Part 1: Long Term Asset Service Levels - 08/28/2025

The August 28, 2025 Council and Staff Working Session brought the County councillors and senior staff together at Shire Hall to focus on one core question how the County plans for the long term care of its physical assets and what level of service residents can reasonably expect in the years ahead. The session was chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, who opened the meeting by outlining the informal working format and the purpose of the discussion for both Council and the viewing public.

This was not a decision meeting. Instead the session was designed to walk Council through the final stage of the Asset Management Plan process before it moves forward to formal committee and Council approval later in the fall. Staff and consultants used the time to explain how different service levels affect infrastructure condition risk and long term costs across the municipality

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.

Early in the session staff explained how the County arrived at this point in the asset management process. Adam Goheen, Interim Chief Administrative Officer, and Arryn McNichol, Director of Finance and Information Technology, framed the day as the final working discussion after several earlier sessions that examined individual asset classes such as roads bridges facilities and fleets.

Aaron from staff walked Council through the legislative background noting that asset management planning is required under provincial regulation. The County has already completed separate plans for core assets such as roads bridges water and wastewater and non core assets such as facilities parks and equipment.

The current task is to bring those plans together and clearly define levels of service for each asset category. This step matters because levels of service determine how assets are maintained replaced or renewed over time and directly influence future budgets tax rates and service reliability.

Consultant Peter Simcisko from Watson and Associates led much of the technical discussion. He explained that the focus of the day was on levels of service delivered through capital assets rather than programs or staffing. In practical terms this meant looking at measurable performance indicators such as asset condition reliability accessibility and risk rather than broader service goals.

Simcisko emphasized that previous asset management plans mainly documented what the County owns and the current condition of those assets. This phase goes further by asking whether the current service levels are appropriate for the future and what it would cost to sustain or improve them. That question is central to long term financial planning and infrastructure resilience.

A large portion of the morning focused on roads, bridges, and culverts. Staff and consultants reviewed how condition ratings such as the Pavement Condition Index and Bridge Condition Index are used to describe the current state of infrastructure and how different target levels of service would change future outcomes.

For roads two scenarios were discussed an optimal service level that would maintain a high average condition and a reduced service option that would stretch life cycles and lower annual costs while accepting a lower overall condition. For bridges and culverts the discussion made clear that reduced service options were not proposed due to higher safety and risk concerns. The intent is to maintain these assets in good condition to avoid restrictions or failures that could disrupt travel and emergency access.

Council also heard detailed explanations about facilities, corporate fleet, fire fleet, and equipment. Presenters explained how replacement schedules are currently based largely on asset age and how future iterations of the plan may incorporate more detailed condition assessments to better reflect real world use.

Questions from councillors touched on issues such as facility divestment accessibility and insurance implications related to aging fire apparatus. Staff clarified that assets remain in the plan until they are formally divested and that accessibility considerations and future studies will continue to be folded into the asset management framework over time.

Later in the morning Emily Cowan, Director of Community Programs Services and Initiatives, and Mark Kerr, Communications and Consultation Supervisor, summarized feedback collected through a public survey. The engagement asked residents about satisfaction with municipal services priorities for investment and willingness to pay to maintain or improve infrastructure. Staff noted that participation and engagement levels were strong compared to similar municipal surveys.

The session concluded with discussion about next steps including further refinement of service levels financial modeling and integration with other long range plans such as development charges and climate action initiatives. Annual reviews and five year updates were identified as key accountability points once the Asset Management Plan is formally adopted.

Key Takeaways

1. The County is moving from simply documenting its assets to actively deciding what level of service residents should expect and what it will cost to deliver it.

   
   

2. Not all assets carry the same risk. Roads may have flexible service options but bridges fire equipment and critical infrastructure are treated more conservatively due to safety and reliability concerns.

   
   

3. Public input and annual review will continue to shape how the Asset Management Plan evolves making it a living document rather than a one time report.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 5:21:22. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.