FeedbackfromBundaberg

Report
APV / ACEAM & Assetic pre conference
workshop @ LGAAQ – November 2010
Anthony Keleher, Manager Financial Accounting
Bundaberg Regional Council
Bundaberg Region
Bundaberg Regional Council
Assets - $1.6 B
Population - 100,000 approx
Area - 6,451 Km2
Bundaberg City
Burnett Shire
Kolan Shire
Isis Shire
Where we Started
• Various Asset Registers
• Inconsistent Asset Classes and Components
– Caravan Parks >> Land, Buildings, Roads, Plant &
Equipment
– Sewerage Infrastructure >> Buildings
– Water Infrastructure >> Buildings
– Buildings >> All other buildings not recorded in other
classes
Where we Started
•
•
•
•
•
Missing attributes
Inconsistent Segmentation
Limited Policies, Procedures, Work Instructions
Duplicated Assets
Various capitalisation thresholds
Progress to Date
• Formed a centralise Asset Management Team
–
–
–
–
2 * Asset Managers (Engineering & Accounting)
2 * Maintenance Planners
2 * Asset Accountants
2 * Asset Officers (technical staff)
• Corporate Asset Management System >> Accounting and
Engineering information
• Defined Asset Classes & Components
• Restructured all assets by these Classes & Components
– Making assumptions for missing data
Progress to Date
• Condition Assessment of Buildings and active Infrastructure
Assets
• Full Revaluation @ 15 March 2008
• Unqualified Audits 2009 & 2010
• Desktop revaluation @ 1 July 2009 (rebuild asset tables)
• Re-segmentation of Roads, Water and Sewerage Assets in
2010 (ongoing)
• Roads condition assessment in 2010
• Draft Asset Management Plans for all asset classes
How did we do it?
• BST from a dedicated team
• Support of Council and Management
• Engaged External Experts >>Assetic,
APV and ACEAM
• Working closely with External Auditors
Assetic
• MyData – Asset Register
– Used for 2 years
– Numerous issues in 1st year (30 June 2009)
•
•
•
•
Some issues related to the 15.5 month reporting period
Difficult to extract supporting information
Council’s limited experience
Financial Reconciliation Report ?
– Excellent Support
– Quick response to software issues
– Implemented enhancements
Assetic
• Assetic works closely with our technical staff and accountants
• Outstanding Issues / Enhancements
–
–
–
–
–
–
No Part Disposals or Notional Disposals (Audit MLP in 2010)
Not Transaction based
Difficult to do cross table reports / queries
Inconsistent field codes
Lack of macro / control process for changing data
Reports on treatments from prior year
Assetic
• Work Handling not used yet
• Fleet Maintenance Planning
–
–
–
–
–
WIP
Council working with Assetic to build this system
Major release expected next week
Service scheduling with parts order
Plant Hire Rates Calculator
• My Predictor >> Renewal Program for 2012
• Linking to GIS – not yet >>ARC
ACEAM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Valuation of passive assets
Assisted in consolidating the asset data
Combined data from former Councils
Created a new BRC database
Single Asset Management system within 12 months
Enabled Council staff to consolidate financial
systems.
ACEAM
• Training and implementing MyPredictor
• Disadvantages using external expert
– Lack of Local Knowledge
– Assumptions – storm water pipe size
– Missing road segments & Airport runway
APV
•
•
•
•
•
Valuation of all Assets except for passive infrastructure assets
Condition Rating of some assets
Desktop revaluation for 3 years
Advanced SLAM vs. Straight Line
Auditors may require more information before they are
“Comfortable” with Advances Slam
– Lack of policies and procedures
– Position Papers
Conclusion
• We have made it through amalgamation / restructure
• No qualifications in 2009 or 2010
• At this stage the engineers and accountants are operating
from one Asset Management system, although we still use a
separate maintenance scheduling system
• Assetic are extremely good to work with, value for money
• Access to expert advice from Ashay, David and Alf with
prompt responses

similar documents