Asset management discussions conclude with decisions on proposed levels of service

NOTE: County Council is now expected to consider the final draft of the Asset Management Plan at the Committee of the Whole meeting on Thursday, Oct. 9. The item, originally slated for the Sept. 25 Committee of the Whole meeting, has moved to give the project consultant and staff additional time to complete work on the detailed financial strategy.

By Sharon Harrison
It was a full and long day of discussions, deliberations and decisions for council, Thursday, in what was the fourth and final meeting to create proposed levels of service the municipality delivers to residents.

Beginning at 9 a.m., the day started with a council and staff working session and followed the same informal format from the last three working sessions April 24, May 15 and June 12 which covered all the municipality’s different assets, and asset classes. (See background story links at end of this article.)

Most of the day consisted of going over those past discussions, where the asset management plan’s (AMP) proposed levels of service (LoS) options were outlined in detail in a substantive presentation given by Peter Simcisko, of Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. He focused on the overall financial impact each service level option would have on the municipality, and its residents.

Immediately following the working session, council moved into a special committee of the whole meeting to decide, and vote, on the preferred level of service for each asset class, taking into account, among other things, budget implications for the municipality, as well as taxpayers.

There were no comments from members of the public during the special committee of the whole session. Public engagement was undertaken during the summer, and a summary of the details can be found at the end of this article.

The main asset classes (seven of them) being considered were: bridges, roads, corporate fleet, fire fleet, facilities, equipment, and parks and recreation (essentially everything the municipality owns). It should be noted that water, wastewater and stormwater will not form part of this AMP, as it is being dealt with in a separate study as part of a future phase.

Voting on each asset class individually, council (nine members of 14 were present) voted as outlined below. (Note: a broader explanation and description of each class is outlined at the end of this article).

Voting overall on the main motion, six of the nine council members voted in favour of the asset management class choices (with councillors Corey Engelsdorfer, Phil Prinzen and Brad Nieman opposed). Absent for this vote were councillors Sam Grosso, Bill Roberts, Sam Branderhorst, Roy Pennell and David Harrison.

BRIDGES:

“Staff did not offer different options for this, so we want to keep our bridges in a good state of repair, so the recommendation is to maintain all bridges in good repair, so a BCI (bridge condition index) of 70,” said Adam Goheen, interim COA.

Cost: $1.23 million annual investment for 10 years.

There were no comments from council and no vote.

ROADS:

Of the two options being considered, council voted (five votes in favour) to choose option 1. It maintains the higher level of service of the two options at an estimated annual cost of $25.8 million.

CORPORATE FLEET:

Of the two options being considered, council voted (seven votes in favour) to choose option 2 (an earlier vote for option 1 failed with four votes). It maintains the lower level of service of the two options at an estimated annual cost of $1.13 million annually, essentially extending fleet lifecycles by 25 per cent.

FIRE FLEET:

Following consultations with the fire chief and departmental staff, the recommended course of action is to maintain the current level of fire protection services at an annual investment of $1.06 million for the next 10 years.

There were no comments from council and no vote.

FACILITIES:

With much discussion ensuing on the municipality’s facilities and buildings, especially as far as off-loading some of them, there was clear frustration from several council members at the slow process of selling off some of the County’s assets.

“For me, it’s like what are we going to sell before we commit to this,” said councillor Chris Braney. With councillor Brad Nieman asking where the municipality was at with the properties it is going to sell. “We haven’t sold any,” he said.

Of the two options being considered, council voted (five votes in favour) to choose option 2. It is the lower cost option of the two options at an estimated $4.8 million, and will reduce the number of municipal buildings by 25 per cent.

“Am I the only one in the room that thinks $5.2 million is a huge number, I am shocked,” said Goheen. “That’s got to be like 10 times the amount we are spending on average annually on facilities. I just want to highlight that there are significant implications with this particular item. I think we’ve known this is coming, but five million… that’s huge.”

“Even the $4.7 million reduced number is not a happy number to look at,” added councillor Sam Branderhorst. “This is a big number,” concurred mayor Steve Ferguson, “this is a huge number for a municipality of this size.”

EQUIPMENT:

The recommendation from staff was to maintain all equipment in fair condition or better, at an estimated annual cost of $1.1 million.

There were no comments from council and no vote.

PARKS AND RECREATION :

Of the two options being considered, council voted (six votes in favour) to choose option 1. It maintains the higher level of service of the two options at an estimated annual cost of $374,000 annually over a 10-year period, providing all park assets with a condition rating of fair, or better.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Speaking to this final working session, Arryn McNichol, director of finance and IT, said it is intended to refine the County’s approach to defining service levels, assessing risk, and developing long-term financial strategies. He said, the session also offers an opportunity to ensure that asset management practices are aligned with broader municipal objectives and reflect the expectations of the community.

”The purpose of this meeting is to basically review and discuss the different service levels, and the decisions that are made today will form the large part of the AMP that’s coming forward in September,” said McNichol. “Ultimately, and specifically, it will form the financial strategy, so how we are going to pay for the service.”

He said the discussion will be how much the service levels will cost, and how the municipality is going to pay for it, whether from reserves, development charges, user fees, taxation, etc.

Goheen stated the exercise isn’t in the context of preparing the 2026 budget.

“This is long-term, this is budgets five and 10 and longer years away, this is about building a foundation for long-term fiscal sustainability and the best possible lifecycle management for all of our pubic assets,” said Goheen. “It’s about finding a balance between the affordable level of on-going investment and a reasonable state of good repair for our assets.”

Speaking to the overall financial impact, Simcisko noted the annual funding lifecycle baseline or higher level of service figure was $36.4 million across all asset classes and services. He noted that the largest portion was for roads (representing 69 per cent), and the second largest for facilities (at 15 per cent) of the annual funding target.

With $11.51 million of 2025 capital budget funding (money coming in to fund capital needs), the shortfall created, the annual lifecycle funding gap, is $24.9 million.

Using the tax levy to gradually close the funding gap within 10 years (to be eliminated by 2035), he said the total tax levy would need to increase by approximately 7.4 per cent annually.

While Simcisko said 7.4 per cent was certainly a large impact, he noted this level of impact is within the range of what they have seen everywhere else in other municipalities.

“With estimated assessment growth of 1.74 per cent annually, tax bills would increase by approximately 5.5 per cent each year.”

The service level options decided upon by council today will be incorporated in the AMP which will come before council again for final approval on Sept. 25. The AMP will also reflect the financial impacts in the 2026 budget process.

The asset management plan proposed levels of service and other related documentation, including the Watson and Associates 95-page presentation, can be found on the County’s website.

Discussions begin on managing County assets – starting with roads

County assets discussion continues with bridges, facilities and equipment

Fire equipment concerns among vehicle, and recreation asset discussions

Details of the seven asset classes (bridges, roads, corporate fleet, fire fleet, facilities, equipment, and parks and recreation) discussed Thursday, with options stated, are outlined below in a little more detail:

BRIDGES

25 vehicular bridges, 24 structural culverts, and 14 trail bridges form a critical part of the municipality’s transportation and recreation networks.

Recommended LoS: Maintain all bridges in a state of good repair (defined as achieving a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) of 70 or higher across the network.

Estimated average annual investment: $1.23 million over the next 10 years.

ROADS

An extensive road network totaling 1,047 kilometres, composed primarily of rural roadways, including both asphalt and surface-treated roads. However, the AMP will focus on paved roads only which amounts to 862 kilometres, with an overall estimated value of $815 million.

Current pavement condition index (PCI) across the network rating: Fair (with an overall average PCI of approximately 65). However, nearly a quarter of roads fall into the poor or very poor category (PCI below 40).

Option 1 – High service level (PCI 83)

This option proposes raising the average PCI of all paved roads to 83, ensuring no road falls below a PCI of 40. It prioritizes consistent, high quality infrastructure across the network, significantly reducing liability risks and the need for emergency repairs.

Estimated cost: $25.8 million annually.

Option 2 – Moderate service level (PCI 68)

This option targets an average PCI of 68, with a controlled per centage (18 per cent) of roads below the 40 PCI threshold.

Estimated cost: It balances risk, user experience, and financial capacity by reducing up-front capital pressure to an estimated $21.3 million annually, while accepting more routine maintenance and lower road condition expectations.

CORORATE FLEET

Includes 116 vehicles that support a wide range of municipal operations, including public works, water/wastewater, development services, recreation, and administrative functions. These assets range from light-duty trucks and SUVs to heavy-duty dump trucks, graders, and specialized equipment.

Current replacement value: $20.3 million.

“On average, corporate fleet assets are in “good” condition, with a useful life consumption (ULC) rating of around 47-57 per cent across most service areas. However, approximately 19 per cent of the fleet, by replacement value, is operating beyond its useful life and is categorized as being in “poor” or “very poor” condition.”

Option 1 – Maintain fleet within useful life/good condition

This approach targets proactive replacements to keep all fleet assets within their defined useful lives or in “good” condition. It ensures high reliability, reduces unexpected maintenance costs, supports staff safety, and enables uninterrupted service delivery.

Estimated investment: $1.41 million annually over the next 10 years.

Option 2 – Extend fleet lifecycles by 25 per cent.

This cost-saving strategy delays vehicle replacements, allowing assets to operate longer while maintaining a minimum operational standard.

While this option reduces capital expenditure by an estimated $1.125 million annually. However, it also increases the risk of mechanical failures, higher maintenance costs, and potential service disruptions, particularly if proactive oversight and condition monitoring are not improved.

FIRE FLEET

Includes 40 assets, with an average age between 10 and 20 years.

Estimated replacement cost: approximately $20.1 million.

Following consultations with the fire chief and departmental staff, the recommended course of action is to maintain the current level of fire protection services.

“It is important to note that fully sustaining the level of service outlined in bylaw 3256-2013 today would require the immediate purchase of five apparatus and an annual investment of $1.06 million into capital reserves for the next 10 years.

This represents a significant financial commitment without the benefit of a long-term plan to guide asset replacement and operational priorities. By deferring such expenditures until the master fire plan is complete, the municipality is positioned to make targeted, cost-effective investments that maximize the lifespan of municipal assets, mitigate the risks of deferred maintenance, and protect the community’s long-term safety.”

FACILITIES (BUILIDNGS)

94 buildings across the municipality, serving a range of public and operational functions from smaller storage sheds to larger buildings (62 community use facilities, 21 operations buildings, 10 fire stations (one leased), two administration buildings, and one long-term care facility.

Building ages vary widely, from newer fire stations to administration buildings that date back as far as 150 years.

Estimated total replacement cost: $205 million (2024).

Option 1: Prioritize all public facing buildings

For the first option, staff instructed Watson and Associates to provide financial projections for a scenario in which the municipality prioritizes all public-facing buildings.

Estimated cost to the municipality to prioritize these buildings would be $5.23 million.

Option 2: Reduce the number of public facing buildings that are priority by 25 per cent.

For the second option, staff instructed Watson and Associates to provide financial projections for a scenario in which the County reduces the number of public facing buildings that are priority by 25 per cent.

Estimated cost to the municipality would be $4.77 million.

EQUIPMENT

Maintains a variety of equipment assets across service areas, including, fire services, information technology, library services and geographic information systems (GIS).

The IT department oversees essential infrastructure for municipal operations, including servers, data centers, and backup power systems that ensure continuity during outages. Effective inventory and lifecycle management of these assets is key to maintaining reliable digital services and preventing disruptions.

Libraries support lifelong learning, digital literacy, and community connection. Their assets include tablets, laptops, printers, cameras, and other modern tools that foster creativity and help bridge the digital divide by providing access to technology for those who may not have it at home

GIS is a key tool used across County departments to integrate and analyze data through a geographic lens. It supports internal operations and provides public-facing services.

The municipality maintains a wide range of specialized equipment assets that are critical to delivering emergency services across multiple fire stations. These include frontline firefighting and rescue tools such as extrication equipment, self-contained breathing apparatus, and protective turnout gear; essential IT infrastructure such as the fire radio network, servers, network gear, and computers; and electronic resources such as tablets, projectors, and laptops used to support training, operations, and community engagement

Recommended LoS: maintain all equipment in fair condition or better.

However, many of these assets are governed by strict industry standards that set clear lifecycle replacement timelines to ensure performance, safety, and compliance. For example, IT infrastructure such as servers, UPS systems, and network gear typically requires replacement on a three- to five-year cycle to prevent system failures and security risks.

Estimated annual investment: $1.1 million

PARKS AND RECREATION

23 municipal parks, 130 individual assets, including baseball diamonds, benches, bleachers, shelters, and washroom facilities, at an estimated replacement value of $17.8 million.

Option 1: 100 per cent of park assets with condition ratings of fair or better

Cost: approximately $374,000 annually over a 10-year period.

Option 2: Extend parks asset lifecycles by 25 per cent

Cost: Could reduce annual funding requirements to an estimated $299,000 over a 10-year period.

This allows for reduced annual funding requirements while preserving most services. By delaying asset replacements, the municipality can defer capital costs and allocate limited budgets more strategically.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Below is a summary of the results of the public engagement process undertaken. Full details and all survey questions and results can be found on the County’s website.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The public engagement period spanned the month of July through the County’s Have Your Say webpage with an on-line survey which saw 164 respondents (97.6 per cent identified as full-time residents) complete the survey. A further eight people left a comment, and it was noted the majority of respondents were aged 65-74.

Most respondents (93.9 per cent) identified as being a property owner, and while the majority of respondents preferred not to answer what their total household income was (28.7 per cent), the second highest answer was a total household income of $150,000 (20.7 per cent).

46.3 per cent of respondents said their household income was in the $90,000 to $150,000-plus bracket; 62.2 per cent were in the $50,000-$150,000 bracket, 0.6 per cent earned less than $20,000, with 8.5 per cent earning $20,000-$49,000.

“Consultation activities identified that participants expressed a strong preference for increasing taxes slightly to maintain the current levels of service. The majority of respondents indicated that road maintenance and replacement was the only area where they would be willing to pay a bit more money to improve services.”

Respondents were asked to rank services that should be prioritized for funding (one being most important and 14 being least important). In order of importance, respondents chose (1) road maintenance and replacement, (2) fire services, and (3) snow clearing (roads, sidewalks).

“With the exception of being willing to pay a bit more for improved road maintenance, the vast majority of respondents indicated that they are happy having to pay slightly more to maintain the current level of each service.”

Questions asked in the survey covered how satisfied residents were with transportation services as well as other services. When asked what option is preferable to pay for the services, 36.6 per cent indicated a slight increase to taxes to maintain current service levels, 28.7 per cent indicated an increase in taxes to increase levels of service, with 20.1 per cent saying they would prefer taxes to remain the same, thereby accepting a somewhat decreased level of service.

6.7 per cent of respondents wanted a decrease in taxes along with a significant decrease in services. When asked how much more they were willing to pay in their taxes, 35.4 per cent said chose the $240 per year increase option, 30.5 per cent said $120 per year increase, 18.9 per cent chose the zero increase option, with 7.9 per cent indicating they preferred a tax decrease.

When asked to rank services that should be prioritized, where funding may be limited, of the 14 choices, road maintenance and replacement ranked as the top priority, with fire services second and snow plowing third. The bottom three results were cultural facilities, public transit and lastly, parking equipment, lots and structures.