150 likes | 422 Views
APV / ACEAM & Assetic pre conference workshop @ LGAAQ – November 2010. Anthony Keleher, Manager Financial Accounting Bundaberg Regional Council. Bundaberg Region. Where we Started. Various Asset Registers Inconsistent Asset Classes and Components
E N D
APV / ACEAM & Assetic pre conference workshop @ LGAAQ – November 2010 Anthony Keleher, Manager Financial Accounting Bundaberg Regional Council
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