Rural Roads Review - campaspe.vic.gov.au · Data Analysis ... The methodology adopted in this Phase of the Rural Roads Review consisted of the following steps: ... Historical Grading

Rural Roads Review

Phase 13 – Council Consideration

December 2013

Version 3

Attachment 6.3.

Page 2

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Impact of Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 19

Report Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 20

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Existing Road Classes and Costs ..................................................................................................................... 24

Adopted Road Classes for Modelling ............................................................................................................... 26

Existing Network Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 27

Scenario A Network .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Scenario H Network .......................................................................................................................................... 30

Scenario F Network .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 34

General ............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A ................................................................ 35

Cost Comparison of Scenario A and Scenario F .............................................................................................. 35

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario H................................................................ 36

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario F ................................................................ 37

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

General ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A ....................................................................... 39

Transition from the Scenario A to Scenario F ................................................................................................... 40

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario H .......................................................................... 40

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario F ........................................................................... 40

Allocation of Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Adoption of New Lives for Existing Gravel Roads ............................................................................................ 42

Adoption of New Gravel Road Replacement Pavements ................................................................................. 42

Adoption of New Sealed Road Replacement Pavements ................................................................................. 42

Future Work ...................................................................................................................................................... 43

Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 44

Page 3

Impact of Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix 6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix 7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 8 ........................................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 9 ........................................................................................................................................................... 55

Page 4

Executive Summary This report addresses in part the resolution passed at the Council meeting on 17 December 2013 where a report was presented which combined three phases of the review, namely Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12 – Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration. It examines further the implication of changes to the rural road network under Scenario F as presented in the above report. It contains further analysis of the benefits which flow from transitioning from the existing road network to the network in Scenario F (including Scenarios A and H) and the likely timing of those benefits. It also provides guidance on the use of any cost savings that may arise.

Methodology The methodology adopted in this Phase of the Rural Roads Review consisted of the following steps: • Data collection • Data analysis • Conclusions from the analysis • Recommendations, and • Impact of recommendations Data on costs, road classes and road lengths from the previous reports was assembled in a spread sheet for the existing road network, Scenario A, Scenario H and Scenario F as described in the above report to allow for comparison and analysis. The data were analysed and from the analysis, conclusions were drawn regarding the comparative costs of each Scenario and timing of any changes. Recommendations were made and impacts of those recommendations were then discussed.

Page 5

Data Collection Data was compiled from the spread sheets used to model the annual maintenance and renewal costs for all classes of roads in the networks in the last report. That report covered Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12 – Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration of the Rural Roads Review. Some minor discrepancies with road identification numbers in GIS and SAP and some other minor errors in one of the spread sheets were addressed before any analysis was undertaken. The annual maintenance and renewal costs for the existing road classes in the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A were collated together with the annual costs for the new road classes in Scenario H and Scenario F. Scenario A consisted of the existing network with renewal and maintenance works funded and undertaken in a sustainable manner. Scenario H in effect was the existing network but with a change in road dimensions and associated maintenance and renewal practices. Scenario F was a new network with new road classes based on traffic counts and included providing all weather access to houses. Both Scenario H and F included closing a number of “missing links” in gravel and sealed roads within the network. The road types, relative lengths and the historical expenditure and required expenditure for maintenance and renewal described in the last report mentioned above are summarised in the tables below for the existing road network and each of the scenarios under consideration. Existing Unsealed Road Classes – Dimensions & Historical Unit Rates for Maintenance and Renewal

Description Unopened or

unused Formed and unsurfaced

Formed and lightly surfaced

Formed and surfaced

Approx Traffic Range (vpd) 0 ≤20 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤300

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1

Lane Width (m) n/a 4 4 4

Shoulder Width (m) n/a 1 1 1

Total Carriageway (m) n/a 6 6 6

Table Drain Width Min (m) n/a 1 1 1

Total Formation Width (m) n/a 8 8 8

Actual Pavement Depth (mm) n/a n/a Skin of quarry product

75

Adopted Pavement Life (yrs) n/a n/a n/a 15

Actual Pavement Life (yrs) n/a n/a n/a 9.4

Adjusted Historical Grading Cycle Part with Water (yrs)

n/a 2.5 0.9 0.9

Historical Grading Rate Part with Water ($/km)

n/a 510 557 557

Adjusted Historical Grading Annual Cost Part with Water ($/km/yr)

n/a 204 640 640

Adjusted Historical Road Resheet Cycle at 75mm pavement (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 9.0

Historical Resheeting Rate at 75mm with Water ($/km)

n/a n/a n/a 17,493

Adjusted Historical Resheeting Annual Cost at 75mm with Water ($/km/yr)

n/a n/a n/a 1,944

Page 6

Existing Sealed Road Classes - Dimensions & Historical Unit Rates for Maintenance and Renewal

Description Formed, 200mm or

light pavement and seal

Formed, 300mm or heavy pavement and seal

Traffic (vpd) ≤150 >150 Lanes (no) 1 2 Lane Width (m) 4 3.1

Shoulder Width (m) 1.5 1.5 Total Carriageway (m) 7 9.2 Table Drain Width Min (m) 1 1 Total Formation Width (m) 9 11.2 Pavement Depth (mm) 200 300 Adopted Pavement Life (yrs) 74 74

Actual Pavement Life (yrs) 74 74 Sealed Rd Shoulder Depth (mm) 75 75 Adopted Shoulder Life (yrs) 15 15 Actual Shoulder Life (yrs) 10.1 10.1 Historical Shoulder Grading Frequency without Water (yrs) 0.6 0.6 Historical Shoulder Grading Rate without Water ($/km) 131 131 Historical Shoulder Grading Annual Cost without Water ($/km/yr)

218 218

Historical Shoulder Resheet Cycle for 75mm shoulder (yrs) 41.2 41.2 Historical Shoulder Resheeting Rate ($/km) 8,021 8,021 Historical Shoulder Resheeting Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 195 195 Historical Maintenance of Seal Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 600 600 Adopted Seal Life (yrs) 15 15 Historical Resealing Cycle (yrs) 15.8 15.8 Historical Resealing Rate ($/m2) 4.1 4.1 Seal or Pavement Width (m) 4 6.2 Historical Resealing Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 1,038 1,609 Historical Pavement Rehabilitation Cycle (yrs) 258 258 Historical Pavement Rehabilitation Rate ($/m2) 30 44

Historical Rehabilitation Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 465 1,057 Historical Sealed Road Pavement Total Renewal Costs per Year ($/km/yr)

1,503 2,666

Historical Slashing Cycle (yrs) 0.5 0.5

Calculated Slashing Rate ($/km) 99 99 Historical Slashing Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 198 198

Page 7

The following geometric cross sections were adopted by Council for sealed and unsealed roads for each of the traffic categories for the purposes of modelling alternative road networks.

Adopted Unsealed & Sealed Road Dimensions by Road Class

Campaspe Road Class

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Corresponding Austroads ARRB Road Class

4D 4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000

Design Traffic (vpd)

n/a 25 25 25 70 70 360 1,870

Surface (Unsealed or Sealed)

Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Sealed Sealed Sealed

Description Unformed track

Formed and unsurfaced


Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced

Formed, pavement and seal



Pavement Depth (mm)

n/a n/a n/a 150 150 150 170 200

Pavement Life (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 18.6 15.5 74 74 74

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Lane Width (m) n/a 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.7 3.1 3.5

Shoulder Width (m)

n/a 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5

Sealed Road Shoulder Depth (mm)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 75 75

Sealed Road Shoulder Life (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.1 10.1 10.1

Total Carriageway (m)

3.0 nominal

5.5 5.5 5.5 7 8.7 9.2 12

Table Drain Width Min (m)

n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total Formation Width (m)

n/a 7.5 7.5 7.5 9 10.7 11.2 14

It should be noted that Campaspe Road Classes 7 and 4 are preferred to Classes 6 and 5 for unsealed roads for the anticipated traffic volumes based on the ARRB and Austroad guidelines. Classes 1 and 2 are preferred to Class 3 for unsealed roads. The preferred road class columns in the table above are coloured orange. Class 8 is a road not constructed (or maintained) by Council.

Page 8

The table show the recent historical annual maintenance and renewal expenditure for the current road lengths and classes in the existing road network.

Existing Network - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Historical Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Current Road Class



Formed and 75 mm surface

Formed, 200mm pavement and seal


Totals

Approx Traffic (vpd)

≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000

Surface Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Sealed Sealed

Description Formed and unsurfaced


Formed and surfaced



Length (km) 784 26 2,059 499 423 3,791 Grading Cost ($/yr)

159,884 16,448 1,317,689 1,494,021

Resheeting Cost ($/yr)

4,002,479 4,002,479

Shoulder Grading Cost ($/yr)

217,582 183,994 401,576

Shoulder Resheeting Cost ($/yr)

194,626 164,860 359,486

Seal Maintenance Cost ($/yr)

299,425 253,631 553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

518,005 680,153 1,198,158

Pavement Rehabilitation Cost ($/yr)

232,054 446,813 678,867

Total ($/yr) 159,884 16,448 5,320,168 1,461,692 1,729,451 8,687,643

Total annual maintenance costs = $2,448,653 Total annual renewal costs = $6,238,990

Page 9

The following tables show the required annual maintenance and renewal expenditure for the road lengths and classes in each scenario analysed.

Scenario A - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Current Road Class



Formed and 75mm surface



Totals


≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000




Formed and surfaced




597,215 24,132 1,710,936 2,332,283


3,681,293 3,681,293


303,417 257,012 560,429


839,387 711,011 1,550,398


299,425 253,631 553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

545,452 716,506 1,261,958


620,308 1,637,186 2,257,494

Total ($/yr) 597,215 24,132 5,392,229 2,607,989 3,575,346 12,196,911


Page 10

Scenario H - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Campaspe Road Class

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totals


4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000

Surface Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Sealed Sealed Sealed



Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced




Length (km) 809

2,059

499 423

3,790

Grading Cost ($/yr)

616,799

1,710,936

2,327,735


3,028,625

3,028,625


303,417 257,012

560,429


839,387 711,011

1,550,398


299,425 253,631

553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

504,531 716,506

1,221,037


573,897 1,637,186

2,211,083

Total ($/yr) 616,799

4,739,561

2,520,657 3,575,346

11,452,363


Page 11

Scenario F - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Campaspe Road Class

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totals


4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000

>1,000




Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced




Length (km) 1,034 1,677 544 519 17 3,791 Grading Cost ($/yr)

857,178 1,392,918 827,931 3,078,027


2,468,229 952,964 3,421,193


315,176 10,586 325,762


872,236 29,286 901,522


311,519 10,447 321,966

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

879,972 33,308 913,280


1,129,899 49,397 1,179,296

Total ($/yr) 857,178 3,861,147 1,780,895 3,508,802 133,024 10,141,046 Total annual maintenance costs = $3,725,755 Total annual renewal costs = $6,415,291

Page 12

Data Analysis The timing and the amount of any financial benefit arising from transitioning the existing network to that in Scenario F can be assessed in a number of ways. Renewal and maintenance expenditure for the various road classes can be considered separately or collectively. In addition changes could be made to parts of the network or to renewal and maintenance practices in stages, perhaps concentrating on a particular class of road. Lastly it is not practical or financially advantageous to change, say a sealed road to a gravel road, until the road has reached the end of its useful life. Therefore changes will progressively occur over many decades. Rather than undertake modelling over an extended period, such as 74yr period which is the life of a sealed road pavement, a shorter period was adopted of 9yrs. This period closely matches the actual life (9.4yrs) of the existing 75mm gravel road as determined in previous reports. It is also a practical period over which any initial changes to the network and practices can be planned and managed. Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A Renewal expenditure in Scenario A is calculated based on the new lives recently determined for the existing road types. Hence an additional $2.6m is required for renewal over the current expenditure on the existing network. A further $1.0m is required for maintenance giving an additional required expenditure of $3.6m in Scenario A compared to current expenditure on the existing network. The annual renewal requirements in Scenario A will now form part of the inputs into the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy to determine the budget allocation in future years. Cost Comparison of Scenario A and Scenario F An analysis was undertaken to determine the annual savings or increases over a nine year period based on the following assumptions: • A new road type or class is only constructed when the old road reaches the end of its useful life • The actual lives of the old road classes (gravel 9.4yrs, sealed pavements 74yrs) drives the timing of the

change to new road classes ie 1/9.4 per year and 1/74 per year of the respective road lengths on average • Sealed road costs include maintenance and renewal of the pavement, seal and shoulders combined • Changes in maintenance regimes and costs occur once the new road class is constructed • Maintenance regimes for any new earth road classes are progressively introduced at the same rate as for

gravel roads ie 1/9.4 per year, to smooth the impact on additional funding requirements The analysis shows that an annual increase of $21,044 in maintenance for all roads is required in Scenario F compared to Scenario A which is more than offset by an annual saving of $116,705 in renewal expenditure. This reduction in renewal expenditure alone is equivalent to about 0.40% of rates. It should be remembered however that the renewal expenditure in Scenario A is calculated based on the actual lives for the existing road types but with improved maintenance and renewal practices. Hence additional funding is required for renewal and maintenance over the current expenditure on the existing network. Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario H Scenario H consists of a network similar to the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A but includes changes to the pavement dimensions, including increases in pavement thickness for gravel roads and reduced pavement thicknesses on sealed roads, with associated changes in renewal and maintenance practices. There is no change in the respective lengths of earth, gravel and sealed roads. Scenario H could be considered part way in transitioning the existing network into the network in Scenario F.

Page 13

In the first nine years Scenario H has an annual increase in maintenance costs of $92,024 but a decrease in renewal costs of $66,493 compared to the existing network. In transitioning from the existing network to Scenario H the only significant saving is in the renewal of gravel roads of $103,602 per year equivalent to 0.36% of rates. This saving is more than offset by an increase in renewal for the other classes of roads and an increase in maintenance costs for all roads. Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario F An analysis of the costs for the existing network and Scenario F was undertaken to determine the annual savings or increases over a nine year period based on the following assumptions: • A new road type or class is only constructed when the old road reaches the end of its useful life • The actual lives of the old road classes (gravel 9.4yrs, sealed pavements 74yrs) drives the timing of the

change to new road classes ie 1/9.4 per year and 1/74 per year of the respective road lengths on average • Sealed road costs include maintenance and renewal of the pavement, seal and shoulders combined • Changes in maintenance regimes and costs occur once the new road class is constructed • Maintenance regimes for any new earth road classes transitioning from existing earth road classes are

progressively introduced at the same rate as for gravel roads ie 1/9.4 per year, to spread the impact on additional funding requirements

The analysis shows that for the first nine years an annual increase of $113,788 in maintenance is required which is almost offset by a saving of $110,217 in renewal expenditure. This reduction in renewal expenditure alone is equivalent to about 0.38% of rates. It should be remembered however that Existing Network Scenario is underfunded. Following the tenth year in the transition, when all gravel roads have reached the end of their lives on average and have either been renewed or the road class transitioned to a new road class, any remaining annual cost increase related to the transition is only associated with the remaining sealed roads. This remaining transition will take a total 74yrs on average until the last sealed road reached the end of its useful life. This annual cost (from the tenth year) is $23,324 consisting of $18,744 for maintenance and $4,580 for renewal works. If only the existing gravel roads which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads are initially considered on their own, the annual renewal saving is $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658. The saving in renewal only is equivalent to 0.54% of rates. The annual maintenance increase is $37,657 or 0.13% of rates. Hence the combined savings in maintenance and renewal are $120,035 or 0.41% of rates. However, again it should be remembered that the existing network is not sustainable and redirecting any savings in expenditure from the network means the unsustainability of the network remains effectively unchanged.

Page 14

Conclusions The conclusions below relate to transitioning the existing road network to Scenario F (including a consideration of Scenarios A and H). Transition from the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A There is no direct financial benefit in transitioning to funding Scenario A (rather than Scenario F) from the existing network. In fact the costs significantly increase because possible efficiency gains in changing pavement thicknesses have not been introduced. Transition from the Scenario A to Scenario F As Scenario F has less sealed roads, slightly more gravel roads and more earth roads than Scenario A there is a saving in renewal funding required in Scenario F over Scenario A, although a slight increase in maintenance funding required. Overall, the total funding required decreases in Scenario F compared to Scenario A. Therefore if the transition to Scenario F is staged, with gravel roads changing to earth and to the narrower gravel roads being introduced first, an initial saving in the renewal funding requirement can be made. However without remaining changes in road classes across the network, the road network remains unsustainable. Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario H As the existing network is underfunded for both maintenance and renewal works the annual costs for Scenario H are significantly higher, despite some increases in efficiencies, compared to the existing arrangements. There is no overall benefit in transitioning from the existing network to Scenario H as, in the first nine years, Scenario H has an a annual increase in maintenance costs of $92,024 but a decrease in renewal costs of $66,493 compared to the existing network. Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario F Scenario F requires an additional $1.5m compared to the existing network to be sustainable. However the analysis shows that in the first nine years when transitioning from the existing network to the network in Scenario F, an annual increase of $113,788 in maintenance is required which is almost offset by a saving of $110,217 in renewal expenditure (as shown in Appendix 8). In later years however sealed roads have more of an impact on funding requirements. If only the existing gravel roads which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads are initially considered, the annual renewal saving is $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658. The saving in renewal only is equivalent to 0.54% of rates. The annual maintenance increase is $37,657 or 0.13% of rates. Hence the combined saving in maintenance and renewal is $120,035 or 0.41% of rates. Therefore it would be possible to initially transition these existing gravel roads only and make a saving through less funding being allocated in the budget under the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy even though it is partly offset by an increase in maintenance expenditure. As an initial step these changes would have a lesser impact of roads users than some other possible changes. This is because any gravel roads changing to earth have low traffic counts in general and the slightly narrower widths of some gravel roads by 0.5m may not be particularly an issue for drivers, again because of low traffic volumes. This could be considered a reasonable first package of changes. When any changes are made to the network, not only should the funding for renewal alter but the related funding for maintenance should also alter to ensure that each package of changes is sustainable. Further as the network in Scenario F ultimately requires additional funding, it would be prudent that any initial savings be redirected in the network, perhaps on those roads which remain substantially unchanged in the final network. This would also

Page 15

be consistent with Principle 14 of the Financial Planning Principles. Further it would enable reasonable service levels to be provided to the community and road users within each package of changes. In the long term a significant funding increase is required for sealed roads which more than offsets any savings on unsealed roads. Allocation of Benefits In each of the Scenarios above it is possible, where there is a short term saving in costs, for Council to take the savings and allocate it to other purposes (eg other services, assets or a rate reduction) or to redirect it in the road network. This could be directed into those roads which will ultimately remain little changed in Scenario F. It should be remembered that until the networks in any scenario are fully funded there remains a renewal (and maintenance) gap. That is, the road network condition will deteriorate over time. It should be noted that Principle 14 of the Financial Planning Principles adopted in the 2013/14 budget states: Council is undertaking a review of its rural roads to ensure sustainability of its road network into the future. Council requires that the renewal target for Rural Roads is delineated from the general renewal target to ensure transparency in the funding allocation to this important asset class. Council further requires any savings generated from the Rural Roads Review must be redirected back into rural roads (both recurrent and capital). Scenario F requires more funding for renewal than has been spent on renewal in recent years despite there being less sealed roads and more earth roads. Adoption of New Gravel Pavement Lives The new lives for the existing gravel road pavements determined in previous reports should now be adopted for the purpose of determining depreciation of the existing roads in the future. The revised lives are: • 9.4yrs for the existing 75mm deep gravel road pavements (rather than 15yrs), and • 10.1yrs for the existing 75mm deep gravel shoulders on sealed roads (rather than 15yrs) Adoption of New Sealed Road Replacement Pavements and Lives For the purposes of valuation and depreciation, new standards for the replacement of sealed road pavements and associated pavement lives should be adopted for the existing sealed roads in the network (rather than the current replacement pavements and lives) based on the following traffic counts: • Less than or equal to 150 vehicles per day, 150mm thick pavement with a life of 74yr • Greater than 150 vehicles per day but less than or equal to 1,000 vehicles per day, 170mm thick pavement

with a life of 74yr • Greater than 1,000 vehicle per day, 200mm thick pavement with a life of 74yr Future Work Additional refinement of Scenario F is required prior to commencing any network changes including: • Any necessary adjustments to road classes to ensure continuity of road surfaces between adjacent road

segments within the network • Any adjustments required to the class of roads serving properties to addresses any site specific issues, and • Any adjustments to the classes and location of roads connecting local access roads into the arterial road

network to ensure an appropriate road hierarchy is achieved

Page 16

Further planning is required in implementing the proposed changes in maintenance and renewal practices, as detailed in various Phases of this review. Determining how outcomes of this review integrate with the Strategic Financial Assessment will need to wait until that Assessment is complete. It would be possible to determine an initial package of work based on those existing gravel roads that are at intervention and will transition to Classes 5 and 7 in Scenario F. Following refining Scenario F as described above these roads could be discussed with the community as part of a Community Engagement Plan.

Page 17

Recommendations It is recommended that: 1. The lives of the existing gravel road pavements and existing sealed road gravel shoulders be revised as

follows: a. 10 years for the existing 75mm deep gravel road pavements (rather than 15 years), and b. 10 years for the existing 75mm deep gravel shoulders on sealed roads (rather than 15 years)

2. For the purposes of valuation and depreciation, new standards should be adopted for the replacement of rural roads including pavement depths and associated asset lives, as detailed in the report, when undertaking road renewal works, as shown below:

Campaspe Road Class

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


4D 4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000


n/a 25 25 25 70 70 360 1,870

Lane Surface Unsealed and unsurfaced

Unsealed and unsurfaced

Unsealed but lightly surfaced

Unsealed but surfaced


Sealed Sealed Sealed

Pavement Depth (mm)

n/a n/a n/a 150 150 150 170 200

Pavement Life (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 19 16 74 74 74

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Lane Width (m)

n/a 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.7 3.1 3.5

Shoulder Width (m)

n/a 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 75 75


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 10 10


3.0 nominal 5.5 5.5 5.5 7 8.7 9.2 12


n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n/a 7.5 7.5 7.5 9 10.7 11.2 14

3. Any renewal funding requirements in future budgets should take into account the new pavements and lives

outlined above

Page 18

4. That further refinement of Scenario F be undertaken prior to implementing any network changes including: a. Any necessary adjustments to road classes to ensure continuity of road surfaces between adjacent road

segments within the network b. Any adjustments required to the class of roads serving properties to addresses any site specific issues,

and c. Any adjustments to the classes and location of roads connecting local access roads into the arterial

road network to ensure an appropriate road hierarchy is achieved 5. That any implementation of the network in Scenario F transitioning from the existing road network be staged

with the existing gravel roads initially changing to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads being undertaken progressively as the existing roads reach the end of their useful lives as a first stage (Package 1)

6. The annual saving in combined renewal and maintenance funding requirements in the first stage be reinvested into those sections of the existing road network which will ultimately remain little changed when transitioning to Scenario F

7. It is noted that in the first stage the annual saving in renewal funding requirements for Scenario F $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658 with the combined saving in maintenance and renewal of $120,035 or 0.41% of rates

8. That changes in maintenance regimes and renewal regimes be implemented concurrently as changes in road classes and road lengths are implemented to ensure that all changes are sustainable in the long term

9. It is noted that the rural road network remains unsustainable until all changes to road classes within the network, including the appropriate annual maintenance and renewal funding and associated practices, are completed

10. As part of the Community Engagement Plan recommended in previous reports, consultation be undertaken with the community regarding any proposed staging of changes to the road network

Page 19

Impact of Recommendations As has been stated in previous reports there will be an impact on the Grants Commission funding, which in part, is based on the length of sealed and gravel roads in the network. An estimate of the total quantum has been stated in previous reports as $193,000 for Scenario F. The exact annual amount and the timing of any changes will be dependent on when and what length of roads are actually changed within the network. This will, in large part, be dependent on when roads actually reach intervention and future available budgets. For Package 1, the loss of Grants Commission funding is estimated to be about $38,000 for those gravel roads that will transition to earth roads. It should also be noted that to retain the current level of Road to Recovery funding the total expenditure of Council funds on roads should not reduce as a result of any network changes. As funding is ultimately required to increase this should not be a problem in the long term although some short term changes could put this grant under pressure. There will also be an impact on the renewal funding allocated under the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy due to changes in the existing gravel roads lives and lives and pavement depths for the new road classes. In the short term the increase for the change in current pavement lives has been estimated to be approximately $1.7m or $280,000 in the first year. The calculation is shown in Appendix 9. Further it should be remembered that the road network is not financially sustainable until all changes are made and the funding, and associated renewal and maintenance practices, adjusted as outlined in this and previous reports.

End of Executive Summary

Page 20

Report Overview At the Council meeting on 17 December 2013 a report was presented which combined three phases of the review, namely Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12 – Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration. At that meeting it was resolved that Council: 1. Adopt the attached reports entitled “Rural Roads Review Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12

– Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration”, the “Addendum” to the report, noting the recommendations in both, and the two PowerPoint presentations entitled “Rural Roads Review Network Scenarios and Costs” and “Supplementary Briefing”.

2. Undertakes further analysis of Scenario F and Scenario H, as described in the main report, with regard to: a. Changes to maintenance and renewal practices and road dimensions (lane widths, pavement

depths, etc) progressively being implemented, including: i. A report being provided to Council on the impact of these changes ii. Community engagement being undertaken where these changes could have a

noticeable impact as perceived by the road user (eg changing the lane width on lowly trafficked gravel roads to houses from 4m to 3.5m)

b. Changes to the rural road network (ie changes to the relative lengths of sealed, gravel and earth roads within the road network) including: i. Councillor feedback and further refinement of Scenario F regarding any specific

impacts of changing road classes ii. A report to Council detailing the likely timelines for the realisation of benefits

flowing from the network changes iii. Preparing and undertaking a Community Engagement Plan

c. Articulating how the changes integrate with the goals / directions set by the Strategic Financial Assessment

d. Council guidance on the use of any cost savings being directed to either improving the sustainability of the road network or to reducing rates or a combination of both

This report addresses in part items 2. b. i and ii and 2. d. as highlighted in the above resolution. It examines further the implication of changes to the rural road network under Scenario F (including Scenarios A and H) presented in the above report. There is further analysis of the benefits which flow from transitioning from the existing road network to the network in Scenario F and the likely timing of those benefits. It also provides guidance on the use of any cost savings that may arise. Additional reports on other sections of the above resolution will be presented to Council in due course. In particular further refinement of Scenario F is required prior to contemplating any network changes including: • Any necessary adjustments to road classes to ensure continuity of road surfaces between adjacent road


network to ensure an appropriate road hierarchy is achieved

Page 21

Preparation of a report on the effects and timelines in implementing the proposed changes in maintenance and renewal practices, as detailed in various Phases of this review, has commenced and will be presented to Council for consideration in the future. Determining how the outcomes of this review integrate with the Strategic Financial Assessment will need to wait until that Assessment is complete. It is only after all this work is completed that an appropriate Community Engagement Plan can be developed.

Page 22

Methodology All the information, analysis, conclusions and recommendations from the previous report entitled Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12 – Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration were considered in preparing this report. This report examines the likely timing and extent of benefits flowing from the changes to maintenance and renewal practices, road dimensions and road classes in transitioning from the existing network to the network in Scenario F over an extended period. The methodology adopted in this Phase of the Rural Roads Review to further understand the timing and extent of benefits consisted of the following steps: • Data collection • Data analysis • Conclusions from the analysis • Recommendations, and • Impact of recommendations The relevant data regarding annual maintenance and renewal costs and road lengths for the existing road network, Scenario A, Scenario H and Scenario F from the previous report have been collated, summarised and used in this report. The purpose of this was to enable the quantum of any changes in transitioning from the existing through to Scenario F to be compared. Further it enabled an assessment of the likely timing of those changes to be determined in the years and decades ahead. After analysing the data a number of conclusions were reached. Recommendations were made and the impacts of those recommendations were discussed.

Page 23

Data Collection The data has been compiled from the spread sheets used to model the annual maintenance and renewal costs for various classes of roads in different networks (Existing Network Scenario and Scenarios A, H and F) in the last report. That report covered Phase 11 – Map Network Scenarios, Phase 12 – Cost Network Scenarios and Phase 13 – Council Consideration of the Rural Roads Review. Before collating and analysing the data some minor discrepancies with road identification numbers in GIS and SAP were discovered and addressed. This only affected about 9km of roads in the entire road network. In addition there were also some other minor errors in one of the spread sheets identified and addressed. Following the rectification of these errors there was an almost negligible difference between costs in this report and in earlier reports. The annual maintenance and renewal costs for the existing road classes in the existing road network and Scenario A were collated together with the annual costs for the new road classes in Scenario H and Scenario F. Scenario A consisted of the existing network with renewal and maintenance works funded and undertaken in a sustainable manner. Scenario H in effect was the existing network but with a change in road dimensions and associated maintenance and renewal practices. Scenario F consisted of a new network where the road classes were based on traffic counts and included providing all weather access to houses. Both Scenario H and F included closing a number of “missing links” in gravel and sealed roads within the network. The earlier report recommended that further analysis be undertaken in transitioning the existing road network to Scenario F. Some changes to road dimensions and maintenance and renewal practices, particularly for gravel roads, could be implemented as an initial stage before any substantive network changes were implemented. The significant differences between the existing road dimensions and the new classes are: • Unsealed roads are proposed to be constructed of imported gravel pavements 150mm thick as opposed to

75mm thick under the existing arrangements • Sealed roads, rather than being either 200mm or 300mm thick, are now proposed to be 150mm, 170mm and

200mm depending on traffic Further gravel roads will have a pavement width of 6m for traffic above 50vpd and up to 150vpd and 3.5m where the traffic is below 150vpd but only where the road is required to service a house. Other roads below 50vpd that do not service a house will be earth. The lives of the two unsealed road classes with imported gravel pavements of 150mm are 18.6yrs and 15.5yrs for traffic counts of >10 ≤50vpd and >50 ≤150vpd respectively. The adopted life of the previous 75mm deep gravel road pavement was 15yrs however the above mentioned report determined the life to be 9.4yrs. Without any other changes to the roads, this change in life would have a significant impact on the annual depreciation and the required annual renewal funding. The sealed road pavements (both current and recommended) were determined to have a life of 74yrs although the recommended new pavements are not as thick and hence there would be a reduction in construction cost and depreciation. It was also recommended that further research is required in coming years to confirm or otherwise the 74yrs life. The life of the 75mm gravel shoulders on sealed roads was determined to be 10.1yrs. The existing road classes and the costs for maintenance and renewal described in the previous report are summarised on the following page.

Page 24

Existing Road Classes and Costs The existing rural road network consisted of: • unformed tracks (a new category) • formed and unsurfaced roads (formally the earth road category) • formed and lightly surfaced roads (a new category where the road has only a skin of quarry product on the

surface) • formed and surfaced roads (formally the gravel road category which is renewed with 75mm of gravel), and • sealed roads (to be renewed with a sealed 200mm light pavement or 300mm heavy pavement depending on

whether the traffic count is below or above 150vpd) There are also VicRoads’s arterial roads in the Shire. All the existing roads have a traffic count in vehicles per day (vpd), either actual or estimated. Campaspe manages a road hierarchy consisting of collector and access roads. The arterial roads are managed by VicRoads. The current standard for geometric dimensions of unsealed roads, the cycle of works, the historical maintenance and renewal unit rates as determined in previous reports for the period 2006/07 to 2011/12 are shown below. Existing Unsealed Road Classes – Dimensions and Historical Unit Rates for Maintenance and Renewal

Description Unopened or

unused Formed and unsurfaced


Formed and surfaced

Approx Traffic Range (vpd) 0 ≤20 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤300

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1

Lane Width (m) n/a 4 4 4

Shoulder Width (m) n/a 1 1 1

Total Carriageway (m) n/a 6 6 6

Table Drain Width Min (m) n/a 1 1 1

Total Formation Width (m) n/a 8 8 8

Actual Pavement Depth (mm) n/a n/a Skin of quarry product

75

Adopted Pavement Life (yrs) n/a n/a n/a 15

Actual Pavement Life (yrs) n/a n/a n/a 9.4

Adjusted Historical Grading Cycle Part with Water (yrs)

n/a 2.5 0.9 0.9

Historical Grading Rate Part with Water ($/km)

n/a 510 557 557

Adjusted Historical Grading Annual Cost Part with Water ($/km/yr)

n/a 204 640 640

Adjusted Historical Road Resheet Cycle at 75mm pavement (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 9.0

Historical Resheeting Rate at 75mm with Water ($/km)

n/a n/a n/a 17,493

Adjusted Historical Resheeting Annual Cost at 75mm with Water ($/km/yr)

n/a n/a n/a 1,944

Page 25

The current standard for geometric dimensions and the historical maintenance and renewal costs as determined in previous reports is shown below.

Existing Sealed Road Classes – Dimensions & Historical Unit Rates for Maintenance and Renewal Description Formed, 200mm or

light pavement and seal

Formed, 300mm or heavy pavement and seal

Traffic (vpd) ≤150 >150 Lanes (no) 1 2 Lane Width (m) 4 3.1

Shoulder Width (m) 1.5 1.5 Total Carriageway (m) 7 9.2 Table Drain Width Min (m) 1 1 Total Formation Width (m) 9 11.2 Pavement Depth (mm) 200 300 Adopted Pavement Life (yrs) 74 74

Actual Pavement Life (yrs) 74 74 Sealed Rd Shoulder Depth (mm) 75 75 Adopted Shoulder Life (yrs) 15 15 Actual Shoulder Life (yrs) 10.1 10.1 Historical Shoulder Grading Frequency without Water (yrs) 0.6 0.6 Historical Shoulder Grading Rate without Water ($/km) 131 131 Historical Shoulder Grading Annual Cost without Water ($/km/yr)

218 218

Historical Shoulder Resheet Cycle for 75mm shoulder (yrs) 41.2 41.2 Historical Shoulder Resheeting Rate ($/km) 8,021 8,021 Historical Shoulder Resheeting Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 195 195 Historical Maintenance of Seal Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 600 600 Adopted Seal Life (yrs) 15 15 Historical Resealing Cycle (yrs) 15.8 15.8 Historical Resealing Rate ($/m2) 4.1 4.1 Seal or Pavement Width (m) 4 6.2 Historical Resealing Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 1,038 1,609 Historical Pavement Rehabilitation Cycle (yrs) 258 258 Historical Pavement Rehabilitation Rate ($/m2) 30 44

Historical Rehabilitation Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 465 1,057 Historical Sealed Road Pavement Total Renewal Costs per Year ($/km/yr)

1,503 2,666

Historical Slashing Cycle (yrs) 0.5 0.5

Calculated Slashing Rate ($/km) 99 99 Historical Slashing Annual Cost ($/km/yr) 198 198 It was determined that $8.6m was currently being expended annually on on-pavement works made up of $2.4m on maintenance and $6.2m on renewal.

Page 26

Adopted Road Classes for Modelling The following geometric cross sections were adopted by Council for sealed and unsealed roads for each of the traffic categories for the purposes of modelling alternative road networks.

Adopted Unsealed & Sealed Road Dimensions by Road Class

Campaspe Road Class

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


4D 4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000


n/a 25 25 25 70 70 360 1,870

Surface (Unsealed or Sealed)

Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Unsealed Sealed Sealed Sealed

Description Unformed track



Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced




Pavement Depth (mm)

n/a n/a n/a 150 150 150 170 200

Pavement Life (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 18.6 15.5 74 74 74

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Lane Width (m) n/a 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.7 3.1 3.5

Shoulder Width (m)

n/a 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 75 75


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.1 10.1 10.1


3.0 nominal

5.5 5.5 5.5 7 8.7 9.2 12


n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n/a 7.5 7.5 7.5 9 10.7 11.2 14

It should be noted that Campaspe Road Classes 7 and 4 are preferred to Classes 6 and 5 for unsealed roads for the anticipated traffic volumes based on the ARRB and Austroad guidelines. Classes 1 and 2 are preferred to Class 3 for sealed roads. The preferred road class columns in the table above are coloured orange. Class 8 is a road not constructed (or maintained) by Council.

Page 27

Existing Network Scenario The following road lengths and types were used in determining the annual cost of the existing network as follows: • 784km of formed and unsurfaced roads • 26km of formed and lightly surfaced roads • 2,059km of formed and surfaced roads, and • 922km of sealed roads – light and heavy pavements • Arterial roads controlled by VicRoads are included for completeness in the mapping The current road standards as described in the tables above were used in modelling the existing network (ie earth roads 4m wide, pavement life 9.4yrs, gravel roads 75mm pavements 4m wide, sealed roads <150vpd 200mm pavement, 4m seal, sealed roads >150vpd 300mm pavement, 6.2m seal, seal life 15yrs, pavement life 74yrs, etc). The current adjusted historical on-pavement expenditure and cycles of maintenance and renewal as described in the table above were used in determining the annual costs of the existing network (ie 0.9yrs for gravel road grading, 9.0yrs for gravel road resheeting, 15.8yrs for sealed road resealing, etc).

Page 28

Existing Network - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Historical Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Current Road Class



Formed and 75 mm surface



Totals


≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000




Formed and surfaced




159,884 16,448 1,317,689 1,494,021


4,002,479 4,002,479


217,582 183,994 401,576


194,626 164,860 359,486


299,425 253,631 553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

518,005 680,153 1,198,158


232,054 446,813 678,867

Total ($/yr) 159,884 16,448 5,320,168 1,461,692 1,729,451 8,687,643

Total annual maintenance costs = $2,448,653 Total annual renewal costs = $6,238,990 A map of the Existing Network Scenario is shown in Appendix 1.

Page 29

Scenario A Network Scenario A consisted of the existing road classes and lengths, same lane dimensions and pavement depths but with changed practices for renewal and maintenance to ensure the network is managed in a “sustainable” manner. That is, the practices adopted are such that the condition of the network is maintained and doesn’t deteriorate. The renewal practices take into account the revised lives of the various components of each road type determined in previous reports. The maintenance practices are those outlined in previous reports.

Scenario A - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Current Road Class



Formed and 75mm surface



Totals


≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000




Formed and surfaced




597,215 24,132 1,710,936 2,332,283


3,681,293 3,681,293


303,417 257,012 560,429


839,387 711,011 1,550,398


299,425 253,631 553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

545,452 716,506 1,261,958


620,308 1,637,186 2,257,494

Total ($/yr) 597,215 24,132 5,392,229 2,607,989 3,575,346 12,196,911

Total annual maintenance costs = $3,445,768 Total annual renewal costs = $8,751,143 A map of the Scenario A is shown in Appendix 2.

Page 30

Scenario H Network Scenario H consists of a network similar to the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A but with changed pavement dimensions including increases in pavement thickness for gravel roads and reduced pavement thicknesses for sealed roads with associated changes in renewal and maintenance practices. However there are no changes to the respective lengths of earth, gravel and sealed roads within the network. The existing road classes have been translated to the closest equivalent new road class. These new road classes have been costed using improved practices and road dimensions. However the translation has been based on construction type, not traffic volume. Although there is not an exact match of new classes to existing classes the new classes are sufficiently close for comparison. The road lengths and roads types in Scenario H are: • 423km of Campaspe Road Class 2 • 499km of Campaspe Road Class 3 • 2,059km of Campaspe Road Class 5 • 809km of Campaspe Road Class 7 • Arterial roads controlled by VicRoads are included for completeness in the mapping The geometric standards for the roads are Class 7 earth roads, 3.5m wide, Class 5 gravel roads, 3.5m wide pavement, 150mm thick, 18.6yr life, grading frequency 0.6yr, Class 3 sealed roads, 150mm pavement, 74yr life, 3.7m seal, seal life 15yr, Class 2 sealed roads, 200mm pavement, 74yr life, 6.2m seal widths, life 15yr, etc. Maintenance and renewal is carried out to suggested standards (ie road grading and resheeting using sufficient water trucks to achieve appropriate compaction) and renewal frequency based on actual lives not adopted lives.

Page 31

Scenario H - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Campaspe Road Class

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totals


4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000




Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced




Length (km) 809

2,059

499 423

3,790

Grading Cost ($/yr)

616,799

1,710,936

2,327,735


3,028,625

3,028,625


303,417 257,012

560,429


839,387 711,011

1,550,398


299,425 253,631

553,056

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

504,531 716,506

1,221,037


573,897 1,637,186

2,211,083

Total ($/yr) 616,799

4,739,561

2,520,657 3,575,346

11,452,363

Total annual maintenance costs = $3,441,220 Total annual renewal costs = $8,011,143 The renewal costs are less than Scenario A but the maintenance costs are very similar to Scenario A. It is possible that, at least in part, Scenario H could be implemented prior to implementing Scenario F. That is the transition to Scenario F could be undertaken in stages. A map of Scenario H is shown in Appendix 3 with colour coding for each of the road types or classes.

Page 32

Scenario F Network This scenario was chosen by Council for further analysis to assist in decision making. It is based on the preferred road classes (that conform to the ARRB/Austroads guidelines) considering traffic counts. At least a minimum of an all-weather gravel road has been provided to all residences as a Class 5 (one lane) road where the traffic count is below 50vpd road. Elsewhere the same road would be an earth (Class 7) road considering the traffic count. Any “missing links” in the network have been closed so that the road type and surface of adjoining road segments match. This task has been undertaken manually and may need further refining as some segments may have been overlooked. The road lengths and roads types in this network are: • 17km of Campaspe Road Class 1 • 519km of Campaspe Road Class 2 • 544km of Campaspe Road Class 4 • 1,677km of Campaspe Road Class 5 • 1,034km of Campaspe Road Class 7 • Arterial roads controlled by VicRoads are included for completeness in the mapping Compared to the existing network there is an increase of 256km in earth roads, 156km more gravel roads, 386km less sealed roads and no lightly surfaced roads. About 28km of Class 4 roads have been converted to Class 2 (two lane sealed) to complete some “missing links” where a gravel surfaced road segment appeared in between to sealed road segments. As stated above, this task was undertaken manually and may need further refinement. In general the Class 1, 2, 4 and 7 roads are appropriate for the range of traffic volumes, according to the ARRB and Austroads guidelines. The exceptions in this network are: • Class 5 gravel roads being provided to residences where a Class 7 road would otherwise have met the

ARRB and Austroads guidelines • Completion of “missing links” on some Class 2 sealed roads where there were intervening unsealed roads

based on traffic count The road geometric standards as described in the tables earlier based on traffic categories and with actual asset lives have been used in the modelling (ie Class 7 earth roads 3.5m wide for <50vpd, Class 5 gravel roads 3.5m wide for >10<50vpd, Class 5 gravel roads 3.5m wide >10<50vpd 18.6yr life, grading frequency 1.1yrs, Class 4 gravel roads 6m wide >50<150vpd, 150mm pavements, 15.5yr lives, grading frequency 0.6yrs, Class 2 sealed roads >150<1000vpd 170mm pavement, 74yr pavement life, 6.2m seal, seal life 15yr, Class 1 sealed roads >1000vpd 200mm pavement, 74yr pavement life, 7.0m seal widths, seal life 15yr, etc). It has been assumed that maintenance and renewal is carried out to suggested standards (ie road grading and resheeting using sufficient water trucks to achieve appropriate compaction) and the renewal frequency is based on actual lives not adopted lives. If this network is fully funded there is no renewal gap because renewal works are carried out at the required standard and on a cycle which matches the actual lives.

Page 33

Scenario F - Road Classes, Road Lengths & Required Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure

Campaspe Road Class

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Totals


4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000

>1,000




Formed and surfaced

Formed and surfaced




Length (km) 1,034 1,677 544 519 17 3,791 Grading Cost ($/yr)

857,178 1,392,918 827,931 3,078,027


2,468,229 952,964 3,421,193


315,176 10,586 325,762


872,236 29,286 901,522


311,519 10,447 321,966

Reseal Cost ($/yr)

879,972 33,308 913,280


1,129,899 49,397 1,179,296

Total ($/yr) 857,178 3,861,147 1,780,895 3,508,802 133,024 10,141,046 Total annual maintenance costs = $3,725,755 Total annual renewal costs = $6,415,291 A map of Scenario F is shown in Appendix 4.

Page 34

Data Analysis

General The cost modelling in this report has been based on the various network scenarios as described in the earlier report. It should be noted that there were some practical limitations to the precision of that earlier modelling which was explained in those reports. Actual traffic counts only existed for about half the road segments in the network, some of which dated back a number of years. Traffic counts for the remaining segments were estimated based on a number of factors such as known traffic counts on adjoining segments and the number of houses on a segment. Further, any modelling was only able to deal with whole road segments, not partial segments. The average length of segments in the network is around 1.6km. As a result if the traffic varied significantly along a segment length, say due to a large piggery or feed lot being located midblock, this could not be addressed in the desktop modelling. This type of issue can only be addressed by a site inspection to validate the modelling against any site specific issues. That is the adjoining land use may indicate, for example, that a gravel road segment should be split midblock into an earth road and a gravel road, not gravel for the entire segment. Further there may be a number of roads which could be entirely closed to traffic where there are alternative satisfactory routes. Again these roads can only be identified by site inspections and talking with the local property owners. It is likely that these roads will be shown as earth roads in the road network scenarios (which are based on traffic counts), as earth roads, in general, have very low traffic volumes. As the vast majority, if not all, roads in the rural area are situated on Crown land, should they be closed to traffic, they would revert to the Crown to manage. It is common that any closed roads are then licenced by the Crown to the adjoining property owners. Despite the limitations described above, the modelling in this report regarding the quantum and timing of benefits provides a good macro view of the options available to Council. The modelling can therefore be useful in making decisions about altering the existing road network. The timing and the amount of any financial benefit arising from transitioning the existing network to that in Scenario F can be assessed in a number of ways. Renewal and maintenance expenditure for the various road classes can be considered separately or collectively. In addition changes could be made to parts of the network or to renewal and maintenance practices in stages, perhaps concentrating on a particular class of road. Lastly it is not practical or financially advantageous to change, say a sealed road to a gravel road, until the road has reached the end of its useful life. Therefore these changes will progressively occur over many decades. Rather than undertake modelling over an extended period, such as 74yr period which is the life of a sealed road pavement, a shorter period was adopted of 9yrs. This period closely matches the actual life (9.4yrs) of the existing 75mm gravel road as determined in previous reports. It is also a practical period over which any initial changes to the network and practices can be planned and managed. It should be noted that beyond this period sealed road changes dominate as all the gravel roads would at or near their useful lives, on average.

Page 35

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A As the existing network is underfunded for both maintenance and renewal, the cost of Scenario A (where maintenance and renewal is fully funded) is significantly higher. Renewal expenditure in Scenario A is calculated based on the new lives recently determined for the existing road types. Hence an additional $2.6m is required for renewal over the current expenditure on the existing network. A further $1.0m is required for maintenance giving an additional required expenditure of $3.6m in Scenario A compared to current expenditure on the existing network. Scenario A uses revised lives of 9.4yrs for 75mm gravel road pavements, compared to the current 15yrs, and 10.1yrs for sealed road shoulders compared to the current 15yrs. The renewal costs in Scenario A are calculated based on these revised lives and hence there the increase in annual cost per kilometre per year for resheeting works. These revised lives for the existing road pavements will need to be adopted and used by Council in the immediate future to calculate depreciation at least until any new road classes are fully implemented on the ground. The annual renewal requirements in Scenario A will now form part of the inputs into the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy to determine the budget allocation in future years.

Cost Comparison of Scenario A and Scenario F The costs to undertake maintenance and renewal works in Scenario A and Scenario F are taken from previous Rural Roads Review reports. A spread sheet was compiled showing the savings or increases in the annual maintenance and renewal expenditure and the timing of the savings or increases in transitioning from the road network in Scenario A to Scenario F. Scenario A consists of the existing road classes and network but with renewal and maintenance works undertaken in a sustainable manner. An analysis was undertaken to determine the annual savings or increases over a nine year period based on the following assumptions: • A new road type or class is only constructed when the old road reaches the end of its useful life • The actual lives of the old road classes (gravel 9.4yrs, sealed pavements 74yrs) drives the timing of the

change to new road classes ie 1/9.4 per year and 1/74 of the respective road lengths per year on average • Sealed road costs include maintenance and renewal of the pavement, seal and shoulders combined • Changes in maintenance regimes and costs occur once the new road class is constructed • Maintenance regimes for any new earth road classes are progressively introduced at the same rate as for

gravel roads ie 1/9.4 per year, to smooth the impact on additional funding requirements A summary of this information including the savings or increases for the first two years only is shown in Appendix 5. The pattern continues through to year nine. The spread sheet shows that an annual increase of $21,044 in maintenance for all roads is required in Scenario F compared to Scenario A which is more than offset by an annual saving of $116,705 in renewal expenditure. This reduction in renewal expenditure alone is equivalent to about 0.40% of rates.

Page 36

It should be remembered however that the renewal expenditure in Scenario A is calculated based on the actual lives for the existing road types but with improved maintenance and renewal practices. Hence an additional $2.6m is required for renewal over the current expenditure on the existing network. A further $1.0m is required for maintenance giving an additional required expenditure of $3.6m in Scenario A compared to current expenditure on the existing network. It is possible to consider staging the transition from the Scenario A to the Scenario F. For example, if only the existing gravel roads in Scenario A, which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads in Scenario F, are considered separately, the annual renewal saving is $126,881 offset by an increase in annual costs for maintenance of $68. This saving is equivalent to 0.44% of rates per year for nine years. Therefore the target expenditure on renewal calculated using the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy, subject to some caveats, could be reduced by this amount, on average, from the target set based only on Scenario A. However without increased expenditure in other areas and further changes in road classes the road network remains unsustainable. This staged change should only be viewed as an initial step in revising the network. It should be noted that the existing gravel roads (and therefore those in Scenario A) which change to earth in Scenario F don’t services houses and the existing gravel roads which change to Class 5 gravel roads have a reduction in width from 4m to 3.5m (and an increase in pavement thickness). This reduction in width is based on the Austroads/ARRB guidelines for the associated traffic volume and may or may not be particularly noticed by road users. There is also a limited number of existing earth roads which will become gravel roads in the Scenario F network. It would be possible to ensure that any new gravel roads are not introduced into the network until at least a corresponding length of the existing gravel roads above are changed to earth. Further it may be possible to initially change the renewal practices and pavement widths and depths before changing the maintenance practices. However in this case the gains are only minor. Shown in Appendix 6 is a spread sheet, which is an enhanced version of the spread sheet in the PowerPoint presentation incorporated in the report to Council on 17 December 2013, showing the lengths of roads and saving or increases in cost in transitioning from Scenario A to F.

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario H A spread sheet was compiled showing the savings or increases in the annual maintenance and renewal expenditure and the timing of the savings or increases in transitioning from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario H. The costs to undertake maintenance and renewal works in the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario H are taken from previous Rural Roads Review reports. Scenario H consists of a network similar to the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A but includes changes to the pavement dimensions, including increases in pavement thickness for gravel roads and reduced pavement thicknesses on sealed roads, with associated changes in renewal and maintenance practices. There is no change in the respective lengths of earth, gravel and sealed roads as there is in Scenario F. Scenario H could be considered part way in transitioning the existing network into the network in Scenario F. A summary of this information including the savings or increases for the first two years only is shown in Appendix 7. The pattern continues through to year nine. In the first nine years Scenario H has an annual increase in average maintenance costs of $92,024 but a decrease in renewal costs of $66,493 compared to the existing network.

Page 37

In transitioning from the existing network to Scenario H the only significant saving is in the renewal of gravel roads of $103,602 per year equivalent to 0.36% of rates. This saving is more than offset by an increase in renewal for the other classes of roads and an increase in maintenance costs for all roads. If changes were initially made only to gravel roads, a saving in renewal costs could be achieved as a short term measure. However amongst these gravel roads there are a number of roads which would be resheeted to the new standard and then later revert to earth in Scenario F.

Cost Comparison of the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario F A spread sheet was compiled showing the annual savings or increases in maintenance and renewal expenditure and the timing of the savings or increases in transitioning from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario F. The costs to undertake maintenance and renewal works for both scenarios are taken from previous Rural Roads Review reports. An analysis was undertaken to determine the annual savings or increases over a nine year period based on the following assumptions: • A new road type or class is only constructed when the old road reaches the end of its useful life • The actual lives of the old road classes (gravel 9.4yrs, sealed pavements 74yrs) drives the timing of the

change to new road classes ie 1/9.4 per year and 1/74 per year of the respective road lengths on average • Sealed road costs include maintenance and renewal of the pavement, seal and shoulders combined • Changes in maintenance regimes and costs occur once the new road class is constructed • Maintenance regimes for any new earth road classes transitioning from existing earth road classes are

progressively introduced at the same rate as for gravel roads ie 1/9.4 per year, to spead the impact on additional funding requirements

A summary of this information including the savings or increases for the first two years only is shown in Appendix 8. The pattern continues through to year nine. The spread sheet shows that for the first nine years an annual increase of $113,788 in maintenance is required which is almost offset by a saving of $110,217in renewal expenditure. This reduction in renewal expenditure alone is equivalent to about 0.38% of rates. It should be remembered however that Existing Network Scenario is underfunded by $3.6m compared to the “sustainable” levels in Scenario A. The $3.6m is made up of $1.0m underfunding on maintenance and $2.6m on renewal. Following the tenth year in the transition, when all gravel roads have reached the end of their lives on average and have either been renewed or the road class transitioned to a new road class, any remaining annual cost increase related to the transition is only associated with the remaining sealed roads. This transition will take a total 74yrs on average until the last sealed road reached the end of its useful life. This annual cost (from the tenth year) is $23,324 consisting of $18,744 for maintenance and $4,580 for renewal works. Similarly to the section above, if only the existing gravel roads which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads are initially considered on their own, the annual renewal saving is $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658. The saving in renewal only is equivalent to 0.54% of rates. However, again it should be remembered that the existing network is not sustainable and removing the savings in expenditure from the network ensures the (un)sustainability of the network remains effectively unchanged. The existing gravel roads which change to earth don’t service houses and the existing gravel roads which change to Class 5 gravel roads have a reduction in width from 4m to 3.5m (and an increase in pavement thickness). This reduction in width is based on the Austroads/ARRB guidelines for the associated traffic volume and may or may not be noticed by road users. The rate at which new pavements are constructed will be dependent on the size of the resheeting budget each year.

Page 38

There are also some existing earth roads which will become gravel roads in the Scenario F network. It would be possible to ensure that new gravel roads are not introduced into the network until at least a corresponding length of the existing gravel roads are changed to earth. Further it may be possible to initially change the renewal practices and pavement widths and depths before changing the maintenance practices. This would produce some initial short term savings equal to the additional annual maintenance costs of $37,658. The spread sheet showing all of the analysis of maintenance and renewal costs and the timing of any savings or increases for each of the scenarios has been placed in Dataworks.

Page 39

Conclusions

General Below is a summary of the analysis of the required maintenance and renewal expenditure for each of the scenarios to set the scene for the conclusions. The conclusions which relate to the transition from the existing network to Scenario F (via a consideration of Scenarios A and H) are then outlined. On the existing road network the current expenditure for on-pavement works is $8.6m per annum, which is below what is required to provide a “sustainable” network. Without additional expenditure the condition of the existing network will deteriorate over time and the network will not meet acceptable serviceability requirements. Included in the current funding for roads is $1m from the Country Roads and Bridges Program from the State government. The future of this funding is not assured. A further $2.015m is also contributed by the Federal government under the Roads to Recovery Program. (Note: For the existing network to be “sustainable”, expenditure would need to be $12.2m per annum, an increase of $3.6m as shown in Scenario A. Broadly, this consists of an increase in renewal funding for sealed roads and an increase in maintenance funding for gravel roads). Scenario A consists of the same road classes and lengths as the existing network (ie the same lane dimensions and pavement depths) but with changed practices for renewal and maintenance to ensure the network is managed in a “sustainable” manner. The cost of this network is $12.2m per year Scenario H is a similar network to Scenario A but with improved geometric dimensions including increased pavement depths on gravel roads and using improved renewal and maintenance work practices. However there are no changes to the respective lengths of earth, gravel and sealed roads. The cost of this network is $11.4m per year. Scenario F provides Class 1, 2 and 4 roads based on traffic volume but with Class 5 (one lane 3.5m wide) gravel roads provided to all houses where the traffic volume would suggest that a Class 7 earth road would suffice. The cost for this network is $10.1m per year. Compared to the existing network, Scenarios F has an increase of 256km of earth roads, 156km more gravel roads and 386km decrease in sealed roads and no lightly surfaced roads. Scenario F provides a balance between requiring a large increase in funding versus a significant decrease in the road service levels. As the existing network is transitioned to Scenario F there will be a need to progressively adjust the resources used to undertake maintenance and renewal works in accordance with previous reports. The appropriate practices, including standards, work arrangements, plant and use of materials with suitable characteristics need to be progressively implemented.

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario and Scenario A There is no direct financial benefit in transitioning to funding Scenario A from the existing network. In fact the costs increase significantly. Of course there is no need to change the respective lengths of earth, gravel and sealed roads. Further there are some relatively easy changes that could be made to renewal and maintenance arrangements as described in previous reports that would save money even if the existing road network remained in place.

Page 40

Scenario A does however predicts an increased renewal funding requirement if no changes are made to the network in the future.

Transition from the Scenario A to Scenario F The renewal funding required in Scenario A will now form part of the input into the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy to determine future renewal budget allocations. As Scenario F has less sealed roads, slightly more gravel roads and more earth roads than Scenario A there is a saving in renewal funding required in Scenario F over Scenario A, although a slight increase in maintenance funding required. Overall, the total funding is required decreases in Scenario F. Therefore if the transition to Scenario F is staged, with gravel roads changing to earth and to the narrower gravel roads being introduced first, an initial saving in the renewal funding requirement can be made. If the existing gravel roads in Scenario A which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads in Scenario F are considered, the annual renewal saving is $126,881 offset by an increase in annual costs for maintenance of $68. This saving is equivalent to 0.44% of rates per year for nine years. However without the remaining changes in road classes across the network, the road network remains unsustainable. Any staged change should only be viewed as an initial step in revising the network.

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario H As the existing network is underfunded for both maintenance and renewal works the annual costs for Scenario H are significantly higher, despite some increases in efficiencies, compared to the existing arrangements. In the first nine years Scenario H has an annual increase in maintenance costs of $92,024 but a decrease in renewal costs of $66,493 compared to the existing network. In transitioning from the existing network to Scenario H (and then to Scenario F) the only significant saving is in the renewal of gravel roads of $103,602 per year, equivalent to 0.36% of rates. This saving is more than offset by an increase in renewal for the other classes of roads and an increase in maintenance costs for all roads. However it would be possible to consider the transition of gravel roads as a first step, to make some initial savings, before introducing other changes to the network. This idea is explored more fully in the section below.

Transition from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario F Scenario F requires an additional $1.5m compared to the existing network to be sustainable. However when transitioning from the existing network to Scenario F, the analysis shows that in the first nine years an annual increase of $113,788 in maintenance is required which is almost offset by an annual saving of $110,217 in renewal expenditure as gravel roads have a predominant affected in the shorter term. In later years however sealed roads have more of an impact due to their longer lives. If only the existing gravel roads which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads are initially considered, the annual renewal saving is $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658. The saving in renewal only is equivalent to 0.54% of rates. The annual maintenance increase is $37,657 or 0.13% of rates. Hence the combined saving in maintenance and renewal is $120,035 or 0.41% of rates. As was shown in previous reports the current funding for renewal (resheeting) of gravel roads is sufficient (but includes the Country Roads and Bridges funding and Roads to Recovery funding) however sealed road renewal

Page 41

is underfunded. As Scenario F includes efficiency gains in gravel road renewal, and as there is an increase in earth roads (which require no renewal), it would be possible to make some cost savings for the first nine to ten years if changes to unsealed roads were introduced before any changes were made to sealed roads. However in the following 64yrs of the modelling there would be a significant cost increase required in renewal funding of sealed roads which more than offsets the savings on unsealed roads. Therefore it would be reasonable to initially transition the existing gravel roads which change to Class 5 and 7 roads and make a saving through less funding being allocated in the budget under the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy. The saving is partly offset by a requirement for an increase in maintenance expenditure. This could form an initial package of changes. These changes would have a lesser impact on roads users than some possible changes. These changes would have a lesser impact on roads users than some other possible changes. This is because the gravel roads changing to earth roads, in general, have low traffic counts and the narrowing of some gravel roads by 0.5m, again applies to lower trafficked roads. Therefore this suggested change could be considered a reasonable first package. When any changes are made to the network, not only should the funding for renewal alter but the related funding for maintenance should also alter to ensure that each package of changes is sustainable. Further as the network in Scenario F ultimately requires additional funding, it would be prudent that any initial savings be redirected in the network, perhaps to those roads which remain substantially unchanged in the final network. This would also be consistent with Principle 14 of the Financial Planning Principles. Further it would enable reasonable service levels to be provided to the community and road users within each package of changes. In the long term, however, a significant funding increase is required for Scenario F which more than offsets any initial savings. This saving could then be allocated in the short term to either reducing the rates or be redirected into the road network to make it more sustainable. It could in the first instance be directed to those roads that will ultimately remain in the final network. It should be remembered that the network in Scenario F will remain unsustainable until it is fully funded. That is, the road network condition will deteriorate over time. The full transition is likely to take many decades until all roads reach the end of their useful lives.

Allocation of Benefits In each of the Scenarios above it is possible, where there is a saving in costs, for Council to take the savings and allocate it to other purposes (eg other services or a rate reduction) or to reinvest it in the road network. It should be remembered that until the networks in any scenario are fully funded there remains a renewal (and maintenance) gap. That is the road network condition will deteriorate over time. Hence if any savings are allocated away from roads the sustainability of the road network will not improve and may in fact reduce. As shown above it would be possible to initially transition the existing gravel roads which will change to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads in Scenario F achieving an annual renewal saving of $157,693 but offset by an additional $37,658 in maintenance costs. However the network is not sustainable until all the other changes described in this and previous reports are made. It should be noted that Principle 14 of the Financial Planning Principles adopted in the 2013/14 budget states: Council is undertaking a review of its rural roads to ensure sustainability of its road network into the future. Council requires that the renewal target for Rural Roads is delineated from the general renewal target to ensure transparency in the funding allocation to this important asset class. Council further requires any savings generated from the Rural Roads Review must be redirected back into rural roads (both recurrent and capital).

Page 42

This report, and previous reports, has clearly shown the expenditure required for renewal for each of the road classes in each network scenario as required in Principle 14 above. Further should Council redirect any saving away from the road network before it is fully sustainable it would need to revisit Principle 14.

Adoption of New Lives for Existing Gravel Roads In previous reports the lives of various components of a road (and the costs to undertake their renewal) have been reviewed and new lives recommended for the purposes of modelling. These new lives have been used in determining the renewal requirements for both the existing road classes and the new road classes. The recently determined lives for the existing road pavements should now be adopted for the purpose of determining depreciation of the existing roads in the future. The revised lives are: • 9.4yrs for the existing 75mm deep gravel road pavements (rather than 15yrs), and • 10.1yrs for the existing 75mm deep gravel shoulders on sealed roads (rather than 15yrs) For practical reason it would be preferable to adopt whole numbers for the lives, rather than the theoretically calculated fraction of whole numbers. Hence the adopted lives for both gravel roads and sealed road shoulders should be 10yrs.

Adoption of New Gravel Road Replacement Pavements For the purposes of valuation and depreciation, new standards for the replacement of sealed road pavements and the associated pavement lives should be adopted for the existing sealed roads in the network (rather than the current replacement pavements and lives), as described in this and previous reports, based on the following traffic counts: • Less than or equal to 50 vehicles per day, 150mm thick pavement with a life of 18.6yrs • Greater than 50 vehicles per day, 150mm thick pavement with a life of 15.5yrs Again for practical reason it would be preferable to adopt whole numbers for the lives, rather than the theoretically calculated fraction of whole numbers. Hence the lives would be 19yrs and 16yrs respectively.

Adoption of New Sealed Road Replacement Pavements For the purposes of valuation and depreciation, new standards for the replacement of sealed road pavements and the associated pavement lives should be adopted for the existing sealed roads in the network (rather than the current replacement pavements and lives), as described in this and previous reports, based on the following traffic counts: • Less than or equal to 150 vehicles per day, 150mm thick pavement with a life of 74yrs • Greater than 150 vehicles per day but less than or equal to 1,000 vehicles per day, 170mm thick pavement

with a life of 74yrs • Greater than 1,000 vehicle per day, 200mm thick pavement with a life of 74yrs Changes to Council Policy - Rural Sealed Road Pavement Renewal and Valuation Methodology Number C128 will be required as a result of the above.

Page 43

Future Work Additional refinement of Scenario F is required prior to commencing any network changes including: • Any necessary adjustments to road classes to ensure continuity of road surfaces between adjacent road


network to ensure an appropriate road hierarchy is achieved As Package 1 is a logical first step, further refinement is required based on a complete set of condition assessments of all the gravel roads. Those roads at intervention would be candidates for initially transitioning to earth roads. As described in previous reports there are a range of operational and practice improvements which need to be made. These will probably occur over many years as the network is progressively transitioned. However further planning is required regarding the implementation of those proposed changes. Determining how outcomes of this review integrate with the Strategic Financial Assessment will need to wait until that Assessment is complete. It is only after all this work is completed that a full Community Engagement Plan can be developed for the preferred network.

Page 44

Recommendations The following recommendations arise from the data, analysis and conclusions in this report. It is recommended that: 1. The lives of the existing gravel road pavements and existing sealed road gravel shoulders be revised as

follows: a. 10 years for the existing 75mm deep gravel road pavements (rather than 15 years), and b. 10 years for the existing 75mm deep gravel shoulders on sealed roads (rather than 15 years)

2. For the purposes of valuation and depreciation, new standards should be adopted for the replacement of rural roads including pavement depths and associated asset lives, as detailed in the report, when undertaking road renewal works, as shown below:

Campaspe Road Class

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


4D 4C 4C 4C 4B 4A 3 3

Traffic (vpd) ≤10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >10 ≤50 >50 ≤150 >50 ≤150 >150 ≤1000 >1,000


n/a 25 25 25 70 70 360 1,870

Lane Surface Unsealed and unsurfaced

Unsealed and unsurfaced

Unsealed but lightly surfaced



Sealed Sealed Sealed

Pavement Depth (mm)

n/a n/a n/a 150 150 150 170 200

Pavement Life (yrs)

n/a n/a n/a 19 16 74 74 74

Lanes (no) n/a 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Lane Width (m)

n/a 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.7 3.1 3.5

Shoulder Width (m)

n/a 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 75 75


n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 10 10


3.0 nominal 5.5 5.5 5.5 7 8.7 9.2 12


n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n/a 7.5 7.5 7.5 9 10.7 11.2 14

Page 45

3. Any renewal funding requirements in future budgets should take into account the new pavements and lives outlined above

4. That further refinement of Scenario F be undertaken prior to implementing any network changes including: a. Any necessary adjustments to road classes to ensure continuity of road surfaces between adjacent road

segments within the network b. Any adjustments required to the class of roads serving properties to addresses any site specific issues,

and c. Any adjustments to the classes and location of roads connecting local access roads into the arterial

road network to ensure an appropriate road hierarchy is achieved 5. That any implementation of the network in Scenario F transitioning from the existing road network be staged

with the existing gravel roads initially changing to Class 7 earth roads or Class 5 gravel roads being undertaken progressively as the existing roads reach the end of their useful lives as a first stage (Package 1)

6. The annual saving in combined renewal and maintenance funding requirements in the first stage be reinvested into those sections of the existing road network which will ultimately remain little changed when transitioning to Scenario F

7. It is noted that in the first stage of transitioning to Scenario F the annual saving in renewal funding requirement is $157,693 offset by an increase in costs for maintenance of $37,658 with the combined saving in maintenance and renewal of $120,035 or 0.41% of rates

8. That changes in maintenance regimes and renewal regimes be implemented concurrently as changes in road classes and road lengths are implemented to ensure that all changes are sustainable in the long term

9. It is noted that the rural road network remains unsustainable until all changes to road classes within the network, including the appropriate annual maintenance and renewal funding and associated practices, are completed

10. As part of the Community Engagement Plan recommended in previous reports, consultation be undertaken with the community regarding any proposed staging of changes to the road network

Page 46

Impact of Recommendations As has been stated in previous reports there will be an impact on the Grants Commission funding, which in part, is based on the length of sealed and gravel roads in the network. An estimate of the total quantum has been stated in previous reports as $193,000 for Scenario F. The exact annual amount and the timing of any changes will be dependent on when and what length of roads are actually changed within the network. This will, in large part, be dependent on when roads actually reach intervention and future available budgets. For Package 1, the loss of Grants Commission funding is estimated to be about $38,000 for those gravel roads that will transition to earth roads. It should also be noted that to retain the current level of Road to Recovery funding the total expenditure of Council funds on roads should not reduce as a result of any network changes. As funding is ultimately required to increase this should not be a problem in the long term although some short term changes could put this grant under pressure. There will also be an impact on the renewal funding allocated under the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy due to changes in the existing gravel roads lives and lives and pavement depths for the new road classes. In the short term the increase for the change in current pavement lives has been estimated to be approximately $1.7m or $280,000 in the first year. The calculation is shown in Appendix 9. Further it should be remembered that the road network is not financially sustainable until all changes are made and the funding, and associated renewal and maintenance practices, adjusted as outlined in this and previous reports.

Appendix 1 Existing Road Network A map of the existing network is shown below with the existing road types colour coded.

Appendix 2 Scenario A A map of Scenario A is shown below. The map is the same as the Existing Network (but with renewal and maintenance practices undertaken in a sustainable manner). There is no change in the respective lengths of sealed, gravel and earth roads compared to the existing road network.

Appendix 3 Scenario H A map of Scenario H is shown below. It has the same lengths of sealed, gravel and earth roads as the Existing Network Scenario but the existing road classes have been replaced with the closest equivalent road classes in the new categories. In the new categories the gravel roads have thicker pavements and the sealed roads have thinner pavements. Both are less expensive per year to renew than the existing pavements.

Appendix 4 Scenario F A map of Scenario F is shown below including the new road classes. There is a change in the length of sealed, gravel and earth roads compared to the existing network and a change in pavement dimensions and renewal and maintenance practices.

Appendix 5

Summary of Savings Transitioning from Scenario A to Scenario F Showing Years 1 & 2 Only

From Network To Network Total Annual Savings Year 1 Year 2 Scenario A Scenario F Maintenance

$ per year Renewal $ per year

Total $ per year

Maint Renew Maint Renew

Formed and unsurfaced earth rd 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -41,257 0 -41,257 -4,389 0 -4,389 0 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide -12,412 -264,603 -277,015 -1,320 -28,149 -1,320 -28,149 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -236 -543 -779 -25 -58 -25 -58 Formed and lightly surfaced Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 1,467 0 1,467 156 0 156 0 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 1,309 -17,829 -16,520 139 -1,897 139 -1,897 Formed and surfaced gravel rd 75mm 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 642 734,303 734,945 68 78,117 68 78,117 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 0 458,376 458,376 0 48,763 0 48,763 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -135,255 6,841 -128,414 -14,389 728 -14,389 728 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide -2,552 -25,503 -28,055 -34 -345 -34 -345 Formed, pavement and seal 200mm 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 1,875 19,981 21,856 25 270 25 270 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 14,459 97,686 112,145 195 1,320 195 1,320 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -108,791 782,256 673,465 -1,470 10,571 -1,470 10,571 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide 0 -169,604 -169,604 0 -2,292 0 -2,292 Formed, pavement and seal 300mm 6.2m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 58 1,123 1,181 1 15 1 15 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 220 3,370 3,590 3 46 3 46 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -783 13,670 12,887 -11 185 -11 185 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide 497 683,572 684,069 7 9,237 7 9,237 Class 1 sealed rd 7m wide 0 14,243 14,243 0 192 0 192 Annual Total -280,759 2,337,339 2,056,580 -21,044 116,705 -21,044 116,705 Cumulative Total -21,044 116,705 -42,088 233,409

Savings in expenditure are shown as positive, increases in expenditure are shown as negative

Appendix 6 Below is a table showing the respective lengths of the various classes of roads in Scenario A and the class they transition to in Scenario F. This is an expanded version of the table that was presented in the report to Council on 17 December 2013, as an attachment in a PowerPoint format, for comparison.

Summary of Savings Transitioning from Scenario A to Scenario F

From Network Road Length To Network Road Length Total Annual Savings Scenario A km Scenario F km Maintenance


Total $ per year

Class 7 earth rd similar to Formed and unsurfaced earth rd 4m 784 Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 604 -41,257 0 -41,257 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 180 -12,412 -264,603 -277,015 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide 1 -236 -543 -779 Class 7 earth rd similar to Formed and lightly surfaced 26 Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 14 1,467 0 1,467 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 12 1,309 -17,829 -16,520 Class 5 gravel rd similar to Formed and surfaced gravel rd 75mm 4m 2,059 Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 411 642 734,303 734,945 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 1,446 0 458,376 458,376 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide 195 -135,255 6,841 -128,414 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide 7 -2,552 -25,503 -28,055 Class 3 sealed rd similar to Formed, pavement and seal 200mm 4m 499 Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 5 1,875 19,981 21,856 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 38 14,459 97,686 112,145 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide 345 -108,791 782,256 673,465 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide 110 0 -169,604 -169,604 Class 2 sealed rd similar to Formed, pavement and seal 300mm 6.2m 420 Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 1 58 1,123 1,181 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 1 220 3,370 3,590 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide 2 -783 13,670 12,887 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide 402 497 683,572 684,069 Class 1 sealed rd 7m wide 17 0 14,243 14,243 Total 3,791 -280,759 2,337,339 2,056,580 Cumulative Total

Appendix 7

Summary of Savings Transitioning from Existing Network Scenario to Scenario H Showing Years 1 & 2 Only


From Network To Network Savings Year 1 Year 2 Existing Scenario Scenario H Maintenance


Total $ per year


Formed and unsurfaced earth rd 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -437,331 0 -437,331 -46,525 0 -46,525 0 Formed and lightly surfaced Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -3,135 0 -3,135 -334 0 -334 0 Formed and surfaced gravel rd 75mm 4m wide Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide -393,248 973,854 580,607 -41,835 103,602 -41,835 103,602 Formed, pavement and seal 200mm 4m wide Class 3 sealed 3.7m wide -168,153 -973,130 -1,141,283 -2,272 -13,150 -2,272 -13,150 Formed, pavement and seal 300mm 6.2m wide Class 3 sealed 3.7m wide -78,309 -1,772,878 -1,851,187 -1,058 -23,958 -1,058 -23,958 Annual Total -1,080,176 -1,772,154 -2,852,330 -92,024 66,493 -92,024 66,493 Cumulative Total -92,024 66,493 -184,047 132,987

Appendix 8

Summary of Savings Transitioning from the Existing Network Scenario to Scenario F Showing Years 1 & 2 Only

From Network To Network Savings Year 1 Year 2 Existing Network Scenario F Maintenance


Total $ per year


Formed and unsurfaced earth rd 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -378,041 0 -378,041 -40,217 0 -40,217 0 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide -112,785 -264,603 -377,388 -11,998 -28,149 -11,998 -28,149 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -409 -543 -952 -43 -58 -43 -58 Formed and lightly surfaced Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -2,594 0 -2,594 -276 0 -276 0 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide -2,315 -17,829 -20,143 -246 -1,897 -246 -1,897 Formed and surfaced gravel rd 75mm 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide -77,799 798,370 720,571 -8,276 84,933 -8,276 84,933 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide -276,182 683,948 407,766 -29,381 72,760 -29,381 72,760 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -172,587 37,332 -135,255 -18,360 3,971 -18,360 3,971 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide -3,845 -24,446 -28,292 -409 -2,601 -409 -2,601 Formed, pavement and seal 200mm 4m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 9,822 9,414 19,235 133 127 133 127 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 4,551 16,185 20,736 61 219 61 219 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide -225,834 48,351 -177,483 -3,052 653 -3,052 653 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide -49,148 -404,093 -453,241 -664 -5,461 -664 -5,461 Formed, pavement and seal 300mm 6.2m wide Class 7 earth rd 3.5m wide 1,865 473 2,339 25 6 25 6 Class 5 gravel rd 3.5m wide 1,139 924 2,063 15 12 15 12 Class 4 gravel rd 6m wide 785 3,240 4,025 11 44 11 44 Class 2 sealed rd 6.2m wide -83,377 -1,002,757 -1,086,134 -1,127 -13,551 -1,127 -13,551 Class 1 sealed rd 7m wide 1,271 -58,781 -57,511 17 -794 17 -794 Annual Total -1,365,483 -174,816 -1,540,299 -113,788 110,217 -113,788 110,217 Cumulative Total -113,788 110,217 -227,577 220,433


Appendix 9 Below is a calculation for the increase in depreciation for the existing 75mm deep gravel road pavement life changing to 10 years rather than 15 years and for the life of the existing 75mm deep gravel shoulders on sealed roads changing to 10 years rather than 15 years, as used in the models. Gravel Road Pavements Depreciation Value of gravel road pavements 2,059 x $16,800/km = $34,591,200 Depreciation at 15 years $34,591,200 / 15 = $2,306,080 Depreciation at 10 years $34,591,200 / 10 = $3,459,120 Change in depreciation $3,459,120 - $2,306,080 = $1,153,040 Gravel Shoulders on Sealed Roads Depreciation Value of shoulder pavements 922 x 2 x $8,500/km = $15,674,000 Depreciation at 15 years $15,674,000/ 15 = $1,044,933 Depreciation at 10 years $15,674,000/ 10 = $1,567,400 Change in depreciation $1,567,400- $1,044,933= $522,467 Total Change in Depreciation $1,153,040 + $522,467 = $1,675,507 Funding Requirement Change Under the Asset Renewal Funding Strategy there is a six year rolling average applied to any year on year changes in depreciation etc to smooth out any sharp changes in funding requirements. As a result, all things being equal, the increase in funding required in the first year would be $1,675,507 / 6 = $279,251.

SHIRE OF CAMPASPE Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation

VICTORIA POLICE OFFICERS

In this instrument "officer" means –

Senior Constable Brenda WALLIS Senior Constable Corey WILD Senior Constable Grant JONES Inspector Martin DORMAN Sergeant Greg WATKINS Senior Sergeant Michael CARROLL Leading Senior Constable Robin KERR Sergeant Richard ZAKRZEWSKI Leading Senior Constable Robert DAVEY Sergeant Kevin JENSEN Leading Senior Constable Wayne SPERLING Sergeant Bruce SMITH Leading Senior Constable Kris SUTTON Sergeant Paul NICOLL Leading Senior Constable Steven THOMSON Senior Constable Steve SHELLEW Senior Constable Ray McNISH Sergeant David O”DEA Leading Senior Constable Stephen DEMPSEY Leading Senior Constable Allan FOSKETT Leading Senior Constable John ATLEY Senior Constable Carira THOMPSON Leading Senior Constable Gary ATKINS Leading Senior Constable Robert NAISMITH Leading Senior Constable Chris GOYNE Leading Senior Constable Paul OGDEN Leading Senior Constable Anthony GALLAGHER Leading Senior Constable Ian QUANCHI Leading Senior Constable Noel GLEESON Leading Senior Constable Rodney CLARK Leading Senior Constable Frank SCOPELLITI Leading Senior Constable Gary PHYLAND Leading Senior Constable Greg McKAY Senior Constable Shane WALKER Senior Constable Bree GEORGE Senior Constable Stuart POULTON Senior Constable Rebecca MATHEWS Senior Constable Bren LODI Sergeant Della NIHILL Sergeant Peter LAW Leading Senior Constable Darren GEORGE Leading Senior Constable Rod PELL Sergeant John TREBILCOCK Leading Senior Constable Anthony KAVANAGH Senior Sergeant Peter WARDELL Leading Senior Constable Colin McEWAN Leading Senior Constable Jasmine GREGOR Leading Senior Constable Greg BRUNS Leading Senior Constable Simon PEARSON Leading Senior Constable Dale SIMPSON Leading Senior Constable Rodney BREWIS Leading Senior Constable Paul KERVIN Senior Constable Neil HODSON Leading Senior Constable Linda SHAW Senior Constable Matthew GOSS Leading Senior Constable Rhonda URBANIAK Leading Senior Constable Bernadette COWLEY Senior Constable Rachael EDGAR Senior Constable Cherrie McCAIG Senior Constable Scott JONES Senior Constable Andrew BEAUMONT Sergeant Dale SIMM

By this instrument of appointment and authorisation Campaspe Shire Council under section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 appoints the officers to be authorised officers for the administration and enforcement of Council’s General Local Law No. 7 2005.

It is declared that this Instrument -

(a) comes into force immediately upon its execution; (b) remains in force until varied or revoked.

This Instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Campaspe Shire Council passed on 28 January 2014.

The Common Seal of the Shire of ) Campaspe was hereunto affixed on ) the Twenty Eighth day of January, 2014 )

______________________________________ Councillor

______________________________________ Councillor

______________________________________ Chief Executive Officer

Attachment 6.4.A.

SHIRE OF CAMPASPE Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation

PARKS VICTORIA OFFICERS

In this instrument "officer" means –

Martin DOWNS Scott ARMSTRONG Leeza WISHART Mark TSCHARKE Christopher MERCIER Andrew MCDOUGAL Bruce WEHNER Ray HARROWER Tim WISHART Peter FOSTER Roger YOUNG Neville WELLS Shane WARNE-CLARKE Wayne MORGAN Mathew SOBEY Brooke RYAN Timothy THOMPSON Todd BUSH Neville CARLAND Phil HAMER Lisa FREEMAN Mark PINNEY Darren MITCHELL John HUTCHINSON Mark JONES Murray THORSON

By this instrument of appointment and authorisation Campaspe Shire Council under section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 appoints the officers to be authorised officers for the administration and enforcement of Council’s General Local Law No. 7 2005.

It is declared that this Instrument -

(a) comes into force immediately upon its execution; (b) remains in force until varied or revoked.

This Instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Campaspe Shire Council passed on 28 January 2014.

The Common Seal of the Shire of ) Campaspe was hereunto affixed on ) the Twenty Eighth day of January, 2014 )

______________________________________ Councillor

______________________________________ Councillor

______________________________________ Chief Executive Officer

Attachment 6.4.B.

COMPLIANCE 11 A service charter to build certainty and community benefits

Building

Environmental Health

Local Laws

Planning

Attachment 6.5.A.

COMPLIANCE 11

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version No. Date Page No. Description of Change

V00 28/.01/14 All Adopted Version

COMPLIANCE 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

A WORKING AGREEMENT .......................................................................................... 4

OUR 11 GUIDING ELEMENTS ..................................................................................... 5

1. GETTING THE FACTS ......................................................................................... 6

2. WORKING TOGETHER ....................................................................................... 6

3. BEING VISIBLE ................................................................................................... 7

4. EXPLAIN AND INFORM ..................................................................................... 7

5. BEING CONSISTENT .......................................................................................... 8

6. ASSESSING RISK .............................................................................................. 9

7. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER .................................................................... 11

8. DECISION MAKING .......................................................................................... 12

9. FOLLOW UP ..................................................................................................... 15

10. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING ............................................................................... 15

11. CLOSURE ......................................................................................................... 15

THE PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 16

IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................... 17

APPENDICES: 1. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

2. BUILDING 3. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4. LOCAL LAWS 5. PLANNING 6. PRIORITY RATING TABLE

COMPLIANCE 11

INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The compliance framework is a service charter that: Guides Council officers working in the delivery, management and response to compliance issues to ensure

consistency across the organisation. Provides clarity and certainty to the community about Council’s approach to compliance.

The charter is centred on a working agreement and 11 elements:

WHAT IS COMPLIANCE AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

The Shire of Campaspe provides a range of services to assist in protecting the community from known risks to life, risks to property, environmental damage and causes of public nuisance.

‘Compliance’ means following the law. It means obtaining the right approvals or permissions. It means conducting authorised activities in accordance with any conditions or regulatory requirements.

- Source EPA Victoria

We do this by meeting our obligations and responsibilities under a broad range of environmental and building legislation in Victoria. A full list of the relevant legislation is available in Appendix 1.

Page 1 ADOPTED 30 January 2014

COMPLIANCE 11

There are four departments responsible for meeting Council’s obligations under the legislation within the scope of this document: Building Environmental Health Local Laws Planning The legislation requires Council to administer the Campaspe Planning Scheme, Local Laws, Codes and Regulations for the overall benefit of our community. Compliance matters come to Council in one of three ways: Officer observation Referral from another agency Community complaint Sometimes a person may not be aware or realise that they need approval before undertaking an activity. To be fair, our approach to compliance considers this possibility. However, everybody has the responsibility to comply with the law and in the end be accountable for their actions. Not knowing is not a valid reason for not complying.

HELPING US TO HELP YOU

Complaints should be forwarded to the Shire of Campaspe in writing (which can be in the form of an email) and identified as a complaint. You should include your full name, contact details, your concern or complaint (how it is affecting you) and any relevant documents or further details. Council will acknowledge your complaint in writing within 10 days and advise the process to be followed. When contacting Council it is helpful if you: Tell us who you are (including address and contact details) and if you represent a client or an organisation. Provide accurate and complete details such as a planning or building permit number, and the name and

address of any relevant property. The names of any other parties involved. Details of other agencies notified or involved.

30 January 2014 ADOPTED Page 2

COMPLIANCE 11

METHODOLOGY

The Compliance 11 approach has been developed with the involvement of our community, Councillors and staff of the Shire of Campaspe. The six stages to create change have been:

1. Understanding the present situation and need for change.

2. Capturing the community perspective and guiding principles (outside).

3. Gaining the staff perspective (inside).

4. Preparing the draft compliance framework (Compliance 11).

5. Community feedback.

6. Adoption of the Compliance 11 charter.

The charter was created through a series of workshops involving the community, Council and staff. The workshops explored: What works well / Does not work well Outside influences and issues Asking the hard questions (raising and understanding difficult matters) What could and should the compliance service be in the future Principles to guide compliance Wants and Offers

Using the information collected from the workshops, a “Working Agreement” was developed to articulate how the service should be conducted and the roles and responsibilities for the people involved.

Compliance 11 stands for the 11 elements that guide the way we deliver compliance services to the community.


COMPLIANCE 11

A WORKING AGREEMENT The working agreement recognises that there is a shared responsibility for all in achieving compliance with the agreed rules which exist to benefit the wider community. The agreement is our commitment to each other, Councillors, Community and the organisation. When the Community and Council work together to achieve compliance, we will: Treat each other with respect.

o Be polite and genuinely respect.

Take the time to listen, hear and explain the situation, options and consequences. o Take everyone’s situation as it comes, take the time to teach and learn.

Seek a shared understanding. o Hear all sides of the story and keep it as simple as you can.

Meet our obligations and take responsibility for our actions. o Know the facts and be accountable.

Be truthful with each other. o Honesty is the best policy so be open and transparent.

Be consistent and fair. o Treat everybody equally.

Stick to agreed time frames. o Take ownership, be flexible and realistic and keep your eye on the main game.

Tell each other when things change. o No surprises and do not presume.

Be as practical as possible and have a positive attitude. o Compliance is the main aim. Use common sense.


COMPLIANCE 11

OUR 11 GUIDING ELEMENTS The 11 elements describe Council’s approach to the way we will deliver our compliance services to the community. The elements are the way that we will respond to the working agreement.

1 Getting the Facts

2 Working Together

3 Being Visible

4 Explain and Inform

5 Being Consistent

6 Assessing Risk

7 Understanding Each Other

8 Decision Making

9 Follow Up

10 Document Everything

11 Closure


COMPLIANCE 11

1. GETTING THE FACTS What We Will Do

Define and acknowledge the complaint: o Capture written complaint on Council’s record management system o Decide which Department(s) is/are responsible? o Keep complainant informed (phone/letter) o Consider communication barriers, e.g. Ethnicity, Disabilities,

Identify and declare conflicts of interest. Establish what legislation/controls may apply. Undertake a preliminary review:

o Ownership/Title searches o Previous history, e.g. Permits or other complaints o Complaint’s history (get the full story) o Consider other authorities that might be relevant and communicate this to the parties. o Is other specific advice required (technical evidence). o Be aware of any sensitive information e.g. VicRoads’ extracts, approved building plans.

Complete a risk assessment (OH&S safety awareness). Determine most appropriate method of communication for the matter. Check the site physically. Consider whether there is a capacity to achieve compliance. Document findings on Council’s record management system to maintain shared knowledge across the

organisation.

2. WORKING TOGETHER What We Will Do

Approach every situation with a positive attitude. Nominate a single point of contact for matters involving more than one compliance service. Confirm the point of contact and any preliminary information with all stakeholders. Coordinate through a single point of contact. Work together to minimise confusion to the parties. Undertake joint site inspections to minimise inconvenience to the public and to have the right staff at the right

time together. Look for practical solutions.

2

1


COMPLIANCE 11

3. BEING VISIBLE

What We Will Do

Be pro-active and let the community know. Contact the owner by phone/or in person first (if possible), before official letters and notices are sent. Visibly identify fleet vehicles with the “Campaspe” logo. Where necessary investigations can require surveillance when visibility will not be appropriate. Always be wear officer identification Leave contact details. Monitor problem sites on an ongoing basis. Schedule times for meetings or site visits that are convenient for all parties.

4. EXPLAIN AND INFORM What We Will Do

Use media positively and regularly to inform the community of their obligations and special programs. Invite the customer to have a support person present at any site visit. This may include an independent

expert: o Explain what is happening and what to expect on the visit.

When visiting the property, officers will:

o Introduce themselves and the reason for the visit. o Have the facts at hand. o Use clear, plain language. o Ask for an explanation. o Listen, provide advice and options for compliance. o Seek commitment to a timeframe. o Outline the process going forward and potential consequences. o Be realistic and upfront. o Leave the property as you found it - “Please shut the gate”.

Provide clear fact sheets/web and information sources to help people comply. Use community forums as a means of talking about compliance with the community.

3

4


COMPLIANCE 11

5. BEING CONSISTENT What We Will Do

Base decisions on a consistent standard process. Align the approach to the level of severity of the compliance matter (Response Matrix – see Element 8). Follow the principles of the compliance framework. Understand and repeat good customer experiences. Learn from our mistakes and improve our processes using a Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) continuous

improvement approach when we review how well our service and processes are working. PDSA Tasks

Plan Define the Problem, Assess Scope and Causes of Problem Do Collect Data and Analyse Causes, Select and Analyse Solutions Study Implement, Test, Measure and Monitor Act Standardise and Report.

5


http://www.google.com.au/imgres?start=168&sa=X&biw=1272&bih=711&tbm=isch&tbnid=8JkivdaZCrEPDM:&imgrefurl=https://www.deming.org/theman/theories/profoundknowledge&docid=3lgtxutnkROI6M&imgurl=https://www.deming.org/media/images/image_knowledgechart2.gif&w=485&h=485&ei=36IVUrnaO8SmkwXnz4CQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=702&vpy=312&dur=2031&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=133&ty=124&page=6&tbnh=150&tbnw=160&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:86,s:100,i:262

COMPLIANCE 11

6. ASSESSING RISK What We Will Do

Use a common risk management model to identify the level of the action in response to the compliance issue.

Understand the impacts of the risks and who these may apply to. Respond to the issues of highest risk first. Assess costs versus outcome. Consider the consequence.

PRIORITY RATING MATRIX

IDEN

TIFI

ED R

ISK

(per

cent

age o

f cha

nce o

ccur

ring)

Certa

in

(>90

%)

Like

ly (5

0-90

%)

Mode

rate

(1

0-15

% )

Unlik

ely

((3-1

0% )

Rare

(<

3%)

E. Very Low D. Low C. Medium B. High A. Very High

PRIORITY RATING

Definitions Risk Management: “the culture, processes and structures that are directed towards realising potential opportunities whilst managing adverse effects” Risk: “the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives.” A risk is often specified in terms of an event or circumstance and the consequences that flow from it. A risk is measured in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event and their likelihood. Risk may have a positive or a negative impact. Consequence: “the outcome or impact of an event.” There can be more than one consequence from one event. Consequences can range from positive to negative, and can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. Consequences are considered in relation to the achievement of objectives. Likelihood: “used as a general description of probability or frequency”. It can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.

(AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009, Risk Management)

6


COMPLIANCE 11

PRIORITY RATING

Category Priority Rating Description of Priority Rating

A Very High

Moderate/high/very high risk to life and/or health. High/very high impact to someone, amenity, environment, vegetation or on historical significance. Matter non-reversible. Urgent action necessary.

B High Moderate cost involved and/or moderate impact to someone or the amenity or environment. Some urgency.

C Medium Some cost and/or works involved with minimal impact to someone or to amenity or environment. Little urgency.

D Low Easily resolved with minimal cost and little impact to anyone. Little urgency.

E Very Low Easy to resolve with minimal cost or effort and no impact to anyone. Not urgent.

Scale Up Scales up – as not all risks are the same and some judgment needs to be applied. As a general rule, the priority rate will scale upwards.

Identified Risk The likelihood of the identified risk occurring is measured by the percentage of chance. This is obtained by answering eight (8) questions about the risk. These are: I. How likely is any risk of harm to human life (death or injury)? II. How likely is any risk of harm to property? III. How likely is any risk of harm to the environment? IV. How likely is any risk of harm to animals (e.g. wildlife) (death or injury)? V. How likely is any economic risk (e.g. cost to others; cost to the Council)? VI. How likely is any social risk (e.g. amenity, heritage, proximity to sensitive uses, community relations)? VII. How likely is any risk to the Council (e.g. potential legal liability, reputational risks)? VIII. How likely is any other identifiable risk, not otherwise specified in I to VII? For each questions the chance of the risk occurring is given a percentage. Guidance is available for each of the compliance areas - Building, Environmental Health, Local Laws and Planning. This will be in the form of appendices to the charter being Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5. Appendix 5 has been developed as an example adapting the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Stronger Planning Enforcement Framework with the permission of the MAV. This model will be expanded for the remaining three compliance service areas.


COMPLIANCE 11

7. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER What We Will Do

Communicate through one point of contact to all departments that are involved. To help understand each other we will:

o use plain English o actively listen o seek to understand o use various forms of communication, e.g. phone, email, letters, etc. o provide timely communication throughout the process to all parties.

Escalate awareness of the issue as required (General Managers, CEO, Councillors) in accordance with the table below. When a priority rating is assigned, it can be used for determining the level of escalation awareness that is required. Where a matter is escalating it should be interpreted that the Team Leader, Manager, General Manager and CEO will continue to be updated.

COMMUNICATION TABLE

Priority Rating Escalation Action

Serious COUNCILLORS Mayor to receive phone call, Councillors email

and receive weekly Bulletin

CEO Receive weekly Bulletin and email

Major

GENERAL MANAGER Phone call and email. Receive weekly Bulletin

MANAGER List in Bulletin and discussed with Manager. Receive weekly Bulletin

Moderate TEAM LEADER Email

TEAM LEADER Email

Minor OFFICERS Record on database

OFFICERS Record on database

Low OFFICERS Record on database

7


COMPLIANCE 11

8. DECISION MAKING What We Will Do

Work within the parameters of the regulations, legislation and codes, etc. Keep an “open mind” and seek practical outcomes when assessing the matter. Seek and suggest proactive responses and outcomes when making decisions. Ensure appropriate delegation is applied (internal and external). Escalate matters based on clear guidelines. Clearly communicate and confirm a shared understanding. Set and outline achievable timeframes as agreed. Monitor the situation, review if any change has occurred and escalate as required. Take appropriate action based on level of severity based on our Compliance Response Matrix. Check for consistency using the Compliance Response Matrix and Priority Rating Table (see Appendix 6). Take accountability for the decision. Compliance Response Council’s response to a situation is guided by the matrix below. The response to compliance matters are sometimes driven by legislation and therefore the severity of the breach may determine the action that has to be taken.

COMPLIANCE RESPONSE MATRIX ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE

LIKE

LIHO

OD O

F NO

N-CO

MPLI

ANCE

Serio

us

`

Awareness

Warnings

Fines or Prosecution

.

Majo

r

Mode

rate

Mino

r

Low

Low Minor Moderate Major Severe

8

PRIORITY RATING

3

2

3

1

2

1


COMPLIANCE 11

LIKELIHOOD OF NON-COMPLIANCE PRIORITY RATING

Serious Repeated unlawful behaviour and more than likely not to make an effort to comply. Refusing to comply or furnish required information or intentionally include false or misleading information.

Severe

Permanent or long-term, serious environmental harm, or actual or potential life-threatening or long-term harm to health, safety and wellbeing. Long–term and wide-scale amenity impact with the potential to impact on health, or high level of public concern.

Major Wilful non-compliance. Little or no demonstrated assurance and/or capacity to meet regulatory requirements. No attempts to identify or control environmental risks.

Major Actual or imminent serious environment harm, or actual high-level harm or potential harm to health, safety or wellbeing. Medium to long-term or wide-scale amenity impact, or high public concern.

Moderate Numerous previous occurrences of non-compliance. May not make adequate effort to comply. Little or no awareness of and/or capacity to meet regulatory requirements and identify or control environmental risks.

Moderate Medium level or term of actual or potential harm to health, safety, wellbeing or the environment. Localised and short-term amenity impact on many, or moderate public concern.

Minor Fair record with previous isolated occurrences of non – compliance. Questionable awareness of and/or capacity to meet regulatory requirements and identify and control environmental risks.

Minor Transient environmental impact or transient amenity impact on few. Low potential for health impact, or low public concern.

Low No previous occurrence of non-compliance. Good demonstrated awareness of and/or capacity to meet regulatory requirements and identify, eliminate or control environmental risks. Co-operative attitude.

Low No or minimal environmental or amenity impact, or no health impacts.

Achieving Compliance Sometimes a person may not be aware or realise that they need approval before undertaking an activity. To be fair, our approach to compliance considers this possibility. Not knowing is not a reason for continuing not to comply and once someone is aware the non-compliance should cease. Everybody has the responsibility to comply with the law and in the end be accountable for their actions. The level of awareness or prior knowledge of the compliance requirements, for Building, Environmental Heath Local Laws and Planning can take different forms and are listed. 1. Awareness

Advice received from direct phone calls and conversations with Council staff who are available to respond to enquiries’ and answer questions. More specific awareness occurs where the following exist. Building Building permits and the conditions placed on Certificates, Final Inspections or

Occupancy Permits. Environmental Heath Premises registration renewals, registration of proposed new premises, premises

routine and mandatory inspection reports, septic tank permit approvals. Local Laws Parking restrictions signs, Local Law permits and conditions, driver’s licence,

registering of animals (dogs and cats) as this is well known and publicised. Planning Planning permit conditions, receiving advice from other professionals within the

development industry.


COMPLIANCE 11

2. Warnings In most cases the community member are expected to have some level of knowledge, or will have been made aware of the non-compliance matter. Warnings may be given prior to Council resorting to issuing a fine or proceeding to prosecution, particularly if there was low or no awareness of the need to comply with Council requirements. Warnings can be made in different ways depending on the nature of the breach. Warnings will always be in writing. Types of warnings are: Building Building Notices or Orders Environmental Heath Order to comply, closure notice, official warning, issuing of improvement and/or

prohibition notice. Local Laws A warning letter or a notice to comply. Planning An official planning warning.

3. Fines or Prosecution Action Issuing fines or taking a matter through to a prosecution in the Magistrates Court or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) are unfortunately necessary in some cases. Sometimes the legalisation compels Council to take this action due to the severity of the risk to public safety. The following are examples of fines: Building Building Infringement Notice (BIN) Environmental Heath Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) Local Laws Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) Planning Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) Each of these notices contain a monetary fine and this is set by the legislation not by Council. All notices and fines are able to be appealed. Achieving compliance by seeking an order through the Magistrates Court or through VCAT can be necessary. Where possible this will be through the option of consent between the parties.


COMPLIANCE 11

9. FOLLOW UP What We Will Do

Follow up with all key stakeholders to ensure all compliance activities have been met in accordance with the agreed time frame.

Monitor and review the site to ensure compliant behaviour continues. Implement processes to support officers with follow up activity, ie. reminder system. Consider whether there are any obstacles to maintaining compliance. Consider unforeseen consequences. Use media to inform the community of outcomes as required. Capture key learning as part of the continuous improvement approach under Element 5 - Being Consistent. Confirm any ongoing obligations and follow up with a visit after six months.

10. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING

What We Will Do

All departments to document everything, record in file and on Council’s record management system. Provide the right information at the right time. Record events in an unbiased way. Recognise the level of confidentiality as required. Standardise documentation across compliance. Apply the requirements of the Information Privacy Act 2000. Share and integrated and whole picture of events for all departments.

11. CLOSURE What We Will Do

Ensure the responsible officer completes all compliance matters. Inform all relevant parties of the outcome. Place final documentation on Council’s record management system. Thank stakeholders for their cooperation

9

10

11


COMPLIANCE 11

THE PROCESS This charter provides the actions for how complaints and other compliance matters will be managed in a sequence of steps. Some of the elements influence all parts of the process. Elements that are also process steps have been identified within the flowchart. The Process Flow Chart

Are there others

involved? Yes

No

Is there a High Risk? Yes

No

PRE-REVIEW (1. Get the Facts)

COORDINATE MULTI-DEPARTMENT

(2. Work Together)

VISIT THE SITE (4. Explain and Inform)

DECISION (6. Assess Risk)

KEEP ALL INFORMED (7.Understand Each Other)

ESCALATE AWARENESS (Communications Table)

DECISION (8. Decision making)

MONITOR (9. Follow Up)

SERVICE COMPLETED (11. Closure)

SERVICE NEEDED

Elements 3, 5 & 10 apply across the process

3. Be visible

5. Be consistent

10. Document everything

Notes:

1. Some compliance matters are of an urgent nature and therefore require urgent action and response outside the full documented process above.

2. Council officers must observe and comply with the processes defined within relevant legislation.


COMPLIANCE 11

Knowledge

Attitude Skill

Behaviour

IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the Charter is based on behavioural change principles. These principles require developing the knowledge and skills of all stakeholders and staff to ensure a positive attitude is brought to our compliance services by all who are involved in compliance. To change behaviour, work is needed in three areas:

Knowledge: What you need to learn to do the job or to comply, e.g. Acts, rules policies. Education is needed. Attitude: How you approach the situation, the attitude you choose to bring, e.g. even tempered and helpful.

Self-awareness and an awareness of others is needed. Skill: What you need to be able to do, e.g. able to read and understand conditions of approval, drive a car,

communicate and manage difficult situations. Training is needed to develop and improve skills.

The KAS Triangle

The Shire of Campaspe will identify training and education opportunities annually. Staff training needs will be incorporated into Council’s overall training programs. Businesses and individuals also have obligations to ensure the right knowledge, skills and attitudes are present to meet compliance obligations.

Measuring for Success

The Shire of Campaspe will measure its improvement in the delivery of compliance services. .It is acknowledged that the new direction will take time to implement. Incorporating measuring for improvement is part of the fifth element “Being Consistent”. A review of the progress made will also occur in 18 months.


COMPLIANCE 11

Thank you for the opportunity to make comment on Compliance 11. As the Shire of Campaspe is aware our

family’s health, wellbeing and amenity has been seriously detrimentally affected due to non-compliance, and I

provide the following comments based on my experience of that non-compliance.

Page 2: ‘Compliance matters come to Council in one of three ways – Referral from another agency’. In our

situation another agency, EPA, notified the Council of non-compliance and health/amenity impacts, yet Council

didn’t take it seriously in our opinion. Council basically stated that EPA wasn’t a referral authority so their advice

didn’t have to be followed. It’s fine to state other agencies refer Council re non-compliance but Council needs to

consider the advice of such agencies.

Page 4 ‘A Working Agreement’ Treat each other with respect.

As we have stated previously there have been times I feel we have been treated very badly, even threatened by a

Council officer on the phone whilst I was in the midst of a huge non-compliance that threatened our family’s

health. When I provided a written complaint this was whitewashed in my opinion. Again it’s fine for Council to

have this written in Compliance 11 but Council Officers need to follow this, as do ratepayers.

I understand that Council officers receive many complaints and no doubt at time also some abuse. However in our

situation I always felt there was a constant sense that we weren’t believed, I’m not sure if that’s because it was

easier to not take my information seriously.

Page 4 ‘Use common sense’.

Council officers seem to have this underlying thought that ratepayers aren’t telling the truth. Using common sense

I feel would’ve helped enormously in our situation with non-compliance. For example would I phone and write to

Council constantly about non-compliance with specific details if it wasn’t happening. Would other independent

witnesses sign statutory declarations re non-compliance if it wasn’t happening. Yet still Council officers seemed to

constantly doubt our claims.

I also feel common sense wasn’t used when the EPA referred our matter to Council’s Health Department yet this

matter was just forwarded to the planning department without Health investigating it further. The Health

Department’s common sense should’ve said ‘If the EPA are involved enough to refer to us then I should take it

seriously’.

I understand appropriately trained Council officers are required for certain situations, but having a Kyabram based

Council officer available would’ve been common sense in our situation with non-compliance. This would’ve

resulted in Council being able to gather confirmation/evidence of non-compliance in a more timely manner.

Again I understand Council’s need for evidence but common sense would say that if government literature, the

EPA, fire brigade, 2 GPs, a respiratory specialist, independent witnesses, paint supplier, monitoring expert all say

our family been exposed to the non-compliance is causing/or likely to cause the detrimental health affects we’re

describing, then the non-compliance should be made to cease immediately. The Council should have used the

Precautionary Principle.

Common sense would’ve also meant that information given to the Planning Department should’ve been provided

to the Health Department and vice versa. On many occasions this didn’t occur, even such important information

such as Council Officers being present on our land and smelling the fumes was not passed on to the other

departments. I understand each department’s evidence requirements are different but the silos need to be broken

down.

Attachment 6.5.B.

Common sense should prevail with submissions and information provided to Council officers. For example

Council’s own Investigations Officer after first investigating the situation next door stated in his report something

along the lines of ‘it was a motor repair workshop’. Council’s Investigations Officer file note also stated ‘During

our inspection of the Casey property, there were three vehicles on stands in the shed, a Panel van, Holden Monaro

and a Ford ute which was a shell and had recently been sprayed.’ Yet after speaking to and paying a planning

consultant the planning permit application was for ag repairs, not panel beating. Common sense again says if it

sounds like a panel beater, smells like a panel beater, has always been a panel beater then it’s probably still a panel

beater even if it’s claiming to be an ag equipment repairer.

Page 6 ‘Decide which Department is Responsible.

This is very important because as mentioned before the departments work so separately. I have to say though in

our situation there wasn’t just one department responsible, it was in the area of both departments. Therefore should

it say ‘Decide which Department(s) are responsible’?

Page 6 ‘Complete a risk assessment (OH&S safety awareness).

I would hope that if this had been done in our situation it would’ve made a big difference but only if agencies etc

were listened to. I see this as a good thing.

Page 7 ‘Where necessary investigations can require surveillance when visibility will not be appropriate’.

Again in our situation Council found it difficult to gather evidence of non-compliance due to their officers’

location in relation to our property. Surveillance of both audio, visual and air monitoring would’ve provided

evidence of non-compliance for Council very quickly. I realise the cost is an issue but officers time having to drive

to our property several times would also be costly.

Quite often Council officers would dispute the wind direction on our site, even when independent people were

present and confirmed our claims. I understand the use of BOM etc but that wasn’t our property, common sense

should’ve told Council officers that wind direction was slightly different on our property to that of the BOM site at

times; and surveillance should’ve been arranged. We even paid for a digital weather station and asked Council to

have it calibrated to their satisfaction, this was rejected by Council.

Page 7 ‘Invite the customer to have a support person present at any site visit. This may include an independent

expert.’

This could be a good thing, however in our experience having independent people on our property experiencing the

non-compliance for themselves didn’t seem to help, Council seemed to not take their information seriously.

Page 9 ‘Understand the impacts of the risks and who these may apply to’.

Great idea on paper but this will only work if Council officers are prepared to listen to agencies etc who provide

the information about risks. The EPA was not listened to in our opinion when they told Council of the risks,

classic example is the automotive spraybooth needs to be located 100m away. EPA even told Council there would

be a ongoing concern caused and the permit should be cancelled, still Council didn’t seem to listen.

Page 10 ‘Identified Risk’ and likelihood of the identified risk occurring…’

I think if followed this could be a good thing. For example in our situation I feel ‘B High’ would have been an

appropriate rating overall. This means it says ‘some urgency’. Whereas in our situation Council was aware of the

situation in May 2011 and our family was continually subjected to non-compliance and the detrimental health

impacts that followed until June 2013, that’s over two years!

Page 11 ‘Communicate through one point of contact to all departments that are involved’.

Great idea, as mentioned previously I feel the silo type of behaviour in Council was detrimental in our situation.

‘Page 13’ Achieving Compliance. ‘…someone is aware the non-compliance should cease’.

Again this sounds great if followed. Non-compliance was confirmed several times and yet the operator was

allowed to continue.

Another thing to help Council achieve compliance is to include permit conditions that are enforceable and able to

be managed. For example in our situation it became apparent very quickly in our situation that Council had no

way of being able to enforce the EMP. These type of conditions that Council can’t ascertain compliance should

not be able to be included on permits.

Morwenna Croft, 141 Everard Road, Kyabram. Ph: 0408575550

Attachment 6.7.

Documents

Rural Roads Review - campaspe.vic.gov.au · Data Analysis ... The methodology adopted in this Phase of the Rural Roads Review consisted of the following steps: ... Historical Grading