Comment
My comments re: the proposed regulation are as follows:
- timelines too demanding
- is capacity in the AMP consulting industry adequate?
- Difficult to find software that will satisfy regulation and be user-friendly & affordable
- Municipalities do not have budget room to complete this project. FCM Program allocation will not be enough.
- Directing funding from OCIF and Gas Tax would take away from infrastructure. Therefore, new funding should be allocated.
- AMP to signed by an Engineer prior to presentation to Council. Plan will be very comprehensive. Will an Engineer be willing to sign if they have not examined every aspect of the Plan? It could be equivalent to an Audit. Requirement for a strong focus on climate change vulnerability
- this topic would be subjective and there, could sign-off be obtained?
Asset Management Plans have value for Municipalities, but this Regulation would require substantial resources in time, money, and capacity. Please revise the Regulation to make it workable.
[Original Comment ID: 210176]
Submitted February 13, 2018 12:03 PM
Comment on
Proposed municipal asset management planning regulation
ERO number
013-0551
Comment ID
2188
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status