MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE AUDIT

Manningham City Council Road Management Plan Compliance Audit

Dennis Hunt & Associates Pty Ltd RMP Comliance Audit Report-Feb 2015 10/03/15

1

MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN

COMPLIANCE AUDIT

February 2015



2

Report Contents

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Audit Process ................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Road Condition Assessments/ Routine Maintenance Inspections................................. 5

3.1 Audit Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Summary Compliance Assessment. .............................................................................................. 6

4. Response Times & Work Standards ................................................................................. 9

4.1 WORK STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 10

4.1.1 Summary Compliance Assessment ..................................................................................... 11

5. Repair & Maintenance Works .......................................................................................... 13

5.1 Audit Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 RMP Service level ....................................................................................................................... 13

5.3 MCC process ............................................................................................................................... 13

5.4 Summary Compliance Assessment ............................................................................................. 13

6. Plan Administrative Requirements ................................................................................. 15

6.1 Audit Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 Road Management Act Requirements ........................................................................................ 15

6.3 Summary Compliance Assessment ............................................................................................. 15

6.4 Asset Management System ......................................................................................................... 16

6.5 Customer Feedback System (CFS) ............................................................................................. 17

6.6 GIS System .................................................................................................................................. 17

6.7 Public Roads Register ................................................................................................................. 17

6.8 Boundary Roads .......................................................................................................................... 19

7. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 20

7.1 Asset Defects Categories Response Times for CFS .................................................................. 20

7.2 CFS Site Inspections Photos ....................................................................................................... 25

7.3 Road Management Plan – Supporting Documentation ............................................................... 33

7.4 Public Roads Register Updating/Amending Process Map & Procedure ..................................... 34

7.5 Inspection Programs Status Chart ............................................................................................... 36

7.6 CFS KPI Compliance Status Summary ....................................................................................... 38

7.7 InterPlan Engineering Operations Unit Services Performance Reports ...................................... 40



3

1. Executive Summary

Dennis Hunt & Associates have completed an audit of Manningham Council’s compliance with the Road Management Plan for the 2014 calendar year.

The audit was conducted via interrogation of inspections, activities, defect, response time, and performance report records in Council’s Customer Feedback System (CFS), Asset Management Systems, excel files, Engineering Operations Service Unit Plan, Roads and Footpaths Levels of Service document (specification), Work Instruction Sheets and Engineering Operations CID KPI reports. In addition interviews were conducted with key personnel responsible for the delivery of the services described in the Road Management Plan.

A review was undertaken of the processes used to undertake required asset inspections, recording and reporting.

A sample (~30) of CFS completed works on a range of assets were identified and a visual inspection undertaken to confirm whether works were actually completed and that they were undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

Council reports, asset management systems and other documents were interrogated to determine compliance with RMP Administrative requirements.

Manningham Council is generally operating in compliance with Council’s adopted Road Management Plan.

Independent Road Management Plan audits are normally undertaken annually to assess Council’s operational compliance with its Road Management Plan and to undertake asset condition assessment of the infrastructure maintenance services provided by the Assets & Engineering Directorate.

A review of the last 12 months of Inspection programs, response times, reports and other records reveals that Manningham’s maintenance services are generally operating in compliance with the service levels and key performance indicators adopted by Council as part of its Road Management Plan

Recommendations

1. That Council investigate the feasibility of electronic transfer of CFS records to “Reflect” to

eliminate the current administrative duplication.

2. That Council review current agreements and areas of responsibilities with adjoining municipalities regarding maintenance activities on boundary roads.

3. That annual pit inspection cycle data be recorded electronically into Asset Life. (Currently manually recorded).

4. That Traffic signal inspections be recorded electronically and invoices/reports made available as proof of compliance with RMP.



4

2. Introduction

Dennis Hunt and Associates were engaged to undertake an audit of Council’s compliance with Manningham City Council’s Road Management Plan in conjunction with an Infrastructure Asset Condition Audit for the 2014 calendar year.

The objective of the engagement is to carry out an audit to assess the level of compliance of Council’s Engineering Operations unit with the Manningham Road Management Plan (RMP).

The data and information to be reviewed was limited to a maximum period of twelve months.

The following activities were assessed against the requirements of the RMP:

Road Condition Assessments / Routine Maintenance Inspections – periodic surveys and regular inspections are undertaken to assess and monitor the condition of the road network as part of the day-to-day maintenance of the road network, to monitor asset condition against intervention standards and asset safety.

Repair and Maintenance Works – routine maintenance and repair works are undertaken within a specified reasonable period of time having regard to intervention levels and works programs.

Temporary Measures – Where an unsafe condition or potential risk is determined by response to customer complaint, officer report or maintenance report, an inspection will be carried out and temporary works will be undertaken to reduce the risk of an incident until such time as maintenance or repair works can be completed.

Plan Administrative Requirements – review and updating of the plan in accordance

with the Act (e.g. Annual review of Road Management Plan and updating of the Public

Roads Register).

The following infrastructure assets located on the nominated roads identified on the Public Roads Register were assessed in terms of maintenance activities:

Road Surface and Pavement Structure;

Footpath;

Kerb & Channel/Open Drains;

Car Parks;

Bridges & Major Culverts;

Traffic Signals;

Street Furniture & Structures;

Guide Posts and Line marking;

Street Trees; and

Traffic Control Signs.



5

2.1 Audit Process

The audit was conducted via the following activities:

Records of activities and defects were assessed by interrogation of Council’s Customer Feedback System (CFS) and “Reflect” maintenance management system via electronic reports. Performance reports were interrogated across relevant asset categories to determine the level of compliance with respect to Response Times.

The processes used to undertake required asset inspections, recording and reporting were reviewed.

A sample (~30 No.) of recently completed CFS completed works on a range of assets were identified and a visual inspection undertaken (including photos) to confirm whether works were actually completed and that they were undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

The visual inspections were carried out on the following asset categories:

Category Sub-Category

Drainage Maintenance Pit Lid/ Surround

Road Maintenance Asphalt - Pot Hole Patching

Signs

Council reports, asset management systems and other documents were interrogated to determine compliance with RMP Administrative requirements.

3. Road Condition Assessments/ Routine Maintenance Inspections

3.1 Audit Methodology

Pavement condition reports and summaries for Access/ Link and Collector Roads were interrogated to assess inspection and recording compliance with the RMP.

A copy of the Inspection Programs Status Chart is included in Appendix 7.5. Routine maintenance Inspections are now largely electronic recordings which are automatically downloaded into “Reflect”.

A summary of the results are detailed in the following table for each asset category:

RMP%20Comliance%20Audit%20Report-Feb%202015.docx

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

6

3.2

S

um

ma

ry C

om

pli

an

ce A

ss

es

sm

en

t.

Ta

ble

1.

CA

TE

GO

RY

R

MP

R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

AU

DIT

PR

OC

ES

S

PR

OC

ES

S

CO

MP

LY

?

CO

MM

EN

TS

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

S

Ro

uti

ne

Main

ten

an

ce /

Defe

cts

Ann

ua

l

Check h

ard

cop

y

record

s o

f P

avem

ent

conditio

n r

ep

ort

s &

S

um

maries o

ver

12

month

period

. C

heck

“Reflect”

record

s o

n

scre

en.

C

heck inspectio

n

record

s f

rom

Inte

rpla

n

Org

anis

atio

n

Perf

orm

ance R

eport

Mun

icip

alit

y d

ivid

ed into

12

are

as a

nd inspecte

d o

n a

m

onth

ly b

asis

. E

lectr

onic

in

spection a

nd

defe

ct

record

ing

carr

ied o

ut

an

d

transfe

rred o

nto

Reflect

main

tenance m

anag

em

ent

syste

m.

Work

s instr

uctions a

nd

pro

gra

ms a

re then g

en

era

ted

ele

ctr

on

ica

lly o

nto

excel

sheets

to p

rovid

e a

means o

f pro

gra

mm

ing a

nd r

eport

ing

.

YE

S

Pro

cess n

ow

bett

er

str

eam

line

d a

nd

sta

ndard

ised b

y u

se o

f field

data

record

ing

equ

ipm

ent.

Footp

ath

s a

nd R

oads d

efe

cts

curr

ently b

ein

g

record

ed a

nd im

ple

mente

d a

s p

art

of

the

R

eflect M

M S

yste

m.

A

ll fo

otp

ath

co

nditio

n &

defe

cts

are

be

ing

record

ed e

lectr

onic

ally

inclu

din

g a

sp

ha

lt &

gra

ve

l p

ath

s o

nto

Reflect M

M s

yste

m.

A

dd

itio

nal in

ven

tory

data

id

entifie

d b

y

Cond

itio

n A

ssessm

ent S

urv

ey r

eta

ined

in

spre

adshe

ets

an

d a

va

ilable

thro

ug

h W

eave

GIS

. N

ot a

dde

d to A

ssetL

ife p

endin

g n

ew

A

MS

.

Co

nd

itio

n

As

se

ssm

en

t S

urv

ey

Thre

e Y

earl

y

Sig

ht re

port

s o

f la

st

surv

ey

Assessm

ent undert

aken w

ith

multi-cam

era

surv

ey v

ehic

le

YE

S

3 Y

earl

y c

on

ditio

n inspectio

ns c

arr

ied o

ut b

y

contr

acto

r an

d r

ecord

ed o

nto

GIS

syste

m a

s

tem

pora

ry m

easure

un

til A

sset Life

repla

cem

ent soft

ware

is o

pera

tio

na

l. L

ast

surv

ey c

om

ple

ted 2

01

3.

LIN

K/ C

OL

LE

CT

OR

RO

AD

S

Routine

Main

ten

ance /

D

efe

cts

3 T

imes / Y

ear

C

heck e

lectr

onic

re

cord

s a

nd p

rinto

uts

genera

ted

fro

m

“Reflect”

.

Roads d

ivid

ed into

majo

r segm

ents

B/T

inte

rsections.

Ele

ctr

onic

inspection a

nd

defe

ct re

cord

ing c

arr

ied o

ut

and tra

nsfe

rred o

nto

Reflect

MM

syste

m.

Work

s p

rogra

ms a

re then

genera

ted

ele

ctr

on

ically

onto

excel shee

ts to p

rovid

e a

m

eans o

f pro

gra

mm

ing a

nd

YE

S

No

w inclu

des f

ootp

ath

s inspectio

n.

3 f

ootp

ath

wrk

s c

ontr

acto

rs a

vaila

ble

sin

ce

Dec 2

01

3.

D

efe

cts

are

record

ed e

lectr

onic

ally

onto

“R

eflect”

.

3 Y

earl

y c

on

ditio

n inspectio

ns c

arr

ied o

ut b

y

contr

acto

r an

d r

ecord

ed o

nto

GIS

syste

m a

s

tem

pora

ry m

easure

un

til A

sset Life

repla

cem

ent soft

ware

is o

pera

tio

na

l.

Add

itio

nal in

ven

tory

data

id

entifie

d b

y

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

7

CA

TE

GO

RY

R

MP

R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

AU

DIT

PR

OC

ES

S

PR

OC

ES

S

CO

MP

LY

?

CO

MM

EN

TS

report

ing.

C

ond

itio

n A

ssessm

ent S

urv

ey r

eta

ined in

spre

adshe

ets

an

d a

va

ilable

thro

ug

h W

eave

GIS

. N

ot a

dde

d to A

ssetL

ife p

endin

g n

ew

A

MS

.

Co

nd

itio

n

As

se

ssm

en

t S

urv

ey

Thre

e Y

earl

y

Sig

ht re

port

s o

f la

st

surv

ey

Assessm

ent undert

aken w

ith

multi-cam

era

surv

ey v

ehic

le

YE

S

3 Y

earl

y c

on

ditio

n inspectio

ns c

arr

ied o

ut b

y

contr

acto

r an

d r

ecord

ed o

nto

GIS

syste

m a

s

tem

pora

ry m

easure

un

til A

sset Life

repla

cem

ent soft

ware

is o

pera

tio

na

l. L

ast

surv

ey c

om

ple

ted 2

01

3.

FO

OT

PA

TH

S,

K&

C,

NA

TU

RE

ST

RIP

Neig

hbo

urh

ood

Activity C

entr

es

(Majo

r S

hopp

ing

centr

es)

4 /

Year

Local A

ctivity

Centr

es 2

/ Y

ear

C

om

munity S

tore

–

1/

Year

Check “

Reflect”

ele

ctr

on

ic r

ecord

s o

f “F

ootp

ath

Co

nd

itio

n

report

s”

over

12 m

onth

perio

d a

nd in

vento

ry

deta

ils f

or

shop

pin

g

centr

es.

Mun

icip

alit

y d

ivid

ed into

12

are

as a

nd inspecte

d o

n a

m

onth

ly b

asis

. C

ond

itio

n a

nd

defe

cts

data

record

ed f

or

each a

rea (

Inspection

da

te,

ste

ps (

10

-25)

(25+

),

repla

cem

ents

, pit lid

s,

linte

ls,

K&

C, na

ture

str

ips.

Footp

ath

s a

re w

alk

ed a

s p

art

of

inspection.

YE

S

Defe

cts

record

s f

or

footp

ath

s a

re d

ow

nlo

aded

to R

eflect

MM

syste

m for

read

y a

ccess a

nd f

or

work

s p

rogra

mm

ing o

n a

rea b

y a

rea

basis

.

Cond

itio

n r

atin

gs f

or

Aspha

lt f

ootp

ath

s a

re

record

ed in A

sset L

ife A

sset M

an

agem

ent

syste

m

CA

RP

AR

KS

N

eig

hbo

urh

ood

Activity C

entr

es

(Majo

r S

hopp

ing

centr

es)

4 /

Yr

C

om

merc

ial 2/

Yr

C

om

munity

Facili

ties -

An

nua

lly

Check “

Asset Life”

ele

ctr

on

ic r

ecord

s o

f “C

ar

park

conditio

n

report

s”

over

12 m

onth

perio

d.

Fie

ld inspections c

arr

ied o

ut

manually

usin

g f

ield

she

ets

aga

inst lis

t of

car

park

assets

.

Fie

ld s

he

ets

are

then

record

ed e

lectr

onic

ally

onto

excel shee

ts to p

rovid

e a

m

eans o

f pro

gra

mm

ing a

nd

re

port

ing.

YE

S

Cond

itio

n d

ata

curr

ently u

plo

ade

d f

rom

excel

sheets

to “

AssetL

ife”.

E

xcel file

s u

sed t

o s

ort

by c

ond

itio

n r

atin

gs to

genera

te w

ork

s p

rogra

ms

“Reflect”

soft

ware

bein

g u

sed to

record

ha

zard

s/ defe

cts

an

d p

rogra

m w

ork

s.

BR

IDG

ES

& M

AJO

R C

UL

VE

RT

S

Ro

uti

ne

Main

ten

an

ce

Level 1 Insp

ectio

ns

6 M

onth

ly f

or

Ro

ad

Brid

ges

Ann

ua

lly f

or

Park

B

rid

ges

Check h

ard

cop

y

record

s o

f in

spections

over

6 m

onth

peri

od.

Check “

Reflect”

in

spection r

eport

s.

Main

ten

ance insp

ectio

ns

carr

ied o

ut m

anually

usin

g

field

she

ets

. A

sset

deta

ils a

re

record

ed o

nto

AssetL

ife a

nd

defe

cts

/actions r

ecord

ed

onto

“R

eflect”

. W

ork

s

YE

S

“R

eflect”

soft

ware

used t

o r

ecord

ha

zard

s/d

efe

cts

etc

, pro

gra

m w

ork

s a

nd

pro

vid

e a

n insp

ectio

n h

isto

ry.

C

ouncil

sta

ff is c

urr

ently s

ett

ing

up a

ne

w

inspection p

rogra

m in “

Reflect”

.

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

8

CA

TE

GO

RY

R

MP

R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

AU

DIT

PR

OC

ES

S

PR

OC

ES

S

CO

MP

LY

?

CO

MM

EN

TS

pro

gra

ms a

re g

enera

ted f

rom

“R

eflect”

for

imple

menta

tio

n.

Vis

ua

l S

tructu

ral in

spection

undert

aken e

very

6 m

onth

s

in A

pr/

Oct.

Co

nd

itio

n

As

se

ssm

en

t Level 2 Insp

ectio

ns

3 Y

earl

y f

or

all

Brid

ges

Check h

ard

cop

y

record

s o

f la

st

inspection.

Level 2 B

ridg

e inspections

carr

ied o

ut 2 y

earl

y b

y

contr

acto

r.

YE

S

Level 2 B

ridg

e inspections last conducte

d

Octo

ber

20

14.

TR

AF

FIC

S

IGN

AL

S

3/Y

earl

y

Inte

rvie

w C

ouncil

sta

ff &

vie

w q

uart

erl

y t

raff

ic

sig

na

l in

spection r

eport

s

by c

ouncil’

s c

ontr

acto

r

Council

con

tracto

r undert

akes inspectio

n o

f sig

na

ls 3

/year

and

pre

pare

s

a r

eport

on f

indin

gs.

Identified w

ork

s a

re

com

ple

ted b

y th

e c

ontr

acto

r.

YE

S

Tra

ffic

Sig

nal in

sp

ectio

ns r

ecord

ed m

anua

lly

on h

ard

cop

y.

In

spection c

on

ducte

d q

uart

erl

y b

y c

ontr

acto

r.

DR

AIN

AG

E &

PIT

C

LE

AN

ING

Lin

k &

Co

llecto

r R

ds –

3 /

Year

A

ccess R

ds –

A

nn

ua

lly

Inte

rvie

w C

ouncil

sta

ff

and inspect

dra

inag

e

pro

gra

ms

and m

aps

Pro

ce

ss h

as a

ltere

d d

ue to

tr

aff

ic c

onstr

ain

ts o

n m

ain

ro

ads. W

ork

requests

are

accum

ula

ted a

nd c

arr

ied o

ut

on S

und

ays.

Loca

l ro

ads

boun

ded

by a

rteri

als

are

in

specte

d a

s g

roups/a

reas.

Tota

l m

unic

ipalit

y is

com

ple

ted o

ver

an

appro

xim

ate

tw

elv

e m

onth

perio

d.

YE

S

Pits c

overe

d b

y a

nnu

al in

sp

ection

cycle

an

d

record

ed m

anually

. N

eed t

o incorp

ora

te in

to

Asset Life. N

ew

map

-based

pro

gra

m in p

lace.

A

fter

each a

rea is insp

ecte

d a

nd c

leane

d, a

ny

pits r

eq

uirin

g f

urt

her

work

(e.g

. flush

ing)

are

pro

gra

mm

ed f

or

futu

re w

ork

. Q

uart

erl

y r

ep

ort

pre

pare

d.

D

rain

age n

etw

ork

record

ed o

n G

IS.

S

om

e a

reas r

eceiv

e a

dd

itio

nal in

sp

ectio

ns/

cle

an

ing

du

e to le

af

falls

du

ring w

inte

r/sprin

g

on a

s-n

eede

d b

asis

. P

roble

m d

rain

age a

reas

have b

een m

appe

d to a

ssis

t w

ith inspections

and m

onitori

ng.

N

ew

work

s p

rogra

m in p

lace to t

ake a

dvanta

ge

of

additio

nal cre

w a

nd jet cle

an

ing v

ehic

le.

No

tes:

1. In

spectio

ns a

cro

ss t

he b

oa

rd a

re c

urr

ently r

unn

ing o

n s

ch

ed

ule

du

e t

o g

reate

r u

se o

f e

lectr

onic

data

co

llection

& R

efle

ct

MM

syste

m.

2.

Ne

w “

RE

FLE

CT

” softw

are

has b

ee

n fu

lly im

ple

me

nte

d a

nd

is u

sed

fo

r a

ll d

efe

ct

inspe

ction

s a

nd

min

or

pro

gra

mm

ed w

ork

s.

3.

Tra

ffic

sig

nal in

spe

ction

s s

till

record

ed

ma

nu

ally

. C

ontr

acto

r in

vo

ice

s a

nd

/or

report

s s

hou

ld b

e m

ade

ava

ilable

as p

roo

f th

at

inspe

ction

s h

ave

b

ee

n c

arr

ied o

ut.



9

4. Response Times & Work Standards

In order to determine whether response times and work standards comply with the requirements of the RMP, records of activities and defects were assessed by interrogation of Council’s Customer Feedback System (CFS) , “Reflect” MM System and discussions held with Council staff.

The RMP Response times for each Asset category are included in Appendix 7.1.

These response times are programmed into Council’s CFS and Reflect MMS to enable summary performance reports to be generated.

Council’s CFS is primarily used to record external requests whilst the Reflect MMS is used to record internal requests and program works.

CFS KPI performance reports (See Appendix 7.6) were interrogated across all relevant asset categories to determine the level of compliance with respect to Response Times. Over a 12 month period out of 3309 recorded requests, a total of 340 requests were recorded as “out of time” which represents a level of compliance of approximately 90%. This result is just below the previous audit (90.8%) and at the target level of compliance of 90%.

The following Reflect records over the previous 12 month period shows a total of 6066 requests (56% Internal/ 44% External). Total request numbers are down on the previous year (10286) (79.6% Internal/ 20.4% External) which is reflective of a more proactive approach to maintenance works as well as the increased use of electronic data collection, increased use of “Reflect” as well as a general improvement in response times..

2014 TOTALS

CFS Internal

MMS No. Internal

No. External Total % Internal % External

Roads/Signs/Furniture 185 651 836 765 1601 52% 48%

Footpaths 57 1843 1900 332 2232 85% 15%

Drainage 133 329 462 883 1345 34% 66%

Street Sweeping 22 1 23 252 275 8% 92%

Litter/Rubbish/Animals 174 2 176 437 613 29% 71%

ENG OPS SUMMARY 571 2826 3397 2669 6066 56.0% 44.0%

Performance reports against the RMP response times have been setup in the GIS “Weave” program and detailed performance reporting is now operational.

In reality, it is very difficult to achieve the required response rate in all asset categories due to limited Council resources and other factors outside of Council’s control such as adverse weather conditions (Wind storms, flooding etc)/non-programmed works etc).

It was noted that the CFS requests generally provide sufficient detail in accurately describing the issue location and closure reason, however a small number of records did not accurately record the Issue Location but did provide some additional location information in the request description. This problem could be rectified through additional staff training and feedback.

A sample (~30) of CFS completed works on a range of assets were identified and a visual inspection undertaken to confirm whether works were actually completed and that they were undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

To aid in the assessment process, a summary of the response target performance for each of the asset categories listed in the RMP generated for the past 12 month period via a report from



10

the CFS was prepared to determine compliance with the RMP. A suitable format report has now been generated which allows for the input of a data-range and variable nominated asset categories.

A full list of the Customer Service KPI’s for the last twelve months is included in Appendix 7.6.

Note: Correspondence figures for Engineering Operations and Parks & Recreation are generated in separate excel reports from the Records Unit.

It should also be noted that the infrastructure amenity audits undertaken in conjunction with this RMP compliance audit indicate the standard of workmanship and general asset condition to be consistently above an acceptable required standard in comparison with similar Municipalities.

A review has been undertaken of the CFS KPI’s to better reflect the service standards listed in the RMP.

Service level condition assessments and inspection frequencies have been simplified in the RMP to ensure a level of consistency with the Road Maintenance Specification and other Council recording and reporting systems.

The majority of requests that are minor in nature are fully actioned within the set response times however for major items such as road sealing, grading etc. it is not feasible to have the works completed within the set CFS response time. The KPI’s utilised reflect the target response time to carry out an initial inspection and actioning of minor/emergency works only (e.g. 48hrs) as the required action may vary depending upon the severity of the defect (i.e. immediate if emergency/safety issue, or placement on a works program, no action etc.).

Whilst a normal request involving physical works would not normally require a formal response, in the case of “no action required” or where the works need to go onto a works program, the resident should be notified either verbally and/or via a standard letter and recorded in the CFS where the resident has specifically requested they be notified. An inspection of the CFS request form indicates the inclusion of advice if return call to requester is required, and provision for the action officer to record outcome an outcome.

4.1 WORK STANDARDS

The following table summaries the results of visual inspections carried out to confirm whether works were actually completed and that they were undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

11

4.1

.1

Su

mm

ary

Co

mp

lia

nc

e A

ss

es

sm

en

t

Inspe

ction c

arr

ied o

ut

on 4

th a

nd

5th M

arc

h 2

015.

Req

uest

ID/

Ph

oto

ID

Cat/

Su

b-C

at

Lo

cati

on

D

esc

rip

tio

n

Co

mp

lete

d?

S

tan

dard

(1-5

)

Co

mm

en

ts

15

41

20

75

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

21

Lyn

ne S

t, D

on

vale

B

roke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

15

40

83

55

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

Ke

w C

rt D

on

va

le

Mis

sin

g S

t S

ign

Y

ES

4

S

atisfa

cto

ry

14

40

65

46

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

1 W

hite

Lod

ge

Crt

, D

on

va

le

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

15

41

16

20

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

59

En

fie

ld A

v,

Pa

rk O

rch

ard

s

Dam

ag

ed

Rd

Hum

p S

ign

/po

le

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

14

40

66

48

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

58

Fro

gm

ore

Crs

, P

ark

O

rch

ard

s

Rep

air

po

tho

le

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

15

40

90

52

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

14

Nth

Valle

y R

d,

Pa

rk O

rch

ard

s

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

15

41

08

99

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

Miln

e R

d,

Pa

rk O

rch

ard

s

Rep

lace

kn

ocked

do

wn

sig

n

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

–

Va

gu

e

locatio

n d

escrip

tio

n

15

40

94

39

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

2 L

om

ba

rdo

Cl, R

ing

wo

od

Nth

R

ep

lace

m

issin

g

str

eet

nam

e

sig

n

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

15

40

91

95

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

38

7 O

ld W

arr

an

dyte

Rd,

Rin

gw

oo

d N

th

Rein

sta

te D

am

age

d S

top

Sig

n

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

14

40

50

06

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

St

Jo

hn

s R

oa

d, W

on

ga

Pa

rk

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1540

814

1

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

14

Gra

tte

rs R

d, W

on

ga

Pa

rk

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry –

Difficu

lt t

o

locate

1541

063

8

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

1 W

hip

stick G

ully

Rd

, W

arr

an

dyte

R

ep

lace

kn

ocked

do

wn

ke

ep le

ft

sig

n

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1541

262

7

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

5 B

ayle

s C

rt,

Don

va

le

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1440

714

3

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

7 K

en

t C

rt, D

onca

ste

r E

ast

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1440

672

4

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

Fie

ldin

g R

ese

rve

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

12

1540

982

2

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

1 M

on

tgo

me

ry S

t, D

on

caste

r E

ast

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

3

Mis

se

d p

atc

hin

g w

ork

1440

509

8

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

20

Wood

hou

se R

d,

Doncaste

r E

ast

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Difficu

lt t

o f

ind

– V

agu

e

locatio

n

1541

039

3

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

1 T

au

rus R

d, D

onca

ste

r E

ast

Ob

scu

red

St

Sig

n

NO

2

S

ign

still

blo

cked

by t

ree

bra

nch

es

1540

944

1

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

14

Lon

gsta

ff c

rt,

Don

caste

r E

ast

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Ove

rgro

wn

w

ith

so

il/g

rass c

lipp

ings

1440

364

0

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

1 T

ap

aro

o R

d,

Te

mp

lesto

we

R

ep

air

po

tho

les

NO

2

S

eve

re

pa

ve

men

t cra

ckin

g/

su

bsid

ed

po

leho

le r

ep

air

s

1541

251

8

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

82

Wood

St,

Te

mp

lesto

we

M

issin

g S

top

Sig

n

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1440

702

9

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

43

Gre

ena

wa

y S

t, B

ulle

en

Bro

ke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1440

327

7

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

Au

stin

St,

Bulle

en

Rep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Pe

rma

ne

nt

Re

pa

ir

co

mp

lete

d

1541

144

2

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

Pin

nacle

/ L

incoln

St

Bu

llee

n

Dam

ag

ed

sig

n

YE

S

4

Un

ab

le

to

de

term

ine

actu

al sig

n

1541

092

8

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

10

7 S

wa

nsto

n S

t, L

ow

er

Te

mp

lesto

we

B

roke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1540

951

8

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

22

2 H

igh

St,

Lo

we

r T

em

ple

sto

we

R

eco

ve

r d

um

pe

d s

top

sig

n/p

ole

Y

ES

4

S

atisfa

cto

ry

1540

799

3

Dra

ina

ge

M

ain

tena

nce

–

Pit L

id/S

urr

ou

nd

30

Scarl

et

Ash

Dr,

Lo

we

r T

em

ple

sto

we

B

roke

n P

it in

se

rt/s

urr

oun

d

YE

S

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

1540

975

9

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

Westfie

ld D

r, D

oncaste

r R

ep

lace

falle

n s

tre

et sig

n

YE

S

4

Va

gu

e

Loca

tio

n

de

scri

ptio

n

1440

252

0

Roa

d

Ma

inte

na

nce

-

Po

t h

ole

pa

tch

ing

4 M

ap

le C

rt,

Do

nca

ste

r R

ep

air

po

tho

les

YE

S

4

Cra

ck

sea

ling

co

mp

lete

d a

lso

1541

192

3

Roa

d M

ain

ten

an

ce -

Sig

ns

72

2 E

lga

Rd

, D

on

ca

ste

r R

ep

lace

mis

sin

g S

t S

ign

Y

ES

4

S

atisfa

cto

ry

Th

e in

spe

ctio

n o

f ra

nd

om

ly s

ele

cte

d w

ork

site

s h

as r

eve

ale

d t

hat

mo

st

req

uests

have

bee

n s

atisfa

cto

rily

co

mp

lete

d t

o a

n a

ccep

tab

le s

tand

ard

. C

FS

Site

In

spectio

ns P

hoto

s a

re inclu

de

d in 7

.2 C

FS

Site

In

spectio

ns P

hoto

s.



13

5. Repair & Maintenance Works


Review of RMP, Road Maintenance Service Agreement (specification), CFS, Work Instruction Sheets, Electric Line Clearance Management Plan, and six monthly Engineering Operations Unit Service Plan Advisory Reports.

5.2 RMP Service level

Routine maintenance and repair works are undertaken within a reasonable period of time having regard to intervention levels and works programs.

The Road Maintenance Service Agreement sets out specific service levels to be provided in the delivery of repair and maintenance works. The specification provides a Workload Indicator and corresponding Performance Criteria for each activity undertaken.

The reference in the RMP to the former Maintenance Service Agreement has been changed to a more generic Road Maintenance Specification reference.

5.3 MCC process

Key Performance indicators have been established and form part of the RMP documentation. These KPI’s are reported on in the six monthly reports against Engineering Operations Unit Service Plan.

Six monthly condition audits are undertaken by Council staff and consultants to determine compliance with required standards and to identify areas requiring additional intervention. Performance and Status reports are presented to the Directors and CEO.

Street tree maintenance operations are largely carried out in accordance with the Electric Line Clearance Management plan and reviewed annually. The existing CFS is used extensively to record inspections, develop programs and report on compliance.

5.4 Summary Compliance Assessment

The previous Engineering Operations Unit Service Plan KPI compliance Advisory Report has now been replaced with the InterPlan software system for recording and reporting on compliance with set KPI targets.

For the period 01/07/2014 to 30/12/2014 the Interplan report on service performance for the Engineering Operations Unit is as follows:

Action Progress Measurement Target Status

6.2.1.48 Asset condition inspections to be completed and documented as programmed for each asset class in accordance with RMP.

Q1: Programmed inspections of roads, footpaths, shopping centres and car parks is on schedule at end of Q1.

Q2: The inspection program was revised in December to include linear pathways. The inspection of these linear pathways is expected to be completed during January. Other inspections of roads, car parks, footpaths and shopping centres are on schedule. Inspections of road traffic bridges are scheduled to be completed in late January/early February.

Program to be met Annually. Inspections to be undertaken in accordance with RMP.

50% 45%

6.2.1.49 Routine Q1:Routine inspection of pits undertaken when All pits in critical 50% 50%



14

Action Progress Measurement Target Status

inspection and cleaning of on road drainage pits.

reactive works are complete. Works are recorded on daily runsheets to provide improved reporting, then entered into the Maintenance Management System MMS. Currently completing proactive works in Area 9A.

Q2: Routine inspection works being undertaken I Area 9B between reactive workloads. Inspections and works are recorded on the MMS and Weave. Also completing proactive works in conjunction with customer requests. Crews are using running sheets to report other drainage related matters.

areas to be cleared to maintain functionality. All surface entry pits in road reserves to be checked annually, and cleared as required.

6.2.1.50 Street sweeping completed as programmed (all residential areas generally every six weeks).

Q1: Residential programmed sweeping has been completed in accordance with schedule. Some works are required at Asset Protection Permit sites following wet weather. Night sweeping program progressing with schedule. High pressure cleaning currently underway in main activity centres.

Q2: Residential sweeping program continues to be completed on schedule. There has been some summer leaf drop and some streets swept on more frequent basis. Night sweeping program is progressing on schedule.

Complete street sweeping as programmed.

50% 50%

6.2.1.53 Mechanical sweeping of 6 activity centres on a fortnightly basis.

Q1: Cleansing is being completed in accordance with the program. Frequency has been increased at MC2 because of the high profile and have arranged for the forecourt area at main entry to be high-pressure washed. Currently part way through the high pressure cleaning of footpaths in main activity centres.

Q2: The program continues to be completed within timelines to a good standard of cleanliness. High pressure cleaning at the six larger activity centres was completed in early November. A new contract was awarded in late December, which includes addition cleaning services at the entry to MC2 and the Doncaster Rd pedestrian underpass.

Complete as per program.

50% 50%

(EO) Overall Service performance as determined through annual Infrastructure Asset Condition Assessment

Audit completed February 2014. Results to be included in next RMP compliance assessment.

Independent Audit assessment.

98% 99.11%

A copy of the relevant sections of the InterPlan Engineering Operations Unit Service performance Advisory Report is included in Appendix 7.8.

In summary the above table indicates general compliance with the nominated service targets in all areas except for Asset Condition inspections due to the inclusion of linear pathways in December 2013. Action item Overall Service performance is included in the above table but has been completed in the 3rd Quarter (Jan – March 2014).

KPI’s adopted by Council are now incorporated into the Road Management Plan (RMP) for easy reference and a document reference register is kept under the control of the Assets Co-ordinator. The RMP now sets out all required service standards and KPI’s.



15

6. Plan Administrative Requirements


Council’s Asset Coordinator was interviewed and requested to provide a response to the deficiencies identified in the previous audit conducted in March 2014.

The coordinator’s response and accompanying documentation was reviewed and assessed against the requirements of the Road Management Act.

In addition Council’s Asset Management and recording systems were inspected and evaluated to determine whether sufficient information was being recorded and that adequate programming and tracking reports were able to be generated.

6.2 Road Management Act Requirements

Section 54 of the Road Management Act 2004 sets out the procedure for making and amending a Road Management Plan, including the giving of public notice, 28 day allowance for receipt of submissions, publishment of the notice in the Government Gazette, daily newspaper generally circulating in the area.

In addition the Road authority must conduct a review of its Road Management Plan every 4 years. In accordance with the Road management (General) Regulations 2005, the next review is scheduled to be completed by May 2017, to coincide with the preparation of the Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election of incoming municipal councils.

6.3 Summary Compliance Assessment

The Road Management Plan (RMP) is maintained at Council’s Depot and a copy kept at the Civic

Centre by Council’s Asset Coordinator. The documentation is included in Appendix 7.4.

An inspection of the provided documentation indicates that Council has complied with the requirements of the Road Management Act.

Council adopted its RMP on 30th November 2004 and an update was adopted by Council on 9 June 2009 in accordance with the requirements of the Road Management Act.

A further review was carried out in August 2012 to align with a review of Council’s Asset Management Plans (AMP’s) that was undertaken as part of a community consultation process.

Public notices were placed in the Manningham Leader on the 6th June 2012 and the Government Gazette on the 7th

June 2012 advising of Council’s intention to review its RMP.

The process involved seeking feedback from the community on the levels of service contained

within the AMP’s and RMP, and the outcomes, including the extent of any changes and potential impacts on the Manningham community, was reported back to Council as part of the adoption of

revised AMP’s and updated RMP on 28 August 2012.



16

The Asset Coordinator has prepared the following status report on outstanding

Actions/Recommendations that were identified in previous audits to improve Council’s compliance with the RMP:

Recommendation Status

Investigate use of hand held electronic devices for inspections across all road maintenance activities.

Investigation complete. Electronic devices are progressively being implemented.

That a linkage be established between CFS and ‘AssetLife’ to easily capture CFS requests and to consolidate recording and reporting systems.

On hold and is subject to the replacement of the AM System

That the process for recording new assets/ reconstructions onto the GIS be streamlined to assist the superintendents when undertaking routine asset inspections.

A new procedure has been developed for recording and updating asset data, which is currently being trialled across the organisation.

That the RMP and Footpath Inspection Guidelines include a requirement for the inspection of Community Store Activity Centres - once a year to reflect the new inspection program.

Manningham’s RMP and Footpath Inspection Guidelines include a hierarchy classification for the inspection of Neighbourhood and Local Activity Centres.

Community Store Activity Centre’s (single shop fronts) are not identified as part of the shopping centre hierarchy and are currently included with footpaths, which are inspected annually.

It is proposed that the hierarchal classification for shopping centres be extended to include Community Stores as part of the next review of Manningham’s RMP in 2017.

That the CFS categories of After Hours Service, Temporary Measures and Emergency Works be reviewed in terms of performance standards and recording.

A review of CFS categories was undertaken when the system was recently updated and it was determined that the categories of After Hours Service, Temporary Measures and Emergency Works are no longer required. These CFS categories will be recorded against other asset categories, which are considered more relevant.

6.4 Asset Management System

As previously reported, ‘AssetLife’ Asset Management System is currently used to assist Council in tracking the maintenance, recording, monitoring and reporting of activities and programs on infrastructure assets.

The “AssetLife” system is currently under review due to a series of company ‘buy outs’ and changes in ownership. The current owner has indicated that they intend to develop new advanced asset management software that will incorporate some aspects of ‘AssetLife’ functionality and other asset management software systems acquired by the company. This has resulted in AssetLife having limited enhancement opportunities, with the main focus on the development of new software and has, therefore, restricted Council’s ability to further develop the system and integrate it with other third party software systems and mobile devices.

The Asset Management Steering Committee has considered several options to address this matter and it has become apparent that, in order for Council to meet its current and future asset management needs and requirements, Council should investigate the purchase and installation of a new corporate asset management system to manage Council’s assets.

As a result, funding has been provided in the 2014/15 Capital Works Program for the replacement of ‘AssetLife’ with a cloud-based AMS solution that has the capabilities to integrate with other corporate systems and 3rd party applications.



17

Project design was commenced in January 2015. Software procurement and implementation will be forthcoming in the latter half of the financial year. The project will be managed as a part of the Project Management Office function, and will be implemented in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy, to seek responses from prospective suppliers of software systems.

As an interim measure, Council purchased a works management software system called ‘Reflect’, to assist with programmed maintenance and inspection activities for road and park infrastructure assets. The future use of ‘Reflect’ will be assessed once the new AMS is implemented with the intention of utilising the works management functionality in the AMS, or alternatively, to continue with ‘Reflect’ in its current format and integrate with the AMS. At present, “Reflect” does not fully integrate with Councils’ CFS which leads to an administrative duplication in recording the works orders and completion information (i.e. Records from CFS must be manually transferred onto “Reflect”).

6.5 Customer Feedback System (CFS)

Council’s CFS system has been replaced with a web-based application developed by Open Office Solutions, to manage all incoming customer requests.

6.6 GIS System

A new GIS System called ‘Weave’ has been implemented across the organisation to replace the ‘EView’ system. Reflect records can now be viewed in the GIS.

6.7 Public Roads Register

Two copies (one counter copy, one master) of the Manningham Public Roads Register, which forms part of the Road Management Plan documentation required under the Road Management Act, is maintained and updated by the Asset Coordinator. The Asset Coordinator has delegated authority under section 304 of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 to authorise the alteration of the Public Roads Register to include, remove or alter details of public roads. Following any changes to the roads data, the Asset Co-ordinator updates the Register and records of the relevant details and the outcomes are reported to Council annually, as part of the normal performance reporting process.



18

Since the last audit, the Asset Coordinator has made 1 change to the Public Roads Register under delegated authority and the details have been updated and recorded on the Register. The following is a summary of the approved amendments to the Roads Register:

Amend No

Description Amendment Date

Current Hierarchal

Classification

Proposed Hierarchal

Classification

16 The hierarchal classification for the following roads has been reclassified, to enable these roads to align more appropriately with their intended function and purpose.

3 March 2014

Anderson Street (Foote St to James St)

Council Link Urban

Council Collector Urban

Blackburn Road (Heidelberg-Warrandyte Rd to Websters Road)

Council Link Urban


Church Road (Reynolds Rd to Serpells Rd)

Council Link Urban


Church Road (Serpells Rd to King St)

Council Link Urban


Church Road (Doncaster Rd to Dunoon St)

Council Link Urban


Council Street (Doncaster Rd to Goodson St)

Council Link Urban


George Street (Manningham Rd to Williams Rd)

Council Link Urban


Serpells Road (Williamsons Rd to Tuckers Rd)

Council Link Urban


Tuckers Road (King St to Serpells Rd)

Council Link Urban


Beckett Road (Craig Rd to Council Boundary)

Council Link Rural

Council Collector Rural

Brysons Road (Yarra Rd to Hillcrest Rd)

Council Link Rural


Brysons Road (Hillcrest Rd to Council Boundary)

Council Link Rural


Craig Road (Beckett Rd to Glenvale Rd)

Council Link Rural


Heads Road (Park Rd to Mullum Mullum Crk)

Council Link Rural


Heads Road (Mullum Mullum Crk to Lookover Rd)

Council Link Rural


Church Road (Reynolds Rd to Serpells Rd)

Council Link Urban

Council Access Urban

Church Road (Porter Street to Reynolds Rd)

Council Link Urban


Church Road (Dunnoon St to Konung Creek)

Council Link Urban


Council Street (Goodson St to Winston Dve)

Council Link Urban


Parker Street (Swilk St to Milne St)

Council Link Urban


Parker Street (Milne St to Anderson St)

Council Link Urban




19

Serpells Road (Foote to Williamsons Rd)

Council Link Urban


Serpells Road (Tuckers Rd to Andersons Creek Rd)

Council Link Urban


Beckett Road (Lookover Rd to Tandarook Rd)

Council Link Rural

Council Access Rural

Beckett Road (Tandarook Rd to Council Boundary)

Council Link Rural


Tunstall Road (Darvall St to End)



Rose Avenue (Templestowe Rd to No 65)



Rose Avenue (No 65 to Rae St)



Hall Road (Ringwood-Warrandyte Rd to Ringwood-Warrandyte Rd)



Oban Road (Lookover Rd to Smedley Rd)



Oban Road (Smedley Rd to Glenvale Rd)



6.8 Boundary Roads

Internal Information sessions were conducted in August 2014 with Council staff in order to better establish areas of responsibility with respect to Infrastructure maintenance activities and better co-ordinate capital works activities on boundary roads.

As a result an Infrastructure Maintenance Responsibilities Matrix table has been prepared.

Council has in place previously established letters of agreement with adjoining Municipalities regarding maintenance activities on boundary roads; however these agreements have not been reviewed and brought up to date for a number of years.

Given the current difficulties surrounding maintenance activities on boundary roads it would be opportune time to review these agreements.



20

7. Appendices

7.1 Asset Defects Categories Response Times for CFS



21

R E S P O N S E

TIME (DAYS)

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY

EXTERNAL

REQUEST

INTERNAL

REQUEST

Footpaths Concrete - Steps (25i-mm) 30 90

Concrete - Steps (10 - 25mm) 30 90 > 6 defects/St

Concrete - Slab replacement 30 90

Concrete - Crossing damage 30 90

Concrete -Spoon drains 30 90

Asphalt – Cracking 20 50 (C3) / Sched (C2)

Asphalt - Potholes/edges 20 45

Gravel – Washouts 20 90

Gravel - Insufficient material 20 90

Pavers - Missing/broken/lifted/loose 30 90

Reinstatements 30 30

Weed growth 20 45

Building damage 30 90

Cleaning required 20 30

Service Authority Pit 30 90

Other 30 90

Road Maintenance Sealed Pavement – Potholes 5 20

Sealed Pavement - Major patching Schedule Schedule

Sealed Pavement – Edges 5 30

Sealed Pavement – Cracking Schedule Schedule

Unsealed Pavement - Rough surface

20 45

Unsealed Pavement – Potholes 20 45

Unsealed Pavement – Shoulders 20 45

-

Pavers - Subsidence/heaving 30 90

Pavers - Missing/damaged pavers 30 90

Pavers – Loose pavers 30 90

Spills – Oil 2

Spills – Paint 10 20

Spills – Concrete 2 2

Reinstatements 20 90



22

R E S P O N S E

TIME (DAYS)


EXTERNAL

REQUEST

INTERNAL

REQUEST

Drainage Maintenance Blocked U/G drain – Road 5 20

Blocked U/G drain – Easement 5 20

Blocked U/G drain – Reserve 5 20

Blocked Pits 5 10

Broken Pits - Lid/Surround 25 25

Broken Pits – Lintel 25 90

Broken Pits_ Repair 25 90

House Drain Connection 5 5

Kerb & Channel - Lifted/Sunk 25 90

Kerb & Channel - Broken/Missing 25 90

Open Drains – Cleaning 20 50

Open Drains - Vegetation control 20 40

Cross-over Drains - Street - Blocked 30 30

Cross-over Drains - Street - Broken 30 60

Cross-over Drains - Driveway – Blocked

30 30

Cross-over Drains - Driveway – Broken

30 60

Drainage Investigation Locating Drains 5 10

Seepage – Investigation 15 40

Seepage – Repair 25 60

CCTV Inspection 30 45

Rubbish/Litter Dumped - Manual collection 5 10

Dumped – Crane 5 10

Dumped – Loader 5 10

Dead Animals – Small 5 5

Dead Animals – Large _

5 5

Rubbish Bins – Overflowing 4 5

Defects Categories.xls / CFS CATEGORIES Page 2 of 3 22/11/2005



23

R E S P O N S E

TIME (DAYS)


EXTERNAL

REQUEST

INTERNAL

REQUEST

Spilled Debris - Manual collection 5 10

Spilled Debris – Crane 5 10

Spilled Debris – Loader 5 10

Posters – Remove 3

Nature Strips Subsidence - Large (>100mm deep) 5 10

Subsidence - Small (<100m_m deep) 5 20

Damage - Service Authorities 10 30

Damage - Builders/others 10 30

Obstructions

Bridges Structural Damage - Inspection required

10 10

Signs – Missing/damaged 10 30

Guardrail – Damaged 10 20

Handrail – Damaged 10 20

Vegetation - Remove/trim 10 20

Graffiti – Remove 10 20

Linemarking Worn - Centrelines/Edge Lines 20 50

Worn - Raised vehicle humps 20 50

Worn - Pedestrian crossings 20 50

Worn – Statcons 20 20

Worn - Traffic Islands 20 50

Worn – RABs 20 50

Worn – Symbols 20 50

Missing - Centrelines/Edge Lines 20 30

Missing - Raised vehicle humps 20 40

Missing - Pedestrian crossings 20 30

_

Missing – Statcons 20 20



24

R E S P O N S E

TIME (DAYS)


EXTERNAL

REQUEST

INTERNAL

REQUEST

Missing – Traffic islands 20 40

Missing _RABs 20 40

Missing – Symbols 20 40

RRPMs – Replace 20 50

Signs Missing 30 50

Leaning post 3 0 30

Damaged 30 50

Obscured 30 30

Rotated 30 30

Cleaning required 30 50

Faded 30 50_

Remove/Redundant

Traffic Signals Signal Faults 10 10

Damaged 10 10

Street Furniture Damaged 20 50

Missing 20 50

Install 20 3-0

Remove 20 50

Cleaning Required 20 50

Street Sweeping Reseals 10 10

Leaves 10 20

Gravel 10 10

Debris 10 10-

Grass Cutting 10 10



25

7.2 CFS Site Inspections Photos

15412075

15408355

14406546

15411620



26

14406648

15409052

15410899

15409439



27

15409195

14405006

15408141

15410638



28

15412627

14407143

14406724

15409822



29

14405098

15410393

15409441

14403640



30

15412518

14407029

14403277

15411442



31

15410928

15409518

15407993

15409759



32

14402520

15411923



33

7.3 Road Management Plan – Supporting Documentation

(Maintained by Asset Co-ordinator)

The following is a list of current documentation and supporting information relating to Council’s Road Management Plan:

Council Report relating to the development of Council’s Road Management Plan – 28 September 2004.

Official notices relating to Council’s Intention to Make a Road Management Plan – “Manningham Leader” 6 & 13 October 2004 and “Local Paper” 3 November 2004.

Notice of Intention to Make a Road Management Plan – Government Gazette 30 September 2004.

Council Report relating to the adoption of Council’s Road Management Plan – 30 November 2004.

Official notice relating to the adoption of Council’s Road Management Plan – “Manningham Leader” 8 December 2004.

Notice of Adoption of Council’s Road Management Plan – Government Gazette 9 December 2004.

Correspondence relating to Maintenance Agreements of Municipal Boundary Roads (Maroondah, Whitehorse and Yarra Ranges).

Council Report relating to the Maintenance of Arterial roads Under State (VicRoads) Jurisdiction – 14 December 2004.

Road Management Plan Summary Sheet outlining details of Road Management Act and Council’s Road Management Plan – 15 December 2004.

Issue Briefing Note to advise Councillors on status of Road Management Plan – 15 December 2004.

Road Management Act Works Maintenance Agreement between VicRoads and Council – 20 April 2005.

VicRoads Road Management Plan Final Draft – July 2004

Manningham Maintenance Service Specification – 18 April 2006.

Manningham’s Road Asset Management Plan – 28 September 2004.

Procedure for updating/Amending Manningham’s Public Roads Register (Includes Flowchart and Delegation Memo).

Key Performance Indicator Data – to assess the effectiveness and responsiveness of maintenance in relation to-

Trees; Playgrounds; Sealed Pavements; Unsealed Roads; Open drains; Signs & Street Furniture; Concrete Footpaths; Underground Drains;; Street Sweeping; Disposal of Rubbish; Customer Service (Correspondence and Customer Requests); and Financial Performance.

Note: The above KPI’s are reported six monthly in the Manningham Maintenance PARETS Performance & Status Advisory Reports and details are kept in a central registry and maintained by the Systems Co-ordinator Manningham Maintenance.

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

34

7.4

P

ub

lic

Ro

ad

s R

eg

iste

r U

pd

ati

ng

/Am

en

din

g P

roce

ss

Ma

p &

Pro

ced

ure

Pro

ces

s M

ap

fo

r U

pd

ati

ng

/Am

en

din

g M

an

nin

gh

am

’s P

ub

lic

Ro

ad

s R

eg

iste

r

Pro

cess

Ma

p f

or

Up

dati

ng

/Am

end

ing

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m’s

Pu

bli

c R

oa

ds

Reg

iste

r “

Att

ach

men

t A

”

NO

YE

S

Co

un

cil

is t

he

no

min

ated

Road

Au

tho

rity

for

all

road

s w

ith

in t

he

mu

nic

ipal

ity t

hat

are

list

ed o

n M

ann

ing

ham

’s R

oad

s R

egis

ter

(Sch

edu

le A

to

th

e R

oad

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n)

that

mak

e up

th

e lo

cal

road

net

wo

rk a

nd

form

th

e fu

nct

ion

of

lin

k, co

llec

tor

and

acc

ess.

Th

e A

sset

Co-o

rdin

ato

r is

res

po

nsi

ble

for

ensu

rin

g t

hat

th

e R

oad

s R

egis

ter

is m

ain

tain

ed a

nd

kep

t up

to

dat

e in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith

th

e R

oad

Man

agem

ent

Act

and

var

iou

s C

od

es o

f P

ract

ice

dea

lin

g w

ith

Road

Man

agem

ent

Pla

ns.

Th

e A

sset

Co-o

rdin

ato

r is

no

tifi

ed o

f an

y c

han

ges

to

Man

nin

gh

am’s

road

dat

a.

Do

es M

ann

ing

ham

’s P

ub

lic

Ro

ads

Reg

iste

r nee

d t

o b

e

up

dat

ed?

No

chan

ge

to P

ub

lic

Road

s R

egis

ter

Fo

llo

win

g a

ny c

han

ges

to

th

e ro

ad

dat

a, t

he

Ass

et C

o-o

rdin

ato

r w

ill

up

dat

e M

ann

ing

ham

’s P

ub

lic

Ro

ads

Reg

iste

r an

d r

epo

rt

ann

ual

ly t

o c

ou

nci

l on

any

amen

dm

ents

or

up

dat

es, in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith

th

e D

eleg

ated

Ro

ads

regis

ter

up

dat

ed, in

acc

ord

ance

wit

h D

eleg

ated

Au

tho

rity

app

rov

ed b

y

Co

un

cil.

All

ou

tco

mes

wil

l be

do

cum

ente

d a

s p

art

of

the

no

rmal

per

form

ance

rep

ort

ing

pro

cess

to

enab

le a

n i

nd

epen

den

t au

dit

to b

e u

nd

erta

ken

of

Man

nin

gh

am’s

com

pli

ance

wit

h t

he

Road

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n a

nd

Road

Man

agem

ent

Act

.



35

Procedure for Updating/Amending Manningham’s Public Road Register

Council’s Asset Coordinator has delegated authority to amend and update Manningham’s Public Roads Register, as required, in accordance with Council policy.

This authority was approved by Council on 28 September 2010 under the Instrument of Delegation, which allows for Council to delegate to the Asset coordinator specific duties and functions in relation to the Road Management Act.

Council is the nominated Road Authority for all roads within the municipality that are listed on Manningham’s Roads Register (Schedule A to the Road Management Plan) that make up the local road network and form the function of link, collector and access.

Whilst the Roads register is an attachment to the Road Management Plan, it is a separate document that can be amended or updated under delegation to avoid the need to implement formal procedures under the Road Management Act to amend the plan and Roads Register.

The Asset Co-ordinator is responsible for ensuring that the Roads Register is maintained and kept up to date in accordance with the Road Management Act and various Codes of Practice dealing with Road Management Plans.

This involves the various Service Units responsible for updating Council’s Asset management system ‘“AssetLife”’, notifying the Asset Co-ordinator of any changes to Manningham’s road data.

Following any changes to the road data, the Asset Co-ordinator will update Manningham’s Public Roads Register and report annually to council on any amendments or updates, in accordance with the delegated authority.

All outcomes will be documented as part of the normal performance reporting process to enable an independent audit to be undertaken of Manningham’s compliance with the Road Management Plan and Road Management Act.

Document2

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

36

7.5

In

sp

ec

tio

n P

rog

ram

s S

tatu

s C

hart

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

37



38

7.6 CFS KPI Compliance Status Summary

Engineering Operations

Top 5 by Category - SubCategory Received this month % of Total

Asset Protection - Asset Protection / Hoarding Applications 45 10%

Road Maintenance - Street Sweeping 39 9%

Asset Protection - Security Bond Refund 38 8%

Drainage Maintenance - Street Pit 38 8%

Litter Management - Dumped Items / Collection - Operations 30 7%

All other Categories - Subcategories 262 58%

Total received: 452 100%

Top 5 by Category - SubCategory Received 12 months % of Total

Asset Protection - Asset Protection / Hoarding Applications 673 11%

Asset Protection - Security Bond Refund 466 8%

Roadside Maintenance - Signs 410 7%

Drainage Maintenance - Street Pit 306 5%

Litter Management - Dumped Items / Collection - Operations 304 5%

All other Categories - Subcategories 3819 64%

Total received: 5978 100%

Of the 452 received this month: Of the 3283 received YTD:

114 remain open 163 remain open

338 have been completed 3120 have been completed

Of the 431 completed this month: This includes requests logged in previous months

Of the 3309 completed YTD: This includes requests logged in previous months

Completed In Time Completed Out of Time Completed In Time Completed Out of Time

389 42 2969 340

90% 10% 90% 10%



39

Engineering Operations cont. By Team over the last 13 months

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

40

7.7

In

terP

lan

En

gin

ee

rin

g O

pera

tio

ns U

nit

Se

rvic

es P

erf

orm

an

ce R

ep

ort

s

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

41

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

42

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

43

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

R

oa

d M

an

ag

em

ent P

la

n C

om

plian

ce A

udit

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

R

MP

C

om

lia

nce

A

ud

it R

ep

ort-F

eb

20

15

10/03

/1

5

44

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS

AUDIT CONDITION

ANNUAL REPORT

February 2015

Manningham City Council Infrastructure Asset Auditing

Dennis Hunt & Associates Pty Ltd InfraRpt FEB 2015 DHA 12/03/15

2

Report Contents

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

3. Infrastructure Auditing .................................................................................. 5

3.1 Audit Summary .................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Summary by Asset Type. ................................................................................... 6

3.3 Asset Types ....................................................................................................... 8

4. Defects Comments Report .......................................................................... 10

5. Asset Performance Graphs ........................................................................ 20

6. Audit Database Reports .............................................................................. 21

7. Audit Photographs ...................................................................................... 22

8. Inspection Maps .......................................................................................... 27



3

1. Executive Summary

Dennis Hunt & Associates have completed the annual asset condition audit report of the infrastructure maintenance services provided by the Engineering Operations and Parks and Recreation service units based on the audit data collected and provided by Dennis Hunt & Associates.

The audit indicates that the asset maintenance service is currently being delivered above the required Service Standards. The service continues to compare favourably with general Local Government industry standards for infrastructure asset maintenance.

The overall score for infrastructure maintenance activities was 3.96 or 99.07% which is similar to the previous audit carried out in February 2014. The overall score result is above the acceptable score of 98%, and considered within the limits of the auditing process.

The average result over the last twelve months is 99.07% which is above the acceptable standard. The overall score trend has generally been maintained above the required standard since these Infrastructure Asset Audits were first conducted in 2002 which is a commendable effort by the Infrastructure Maintenance department. The score trend is being maintained at an acceptable level taking into account a number of factors such as aging infrastructure, adverse weather conditions etc.

The average audit scores for the following asset categories were just below the required standard:

Guide Posts – Functional (97.22%)

Footpaths - (97.97%)

Street Sweeping – (97.42%)

Guide Posts (97.22%)

A number of guide posts were observed to be damaged or missing.

Footpaths (97.97%)

A number of footpaths within reserves have cracks, steps etc. but not hazardous.

Street Sweeping (97.42%)

A number of streets contained an abnormal quantity of leaf debris build up in the channels that may contribute to flooding by blocking pit inlets if not attended to.

The overall results of this audit are considered satisfactory given the unusual weather conditions at the time of audit and the overall age of the assets inspected.



4

ANNUAL AUDIT RESULTS

Recommendations

1. That road street sweeping activities be upgraded in areas identified in the audit.

2. That footpath maintenance works such as asphalt crack sealing, resealing, and concrete footpath repair maintenance activities be undertaken as a matter of urgency

3. That a regular inspection and replacement of damaged guide posts be carried out in rural areas.



5

2. Introduction

Dennis Hunt and Associates were engaged by Manningham Maintenance to produce anaudit report on asset condition of a sample of the road, car parks, shopping centres, andReserves infrastructure based on survey information collected over the period 9th, 10th,11th and 12th of February 2015.

The audit included the following asset categories:

Council Access, Collector & Link Roads

Arterial Declared Main Roads (Service Roads & Landscapeareas only)

Car Parks

Parks And Reserves

Councils’ six major Shopping Centres & Strips

The inspections of roads and streets were conducted as a “windscreen” survey. Carparks, parks and reserves, and shopping centres were inspected as a “walk-through”survey.

3. Infrastructure Auditing

3.1 Audit Summary

The following tables provide a summary of the audit results for assets by category andassets by type. The overall assessment of scores provided a performance score of99.07%, which is above the acceptable standard of 98%.

Detailed reports are included in Section 3.3 of this report.

Table 1 – Summary by Asset Category.

ASSET CATEGORY No of AuditRecords

AVE SCORE %

Manningham MaintenanceCar Parks 1072 3.94 98.58

All Council Roads 2695 3.97 99.35

Parks & Reserves 388 3.95 98.65

Shopping Centres 95 3.97 99.34

Manningham Maintenance Overall 4250 3.96 99.07

This audit was conducted over four days, collected 4250 records and is considered to bea representative sample of Council infrastructure assets.

In terms of overall score assessment a score of 4.0 equates to a performance standard ordegree of compliance of 100%. In practice 100% compliance is extremely difficult toachieve in infrastructure maintenance contracts, partly due to the reactive workscomponent, and 98% is typically accepted as satisfactory performance.

Table 2 lists performance by asset type, and identifies the service unit responsible foreach type. For some asset types the responsibility lies with more than one provider, eg:furniture – park / street / shopping centre.

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

Infrastructure

A

sset A

uditin

g

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

In

fra

Rpt F

EB

20

15

D

HA

1

2/03

/1

5

6

3.2

S

um

ma

ry b

y A

sse

t T

yp

e.

Ta

ble

2.

AS

SE

T T

YP

E

Engineering

Operations

Parks &

Recreation

FE

B 2

014

RE

SU

LT

(Av

e %

)

FE

B 2

01

5

RE

SU

LT

(Av

e %

)

CH

AN

GE

F

RO

M L

AS

T

AU

DIT

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

ST

AN

DA

RD

FO

R F

EB

2015

F

oo

tpa

ths (

Sh

op

pin

g C

en

tre

s &

Pa

rks

)

98.0

8%

97.9

7%

At

Std

Fu

rnit

ure

99.5

6%

98.3

8%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Ga

rden

Be

ds

96.7

2%

98.8

3%

Belo

w S

td

Gra

ss M

ow

ing

99.8

9%

9

9.9

5%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Gu

ard

rail

s

100%

N

A

E

xc

ee

ds S

td

Gu

ide P

osts

96.4

3%

9

7.2

2%

B

elo

w S

td

Lit

ter

Co

lle

cti

on

99.6

0%

99.4

8%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Op

en

Dra

inag

e

99.7

9%

100%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Pla

yg

rou

nd

s

98.4

4%

99.4

3%

E

xc

ee

ds S

td

Ma

nning

ham

C

ity C

ou

ncil

Infrastructure

A

sset A

uditin

g

De

nn

is H

un

t &

A

sso

cia

te

s P

ty L

td

In

fra

Rpt F

EB

20

15

D

HA

1

2/03

/1

5

7

AS

SE

T T

YP

E

Engineering

Operations

Parks &

Recreation

FE

B 2

014

RE

SU

LT

(Av

e %

)

FE

B 2

01

5

RE

SU

LT

(Av

e %

)

CH

AN

GE

F

RO

M L

AS

T

AU

DIT

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

ST

AN

DA

RD

FO

R F

EB

2015

Se

ale

d R

oad

Pave

me

nt

98.7

3%

9

8.1

0%

E

xc

ee

ds S

td

Sig

ns

99.7

3%

9

9.5

8%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Str

ee

t S

we

ep

ing

96.8

1%

97.4

2%

Belo

w S

td

Tre

es

99.6

5%

100%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Urb

an

Dra

inag

e

99.1

6%

9

9.2

6%

Ex

cee

ds S

td

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

co

rds

4344

4250

Ma

nn

ing

ham

Ma

inte

nan

ce

Ov

era

ll

99.1

1%

99.0

7%

E

xc

ee

ds S

td



8

3.3 Asset Types

3.3.1 Footpaths (97.97%)

Footpaths were found to be generally in good condition however a number of parks contained asphalt footpaths with extensive weed intrusion, surface cracking. A number of concrete footpaths were also in poor condition with cracks and minor steps. These footpaths although not hazardous require urgent attention or major reconstruction costs will be incurred.

Footpaths were generally found to be in good condition at Shopping Centres and Car Parks. Some isolated damaged paths were found in carparks, however these defects were not of a hazardous nature.

3.3.2 Furniture (98.38%)

The furniture in most reserves was found to be in good condition. A number of reserves were observed to contain old weathered furniture (seats in particular) that require cleaning and/or painting as well as general repairs. Shopping Centre furniture was generally well maintained.

3.3.3 Garden Beds (98.83%)

The garden beds in reserves were generally in good condition and free from weed growth considering the recent hot weather. However a small number of damaged and dying/dead plants/trees were observed and some reserve garden beds contained extensive weed growth. Garden beds in car parks and shopping centres were generally in fair condition with only minor instances of weeds, damaged and dying/dead plants.

3.3.4 Grass Mowing (99.95%)

Grass cutting was considered overall to be very good with no reserves observed to have high grass growth.

Grass trimming was also generally considered to be at or above standard.

3.3.5 Guard Rails (NA%)

No guard rails were recorded in this audit.

3.3.6 Guide Posts (97.22%)

Whilst the majority of guide posts were found to be in good condition there was a number of instances of missing, damaged, broken or bent posts. Reflective markers were generally intact and in good condition.

3.3.7 Playgrounds (99.43%)

Playground equipment was generally in very good condition. A small number of playgrounds required raking under swings with diminished soft fall material. A number of playgrounds have had new artificial soft fall pads installed under swings which have proved to be very effective and reduce on-going maintenance.



9

3.3.8 Litter Collection (99.48%)

Litter control was generally excellent. Only minor instances of litter and debris were evident at some car parks and reserves. There was only one observed instance of dumped rubbish at Blackburn Rd Shopping Centre (Car park at rear of BP service Station).

3.3.9 Open Drainage (100%)

Only minor instances of grass/weed growth was observed which may result in flooding/ culvert blockages if not attended to. Culverts/pipes were generally in good condition.

3.3.10 Sealed Road Pavement (98.10%) - (including line marking)

Pothole patching, edge condition/gravel shoulders were considered to be in acceptable condition; however a number of rural road pavements have severe edge breaks that require attention. Channel edges/weed grass was considered below standard with extensive weed growth and edge damage that require immediate attention. Centre line marking condition was considered below standard in a number of instances but Statcon lines were generally in good condition. Faded and worn parking bays were observed in a small number of car parks.

3.3.11 Signs (99.58%)

Signs were generally in good condition. Observed defects were of a minor nature and were generally graffiti, bent signs or posts. Some reserve signs were faded. The incidence of defects was low across all asset categories. All other regulatory signs were found to be in good condition.

3.3.12 Street Sweeping (97.42%)

Pavement cleanliness in roads and streets was generally considered to be below an acceptable standard with many incidents of debris and fallen leaves. If left unattended this may lead to flooding under storm conditions.

Debris was observed in a number of car parks in areas where mechanical sweeping is not possible; these areas require manual cleaning.

3.3.13 Trees (100%)

Street trees were generally in excellent condition probably due to the higher than average rainfall experienced during the warmer months. Some minor incidents of fallen tree branches were observed in parks but are not cause any hazard to pedestrians. Overall, trees were in good condition.

3.3.14 Urban Drainage (99.26%)

Although still functional, there were a small number of storm water pits with cracked and/or broken lids or spalled lintels. A number of pit entries were observed to be blocked by leaves and debris.



10

4. Defects Comments Report

UNITID DATE ASSET_TYPE COMMENT

CAR PARKS

CP000144 09-02-15 SR3

Broken/cracked k & ch

CP000051 09-02-15 SR3


CP000328 10-02-15 SR3


CP000071 10-02-15 SR3


CP000029 09-02-15 FP1

Cracked/broken - not hazardous

CP000079 10-02-15 FP1


CP000071 10-02-15 FP1


CP000275 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

CP000276 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

CP000051 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

CP000328 10-02-15 GB1

Damaged/dying/dead plants

CP000275 09-02-15 FN2

Damaged/loose fixings

CP000041 10-02-15 TR1

Dead/dying trees

CP000328 10-02-15 TR1

Dead/dying trees

CP000057 12-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000061 12-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000284 11-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000166 10-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000355 12-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000356 12-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000070 10-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000399 12-02-15 SR3

Displaced k & ch

CP000276 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000144 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000166 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000167 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000051 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000328 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000071 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000070 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

CP000276 09-02-15 SR4

Fading/worn centre/edge lines



11


CP000059 12-02-15 SR4

Fading/worn parking bays

CP000061 12-02-15 SR4


CP000275 09-02-15 SR4


CP000028 09-02-15 SR4


CP000144 09-02-15 SR4


CP000034 10-02-15 SR4


CP000040 10-02-15 SR4


CP000033 10-02-15 SR4


CP000035 10-02-15 SR4


CP000039 10-02-15 SR4


CP000069 10-02-15 SR4


CP000072 10-02-15 SR4


CP000079 10-02-15 SR4


CP000056 12-02-15 SR4


CP000049 09-02-15 SR4


CP000051 09-02-15 SR4


CP000041 10-02-15 SR4


CP000318 10-02-15 SR4


CP000321 10-02-15 SR4


CP000355 12-02-15 SR4


CP000356 12-02-15 SR4


CP000328 10-02-15 SR4


CP000320 10-02-15 SR4


CP000319 10-02-15 SR4


CP000071 10-02-15 SR4


CP000030 09-02-15 SR4


CP000342 09-02-15 SR4


CP000353 11-02-15 SR4


CP000399 12-02-15 SR4


CP000072 10-02-15 SS4

Leaning Post

CP000393 10-02-15 SS4

Leaning Post

CP000051 09-02-15 SS2

Leaning Post

CP000041 10-02-15 SS2

Leaning Post

CP000342 09-02-15 SS2

Leaning Post



12


CP000051 09-02-15 FP1

Minor steps - not hazardous

CP000061 12-02-15 SW1

Noticeable presence of debris

CP000276 09-02-15 SW1


CP000284 11-02-15 SW1


CP000029 09-02-15 SW1


CP000028 09-02-15 SW1


CP000144 09-02-15 SW1


CP000035 10-02-15 SW1


CP000039 10-02-15 SW1


CP000166 10-02-15 SW1


CP000313 09-02-15 SW1


CP000041 10-02-15 SW1


CP000355 12-02-15 SW1


CP000356 12-02-15 SW1


CP000342 09-02-15 SW1


CP000280 11-02-15 SW1


CP000398 12-02-15 SW1


CP000399 12-02-15 SW1


CP000342 09-02-15 SS1

Obscured by tree

CP000328 10-02-15 UD1

Pit entry completely obstructed

CP000057 12-02-15 UD1

Pit entry more than 50% obstructed

CP000029 09-02-15 UD1


CP000028 09-02-15 UD1


CP000072 10-02-15 UD1


CP000166 10-02-15 UD1


CP000355 12-02-15 UD1


CP000356 12-02-15 UD1


CP000062 12-02-15 SS1

Plate fading/weathered

CP000061 12-02-15 SS1


CP000284 11-02-15 SS3


CP000072 10-02-15 SS3


CP000393 10-02-15 SS3


CP000167 10-02-15 SS1


CP000041 10-02-15 SS1




13


CP000400 12-02-15 SS1


CP000072 10-02-15 SW1

Significant presence of debris

CP000328 10-02-15 SW1

Significant presence of debris

CP000328 10-02-15 LT2

Significant presence of dumped

CP000328 10-02-15 LT1

Significant presence of litter

CP000061 12-02-15 GB1

Some untidy/unhealthy growth

CP000072 10-02-15 GB1


CP000393 10-02-15 GB1


CP000166 10-02-15 GB1


CP000041 10-02-15 GB1


CP000399 12-02-15 GB1


CP000166 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

CP000071 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

CP000070 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

CP000390 09-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

CP000167 10-02-15 SR3

Weed growth

ROADS

Robhill Rise 09-02-15 SR3


Little Valley Rd 09-02-15 SR3


Crouch Crt 09-02-15 SR3


The Boulevarde 09-02-15 SR3


Between 124 & 128 James St 09-02-15 SR3


Rivulet Pl 11-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Kelvan Gv 11-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Robhill Rise 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Donald Pl 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Clancys Lane 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Henry St 09-02-15 UD2

Cracked/broken lid

Alva Av 12-02-15 GP1

Damaged

Alva Av 12-02-15 GP1

Damaged

Brympton Av 12-02-15 GP1

Damaged

Rainbow Valley Rd 12-02-15 GP1

Damaged

Murillo Ct 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Birbank Ct 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks



14


Robhill Rise 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Little Valley Rd 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Berwyn Cr 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Gairlock Ct 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Netley Rise 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Graeme Cl 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks


Edge Breaks

Scenic Rise 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Scenic Rise 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Diosma Ct 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Diosma Ct 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Leyte Cl 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Leyte Cl 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Correidale Cr 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Drayton Cr 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Tacoma St 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Tuckers Rd 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Flora Rd 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Andersons Creek Rd 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Alexander Rd 11-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Alva Av 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Alva Av 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Brympton Av 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Cantala Dr 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks


Edge Breaks

Clancys Lane 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Garden Rd 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Henry St 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Henry St 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Larne Av 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Margot Av 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks


Edge Breaks

Mc Gowans Rd 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Smiths Rd 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks



15


2-6 The Boulevarde 09-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks


Edge Breaks


Edge Breaks

Andersons Creek Rd Service Rd (East) 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Serpells Rd 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Church Rd 09-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Rainbow Valley Rd 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks


Edge Breaks

Mc Intyres Rd 12-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks


Edge Breaks

Rear 250A- 282 Blackburn Road 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Rear of 1B Jackson Ct to 916C D'cster Rd 10-02-15 SR3

Edge breaks

Rear of 1B Jackson Ct to 916C D'cster Rd 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks

Rear of 4 - 16 Mitchell St 10-02-15 SR2

Edge Breaks


Edge Breaks

Mitchell Av 12-02-15 SR4


Hope Ct 11-02-15 SR4




Correidale Cr 12-02-15 SR4


Trudi Ct 12-02-15 SR4






Conway Av 12-02-15 SR4


Fernlea Cr 11-02-15 SR4




Larnoo Dr 11-02-15 SR4




Old Warrandyte Rd (Donvale) 12-02-15 SR4








16






Tacoma St 12-02-15 SR4

Fading/worn statcon

Dempster Ct 12-02-15 SR4

Fading/worn statcon

Decontra Cl 12-02-15 SR4

Fading/worn statcon

Harkaway Rise 10-02-15 SW1


Robhill Rise 09-02-15 SW1


Willowbank Ct 09-02-15 SW1


St James Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Chestnut Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Berwyn Cr 09-02-15 SW1


Killibury Ct 09-02-15 SW1


Peartree Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Applewood Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Whistlewood Cl 10-02-15 SW1


Briarwood Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Ravenswood Ct 10-02-15 SW1


Monteath Pl 10-02-15 SW1


Thorncombe Walk 10-02-15 SW1


Tralee Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Yileen Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Mont Close (Private) 10-02-15 SW1


Opala Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Dempster Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Trudi Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Decontra Cl 12-02-15 SW1


Utrecht Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Berrima Rd 12-02-15 SW1


Berrima Rd 12-02-15 SW1


Conway Av 12-02-15 SW1


Larne Av 12-02-15 SW1


Raymond Elliot Ct 12-02-15 SW1


White Lodge Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Zerbe Av 10-02-15 SW1




17


Andersons Creek Rd Service Rd (East) 10-02-15 SW1


Nengerman Ct 12-02-15 SW1


Carel Ct 12-02-15 SW1






Macedon Rd 09-02-15 SW1


Macedon Rd 09-02-15 SW1


Deep Creek Dve (Private) 11-02-15 SW1


Serpells Rd 10-02-15 SW1


Rear of 1-37 Macedon Rd 09-02-15 SR1

Other

Robhill Rise 09-02-15 UD1


Little Valley Rd 09-02-15 UD1


Tralee Ct 12-02-15 UD1


Correidale Cr 12-02-15 UD1


Raymond Elliot Ct 12-02-15 UD1


Serpells Rd 09-02-15 UD1


Leyte Cl 09-02-15 GS1

Some long & uneven growth

Serpells Rd 10-02-15 GB1


Little Valley Rd 09-02-15 UD2

Spalled lintel

Beechwood Cl 11-02-15 UD2

Spalled lintel

Serpells Rd 09-02-15 UD2

Spalled lintel

Rear of 1-31 Tunstall Sq 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

Rear 250A- 282 Blackburn Road 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

Rear of 2 - 14 Jackson Ct 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

Rear of 4 - 16 Mitchell St 10-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

South Side 1 Macedon Rd 09-02-15 SR1

Surface break-up

Halcyon Ct 10-02-15 SR3

Weed growth

Halcyon Ct 10-02-15 SR2

Weed Growth

Swansfield Ct 11-02-15 SR2

Weed Growth

2-6 The Boulevarde 09-02-15 SR2

Weed Growth


Weed growth

Andersons Creek Rd Service 10-02-15 SR3

Weed growth



18


Rd (East)

Rear of 1-31 Tunstall Sq 10-02-15 SR2

Weed Growth

SHOPPING CENTRES

SC000030 10-02-15 FP1


SC000020 11-02-15 FP1


SC000013 09-02-15 FP1


SC000026 10-02-15 GB1

Damaged/dying/dead plants

SC000020 11-02-15 LT2

Noticeable presence of dumped

RESERVES

PK0156 09-02-15 FP1


PK0175 09-02-15 FP1


PK0178 12-02-15 FP1


PK0210 09-02-15 FP1


PK0214 11-02-15 FP1


PK0340 11-02-15 FP1


PK0247b 09-02-15 FP1


PK0247a 09-02-15 FP1


PK0247c 09-02-15 FP1


PK0247a 09-02-15 SS4

Damaged/Bent Sign

PK0247c 09-02-15 SS4

Damaged/Bent Sign

PK0082 11-02-15 FN2


PK0178 12-02-15 FN2


PK0186 11-02-15 FN2


PK0247c 09-02-15 FN2


PK0178 12-02-15 SS3

Graffiti

PK0156 09-02-15 SS4

Leaning Post

PK0156 09-02-15 FP2

Minor infiltration

PK0247c 09-02-15 FP2

Minor infiltration

PK0230 11-02-15 FP1

Minor steps - not hazardous

PK0147 10-02-15 FN1

Not clean

PK0011 10-02-15 LT2


PK0214 11-02-15 LT2


PK0010 09-02-15 LT1

Noticeable presence of litter



19


PK0011 10-02-15 LT1


PK0283 11-02-15 LT1


PK0247c 09-02-15 SS3

Other

PK0081 12-02-15 SS3


PK0104 11-02-15 SS3


PK0145 10-02-15 SS3


PK0214 11-02-15 SS3


PK0230 11-02-15 SS3


PK0340 11-02-15 SS3


PK0247b 09-02-15 SS3


PK0247a 09-02-15 SS3


PK0156 09-02-15 PG2

Poor condition & insufficient

PK0247a 09-02-15 FP2

Some advanced growth

PK0104 11-02-15 FN1

Weathered/flaking paint

PK0156 09-02-15 FN1


PK0178 12-02-15 FN1


PK0186 11-02-15 FN1


PK0346 11-02-15 FN1


PK0354 09-02-15 FN1




20

5. Asset Performance Graphs

Overall Performance – All Assets

Overall Performance – By Asset Type

98.58%

99.19%

98.98%

99.02%

99.23%

99.29%

99.30%

98.30%

99.42%

99.02%

98.63%

98.56%

99.10%

97.36%

99.48%

98.51%

99.05%

98.22%

98.96%99.04%

99.24%

99.36%

99.11%

99.07%

70

%

75

%

80

%

85

%

90

%

95

%

10

0%

Feb-05

Aug-05

Feb-06

Aug-06

Feb-07

Aug-07

Feb-08

Aug-08

Feb-09

Aug-09

Feb-10

Aug-10

Feb-11

Aug-11

Feb-12

Aug-12

Feb-13

Aug-13

Feb-14

Aug-14

Feb-15

- -

- -

Re

qu

ire

d S

tan

dard

98%

Rep

ort

Da

te:

13-F

eb-1

5

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m C

ity C

ou

nc

il

AL

L A

SS

ET

S

OVE

RA

LL P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

ss

et

Au

dit

s

99.2%

99.6%99.4%

99.4%

99.5%

99.5%

99.6%

98.7%

99.5%

99.4%

98.9%

98.7%

99.1%

97.8%

99.7%

98.7%

99.2%

98.5%

99.0%99.0%

99.4%

99.5%

99.4%

99.3%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Feb-05

Jun-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jun-06

Oct-06

Feb-07

Jun-07

Oct-07

Feb-08

Jun-08

Oct-08

Feb-09

Jun-09

Oct-09

Feb-10

Jun-10

Oct-10

Feb-11

Jun-11

Oct-11

Feb-12

Jun-12

Oct-12

Feb-13

Jun-13

Oct-13

Feb-14

Jun-14

Oct-14

Feb-15

- -

- -

Re

qu

ire

d S

tan

dard

98%

Rep

ort

Da

te:

13-F

eb-1

5

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m C

ity C

ou

nc

il

AL

L C

OU

NC

IL R

OA

DS

OVE

RA

LL P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

ss

et

Au

dit

s

97.5%

98.0%98.2%

97.7%

98.8%

98.9%

98.1%

97.7%

99.4%

97.9%

97.9%

96.9%

99.0%

95.1%

98.1%

96.6%

98.6%

96.4%

98.9%98.8%

98.8%

99.0%

98.6%

98.6%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Feb-05

Jun-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jun-06

Oct-06

Feb-07

Jun-07

Oct-07

Feb-08

Jun-08

Oct-08

Feb-09

Jun-09

Oct-09

Feb-10

Jun-10

Oct-10

Feb-11

Jun-11

Oct-11

Feb-12

Jun-12

Oct-12

Feb-13

Jun-13

Oct-13

Feb-14

Jun-14

Oct-14

Feb-15

- -

- -

Re

qu

ire

d S

tan

dard

98%

Rep

ort

Da

te:

13-F

eb-1

5

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m C

ity C

ou

nc

il

PA

RK

S A

ND

RE

SE

RV

ES

OVE

RA

LL P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

ss

et

Au

dit

s

98.9%

97.3%98.1%

98.0%

98.9%

98.4%

98.3%

96.4%

99.2%

97.4%

97.7%

98.9%

99.5%

96.3%

99.5%

95.8%

100.0%

98.1%

99.0%99.7%

99.7%

98.9%

98.5%

99.3%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Feb-05

Jun-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jun-06

Oct-06

Feb-07

Jun-07

Oct-07

Feb-08

Jun-08

Oct-08

Feb-09

Jun-09

Oct-09

Feb-10

Jun-10

Oct-10

Feb-11

Jun-11

Oct-11

Feb-12

Jun-12

Oct-12

Feb-13

Jun-13

Oct-13

Feb-14

Jun-14

Oct-14

Feb-15

- -

- -

Re

qu

ire

d S

tan

dard

98%

Rep

ort

Da

te:

13-F

eb-1

5

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m C

ity C

ou

nc

il

SH

OP

PIN

G C

EN

TR

ES

OVE

RA

LL P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

ss

et

Au

dit

s

97.3%

98.8%

97.3%

98.3%

99.1%

98.1%

98.9%

98.1%

98.0%

98.6%

98.8%

97.3%

98.7%

99.0%

98.7%

98.2%

99.0%

98.8%

99.1%

98.9%

98.6%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Feb-05

Jun-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jun-06

Oct-06

Feb-07

Jun-07

Oct-07

Feb-08

Jun-08

Oct-08

Feb-09

Jun-09

Oct-09

Feb-10

Jun-10

Oct-10

Feb-11

Jun-11

Oct-11

Feb-12

Jun-12

Oct-12

Feb-13

Jun-13

Oct-13

Feb-14

Jun-14

Oct-14

Feb-15

- -

- -

Re

qu

ire

d S

tan

dard

98%

Rep

ort

Da

te:

13-F

eb-1

5

Ma

nn

ing

ha

m C

ity C

ou

nc

il

CA

R P

AR

KS

OVE

RA

LL P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

Infr

astr

uctu

re A

ss

et

Au

dit

s



21

6. Audit Database Reports

Database reports attached:

Audit Report 1 - Activity Summary – All Assets

Audit Report 2 - Activity Summary – Car Parks

Audit Report 3 - Activity Summary – Parks & Reserves

Audit Report 4 - Activity Summary – Council Roads

Audit Report 7 - Activity Summary – Shopping Centres

Audit Report 1 - ACTIVITY SUMMARY

February 2015

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

3.86

3.98

3.98

3.99

3.98

3.99

3.98

Cracks Steps

Weeds/Grass

Regulatory - Condition

Reg. - Minor Repairs

General - Condition

Gen. - Minor Repairs

Footpaths

Sealed Road Pavement

Pothole Patching

Edge Cond./Gravel Sholder 3.90

Signs

3.92 123( )

3.94Ch. Edge / Weeds Grass

Linemarking/RRPM's 3.84

3.92 975( )

3.92

3.95

Condition

Minor Repairs

Furniture

3.94 100( )

3.98 828( )

3.95Plants/Mulch/Weeds

Garden Beds

3.95 96( )

Litter Collection

Roadside / Park Litter 3.98

3.98Dumped Rubbish

3.98 216( )

Street Sweeping

Street Sweeping

97.97%

98.38%

98.83%

99.48%

98.10%

99.58%

Grass Mowing

Grass Height 4.00

4.00Edge Trimming

4.00 528( ) 99.95%

Playgrounds

Equipment & Furniture 4.00

3.95Softfall

3.98 22( ) 99.43%

Open Drainage

Clear / Shape / Free flowing 4.00

4.00Culvert/ Pipe Repairs

4.00 64( ) 100.00%

Audit Report 1 - ACTIVITY SUMMARY Report Date: 13-Feb-15

3.90Street Sweeping

3.90 281( )

Trees

Condition 4.00

4.00Clearances

4.00 586( )

Urban Drainage

Clear Entry 3.96

3.98Lids

3.97 504( )

97.42%

100.00%

99.26%

3.96 4341( ) 99.07%Overall Average Score:

Guide Posts

Functional 3.89

3.89 18( ) 97.22%

Guardrails

Condition

0( )



February 2015

CAR PARKS

3.94

4.00

3.95

3.98

3.95

3.95

3.97

Cracks Steps

Weeds/Grass



General - Condition


Footpaths


Pothole Patching


Signs

3.97 66( )



3.89 259( )

4.00

3.98

Condition

Minor Repairs

Furniture

3.99 40( )

3.96 188( )


Garden Beds

3.93 49( )

Litter Collection


3.99Dumped Rubbish

3.99 132( )

3.85Street Sweeping

Street Sweeping

3.85 66( )Trees

Condition 3.98

4.00Clearances

3.99 98( )

99.24%

99.69%

98.21%

99.72%

97.35%

99.00%

96.21%

99.74%

Grass Mowing

Grass Height 4.00

3.98Edge Trimming

3.99 56( ) 99.78%

Open Drainage

Clear / Shape / Free flowing

Culvert/ Pipe Repairs

0( )


3.99 98( )

Urban Drainage

Clear Entry 3.91

3.97Lids

3.94 118( )

99.74%

98.52%

3.94 1072( ) 98.58%Car Parks Average Score:

Guide Posts

Functional

0( )

Guardrails

Condition

0( )



February 2015

PARKS & RESERVES

3.76

3.93

3.84

3.95

Cracks Steps

Weeds/Grass



General - Condition


Footpaths

Signs

3.84 41( )

3.81

3.90

Condition

Minor Repairs

Furniture

3.86 42( )

3.90 64( )


Garden Beds

4.00 18( )

Litter Collection


3.97Dumped Rubbish

3.96 68( )

Trees

Condition 4.00

4.03Clearances

4.01 67( )

Urban Drainage

Clear Entry

Lids

0( )

96.04%

96.43%

100.00%

99.08%

97.46%

100.37%

Grass Mowing

Grass Height 4.00

4.00Edge Trimming

4.00 66( ) 100.00%

Playgrounds

Equipment & Furniture 4.00

3.95Softfall

3.98 22( ) 99.43%

Open Drainage

Clear / Shape / Free flowing

Culvert/ Pipe Repairs

0( )

3.95 388( ) 98.65%Parks & Reserves Average Score:



February 2015

ALL COUNCIL ROADS

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

Cracks Steps

Weeds/Grass



General - Condition


Footpaths


Pothole Patching


Signs

0( )



3.94 682( )

4.00

4.00

Condition

Minor Repairs

Furniture

4.00 4( )

4.00 538( )


Garden Beds

3.98 21( )

Litter Collection

Roadside / Park Litter

Dumped Rubbish

0( )

3.91Street Sweeping

Street Sweeping

3.91 201( )Trees

Condition 4.00

4.00Clearances

100.00%

99.40%

98.52%

100.00%

97.64%

Grass Mowing

Grass Height 4.00

4.00Edge Trimming

4.00 398( ) 99.97%

Open Drainage

Clear / Shape / Free flowing 4.00

4.00Culvert/ Pipe Repairs

4.00 64( ) 100.00%


4.00 405( )

Urban Drainage

Clear Entry 3.98

3.98Lids

3.98 364( )

100.00%

99.45%

3.97 2695( ) 99.35%All Roads Average Score:

Guide Posts

Functional 3.89

3.89 18( ) 97.22%

Guardrails

Condition

0( )



February 2015

SHOPPING CENTRES

3.81

4.00

4.00

4.00

Cracks Steps

Weeds/Grass



General - Condition


Footpaths

Signs

3.91 16( )

4.00

4.00

Condition

Minor Repairs

Furniture

4.00 14( )

4.00 14( )


Garden Beds

3.94 8( )

Litter Collection


3.94Dumped Rubbish

3.97 16( )

4.00Street Sweeping

Street Sweeping

4.00 3( )Trees

Condition 4.00

4.00Clearances

4.00 16( )

Urban Drainage

Clear Entry

Lids

0( )

97.66%

100.00%

98.44%

99.22%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Grass Mowing

Grass Height 4.00

4.00Edge Trimming

4.00 8( ) 100.00%

3.97 95( ) 99.34%Shopping Centres Roads Average Score:




22

7. Audit Photographs

Standard Carpark Bays Standard Centre Line

Standard pavement centreline Standard furniture

Standard Shopping Centre Footpath Standard Signage



23

Damaged Bollards Faded Linemarking

Pavement Cracking Tree Root Damage

Grafitti Sign Leaning Sign



24

Faded Carparking Bays Obscured Parking Sign

Edge Breaks Damaged Pit Lintel

Weathered Furniture Playground swing softfall



25

Blocked Pit Entry/ Litter Standard Pit Entry

Dead/dying garden bed plants Channel leaves/debris

Tree Root damage Garden Bed Litter



26

Dumped Rubbish Boundary Fence collapsed

Loose/damaged foot bridge planks Grafitti/ damaged Sign



27

8. Inspection Maps

Dennis Hunt

Typewritten text

AMENITY AUDIT FEB 2015 - ROADS

Dennis Hunt

Typewritten text

AMENITY AUDIT FEB 2015 - RESERVES

Dennis Hunt

Typewritten text

AMENITY AUDIT FEB 2015 - CARPARKS

Dennis Hunt

Typewritten text

AMENITY AUDIT FEB 2015 - SHOPS

Dennis Hunt

Typewritten text

MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE AUDIT

Documents

Transcript of MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE AUDIT