Part 1: PEC Council Begins Asset Management Working Sessions with Focus on Road Infrastructure - 04/24/2025

Purpose and Format of the Working Session

The meeting opened with an explanation that this session marked the first use of a new council staff working session model. The intent was to create an informal but structured environment where council and senior staff could engage in detailed discussion on a complex topic without making formal decisions. No motions were permitted, no public deputations were allowed, and the meeting was designed to prioritize information sharing, clarification, and open dialogue. The session was live streamed for transparency, but participation was limited to council and staff.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Focus on Asset Management and Roads

The central focus of the session was the County’s asset management planning process, with specific attention given to roads. Staff explained that this session was the first of three working sessions intended to inform the development of a consolidated Asset Management Plan and a long term financial strategy. Roads were selected as the first topic due to their scale, cost, and visibility to residents.

The discussion emphasized that asset management is not simply an inventory exercise, but a strategic framework that connects infrastructure condition, service levels, risk, and financial planning. Roads were described as part of a broader system that includes bridges, facilities, fleet, parks, water, and wastewater infrastructure. The working session made clear that decisions about roads cannot be isolated from decisions about other asset classes.

Levels of Service and Pavement Condition Index

A significant portion of the meeting centered on explaining levels of service, particularly the Pavement Condition Index. This index is used to quantify road condition on a scale that helps determine when maintenance, resurfacing, or reconstruction is required.

Two illustrative service level targets were presented for discussion: a higher standard that would significantly improve overall road quality, and a lower standard that would largely maintain current conditions.

Staff explained that maintaining even the current average condition would require a substantial increase in annual investment. Improving road conditions further would require additional funding. The purpose of presenting these options was not to select one, but to demonstrate the financial implications tied to different service expectations.

Financial Implications and Tax Impact

The session highlighted that closing the infrastructure funding gap would require sustained annual tax levy increases over a ten year period. These increases would be compounded annually and would need to be considered alongside operating costs, inflation, and debt servicing. Staff emphasized that the figures presented were preliminary and would be refined over subsequent working sessions, but they provided an important framework for understanding the magnitude of the challenge.

The discussion acknowledged that roads are only one part of the overall financial picture. Future working sessions would address bridges, buildings, fleet, parks, and fire services. All asset classes would eventually be combined into a single financial model to show cumulative impacts to taxpayers.

Data Quality, Modelling, and Professional Judgment

Council raised extensive questions about data accuracy, modelling assumptions, and the limitations of five year road condition surveys. Staff explained that while tools such as GIS and predictive software provide valuable optimization and decision support, they do not replace professional judgment. Outputs from modelling software are reviewed and adjusted through field inspections, operational experience, and annual “truthing” exercises to ensure recommendations reflect real world conditions.

The conversation also explored the potential use of newer technologies, including traffic counters, fleet GPS systems, and GIS based public dashboards, to improve transparency and data collection over time. Staff acknowledged these opportunities while also noting staffing and resource constraints.

Public Consultation and Communication Strategy

There was broad agreement that public education would be critical, particularly in explaining why early intervention, preventative maintenance, and prioritization can reduce long term costs even if benefits are not immediately visible.

Key Takeaways for Locals

1. Accessibility may soon be considered in every County report. A proposal to include an “accessibility implications” section in staff reports could ensure accessibility is evaluated alongside financial and environmental impacts.

2. Local data will shape future accessibility decisions. Input from the committee will help inform the upcoming Vital Signs Report, which guides funding priorities and community planning.

3. Accessibility training for businesses will likely continue. The Access the County program is shifting to shorter, more flexible training sessions, helping businesses and non-profits improve accessibility without major time commitments.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:26:059. 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.