Part 1: Asset Management Explained - 06/12/2025
- PECConnect
- Jun 12, 2025
- 7 min read
The County Council met with senior staff on June 12, 2025 for a Council and Staff Working Session focused on the County’s ongoing Asset Management Plan. This meeting was the third in a series of working sessions intended to walk Council and the public through how municipal assets are managed, how service levels are defined, and how future costs will eventually connect to taxes and long term planning.
The meeting was held at Shire Hall in Picton and was chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson. He opened the session by explaining that the format was intentionally informal and conversational, designed to help Council fully understand complex material before any formal decisions are brought forward. Mayor Ferguson also noted that this work is part of a provincially required process and that additional meetings later in the summer will bring the discussion to a more detailed and decision focused stage.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Setting the stage for asset management decisions
The session began with an overview of where this meeting fit within the larger asset management process. Mayor Ferguson reminded those present that this was the third working session, following earlier meetings that focused on roads, bridges, equipment, and facilities. The June session was dedicated to corporate fleet, fire fleet, and parks and recreation.
He emphasized that the goal was transparency and public understanding. The Asset Management Plan is something the municipality is required to prepare, but it also serves as a tool to explain how assets are maintained, what condition they are in, and what choices Council will eventually need to make about service levels and funding.
Understanding the asset management framework
Arryn McNichol, Director of Finance and Information Technology, led the main presentation on the Asset Management Plan and Levels of Service framework. He explained that the plan is a ten year planning document required under Ontario Regulation 588/17 and is meant to guide future decisions rather than react to problems as they arise.
McNichol walked through the four core components of the plan. These include an inventory of assets, a lifecycle management strategy, defined levels of service, and a financial strategy. He explained that the focus of the June 12 session was primarily on levels of service, which describe how assets perform and what residents experience.
A key point in his presentation was the distinction between technical levels of service and community based levels of service. Technical levels of service rely on measurable data such as asset age and condition. Community based levels of service focus on how residents experience municipal services and are often linked to other plans, such as a parks master plan. McNichol explained that all asset classes will be brought together at a full day workshop on August 28, where staff will model the costs of different service levels and show how those choices affect the tax rate. That session is expected to lead to formal recommendations and motions.
How the County plans to involve residents
Before moving into specific asset classes, Council heard an update on public engagement and communications from Emily Cowan, Director of Community Programs, Services and Initiatives, and Mark Kerr, Communications and Consultation Supervisor.
They explained that information about the Asset Management Plan is being shared through the County’s Have Your Say platform, where residents can review discussion papers and watch recordings of the working sessions. Kerr shared viewership numbers from earlier sessions and noted that broader public engagement will ramp up after the final working session.
Staff outlined plans for an online survey that will ask residents about satisfaction with current services, expectations for future service levels, willingness to pay to maintain or improve assets, and priorities for funding. The survey is designed to be high level rather than detailed, as cost modeling will not be finalized until later in the process.
Additional engagement tools discussed included pop up outreach at community events, paper surveys available at Shire Hall and libraries, and a public open house planned for early September after the August workshop. That open house will present the draft plan and give residents another opportunity to provide feedback before Council considers adoption.
Corporate fleet and how municipal vehicles are managed
The first asset class discussed in detail was corporate fleet. McNichol explained that the municipality owns 116 fleet assets that support day to day operations across many departments, including bylaw enforcement, development services, water and wastewater, parks and recreation, and operational services.
Operational Services holds the largest share of fleet assets. McNichol noted that the estimated replacement cost of the fleet, using today’s dollars, is approximately 20.3 million dollars.
Two service level options were presented. One option would maintain fleet assets within their useful life and keep them in good or acceptable condition, at an estimated annual cost of 1.5 million dollars over ten years. The second option would extend fleet lifecycles by about 25 percent, lowering the estimated annual cost to 1.2 million dollars, but with increased risk and potential maintenance costs.
Council members asked a wide range of questions about how vehicles are assessed, how reserves are built for replacement, and whether vehicles are sometimes replaced too early. Staff explained that while age is one factor, fleet decisions also rely on condition assessments and a risk prioritization matrix.
There was also discussion about rental vehicles used for seasonal staff, the resale of older vehicles, and whether electric vehicles could be appropriate for certain departments. Staff confirmed that electric options could be explored but would need to be tested for suitability, and that any move in that direction would align with the County’s broader Climate Action Plan.
Fire fleet and service levels
The discussion then shifted to fire fleet, presented by Fire Chief Chad Brown. Brown explained that fire apparatus decisions are directly tied to Council approved levels of fire service, particularly whether the County authorizes interior firefighting and rescue operations.
He outlined the difference between first duty apparatus, which are used for high risk interior operations, and second duty apparatus, which are used for lower risk responses such as grass fires or exterior suppression. Brown explained that guidance linked to occupational health and safety and NFPA standards plays a significant role in determining what equipment is appropriate for each level of service.
A major theme in this discussion was that Council must clearly define what level of fire service it expects to provide. Brown explained that future decisions should be guided by the County’s Community Risk Assessment and a forthcoming Fire Master Plan, which will explore different service models, consolidation options, and long term costs.
Council members raised questions about the use of older or used fire trucks, response coverage in rural areas, and potential liability if service levels are not clearly defined. Brown emphasized that these are policy decisions for Council and that clear authorization is essential before changing how services are delivered.
Parks and recreation as a community focused asset class
The final asset class discussed was parks and recreation, presented by Lisa Lindsay, Director of Recreation and Community Facilities. She was joined by Brian Westervelt, Recreation Supervisor, who was introduced to Council during the session.
Lindsay explained that the municipality manages 113 parks and recreation assets, including 23 municipal parks, playgrounds, washrooms, sports fields, and related facilities. Many of these assets date back to the late nineteen seventies and were built through community driven projects.
She explained that parks are different from other asset classes because replacement is rarely straightforward. Community needs change, accessibility standards evolve, and many parks have strong emotional and historical connections for residents. As a result, decisions often require consultation rather than direct replacement.
Council discussed vandalism, washroom hours, accessibility, and how parks serve different roles in different communities. Lindsay explained that future planning will likely focus on a mix of larger hub parks and smaller secondary sites, guided by the forthcoming Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
As the meeting wrapped up, McNichol outlined the next steps. All asset classes will be consolidated and reviewed at the August 28 full day workshop, where cost modeling and tax impacts will be presented. Following that session and further public engagement, Council is expected to consider adopting the Asset Management Plan later in the year.
Mayor Ferguson closed the meeting by thanking staff for the significant amount of work that went into preparing the materials and guiding Council through a complex process.
Key Takeaways
The County is required to have a ten year Asset Management Plan that outlines how municipal assets are maintained, replaced, and funded under provincial regulation.
Council has not made final decisions on service levels yet, with major discussions and cost modeling scheduled for a full day workshop on August 28, 2025.
Public input will help shape priorities, with surveys, pop up outreach, and a public open house planned before the plan is finalized later this year.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:18:05. 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.
Comments