gardens Primary School on Mitton Avenue adjacent Buckingham Avenue also requires renewal of the traffic signals and improvement to the crossing. This crossing location is shown in Appendix D. Its substitution would have no financial impact on the 2015/2016 Electronic Crossing Renewals project (Budget Bid 1356).

The minor works to construct a pedestrian refuge crossing on Valetta Road Kidman Park near Kooralla Grove is estimated to cost $25,000. This will be met through budget savings during 2015/16, or a project bid in 2016/17.

Customer Service and Community Implications

There are no customer service or community implications.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications. City of Charles Sturt 74. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 Continued

Community Engagement/Consultation

During consultation signage was installed on the PAC to inform anyone using it that it will be decommissioned and letters were sent out to 111 properties in the area. A response by phone was received from the resident at 12 Valetta Road asking to keep the PAC. He believed that the Kidman Park High School was still operating so the PAC was required. When made aware the school was no longer operating he withdrew his concern.

Council officers met with Ward Councillor George Turelli to discuss the options and changes proposed to the PAC. Councillor Turelli door knocked 28 residents along Valetta Road adjacent to the PAC. The majority of residents indicated that the PAC was to be decommissioned and should be removed. Results of the Councillors discussions with residents are in Appendix F.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

There are no students using the PAC in Valetta Road near Kooralla Grove. There are very few adults and a safe pedestrian refuge crossing complies with the level of demand.

Decommissioning the PAC and constructing a pedestrian refuge crossing ensures risk is minimized for pedestrians as they have a protected area halfway across the roadway.

The renewal work on the school Koala crossing in Mitton Avenue will avoid possible failure and long term loss of service.

Conclusion

Due to low number of pedestrians using the (PAC) in Valetta Road Kidman Park near Kooralla Grove, it should be decommissioned and the budget reallocated.

The funds could be used to renew a school Koala crossing in Mitton Avenue Henley Beach near Buckingham Avenue which has student and other pedestrian demand that warrants its continued operation.

In recognition of the very low pedestrian demand and the requirement to make all bus stops and their access routes DDA compliant by 2022, a pedestrian refuge crossing will be constructed for pedestrians to safely cross Valetta Road near Kooralla Grove. City of Charles Sturt 75. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX A

Aerial View of Location of PAC at Valetta Road adjacent to Kooralla Avenue Kidman Park

Bus Stops locations Stops 20 and 21

Existing PAC crossing to be decommissioned

City of Charles Sturt 76. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX B

Appendix B consists of 2 pages.

N

A A

Client : City of Charles Sturt Valetta Road Valetta Road Job : Pedestrian and Vehicle Survey Day/Date : Thursday, 26 March 2015 Survey Location : Valetta Road, Kidman Park Weather : Fine B

A - B B - A Total of all Movements Time Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Elderly Disabled Total Child Adult Elderly Disabled Total Child Adult Elderly Disabled Total with Bike with Bike with Bike with Bike with Bike with Bike

5:30 - 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6:00 - 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6:15 - 6:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6:30 - 6:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6:45 - 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:00 - 7:15 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

7:15 - 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 - 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:15 - 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:30 - 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:45 - 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9:00 - 9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9:15 - 9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9:30 - 9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9:45 - 10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10:00 - 10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10:15 - 10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10:30 - 10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10:45 - 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11:00 - 11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11:15 - 11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11:30 - 11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11:45 - 12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12:00 - 12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12:15 - 12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12:30 - 12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12:45 - 13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13:00 - 13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13:15 - 13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13:30 - 13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13:45 - 14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14:00 - 14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

14:15 - 14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14:30 - 14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14:45 - 15:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

15:00 - 15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15:15 - 15:30 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

15:30 - 15:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15:45 - 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16:00 - 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16:15 - 16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16:30 - 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16:45 - 17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17:00 - 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

A A

Client : City of Charles Sturt Valetta Road Valetta Road Job : Pedestrian and Vehicle Survey Day/Date : Thursday, 26 March 2015 Survey Location : Valetta Road, Kidman Park Weather : Fine B

17:15 - 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17:30 - 17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17:45 - 18:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18:00 - 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18:15 - 18:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18:30 - 18:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18:45 - 19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19:00 - 19:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19:15 - 19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19:30 - 19:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19:45 - 20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20:00 - 20:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20:15 - 20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20:30 - 20:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20:45 - 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 City of Charles Sturt 77. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX C

City of Charles Sturt 78. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX D

Aerial View of Location of PAC at Mitton Avenue Adjacent to Buckingham Avenue Fulham Gardens

Fulham Gardens Primary School

Crossing Location City of Charles Sturt 79. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX E

Mitton Avenue - Koala Crossing

Takes undertaken on Tuesday 19 May 2015

WESTBOUND EASTBOUND

15 Minutes Ending ADULT CHILD ADULT CHILD

8:15 0 3 0 0

8:30 2 9 0 0

8:45 3 5 0 1

9:00 5 6 2 1

15:00 0 0 0 0

15:15 2 1 0 0

15:30 1 2 2 10

15:45 0 0 2 16

City of Charles Sturt 80. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX F

From: Cr George Turelli Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:17 PM To: Carmine D'Amico Cc: Cr Paul Sykes Subject: De-commissioning of Electronic Crossing - Valetta Road, Kidman Park - Survey by Councillor

Hi Carmine

Further to our chat yesterday, I provide the following information.

I originally door knocked yesterday during the day on 28 residents on Valetta Road near the electronic crossing. Ten residents were not home and I returned at 5.00 pm to 6.25 pm to try to contact them in addition to a few more houses on the Eastern end, not done in the afternoon. I also called on No 12 and had a good chat to the one resident who did reply to your letter. I will come back to his comments later. So I will summarise my findings:

Having contacted every household on Valetta road as per your Deco Map shown in blue, the feedback is as follows:

Households contacted 35 Vacant premises/land 2 Not home 5 Sub Total 28 Had no view (neutral) 1 Remove Elect. lights only 27

Further Comments:

The clear majority of residents indicated that after the DPTI lights were removed, there was no need for any further action by Council and to save the money proposed to be spent. Some indicated the suggested traffic controls islands were an impediment to traffic flow and could results in accidents. Apart from peak traffic times, the car flow on the Road is not a concern. I questioned if crossing Valetta Road was an issue and it was not. With regards to the senior resident from No 12, who did reply to you and who was in favour of retaining the lights, he thought that the KPHS was still in use. I explained this was not the case since about the mid 1990. He then advised that he was happy to go with the majority view to date and only to remove the lights, associated items and yellow lines. Many said keep the bike lines as they are and make no change as proposed. So just remove the lights and restore the site to a normal situation. City of Charles Sturt 81. AM Report 20/07/15

REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN VALETTA ROAD KIDMAN PARK NEAR KOORALLA GROVE Item 3.84 APPENDIX F Continued

In view of these survey results, I see no need to survey Veronica Street.

In summary, I strongly support the views of the residents surveyed and they are also consistent with some neighbours I have discussed this with. Can you please keep me informed with progress on this matter.

With Kind regards

Cr George Turelli FINDON WARD City of Charles Sturt 82. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: Coordinator Asset Management

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.85 STATUS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS (B7512)

Brief

To update Council regarding the current status and future review schedule of Asset Management Plans for the major asset classes.

Recommendation

That Council endorse the current program for Asset Management Plan reviews.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Community Wellbeing • Create a safe, healthy and supportive community which encourages participation, creativity and diversity - Provide welcoming and accessible community facilities that offer diverse opportunities for community members to engage in cultural, recreational, sporting and lifelong opportunities

Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists - Ensure that community facilities are developed and well maintained on an equitable basis

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Promote, protect, rehabilitate and expand natural ecosystems - Preserve and enhance our trees and vegetation - Develop climate change adaptation solutions

City of Charles Sturt 83. AM Report 20/07/15

STATUS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS Item 3.85 Continued

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Communicate what we are doing, how we will measure success and how we will report this to the community - Ensure finances and asset are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way

Relevant Council policies are:

• Asset Management Policy • Asset Accounting Policy • Audit and Controls Policy

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• Local Government Act (SA) Section 122 1(a) (b)

Background

Section 122 of the Local Government Act, 1999 requires Councils to have Strategic Management Plans so that, among other things they meet community expectations and remain financially sustainable. The Act also requires:

“A council must, in conjunction with the plans required under subsection (1), develop and adopt— (a) a long-term financial plan for a period of at least 10 years; and (b) an infrastructure and asset management plan, relating to the management and development of infrastructure and major assets by the council for a period of at least 10 years, (and these plans will also be taken to form part of the council's strategic management plans).”

Report

The City of Charles Sturt aggregates infrastructure assets into strategic groupings with separate asset management plans. These are reviewed annually for changes in the operating environment and content. The major and minor classification of the infrastructure asset classes changes over time dependent upon demand, risk, cost and value of the asset. Revisions, and endorsements of these revisions, occur as triggered by a variety of changes in the asset class(es) – for example; condition, value, use, community needs and size/quantity.

City of Charles Sturt 84. AM Report 20/07/15

STATUS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS Item 3.85 Continued

This report informs Council about the current mix and status of Asset Management Plans for major classes of infrastructure assets.

The table in Appendix A sets out the various major infrastructure asset classes, which plan they are managed by and the current status of that plan (endorsed, under revision etc.)

This schedule will ensure all existing plans have been revised within two years of the last Council election in accordance with the requirement of the Local Government Act.

Financial and Resource Implications

There are no financial or resource implications of this report, but there is when the Council endorses reviews of the individual Asset Management Plans.

Customer Service and Community Implications

There are no customer service or community implications of this report, but there is when the Council endorses reviews of the individual Asset Management Plans.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications of this report, but there is when the Council endorses reviews of the individual Asset Management Plans.

Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff)

There is no requirement for Community engagement or consultation of this report, but there is when the Council endorses reviews of the individual Asset Management Plans.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

There are no risk management or legislative implications of this report, but there is when the Council endorses reviews of the individual Asset Management Plans.

Conclusion

The Local Government Act 1999 requires Councils to have sustainable long term financial plans which include Asset Management Plans forecasting 10-years of expenditure so they can remain financially sustainable.

This report outlines the current status and future review schedule of Asset Management Plans for the major asset classes for Council consideration. City of Charles Sturt 85. AM Report 20/07/15

STATUS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS Item 3.85 APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 1 page.

Next version due to Asset Management Asset Class Asset Group (Works and Assets System Category) Contained within AMP Status Committee Bridges Bridges Bridges AMP Current version endorsed in March 2015 subject to annual review process Building Exterior Buildings Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Building Interior Buildings Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Building Services Buildings Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Exterior Works Buildings Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Structure Buildings Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Central Controller Irrigation Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Irrigation System Irrigation Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Irrigation Tank Irrigation Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Artwork Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Fences, Walls and Hand Rails Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Fountain Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Furniture Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Playground Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Shelter Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Sports Open Space & Recreation Infrastructure Open Space & Recreation AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Roads - Base Roads Roads AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Roads - Car Parks Roads Roads AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Roads - Kerb & Gutter Roads Roads AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Roads - Seal Roads Roads AMP Under FY2014/15 review Aug-15 Lighting Transport Public Lighting AMP Under FY2014/15 review Oct-15 Bus Stops Transport Bus Stops AMP Current version endorsed in March 2015 subject to annual review process Paths Transport Paths AMP Current version endorsed in August 2014 subject to annual review process Traffic Control Devices Transport No current plan Due for audit and data capture in FY2015/16 Aug-16 Drains Water Assets Stormwater AMP Under FY2015/16 review May-16 GPTs (Gross Pollutant Traps) Water Assets Stormwater AMP Under FY2015/16 review May-16 Drainage Pits Water Assets Stormwater AMP Under FY2015/16 review May-16 Ponds, Basins and Lakes Water Assets Stormwater AMP Under FY2015/16 review May-16 Pump Water Assets Pump Stations AMP Condition audit due FY2015/16 Aug-16 Pump Stations Water Assets Council Buildings AMP Current version endorsed in May 2015 subject to annual review process Recycled Water Water Assets Water Network AMP No plan exists, being created in FY2015/16 Aug-16 Water Water Assets Water Network AMP No plan exists, being created in FY2015/16 Aug-16 Tanks Water Assets Water Network AMP No plan exists, being created in FY2015/16 Aug-16 City of Charles Sturt 86. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: A/General Manager Asset Management Services

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.86 ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES CAPITAL WORKS & OPERATING PROGRAM VARIATIONS (B7502, B536)

Brief

This report identifies capital works & operating program variations that have occurred in response to consultation outcomes, changed scope of works or tendering processes and recommends variations to enable works to proceed and identifies funding reallocations to be referred to the Corporate Services Committee as part of the quarterly review.

Recommendation

1. That the following variations to the Capital Works Program be approved and referred to the Corporate Services Committee as part of the next quarterly budget review:-

a. That the following project’s budgets for Henley Square Redevelopment 2015/16 Project 2767 and Henley Square Carpark Investigations 2014/15 Project 2689 are consolidated into the one budget for Henley Square Redevelopment 2014/15 Project 2690.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Ensure finances and assets are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable and cost effective way. City of Charles Sturt 87. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES CAPITAL WORKS & OPERATING PROGRAM VARIATIONS Item 3.86 Continued

Background

The Capital Works and Annual Operating Program for 2015/16 was approved by Council at its meeting of 25 May 2015. The scope of some projects has changed following identification of site specific issues, tendering processes and/or consultation and these variations are described in the report below and any financial implications will be reported to the Corporate Services Committee at the quarterly review.

Report

1. Henley Square Redevelopment 2014/15

There are currently 3 project budgets associated with the Henley Square Redevelopment, for simplicity of reporting endorsement is sought to consolidate the budgets for all related projects into the one project budget for Henley Square redevelopment 2014/15 of project 2690.

Financial and Resource Implications

Approved Projects Project Approved New Reason for Change 2014/15 Number Budget Proposed Amount Budget Amount Henley Square 2690001 $6,000,000 $8,550,000 Redevelopment 2014/15 Henley Square 2767001 $2,000,000 $0 Improved financial control Redevelopment for the overall Henley 2015/16 Square project and simplified monthly reporting Henley Square 2689001 $550,000 $0 Carpark Investigations 2014/15

Customer Service and Community Implications

The Capital Works and Annual Operating Program variations have arisen for a variety of reasons and involve improving or modifying service levels provided by the various assets managed by council in response to community need.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications. City of Charles Sturt 88. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES CAPITAL WORKS & OPERATING PROGRAM VARIATIONS Item 3.86 Continued

Community Engagement/Consultation

There are no Community Engagement implications.

Conclusion

The Capital Works and Annual Operating Program variations in this report are in response to budget savings, consultation outcomes, or changed scope of works and do not require an overall change to the existing aggregated capital works and operating budget allocations. Budget variations will be reported to the Corporate Services Committee at the next quarterly budget review. City of Charles Sturt 89. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: A/General Manager Asset Management Services

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.87 ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 (B3994)

Brief

To report on the activities of the Asset Management Services Division for the quarter April May and June 2015.

Recommendation

That the report be received and noted.

Status This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes: Community Wellbeing • Create a safe, healthy and supportive community which encourages participation, creativity and diversity - Provide welcoming and accessible community facilities that offer diverse opportunities for community members to engage in cultural, recreational, sporting and lifelong opportunities - Collaborate with the community to provide services, programs and initiatives that create a socially connected community - Protect and celebrate Aboriginal heritage and culture and provide opportunities for interpretation and understanding Liveability and Place • Build healthy, functional and attractive neighbourhoods - Utilise place making strategies to promote main streets and enhance community lifestyle - Achieve change in our urban form in a way that enhances and complements existing character, aspirations and environments - Create public spaces that add interest and vibrancy for residents and visitors to our city - Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists - Advocate for a connected, safe and well maintained major road network and public transport system City of Charles Sturt 90. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

- Increase open space and seek opportunities for shared use to respond to the recreational and sporting needs of the community - Create quality adaptable and integrated open space - Advocate for legislative change for increased open space in higher density developments - Ensure that community facilities are developed and well maintained on an equitable basis

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Promote, protect, rehabilitate and expand natural ecosystems - Preserve and enhance our trees and vegetation - Lead by example, educate and support the community to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste - Implement sustainable stormwater management practices - Support local opportunities to increase food production and address food security

Economic Prosperity • Build an economically thriving and competitive city - Revitalise key precincts including main streets, to facilitate successful business opportunities - Support and facilitate local economic development by focusing on tourism and events

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Build a strong team between Elected Members and staff working together on behalf of the community - Implement innovative techniques to facilitate opportunities for listening to the community, engagement and communications - Influence other levels of government on behalf of the wider Charles Sturt community - Make decisions based on evidence, broad views and the aspirations of our diverse communities - Strive for business excellence through continuous improvement and creativity - Ensure finances and asset are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way - Provide a safe work environment that attracts, develops and retains quality staff to deliver great customer service City of Charles Sturt 91. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Executive Summary

This report sets out the activities in relation to programmed maintenance, operating activities, capital projects (refer Appendix A) and operating projects (refer Appendix B) for the Asset Management Services (AMS) Division for the quarter April May and June 2015. The Asset Management Services Financial Performance Report for the said quarter is included in Appendix C.

[Note: financial reporting is interim until year end audit is finalised]

Office of the General Manager Asset Management Services The Asset Management Services Division has focussed on completing capital projects and operating projects that remained incomplete at the start of the quarter. The Division has also remained focussed on continued delivery of programmed maintenance on our parks, sportsgrounds, buildings and civil infrastructure assets as the change of season to winter impacts upon these assets. Key activities for the various portfolios have been: • Visit to Melbourne to investigate latest the latest technologies, operations and management associated with kerbside waste and recycle services and processing in readiness for calling tenders for these services in 2018. • Improving collaboration with other Councils and through our contribution to SA Local Government Asset Management Network improving information sharing and process about asset condition auditing, asset condition and financial response predictive modelling, and processes to improve how asset data is recorded and transferred into asset and financial ledgers. • Preparing for the upcoming community consultation about Port Road stormwater drainage project which extends toward the CBD from eastward from the Water Proofing the West project. • Commencement of the Henley Square project with construction of the beach edge and demolition of areas for the first and second stages of works which commenced over the large lawn area and the central plaza. • Finalising options for the continuing use of the Beverley Recycling and Waste Centre has occurred and a report presented in the committee agenda. The most effective outcome for the city is for the council to continue the operation itself, invest in a new flat concrete floor covered with a roof and an improved water treatment facility. This should be supported with a new pricing structure based upon volume (vehicle/trailer type) rather than weight. • Completing the $16.75M worth of construction work. At the time of writing this report the expenses paid totalled $11.78M of that budget. Much of the gap is due to project savings, or several large invoices not yet processed. There are a few projects not yet completed, due to delays outside council control (eg required external approval), but these are expected to all be completed during the first quarter of 21051/16. City of Charles Sturt 92. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Field Services

The Field Services Portfolio includes the Parks and Arboriculture Team, the Engineering Works Team, the Rapid Response Team, the After Hours Emergency Response Team and the Beverley Waste and Recycling Centre. The Parks and Arboriculture Team maintain:- • 345 Hectares of Reserves and Sportsgrounds (including tennis courts, car parks) • 21 Hectares of Tree Screens • 20 Hectares of Streetscapes • 7 Hectares of Council Owned Properties (gardens) • 2.7 Hectares of West Lakes Beaches • 68.6 Hectares of Coastal Dunes • 48,000 Street Trees This is a total of 468 Hectares throughout the City of Charles Sturt. The Engineering Works Team maintain:- • 11.5km of coastal reserve, dune fencing and access-ways • 769km of roadways • 400km of stormwater drains • 800km of constructed footpaths • 1,112km of kerb and water table The Engineering Works Construction Team undertake a number of capital road, footpath and drainage construction projects each financial year. The Rapid Response Team provide the initial response to a customer request and will ensure a site is made safe and if possible undertake an initial repair before reallocating the request to the appropriate maintenance team for service. The After Hours Team is a Multi Skilled team that provide emergency response to customer requests that are received outside of normal weekly working hours. The Beverley Waste and Recycling Centre accept various waste types from the public and also our internal field teams. The types of waste accepted at the centre include: General Waste, Green Waste which is processed into Mulch for our Parks teams, Concrete, Unclean Rubble, Clean Fill, Steel, Tyres, Batteries, Mattresses, Oil and E-Waste. Construction Works This quarter the Field Services Construction Team completed works on a number of stormwater upgrade projects. The team completed stormwater culvert replacements on Duncan Street, Findon project. Now completed, these stormwater upgrades will alleviate flooding around the Findon Rd and Crittenden Rd Intersection during larger rain events. The team also completed a stormwater upgrade project in Surrey St, Grange and a road reconstruction project in Park Terrace, Brompton which is a road, footpath and kerb and gutter reconstruction project. City of Charles Sturt 93. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The Landscape Construction Team has undertaken works associated with Integrated Projects for both the Open Space & Recreation Team and the Engineering Strategy & Assets Team, projects completed this quarter include:

• Grange Lakes Shared Use Path – landscape component • Park Terrace Streetscape Renewal – landscape component • AMP Fence renewals at: - Chambers Reserve - 90 lineal metres - Kirkcaldy Park – 157 lineal metres - William Street Allotment – 45 lineal metres - Leason Reserve – 76 lineal meters

In the final quarter of this financial year Field Services teams completed all scheduled Capital and Operating projects for the 2014/15 financial year with the exception of two irrigation upgrade projects at Sam Johnson Reserve, renown Park and The Avenue Reserve, Athol Park that will not fully be completed by the end of June.

Maintenance Works

This quarter the Horticulture, Arboriculture and Engineering Works maintenance teams continued with the delivery of the many maintenance services required by the Charles Sturt Community.

Our Horticulture maintenance teams continue to maintain the sportsgrounds, reserves and open space. The introduction of two redeployed Landscape Construction staff members to assist our Horticulture maintenance team have provided timely and much needed assistance to maintain new land division assets that have been handed over to council to maintain.

There has been an additional 10.3 Hectares of open space and engineering assets handed over to date from new land divisions for Council to maintain. Further stages of St Clair, Bowden Urban Village and Woodville West will also be handed over to council in this and future financial years.

Field Service teams are appreciative of the value that the PC tablets are able to provide them in allocation of daily work tasks as well as access of risk and safety management systems in the field. In particular, valuable live data from the field to assist with tracking and measuring performance and service level delivery from our Field service teams is proving invaluable.

The introduction of the defects module has improved information for asset management and also improved reporting and management of backlog programs. Future additions of project management, budget initiation, payroll and forward forecasting and modelling modules will provide further benefits in asset and project management. City of Charles Sturt 94. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Open Space, Recreation & Property

The Urban Design team is finalising the delivery of the 2014/15 capital works program and making preparations for the 2015/16. All capital works for the 2014/15 financial year have been successfully completed with the exception of the Henley Square and Grange Road Coast Park which spanned multiple financial years.

The Henley Square redevelopment work continued during this quarter, with all works expected to be completed by the end of 2015. Once finished, the redevelopment will revitalise this iconic coastal destination by providing new amenities, a connected and modern environment and more car parking.

Planning has commenced for the next School Holiday Sports Program to be held during the September school holidays 2015. Children have a choice from the following sports: Basketball, Tennis, Canoeing, Fencing, Hockey, Dragon Boating, Surf Life Saving, Roller Skating, Croquet, Indoor Rowing, Gymnastics, Dancing, Golf, Cricket and Soccer.

The Open Space consultation and administration team supported a number of important initiatives during this quarter including community notification of projects about to commence at Coast Park and Whole Street Tree Planting, and consultation on the location of a new toilet in Bowden/Brompton.

The Natural Resource Management Officer is overseeing the River Torrens Recovery project and Green Army program which both have a focus on the River Torrens environs. The biodiversity team are currently completing the 2015 coastal planting program and working in collaboration with local dunes groups and volunteers with provision of expert advice and weed removals.

The Strategic Planner Open Space Environmental Management is managing a number of investigations into site contamination, namely the Investigations into Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring System - Adelaide Arena Overflow Carpark and Toogood Avenue Waste Transfer Station, Groundwater Monitoring at the Former West Lakes Depot (corner of Lochside Drive and Frederick Road), and the Henley and Grange Corridor. Other projects currently underway involve travel behaviour change initiatives.

Engineering Strategy & Assets

In the fourth quarter of the year the Engineering Strategy and Assets Portfolio continued to deliver the 2014/15 projects in accordance with our Portfolio annual asset and project cycle. Most projects were completed on time with only minor elements being carried over to the 2015/16 financial year.

Initial project planning, investigation and detailed design for 2015/16 projects, including delivery options were commenced in readiness for budget approval. A tender for construction of 5-large road projects in the 2015/16 program was advertised in June 2015. City of Charles Sturt 95. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Report

Office of the GM Asset Management Services

Waste + Sustainability

ZWSA Commercial Food Waste Pilot – Henley Square Traders

Zero Waste SA in partnership with Council has been working with the Henley Beach traders to pilot a commercial food waste recycling program. The aim of the program was to investigate the potential to divert large volumes of food waste from landfill and was targeted primarily at food retail businesses.

Under this program Zero Waste SA provided waste assessments at the beginning, during and end of the pilot. They also fully funded the costs associated with providing a food waste collection service to those businesses that signed up.

For the Henley Square Precinct, 6 businesses participated in the pilot and all 6 were assessed as part of the mid-pilot review. The businesses involved in the food waste assessments were generally positive about their participation and the benefits it was bringing, but had recognised that there are challenges involved in implementing a food waste recycling system on an ongoing basis. As a result 2 businesses indicated that they would not continue with the pilot, for a number of reasons, and withdrew from the pilot at that point.

By the end of the trial period a total of 3.75 tonnes of food waste was collected by Jeffries. This equates to 20.4 tonnes of food waste recycled per annum, which was below the 30.3 tonnes of estimated food waste identified during the initial assessments phase.

The pilot has now concluded, along with the short-term subsidy of the food waste recycling service that was provided by Zero Waste SA for the duration of the trial. At his stage 3 businesses have indicated an interest in continuing with a food waste recycling service, 1 was unsure about continuing and 2 advised that did not wish to continue. The main factor affecting business continuation was the cost of the service after the pilot finished.

Melbourne Waste Visit

A number of this Council’s waste contracts are due to expire in 2018. Early work has commenced to review the nature of services we offer and determine what improvements could be made from 2018 onwards.

The focus initially is the kerbside hard waste service, which is currently offered on an annual, ward by ward basis. In 2016, this emphasis will expand to also include consideration of possible future improvements to the residential kerbside 3 bin service. City of Charles Sturt 96. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

2 staff members recently participated in a short field trip to Victoria to consider the nature of services offered by a number of Melbourne metropolitan Councils. This field trip included visits to the following: • Melbourne Regional Waste and Resource Recovery Group • City of Melbourne • City of Port Philip • Mornington Shire

The trip yielded a significant amount of information relating to the range of services offered, and the means by which the various contracts are established and administered by Victorian Councils. Innovations included a greater degree of choice and flexibility for residents with regard to bin sizes, and some greater flexibility in the delivery of hard waste services to residents of higher density developments (apartment-dwellers), where storage space is severely limited.

Participants also visited the thriving Melbourne laneway precinct and viewed the innovative approaches being taken by the City of Melbourne to service the waste needs of these small businesses, where space is very severely constrained.

This information will help to inform the upcoming review of Council’s hard waste service, with more information to be provided for Council consideration later this year.

A City of Charles Sturt officer inspecting a card-operated waste compactor, located in a service lane near Melbourne’s Chinatown precinct. These compactors are expensive, but are being trialled by the City of Melbourne to reduce the proliferation of private 1100 litre waste bins in narrow laneways. City of Charles Sturt 97. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

A Melbourne laneway trader brings his recyclable material to a nearby recycling ‘hub’, provided by the City of Melbourne. Victorian Council are paid significant sums for their recyclable material. Local artists have been involved in an effort to make the steel recycling containers more visually appealing (purple – on the right). Privately serviced waste bins remain in use at the rear.

The Mornington ‘tip shop’ is co-located with the Council transfer station and operated by Outlook Environmental, a Commonwealth Government funded social enterprise organisation that provides employment for people with a disability, injury or illness. Unwanted items that would otherwise be disposed to landfill, are salvaged for resale to the public. Commonly sold items range from household goods to building and landscaping materials. City of Charles Sturt 98. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Asset Management Planning

Works and Assets System Activities led by or participated in of note by the team and in relation to this system are; • Successfully delivered the second major software upgrade with the assistance of Information Services. The process was overseen by the internal user group and included a solid testing and approval approach. • Assisted capital project close outs and asset capitalisation, supported FY15-16 project and work order creation to manage and track AMS projects approved through the budget cycle. • Additional reporting requirements as requested by end users. • Refresher training for system use as requested.

Asset Management Operations Group (AMOG) The (internal) AMOG met in May. Meeting discussion included the next 6 months of asset management activities and a presentation by the Manager Financial Services regarding the requirements of timely asset capitalisation and linked financial report. This is our second full year with the Works and Assets system implemented, new business rules and project setup procedures are now in play to make this important task less cumbersome going forward.

Asset Management Planning The Asset Management Planning Team continues to assist staff in the preparation and review of major infrastructure Asset Management Plans by way of data collection, storage, supply and analysis. Key activities in the last quarter included;

• Further end user training and data configuration of the asset renewal predictive modelling tool that “bolts” onto the Works and Assets System (with our key users - Asset Managers and Asset Officers). • Annual review meetings that consider any changes in the asset planning environment such as estimated useful life values, unit rates, asset condition and quantity. Significant changes trigger the revision of relevant Asset Management Plans.

Asset Information and Asset Management Coordination Alongside existing core work such as processing service requests, internal mapping requests - for activities such as consultation - and asset data collection/processing, the team facilitates and leads key information activities. These included;

• Technical specification preparation for the scheduled 2015/16 infrastructure asset condition audits and revaluations with our Asset Managers. This has included extensive research regarding road audit methods to ensure we only spend what is necessary to inform future asset planning of the road network. • Implemented a workflow and procedure/checklist to handle project close outs. • Led the Asset Information Working group and progressed a number of initiatives to refine the data we hold on assets. City of Charles Sturt 99. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

• Contributed to the corporate KPI work. • Supplied data for the National State of the Assets report. • Continued internal Dekho (map viewer) consolidation and tidy up to remove out of date information. • Input into the soon to be launched Contracts module, roll out of MyTimesheets to administration teams across Council including Community Services, Libraries, and Immunisation Nurses, and transition of Administration fortnights from Tuesday to Monday to Monday to Sunday. • Representation on the Mental Health in the Workplace Program.

Collaboration We were presented with many opportunities to collaborate with other Councils including;

• City of Unley – sharing business process lessons learnt from our Works and Assets System implementation project. • Attended and contributed to the SA Local Government Asset Management Network meeting at the City of Mitcham. Approximately 50 people attended from a wide range of Urban and Rural Councils. A good information sharing session occurred around asset condition audit approaches, what works for councils and what hasn’t. • Assetic software user group (SA) – first catch up of the Local Government focus user group in SA. There are a number of Councils using this predictive modelling software so the user group intends to leverage the broad customer knowledge. • LGA Research and Development funded trial of the ADAC asset data standard framework. This framework promises to drastically reduce the handling time for As Constructed asset data into Council systems plus reduce the burden on developers and surveyors. In recent months the first pilot site has begun processing “for construction” data and the project has delivered its six month reporting requirement to the fund. • Salisbury Council visited CCS to understand our Works and Assets System implementation and use. • Burnside Council staff visited CCS to discuss and view our implementation of the Assetic predictive modelling solution.

Port Road Drainage Project (formerly Water Proofing the West – Stage Two)

Aurecon has been appointed to undertake the design and costing component of the project and preliminary designs are currently underway. Meetings have occurred with the Project Team and the Technical Working Group. A Pipeline Alignment Options Report and Alignment Drawings have been prepared by Aurecon indicating their recommendation that the Central corridor is the lowest impact zone and preferred corridor to be used. Two Community Information Sessions have been planned for Tuesday 11 and Thursday 13 August 2015. The Community Information Sessions have been delayed due to Council requiring approval of boring methods by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure at the intersection of Woodville and Port Roads. City of Charles Sturt 100. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Field Services

Parks and Arboriculture

The Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) below were selected to improve our understanding of our operational service (maintenance and customer responses), performance and core activities allowing improved resource forecasting. They now provide continuous records with the form of graphs being adjusted to better represent the data and show trend lines.

Core/Operational Activities

Team KPI Sportsground Maintenance • Complete maintenance activities as per Service Level Agreement • Sportsgrounds mowed weekly (or fortnightly as per club agreement) Arboriculture maintenance • Prune 48,000 street trees once every 3 years (1,800 streets) Parks & Reserves maintenance • Reserves mowed every 4 weeks • General horticultural maintenance every 4 weeks Biodiversity maintenance • Maintain 11.5km of coastal dune in line with Dune Vegetation Management Plans • Maintain selected sites along the River Torrens Linear Park in line with the RTLP Management Plan Landscape development • Complete landscape projects in line with the endorsed budget program

Sportsground Maintenance

Maintenance highlights of Council’s 25 Sportsground Sites (29 Ovals maintained) • 549 Work Orders in total completed for Sportsground Maintenance • 48 tonne of sandy loam top-dressed as part of ongoing turf renovation works • 515 square metres of instant turf replaced at Sam Johnson Sportsground • Pesticide and herbicide treatment undertaken at all ovals • 116 litres of paint used for line marking completed at Woodville Oval and Woodville Croquet Greens • 1,000 lineal metres of water table maintenance completed at Woodville Oval • 10,820 kilograms of fertiliser spread across 27 ovals as part of the autumn fertilising program City of Charles Sturt 101. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Whole Street Pruning

Our Arboriculture maintenance teams commenced the next round of Whole Street Pruning in May 2014. Work Orders have been created for each street in every suburb; suburbs are divided into Years 1, 2 & 3 as per previous pruning programmes.

The following graph shows the accumulative target for pruning all streets within a 3 year period and actual streets pruned to date. The trend-line for ‘accumulated streets pruned to date’ indicates we are well on track to prune all streets within a 3 year timeline.

Note: As at 29 June 2015; a total of 1,043 streets have been inspected and pruned as part of the Whole Street Pruning Programme with the target for Year 1 completed within a 7 month period.

Water Usage Tracking

The new Works & Assets System has provided us with the ability to monitor monthly water usage on Council reserves by using automated monthly Work Orders to record individual water meter readings and then the ability to track kilolitres used per meter per month.

The following graph shows the accumulated estimated kilolitres per month (based on the approved budget) with a comparison to the accumulated actual kilolitres used per month. The consumption is monitored on a monthly basis to ensure there is no budget shock. City of Charles Sturt 102. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Irrigation systems were turned off late April with the final water meter readings completed on 4 May (total actual consumption kilolitres for 2014/15 irrigation season is represented in the graph below).

Note: The accumulated actual kilolitres includes water usage captured on sportsgrounds, reserves and streetscapes; however it does not include water consumption on Council operated facilities e.g. Civic Centre, Aged Accommodation Units. City of Charles Sturt 103. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Reserve Mowing

A total of 320 Work Orders are generated each month for programmed reserve mowing (1 x W/O per reserve). These 320 Work Orders exclude any customer or internal requests received per month.

Note: Our reserve mowing teams achieved an average 97.6% for this quarter; with an overall average KPI of 93.2 % for the 2014/15 financial year. City of Charles Sturt 104. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Parks & Arboriculture – Community Requests

The following graph provides the total number of community requests received by each workgroup with a comparison to the previous financial year. This financial year has seen a decrease in requests for all 3 work groups, however there was a 19% reduction in requests for the Parks Workgroup.

These community requests are in addition to internal requests, existing maintenance schedules; capital works programs and operating projects.

Note: Our Arboriculture Unit has over 48,000 individual street tree assets to maintain; customer requests for this workgroup are logged against each individual tree (asset), hence the higher number of requests received compared to the Parks and Irrigation Workgroups. City of Charles Sturt 105. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

New Tree and Shrub Planting

Each year Parks & Arboriculture staff undertake new tree and shrub planting as either part of capital project works or as general maintenance activities.

The graph below indicates the total number of street trees, open space trees and open space shrubs (e.g.: reserves, tree screens and streetscapes), planted in 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Street trees are planted in the winter months when the soil is cooler to allow establishment prior to the following summer. Trees and shrubs in open space areas are planted throughout the year as 95% can be attached to existing automatic drip systems.

Note: The spike in number of shrubs and ground covers planted last financial year was due to use of stock from the ‘Water Proofing the West’ project. Based on the last 4 years, planting numbers for shrubs and groundcovers are an average of 10,000 per annum. City of Charles Sturt 106. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Capital & Operating Project Outcomes

AMP – Fences Walls & Bollards (Integrated project with Open Space Urban Design)

Our Landscape Construction Team has renewed perimeter fencing at the following reserves: Location Lineal Metres Kirkcaldy Park 157 Chambers Reserve 90 William Street Allotment 45 Leason Reserve 76 Total (this quarter) 368

Kirkcaldy Park - before Kirkcaldy Park - after

Park Terrace Service Road Streetscape Renewal (Integrated project with the Engineering Strategy & Assets Team)

The Park Terrace Service Road Streetscape Renewal Project incorporated both civil engineering and landscape renewal works. Completed works in June include: • Bluestone kerb & gutter renewal • Road resurfacing • Landscaping (Parks & Arboriculture) • Linemarking

Park Terrace Streetscape - before Park Terrace Streetscape - after City of Charles Sturt 107. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Rapid Response

Rapid Response Team has completed 692 tasks during the quarter from April to June 2015. This is a decrease of 22 tasks from the previous quarter. This is partly due to a large reduction in stormwater issues and a slight increase in illegally dumped rubbish, offset by larger tasks being completed by the Rapid Response Team such as whole street grinding and smaller concrete works.

Rapid Response Tasks April May June Total Bin Maintenance 2 0 1 3 Bollard Maintenance 6 4 3 13 Dead Animal 12 7 11 30 Footpath 38 61 35 134 Grinding 4 4 2 10 Hazardous Materials 14 17 16 47 Kerb & Gutter 3 5 6 14 Pothole 1 0 1 2 Property Maintenance 0 1 0 1 Rubbish Removal 74 74 91 239 Signs 1 1 0 2 Special Event Bins 5 0 2 7 Stormwater 44 77 32 153 Syringe 5 5 3 13 Tree Maintenance 1 0 1 2 Verge 6 5 11 22 Grand Total 216 261 215 692

After Hours Team

The After Hours Team has completed 71 tasks for the quarter – April to June 2015. This is a decrease of 42 tasks from previous quarter. This has been a very quiet quarter for our After Hours Teams with few rain or wind events to attend.

City of Charles Sturt 108. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Engineering Works

Core/Operational Activities

The graphs below show the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and generally demonstrate that the Engineering Works team has continued maintaining services and improving delivery through innovation.

These KPI’s show cleaning and inspecting of our stormwater drainage systems. The Jetvac is used for cleaning and the CCTV camera used for the inspections of the pipes and culverts for rubbish and to check for obstructions and structural condition. City of Charles Sturt 109. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

This is programmed work which commenced in 2005 and, at current rate, is expected that the whole city will be completed around the end of 2015 at which time the program will be revised and recommended. This equipment is also used on a reactive basis to investigate stormwater blockage reports following storms and localised complaints which impacts on the overall program.

Whilst we are still experiencing some problems with the Jetvac and Camera Van reporting, both pieces of equipment suffered some losses through breakdown in June.

April and May were on par with previous months, but with a number of re-cleans and reactive works required, the jetvac would have cleaned more metres of drain overall. We are hoping to produce some more reflective and reliable reporting, with the Works & Assets system over the next month or so.

This KPI shows the work that our asphalt crew undertake repairing roadways so that they remain safe to drive on and water tight preserving the estimated useful life of the road asset. In winter with wet weather the number of potholes increases so the crew is kept busy undertaking pothole repairs. During drier seasons more time is available for large area patch repairs.

The periodic and cyclic nature of the work is evident from the graph with no overall decrease, or increase trend for the last two years apart from an increase in repairs during the wetter months of the year. The asphalt maintenance crew also undertake some larger patching works from time to time which accounts for some of the larger spikes on the graph. City of Charles Sturt 110. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

This KPI shows the length of streets that our street sweeping crew covers each month. At present there are 4 large vehicles and 1 smaller vehicle with sweeping programmed to cover all local streets of the city every 6 weeks and all arterial roads weekly.

The work keeps our streets clean by removing dirt and vehicle emissions and removes leaves that fall from street trees. This work also assists in reducing stormwater drain blockages to improve water quality entering our waterways in accordance with EPA requirements.

Due to the programmed nature of the work and the dedicated use of the equipment, the length of roads swept remains reasonably constant throughout the year apart from a slight decrease in April due to a shorter month with Easter and operators off on annual and sick leave. The current service levels ensure that all main roads are swept weekly and all residential streets are swept every six (6) weeks.

In November 2013 the Field Services Team commenced the sweeping and clean-up of mowed grass from the verge mowing contract. This additional sweeping requirement is undertaken utilising the existing fourth road sweeper and this initiative is forecast to save Council approximately $240,000 per annum. The coordination of the street sweeping programme and the sweeping for the verge mowing contract has ensured better utilisation of equipment and improved efficiency in undertaking both of these services.

City of Charles Sturt 111. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

This KPI shows the length of line marking painted or repainted to improve road safety on streets and to control parking and access to properties; and some line marking on shared use paths and car parks.

There are generally two crews, one for white line marking and one for yellow line marking, able to cover the whole city in 24-months. Any line marking on streets is a traffic control and the Road Traffic Regulations requires that it be kept in good condition so it is visible at all times of the day and night to all drivers using the street.

The work tends to be cyclic with more work being undertaken in the warmer drier months as line marking cannot be undertaken in wet weather due to environment risks involved.

The Line marking crew members are utilised to assist other workgroups when employees are unexpectedly absent with sick, or on special leave. The impact of this is evident in the erratic nature of the graph. City of Charles Sturt 112. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

This KPI shows the number of signs that have been attended to by our work crew. The signage crew give priority to regulatory signs and have resumed reactive and programmed maintenance of other signs throughout the City. The work can vary from month to month depending on the number of requests for new signage or the number of existing signs that require replacing. In March the number of signs installed or removed is higher than previous months due to removals of parking signs around AAMI Stadium. City of Charles Sturt 113. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The two KPIs above show that we continue to remain well behind on the demand for these services. The gap between time of request and work being undertaken had decreased slightly in the last five months; however June saw this begin to increase again. The average wait for works to be done is currently 174 days with the longest time for works to be undertaken being 348 working days. City of Charles Sturt 114. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The concrete crews operate most effectively by scheduling works through the Council suburbs by suburb and we are reluctant to pull them off the program to undertake reactive requests, unless they present a greater risk to public safety.

The suburb rostering system means that some requests for service may be dealt with quickly, however if the request comes from a suburb where the crew has just completed work, residents may wait for almost 21 months at present to see the work they requested be attended too. The works are inspected prior to being scheduled on a prioritised program and if required the Rapid Response Team make safe to protect the public until works can be completed.

This KPI shows the amount of waste materials received at our Waste Management Centre (WMC) and is a key ongoing commitment to ‘Toward one Planet Living’ objectives.

Council is currently investigating opportunities to reduce the amount of waste landfill by introducing ‘sort and save’ options. A budget bid has been developed to assist this process.

E-Waste brought into the Waste Management Centre in the past six months has reduced considerably since the peaks caused by the switch off of analogue television transmission in April 2013. The E-Waste volumes received at the centre in the last nine months have reduced to between eight and ten tonne per month. City of Charles Sturt 115. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Surrey Street, Grange Stormwater Drainage Project

During Construction

During Construction City of Charles Sturt 116. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Duncan Street, Findon Stormwater Drainage Project

During Construction

Completed Project

City of Charles Sturt 117. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Park Terrace, Bowden Project

City of Charles Sturt 118. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Financial Summary

Not showing in the above graph are commitments of $255,000 Park Terrace Streetscape Renewal; $108,000 Irrigation System Upgrade. Delays with commencing Irrigation System Upgrade ($100K variance) due to further Community Consultation required at Sam Johnson Sportsground will result in a WIP of $100K) and savings from the Path Renewal project ($100K variance) City of Charles Sturt 119. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Capital WIP Project Works – ‘BASA Bore Water Supply Project’ is complete; Beverley Waste Management Centre Upgrade 2013/14 ($38K variance) - audit and costs analysis is in progress and final design works have not commenced as the project will now be a design and construct project to be constructed over two years between 2015/2017 if capital funding is made available. City of Charles Sturt 120. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The recruitment of new maintenance staff for St Clair and Bowden Urban Village and the Wetlands Maintenance staff was delayed by one month due to Christmas and New Year period; maintenance did not commence until late January 2015 ($59K variance). Tree Screen Renewal project 100% complete.

City of Charles Sturt 121. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Open Space, Recreation and Property

Urban Design Team

Henley Square Upgrade Works continue at Henley Square the project is progressing well with works occurring simultaneously on a number of aspects of the works including; • Demolition - removal of all surfaces materials for salvage from the main square and promenade - removal of obsolete below ground infrastructure; service infrastructure and concrete structures - removal of vegetation within the northern car park - removal of furniture items for salvage - removal of asphalt and concrete from car park areas within the northern car park - bulk fill excavation within the northern car park and main square

• Northern car park - Retaining wall, kerbing and base preparation for asphalt - Installation of below ground services, stormwater, electrical, water

• Main Square - Installation of below ground services, stormwater, electrical, water - Commencement of structural slab and architectural slab - Commencement of off-site fabrication for furniture

• South promenade and Edge - Installation of below ground services, stormwater, electrical, water - Completion of the southern section of the promenade path - Completion of the Edge element - Commencement of off-site fabrication for pre-cast elements and furniture.

City of Charles Sturt 122. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

• Ablutions building - Installation of below ground services, stormwater, electrical, water - Commencement of raft slab - Commencement of off-site fabrication for steel work

• Square Structures - Construction of structural footings - Commencement of off-site fabrication for steel work - Commencement of off-site fabrication for pre-cast elements

Coast Park – Grange Road Path and landscape works completed. Works included the construction of a shared use path, car park, retaining wall, street & park furniture and landscaping.

Grange Lakes Reserve New playground installed, including a playstructure with 3 slides, carousel with a net, box net climber and swings with basket and toddler swing.

City of Charles Sturt 123. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Albert Greenshields Dog Parks Two dog parks completed, with new fencing, turf, plantings, irrigation, rubber mounds and a sand pit. Lighting has been ordered and to be completed soon.

AMP Playgrounds 2014/15 In accordance with Council’s Asset Management Plan, playgrounds were renewed at the following locations: Ledger Reserve, Findon Reserve, Angley Reserve, McDonnell Reserve, Johns Reserve, Cheadle Reserve, Whiteford Reserve and Toledo Reserve.

Findon Reserve AMP Playground Renewal City of Charles Sturt 124. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Community Engagement & Administration

During the months April, May and June 2015, the following Community consultation, engagement, communications and events have been completed:

Henley Precinct Community Reference Group (HPCRG) A meeting was held with the HPCRG on 18 June to provide an update of the Henley Square Redevelopment and to determine the future of the group during the construction phase. The HPCRG were invited to individually provide their opinions on the future of the group during the project and future projects.

Generally, the group have all provided support for such groups and have a sense of ownership of the development of the project and the ability to represent the community with positive results. A number of comments about the positive collaborative work between Council and the community via the HPCRG is an example of how groups like this should operate.

Spring Gardening Competition The annual garden competition is underway as the City’s avid gardener’s display their works of art in the yards.

Council has promoted this as an inclusive event and strongly encourages entries from young aspiring green thumbs (children) to older green thumbs, individual gardeners, families, community groups, different cultural groups, commercial organisations and small businesses.

With eight categories, there is certainly something for everyone. This year we have introduced a colouring competition and have distributed entry forms to all schools in the City. Also new this year is the ‘Best Street Award’. Dates for judging are as follows: a. Pre-judging (from photograph submitted): Fri 4 September 2015 b. Short-list finalists announced: week commencing: 11 September 2015 c. Short-list Judging – Stage 1: 22-24 September 2015 d. Final Judging – Stage 2: 19-22 October 2015 e. Presentation Night of Awards: Tues 3 November 2015

Bowden/Brompton proposed automated toilet Stage 1 of the consultation for the proposed automated toilet in the Hindmarsh Ward was conducted from 9 March to 10 April 2015.

The objective for the Stage 1 consultation was to gather feedback from the community on the top three (3) preferred locations for an automated public toilet in the Hindmarsh Ward. After analysis of Stage 1 feedback and identification of the top three (3) locations, Stage 2 of the consultation will commence with residents and stakeholders within 300m of the top three (3) locations. City of Charles Sturt 125. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The consultation approach was built on feedback of the previous consultation for an automated toilet in Ethelbert Square identifying a common theme of preferred alternative locations.

Council identified seven (7) locations and/or reserves in the Hindmarsh Ward area to be considered for an automated public toilet facility. Onsite signs were placed at every location, communications sent to key stakeholders, facebook posts, an online mapping tool and posters and feedback forms at the Hindmarsh Library. 156 responses were received, 80% supporting the installation of a new automated toilet in the Hindmarsh Ward.

The top 2 locations were identified as Croydon Playground Reserve and jointly at Josiah Mitton Reserve and Brompton Green Reserve, whereby one toilet could serve both reserves. Consultation was conducted 300m from each reserve and has generated great interest from the community. We are currently consolidating and analysing the feedback. A report to Ward Councillors will be finalised and results communicated back with the community in July.

Fawk Reserve Upgrade – Stage 3 The City of Charles Sturt has developed a Concept Plan for Stage 3 of the Fawk Reserve, Athol Park, Master Plan upgrade. Stage 3 of the project is scheduled for completion in 2015/16 and will include: • New picnic settings • New shelters and BBQs • Upgrade of playground • Upgrade of turf • New garden bed/plantings • New Pathway network • Upgrade of Cricket nets • Upgrade of fencing • Construction of basin 4 with associated drainage works

Consultation was extended to residents 300m from the Reserve asking for feedback on the design, facilities and if there were any other elements to be considered. Of the 670 letters sent to surrounding residents, 7 responses were received. While this is a low response rate the information received has highlighted the need to address lighting and requests for a soccer goal, which is now being considered in the design.

Natural Resource Management

GIS Data Collection A new initiative to data collection has been instigated in collaboration with Councils Asset Management Team, to collate and analyse the extent of native vegetation along the Torrens and Coastal environment, to assist in determining the extent and appropriateness of overall biodiversity within these areas. The data collection and analysis will inform the development of a Biodiversity Management Plan and replace the near completed Vegetation management Plans applicable to these areas. City of Charles Sturt 126. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

NRM Education Council is working with the NRM Board to develop and expand existing education programs relevant to local schools. The aims of the project are to further expand and work with local schools to develop a hands on program in relation to biodiversity and natural area management.

Grange Lakes Investigations have commenced in to the potential for improvements to the local natural environment. The installation of a water gauge marker to monitor fluctuations in water levels and identify potential areas for enhancement will occur during the coming months.

Freshwater Lake – West Lakes Following the pruning of palms in an attempt to manage bird numbers within the area, an education program will be undertaken to provide alternative activities for visitor to the area in an attempt to minimise the number of people feeding birds and subsequently reduce numbers and improve the overall health of the birds.

Coastal Council’s biodiversity team are currently undertaking the coastal planting program for 2015. This year’s planting program will focus on the area around the Torrens outlet, extending through to the southern most Tennyson Dunes extension. The focus will be on improving biodiversity and implementing the final objectives of the Henley South and West Beach Vegetation Management Plan and the Henley to Tennyson Vegetation Management Plan. The revegetation works will assist in both improving biodiversity and dune stabilisation.

River Torrens The River Torrens Recovery Project is a Federal Government funded project providing over $300,000 to the City of Charles Sturt over 2014/15 and 2015/16 to improve biodiversity and water quality in the River Torrens Linear Park corridor. The funding has allowed Council’s contractors to remove and treat invasive weeds from Port Road through the Riverway Drive. This work will be followed with the planting of approximately 30,000 indigenous understorey plants within Council’s existing biodiversity sites and also the opportunity to extend these existing biodiversity areas. It is anticipated there will also be opportunities for the community to be involved through planting days.

As well as their core maintenance function the Biodiversity Team have assisted the local dune groups by meeting with them, helping to remove weeds and providing expert advice. The established Dune Groups and Biodiversity Team have also been assisted by a number of corporate volunteer groups – these groups led by our Biodiversity Team have been able to remove particular weed species from approximately 3ha of coastal dune.

Green Army The City of Charles Sturt will host a team of 15 Green Army participants for 12 weeks to commence in May. The team will focus on revegetation, debris removal and weed mapping along the River Torrens Linear Park. City of Charles Sturt 127. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

School Holiday Sports Program Planning has commenced for the next School Holiday Sports Program to be held during the September school holidays 2015. The program aims to provide an avenue for young people (3-17 years) to: • Try new or different sport and recreation activities FREE of charge • Increase their level of physical activity • Learn about creating a healthy lifestyle through sport and recreation • Boost their self-esteem and self-confidence • Make new friends

Children have a choice from the following sports: Basketball, Tennis, Canoeing, Fencing, Hockey, Dragon Boating, Surf Life Saving, Roller Skating, Croquet, Indoor Rowing, Gymnastics, Dancing, Golf, Cricket and Soccer. Over 720 children participated in the previous April program; this was a record number.

Tree Assessments

Non-Regulated Trees 2014 2015 Type Apr May June Apr May June Removed – Dead, dying, diseased, 41 11 53 42 69 48 damaged Removed - High Risk to personal or public 1 1 2 20 37 12 safety Removed - High Risk to property 0 0 0 0 0 0 Removed - Vandalism 0 0 0 0 0 0 Removed - Root pruning 0 0 0 0 0 0 Related to crossover installation 9 5 13 9 9 9 Trees assessed to be retained 13 16 7 6 14 11 Total 64 33 75 77 129 80

The above figures relate to tree assessments only not removal of trees.

Regulated Trees 2014 2015 Type Apr May June Apr May June Recommended for removal (DA lodged) 0 1 0 0 0 1 Note 1 Assessed for regular monitoring 2 0 0 0 0 0 General maintenance pruning 1 1 0 0 1 0 No action required 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 3 3 0 0 1 3

Note 1: The urgent removal of the regulated tree was undertaken under Section 54(a) of the Development Act 1993 and retrospective Development Application was lodged; Note 2: Report to be prepared for Asset Management Committee City of Charles Sturt 128. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Please note that the former significant tree legislation within the Development Act 1993 was amended on 17 November 2011 and trees that meet the new regulations are now classified as being regulated.

Open Space Environmental Management

Site Contamination Management Investigations into Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring System - Adelaide Arena Overflow Carpark & Toogood Avenue Waste Transfer Station. Council is reviewing the operations and infrastructure of its Waste Transfer Station located at Toogood Avenue, Beverley, in order to undertake an upgrade of the facility.

A methane flaring system connected to the landfill gas collection system at the adjacent Adelaide Arena overflow car park is located within the footprint of the Waste Transfer Station.

As part of the facility upgrade of the Waste Transfer Station, the EPA have requested that investigations are undertaken into the status of the landfill gas collection and flaring system to determine whether the gas extraction grid is still functional or the landfill is no longer producing enough methane to flare and whether the system is still required.

Since the previous quarterly report, the balance of investigations and reporting is now complete. The stages involved an assessment of the status and integrity of the existing landfill gas extraction infrastructure and landfill gas generation status as well as development of a Conceptual Site Model; the installation of gas monitoring wells and a quantitative and qualitative measurement of gas content in an around the underlying waste body; a risk assessment – including to on-site and off-site receptors; proposal for risk attenuation works.

The findings of the investigations have been provided to the Environment Protection Authority in consideration with the proposal for risk attenuation (capital works). Informal discussions have been held with the EPA regarding the proposed works involving passive venting of the landfill gas from the site. Council is seeking formal endorsement of the EPA for these works.

Groundwater Monitoring at the Former West Lakes Depot (corner of Lochside Drive and Frederick Road) Council resolved to dispose of its former West Lakes depot in 2008 (Asset Management Committee 14/4/08 Item 3.35 and Asset Management Committee 10/5/08 Item 3.29) and as a condition of sale, Council agreed to retain responsibility of groundwater monitoring. The groundwater in the area had been impacted by hydrocarbons as a result of the integrity of underground storage tanks having been compromised.

The subsequent owner of the site has, since this time, undertaken remediation of the site, including groundwater, and sought to develop the land for housing. City of Charles Sturt 129. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Given the nature of the site conditions and proposed development, an auditor was engaged to oversee the remediation strategy and ensure that the site is fit for the intended purpose.

The auditor specified that a groundwater quality monitoring plan (GWQMP) be prepared, with responsibility of implementing the plan resting with Council, as per the agreed conditions of sale. Groundwater monitoring year one, was due to commence in the financial year 2014/15.

Council is required to monitor the quality of the groundwater annually, for a minimum period of 5 years, to ensure protection of the environment and human health. The conclusion to the groundwater monitoring program will occur when it is clearly established that the plume of hydrocarbons in the groundwater is stable (or reducing) and the conditions present are no likely to present a risk to human health or the environment.

Recently, the undeveloped site has been sold, and the nature of the housing proposed has been modified. As a result, the auditor has been re-engaged by the vendor, and the trigger values specified in the GWQMP are to be amended. In preparation of these amendments, groundwater monitoring was recently undertaken at the instruction of the auditor and under the direction of the vendor.

Consequently, the groundwater monitoring to be undertaken by Council will therefore commence in the financial year 2015/16.

The site vendor recently informed Council of the status of works and some additional requirements for Council approval that are required in order to finalise release of the property for residential development by the Auditor.

Council Requirements • The City of Charles Sturt has an ongoing requirement in the Groundwater Quality Management Procedure (GQMP) for ongoing monitoring of the existing wells on a yearly basis. • Due to this responsibility, CCS is nominated in the GQMP and any amendments to that document will require formal acceptance from Council for completeness of documentation to be presented to the EPA by the Environmental Auditor for the site. • Since completion of testing in December 2014, groundwater readings obtained have adjusted slightly and the Environmental Auditor has agreed to adjust some of the trigger point levels for escalation of testing upwards to better reflect the readings being experienced on site. • This adjustment should limit the potential for activation of the trigger point for additional testing from Council whilst still complying with acceptable contaminant levels from a human health perspective. • Hence, revision 6 of the GQMP will be issued to Council shortly for your re-assessment and we will require a formal letter similar to that supplied previously accepting the document and CCS’s responsibilities in relation to the site based on the revised trigger points for contaminants from yearly testing regime. City of Charles Sturt 130. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Property Ownership • Davison Earthmovers have sold the property on a “subject to completion of certification for the site from the EPA for residential development.” • The purchaser, who will be the developer of the property for residential use, currently has plans submitted with Council for alteration to the proposed subdivision layout for assessment through your planning section. • The re-distribution of land in the new layout will affect documentation related to groundwater monitoring in the sense that plans for the site referenced in the document need to be amended. • Hence, Council will be approached separately from the developer at a later date to endorse their revised GQMP based on the revised design.

Travel Behaviour Change Initiatives

Metrocards for work-related public transport In early January 2014, a metrocard scheme was introduced for staff to enable easy (and no personal cost) access to Adelaide Metro public transport services to reduce our carbon footprint. A metrocard is an electronic smartcard designed for multiple trips on Adelaide Metro buses, trains and trams.

By encouraging greener travel, Council reduces reliance on fossil fuels which are non- renewable, and cut costs to Council (and our ratepayers) by reducing the need for: pool vehicle use; parking fees; reliance on taxi vouchers; as well as reducing pool vehicle running costs.

Where possible, the use of public transport is encouraged, however it recognised it is not possible in every case. Staff are required to register for the scheme by completing a form acknowledging their acceptance of the terms and conditions of use.

The number of staff using the scheme has continued to rise steadily, with another increase (8% this quarter) in the number of staff using the scheme since last quarter (13% increase in the previous quarter). A total of 113 staff have registered as active users of the Metrocard scheme and have been using public transport to travel to meetings, planning days, training, and the like. This represents more than 20% of all staff using the scheme.

Pedelec initiative Council has partnered with DPTI to introduce and support the use of pedelecs to replace personal vehicle, taxi or a fleet vehicle use for City of Charles Sturt staff work-related journeys. Pedelec is the abbreviation for "Pedal Electric Cycle". In comparison to other two- wheelers with an electric motor (in general often called "E-Bikes" or “Scooters“), the characteristic of a pedelec is that the electric power only assists the human power instead of replacing it. A project plan has been prepared and approved by both DPTI and Council. Subsequent to this, internal engagement with Governance & Risk and Work Health & Safety departments of Council have ensured that appropriate risk assessments and risk management strategies are in place to ensure the success of the program. City of Charles Sturt 131. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Four pedelecs will be provided by DPTI, with two to be based at the Civic centre, and two at the Beverley Centre. Usage rates and uptake of the initiative will be closely monitored and reporting to Council will be provided on an ongoing basis.

The pedelec provision generates environmental, health, financial and resource benefits : reducing use of fossil fuels, reducing wear and tear on fleet vehicles, freeing up availability of fleet vehicles for multiple occupant travel, reducing the number of motor vehicles on the road, increasing incidental physical activity for the bike user (potentially leading to improvements in productivity, health and well-being) as well as improving the quality of urban environments by reducing congestion, traffic accidents, road noise and the need for car parking spaces and demonstrating to our community that bike travel for work purposes is viable and practical.

Outcomes of the project include: 1. staff begin to move away from automatically choosing the car 2. staff have an opportunity to trial new behaviours 3. staff understand and realise the benefits of reducing car use 4. staff are supported to change their travel behaviours 5. breaking down barriers associated with reducing car use

This project meets the following strategic goals in the City of Charles Sturt:

From the Community Plan

Objective: Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint.

What will success look like? The community is highly aware and actively engaged in environmental initiatives. Sustainability and environmental factors are reflected across Council’s programs and decisions making processes.

Strategy • Lead by example, educate and support the community to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste.

From the Corporate Plan:

STRATEGY 1.6 Encourage and support a healthy, safe and welcoming community 1.6.1 Create opportunities for active participation in a range of physical activity 1.6.2 Provide education and awareness raising opportunities that support a healthy, safe and welcoming community 1.7.1 Partner with and support the OPAL program to achieve the following outcome(s): • Increase active travel • Increase use of open parks and spaces City of Charles Sturt 132. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

STRATEGY 2.6

Create and maintain an integrated, attractive and safe transport network that emphasises and focuses on pedestrians and cyclists

2.6.4 Establish an integrated Transport Plan addressing future growth and community aspiration for safe transport networks with high level of transport choice

2.6.6 Improve strategic walking and cycling within the city.

Staff who are proficient in bike riding, such as those currently riding will be targeted as those to be “early adopters” of the scheme and model desired behaviour of using fleet bikes to the rest of the organisation.

For all users, personalised journey planning will be offered to encourage safe and efficient routes to be used from the point of origin to the destination.

Perceptions about safety and risk will be managed through appropriate inductions, training from peers and emphasis will be made that ordinary work clothes are suitable for cycling.

Living Green Community Education Program – 10 plants for $10 The very popular and successful 10 plants for $10 program was held for the 6th consecutive year from 7 April until 6 June 2015. Residents, businesses, strata groups and schools located within the City were eligible to purchase a voucher from Council for $10 and redeem it for 10 locally indigenous plants valued at $30 retail.

Plants were available for collection on either 2nd May, 6th June or from the nursery at Salisbury. A social media campaign, advertising in the Messenger newspaper and a Port Road banner were used to promote the program (delivered with the Marketing and Communications business unit).

A total of 157 vouchers were purchased and redeemed, translating into 1570 new plants in our City, saving purchasers a combined amount of more than $3000.

The program benefits are numerous. It supports the business selling the plant (and their employees), and provides purchasers with an opportunity to be educated about the importance of local indigenous plants, and to boost plant diversity and provide habitat for urban wildlife within their own gardens. Through incorporating locally native plants and landscapes into suburban gardens we can increase our City’s biodiversity and decrease the amount of watering needed by suburban gardens. City of Charles Sturt 133. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Property Services

Aged Care Complexes – Vacancies as at 30/06/15

Palm Grove Units 1, 2, 8,10 14 and 16

Resident Funded Returned to Council and plans need to be drawn up A further report is being prepared for Council regarding proposal for change of marketing. Units 11, 17 and 20 Prospective residents are currently being sourced.

S A Housing Trust Unit 5 Returned to Council and plans currently being drawn up

Waratah Close Units 5 and 15

Resident Funded Prospective residents are currently being sourced. Units 6 and 14 Returned to Council and plans are to be drawn up.

SA Housing Trust Unit 11 Returned to Council and plans being drawn up

Aged Care Complexes

Cudmore Court All units occupied Palm Grove Several vacancies Rose Villas All units occupied Waratah Close Several vacancies

Sporting Clubs

Council resolved to grant a further 5 year licence for: Fulham Cricket Club – Woodville Bowling Club – Woodville Croquet Club – Woodville Glengarry Tennis Club and Fulham United Soccer Club.

Council approved the 20 year right of extension of existing licences requests from Grange Cricket Club – Grange Royals Hockey Club – SA Amateur Soccer League. City of Charles Sturt 134. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

St Clair Recreation Centre

Graph shows total monthly hours of use for April – May - June 2015

Graph shows total Membership for April – May - June 2015

Sports Hall Usage – for April -May 2015 The ceiling tile replacement works in the stadium during May severely affected the usage of the courts. The project began on 11 May 2015 and one court was not available for 24 days.

Strong Heart Muay Thai and Wrestle Rampage have confirmed they will remain at the centre for the next three years. City of Charles Sturt 135. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Occupancy of the second fitness studio, boardroom and surrounding offices by the Vipers Soccer Club is subject to confirmation from Council as to whether the water damaged roof in these areas will be repaired.

Health and Fitness Group fitness classes cntinue to drop due to the gyms restructure at S Clair and this reaffirms CASA’s decision to remove group fitness from the centre completely (once converted to 24/7 gym).

Vacation Care Group Attracted 7 different schools and almost 300 children to the Centre.

Roller Skating Skate attendances (of 468) were extremely strong during May 2015 which continues to demonstrate that the skate program is always stronger in the winter months.

Parties In April 2015, 21 party slots were available with 11 booked in total. 6 Public and 5 Private. In May 2015, 31 party slots were available with 15 booked in total. 9 Public and 6 Private.

Other Hirers during April – May 2015 • Mt Carmel – Volleyball and Badminton program – 4 dates Basketball advert filming • Light City Roller Derby – 2 dates • Punch Fit Training Course • Wrestle Rampage Event • Ready Steady Go Open Day Council Super Skate • Woodville High School PE classes • Woodville Warriors Premier League Gam – 2 dates • Western Magic School Holiday Clinic

Property Projects

74-76 Hawker Street, Bompton Council purchased the property to add to the Open Space in this locality.

The large office/warehouse building on the site has been demolished and the land has been remediated by burying the top one metre of soil that contained various pieces of bricks etc. and using clean soil from the site to cap the area.

Development of the land (turfing and irrigation) will be underrtaken in 2015/16. City of Charles Sturt 136. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Commercial and Other Property Portfolio

Hindmarsh Town Mission Building, Port Road Plantation Reserve, Hindmarsh (near Anne St) / Inner West Business Enterprise Centre (IWBEC) Following the Council endorsed minutes of the City Services Committee meeting held on 16 February 2015 offering a new lease to IWBEC, their Federal Government funding application was not successful. As this was essential for the ongoing operations and building use, the organisation is not proceeding with the lease.

The Department of Transport has requested use of the building for part of the time of the nearby Torrens to Torrens (South Road MAJOR Project), with actual dates to be confirmed.

"Overflow Centre" (rear area) 318 Seaview Road and (part) Henley Depot, 216-218 Military Road, Henley Beach/ BMD Constructions (CCS Henley Square Major Project contractors) The BMD Constructions contractors are in occupation of parts of both properties from April to December 2015 for a rent free arrangement as the Henley Square project advances to completion.

63 Woodville Road property acquisition and new tenant “KMH Tax and Business Solutions” Council purchased the vacant commercial office building and land as a strategic acquisition with sale settlement on 24 April 2015. As the sale was being finalised a new tenant lease inquiry was also able to be finalised for the accounting related business enterprise and the tenant has relocated there from 1 May 2015.

The Brocas, 111 Woodville Road, St Clair/ The Historical Society of Woodville Inc The Historical Society of Woodville Inc executed the licence for use of two rooms of The Brocas and access to common areas. They moved their furniture items to the building in February. After a long delay, all THSoW members finalised the required Police clearance confirmation for their access to The Brocas Community/ Youth Services Centre. They will take up occupation for their activities on 6 July 2015.

Capital Work Projects – Property Services Refer Appendix A for details on Capital Project expenditure and status.

St Clair Recreation Centre Upgrade – Minor Building Improvements A contractor has completed the work onsite for the minor building works on the St Clair Recreation Centre. The following minor works items were endorsed by Council in September 2013 to proceed while the strategic study of the centre is undertaken. The minor building works were completed in late September 2014. City of Charles Sturt 137. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

The work includes the following building items: a. Removal of foyer asbestos floor tiles and laying new floor vinyl; b. Painting of the foyer area; c. New fit out in kiosk, including benches and cupboards; d. Painting of the wet areas including change rooms and toilets; e. Painting of tiles in wet area; f. New furniture in foyer - seating and tables; g. Installation of 2 automatic doors on the main entry doors; h. Install new external signage (electrified with internal lighting).

Also the Internal ceiling and safety net in the main stadium has been replaced.

Burley Griffin Incinerator Heritage Conservation Works All design works have been completed and tenders have been sourced for the conservation work. The tenders are all over budget and a review will be required before work can commence onsite.

Design and Consultation – Frank Mitchell Reserve Clubroom Upgrade All construction documentation is completed and building and planning consent has been received. Council has approved a $1m contribution to the club and the club will be responsible for the construction of the new clubroom. The club has requested a delay in commencement of construction until after the soccer season finishes (July 2015), which will mean deferring the project to 2015/16. Council has agreed to a WIP of budget to 2015/2016.

Concept View of the new Clubrooms at Frank Mitchell Reserve. City of Charles Sturt 138. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Sporting Club Renewal Work The following building projects have been completed:- • Woodville Hockey Club Asbestos Roof Replacement • Fawk Reserve Clubrooms Asbestos Roof Replacement • Replace the Hot Water Services at the Gleneagles Reserve Clubrooms Rugby Club • Installation of evaporative cooling at the Northern Youth Association clubrooms • Replace the floor coverings at the Seaside Tennis club • Wet area fitout at Trust Reserve changerooms • Jubilee Reserve Storage Shed – Internal storage fitout

Aged Accommodation Units – Gutter Replacements The roof gutters and downpipes at Palm Grove aged accommodation complex have been replaced. This work was necessary due to deterioration of the existing gutters.

Commercial Building Works – Renewal Works The following renewal work has been completed:-

• New Carpets at the Albert Greenshields Girl Guide Hall • Sinclair Square Scout Hall – Internal painting flooring and wet area upgrade

Community Centres Asset Component Renewal The following renewal work has been completed:- • West Lakes Community Centre floor covering replacement • Findon Community Centre – replace existing pergola and upgrade the concrete under the pergola • Bower Cottages – rear office fit out • Henley and Grange Community Centre – replace asbestos vinyl flooring

Woodville Town Hall Truss Remediation All work is now complete on the truss replacement at the Woodville Town Hall. All of the six trusses have been replaced and the main hall ornate ceilings have also been replaced. The Town Hall is now open for public and Council use.

Brocas Industrial Grunge Shed All building work is now complete. The work includes the fitout of the old red brick shed located on the Brocas parcel of land. Property Services are working in partnership with Community Services to deliver a live training site for the community. The builder worked with the training provider to deliver the building project by 30 June 2015. This Industrial Grunge Shed will be used by Community Services for various activities.

Air Conditioning replacement Civic Offices and Civic Library Work is completed for the replacement of three air conditioning units at the Civic Centre, The existing air conditioning plant is approaching the end of its useful life and requires replacing. City of Charles Sturt 139. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Property Management Small Projects Portfolio Small project works completed by contractors this quarter are: • Exterior painting of all units at Rose Villa Retirement Village Henley Beach • Limestone tile panel replacements in the Internal Street at Civic Centre • Major internal light fitting replacement at Bower Road Aquatic Centre • Hot water service and flick mixer tap replacement at Civic Centre coffee station • Replacement of old street park furniture seats with new Flinders Park / Linear Park • Hot water service replacement Casuarina Lodge Woodville West • New furniture for the Henley Community Centre • Major lock and key replacement Woodville Hockey Club • Recertification of roof management systems on Council owned buildings • Annual gutter cleaning on Council owned building • Major plumbing and carpentry repairs Unit 2 Casuarina Lodge • Palm Grove Unit refurbishment Unit 19 • Ceiling panel replacement at Findon Community Centre • Installation of two split air conditioner systems at the Immunisation Clinic

Council Owned Building Inspections Inspections were conducted on 22 Sporting Clubs and 2 Commercial properties. • Henley Surf Life Saving Club Inc. • SA Amateur Soccer League – Grange • Woodville District Cricket Club Inc. • Seaside Tennis Club Inc. • Henley Football Club Inc. • Woodville Community Dog Training Centre • Canoe SA • Northern Woodville Youth Association Inc. • St Clair Recreation Centre • Flinders Park Tennis Club Inc. • Seaton Park Tennis Club Inc. • Lakes Sports & Community Club Inc. • West Beach Surf Life Saving Club Inc. • Fulham United Soccer Club Inc. • Grange Lawn Tennis Club Inc. • Biljart Club Perfect. • Calabria Association Inc. • Grange Royals Hockey Club Inc. • Seaton Ramblers Football & Sports Club Inc. • Woodville Baseball/ Lacrosse Club Inc. • Henley Beach Kiosk • Cecchetti Ballet Australia Inc. • Woodville Rechabite Matheson Club Inc. City of Charles Sturt 140. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Five sporting clubs and one commercial property were found non-compliant. The properties that failed to comply with Australian Standards and Lease Agreement conditions have been informed of the non-compliance issues and have been given a reasonable timeframe in which to resolve the issues.

Financial Summary: Open Space, Recreation and Property

Actual Expenditure is lower than Forecast Expenditure mainly due to delays on the following Capital Projects:

• Henley Square Upgrade ($4,500,000) – project delayed due to extended process of early contractor involvement and value management meetings.

• Henley Precinct car parking investigation ($400,000) – linked to the Henley Square redevelopment.

• Coast Park Grange – ($343,000) tender process delayed due to inconsistency in costings and quantity schedules. • • Burley Griffin incinerator conservation ($234,000) – delayed due to over budget tenders and need to revise scope.

• Frank Mitchell building upgrade – ($1,040,000) – club request to defer building until after season finishes. City of Charles Sturt 141. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Actual Expenditure is lower than Forecast Expenditure due to delays on the following Operating Projects: • Grange SLSC ($200,000) – Delay in gaining final Ministerial approval for the redevelopment. • Tennyson Management Plan ($30,000) – awaiting state government to form the management group. City of Charles Sturt 142. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Engineering Strategy & Assets

KRA 1: Asset Management

Asset Management Plans

Road AMP The new Asset Manager for Roads has reviewed the existing Road AMP including the unit rates, estimated useful life of each part of the road structure (base course, surface seal, kerb & gutter) and existing and required maintenance expenditure. A key component of this revision is the inclusion of the recent surface audit inspection data and consideration of how best to manage the rapid and unsustainable growth of renewal expenditure in future years.

The current projections are based on current functional service levels and construction/renewal techniques and new approaches will be needed to avoid large rises in Annual Rates. These will be reported in this Roads AMP revision with future actions to be further explored.

The plan is being reviewed before referring the Asset management Committee for approval.

Path AMP The revised Path (AMP) was endorsed in August 2014 and is now part of the Long Term Financial Plan. That revision was a major revision which included the recently completed Condition Audit. The 5-year draft works program in that AMP has now been reviewed for 2015/16 and is used as the basis for the path renewal project bid for 2015/16. The next revision of the asset management plan is programmed for reporting in September 2015/16.

Stormwater and Recycled Water Assets AMP The current Stormwater AMP was completed in 2012 and is due for a major update and revision. With the completion of Water Proofing the West Stage 1 in 2014 and upgrade of Stormwater Pump stations between 2004 and 2014, there is a need for consolation and better consistency of Water Asset data.. A Project brief is being prepared for Stormwater Asset revaluation, condition assessment and capturing Stormwater Pump station assets in the new template, revaluation of stormwater pump stations and consolidating all Water Assets. An independent consultant will be appointed in 2015/16 to carry out the tasks listed in the Project brief. At this stage the revised asset management plan is proposed to be ready for the Asset Management Committee to consider in March 2016.

Bus Stop AMP The revised Bus Stop AMP was endorsed in August 2014 and is now part of the Long Term Financial Plan. That revision included a 2014 audit of our bus stops. The work for the next 5-years in the draft works program is to upgrade bus stops so they are DDA compliant. Subject to ongoing funding, this will continue until 2022, after which work will revert to renewals. The work priority for 2015/16 has been set and is used as the basis for the bus stop DDA compliant upgrade project bid for 2015/16. The next revision is programmed for reporting in September 2015/16. City of Charles Sturt 143. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Bridge AMP The Bridge AMP was endorsed in March 2015 and is now part of the Long Term Financial Plan. It identified a need to increase our maintenance effort on bridges through programmed cyclic approach. A number of bridges were also found to not have adequate edge barriers, particularly those supporting roads. This information was used for the 2015/16 budget bids. The next revision is programmed for reporting in 2016/17.

Traffic Control AMP We have two classes of traffic controls. One has no electrical or electronic components (eg kerb protuberances, roundabouts, speed plateaus) and the other being with these components (eg traffic signals, pedestrian crossings). The condition audit for roads included locating traffic controls and this will be used in the coming months to establish an Asset Register and then an AMP in 2016.

Public Lighting AMP Work has recommenced with a decision made to exclude the SA Power Networks and Department for Transport Planning & Infrastructure (DPTI) street lighting from the depreciation lines of the AMP. Instead we will recognise these large payments made to SA Power Networks, DPTI and the Energy Retailer as operating cost.

We are now consolidating and verifying data we hold about street lights that we do own and managed under several tariff agreements and lights we own and fully operate on our Open Space areas. The next revision is programmed for reporting in 2015/16.

KRA 2: Strategic Planning

Long Term Financial Plan The impact of Asset Management Plan (AMP) forecasts are being included in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) inputs as each revision/new plan is endorsed.

Transport Plans The Strategy for Walking and Cycling’ was endorsed by the Asset Management Committee in May 2015. The Inner West Precinct Transport and Parking Plan (IWP TPP) final report is completed and scheduled to be presented to AM Committee in August 2015.

4-Year Capital Works Program We have established a preliminary 4-year program from the AMPs for asset renewal and upgrade work. City of Charles Sturt 144. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

KRA 3: State Government Projects

South Road Torrens to Torrens Upgrade Project (T2T) DPTI has reached 30% design documentation and is continuing to work with the successful contractor “T2T Alliance”.

We have reached an agreed view about the River Torrens Linear Park including the shared use path either side of South Road, the South Road underpass and the new shared use walking and cycling bridge over the River Torrens at the end of McDonnell Avenue West Hindmarsh. We are now working together to deliver these projects.

We have also been working with DPTI T2T project team to better understand traffic impacts in adjacent suburbs of Renown Park, Croydon, West Hindmarsh, Ridleyton, and Hindmarsh.

Discussions are continuing with DPTI and consultants for the T2T Alliance regarding stormwater management and creation of detention basis along the corridor. DPTI provided an update to elected members about the T2T project at a workshop to be held on 28 April 2015. The T2T Alliance in conjunction with DPTI will be conducting a public Open Day on 15 August 2015 to outline the final construction plans to the community.

Our representative is Sara Morrison Transport Engineer who is available on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

KRA 4: Strategic & Capital Works Project Consultation

The following table is an accumulated summary of Community Engagement undertaken for the period between April 2015 and June 2015. The four projects were consulted on in the reporting period being Cudmore Terrace Traffic Safety Improvements, Bartley Terrace Streetscape, Grange 40km Speed Limit and Gibson Street Integrated Streetscape Renewal.

City of Charles Sturt 145. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

KRA 5: Customer Services

Internal Relationship building The portfolio continues to work closely with the Asset Management Planning portfolio to derive better synergies in implementing projects and making improvements in the way we use the Works and Assets system

During the quarter the portfolio participated in the development of the new Contract Management module. The ESA portfolio delivers over $10 M worth of construction and consultation projects using external contractors and will be a significant user of the new module/ system

Permits, Clearances and Planning Referrals The table below shows the permits issued for works on public roads, orders to repair damage, and urban planning referrals. The improvements to the referral process discussed above included audit of whether referrals really needed to happen and since mid-February 2015 these have reduced significantly.

We will be monitoring work on properties where a Development Approval has been issued; then a letter stating that we have inspected the assets after development work has been completed and found damage and request that the owner fixes it; then an Order under the Local Government Act to fix it within 28-days. If the work is then not fixed we will write to the owner saying we are now undertaking the repairs and will be invoicing them for cost. We are currently seeking legal advice on the new process and the content of the letters.

Permit Type 2nd Quarter Total 3rd Quarter Total 4th Quarter Total Driveway Crossover 56 87 66

Underground Service 30 17 21

Stormwater Connection 5 7 10

Footpath Encroachment 0 0 8

Clearances 0 0 0

Damage to Roads 10 14 11 (Orders Sent)

Planning Referrals 25 34 32

Total 126 159 148

City of Charles Sturt 146. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

Development Activities The table below shows activity in relation to urban development.

Development Stage Engineering Clearance Construction Practical Completion Final Completion Submission Assessment Approved St Clair Cheltenham (252/2084/09) Precinct 1, Stage 1 & 2 complete 31-Oct-11 8-Mar-13 (252/2205/10) Precinct 2, Stage 1 complete 24-May-12 24-May-13 (252/2205/10) Precinct 2, Stage 2 approved (252/2671/11) Precinct 3, Stage 1 complete 15-Mar-13 14-Mar-14 (252/2671/11) Precinct 3, Stage 2 complete 4-Feb-15 (252/2718/10) Precinct 6 complete 4-Mar-13 12-Apr-15 (252/1209/12) Precinct 4 Stage 1 complete 21-Mar-14 21-Mar-15 (252/1209/12) Precinct 4 Stage 2 complete 21-Mar-14 21-Mar-15

Bowden Urban Village (B4638) Stage 1 complete Stage 2 in progress

WWURP (B5099, 252/1379/10) Stage 1A complete 15-Aug-12 8-Nov-13 B7852 Stage 2 approved

Ray Street Findon (252/1924/03) Stage 1A complete 3-Sep-09 Stage 1B complete 12-May-10 Stage 2 complete 23-Jun-11 Stage 3/4 in progress approved Willcocks Ave Seaton (252/0571/13) complete 14-Apr-14 2-Jun-15

Kidman Pk Renewal SA (252/1881/13) Stage 1 preliminary

Hammond Road (252/2525/12) complete 21-Jan-15 (252/2527/12)

AAMI Stadium Redevelopment preliminary B6428

Portfolio Business Plan

Action on the Key Operational Improvements identified in our Portfolio Business Plan is summarised below: • Consolidate the recently formed Engineering Projects team and its relationships to others (near completion) • Bring the new Engineering Assets team to full staffing and consolidate the team and its functions for improved relationships with others (completed • Revise Capital Project Process & Template (completed) • Negotiate with SA Power Networks for introduction of LED lighting & smart management technologies for street lights that it owns (in-progress) City of Charles Sturt 147. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

• Reduce energy cost by changing to new LED lighting and smart control systems (also reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions) for our own lights (completed) • Trialling real time recording of works and asset details in the field with electronic devices (in-progress) • Establish new process for approval of engineering plans through TRIM workflow ( in- progress) • Evaluate the benefits of a robotic total station for engineering surveys (not commenced) • Revise Engineering & Open Space Development Guidelines (in-progress) • Develop a Communication/Marketing Plan to identify improved communication for our capital projects (completed).

Capital Works Program – Engineering Strategy & Assets

Refer Appendix A for details on Capital Project expenditure and status.

Capital Project Financial Review

The capital works for 2014/15 budgeted projects is summarised in the six graphs below. The original budget was $11.78M, but was revised upward due to approved external funding contributions. The revised budget for all projects was $16.75M with the year-to-date actual expenditure being $14.20M (at the time of preparing this report, invoices are yet to be received for all of the work completed during the financial year).

The pedestrian & cycling projects were completed very close to the revised forecast expenditure and with outstanding invoices account for the majority of the $0.204M expenditure shortfall.

The expenditure on roads & traffic safety is $1.56M below forecast primarily due project savings ($0.72M) and works-in-progress ($0.20M) along with several large invoices not yet received, or processed.

The public lighting projects were completed by April 2015 with expenditure below the original budgets. These were reallocated during the year by the Asset Management Committee to other capital projects.

The stormwater projects were completed by May 2015 with the final expenditure being close to the revised (and original) budget allocations.

The work-in-progress carried over from 2013/14 remained at $2.238M being well below the expected $2.937M. The variance of $0.699M is primarily due to saving in the Sir William Goodman bridge project. The Asset Management Committee has reallocated $0.297M to another bridge structure along the River Torrens Shared Linear Trail (subject to Ministerial consent to reallocating the Open Space Grant) and the remaining $0.402M to reroofing the Town Hall. City of Charles Sturt 148. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued City of Charles Sturt 149. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 Continued

City of Charles Sturt 150. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87

APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 34 pages.

[Note: financial reporting is interim until year end audit is finalised]

Capital Works and WIP Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Engineering Strategy and Assets Sara Morrison 2611 Birch Street Findon - Road Safety Improvement 27,500 27,500 4,673 0 0 0 4,673 (22,827) (83%) 17% 22,827 This project is for community The income for this project $22,875 to go toward 4673 Budget included 30/06/2015 2014-15  engagement and design of road ($33,000 in total) was split over the traffic construction in safety improvements in Birch 2 years, with $5,000 in 2014/15 management 2014/15. This is has Street in readiness for and $28,000 in 2015/16. component of the been deferred to construction in 2015/16. Concept Birch Street road 2015/16 to allow work plans have been prepared. reconstruction in to be undertaken with Community consultation 2015/16 (Road road reconstruction. completed. Detailed design Reconstruction Some, but not all of finalised in readiness for Program 2015/16) the project budget construction in 2015/16. has been reallocated to another project.

2624 Henley TPP - 40kmh Precinct Speed Limit 2014- 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 (30,000) (100%) 0% 30,000 The 40km/h Precinct Speed Limit $30,000 was planned to be Monitor speed and community nil 0 No expenditure has 30/06/2015 15  was introduced on 17 December used for coloured pavement acceptance in 2015/16 been booked against 2014. The introduction of the entrance treatments. It has this budget as Precinct Speed Limit was been determined that these are salaries and supported with an education and not appropriate. contractors have awareness campaign in the been booked to 2466 media and local businesses. WIP for '40 km/h Following community concerns speed limit about the visibility of the speed implementation' limit, an additional 10 signs have been installed on the local street network, and 2 new signs on Seaview Road.

Total 57,500 57,500 4,673 0 0 0 4,673 (52,827) (92%) 8% 52,827

WIP - Sara Morrison

2466 Henley TPP - Transport and Parking Plan 58,800 58,800 53,058 0 0 0 53,058 (5,742) (10%) 90% 5,742 (1) Install a walking & cycling N/A (1) Grange Road: Project nil 53058 N/A 30/06/2015 Recommendations  refuge on Grange Road complete. connecting Grange Lakes and (2) Wright Street: Project the Wright Street Reserve: complete. Construction completed. (3). Cudmore Terrace: Finalise (2) Wright Street traffic calming: consultation and detailed Community engagement design. completed. No agreed outcome. (4). 40 km/h Precinct Speed Community advised. limit. Refer Project 2624. (3). Cudmore Terrace traffic calming: Consultation in progress. (4). 40 km/h Precinct Speed Limit. Refer Project 2624.

2472 River Torrens Linear Park Shared Use Path 8,500 8,500 8,496 0 0 0 8,496 (4) (0%) 100% 4 This project continues on from N/A Project complete. nil 8500 N/A 30/04/2015 Renew - South Road  2013/14. In 2014/15 detail design and specification documents were prepared in readiness for renewal of the shared use path along the northern bank of the River Torrens (behind the Hindmarsh Cemetery) between South Road and River Street. The project is ready for construction pending future budget.

WIP Total 67,300 67,300 61,554 0 0 0 61,554 (5,746) (9%) 91% 5,746

Page 1 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Mike Blythe 2610 Bartley Terrace Streetscape Project 2014-15 75,000 75,000 76,913 0 0 0 76,913 1,913 3% 100% (1,913) This project is to establish a long Rework of concept plan after Report to coucil on community 25000 70000 N/A 30/08/2015  term plan for Bartley Terrace public consultion has been consultion outcomes due in which identifies actions to more comprehensive than August 2016. Folloing address road safety and capacity anticipated due to overwelming endorsemnt, a futher open day concern as asset renwals fall response rate. This has will be held to inform due. Discovery phase report has delayed final concept plan community of outcomes. been submitted by Consultant. delivery. Draft plan for consultaion provided by Consultant. Community open day has occoured and over 150 residents attended. Comments recieved are being collated and incorporated into concept plans.

2645 West Beach Road Streetscape 2014-15 75,000 75,000 2,808 0 0 0 2,808 (72,192) (96%) 4% 72,192 The project established 4 options Minor expenditure has occured Design initiation meeting to 50000 70000 N/A 1/10/2015  through community consultation internally. occour 9 July 2015 and endorsed the option that includes a central median, a general traffic lane and a bicycle lane in each direction and parking lane on the northern side. This option provides protected right hand turn lanes into the residential area and Adelaide Shores parking area; shared use path and improved public lighting. West Torrens Council have provided aggrement in writing to proceed with this option.

Total 150,000 150,000 79,721 0 0 0 79,721 (70,279) (47%) 53% 70,279

Naz Dastoor 2616 Car Park Renewals 2014-15 200,000 200,000 114,725 6,566 0 6,566 121,292 (78,709) (39%) 61% 78,709 Renewal of the Aquatic Reserve This project was delayed to All works complete. Nil $120,000 n/a 30/06/2015  Car Park and construction of a meet stakeholder needs and new entrance roadway to address will not affect the delivery. poor level of road safety due to driver confusion as they travel around the bend from Old Port Road into Bower Road. Detail design completed. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) approval received . Works commenced Asphalt and Lining Marking complete.

2633 Road Reconstruction Program 2014-15 3,585,000 3,585,000 3,181,273 579,345 0 579,345 3,760,617 175,617 5% 100% (175,617) Please refer greater than $1M  project sheets.

2634 Road Rehabilitation Works 2014-15 2,216,000 2,216,000 1,813,023 376,930 0 376,930 2,189,953 (26,047) (1%) 99% 26,047 Please refer greater than $1M  project sheets.

2638 Stormwater Drainage Associated with Road 202,000 202,000 166,964 0 0 0 166,964 (35,036) (17%) 83% 35,036 Removal of a 'wet sump' The YTD commitment is All works complete Nil $202,000 n/a 30/06/2015 Works 2014-15  arrangement to improve capaicty wrongly codeed to this and reduce maintenance to the account. Should be coded to stormwater drain in Findon Road 2635 under Murali K G opposite Fire Station completed.

Drainage works in Way Terrace and Brand Avenue, as part of Welland Plaza TPP completed.

Total 6,203,000 6,203,000 5,275,985 962,841 0 962,841 6,238,826 35,826 1% 100% (35,826)

WIP - Naz Dastoor

2524 Green Street Brompton Road-Footpath 150,000 150,000 123,799 919 0 919 124,719 (25,281) (17%) 83% 25,281 Path constructed as part of Actual expenditure was lower Project completed. Nil $124,719 n/a 30/08/2014 Integrated Project 2013/  Streetscape project. than forecast.

2526 Road Rehabilitation Works 2013-2014 111,000 111,000 121,309 0 0 0 121,309 10,309 9% 100% (10,309) River Street Hindmarsh. The YTD expenditure of $121k Project completed. Nil $121,309 Some after hours 30/08/2014  Water main altered. is $10k over budget. work was required to Stormwater box culvert installed. $10k remaining over minimise disruption to Asphaltic concrete seal applied. expenditure requires funds business resulting in reallocation into the project additional next quarterly budget review. expenditure.

2527 Sixth Avenue Seaton - Road Construction 16,140 16,140 16,844 0 0 0 16,844 704 4% 100% (704) Asphalt concrete seal applied. Minor variation. Project completed. Nil $16,844 Minor increase in 30/08/2014 2013/14  labour.

WIP Total 277,140 277,140 261,952 919 0 919 262,871 (14,269) (5%) 95% 14,269

Page 2 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Carmine D'Amico 2613 Bridges - Renewal 2014-15 120,000 120,000 101,256 0 0 0 101,256 (18,744) (16%) 84% 18,744 Bridge 16: Bartley Terrace West Bridge 16: Bartley Terrace Bridge 16: Bartley Terrace N/A 100,000 Bridge 16: Bartley Bridge 16: Bartley  Lakes Shore West Lakes Shore West Lakes Shore Terrace. Terrace; 30/04/2015 Contract brief, specification and Commencement of work was Works Complete Scope now proposed (complete). invitation to quote completed and delayed due to a decision ro to include replacing all finalised. upgrade guardrail on the Bridge 18: Fort street Grange of the safety guardrail Bridge 18: Fort Street Quotation period for contractors complete, quotations received and Bartley Terrace bridge so that Works Complete to current Australian Grange; 08/05/2015 contractor appointed. it complies with current Standards (instead of (complete). Contractor programmed to undertake Australian Standards. Bridge 29 & 30 : West Lakes the damaged section works on 13/4/15. Footbridges only). Bridges 29 & 30: Contractor completed works. Bridge 18: Fort Street Grange Works complete West Lakes Project Complete Commencement of works was Bridge 18: Fort Street Footbridges; delayed due to the Grange Grange 30/05/2015 Bridge 18 Fort Street Grange. Lakes Channel not being able Scaffold and air (complete) DPTI quotation received. to be drained and additional powered tools DPTI Bridge Management Crew started works on 27/3/15 funds required to set up required to complete Construction completed 1/5/15 scaffold and use air powered works as channel can Completion inspection undertaken tools for concrete repairs to not be drained as first and site handed over to council on Fort Street Grange culvert quoted. 8/5/15. bridge. Project Complete

Bridges 29 & 30: West Lakes Footbridges Consultant contract in place. Underwater inspection completed 2/12/14. Coating consultant quotes have been received and work approved. Rehabilitation program report completed all quotations for future works received and are in the report. Project Complete.

Additional fudning sought and 2630 Pedestrian Safety Improvements - Crossing 70,000 70,000 65,425 0 0 0 65,425 (4,575) (7%) 93% 4,575 Pedestrian Refuge across Grange Request for bus stop relocation All works complete N/A 65,000 Request for bus stop 22/05/2015 Facilities 2014-15  Road between Fredrick Street and by DPTI to ensure safety to relocation by DPTI to Welland Avenue. pedestrians. ensure safety of DPTI in-principle approval issued pedestrians. subject to relocating bus stop 13 west In order for crossing to comply of existing location Budget estimates and approval for with AS standards design Requirement to alter vary in scope and budget approved. required re-aligning approx 85 median strop from Consultation with buisnesses and lineal metres of median design to ensure residents in the surrounding area kerbing. crossing complies complete. with Australian Design complete. Standards. SPTI received design and processing clearance. Additional funds sought and approved for changes to median required from design. Civil contractor quotations sought and received Civil contractor appointed. Site marked out and prepared by Civil Contractor and CCS reps. DPTI delivered clearance on 8/5/15. Civil contractor started works on 12/5/15. Bus stop shelter ordered and scheduled to be installed 10/5/15. Civil works completed 8/6/15. Shelter installed 12/6/15. Bin also installed by Depot Project Complete

Additional funds sought and approved for this project.

Page 3 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2641 Traffic Controls - Electronic Crossings - 154,000 154,000 140,594 0 0 0 140,594 (13,406) (9%) 91% 13,406 Koala crossings at Military Road, Project running marginally All works complete N/A 150,000 DPTI electrical 15/06/2015 Renewal 2014-15  Henley Beach and Torrens Road, behind schedule as additional standards have Pennington. funds required to schedule changed and all Electrical and Civil contractors Koala crossings must Electrical contractor appointed. and sonsultation with DPTI for be designed and Additional funds and revised budget approval. constructed for approved. "future proofing" Exemption als required to increasing electrical Design complete. engage appointed Electrical works cost. contractor. Civil contractor quotations sought and The length of received. crossing at Torrens road, Pennington Civil contractor appointed. needs to be latered to Exemption for Electrical contractor comply with received and contract signed for Australian Standards. works to be completed.

Electrical contractor scheduled to start works at Torrens road on the 11/5/15 and works at Military 25/5/15.

Civil contractor schduled to start works at Torrens road on 25/5/15 and Military road on 8/6/15.

Civli contractor completed works at Torrens road on 8/6/15 and Military road on 26/6/15.

Project Complete.

Total 344,000 344,000 307,276 0 0 0 307,276 (36,724) (11%) 89% 36,724

WIP - John Mauro

2525 Road Reconstruction Program 2013-2014 0 0 117 0 0 0 117 117 100% 0% (117) Nil Nil Incorrect allocation of cost - Nil $0 Incorrect cost 30/06/2014  these funds to be transferred allocation to current road project.

WIP Total 0 0 117 0 0 0 117 117 100% 0% (117)

WIP - Philip Hewitt

2428 Bridge Projects 12/13 1,291,580 1,291,580 673,566 0 0 0 673,566 (618,014) (48%) 52% 618,014 The restoration of the Sir William Project completed well under Awaiting response from the $296,537 for RTLP $671,335 Project holds a Completed  Goodman Bridge with upgraded budget due to careful trial and Minister to reallocate the South Road precinct balance of $340,098 edge barriers and public lighting selection of method and remaining Open Space Grant renewal project which, subject to along with appropriate materials. Approval has been funding to the River Torrens (subject to agreement AMCtte endorsement, naming/recognition place at the sought and received to Linear Park South Road to reallocate Open will be held to repay Manton Street end. reallocate funds to other bridge precinct renewal project. Space Grant by the loans for the Town projects and the town hall roof. Minister). Hall Roof Repair.

2556 Holbrooks Road RTLP Underpass Renew 433,430 433,430 422,146 0 0 0 422,146 (11,284) (3%) 97% 11,284 The replacement of the existing Cost is slightly above original Project close out. Nil $423,430 N/A Completed 2013/14  timber bridge with a bridge budget and we have sort and having a steel structure and using received approval for fund environmentally sustainable reallocation to this project. recycled plastic deck. The new This will take effect in the next bridge is wider bridge, has EOQ adjustment. greater head room under Holbrooks Road and improved public lighting using low energy long life LED lights.

WIP Total 1,725,010 1,725,010 1,095,712 0 0 0 1,095,712 (629,298) (36%) 64% 629,298

Murali K. G. 2620 Gross Pollutant Trap Efficiency Improve - 80,000 80,000 71,404 0 0 0 71,404 (8,596) (11%) 89% 8,596 Hydraulic verification and Detailed Project Completed under Nil Nil $71,404 N/a 30/05/2015 Halsey Rd 2014-15  Design of new Gross Pollutant budget. External funding is for trap at Halsey Road Pump actual costs ( $71K) and not Station completed; installation of estimated cost ($80K) GPT completed.

2621 Gross Pollutant Trap Tracey Ave Flinders Park 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 (50,000) (100%) 0% 50,000 Design Options Report Construction of a GPT at Follow up with NRM Board on Nil $0 Project scope 2014-15  Completed. Traditional GPT unit Tracey Ave has been placed proposed rain gardens and changed. Income will will be difficult and expensive to on hold.. CCS and NRM Board commission project brief. be realised only on maintain. New Proposal is to are considering alternative completion of detailed construct a series of Rain options and hence Income design Gardens (Water Sensitive Urban from NRM Board has been Design ) in the catchment rather deferred. Annual Income than one single GPT. budget to be revised to $0

Page 4 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2635 Stormwater - Box Culvert Replacement 2014- 336,500 336,500 334,277 8,760 0 8,760 343,037 6,537 2% 100% (6,537) Box culvert replacement in HMAS nil Nil $350,000 30/06/2015 15  Australia Road, Henley Beach South; Ward Street, Pennington completed. Box culvert replacement at Garnet Street Stage 1 , West Croydon and Clark Tce at Percy street completed,

2636 Esk St and Findon Road Drainage Upgrade 950,000 950,000 950,810 3,813 0 3,813 954,623 4,623 0% 100% (4,623) Installation of diversion drain in No major variation Nil Nil $950,000 N/a 30/05/2015 Stage 2A 2014/15  Duncan Street and Judith Ave Findon completed. Installation of detention tanks in Don Klabe Reserve is 100% complete; reinstatement works completed

2637 Stormwater - Surrey Street Grange Drainage 200,000 200,000 176,503 62,793 0 62,793 239,297 39,297 20% 100% (39,297) Stormwater detention and Additional expenditure due to Continue to follow up with Nil $240,000 Costs associated with 15/05/2015 Upgrade 2014-15  soakage system in Surrey Street, poor soil condition requiring re- Ropcla to sort of invoice; do a Re-design due to Grange completed. design. The expected cost accural on estimated latent conditions . over run in this project can be expenditure. offset by savings in project 2716 - Path renewal. 8 weeks delay in invoice recipt from Rocla is posing problems for closing project accounts in a timely manner.

2716 Path Renewal 2014/15 – Periodic Contract 2,149,000 2,149,000 2,027,830 30,138 0 30,138 2,057,968 (91,032) (4%) 96% 91,032 See greater than $1million project $1,970,000  report.

Total 3,765,500 3,765,500 3,560,825 105,504 0 105,504 3,666,329 (99,171) (3%) 97% 99,171

WIP - Murali K. G.

2594 Stormwater Drainage for Roadwork 2013-2014 3,300 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 (3,300) (100%) 0% 3,300 All projects completed prior to 30 Projects delivered within Nil Nil $0 Completed  June 2014; budget

WIP Total 3,300 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 (3,300) (100%) 0% 3,300

Chris Bentick 2618 Gibson Street - Integrated Streetscape 35,000 35,000 15,585 22,475 0 22,475 38,060 3,060 9% 100% (3,060) The project is in response to This project has been delayed Consultation Stage 2 $19,475 to complete $38,000 Due to 31/12/2015 Renewal 2014-15  resident concern about the to allow the findings of the (Streetscape Concept). project (due to delays underbudgeting of amount of traffic and the Inner West Precinct Transport Streetscape Plan Finalisation. in appointing consultant costs and relationship of Gibson Street and Parking Plan (PR14000) to contractor) internal project north of the 'Bowden be considered. management costs. Development' to the development. Consultancy appointed for concept and consultation. Consultation Stage 1 (Investigation) completed.

2642 Way2Go Program - 2014-15 75,000 75,000 58,043 0 0 0 58,043 (16,957) (23%) 77% 16,957 Indented "Kiss-n-Ride" & new Works completed ahead of Project completed. Nil $60,000 Works completed 30/06/2015  footpath completed in schedule. under budget. Collingwood Avenue for the Flinders Park Primary School. In-principle approval received from Department of Education & Child Development for land transfer. Council endorsement of land transfer (refer AM14/08/12; Item 3.73). Indented bay and footpath construction completed. Fencing and signs installed. Pavement marking completed.

2643 Welland TPP Key Action - 40kmh Precinct 70,000 70,000 27,298 0 0 0 27,298 (42,702) (61%) 39% 42,702 Entrance statements at Project scope was reduced. $70,000 N/A 30/08/2015 Speed Limit 2014-15  intersections: Revised scope of works 1) Frederick Street / Grange completed within budget Road (Northern Side) 2) Welland Avenue / Grange Road (Northern Side) Completed

Design and consultation completed for all locations.

2646 Woodville West TPP - Ryan Ave to Rosemary 95,000 95,000 91,717 2,092 0 2,092 93,808 (1,192) (1%) 99% 1,192 Construction of new roundabout Project ran behind schedule Project completed. Nil $95,000 N/A 30/06/2015 St 2014-15  completed. due to decision to package multiple construction projects for tender.

Total 275,000 275,000 192,642 24,567 0 24,567 217,208 (57,792) (21%) 79% 57,792

Page 5 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

WIP - Chris Bentick

2475 Transport _ Parking Plan - Welland 2013/14 12,630 12,630 12,209 0 0 0 12,209 (421) (3%) 97% 421 Construction of Foster Street Minor variance due to minor Project completed. Nil $12,630 28/02/2014  Road Humps completed. overbudgeting. 2482 Footpath Renew - Torrens Road Renown Park 2,790 2,790 2,700 0 0 0 2,700 (90) (3%) 97% 90 Artwork installed. Insignificant variance. Project completed. Nil $2,790 30/10/2014 2013/14  2488 Transport _ Parking Plan - Woodville West 10,000 10,000 3,302 0 0 0 3,302 (6,698) (67%) 33% 6,698 Traffic controls installed Budget carried over from Project completed. Nil $2,700 Budget carried over 30/08/2014 2013/14  2013/14, exceeded the cost of from 2013/14, the outstanding work. exceeded the cost of the outstanding work.

WIP Total 25,420 25,420 18,211 0 0 0 18,211 (7,209) (28%) 72% 7,209

Adam Mallia 2619 Grange Lakes Shared Use Path - Fort St to 720,490 720,490 744,635 0 0 0 744,635 24,145 3% 100% (24,145) Community engagement Project slightly over budget. nil nil $745,000 N/A 30/06/2015 Nash St 2014-15  complete. Funds to be re-allocated from Detail design complete. 2629- Paths New Tree removal complete. Preliminary Electrical & lighting installation complete. Concrete path installation complete. Fencing and retaining walls complete. Landscaping complete

2622 Henley Beach Road Mainstreet - Renewal 2014- 320,500 320,500 56,954 0 0 0 56,954 (263,546) (82%) 18% 263,546 Preliminary design, Road Safety Initial delays due to scoping Seek DPTI approval and $266K. Construction $320,500 N/A 30/08/2015 15  Audit & Traffic Impact Statement and design alterations; further commnce work cannot commence completed and lodged with delays due to DPTI approval without DPTI approval Department for Planning, meaning constrcution has to as works will occur Transport and Infrastructure occur in 2015/16 along a DPTI (DPTI) for in-principle approval. roadway. Any Final design complete, contract construction program awarded for construction but identified by the awaiting DPTI approval. successful tenderer may be subject to change based on this required approval

2629 Paths - New - 2014-15 170,000 170,000 123,885 0 0 0 123,885 (46,115) (27%) 73% 46,115 Consultation completed. Projects completed under nil nil $124,000 Reduction in overall 30/02/2015  Project completed which included budget project cost relating to the following footpaths: lower construction Mann Street Brompton costs and some Third Street Brompton proposed paths being Cappers Drive Brompton removed from the Marabou Walkway Semaphore program after further White Street Walkway Allenby investigation indicated Gdns they did not meet our Buller Tce Cheltenham path policy Francis Street Kidman Park Mellor Court Henley Beach Nelson Street Flinders Park Etna Ave Pennington

2644 Welland TPP - Way Terrace and Brand Avenue 490,000 490,000 362,052 96,557 0 96,557 458,609 (31,391) (6%) 94% 31,391 Detailed design completed. YTD Variance relates to Pay invoices for works carried $10,000 - $470,000 N/A 30/07/2015 Street 2014-15  Construction of traffic treatments delayed start by asphalt out in June 2015 implementation of in Brand Avenue and Way Tce Contractor. new lighting is 100% complete dependant on SAPN availability.

Total 1,700,990 1,700,990 1,287,525 96,557 0 96,557 1,384,083 (316,907) (19%) 81% 316,907

WIP - Adam Mallia

2467 LATM - Hawker Street Coglin Street Brompton - 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 19 100% 0% (19) Project completed in 2013/14. N/A Nil nil N/A N/A N/A Junction impro  2470 Pedestrian Improvements - New Footpaths 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 (1,500) (100%) 0% 1,500 Detailed design complete. Variance relates to works Alterations to NBN pits at two $10,000 $685,000 N/A 30/07/2015 2013-2014  Construction complete associated with Telstra pit locations. adjustments. Council are awaiting final invoices in relation to this work 2591 Findon Road Footpath Kerb Gutter Renew - 685,000 685,000 659,898 0 0 0 659,898 (25,102) (4%) 96% 25,102 Detailed design complete. Variance relates to works Alterations to NBN pits at two $10,000 for NBN pit $685,000 N/A 30/07/2015 Stage 3 2013/14  Construction complete associated with Telstra pit locations. alterations - pending adjustments. Council are since April 2015 awaiting final invoices in relation to this work

WIP Total 686,500 686,500 659,917 0 0 0 659,917 (26,583) (4%) 96% 26,583

Page 6 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Ron Raines 2614 Bus Shelter Renewal 2014-15 40,000 40,000 40,359 0 0 0 40,359 359 1% 100% (359) Installed four bus shelters along Nil N/A Nil 40359 N/A N/A  Hawker Street at Bus Stops 10 south, 11 south, 14 south & 13 north.

2615 Bus Stop DDA Renewal 2014-15 250,000 250,000 240,501 0 0 0 240,501 (9,499) (4%) 96% 9,499 This program is the renewal and Nil / project completed under Nil Nil 240500 N/A N/A  improvement of bus stops to meet budget Disability Discrimination Act Public Transport Regulations requirements. Stops completed this year include:

Torrens Road: Stop 20 SW West Croydon - Stop 21 NW Kilkenny - Stop 21 SW Kilkenny - Stop 22 N Kilkenny - Stop 22 S Kilkenny - Stop 25 NE Woodville North - Stop 25 SW Woodville - Stop 31 NE Pennington - Stop 31 SW St Clair - Stop 31a N Pennington - Stop 31a S Cheltenham - Stop 32 NE Pennington & Stop 32 SW Cheltenham.

West Lakes Boulevard: 33 South, 33F South, 33E South, 33E North, 33D North, 33C South, 33A South, 27 South & Bus Stop in front of the Library. West Lakes Boulevard 28 Sth East, Bus Stops 33A Nth, 33B Sth, 30 Nth, 27 West, 30North & 33D South

2631 Public Lighting - Moorfield Avenue - New 70,000 70,000 40,491 0 0 0 40,491 (29,509) (42%) 58% 29,509 Street lighting in Moorfield project completed under Nil / Completed and handed Nil $44,000 N/A 30 Feb 2015 Lighting 2014-15  Terrace has been upgraded using budget over to SAPN nine 42W compact fluroscent lights on post top fittings. Project completed.

2632 Public Lighting - Renewal 2014-15 467,000 467,000 496,369 0 0 0 496,369 29,369 6% 100% (29,369) Completed Projects: Funds to be reallocate from Hanson Road lighting upgrade Nil $500,000 N/A All Projects  1. RTLP Frogmore Road to 2631 to 2632 deferred due to nil response completed April 2015 Riverway Kidman Park/ Fulham from SAPN Gardens: thirty-three 25W LED lights on outreach poles 2. Parfitt Square Reserve Brompton: Seventeen 25W LED lights on outreach poles 3. Lake edge Bollards West Lakes (three locations - Corcoran Reserve, Anthea Reserve & Powell Court Reserve): Sixteen 25W LED on outreach poles plus one 42W bollard. 4. Jubilee Reserve Carpark, West Lakes Shore : tweny one 25W LED lights on poles 5. Station Place, Hindmarsh : Ten 25W LED Lights on outreach poles

Total 827,000 827,000 817,720 0 0 0 817,720 (9,280) (1%) 99% 9,280

WIP - Ron Raines

2583 Public Lighting - Renew - Brompton Green 69,600 69,600 60,060 0 0 0 60,060 (9,540) (14%) 86% 9,540 Lighting Installed: Seventeen N/A Project completed. Nil N/A N/A 1/07/2014 Reserve 2013/14  25W Led lights and new poles

2584 Public Lighting - Renew - Lake Front Path 83,000 83,000 82,335 0 0 0 82,335 (665) (1%) 99% 665 Lighting Installed. Fourteen / 20w N/A Project completed. Nil N/A N/A 1/07/2014 Oarsman Reserve to  bollard lights & Twenty three/ 25w LED's on outreach poles

WIP Total 152,600 152,600 142,395 0 0 0 142,395 (10,205) (7%) 93% 10,205

Page 7 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Open Space Recreation and Property Jarrad Healy 2688 Grange Lakes Enhancement 2014/15 90,598 90,598 91,987 0 0 0 91,987 1,389 2% 100% (1,389) Concept design for consultation Project is ahead of schedule. Project Compled. 91987.42 30/06/2015  with ward councillors undertaken. Variance reflects purchase Community consultation commitment for equipment undertaken. Playground ordered. Playground equipment ordered. Onsite works equipment delivery and have commenced. installation schedule could cause delays. Concrete found below ground, delayed time schedule and additional dumping required.

2691 John Mitchell Reserve Master Plan Stage 1 25,000 25,000 15,304 0 0 0 15,304 (9,696) (39%) 61% 9,696 Review of previous master plan. Savings have been identified No further work anticipated at $10,000 to complete 15304 Project completion NA 2014/15  Site analysis completed. Concept as no further work will be done this stage as construction detailed design for delayed to 2015/16 design and design options for until future construction budget project budget bid removed 2016/17 budget cost estimates completed. is allocated. from 2015/16. Design documents to be completed for future consideration. 2693 Mirani Court Reserve upgrade 2014/15 46,896 46,896 46,896 0 0 0 46,896 (0) (0%) 100% 0 Project completed. New irrigation Works completed ahead of Project completed. 46896 30/03/2015  system, New turf, Upgrade of schedule. SA Water meter post&rail fence. upgrade cost and staff salary was more than estimated. Savings from project 2494 to be reallocated in budget review and included within AMS variation report. (refer AMS 3.53 20 April 2015)

2699 Rose Garden - St Clair Reserve 2014/15 8,000 8,000 9,059 0 0 0 9,059 1,059 13% 100% (1,059) Site analysis and early Supply and availability of roses Project Completed. 8000 30/06/2015  discussions with ward councillors will affect the project timing. and St Clair Community Rose supply expected for June Reference Group to determine 2015. location and community Works scheduled to involvement have been commence May 2015 for undertaken. Detailed design completion June 2015. completed. Roses ordered. Path Additional consultation Installed. Planting completed. undertaken with RSL which delayed delivery. Additional dumping costs requried to complete project.

2704 Thomas Harkness Reserve infrastructure 51,345 51,345 51,855 0 0 0 51,855 510 1% 100% (510) Concept design completed. Design completed ahead of Project completed. 51629 30/06/2015 2014/15  Consultation with elected schedule to allow for members completed. Detail consultation process. Works design completed. Furniture and being undertaken ahead of shelter ordered. Electrical conduit schedule. Additional electrical installed. Shelter installed. works were required, refer Barbecues installed. Furniture AMS 3.53 20 April 2015 for installed. budget variation

Total 221,839 221,839 215,101 0 0 0 215,101 (6,738) (3%) 97% 6,738

WIP - Jarrad Healy

2354 Collins Reserve Lake Upgrade 12/13 20,032 20,032 20,032 0 0 0 20,032 (0) (0%) 100% 0 Project completed. Playground Additional water supply works Project completed. 20032 30/01/2015  Upgrade, New concrete footpath, had to be undertaken for New drinking fountain, New picnic drinking fountain and to comply shelters, Upgrade of barbecues, with recent changes to SA New picnic settings, New litter bin Water regulations. Savings enclosures, New benches for from project 2494 to be tennis courts, additional garden reallocated in budget review bed and plantings, modifications and included within AMS to lake wall for maintenance. variation report. (refer AMS 3.53 20 April 2015)

2494 Freshwater Lake Lighting Renew - Year 4 49,201 49,201 49,201 0 0 0 49,201 0 0% 100% 0 Project completed. Upgrade of Project Completed, savings Project completed. 49201 30/01/2015 2013/14  lighting for the final stage of attributed to other projects. works. Increased number of lights (refer AMS 3.53 20 April 2015) installed to comply with standards.

Page 8 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2514 Anthea Reserve Shade Sail 2013/14 100,000 100,000 53,720 34,580 0 34,580 88,300 (11,700) (12%) 88% 11,700 Further feedback sought on Variance reflects purchase Engineering continued to be 45000 Uninticipated 90000 NA  alternative designs has been commitment for shade sails developed for cost effeciency engineering delays completed. Further community ordered. Delivery time and of construction, with from contractors has consultation has been install schedule of installers consideration of site soil caused a delay in undertaken. Additional may require additional time. condition and water level. delivery. consultation with elected Engineering has identified that Delays in fabrication. members and key residents has additional footings are been undertaken. Shade sail required. installers have been appointed. Engineering design changes have been compled. manufacture of structure has started.

WIP Total 169,233 169,233 122,953 34,580 0 34,580 157,533 (11,700) (7%) 93% 11,700

Kelly Mader 2681 Coastal Signage - Policy and Implementation 30,000 30,000 3,903 0 0 0 3,903 (26,097) (87%) 13% 26,097 Signage audit has been Background research, Draft policy finalised and $20,000. There is a 30000 30/01/2016 2014/15  undertaken using Collector for meetings and information from distrubuted internally (to 90 significant opportunity for a value add to the project, ESRI by contractor. Data being other Councils has taken Day wr on signage group) for given the initiation on the reviewed to feed into draft policy. longer than expected to collate. discussion and comment. 90 day War of Signage Meeting with Shane Daw from Analaysis of audit data took project team. The signage Surf Life Saving SA has occurred longer than expected. policy can be rolled into the to obtain quote for Surf Life 90 day project for consistency. As a result - Saving Club signage audit. Council has the opportunity Caouncil staff have instigated a to undertake what would 90 day - War of Signage project have been a potential which will negate the need to second stage of the project and ensure all coastal develop a specific signage policy - signage complies with however, will allow for an Australian regulatory additional regulatory audit. standards for beach use and saftey. This can be achieved by engaging Surf Life Saving SA to undertake a study and produce recommendations for beach safety, regulatory signage, access and consolidation of signage, it is expected this work can commence in July and be completed by January 2016. This will ensure Council minimises risk in relation to the recreational use of the beach.

Total 30,000 30,000 3,903 0 0 0 3,903 (26,097) (87%) 13% 26,097

Janet Willoughby 2698 Reserve Connections to Recycled Water 160,000 160,000 159,332 0 0 0 159,332 (668) (0%) 100% 668 Sites have been identified, Delay in timing due to the NA 160000 30/06/2015 2014/15  irrigation designs and requirement to redesign the Specification completed and irrigation systems following Contract Awarded changes to recycled water Works Commenced Connections irrigation requirements as Completed at identified by the Office of the Carnegie Reserves Technical Regulator Findon Oval Frank Mitchell Reserve Magarey Reserve Pedlar Reserve Sir Alex Ramsay Reserve Trust Reserve Tiranna Reserve Smith Reserve Jubilee Ovals & West Lake Shore Oval Laver Reserve Woodlake Reserve Hero/Rapid Reserve Heysen Reserve Neighbourhood Nth & Sth Reserve Quotes received for additional connections at Woodville Dog Club and Ledger Oval Woodville Dog Club and Ledger Oval Connections to be completed

Total 160,000 160,000 159,332 0 0 0 159,332 (668) (0%) 100% 668

Page 9 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

WIP - Janet Willoughby

2513 Reserve Connection to Recycled Water 140,000 140,000 149,160 0 0 0 149,160 9,160 7% 100% (9,160) Sites have been identified, Delay in timing due to the NA 149160 Overexpenditure due 30/06/2015 2013/14  irrigation designs and requirement to redesign the to variations: Specification completed and irrigation systems following - Reconnection of Contract Awarded changes to recycled water 50mm meter and Works Commenced Connections irrigation requirements as additional RPZ to Completed at identified by the Office of the Findon Oval to supply Carnegie Reserves Technical Regulator Club House Fire Hose Findon Oval Overexpenditure due to - Flow Sensors Frank Mitchell Reserve variations: compatible with Magarey Reserve - Reconnection of 50mm meter Maxicom System Pedlar Reserve and additional RPZ to Findon - Lilac Connection Sir Alex Ramsay Reserve Oval to supply Club House Fire valves and Backflow Trust Reserve Hose assemblies Tiranna Reserve - Flow Sensors compatible with Smith Reserve Maxicom System - Jubilee Ovals & West Lake Shore Lilac Connection valves and Oval Backflow assemblies Laver Reserve Woodlake Reserve Hero/Rapid Reserve Heysen Reserve Neighbourhood Nth & Sth Reserve Quotes received for additional connections at Woodville Dog Club and Ledger Oval Woodville Dog Club and Ledger Oval Connections to be completed

WIP Total 140,000 140,000 149,160 0 0 0 149,160 9,160 7% 100% (9,160)

Jamie Hosking 2689 Henley Precinct Car Parking Investigations 550,000 550,000 91,606 0 0 0 91,606 (458,394) (83%) 17% 458,394 Project commenced, car parks Works linked to 2690, refer undertake works 500000 550000 1/06/2015 2014/15  indicated to commence late June project over $1 million 2015

2690 Henley Square Redevelopment 2014/15 6,000,000 6,000,000 682,485 7,572,051 0 7,572,051 8,254,536 2,254,536 38% 100% (2,254,536) Please refer to projects over  $1million

Total 6,550,000 6,550,000 774,091 7,572,051 0 7,572,051 8,346,142 1,796,142 27% 100% (1,796,142)

WIP - Jamie Hosking

2370 Reserve Turf and Landscape renewal 12/13 76,190 76,190 70,845 0 0 0 70,845 (5,345) (7%) 93% 5,345 Project complete, works included, Savings to be reallocated to Project complete Nil 76190 1/06/2015  new irrgiation, playgrounds, BBQ, other projects furniture and paths

2491 Actil Avenue Landscape Works 2013/14 186,640 186,640 96,890 63,930 0 63,930 160,820 (25,820) (14%) 86% 25,820 SA Power Network (SAPN) quote Extended time frame dealing SAPN to undertake works 140000 186640 TBA  received, works non-contestable. with SAPN has caused delays. SAPN works to commence on Works agreed and PO raised, Variance reflects contract site 13-16 July date for works to be advised. commitment.

2507 Construction of Small Dog Park - Stage 2 225,000 225,000 218,770 0 0 0 218,770 (6,230) (3%) 97% 6,230 Project linked to 2537 Variance relates to Undertake maintenance and 9000 225000 1/06/2015 2013/14  Detailed Design Completed. discrepancy in the the timing of install shade sail. Tender awarded, site works processing invoices. commenced, shade sail ordered and awaiting delivery/installation, main works achieved PC

2508 Henley Square Upgrade Construction Works 498,760 498,760 498,855 0 0 0 498,855 95 0% 100% (95) Project linked to 2690 Please refer to reporting for Commence site works. Nil 498760 1/11/2015 Stage 2 2013/14  Contractor engaged. projects over $1million

2509 St Clair Reserve Redevelopment - Stage 1 12,380 12,380 154 0 0 0 154 (12,226) (99%) 1% 12,226 Project scheduled to commence Awaiting outcome of sale of Finalise draft concept following 12000 12380 1/06/2015 2013/14  April 2015 RSA land and St Clair Rec completion of other relevant centre study. Works to be studies and outcome of sale of programed next financial yar. land by Renewal SA

2537 Albert Greenshields Reserve - Security lighting 80,000 80,000 80,414 0 0 0 80,414 414 1% 100% (414) Project linked to 2537 Awaiting invoice for the Undertake maintenance and Nil 80000 1/06/2015 and shade fo  Detailed Design Completed. delivery and installation of install shade sail. Tender awarded, site works shade sail commenced, shade sail ordered and awaiting delivery/installation, main works achieved PC

WIP Total 1,078,970 1,078,970 965,928 63,930 0 63,930 1,029,858 (49,112) (5%) 95% 49,112

Page 10 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Jim Morias 2672 AMP - Playground Renewal 2014/15 440,000 440,000 439,259 0 0 0 439,259 (741) (0%) 100% 741 Play equipment installed & minor softfall spread to Mc nil $440,000  completed at Johns, Ledger, Donnell Cheadle,Findon, Toledo, Whiteford, Angley & McDonnell.

2673 AMP Reserve and Street Furniture 2014/15 144,745 144,745 143,468 0 0 0 143,468 (1,277) (1%) 99% 1,277 Renewal of furniture nil $129,000  infrastructure at Langman, Ethelbert, Cheadle, Johns, Toledo, McDonnell, Allenby gardens & Josiah Mitton part completed

2674 AMP- Sporting Accessories 2014/15 109,240 109,240 95,074 0 0 0 95,074 (14,166) (13%) 87% 14,166 Dampier Reserve new 30mm Works completed under nil $109,000  asphalt layer to entire existing budget asphalt surface completed. Re- newal of scoreboard Pedlar reserve completed.

2694 New Park Infrastructure 2014/15 44,000 44,000 44,251 0 0 0 44,251 251 1% 100% (251) Works for security post and rail nil $35,000  fencing completed & wheel stops installed as Orion Tennis club request to courts elevation 5,6,7 & 8. Shelters installed with concrete base to Cheadle & Johns reserves.

2696 Playground Fencing Cynthia Anderson Reserve 7,000 7,000 7,272 0 0 0 7,272 272 4% 100% (272) Fencing works completed. Works completed Works Complete nil $7,272 2014/15 

Total 744,985 744,985 729,323 0 0 0 729,323 (15,662) (2%) 98% 15,662

WIP - Jim Morias

2518 AMP - Sporting Accessories 2013/14 43,000 43,000 47,126 0 0 0 47,126 4,126 10% 100% (4,126) Langman reserve community Review Finance/account nil $43,000  court surface treatment journal entries. completed.

2598 AMP Reserve _ Street Furniture 2013/14 17,000 17,000 19,043 0 0 0 19,043 2,043 12% 100% (2,043) Project completed, furniture Costs for installation not Project completed nil $19,000 Costs for installation  installed at 16 locations by included in original funding not included in property maintenance request by property original funding maintenance. request. Savings from project 2494 to be reallocated in budget review and included within AMC variation report.

WIP Total 60,000 60,000 66,169 0 0 0 66,169 6,169 10% 100% (6,169)

Richard Hughes 2675 Beverley Centre Upgrade Refit for additional 50,000 50,000 4,237 0 0 0 4,237 (45,763) (92%) 8% 45,763 An Architect has been appointed Wages have been allocated to Work with staff and the 45,000.00 Staff 50000 Wages have been 1/06/2015 staff 2014/15  and some concept layout plans this project and some minor architect to refine the concept Consultation remains allocated to this have been developed of the design work. Staff consultation layout and provide some in progress and this project and some office area for the engineering has delayed the project. construction plans has delayed the minor design work. staff at the Beverley Centre. project Staff consultation has Detailed documentation will now delayed the project. be developed to obtain quotes.

2676 Bower Cottages Community Shed Safety 85,000 85,000 7,441 0 0 0 7,441 (77,559) (91%) 9% 77,559 The project scope has The original project has been Project has been placed on $75,000.00, Council 40000 See comments in 1/06/2016 Upgrade 2014/15  significantly changed from a placed on hold due to a review hold due to a review of the have endourced to YTD budget variance building refurbishment to the of the intended use by intended use by Community removal of the shed in column building removal and establish a Community services. This services. A report was April 2015. A WIP is community garden. Work is likely review concluded in April 2015 presented to council in April required to fund the to commence in July 2015 and council has endorsed the 2015 to demolish to shed and removal and the removal of the shed and to establish a community garden establishment of a establish a community garden for use by a variety of users new community garden $30K is required for the shed, $45 K is required for the Brompton/Bowden Community centre building works

2677 Civic Centre and Library Air Conditioning 55,000 55,000 48,074 0 0 0 48,074 (6,926) (13%) 87% 6,926 Work Completed Work completed and savings Nil Nil 48074 See comments in 1/06/2015 Replace 2014/15  A specification has been made from Original Budget YTD budget variance prepared to replace one faulty air column conditioning unit in the Civic Centre. A contractor has completed the changeover of 3 Air conditioning units

Page 11 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2682 Commercial Building - Renewal works 2014/15 47,899 47,899 47,899 0 0 0 47,899 0 0% 100% (0) Work Completed Nil Nil Nil 47899 1/12/2014  Work is completed at Sinclair scout hall, The works include painting, minor wet area upgrade and minor building maintenance. Also the carpet has been replaced at the Albert Greenshield girl guides hall.

2683 Community Centres Asset Component 63,865 63,865 73,025 9,978 0 9,978 83,003 19,138 30% 100% (19,138) Work is complete $8k Staff wages have been Nil Nil WIP is required - 83003 30/12/2014 Renewal 2014/15  Floor covering replacement at the allocated to this budget, The The committed funds West Lakes Community Centre budget overun of $10K can be of $9978 can be and the Henley Community funded from budget line committed to the Centre, Findon Community 2702001 ( Sporting club Community Centre Centre pergola replacement and renewal works ) Budget for 2015/2016 the Bower Cottages Rear office Financial Year as it fitout. related to next years project - 2771001

2687 Furniture Renewal at Hindmarsh Library 35,000 35,000 26,671 0 0 0 26,671 (8,329) (24%) 76% 8,329 Work Completed - All new Savings made from original Nil Nil 26671 1/06/2015 2014/15  furniture has been received budget estimate

2695 Office Furniture Replacement 2014/15 47,500 47,500 50,835 0 0 0 50,835 3,335 7% 100% (3,335) Replacement furniture has been Budget Overun can be funded Nil Nil 50835 1/06/2015  completed for the ground floor from 2702001 - Sporting Club offices in the Woodville Town Renewal works) Hall. Work has also commenced to replace the furniture on the first floor at the Civic Centre.

2702 Sporting Club - Renewal Works 2014/15 218,500 218,500 203,796 0 0 0 203,796 (14,704) (7%) 93% 14,704 Work is completed to remove the Nil Nil Nil 203796 1/06/2015  asbestos floor tiles at the Seaside Tennis Club and the Trust reserve changeroom painting. Work is completed on the Asbestos roof replacement at Fawk Reserve and the Woodville Hockey Club, The Fawk reserve Youth Association wet area fitout is now completed. A contractor has been appointed to conduct a minor upgrade on the Jubilee Reserve Storage facility Upgrade.

2703 Frank Mitchell Reserve Clubroom Upgrade 1,040,000 1,040,000 0 0 0 0 0 (1,040,000) (100%) 0% 1,040,000 Refer to the $1M project sheet Refer to $1M + project report Manage the project to ensure refer to $1m + project 1040000 1/06/2015 Stage 3 2014/15  for full report. milestone are met by the club sheet in a timely manner This project will be managed by the Frank Mitchell Reserve Club (White City). Council staff will be involved with building Inspections only. A funding deed has been prepared for signing by the club.

2709 Brick Kilns Heritage and Conservation 20,000 20,000 13,455 0 0 0 13,455 (6,545) (33%) 67% 6,545 All planned work complete - A Nil Nil 13000 Savings have been 1/06/2015 Restoration 2014-15  public information session was made from original held in August to gauge the budget opinion of the work required at the brick kiln site. A project reference group has also been formed. The purpose of this reference group is to involve the community in the upgrade of this site. The reference group has agreed that a budget bid be lodged with council for $200K for some Heritage and conservation work be conducted at the site in 2016. 2710 Brompton Ethelbert Square Automated Public 150,000 150,000 405 0 0 0 405 (149,595) (100%) 0% 149,595 Council resolved to consult Awaiting Public consultation Finalise community $150,000 Due to 150000 1/06/2016 Toilet 2014/15  further on the location of the engagement on the location of public consultation toilet. Staff are currently the new automated public toilet this project is unlikely undertaking a consultation and report to Council on to be completed by program. preferred location. June 30 2015

2712 Woodville Town Hall Roof Truss Remediation 2,044,800 2,044,800 1,972,920 0 0 0 1,972,920 (71,880) (4%) 96% 71,880 Refer to the $1M project sheet Final invoices yet to be Some further expenses may Nil $1,972,920 3/04/2015 2014/15  for full report. received. come through from solicitor Building works is complete on due to legal action the truss remediation project at the Woodville Town Hall, All 12 top cords of the 6 trusses have been replaced and the ornate ceiling.

Page 12 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2714 Brocas Refurbishment 2014/15 423,800 423,800 391,065 6,532 0 6,532 397,597 (26,203) (6%) 94% 26,203 Work Completed - This project $6532.00 remains committed Monitor when the furniture can 26,203.00 required for $423,800.00 1/06/2015  included the design on this project for a fruniture be delivered loose furniture, documentation and construction delivery that was not able to be electronic intercom for the Brocas Community Shed delivered in June 2015 and miscellaneuos Fitout for Community Services, fitout items for the including provision for community Industrial grunge activities including Woodville shed Historical Society. Design plans are complete and a contractor has completed all work onsite.

Total 4,281,364 4,281,364 2,839,823 16,510 0 16,510 2,856,333 (1,425,031) (33%) 67% 1,425,031

WIP - Richard Hughes

2419 St Clair Recreation Centre Upgrade - Design 120,000 120,000 116,718 0 0 0 116,718 (3,282) (3%) 97% 3,282 Work Completed - This project Expenditure has been Nil Nil 116,718.00 6/06/2015 and Consultation  includes minor building incorrectly assigned to this improvements at the St Clair project and requires transfer in Recreation Centre including May 2015 automatic doors to the main entry, the entry foyer upgrade and painting maintenance and new furniture. 2559 Aged Accommodation Units - Pergola_ Fence  59,986 59,986 59,968 0 0 0 59,968 (18) (0%) 100% 18 Work Complete Nil Nil 59,968.00 1/11/2014 replacements The WIP is for the Gutter Replacement at Palm Grove and the Exterior painting at Waratah Close.The external Painting at Waratah Close was also completed.

2563 Burley Griffin Incinerator Heritage and 235,000 235,000 1,197 0 0 0 1,197 (233,803) (99%) 1% 233,803 All tenders have been received The work has been delayed Further assess tenders and 232000 is required to 235000 30/06/2015 Conservation Restora  and are now being assessed for due to overbudget tenders and revise the scope of works to complete this work, the Incinerator conservation the need to revise the scope. achieve the budget on the The delay was due to works Also other projects have taken project internal resources resources away from this allocated to other project. higher priority projects ( Woodville Town Hall Truss Remediation)

2567 Fulham United Soccer Club - Change room 308,590 308,590 309,216 0 0 0 309,216 626 0% 100% (626) Work Completed - This project $200,000.00 income has been Nil Nil 309216 $200,000.00 income 1/09/2014 Upgrade 2013/14  included a changeroom extension received from the Office of has been received on the Collins Reserve Sport and Recreation. The from the Office of Clubrooms. budget overun can be funded Sport and Recreation. from 2683 - Community Latent conditions Centre Asset component onsite caused the renewal - A variation report budget overrun. The was presented to council in budget overrun can April 2015 for the variation be funded from 2683 - funding approval Community Centre Asset component renewal

2571 St Clair Recreation Centre Upgrade 2013/14 1,867,050 1,867,050 181,349 17,290 0 17,290 198,639 (1,668,411) (89%) 11% 1,668,411 Refer to the $1M project report Some preliminary design work Refer to the $1M project report $300,000 for detailed 198639 Major project on hold 30/06/2016  page for further details and project feasibility has page for further details design in preparation refer to $1M + project been conducted. Refer to the for future renewal report Council has resolved to replace $1M project report page for works the tiles at the St Clair Recreation further details. Centre. The replacement work will occur in May 2015, Also a contractor has been appointed for a new directional sign near the footpath to the front of the building. This will be installed in May 2015

2573 Stage 2 Design Documentation - Frank Mitchell 71,000 71,000 66,448 6,695 0 6,695 73,143 2,143 3% 100% (2,143) This project includes the design $6695.00 remains unspemt on Monitor the club and the $6695.00 - $6695.00 71000 1/06/2015 Reserve Clubro  documentation for the Frank this budget as it is committed contractor to ensure remains unspemt on Mitchell Reserve Clubrooms for the construction phase on completion of the project this budget as it is Redevelopment. Work is the project. This construction committed for the progressing and consultation is will commence in Aug/ Sept construction phase on occurring with the club on design. 2015 the project. This Refer to $1M + Project report construction will commence in Aug/ Sept 2015

WIP Total 2,661,626 2,661,626 734,897 23,985 0 23,985 758,882 (1,902,744) (71%) 29% 1,902,744

Page 13 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Lisa Will 2686 Fitness Equipment and Walking Trail - Bower 45,000 45,000 46,526 0 0 0 46,526 1,526 3% 100% (1,526) Community consultation 46,526 1/01/2015 Rd 2014/15  undertaken, Contractor engaged, Installation of fitness equipment completed.

2692 Ledger Reserve - Sports Ground Lighting 70,000 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 0 0% 100% 0 Building approval has been 70,000 31/03/2015 2014/15  granted, quotes sourced and contractor selected. Permits have been granted and risk assessment has taken place, onsite meeting taken place. Lighting upgrade complete.

2701 Sam Johnson Cricket Pitch Replacement 15,000 15,000 14,250 0 0 0 14,250 (750) (5%) 95% 750 Quotation sourced, contractor 14,250 10/10/2014 2014/15  engaged. On-site induction undertaken, risk assessment completed. Cricket pitch replacement completed. 2706 Woodville Bowling Club - upgrade to walkway 19,000 19,000 19,157 0 0 0 19,157 157 1% 100% (157) Quotation sourced, contractor 19,000 1/12/2014 2014/15  engaged. On-site induction undertaken, risk assessment completed. Installation of new paved area along bowling green has been completed and new seating has been installed

Total 149,000 149,000 149,934 0 0 0 149,934 934 1% 100% (934)

Tony Clisby 2669 Strategic Property Acquisition 2014/15 632,500 632,500 656,608 0 0 0 656,608 24,108 4% 100% (24,108) The settlement on the property Council approved the Nil nil 656,608 N/A 30/04/2015  occurred on 24 April 2015. expenditure of up to $620,000(GST exclusive) plus costs such as stamp duty . The additional funds will be obtained through the Budget Review Process. Budget Overun can be funded from 2697001 Hawker Street Stage 1

2697 74-76 Hawker St, Brompton Stage 1 2014/15 221,550 221,550 202,386 0 0 0 202,386 (19,164) (9%) 91% 19,164 Remediation has been Budget Savings can be Nil nil 202,386 N/A 30/06/2015  undertaken and the site levelled. allocated to 2669001 Strategic property acquisition

Total 854,050 854,050 858,995 0 0 0 858,995 4,945 1% 100% (4,945)

Sam Higgins 2670 AMP - Fences, Walls and Bollards 2014/15 242,059 242,059 260,448 0 0 0 260,448 18,389 8% 100% (18,389) Woodville croquet/bowling club Urgent remedial repair works Nil nil $260,448 n/a 30/06/2015  Perimeter 1800 chain wire fence were required at Pt Malcolm with barbs completed Point Reserve tennis court fencing. Malcolm reserve new tennis court Budget overrun be be funded backstop framing complete. through savings from Project Findon skid kids replacement to 2697 - Hawker St Brompton failed boundary fencing & two Stage 1 pairs double gates complete. Flinders Park oval perimeter chainwire fencing complete. Don Klaebe Reserve chainwire fencing complete. Renwal of permapine fencing at Leason and Kirkaldy Reserve has also been completed.

Total 242,059 242,059 260,448 0 0 0 260,448 18,389 8% 100% (18,389)

Page 14 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Steve McLeod 2684 Contingency Building Works - Council Owned 226,800 226,800 230,920 9,945 0 9,945 240,865 14,065 6% 100% (14,065) Gas pipe replacement Grange Recreation Some work has occurred due New actions will be conducted Nil The commitment Buildings 2014/15  Reserve Clubrooms. Sewer drain to unforeseen breakdowns and in the future for hot water of $9,945 overbudget upgrade at the Montessori Children's Centre. Fire Safety Upgrade 56 Woodville ahead of schedule. A services, air-conditioners, gas can be accomodated Road Woodville Construction Industry $25,000.00 budget review has and sewer pipes and any other in 2015/2016 Training Levy. Minor security works at the been endorsed by council in items that needs replacements Contingency Building Beverley Centre. Upgrade of security March and additional funds will due to breakdowns and wear & work system & hardware, hydroject storm be allocated to fund the tear. water drains, electrical audit of premises, installation of air conditioning delay timer shortfall. to main hall all at 56 Woodville Road Woodville. Replacement of air conditioner at Unit 8 Rose Villas. Locking devices and hardware by Salisbury Locksmiths. Development of a generic painting specification. Collins Reserve security upgrade. Furniture removal and painting at 56 Woodville Road Woodville. Flinders Park clubrooms mains power cable replacement. Completion of design and documentation- mayors office. Supply and install 5 Mitsubishi Electrical energy smart airconditioners 56 Woodville Road. West Lakes Bowling Club airconditioning and mechanical services. Espresso coffee machine- Community Services . Civic office upgrade. Removal of office furniture. Essential Safety fire service upgrade Gleneagles Reserve Clubrooms. Woodville Dog Club external lighting upgrade, roof and gutter replacement. Mayors office renovations. Seaton North Community Centre operable wall. Woodville Town Hall roof repairs.

2705 West Lakes Football Club - Smosh - Renewal 15,000 15,000 1,650 0 0 0 1,650 (13,350) (89%) 11% 13,350 Consultation has commenced A priority list of achievable Continue consultation with the $13,350-due to 15,000 June 30 2016 2014/15  with the club officials in October, actions will need to be sporting club and obtain design budget bid down a priority list of achievable developed by the club prior to documentation for the upgrade grade and time actions will be developed by the any design concepts and funds after a priority list of actions constraints to finalise club prior to any design concepts. being committed. There has has been agreed on. Meeting priority list of Meeting held with club been a buget bid downgrade with club officials was held in refurbishments. representatives and architects with the club sending in a February 2015. Waiting for from G-Force Building and submission form, waiting for a detail plans and costings for Consulting on 6.3.2015. Concept decision from Council with the priority list of achievable design drawings and budget appeal. Project budget bid actions submitted by the estimate completed by G-Force. approved by finance committee committee. Preliminary drawing Council have been completed and a expenditure in the first year be cost estimate is underway. set at $100,000, reduction from Cost estimate of different $285,000. sections of the refurbishment has been completed and sent to the club. Club to prioritise areas that will now cover the new expenditure of $100,000

Total 241,800 241,800 232,570 9,945 0 9,945 242,515 715 0% 100% (715)

WIP - Steve McLeod

2595 Contingency Building Works - Council Owned 0 0 8,222 0 0 0 8,222 8,222 100% 0% (8,222) Incorrect allocation to this Buildings 2013/14  project, to be transferred.

WIP Total 0 0 8,222 0 0 0 8,222 8,222 100% 0% (8,222)

Deny Chirappurathu 2647 Beach Access Way Upgrade Program 2014/15 140,000 140,000 0 0 0 0 0 (140,000) (100%) 0% 140,000 Scheduled to be undertaken in Works not undertaken as Prepare documentation for Anticipated WIP 140,000 NA 30/12/2015  2015/16 originally budgeted due to quote/tender. 140000. Works not Open Space resources undertaken as required to finalise 2013/14 originally budgeted WIP projects. due to Open Space resources required to finalise 2013/14 WIP projects.

2680 Coast Park Grange Road - Construction 800,000 800,000 472,181 15,489 0 15,489 487,669 (312,331) (39%) 61% 312,331 Construction completed. Works Tender process was delayed Maintenance & minor works. Anticipated WIP 500,000 The selected 30/06/2015 2014/15  included - construction of due to inconsistency in cost & 312,350. The Contractor's coloured shared use path, car quantity schedules from remaining surplus construction cost has park, retaining wall, footpath, tenderers. funds will be used for come below the street & park furniture and future coast park available budget. landscaping. construction projects. Please note - 50% is DPTI funding

2685 Fawk Reserve Upgrade Stage 2 2014/15 438,328 438,328 437,081 0 0 0 437,081 (1,247) (0%) 100% 1,247 Project practically completed. Monitor & maintain during the Nil anticipated. Any 438,328 NA 12/12/2014  Works included - carpark, 12 month defects liability surplus funds lighting, sport shelter and period. remaining to be landscape works around 3 transferred to Stage detention basins. 3.

Page 15 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion 2700 Rowing Course Reserves Upgrade - Stage 3 50,000 50,000 21,358 0 0 0 21,358 (28,642) (57%) 43% 28,642 Preliminary conceptual design Construction budget for Community consultation and Anticipated WIP 50,000 NA 30/06/2016 (Design) 2014/15  completed. 2015/16 has not been documentation. 28,650. Construction Discussion/consultation with approved. Hence Community budget for 2015/16 Rowing SA completed. consultation and has not been documentation has been approved. Hence postponed. It will be Community undertaken to align with the consultation and construction works in 2016/17 documentation has (subject to Council funding) been postponed. It will be undertaken to align with the construction works in 2016/17 (subject to Council funding)

Total 1,428,328 1,428,328 930,620 15,489 0 15,489 946,109 (482,219) (34%) 66% 482,219

WIP - Deny Chirappurathu

2291 Coast Park Construction from Henley Beach to 32,000 32,000 31,721 0 0 0 31,721 (280) (1%) 99% 280 Project practically completed. Monitor & maintain during the Nil 32,000 NA 15/08/2014 Ozone St 11/12  Modification to beach accesses, 12 month defects liability additional planting and mulch period. works completed.

2360 Coast Park Construction - Recreation Parade 307,900 307,900 308,461 0 0 0 308,461 561 0% 100% (561) Project practically completed. Monitor & maintain during the Nil 307,900 NA 30/09/2014 to Third Ave 12/  Works included - construction of 12 month defects liability shared use path, landscaping, period. additional fencing and linemarking works.

2362 Fawk Reserve Upgrade 12/13 26,960 26,960 26,960 0 0 0 26,960 0 0% 100% (0) Project practically completed. Monitor & maintain during the Nil 26,960 NA 12/12/2014  Installation of Tower lights for Net- 12 month defects liability ball court completed. period.

WIP Total 366,860 366,860 367,142 0 0 0 367,142 282 0% 100% (282)

GM Asset Mgt Services WIP - Anna Rogers

2501 Kill Bills - Civic Centre Energy Efficiency 316,140 316,140 194,637 102,364 0 102,364 297,001 (19,139) (6%) 94% 19,139 Grant funding secured from the Cwlth Project remains on track. Continue the energy efficiency A WIP of approximately Total cost of Project Project expected to 31/03/2016 Program (inc. Sh  Dept of Industry and Science. Project upgrade works under contract $121,503 is needed to 414000 (from both conclude in March plan completed and signed off by the with Dunbar's Electrical to ensure appropriate grant funding and 2016, with project Cwlth. Short Circuit film Competition beyond June 2015 (as agreed timing of payments for Council acquittal and final promoted, 19 films submitted, and works, and for delivery in the Funding Agreement). An contributions). The grant payments, and gala awards night held on 5 Sept of Project deliverables 2014. Prizemoney for film additional budget bid has been and milestones in Project spans over contractor payments, competition awarded. The short films approved for 15/16 to meet 2015/16. Energy three financial years - to be made at that are continuing to be shown at Council Council's funding obligations in efficiency upgrades are 2013/14, 2014/15 and time. The project is functions including Movie Nights in the Agreement. Update to be undertaken from 2015/16. A budget being funded and the Town Hall. Greenway Architects Council's website and intranet May to September 2015, bid has been delivered over three and Secon Consulting Engineers with energy efficiency and the implementation approved for 2015/16 financial years prepared the technical specifications information, and deliver of the Communication to secure the 3rd year (2013/14, 2014/15, for the energy efficiency upgrades Communications Strategy. Strategy is to be of funding for this and 2015/16). tender and the energy baseline for delivered throughout project as agreed with the project. Staff consultation 2015/16. Purchase occurred about energy efficiency orders P50724/7 the Federal upgrades. The Federal Government (Greenway Architects - Government. has approved all of Council's $6244.50 remaining) Milestone Reports in 2014/15 and and P51920/2 (Dunbar's associated Milestone payments. Electrical - $106,355.74 Lengthy negotiations occurred with remaining) need to be Feds to revise approved scope as carried over. some items were not viable at Civic Centre, a Deed of Variation was agreed in June allowing amended scope.

WIP Total 316,140 316,140 194,637 102,364 0 102,364 297,001 (19,139) (6%) 94% 19,139

Page 16 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Adrian Sykes 2657 Provision for Landfill gas Capture - Garden 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 (600,000) (100%) 0% 600,000 Western Region Waste Based on a re-assessment of Following the further Based on a re- Island 2014/15  Management Authority has fund requirements for the LFG assessment of potential assessment of fund issued a tender and awarded a management systems a call on contract costs a report will be requirements for the contract for the Implementation of funds from the Regional presented to Council providing completion of the LFG the Landfill Gas Monitoring Authority has not been a best estimate of the management systems System Garden Island Project. necessary this financial year. anticipated costs associated a further call on funds Project works underway. Final for the completion of the from the Regional LFG flare has now been ordered Garden Island remediation Authority constituent and is due to arrive in the first works. This report will confirm councils should not week of August 2015. no further call should be made been necessary on the Regional Authorities unless unforseen constituent councils unless costs are incurred. unforeseen costs are incurred. WRWMA to hand over ownership and maintenance to Renewal SA on 1 September 2015.

Total 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 (600,000) (100%) 0% 600,000

WIP - Adrian Sykes

2350 Water Proofing The West Stage 1 12/13 0 0 5,300 0 0 0 5,300 5,300 100% 0% (5,300) This Project should not appear as  wrapped up into 2477

2476 Water Proofing the West - Stage 2a 2013/14 1,736,500 1,736,500 152,609 315,000 0 315,000 467,609 (1,268,891) (73%) 27% 1,268,891 Refer PROJECTS >$1M  REPORT

2477 Water Proofing the West Stage 1 - completion 1,502,780 1,502,780 634,422 143,145 0 143,145 777,568 (725,212) (48%) 52% 725,212 Refer PROJECTS >$1M of Project 2013  REPORT

WIP Total 3,239,280 3,239,280 792,331 458,145 0 458,145 1,250,477 (1,988,803) (61%) 39% 1,988,803

WIP - Murali K. G.

2210 Torrens Rd Catchment - Stormwater Mgt Plan 78,500 78,500 12,313 0 0 0 12,313 (66,188) (84%) 16% 66,188 Torrens Road Stormwater Project completed within Follow up with NRM Board and Nil $12,313 Project completed  Management plan adopted by budget as additional modelling Stormwater Management Council in June 2015 and was not required. Authority for approval of plan forwarded to NRM Board for endorsement

2546 Box Culvert Replacement Program - Tapleys 119,700 119,700 111,894 0 0 0 111,894 (7,806) (7%) 93% 7,806 Project Completed in Aug 2014 Project completed slightly Nil Nil $112,000 Complete Hill Road 2013/14  under budget

WIP Total 198,200 198,200 124,207 0 0 0 124,207 (73,993) (37%) 63% 73,993

Field Services Sue Hutchings 2654 Stormwater Pump Station Renewal Works 70,000 70,000 23,117 0 0 0 23,117 (46,883) (67%) 33% 46,883 Beach Street Pump Station Timing of Apex Pump Station Works to be constructed in Nil $23,117 N/A 30/06/2015 2014/15  Rising Main now water tested and rising main design was later 2015/2016 Financial Year backfilled - project complete. than the original proposed Apex Park Tenders assessment timing due to the need to go complete and contractor awarded out to open tender. contract. Condition assessment complete and concept ideas discussed with NRM board & SA Water. Design released for review, June 2015.

Total 70,000 70,000 23,117 0 0 0 23,117 (46,883) (67%) 33% 46,883

Page 17 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Peter Kinnersly 2628 Path Renewal 2014/15 – Field Services 400,000 400,000 294,287 1,922 0 1,922 296,208 (103,792) (26%) 74% 103,792 In June, Field services concrete All allocated footpath renewal Further prioritised footpath Nil 300000 Allocated works 31/03/2015  crew completed upgrades to the works completed and savings works will be scheduled for completed at reduced last of their alocated Footpath from original budget will be next Financial Year. costs from those sections in Holbrooks road. A achieved. originally budgeted. total of 58m2 of footpath was upgraded by Field Services concrete teams in June for a total of 2555m2 completed for the 2014/15 financial year.

2649 Kerb Ramp Renewal - DDA Compliance 150,000 150,000 136,111 335 0 335 136,445 (13,555) (9%) 91% 13,555 In June, 8 Kerb Ramps were DDA kerb ramp upgrade Continue with DDA Kerb Ramp Nil 150000 NA 30/06/2015 2014/15  upgraded to DDA specification in project running slightly behind upgrade program for 2015/16 Fulham Gardens. A total of 62 budget due to the concrete Kerb Ramps have been upgraded crew undertaking footpath this financial year. renewals upgrades and kerb ramps associated to these sections at the same time.

2650 Large Concrete Footpath and kerb and gutter 900,000 900,000 850,412 20,933 0 20,933 871,345 (28,655) (3%) 97% 28,655 In June 495m2 of footpath and Project costs running close to Continue with concrete CRM Nil 900000 N/A 30/06/2015 renewal 2014/15  kerb and gutter was upgraded in original budget with some backlog program. West Hindmarsh, Cheltenham, costs still expected to be Flinders Park, Kidman Park, received for june. Royal Park, Kilkenny, Semaphore Park, and Brompton. A total of 7508 m2 of footpath & kerb and gutter have been upgraded throughout the city this financial year.

2655 Waste Transfer Station Upgrade 2014/15 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 (50,000) (100%) 0% 50,000 Works commenced on waste Detailed design works on Complete further cost analysis $50,000 to be $50,000 N/A 30/06/2016  audit at Beverley Waste Centre to upgrade project delayed due to of preferred Waste Centre reallocated to cover enable better understanding of extra workshops required to upgrade options and put report the cost of all waste streams - audit completed explain proposal to elected to council seeking approval to approvals including September 2014. Budget pricing members for consideration for upgrade the Beverley the development for waste upgrade concepts funding. Awaiting further Recycling and Waste Centre. approval provided complete. Budget bid for invoice from consultant for council approve the construction works submitted works completed in May. upgrade option. January 2015. Workshop held with elected members in March and report presented to Asset Mamangement Committee in April seeking decision on upgrade proposal. Further workshop with elected members held in May to further explain upgrade options and cost modelling.

Total 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,280,810 23,189 0 23,189 1,303,999 (196,001) (13%) 87% 196,001

WIP - Peter Kinnersly

2548 Beverley Waste Management Centre upgrade 50,000 50,000 12,750 4,339 0 4,339 17,089 (32,911) (66%) 34% 32,911 Works commenced on waste Detailed design works on Complete further cost analysis Potential $37,250 to 50,000 N/A 30/06/2016 2013/14  audit at Beverley Waste Centre to upgrade project delayed due to of preferred Waste Centre be reallocated to enable better understanding of extra workshops required to upgrade options and put report cover the cost of all waste streams - audit completed explain proposal to elected to council seeking approval to approvals including September 2014. Budget pricing members for consideration for upgrade the Beverley the development for waste upgrade concepts funding. Awaiting further Recycling and Waste Centre. approval provided complete. Budget bid for invoice from consultant for council approve the construction works submitted works completed in May. upgrade option. January 2015. Workshop held Commitments of $4,339 will not with elected members in March be realised. and report presented to Asset Mamangement Committee in April seeking decision on upgrade proposal. Further workshop with elected members held in May to further explain upgrade options and cost modelling.

2601 BASA Bore Water Supply Project 270,000 270,000 270,366 0 0 0 270,366 366 0% 100% (366) All works completed on this Slight overrun of $366.00 to be No further actions - project Nil $270,366 N/A 30/10/2014  project with distribution pipeline funded from savings from complete. installed from Crittenden Road another capital project. through to Toogood Avenue and Ledger Road. This pipeline is now supplying recycled water for the truck washdown bay at Beverley and the oval at Adelaide Arena.

WIP Total 320,000 320,000 283,116 4,339 0 4,339 287,455 (32,545) (10%) 90% 32,545

Page 18 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Mark Chittleborough 2625 HMAS Australia Road - Streetscape Renewal 594,000 594,000 559,303 0 0 0 559,303 (34,697) (6%) 94% 34,697 Project complete. There have been considerable nil nil $570,000 Reduced budget 28/02/2015 2014-15  savings realised on this project required due to due to the reduced pavement significant pavement cost and reduction in design scope contaminated soil disposal changes. costs. $62.7k of contaminated soil dumping costs has last month been posted to this project from what was previously its own dedicated budget line.

2627 Park Terrace Service Road Streetscape 490,000 490,000 413,790 112,399 0 112,399 526,190 36,190 7% 100% (36,190) Project substantially complete Project start date was later Street print in Southern section There will be a small $490,000 There is ~$46k in a 30/06/2015 Renewal 2014-15  including landscaping component. than original forecast. Asphalt to be undertaken owing to non- over-run for the street large incorrect order not imputed as a commitment. availability of this specialist print in Southern (EDI Downer) and contractor at the time. sectionon account of other redundant the sole providert not orders which will be being able to cancelled. undertake these works until Aug/Sept.

2640 Third Street Brompton - New Road 50,000 50,000 26,525 0 0 0 26,525 (23,475) (47%) 53% 23,475 Field services construction crew Project was brought forward nil nil $30,000 Efficient, timely 28/02/2015 Construction 2014-15  has completed this project. from budgeted timing to delivery by field accommodate adjacent services crew. resident's build completion date. Some savings will be realised from this project.

Total 1,134,000 1,134,000 999,618 112,399 0 112,399 1,112,017 (21,983) (2%) 98% 21,983

Wayne Stephens 2648 Footpath Renewal - Block Paved Path Large 300,000 300,000 283,224 5,243 0 5,243 288,467 (11,533) (4%) 96% 11,533 In June the paving crew Total project costs running No further actions - project Nil $300, 000 N/A 30/06/2015 Area 2014/15  completed 355m2 of paving close to original budget with complete. upgrade works in Beverley, some costs still expected to be Woodville, West Lakes, Henley received for June. Beach, Brompton, Renown Park,Hindmarsh. This financial year a total of 4331 m2 of paving upgrades have been completed.

2653 Road Renewal - Large Area Asphalt Renewal 155,000 155,000 149,702 0 0 0 149,702 (5,298) (3%) 97% 5,298 Large asphalt patching works This is a budget to undertake Project complete for Nil $150,000 N/A 30/06/2015 2014/15  undertaken year to date: reactive asphalt works to 2014/2015. 1. Sands Way and Esplanade extend the life of road assets. 2. Liberman Crt. West Lakes. Works required for 2014/15 3. Frogmore Rd and Kidman Ave were slightly less than originally Intersection, Kidman Park budgeted. 4. Stroud St. South, Cheltenham. 5. Patrica St Woodville. 6. Cook Crt. Royal Park. 7. Trapp Ave. Seaton. 8. Military Road between York and Main St. 9. West St. Hindmarsh. 10. Thomas St. Croydon.

Total 455,000 455,000 432,926 5,243 0 5,243 438,169 (16,831) (4%) 96% 16,831

Page 19 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget)  Review (>+/-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best estimate total cost Annual Revised YTD YTD Finance % Budget Reason for YTD Budget Anticipated WIP as Best estimate of at completion is Finance Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Works System Ledger YTD YTD Total % Complete Remaining (Incl Variance or Issues Affecting at 30 June 2015 total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Commitments Expenditure Variance Variance Actual Commitments) Outcomes Achieved to Date Delivery of Project Future Action to be Taken including Reasons at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Mick Davey 2671 AMP - Irrigation System Upgrade 2014/15 557,982 557,982 357,894 108,803 0 108,803 466,697 (91,285) (16%) 84% 91,285 Irrigation System Upgrade for both Variation is a timing issue as we Complete irrigation upgrade at $108,803 due to the $467,697 Deferring Flinders 30/07/2015  Matheson and Pedlar Ovals has been have had to delay two projects at Sam Johnson sporting fields delays with finalising Park, and Pedlar rescheduled to next financial year Matheson and Pedlar Ovals. and The Avenues reserve. the design for Sam ovals opting for 2015/16 due to recycled water not Further delays with delivering Sam Johnson. Contractor Settlers and The being available this season. Flinders Johnson Oval upgrade due to the availablility and delays avenues reserve Park Oval upgrade now postponed consultation process and receiving due to proposed alterations to playing concerns regarding the location of with quotations for which provided surface as advised by Open Space infrastructure. electrical additional savings. and that issue may take 6 months to First quotation received for this components. Altering Sam Johnson resolve. project was highier in price then design to incorporate Settlers Reserve irrigation design and origanally advised which has a smaller tank has system upgrade completed. resulted in a staged approached provided savings. Pennington Oval Irrigation design for this upgrade. Stage one for the complete, quotations received and irrigation system to ovals and contractor appointed. Stage two for the pump and tank Sam Johnson Oval design completed system. Contractor's quotations for and consultation letter sent to Sam Johnson Oval Stage 1 & 2 adjoining residents for feedback delayed due to the complexity of (closed on 21/11/14). Concerns design. Sam raised from this consultation process Johnson design has been re related to the location of visited and altered on several infrastructure, therefore requiring occasions and finalised to operate further investigation. Finalised on a smaller tank capacity alternate design for Sam Johnson delivering desired incorporating a smaller tank outcomes.Further 2 quotations delivering desired required for the electrical outcomes.Pennington oval tank, component of Pennington upgrade pump and irrigation system has been to comply with procurement policy. installed with exception of the Contractors capability to achieve electrical component. Purchase June 30 deadline will affectect orders committed to contractors for delivery of project. Sam Johnson and The Avenues Reserve.

Total 557,982 557,982 357,894 108,803 0 108,803 466,697 (91,285) (16%) 84% 91,285

Page 20 of 20 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2690 - Henley Square Redevelopment 2014/15 Period 12 Jamie Hosking ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment

Contractor engaged, federal Government Funding secured, Early works commenced Stage 1 works comenced Activities Completed Stage 2 works commenced

Early Works - April - July 2015 The Edge – Early April to Late July Promenade (Beach / West Side) Main Works - July – November 2015 Ramp – late July to late August North Car Park – early June to mid August Seaview Road – early June to late July Promenade (East Side) & Big Lawn – early August to late October Henley Square / Plaza – early June to late October Upcoming Activities South Car Park – late August to late October

Relevant Dependencies Federal Government funding and reporting requirements to secure income stream Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $8,400,000.00

Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Project to occur across two financial years, additional budget to be allocated in 2015/16, federal funding to be received progressively through-out project. Budget car park allocated to separate budget line, budget lines to be reconciled in 2015/16. Estimate date of Project completion Practical completion anticipated 1/12/2015, defects liability period 1/12/2016 Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 6,000,000 Total Project Budget: $ (4,000,000) YTD Budget: $ 6,000,000 YTD Budget: $ (4,000,000) YTD Actual: $ 682,485 YTD Actual: $ (2,000,000) YTD Commitments: $ 7,572,051 YDT Actuals (Incl Commit) 8,254,536 YTD Variance: $ 2,254,536 Budget Status

% Variance 38%  Variance Explanation Delay in commencement of site works to avoid summer period. Funding commitment received from Federal Government, funding Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons 5,500,000 Total expenditure - delay in commencement of site works to avoid summer

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation 19/08/2014 19/08/2014 GREEN Completed Release of Request for Tender to shortlisted Completed 10/10/2014 10/10/2014 GREEN contractors Evaluate and appoint contractor for Completed 13/02/2015 13/02/2015 GREEN constructed work Stage 1 23/10/2015 23/10/2015 GREEN North Car Park 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 GREEN Works commenced on schedule Seaview Road 31/07/2015 31/07/2015 GREEN South Car Park 23/10/2015 23/10/2015 GREEN Stage 2 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Ablutions 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Plaza 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN Works brought forward ahead of schedule Promenade 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN West Side (South) 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 GREEN Commenced with early works package West Side (North) 05/08/2015 05/08/2015 GREEN East Side 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 GREEN North Lookout Area 26/10/2015 26/10/2015 GREEN Beach Access 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN Works commenced as early works package Edge 20/07/2015 20/07/2015 GREEN Works commenced as early works package Beach Access Ramp 27/08/2015 27/08/2015 GREEN Beach Access Stairs (Deleted) 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN SLSC Surrounds 27/10/2015 27/10/2015 GREEN

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action As below

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project

Page 1 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 Appropriate interface / Lack of consideration of redevelopment location relating interaction from precinct or to surrounding community precinct, lack of consultation adjoining areas - functional 1 Safety & Security with key stakeholders assets Lack of consideration of constructability, lack off project 2 Resources planning. Construction errors Project staging or procurement model is not Lack of project planning, lack of consideration of design appropriate for design then 3 Governance/ Project Management and construction approvals process. construction

Stakeholders requirements and expectations are not met during construction. This could in turn create a delay to the project which Lack of consultation with stakeholders, poor project would have a financial impact 4 Community / Reputational management and planning. on CCS and / or BMD. Lack of independent legal advice, lack of implementation of project governance tools and strategies, poor risk inadequate contract 5 Governance/ Project Management allocation management

inadequate construction management, lack of budget Costs overruns from consideration, lack of project planning, lack of project inadequate construction 6 Financial management experience with construction. management

Multiple parties onsite - Lack of project planning and poorly scheduled possession of site issues and 7 Governance/ Project Management construction timetable poor site management.

Environmental impacts from design and construction e.g. spillage into coast, noise and Lack of consideration of environmental surroundings to dust, EPA regulations, 8 Environmental breach redevelopment area groundwater Lack of project planning and consultation with Customer complaints during 9 Customer complaints during construction stakeholders construction Project duration blowout 10 Project / Overheads Over-run LD's incurred Weather or latent conditions City of Charles Sturt does not issue appropriate IFC 11 Quality / Design Delay in procurement and construction. drawings. 12 Resources Overhead over-run Project cost implications Project not delivered to program, specification or standards expected of a reputable contractor. Lack of sufficient resourcing to 13 Resources Damage incurred to contractor reputation. manage program and project. Project delays, lack of project planning, lack of contract Liquidated damages arising 14 Project Over-run clauses addressing liquidated damages from project delays.

Lack of project understanding 15 Operational Oversights in materials / costs required at tender phase Non-attendence and late connections will affect other 16 Delay in utility connections Project delay and LD's trades and PC date 17 Service strikes personal injury Hitting an unknown service Repair costs Stakeholder disruption (potential loss of trading) Project delay costs 18 Service strikes Hitting an unknown service Damage to third party Damge to property property and or works during 19 Site Secuity Damage / delays to ongoing works construction

lack of safety measures in place and lack of consideration of surrounding 20 Safety & Security Public injury precinct causing injury Affected Stakeholder backlash Poor utility liaison, utility 21 Governance/ Project Management Program delay disruption. Delay to master program due to poor subcontractor performance. Poor subcontractor 22 Poor subcontractor resourcing This can effect other subcontractor programs performance Unearthing ancient / cultural 23 Delay to Project Damage to cultural herritage remains. remains Personal injury through exposure to dust Building / property damage Excessive noise, dust, Public complaints due to noise and dust vibration and restricted access 24 Disturbance to community / residents EPA infringement notice issued against BMD

Mobile plant or construction vehicles operating within 25 Public being struck by plant or vehicle Personal injury public space

Health effects when in contact with contaminated Contact with contamintated 26 Unknown Contaminated soil materials soil or materials Collapse of excavations Reduced stability of Damage to works excavations due to the 27 Reduction in stability of temporary structures Delay to program presence of groundwater

Page 2 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 EPA intervention with potential monetary fine and project shut down. Negative publicity Turbid / contaminated water 28 Surface water runoff Community complaints entering beach Damage to unknown cultural remains Damage to unknown cultural 29 Cultural heritage Archaeology / Kaurna land Delay to project whilst investigation occurs remains EPA intervention with potential monetary fine and project shut down. Turbid or contaminated runoff Negative publicity from construction site enters 30 Beach contamination Community complaints waterway

Damage to herritage building causes financial cost to Damage to Herritage Buildings 31 Damage to Herritage Buildings BMD due to construction works Replacement of mature trees is difficult. BMD penalised by client. Damage or remove trees to be 32 Flora protection/ damage Norfolk pines Bad publicity from community retained EPA and Council issue infringement depending on the Constuction works affect or 33 Injury or displacement of Fauna nature of the event injure local Fauna

Contamination via exposure 34 Presence of asbestos during demolition or excavation Terminal illness from exposure to asbestos materials Delays to program due to latent condition may not be accepted by Client if impropper notification proceedure is Incorrect notification of latent 35 Latent conditions followed conditions Works installed are not deemed consistent with spec 36 Construction defects Re-work is required at BMD's expense or drawings Damage to private property will represent a financial cost to BMD Additional scope required to liaise with 3rd party making 37 Damage to 3rd party property claim Damage to 3rd party property Poor management of the project results in: Construction HSEQ Program 38 Project Personel not in touch with project scope Client relations Absence of key personel Poor publicity for BMD / CCS Increased potential for accidents by introducing changed Construction works disrupt 39 Traffic Congestion traffic conditions traffic flow Injury to member of public results in insurance claim Pedestrian injury due to 40 Pedestrian injury against BMD slippery, uneven surfaces Late delivery and acceptance of samples and specialised items Samples failing and 41 Late delivery and acceptance of samples and specialised items Delay to program and construction sequencing resubmission required Damage to new works prior to 42 Damage to new works Re-completion of works at BMD's expense handover

43 Poor Housekeeping Injury to public caused by construction debris Loose debris in public areas Disabled persons cannot access public space. Disabled persons injure themselves on non-compliant Non-compliant disabled 44 Non-compliant disabled access through plaza access ramps access through plaza

No access for emergency 45 No access for emergency vehicles / personnel on Jetty Injured person cannot receive emergency assistance vehicles / personnel on Jetty Little to no information on the structural information and Damage to sea wall during construction that represents a integrity of the existing sea 46 Unknown Integrity of existing seawall significant cost to repair wall Little to no information on the structural information and Damage to sea wall during construction that represents a integrity of the existing sea 47 Unknown Integrity of existing seawall serious safety issue and could result in falling over wall Injury / death due to falling from height or objects falling Working beneath raised 48 Falling from heights and falling objects from heights working platform. Contractors taking majority of community parks in north and 49 Contractor parking a nuisance to community Contractor parking dispaces local business parking south car park. Concrete wash out not completed to environmental 50 Environmental impacts from Concrete washout Chemicals from concrete leach into groundwater standards. beach sand in the eye of 51 Sand – foreign bodies in eye Numerous cases of sand /dirt in people's eyes workers. Employees get sunburnt when working along the 52 Sun / UV coastline Sun burn Human contact with Employee illness as the result of contact with Contact with contamintated 53 contaminated materials contaminated materials on site materials

Construction equipment and new works on beach ruined Works ruined / damaged by 54 King tide / Storm event by storm surge storm event or king tide.

Construction equipment and new works on beach ruined Works ruined / damaged by 55 King tide / Storm event by storm surge storm event or king tide.

Page 3 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2703 - Frank Mitchell Reserve Clubroom Upgrade Stage 3 2014/15 Period 12 Richard Hughes GREEN

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment

A concept design plan on the building redevelopment has been completed in July 2014, Also the Club has provided approval to proceed with the current design. Planning Activities Completed and Building Rules Consent has been granted in June 2015. Building work is likely to occur in late 2015

Upcoming Activities The project will be handed to the club for the construction phase.

Relevant Dependencies The Club will now have to sign off a deed of agreement prior to any building work starting in Mid 2015

Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $1,040,000.00 Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget

Estimate date of Project completion Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 1,040,000 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 1,040,000 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 0 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 0 YTD Variance: $ (1,040,000) Budget Status

% Variance (100%)  Variance Explanation Project is to be a WIP for 2015/2016. Therefore no work will take place until next financial year. Refer to AM 16/2/15, Item 3.17

Council approved that this project to be a WIP of $1,040.000 for next financial year due to a request by the Club to delay the building works until late 2015. Refer to AM 16/2/15, Item 3.17. Also a funding deed of agreement is also required to be established with the club and this has not progressed and could cause a possible delay on the project Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons completion date.

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Concept Plans Completed 01/07/2014 GREEN Work Completed Design Documentation for the Clubroom 01/10/2014 19/12/2014 GREEN redevelopment Work Completed Planning and Building Approvals 01/11/2014 03/05/2015 GREEN Work Completed Building Commencement 01/01/2015 01/08/2015 GREEN Due in Mid to late 2015 Project manage the club and building contractor on Hold points during the building 30/06/2015 GREEN The club has now asked council to delay the project until the completion of the 2015 process soccer season. Project Close Out 30/06/2016 01/02/2016 GREEN Subject to the Club Program of works

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

The Club has requested that the building project be delayed until the A report has been presented to council and council has approved the proposal to delay 1 completion of the 2015 Soccer season and a WIP will be required

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project The clubs ability to successfully manage a building project of this nature and Implement deed of agreement to assign cost of over-run delay on project and budget 1 lack of project planning and lack of budget consideration to the club overun Contractor commitment to deliver this project schedule and cost over-runs preparation of Deed of agreement to assign cost of over- delay on project and project 2 due to inadequate construction management run to the club. Council staff to oversee contruction budget overun Ensure the club is aware of the Hold points prior to any Contractor commitment to ensure all council hold points are adhered to for work proceeding and deed of agreement referring to change in agreed scope of 3 quality control and contractor to change the scope of works changes in scope and variations. project

Page 4 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2571 - St Clair Recreation Centre Upgrade 2013/14 Period 12 Richard Hughes GREEN

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment

This project included the roof replacement at the St Clair Recreation Centre. Council has endorsed the replacement of the roof at the St Clair Recreation Centre. An Architect has prepared some initial scoping of the project and a quantity Surveyor has prepared a cost estimate report for the full replacement. An Architect has been appointed to produce some design documentation to obtain quotes from building contractors. The project scope has increased due to the National Building Code requirements to address fire safety and disabled access and building safety. Due to the additional cost of the work required this major project will be placed on hold until Activities Completed additional funds are sourced.

Appoint a contractor to undertake the main stadium ceiling replacement, All other work to be placed on hold. Instruct the Architect to place the working drawings onhold including the services engineer and structural engineer. A report will be presented to council to consider reducing the scope of work on the project due to Upcoming Activities escalating building costs and the legislative requirement to undertake additional building safety and access work. Relevant Dependencies Nil Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $200,000.00 Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Due to the scope change the project cost has significantly reduced, The main stadium ceiling is to be replaced only Estimate date of Project completion Ceiling Replacement is due for completion in June 2015 Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 1,867,050 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 1,867,050 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 181,349 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 17,290 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 198,639 YTD Variance: $ (1,668,411) Budget Status

% Variance (89%)  Variance Explanation Funds Have been committed for design work only and the ceiling replacement

$320,000.00 Total - A WIP of 17,290.00 is required to fund the iconic sign to be installed at the front of the building next to the footpath. This sign is required sue to the quick wins established by the community reference group. A $300,000.00 WIP is required for Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons the design development for a building upgrade/replacement

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Quantity Serveyors report Received 01/06/2014 GREEN Work Completed 30/09/2014 20/10/2014 GREEN Obtain Quotes for the design documentation Work Completed Appoint Architect for the design 20/11/2014 27/10/2014 GREEN Documentation Work Completed Completion of design documentation ready Work Placed Onhold - The architect has been appointed and work is underway, The cost 15/11/2014 19/12/2014 GREEN for tender of the work is escalating due to the Mandatory legislative work requirement from the Seek tenders for the building project 16/01/2015 16/02/2015 GREEN Work on Hold Appoint building contractor to replace the 01/03/2015 01/03/2015 GREEN main stadium ceiling only Work Underway to replace the main stadium ceiling tiles only

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project 1 Consultant availibility and design schedule overun discuss capacity and current commitments delay on project 2 Contractor Availiability discuss capacity and current commitments delay on project

Page 5 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 The design will be staged to allow for easy scope 3 Unavailiable Budget due to high tenders reduction reduced scope of project

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2712 - Woodville Town Hall Roof Truss Remediation 2014/15 Period 12 Richard Hughes GREEN

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment

Building works is completed on the truss remediation project at the Woodville Town Hall, All 12 top cords of the 6 trusses have been replaced including the ornate Activities Completed ceiling. Council has endorsed the project due to public safety concerns (trusses replacement CL 28/7/14 6.111, ceiling replacement 8/9/14 6.155).

Upcoming Activities Nil

Relevant Dependencies Nil

Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $1,972,920.00

Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Savings on original budget

Estimate date of Project completion Work completed Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 2,044,800 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 2,044,800 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 1,972,920 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 0 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 1,972,920 YTD Variance: $ (71,880) Budget Status

% Variance (4%)  Variance Explanation Savings Made on Original Budget Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons Nil

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation 02/06/2014 GREEN Work Completed Roof and structural works 15/10/2015 GREEN Work Completed Flat ceiling removal and replacement 19/12/2015 GREEN Work Completed Scaffolding dismantle and making good of all 19/02/2015 GREEN surfaces Work Completed Demobilisation and Practical completion 03/03/2015 16/02/2015 GREEN Work Completed Project Close Out 16/03/2015 05/02/2015 GREEN Work Completed

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

Page 6 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2716 - Path Renewal 2014/15 – Periodic Contract Period 12 Nas Dastoor GREEN

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment Activities Completed See list below Upcoming Activities Complete Asset Data Capture Relevant Dependencies Nil Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $2,060,000.00 Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Estimate date of Project completion Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 2,149,000 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 2,149,000 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 2,027,830 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 30,138 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 2,057,968 YTD Variance: $ (91,032) Budget Status

% Variance (4%)  Variance Explanation Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons $70,000- For Telstra pit adjustments at approx 10 locations

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Reinforced Concrete Path 30/08/2014 GREEN Kidman Avenue, Kidman Park 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Athol Street, Athol Park 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Sinclair Square, Pennington 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Wastell Reserve, Pennington 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Cooke Reserve, Kingston Park 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Gilligan Street, Pennington 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Walkway - Whites, Allenby Gardens 30/08/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Grange Road, Findon 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Findon Road, Findon 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Regent Street, Pennington 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Eastbourne Terrace, Pennington 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Butler Avenue , Pennington 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Addison Road, Pennington 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Arthur Street, Pennington 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Addison Road, Pennington 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Addison Road, Pennington 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Addison Road, Pennington 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. 30/10/2014 30/04/2015 GREEN Fairford Terrace Walkway, West Lakes Shore Construction complete. Alicia Street, Athol Park 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Cooke Street, Athol Park 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Port Road Albert Park 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Port Road Albert Park 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Murray Street Albert Park 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Port Road Albert Park 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Grange Road Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Grange Road Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Coombe Road Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Coombe Road Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Foster Street Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Knight Street Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete.

Page 7 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 East Avenue Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. East Avenue Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Coombe Road Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Knight Street Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Park Avenue Athol Park 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Glenroy Street Athol Park 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete McLean Street Beverley 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Coglin Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Hocking Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Chief Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Second Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Coglin Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Chief Street Brompton 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Cheltenham Parade Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Cricksdale Street Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Third Avenue Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Third Avenue Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Woodstock Street Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Cheltenham Parade Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Port Road Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Cheltenham Parade Cheltenham 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Queen Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Scotia Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Elizabeth Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Thomas Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Thomas Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Thomas Street Croydon 30/12/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Berwick Avenue Devon Park 30/12/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Gail Road Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Westminster Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/05/2015 GREEN Construction underway Tapleys Hill Road Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 GREEN Deferred due to pending development Grange Road Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 GREEN Deferred due to pending development Shaftsbury Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/04/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Devonshire Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Menkens Street Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Craig Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Joseph Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Jamaica Avenue Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Grange Road Fulham Gardens 30/01/2015 30/04/2015 GREEN Construction complete. Kentdale Street Grange 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Yorkshire Street Grange 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Mundulla Street Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Mundulla Street Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Mundulla Street Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Goodall Avenue Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Wilpena Terrace Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Wilpena Terrace Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Aroona North Road Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Aroona North Road Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Share Street Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Torrens Road Kilkenny 28/02/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Guthrie Street Ovingham 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Noble Street Ovingham 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. St Johns Avenue Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Exeter Terrace Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Baker Street Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Lamont Street Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Deferred due to new development Napier Street Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Sam Johnson Sportsground - Outer Renown 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Park construction underway Napier Street Renown Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete Military Road West Beach 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Planning Concrete Paver Path 30/08/2014 GREEN Torrens Road Brompton 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Cheltenham Parade Cheltenham 30/07/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Jack Johnson Court Devon Park 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Grange Road Flinders Park 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Grange Road Flinders Park 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Grange Road Flinders Park 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Grange Road Flinders Park 30/09/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction Complete Sunset Reserve Grange 30/08/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Sunset Reserve Grange 30/08/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Sunset Reserve Grange 30/08/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Hanson Road Kilkenny 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Jack Johnson Court Renown Park 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Hansen Circuit Renown Park 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Planning Jack Johnson Court Renown Park 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Green Road Woodville West 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Clay Paver Path 30/08/2014 GREEN Trembath Street Bowden 30/10/2014 30/08/2014 GREEN Construction complete. Asphalt Path 30/08/2014 GREEN Field Court - Reserve Parade Road Closure 30/03/2015 30/06/2015 GREEN Findon Constrcution Complete Gibson Street Bowden 30/03/2015 GREEN Deferred due to new development Gibson Street Bowden 30/03/2015 GREEN Deferred due to new development Gibson Street Bowden 30/03/2015 30/05/2015 GREEN Constrution complete Brompton Green Reserve Brompton 30/03/2015 30/05/2015 GREEN Constrution complete Breakout South Reserve West Beach 30/03/2015 30/05/2015 GREEN Deferred due to new development

Page 8 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 Kennington Avenue Brompton 30/03/2015 01/07/2015 GREEN Constrution complete Collins Reserve - Outer Fulham Gardens 30/03/2015 02/07/2015 GREEN Deferred due to new development Collins Reserve - Kidman Park 30/03/2015 03/07/2015 GREEN Deferred due to new development Drayton Street Bowden 30/03/2015 04/07/2015 GREEN Constrution complete Ninth Street Bowden 30/03/2015 05/07/2015 GREEN Construction complete Josiah Mitton Reserve Brompton 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Conmstruction Complete Ninth Street Reserve Bowden 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN Constrcution Complete Montgomery Reserve Flinders Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN construction complete Montgomery Reserve Flinders Park 30/03/2015 30/08/2014 GREEN construction complete Other sites in the approved Asset Management Plan 2014 currently being 30/08/2014 GREEN scoped Planning Project Close Out 30/08/2015 ORANGE In progress

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action No Issues

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project No Risks for escalation

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2633 - Road Reconstruction Program 2014/15 Period 12 Nas Dastoor ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment Activities Completed 1. White Ave, Athol Park Road reconstruction completed Upcoming Activities Minor finishing works and Street print Relevant Dependencies Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Estimate date of Project completion Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 3,585,000 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 3,585,000 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 3,181,273 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 579,345 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 3,760,617 YTD Variance: $ 175,617 Budget Status

% Variance 5%  Variance Explanation Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons $200,000 to complete Hawker Street street print , minor stormwater pit adjustments in

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Finalise program of works 30/09/2014 GREEN Glenroy Street, Athol Park 30/04/2015 ORANGE Minor stormwater pit work pending and some line marking pending White Avenue, Athol Park 30/04/2015 GREEN Lavinia Street, Athol Park 30/04/2015 ORANGE Minor stormwater pit work pending Arndale Street, Arndale 30/04/2015 GREEN Johns Lane, Henley Beach 30/05/2015 GREEN Hawker Street, Brompton 30/05/2015 ORANGE Street print works delayed due to contractor unavailability Other Roads (undefined work) 30/05/2015 GREEN Survey and Design Work for 2015/16 30/06/2015 GREEN Soil Testing/Contamination 30/06/2015 GREEN Project Close Out ORANGE

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action No Issues for escalation

Page 9 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project No Risks for escalation

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2634 - Road Rehabilitation Works 2014/15 Period 12 Nas Dastoor ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment Activities Completed 1. Preliminary meeting with Contractor (Downer) complete. Upcoming Activities 1. Kerb & Gutter construction by K & G Construction Pty Ltd. Relevant Dependencies Asphalt works dependent on kerb and gutter renewal associated with road works. Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion $2,000,000.00 Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Estimate date of Project completion Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 2,216,000 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 2,216,000 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 1,813,023 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 376,930 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 2,189,953 YTD Variance: $ (26,047) Budget Status

% Variance (1%)  Variance Explanation Savings made on original budget Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons Nil

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Finalise program of works 30/06/2014 GREEN Complete and Global Council Solutions program submitted by the contractor Charlotte Court, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Wandilla Street, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Ian Street, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Willochra Avenue, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Charles Sturt Avenue, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Connaught Street, Grange 30/07/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Alexander Avenue, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Reynolds Place, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Presgrave Court, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Flavel Place, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Annells Court, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Mclean Avenue, Grange 30/08/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Chetwynd Street, West Beach 30/09/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Cottesloe Street, West Beach 30/09/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Broden Road, West Beach 30/09/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Wallis Street, West Beach 30/09/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Newcombe Lane, Henley Beach 30/09/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Krista Court, Kidman Park 30/10/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Canino Drive, Kidman Park 30/10/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Elm Street, Kidman Park 30/10/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Cork Street, Kidman Park 30/10/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Gerrard Road, Flinders Park 30/11/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Beltana Road, Flinders Park 30/11/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Homestead Block Place, Ridleyton 30/11/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Maclagan Avenue, Allenby Gardens 30/11/2014 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Surrey Street, Grange (Stage 1) 30/01/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Surrey Street, Grange (Stage 2) 30/01/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Ward Street, Pennington 28/02/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Fortisgreen Street, Pennington 28/02/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Dayman Avenue, Albert Park 28/02/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Malin Street, Albert Park 28/02/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Wendourie Court, West Lakes 30/03/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete.

Page 10 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 Cook Street, Athol Park 30/03/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Slater Street, Athol Park 31/03/2015 GREEN Kerb & Gutter and Asphalt construction complete. Crack Sealing - various roads 30/04/2015 GREEN All work complete. Large Asphalt - Plane & Reinstate - various 01/05/2015 GREEN roads All work complete. Project Close Out GREEN In progress - Asset Officer updating assets register as work is completed.

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action Nil

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project Nil

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2428 - Bridge Projects 12/13 Period 12 Phil Hewitt ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment Activities Completed Upcoming Activities Relevant Dependencies Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Estimate date of Project completion Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 1,291,580 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 1,291,580 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 673,566 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 0 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 673,566 YTD Variance: $ (618,014) Budget Status

% Variance (48%)  Variance Explanation Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation GREEN Execution Milestone 1 ORANGE Execution Milestone 2 RED Execution Milestone 3 GREEN Execution Milestone n GREEN Project Close Out GREEN

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project

Page 11 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2350 & 2477 - Waterproofing the West - Stage 1 Period 12 Adrian Sykes ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment Activities Completed EPA Licenses to inject water received. Landscaping completed around wetlands at St Clair. Commissioning of Mechanical and electrical plant including SCADA systems is nearly completed. Further refinement or optimisation of plant commissioning will then be Upcoming Activities commenced. Negotiations on the 20+ conditions on the State water licences is to be undertaken. Department of Water (DEWNR) License conditions to be further negotiated and additional optimising and modelling may be required to be undertaken by Wallbridge & Relevant Dependencies Gilbert. Best estimate of total cost of Project at completion Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Budget Yet to be determined how closely costs incurred will match the Project Budget allocation. WPW works have reached Practical completion however commissioning works are continuing through this and next financial year, and the third pipe infrastructure in St Estimate date of Project completion Clair will be completed in 2017 when the developer completes work on Project. Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 1,502,780 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 1,502,780 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 639,722 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 143,145 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 782,867 YTD Variance: $ (719,913) Budget Status

% Variance (48%)  Ongoing expenditure will be incurred next financial year due to delays in finalising the commissioning works. There is a need to continue with specialist consultants to assist with optimising the plant commissioning and to gain more advantageous licencing Variance Explanation conditions.

Most commissioning costs have been expended this financial year however some activities will remain outstanding (estimated cost $200,000), plus landscaping maintenance has a 2 year contract (approximately $60,000) plus future provision for 3rd pipe system - Council has been paid in advance and will need to contribute approximately Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons $423,000 in future years. Currently anticipate Total WIP approximately $684,000.

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Project Initiation GREEN Minor works still outstanding due to changes of design to meet DPTI requirements. Old Port Road Crossover 30/09/2014 30/12/2014 ORANGE EPA Licenses to inject received in September 2014, however requires further negotiations Complete commissioning of all Mechanical and Electrical systems. Run entire system on 30/09/2014 30/06/2015 ORANGE Automatic Mode It is expected all defects and omissions will be rectified by contractors Final Completion for all contracts 30/03/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN Execution Milestone GREEN Project Close Out GREEN

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project Commissioning of Mechanical, Electrical and Communication system could Delay in fully automated take longer than expected time resulting in delay in harvesting of stormwater. Identify commissioning problems and system system being operational Note licence to inject water was received only in September 2014. Likelihood: modification and work with contractor and Design resulting in less water being 1 Possible; Risk Rating: Medium consultant to rectify any issues harvested

Practical completion certification for all contract includes list of defects and omissions that need to be addressed by contractors. Contract Superintendent services are Contractors claiming additional costs for delay costs, system enhancements available if and when required to resolve any contractual Additional costs to resolve 2 resulting in contractual disputes. Likelihood: Unlikely, Risk Rating: Medium issues or potential disputes. potential disputes. Department of Water (DEWNR) License condition and any additional Work closely with department to clarify reporting Additional costs to undertake 3 modelling that may be required. requirements modelling

Page 12 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Name Reporting Period Project Manager Overall Status 2351 & 2476 - Waterproofing the West - Stage 2 Period 12 Adrian Sykes ORANGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

Area Comment A Pipeline Alignment Options Report and Alignment Drawings have been prepared by Aurecon indicating their recommendation on the preferred corridor option to be Activities Completed used. Approval from DPTI is required in relation to boring or open cut works method at the intersection of Port and Woodville Roads. Two Community Information Sessions on 11 and Thursday 13 August 2015. Upcoming Activities Final design will then be commenced based on assessment of information nights. Funding commitment from Stormwater Management Authority (SMA) and Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (AMLR NRM Board) is Relevant Dependencies required prior to tendering out for the construction works in future years. Best estimate of total cost of Project at Current Total Project Budget estimate for design and drainage construction works only is $27 Million . Note this cost is excluding any potential landscape/ streetscape completion works which Council may consider funding as part of the Budget Bid process in 2015. Reason why best estimate total cost at completion is different to total Revised Current year funds are only required forDetailed Design, Costing and Community Consultation. Further CCS budget considerations will depend on funding from Budget Stormwater Management Authority and NRM Board and considerations for future construction works including drainange and potential landscaping works. Design and investigative works are currently estimated to complete in September/October 2015. Future construction works will be budgeted in following financial years Estimate date of Project completion and timing of completion unknown at this stage as it requires contributory funding partners commitment. Budget Expenditure: Budget Income: Total Project Budget: $ 1,736,500 Total Project Budget: $ 0 YTD Budget: $ 1,736,500 YTD Budget: $ 0 YTD Actual: $ 152,609 YTD Actual: $ 0 YTD Commitments: $ 315,000 YTD Actuals (Incl Commit) 467,609 YTD Variance: $ (1,268,891) Budget Status

% Variance (73%)  Note this is a multi-year Project. The Budget amount shown above is a component only of the Total budget required. Based on a decision of council the contribution of funding and the PLEC works anticipated to commence in Feb 2014 was ceased. A new scope of works focusing on drainage and flood mitigation and extending from the Old Port/Port Road intersecting to Park Street South has now been agreed by the SMA and contributory funding of $227,000 for the redesign component (only) has been confirmed by the SMA. A Variance Explanation funding application is to be made to the SMA when the redesign is completed. Note this is a multi-year Project and a WIP will occur of approximately $1.3 Million. It is expected only approximately $400K will be spent on consultancy by 30 June 2015. A revised Project Budget expediture and budgeted income is likely to be known by Anticipated WIP as at 30 June 2015 including Reasons October/November 2015.

KEY MILESTONE TRACKING Completion Date Milestone Planned Revised Status Comments Release Tender for Re- design 30/07/2014 15/09/2014 GREEN Appoint Consultant for the design 30/11/2014 30/12/2014 GREEN Documentation Complete Desktop Design 30/01/2015 28/02/2015 GREEN Complete Consultation Strategy 15/10/2015 08/04/2015 GREEN 28/02/2015 05/05/2015 GREEN Complete Consultation and Receive feedback 30/08/2015 30/09/2015 GREEN Complete Final Design and Documentation

PROJECT ISSUES FOR ESCALATION Issue No. Description Proposed Action

PROJECT RISKS FOR ESCALATION Risk No. Description Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact on Project Recent discussions at the Stormwater Management Authority Board meeting were positive. The SMA has confirmed the new scope of works and design fund contribution, and has reinforced it sees the Port Road stormwater construction works as a high priority. "The SMA though the Stormwater funding group (which includes representatives from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural If CCS is unable to source required contributory funding for the construction Resources, Department of Treasury and Project scope agreed SMA works associated with Stage 2 from Stormwater Management Authority when Finance, the South Australian Local Government design funding confirmed, sought in 2015, it would likely result in Council not proceeding with Association and the SMA) will ensure that however SMA/State construction works until SMA commits to funding. Likelihood: Possible, the Port Road Project is considered as a high priority construction funding to be 1 Consequence: Major; Risk rating: High project...." 14/151503. confirmed.

Page 13 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 A Civil construction contractor and arboriculturist to review the design and design consultant to consider Additional costs; loss of trees Adverse Impact of stormwater drainage design on existing trees in Port Road various options, risks and cost analysis prior to finalising resulting in resident 2 median . Likelihood: Possible, Consequence: Major; Risk rating: High pipe alignment. complaints Increase in project cost : Input from public consultation resulting in increase in Delay in commencing scope of works and costs. Likelihood: Possible, Consequence: Moderate Risk Council will have the opportunity to assess feedback and construction due to scope 3 rating: Moderate program additional scope of works over several years adjustments. Risk of Project not going ahead due to 1,2 and 3 resulting in an estimated 1500 Continue to negotiate with state government, residents Project delays and additional 4 properties being flooded in a 100 year storm. Many properties under threat of and develop a feasible project costs to Council

Page 14 of 14 Printed 10/07/2015 City of Charles Sturt 151. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87

APPENDIX B

Appendix B consists of 7 pages.

[Note: financial reporting is interim until year end audit is finalised]

Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Engineering Strategy and Assets Mike Blythe

14002 Strategic Transport Counts 2014/15 15,000 15,000 12,575 0 12,575 (2,425) (16%) 84% 2,425 0 0 Super Sunday Bike and Additional counts for varios Invoice for 2014 - 15 work $15,000 Some invoice yet to 30/06/2015  Walking counts (draft) customer requests have has been dated to July be processed have been provided. been undertaken. 2015. Request to supplier Strategic Counts around to adjust. T2T project area are underway (appoximately 65% complete) as base information.

Total 15,000 15,000 12,575 0 12,575 (2,425) (16%) 84% 2,425 0 0

Murali K. G.

14003 Eastern Parade Drain - Contribution Pt Adel 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 (50,000) (100%) 0% 50,000 0 0 No outcomes this year. Project deferred by City of Nil $0 PAE are in 2015/16 Enfield 2014/15  Project deferred by City of PAE negotiations with NRM PAE Board on scope and funding assistance and project has been deferred to 2015/16

14012 Stormwater Pump Stations Periodic Asset Re- 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 (15,000) (100%) 0% 15,000 0 0 Project defereed to Stormwater Pump Station Nil $0 Two projects have 2015/16 Valuation 2014/15  2015/16 asset revaluation has been been combined to get combined with Stormwater better syrnery and PS asset condition consistency in data. assessment and to be caried out in 2015/16

Total 65,000 65,000 0 0 0 (65,000) (100%) 0% 65,000 0 0

Chris Bentick

14000 Inner West Precinct Transport and Parking Plan 45,000 45,000 42,878 0 42,878 (2,122) (5%) 95% 2,122 0 0 Stage 1 community Minor variance. Report to be presented to $45,000 N/A 30/06/2015 2014/15  engagement completed Council in August for and Issues Paper finalised. endorsement of Final Plan. Stage 2 community engagement (Discussion Paper) completed. Stage 3 community engagement (Draft Plan) completed. Final Plan completed.

Total 45,000 45,000 42,878 0 42,878 (2,122) (5%) 95% 2,122 0 0

Page 1 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Open Space Recreation and Property Kelly Mader

14026 Marine Discovery Centre Sponsorship 2014/15 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 0 0% 100% 0 0 0 Marine Discovery Centre NIL $25,000 NA 31/08/2014  invoice received and payment made

14027 Tennyson Dunes Management Plan and 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 (30,000) (100%) 0% 30,000 (20,000) 0 Awaiting decision from Awaiting formation of 1) Department of $30,000 Decision has not been 30/06/2015 Committee 2014/15  Minister before determining Management Group by Environment Water and made by the Minister. project scope Minister for Environment Natural Resources to Once decision made - determine area to be matter can be further included in management deliberated by Council plan 2) Department of and a potential Environment Water and contribution made. Natural Resources to determine legislation under which management plan will be developed 3) awaiting formation of Management Group by Minister Environment 4) undertake community consultation in conjunction with Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources

Total 55,000 55,000 25,000 0 25,000 (30,000) (55%) 45% 30,000 (20,000) 0

Janet Willoughby

14029 Mayors Garden Competition 2014/15 5,000 5,000 6,730 0 6,730 1,730 35% 100% (1,730) 0 0 Judging in September and Greater response to Project complete $6,730 Greater response to Project complete  October Completed, competition and competition and Presentation Evening 6 Presentation evening from Presentation evening November complete. 30 the community than from the community Contestants including a anticipated. Marketing than anticipated. good response from costs greater than Marketing costs schools with around 30 anticipated. greater than children representing anticipated. schools at the presentation evening

Total 5,000 5,000 6,730 0 6,730 1,730 35% 100% (1,730) 0 0

Lisa Will

14018 School Holiday Sports Program 2014/15 12,500 12,500 10,678 0 10,678 (1,822) (15%) 85% 1,822 0 0 The School Holiday Sports Minor savings from 12000 0 30/04/2015  Program took place in promotions. September 2014 with a total of 680 children registered and 24 Clubs participating. The program also took place in April 2015 with a record number of; 732 registrations and 26 Clubs participating

14019 Adelaide City FREE Bikes 2014/15 20,000 20,000 20,076 0 20,076 76 0% 100% (76) 0 0 Bikes are located at 5 0 Continue to promote the 20000 0 30/06/2015  nodes within the City, program in existing including; CCS Library, locations Hindmarsh Library, West Beach Surf Club, Henley Library and Adelaide Shores Caravan Park. Bike hire is free at all locations

Page 2 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

14020 Sporting Club Professional Development 12,500 12,500 11,571 0 11,571 (929) (7%) 93% 929 0 0 A total of 5 workshops Invoices are still to be paid #REF! 12000 0 30/06/2015 2014/15  have taken place including; for last workshop light weights training, event management, goal setting and motivation, athletes/coaches what you need to know and club leadership. These workshops have all been very well attended.

14021 Charles Sturt Adelaide International ATP Tennis 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 (25,000) (100%) 0% 25,000 0 0 This event will no longer 0 NA 0 0 0/01/1900 Championship  take place at the West Lakes Tennis club

14022 Waugh in the West 2014/15 5,000 5,000 5,700 0 5,700 700 14% 100% (700) 0 0 This event took place on Minor overspend due to Next event will commence 5000 0 1/03/2015  the 6th of February and internal staffing costs for planning in September was a huge success with parking management and 2015 approximately 3000 in pack up after event higher attendance than expected. All invoices received and paid for sooner than expected.

14023 Event Sponsorship Recognition 2014/15 13,000 13,000 12,500 0 12,500 (500) (4%) 96% 500 0 0 Three events have taken Events funded earlier than NA 13000 0 30/06/2015  place including; Tennis expected. Championship at Seaside Tennis Club, Henley Gift Athletics Carnival at Henley oval and the Right Royal Fun Run at West Lakes

14025 Sports Ground Upgrade - Bosnian and 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 0 0% 100% 0 0 0 Meeting has taken place This project will be run by 30000 0 30/06/2015 Hercegovina Muslim Socie  with the Club onsite to the Club. The Club is discuss project. The Club looking to seek further will be paid in a three step funding from the State phase. Government and will be assisted with this process. Council will continue to provide advice on the type of work to take place and best practice

Total 118,000 118,000 90,526 0 90,526 (27,474) (23%) 77% 27,474 0 0

Allison Bretones

14032 Grange Surf Lifesaving Club upgrade 2014/15 400,000 400,000 0 0 0 (400,000) (100%) 0% 400,000 0 0 A deed of agreement has Planning approval was Await further progress $208,796.60 The commencement 30/06/2015  been signed between the delayed. claims as the project of the project was Club and CCS, with continues. delayed, so only a payments to be made as portion of the total per milestones in the deed. progress claim was received for 2014/15. It is proposed that the balance ($191,203.40) is carried over to 2015/16.

Total 400,000 400,000 0 0 0 (400,000) (100%) 0% 400,000 0 0

Page 3 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Mark Hannan

14017 Living Green Community Education program 5,000 5,000 4,962 0 4,962 (38) (1%) 99% 38 (2,000) (1,464) The 10 plants for $10 program NIL NIL. Program for 2014/15 $4,692 Project cost was less COMPLETED. 2014/15  has been completed. is complete. New program than budget. Vouchers were on sale from 7 to commence in FY April until 6 June 2015. A 2015/16. social media campaign and advertising in the Messenger newspaper was delivered with the Marketing and Communications business unit. The first plant redemption day was held 2 May and the second on 6 June 2015. A total of 158 vouchers were redeemed, resulting in 1580 locally indigenous plants being planted in gardens within the City, boosting biodiversity, providing habitat and food sources for urban wildlife as well as decreasing the amount of watering within suburban gardens. A banner for a school food garden was produced and items to set-up a new community garden were procured.

14028 Henley and Grange Corridor - Soil Testing 25,000 25,000 23,378 0 23,378 (1,622) (6%) 94% 1,622 0 0 Proposal sought & Project cost was less than NIL. Program for 2014/15 $23,378 Project cost was less COMPLETED 2014/15  received from suitably budgeted. is complete. than budget. qualified consulting firm. This proposal has been reviewed and endorsed by the EPA and SA Health as being appropriate for the nature of the testing required. Works commenced 18 November 2014 to undertake sampling. Sampling and reporting completed. A environmental management plan for the area has been prepared and distributed to relevant staff.

14030 Methane Flare-Gas Collection System 20,000 20,000 19,895 0 19,895 (105) (1%) 99% 105 0 0 Desktop analysis of site NIL Implement proposed risk $19,895 Project cost was less COMPLETED Investigation - 2014/15  history, including system mitigation strategy once than budget. review to inform the endorsed by EPA. development of a project brief. Further records obtained from State Records Archive. Lodged request to LMS Pty Ltd for permission to use commissioned reports subject to their Confidentiality and Disclaimer statements - permission granted. Liaison with EPA regarding project elements completed. Stages One and Two (of Four) completed. Stage One comprised investigations of site characterisation, assessment of status and integrity of the landfill gas extraction infrastructure, assessment of landfill gas generation status and development of conceptual site model. Stage 2 comprised installing gas monitoring wells to obtain field data to refine Conceptual Site

Total 50,000 50,000 48,234 0 48,234 (1,766) (4%) 96% 1,766 (2,000) (1,464)

Page 4 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Chris Taras

14014 Planet Ark and Trees for the Future 2014/15 30,000 30,000 28,960 0 28,960 (1,040) (3%) 97% 1,040 0 0 The 10 plants for $10 Purchasing commitments Deliver program until 6 $5,000 N/A 6/06/2015  program arrangements entered into system. June 2015. Hold final plant have been completed. redemption day on June Vouchers are on sale from 6th, 2015. 7 April until 6 June 2015. Plants will be available for collection on either 2nd May, 6th June or from the nursery at Salisbury. A social media campaign and advertising in the Messenger newspaper have been delivered with the Marketing and Communications business unit. The first plant redemption day was held 2 May 2015.

14016 Whole Street Planting 2014/15 125,000 125,000 124,279 0 124,279 (721) (1%) 99% 721 0 0 Proposal sought & Project cost was less than Project is complete. $23,378 Project cost was less Project is complete.  received from suitably budgeted. than budget. qualified consulting firm. This proposal has been reviewed and endorsed by the EPA and SA Health as being appropriate for the nature of the testing required. Works commenced 18 November 2014 to undertake sampling. Sampling and reporting completed. A environmental management plan for the area has been prepared and distributed to relevant staff.

Total 155,000 155,000 153,239 0 153,239 (1,761) (1%) 99% 1,761 0 0

GM Asset Mgt Services Fiona Jenkins

14008 Environmental Plan implementation - Living 30,000 30,000 9,154 0 9,154 (20,846) (69%) 31% 20,846 (20,000) 0 Draft Environmental Plan As per previous reports, This project is complete. 10000 Budget revised down 30/06/2015 Green 2014/15  has been finalised by $10,000 projected income was Council endorsement of to $10,000 to reflect Council following an not secured and $10,000 was the new 'Living Green to income not available extensive program of transferred to the National 2020' environmental plan and need to reallocate Recycling Week project to stakeholder and was provided on 22 June funds to support the cover overruns due to the community engagement. expanded scope of that event 2015. Energy reporting National Recycling in 2014. This project was system improvements Week event in 2014. therefore limited to a total were also completed in budget of $10,000 and June. successfully completed within that revised budget. This included the completion of the enviornmental plan itself, and the implementation of improvements to reporting systems for energy use data, as part of the plan's implementation.

Total 30,000 30,000 9,154 0 9,154 (20,846) (69%) 31% 20,846 (20,000) 0

Page 5 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

Loren Mercier

14010 Community Recycling Education Programs 30,000 30,000 39,345 0 39,345 9,345 31% 100% (9,345) 0 (8,734) Council endorsed National The revised scope and Nil $40,000 Increased project 30/06/2015 2014/15  Recycling Week event was scale of this event as scope and budget held on Saturday 15 requested by the elected endorsed by Council November 2014. The From member body lead to in July 2014. However Junky to Funky event included increased costs and the additional a number of DIY workshops, live art work display and additional overruns were overruns were greater charity auction. The greater than anitcipated as than anticipated and Consumed Art Prize was also a result. were as a result of the officially launched on the day changed scope of the with a total of 46 individual event. artist entered and 60 artworks displayed. Overall attendance at the event was down compared to previous year’s events however those people who attended the event provided positive feedback; in particular feedback regarding the consumed art prize was extremely positive. The event raised over $2,500 for the partner charities.

14011 Illegal Dumping Strategy Implementation 115,000 115,000 83,829 0 83,829 (31,171) (27%) 73% 31,171 0 0 Illegal Dumping Compliance Program has been nil 100,000 Saving are as a result 30/06/2015 2014/15  Contractor engaged in 2013 restructured to allow for the of only having to cover and continued throughout the previously external the costs of a car for 2014/15. The officer has now contractor to be engaged approximately 6 been engaged on contract as an internal temporary months rather than arrangment until June 2015. The focus of the project is on employee, with a car the full 12 months. education, compliance and provided. Variance is Minor saving were data management. Todate we mainly due to only having achieved by engaing have been able to achieve a to cover 6 months of the the compliance officer 61% take-back rate of illegally costs associated with the directly rather than dumped material car. In additional by through a agency. engaging the compliance officer directly we were also able to achieve minor savings.

Total 145,000 145,000 123,174 0 123,174 (21,826) (15%) 85% 21,826 0 (8,734)

Field Services Peter Kinnersly

14005 Sand Drift Fencing Renewal 2014/15 30,000 30,000 29,411 4,500 33,911 3,911 13% 100% (3,911) 0 0 Sand drift Fencing works Minor saving of $589 None - Project Complete. $29,411 N/A 1/03/2015  completed this year :- expected with all fencing $4,000 commitment will not between South Street and completed. be realised. Henley Beach Road, adjacent to the new dunes at West Beach, between Gilmore Road & Lexington Road, Henley Beach South, Recreation Parade to Semaphore Park boat ramp Recreation Parade to Third Avenue, Semaphore Park Project now complete.

14006 Recycled Water Wetlands Maintenance crew 38,600 38,600 28,103 0 28,103 (10,497) (27%) 73% 10,497 0 0 Wetlands Head Gardener Wetlands employee Complete operating and $30,000 Late recruitment of 30/06/2015 members 2014/15  appointed and commenced commenced late January maintenance procedures initial wetlands in January 2015 to enable due to staff leave over the and recruit the second employee and him to learn requirements Christmas period and was crew member. employee on income for operation and on income protection protection insurance in maintenance of the insurance during June due June Recycled Water to car accident. There is Infrastructure including the still a week of labour and wetlands.The second crew internal equipment costs to member will be recruited in be realised June 2015.

Page 6 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 Operating Project Expenditure by Project Manager 2014/2015 as at 30 June 2015  On Track (<+/- 5% variation to YTD Budget)  Monitor (+/-5-25% variation to YTD Budget) Reason why best Annual Reason for YTD Budget estimate total cost Annual Revised % Remaining Revised Variance or Issues Best estimate of at completion is Expenditure YTD Expenditure YTD Expenditure Total YTD YTD Total Complete Budget (Incl Income YTD Income Outcomes Achieved to Affecting Delivery of Future Action to be total cost of Project different to total Estimate date of Proj # Description Budget Budget Actual Commitments Expenditure Variance % Variance Actual Commitments) Budget Actual Date Project Taken at completion Revised Budget Project completion

14007 St Clair and Bowden Urban Village Estates Mtce 113,810 113,810 70,899 0 70,899 (42,911) (38%) 62% 42,911 0 0 One new employee to be Maintenance did not Recruit and train new mini $75,000 Maintenance did not 30/06/2015 Staff 2014/15  recruited to drive new mini commence until late sweeper driver. Develop commence until late sweeper in second half of January due to staff leave additional maintenance January due to staff financial year and the over the Christmas period schedules for remaining leave over the remainder of budget will and delayed handover of assets due for handover Christmas period and fund two existing contributed assets at St delayed handover of Landscape Construction Clair. contributed assets at crew from the reduced New sweeper driver St Clair. Tree Screen budget. recruitment delayed due to New sweeper driver Maintenance schedules delay in delivery of new recruitment delayed finalised for assets and mini sweeper due to delay in maintenance commenced delivery of new mini late January sweeper

Total 182,410 182,410 128,414 4,500 132,914 (49,496) (27%) 73% 49,496 0 0

Toni Hinton

14004 Tree Screen Renewal 2014/15 64,090 64,090 64,090 0 64,090 0 0% 100% (0) 0 0 Project complete: N/A Nil project complete 64,090 N/A 30/09/2014  1. Military Road (Bluelake Court) 2. Frederick Road (Adare Court) 3. Corcoran Drive (Cocos Grove) 4. Bartley Terrace (Nambour Crescent) This financial year; 347 trees and 1,510 shrubs have been planted in 700 lineal metres of tree screen, equivalent to 2,700 square metres of tree screen renewed.

Total 64,090 64,090 64,090 0 64,090 0 0% 100% (0) 0 0

Total 1,329,500 1,329,500 704,014 4,500 708,514 (620,986) (47%) 53% 620,986 (42,000) (10,198)

Page 7 of 7 Printed 10/07/2015 City of Charles Sturt 152. AM Report 20/07/15

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES END OF QUARTER REPORT – APRIL MAY AND JUNE 2015 Item 3.87 APPENDIX C

Appendix C consists of 4 pages.

[Note: financial reporting is interim until year end audit is finalised]

Asset Management Services As At Period 12 - Interim result

Income

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000 Actuals

800,000 Revised Budget

Amount 600,000 Original Budget

400,000

200,000

0 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month

** Excludes Rate Income

Expenditure

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

Actuals 3,000,000 Revised Budget

Amount Original Budget 2,000,000

1,000,000

0 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month

** Excludes Depreciation

Total Operating Result YTD Variance 3,329,110 Favourable Total Annual Operating Projects YTD Variance 596,594 Favourable Total Capital Projects YTD Variance 16,198,113 Favourable

Operating Statement

Annual Revised Object Group Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Var $ Var %

Income Statutory charges 20,400 20,400 23,175 2,775 14%  User charges 1,704,200 1,704,200 1,627,341 76,859 (5%) Grants/subsidies 2,401,600 2,401,600 2,966,878 565,278 24%  Reimbursements 39,000 39,000 204,962 165,962 100%  Other income 38,000 38,000 59,070 21,070 55%  Total Income 4,203,200 4,203,200 4,881,425 678,225

Expense Employee costs 15,780,545 15,780,545 15,218,377 562,168 4% Contractual Expenses 4,886,190 4,886,190 4,770,815 115,375 2% Materials 5,370,500 5,370,500 4,344,471 1,026,029 19%  Other 1,735,750 1,735,750 1,385,954 349,795 20%  Depreciation 20,701,000 20,701,000 20,328,535 372,465 2% Total Expense 48,473,984 48,473,984 46,048,152 2,425,832

Internal Allocations Internal Income 4,826,640 4,826,640 4,825,570 (1,070) (0%) Internal Expense 18,311,721 18,311,721 18,085,598 (226,123) (1%) Total Internal Allocations (13,485,081) (13,485,081) (13,260,029) 225,053

Operating Surplus/Deficit (57,755,865) (57,755,865) (54,426,755) 3,329,110

Capital Amounts Capital Amounts 5,617,900 5,617,900 3,535,192 (2,082,708) (37%)  Total Capital 5,617,900 5,617,900 3,535,192 (2,082,708)

Net Surplus/Deficit (52,137,965) (52,137,965) (50,891,563) 1,246,403 Commentary on Variances greater than $20k

Income

User Charges $76,859 Unfavourable - Field Services - Waste Management Centre - $151K (U) - Due to lower seasonal demand of waste dumping by external clients. - Property Services $74K (U) - 30K (U) Rental credit to the Adelaide Arena and $25K (U) to Adelaide 36ers as new rental agreement backdated to March 2013. (F) $74K Retention income received for vacated units. $12K (F) Recovery of Water Charges from Woodville West Torrens Football Club. $33K (F) RFU Maintenance levy for 2015 for Rose Villas and Cudmore Court. $2.6K (F) unbudgeted income from recovery of outgoings.

Grants/subsidies $565,278 Favourable - Engineering Strategy & Assets $575K (F) - $597K (F) Urban Local Roads (ULR) 2015/16 funding received in advance. $25K (U) 2014/15 ULR received less than budgeted. - GM AMS $55K (U) - $20K (U) Environmental Plan Implementation, funding not expected and therefore associated expenditure has been reduced. $35K (U) LGA R&D scheme ADAC project income received in advance and carried over to 2015/16. - Open Space Planning $9K (U) - $8K (F) Rockingham Street Dunes Revegetation and Stabilisation West Beach – for works up until 30th June 2014. $20K (U) Tennyson Dunes Management Plan grant not yet received. - Field Servies $54K (F) - Coastal protection board contribution to West Beach rock wall repairs.

Reimbursements $165,962 Favourable - Field Services $26K (F) - Horticulture - $10.1K (F) Payment of Reserve summer permits. Arboriculture - $4.1K (F) tree evaluations for driveways for tree removals greater than budgeted. Waste Management Centre $6.9K (F) increase to steel separation and recycling. - Property Services $34K (F) - $5K (F) Refund from SA Power Networks for electricity account in credit balance. $2K (F) Refund from Construction Industry Training Board - Fawk Reserve. $17K (F) refund received from SA Water. $7.7K (F) insurance reimbursement for hot water system. - Open Space Planning $23K (F) - $6K (F) Season permits from sporting clubs. $16K(F) funds received for Metro Seaside Councils committee contributions. - GM AMS $81K (F) - $6.9K (F) Charged works to AV Jennings for Water Proofing the West. $71K(F) Insurance reimbursements for damaged pump stations and vandalism.

Other Income $21,070 Favourable - Engineering Strategy & Assets $3.4K (F) - Adshel Bus Shelter Advertising received more than budgeted. - GM AMS $8.5K (F) Received sponsorship and exhibitors fees for Recycling event art exhibition. - Field Services 6.8K (F) Sale of recycled materials.

Expenditure

Employee costs $562,168 Favourable

- Field Services $660K (F) - Civil Maintenance $267K (F) -$52.7K (F) Employees taking LSL $139.8K (F) employees on EB Insurance and Work Cover $28K (U) EBA Backpay. $38K (F) due to vacant positions $22.4K (F) employees booking to capital projects greater than budgeted. $11.6K (U) - overtime $126K (F) employees booking to other business units. $44.9K (U) other business unit employees booking to Civil Maintenance. Arboriculture $101K (F) - $43K(F) staff taking Long service leave $44K(F) Staff on work cover and EB insurance $18K (F) overtime, $24K(U) back pay $38K(F) staff working on capital works projects instead of operating. $14K(U) staff working less on annual operating as budgeted for. $42k(F) Employees booking to other business units. $38K(U) Other business units booking to Arb Horticulture - $217K (F) -$49K (F) Long Service Leave taken. $176K (F) EB insurance and Workcover $57K (F) Savings due to vacancies. Total of $282K offset by Agency Staff expenditure. $20K (U) Annual leave not taken and accruing for vacant positions. $38K (U) Backpay on EB increase Feb to June 2014. $9K (F) Employees booking to capital programs. $2K (F) Overtime not required.

Field Services Administration $92K (F)- $11K (F) one employee employed to recycled water wetlands second employee being recruited to commence in June. $69K (F) St Clair and Bowden maintenance staff, maintenance commenced in January asset handover delayed and wait for new sweeper. Waste Management Centre $30K (U)- $18K (U) Overtime due to extra employee required for weekends for safety reasons $12.3K (U) extra salaries due to extra employee required for weekends for safety reasons Rapid Response $13K (F) - Overtime not required due to reduction in after hour call outs.

- GM Asset Management Services $87K (U) - $48K (U) Person working on Illegal dumping project now employed on contract (offset by favourable contractor expenditure). $25K (U) BU Asset Man. Services employee paid greater than budgeted amount. $7.5 (F) employees taking LSL. $19K (U) employee allocating less to capital than budgeted.

- Engineering Strategy and Assets $28K (F) - $68K(F) LSL due to long term leave; $89K(U) capital due to capitalisation not as high as expected; $26.7K(F) vacancy due to Senior Design Officer long term vacancy $30.8K (F) S. Morrison budget 1 FTE only working 0.6 $16K (F) Murali still being paid from BU71 for part of year. $28K (U) annual leave not taken as budgeted.

- Property Services $8 (U) - $35K (F) employees taking Long Service Leave. $23K (U) difference to budget of employees booking to capital projects. $2.2K (U) Overtime, $11K (F) Property Employees booking to other Business units. $17K (U) Other business unit employees booking to property. $4.5K (U) Backpay February to June. $2K (U) maintenance allowances paid but not budgeted.

Open Space Planning & Administration $29K (U) - 24K (F) employees taking Long Service Leave. $16K (F) employees booking to capital greater than budgeted. $32K (U) J. Healy not in budget since October offset by booking to capital projects. $17.2K (U) employee not booking to annual operating projects as anticipated. $9K (U) Whole Street Planting salaries over budget - overall project on target. Contractual Expenses $115,375 Favourable

- Field Services $45K (U) - Waste Management Centre $255K (F) - $53.7K (U) Agency staff to cover resignation and extra person required for safety $64.7K (F)Reduced hooklifts due to lower external customer demand and June invoices not yet received. $2.2K (U) hire of external backhoe with breakdown of internal backhoe $262.6k (F) due to reduced waste disposal and June invoicing not processed. Civil Maintenance $51K (U) - $190K (U) - Agency Staff to backfill vacancies, EB Insurance, Work Cover and leave. $6.8K (F) - Road maintenance not required. $3.1K (U) Hire of Sweeper during major service. $5.5K (U) - Replacement Camera Cable for Camera Van. $55K (F) Drainage maintenance not required to date. $68K (F) External dumping fees using Waste Management Centre. $31.8K (F) plant unused for drainage/sign maintenance. $4.4K (U) repair costs reimbursed to Telstra - Tapleys Hill Road, Fulham Gardens. Arboriculture $65K (F) - $25K(F) stump grindings, external contractors not required. $33K (F) bore and pump maintenance reduction of reactive repairs this season. $5K(U) external plant hire for large Elevated Work Platform for tree pruning. Horticulture $287K (U) - $278K (U) Agency staff to cover employee vacancies and employees on EB, Workcover and LSL Rapid Response $21K (U) - $11.2K (U) - Agency staff used for grinding and excavation works during periods of wet weather and for larger concrete jobs $4K (U) Asbestos management. $4.7K (U) - Bin cleaning for special event bins. $4.1K (U) - After hours contractors. $3K (U) chemical bund waste disposal.

- Engineering Strategy and Assets $155K (F) -$7.5K(U) due to public lighting consultants for design. $38K (F) for public lighting changes which have been delayed pending SAPN new LED light suite. $15K (F) Stormwater pump station asset revaluation project has been postponed until 2015/16. $34K (F) budgeted for residents concerns around road safety, reactive expenditure not required.$80K (F) SLUOS charges from SAPN June Invoice. $50K (F) overall savings for SLUOS charges. $20K (F) DPTI June invoice for Street Lighting not yet received.

- Property Services $281K (U) - $10K (U) Agency Staff. $11K (U) Consultants report for Independent Living units Financial Modelling Report. $68K (U) maintenance work to Council Operated properties due to increased unforeseeable breakdowns includes $16K of gutter cleaning. $37K (F) Maintenance work to reserve furniture not being used as new furniture being purchased in capital programme. $144K (U) installation of stormwater pipe at Ray Street. $22K (F) Environmental audit at Henley Depot done by GHD no further investigation required at this stage. $13K (F) Repairs & Maintenance to Office furniture reactive repairs not required. $8K (U) Recertification of Height Safety Equip at various council sites. $12K (U) Property valuations and property advice on council properties. $6.6K (U) Fawks Reserve Clubrooms repairs to drains $6.6K (U) Matheson Reserve Clubroom Urinal replacement. Aged Accomodation: Casuarina Lodge - $5K (U) Window Replacement in common room. $2K (U) replacement hot water systems. Cudmore Court - $26K (U) unbudgeted painting on units. $7.7K (U) minor repairs to garage doors, air con units and plumbing works. Palm Grove - $4.6K (U) 2 x replacement hot water systems. $4K (U) 8 x supply & install security doors to front and back of units. Independent Living Units Vacancies - $25K (U) renovation costs funded from retention funds. Rose Villas - $26K (U) unbudgeted painting to units. - Open Space Planning $146K (F) - $18K (F) Sport Facility supply and demand study repaid to councils in 'Other' reimbursements. $115K (F) RTLP Recovery project not progressing as anticpated. $17K (F) Whole Street Planting expenditure in other lines overall project on target.

- GM Asset Management Services $141K (F) - Waste and Sustainability - $102K (F) Community Recycling Event, budgeted in other expense lines. $97K (F) Illegal Dumping contractor employed by CCS on contract. $16K (F) Environmental plan implementation not spent as funding not expected to be received. Water Proofing the West $14K (U) - $75K (F) testing on pump stations not commenced as budgeted. $77K (U) repair work to damages and vandalism reimbursed by insurance. $7K (U) laboratory testing fees. GM AMS $18K (F) - Consultancy costs for contaminated land investigations and reviews of AMP'S not expended to date. Asset Management Planning - $35K (F) consultancy costs for LG ADAC project expenditure deferred to 2015/16.

Materials $1,026,029 Favourable - Engineering Strategy and Assets $268K (F) - $200K(F) due to lower than expected contract rates for electricity & SA Power Networks power reticulation access and public lighting operating costs. $60K (F) Alinta electricity invoice not yet received. $7K (F) Budgeted to purchase metal detector and service locator not yet expended.

- Field Services $790K (F) Arboriculture $713K (F) - $350K(F) Water Usage not required this season, $310K (F) water account for June quarter not yet received. $10K(U) Water Quarterly charges. $28K(F) Irrigation materials less repairs required. $14K(F) Loose tools not required. $13K(F) Protective clothing and Safety Equipment not required. $6K(F) Mulch obtained from internal costs - Waste Transfer Station. Horticulture $41K (F) -$$4.9K(F) mulch- producing internal no requirment to purchase external, $16K(F) roll out turf- reactive maintenance not required, $4.6K(F) fertiliser -reactive maintenance not required, $1.2K (F) chemicals - seasonal requirments, $4.6K (F) irrigation materials - reactive repairs not required, $4.4K (F) soil - reactive top dressing not required, $1.6K (F) loose tools - replacment budget for hand tools not required, $21.9 (F) electricity - timing of June quarter invoices. $12.9(U) plants - increase replacement planting required,

Civil Maintenance $59K (F) -$40K (F) - Hotmix patching on smaller volume works. $44.8K (F) Concrete for footpaths works being capitalised. $9.3K (U) - Liquids, both crews being used on white line marking. $19.6K (U) Signage and bollards rebar offset by $15K (F) Pipe and Conduit. $8.5K (F) sand replenishment material not used to date. $16.2K (F) Chemicals not used to date. $20K (U) overspend on rebar/concrete for drainage maintenance. $2.2K (F) - Printing & Stationery not used to date. $7K (U) Recycled Water connection at Washdown Bay. $8.2K (U) - Steel/rebar for footpath renewals

- Open Space Planning $21K (F) - $14K (F) Travel Behaviour Change project no expenditure to date due to changes in agreement with how to spend funds, electric bikes to be supplied at no charge funds have beenrefunded back to DPTI.

- GM Asset Management Services $54K (U) - Water Proofing the West $90K (U) - $57K (U) electricity greater than anticipated due to new system. $17K (U) minor equipment materials purchased for pump stations as maintenance done in house. $7K (U) water charges for wetlands maintenance. Waste and Sustainability - $29K (F) - $12K (F) Kitchen caddies and bags not spent as budgeted. $13k (F) printing of kerbside waste and waste calendars. $4K (F) food and entertainment not expended in environmental sustainability projects. Other $349,795 Favourable - Engineering Strategy and Assets $28K (F) - $8K(U) for advertising capital works starts each month (this advertising now stopped). $6K(U) for advertising for vacant postion. $50K (F) Contribution to Port Adelaide/Enfield for drainage works deferred until 2015/16. $6K (F) postage mailouts for consultancy not booked to project. - Open Space Planning $403K (F) - Funding to Grange Surf Life Saving Club - $200K invoice to be accrued for works done prior to June 30th, remaining deferred to 2015/16. . - Field Services $77K (U) Civil Maintenance $57K (U) -$8.4K (U) Insurance Claims, excess payable. $1K (U) Unbudgeted recruitment costs. $8K (F) Multitrode subscription. $27K (U) CITB Levy paid on previous years projects. $5.5K (U) Communication (Telstra & data charges). $9.5K (U) external equipment hire. $1K (U) Corporate Training. $7.6K (U) Contribution to Port Adelaide Enfield for drainage over what expected. $2.2K (U) Courier Charges Arboriculture $11K (U) -$5K (U) Communications for mobile phones, data transfer from reserves and data for mobile devices. $4K(U) Insurance excesses for plant repairs.

Capital amounts $2,082,708 Unfavourable

- Engineering Strategy and Assets $34K (F) - $25K(U) Mt Lofty NRM Board considering CCS proposal for an alternative design which has delayed payment. $5K (F) Way 2 Go funding $10K (F) Pedestrian Safety Imp Crossing Facilities. $36K (F) Grange Lakes shared use path - Open Space Recreation $2.2M (F) - $50K (U) Coast Park Terminus to Third Ave grant income not received. $2M (U) Henley Square development grant - Property Services $200K (U) - Budget for Physical resources received

Issues:

Annual Revised Annual Operating Projects Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Var $ % Comp

Engineering Strategy and Assets 125,000 125,000 55,453 69,547 44% Open Space Recreation and Property 761,000 761,000 319,354 441,646 42% GM Asset Mgt Services 155,000 155,000 123,594 31,406 80% Field Services 246,500 246,500 192,504 53,996 78%

Total Annual Operating Projects 1,287,500 1,287,500 690,906 596,594

Annual Revised Capital Projects Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Var $ % Comp Engineering Strategy and Assets 16,260,260 16,260,260 13,764,272 2,495,988 85% Open Space Recreation and Property 19,380,114 19,380,114 9,582,113 9,798,001 49% GM Asset Mgt Services 4,353,620 4,353,620 1,108,998 3,244,622 25% Field Services 4,036,982 4,036,982 3,377,481 659,501 84%

Total Capital Projects 44,030,976 44,030,976 27,832,863 16,198,113 City of Charles Sturt 153. AM Report 20/07/15

TO: Asset Management Committee

FROM: A/General Manager Asset Management Services

DATE: 20 July 2015

3.88 WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES (B5420)

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the minutes of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Board meeting held on Thursday 25 June 2015.

Recommendation

That the report be received and noted.

Status

This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

Sustainability and Environment • Protect our environment and minimise our ecological footprint - Lead by example, educate and support the community to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste

Leadership • Demonstrate effective leadership with strong community collaboration - Build a strong team between Elected Members and staff working together on behalf of the community - Influence other levels of government on behalf of the wider Charles Sturt community - Strive for business excellence through continuous improvement and creativity - Ensure finances and asset are managed to support changing community needs in a sustainable cost effective way City of Charles Sturt 154. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES Item 3.88 Continued

Report

The Board of Western Region Waste Management Authority meets quarterly and minutes are distributed to Member Councils shortly after each meeting.

The minutes of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Board meeting of Thursday 25 June 2015 are attached – refer Appendix A.

Conclusion

That the minutes of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Board meeting of Thursday 25 June 2015 be received and noted. City of Charles Sturt 155. AM Report 20/07/15

WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES Item 3.88 APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 20 pages. Western Region Waste Management Authority 1. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

MINUTES OF THE WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ORDINARY BOARD MEETING

HELD ON THURSDAY, 25 JUNE 2015

Present: Cr George Demetriou – Chairman, City of West Torrens Cr Oanh Nguyen – Board Member, City of Charles Sturt Cr Stuart Ghent – Board Member, City of Charles Sturt Cr Peter Jamieson – Board Member, City of Port Adelaide Enfield Ms Robyn Butterfield – Board Member, City of West Torrens Ms Fiona Jenkins – Board Member, City of Charles Sturt

In Attendance: Mr Adrian Sykes – Manager WRWMA, City of Charles Sturt Ms Anna Rogers – City of Charles Sturt Mr Stephen Payne - City of Port Adelaide Enfield Mr Paul Lightbody - Tonkin Consulting

Apologies: Cr Mikki Bouchee – Board Member, City of Holdfast Bay

1. MEETING OPENING

The meeting commenced at 4.04 pm.

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 16 April 2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Cr Oanh Nguyen Carried

3. BUSINESS ARISING

3.1 PRESENTATION BY COUNCIL SOLUTIONS

That the Council Solutions presentation be received and included in the Minutes, and that Maggie Dowling and Ben Calder are thanked for their time.

Moved Cr Stuart Ghent, Seconded Ms Fiona Jenkins Carried Western Region Waste Management Authority 2. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

4. BUSINESS

4.10 ACTIVITY REPORTS FOR APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2015

Brief

To present to the WRWMA Board the Activity Report prepared by the Manager Mr Adrian Sykes for April, May, and part June 2015 and the financial statements to 31 May 2015.

Motion

1. That the WRWMA Activity Report as prepared by Mr Adrian Sykes for April, May, and part June 2015 (refer Appendix A) be received and noted.

2. That the Income Statement for the period ending 31 May 2015 and the Balance Sheet as at 31 May 2015, as attached be received and adopted (refer Appendix B).

3. That the debits as listed and tabled in Appendix C for the periods April 2015 $58,247.62, and May 2015 $16,269.49, for a combined total of $74,517.11 passed for payment under the Manager’s delegated approval, be noted.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Cr Stuart Ghent Carried

4.11 QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW – JUNE 2015

Brief

To review the Western Region Waste Management Authority endorsed 2014/15 Budget as at 3 June 2015.

Motion

That the Board note, review and adopt the proposed amended Budget for the year ended 30 June 2015, as at 3 June 2015 as recommended by the Audit Committee.

Moved Cr Oanh Nguyen, Seconded Cr Stuart Ghent Carried Western Region Waste Management Authority 3. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

4.12 WRWMA INTERNAL AUDIT CONTROLS – JANUARY TO MARCH 2015

Brief

Information is provided to the Board regarding the review of WRWMA Internal Control Measures (January to March 2015) by the City of Charles Sturt Manager Financial Services for consideration and adoption by the Board.

Motion

That the Board note, review and adopt the review of WRWMA Internal Control Measures for the period January to March 2015 undertaken by the City of Charles Sturt Manager Financial Services as outlined in Appendix B and recommended by the Audit Committee.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Cr Oanh Nguyen Carried

4.13 WRWMA DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN AND BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2016

Brief

To present to the WRWMA Board for review the Draft Annual Business Plan and proposed Budget for the WRWMA for the year ending 30 June 2016.

Motion

1. That the Board adopt the proposed draft Budget for 2015-16 as recommended by the Audit Committee and set out in Appendix A and note the revised two year forward estimate in Appendix B, also noting that costs relating to Garden Island rehabilitation incurred after 1 September 2015 are incurred by Renewal SA.

2. That the WRWMA Board members consult with their respective member councils on the proposed Draft Annual Business Plan and Budget for the year ending 30 June 2016, prior to the Board meeting on 25 June 2015.

3. That the Board note that the Budget for 2015-16 is required to be adopted by the Board by 30 June 2015.

Moved Cr Stuart Ghent, Seconded Cr Oanh Nguyen Carried

Western Region Waste Management Authority 4. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

4.14 UPDATE TO ANTICIPATED TIMEFRAMES FOR WRWMA’S REHABILITATION OF GARDEN ISLAND

Brief

To present to the Board for noting, an update to the draft timeline of activities up until handover to Renewal SA on 1 September 2015.

Motion

That the Board note the updated draft timeline of activities (as at 15 June 2015) for the rehabilitation of Garden Island landfill presented in Appendix A, acknowledging that this is an evolving document.

Moved Cr Stuart Ghent, Seconded Cr Peter Jamieson Carried

4.15 WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY - RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RISK PROFILE REVIEW

Brief

To present the Risk Management Plan and the Risk Profile to the Board for review and adoption.

Motion

That the Board review and adopt the amended WRWMA Risk Management Plan and Risk Profile (Appendix A and Appendix B) as recommended by the Audit Committee.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Ms Fiona Jenkins Carried

Western Region Waste Management Authority 5. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

4.16 LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR CESSATION OF THE WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Brief

1. That the WRWMA Board note the report and legal advice in Appendix A.

2. That the Board provide delegated financial authority to the Manager, WRWMA to engage professional advice and any services as required in order to transfer where appropriate, documentation and other files to Renewal SA and to prepare the Motion report to the Board and Constituent Councils for the potential closure of the WRWMA Regional Subsidiary.

3. That the Manager prepare within the Motion report advice on any remaining issues associated with winding up the Regional Subsidiary, including any ongoing liabilities and process for securing future cooperation of Constituent Councils post the dissolution of Western Region Waste Management Authority, prior to 30 June 2016.

4. That the Manager write to the CEO’s of the constituent councils seeking their input as to the future of WRWMA following the completion of obligations arising from the environment performance agreement.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Ms Robyn Butterfield Carried

4.17 MINUTES OF THE WRWMA AUDIT COMMITTEE

Brief

To receive and note the Minutes of the WRWMA Audit Committee meeting held on 17 June 2015.

Motion

That the Minutes of the WRWMA Audit Committee meeting held on 17 June 2015 be received and taken as read and noted by the Board.

Moved Cr Stuart Ghent, Seconded Cr Oanh Nguyen Carried

Western Region Waste Management Authority 6. Minutes 25/06/2015

[Note: These Minutes are unconfirmed until 24 September 2015]

4.18 MINUTES OF THE WRWMA ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE GROUP MEETING

Brief

To receive and note the Minutes of the WRWMA Environmental Performance Group meeting held on 29 May 2015.

Motion

That the Minutes of the WRWMA Environmental Performance Group meeting held on 29 May 2015 be received and taken as read and noted.

Moved Cr Peter Jamieson, Seconded Ms Fiona Jenkins Carried

5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

5.1 Nil

6. BUSINESS – PART 11 – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

6.1 N/A

7. MEETING CLOSURE

The meeting concluded at 5.30 pm.

The foregoing minutes were taken as read and confirmed at the meeting of the Board on Thursday, 24 September 2015.

CR GEORGE DEMETRIOU CHAIRMAN WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

DATED / /

Waste Management Services Project

Overview

• Introduction to Council Solutions • Why a collaborative approach to waste management? • Structure • Timelines

Council Solutions – What is it and what does it do?

• A regional subsidiary, formed by Cities of Adelaide, Charles Sturt, Marion, Onkaparinga, Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully (or “constituent councils”) pursuant to Section 43 of the Local Government Act 1999 • Commenced operations December 2012 • Primary purpose is to continue, and improve on, the work of the G6 Procurement Group to optimise the financial sustainability of its constituent councils through the benefits of collaborative strategic procurement. • Currently manages contracts over $50 million in aggregate • A collaborative approach to procurement offers: • Significant purchasing power to attain the best value possible for the community, and • a reduction in administrative costs to councils and suppliers through reduction in tender processes and replicated contract management activities

Council Solutions – How does it operate? Governance & Operating Framework

Charter

Three Year Business Plan Why a collaborative approach to waste management?

• Waste represents significant expenditure - collectively the constituent councils serve upwards of 600,000 residents and spend in the region of $40 - $50 million per annum on waste & recycling services. • Waste management landscape in the Adelaide Metropolitan area is complex given the range of services provided, the varying service specifications, differing delivery methods and waste management policies in place. • Marketplace efficiencies and savings opportunities evident. Benefits of joint procurement • Potential savings – Aggregated volume & certainty (contract term) – vehicle purchase and maintenance price discount – fuel price discount – consolidation of fleet and depots – kerbside collection efficiencies – customer service & administration efficiencies – Squeeze profit margins. • Service alignment • Sharing of tender and contract management cost • Sharing of expertise • Shared functions • Infrastructure investment

Risk • Complexity • Timeline slippage

Benefits Potential

• Collection savings influenced by – value of current contract – current economies of scale – savings realised already by collection companies

• Recycling processing - significant savings potential due to changes in market post 2014 • Opportunity to facilitate investment in modern infrastructure

• Organics processing - Councils currently receiving good value • Product buy back and market development opportunities

Participation Firming up participation of our Constituent Councils now. Shared boundary opportunities: • City of West Torrens • City of Holdfast Bay • City of Port Adelaide Enfield

• Potential for population size 320,000 – 560,000 • ACCC considerations – market impact Services to be included

• Collection including high density • Waste disposal • Recycling processing • Organics processing • Hard waste Contract Terms

Landfill • AWT and WtE - unlikely to be viable options for 2018 • Recommending shorter term landfill contract < 5 years

Contract term • 7 years (plus extension options) for other service elements • Option of longer for processing to secure infrastructure investment

Timelines

• Industry engagement session(s) planned for late 2015 • Tender for processing/disposal mid 2016 • Tender for collection late 2016- early 2017 • New contracts commence 1 May 2018

Thank you

Regional Subsidiaries NAWMA Salisbury, Playford & Gawler

Waste Care SA East Waste Charles Sturt, Adelaide, Adelaide Hills, NPSP, Prospect, NPSP, Campbelltown, Walkerville, Walkerville, Mitcham, Burnside Campbelltown

SRWRA Onkaparinga, Marion, Holdfast Bay Procurement structure • separate contracts processing/disposal and collection • ability to tender for all or some of the participating councils services within any particular stream • processing and disposal contracts awarded prior to tendering for collection services