I do support the…

I do support the implementation of a more comprehensive asset management planning process, although I think that the proposed regulation could be unattainable with the current deadlines for small municipalities and municipalities with resource challenges. If these deadlines continue to remain the same, there will be a strong need for additional funding to allow some municipalities the resources required to create and implement the refined asset management plan. Free staff training on AMP would also greatly benefit all municipalities. If a course such as the OGRA's Accredited Asset Manager Certification course was offered for free or at a low cost to small municipalities, this would allow municipal staff to gain the required knowledge to develop and implement the AMP in house. Currently this certification program costs $9000 + HST, as well as the hotel, mileage and meal costs making it unaffordable for several municipalities. It would also be beneficial if the province provided samples of plans, including detailed community levels of service and technical levels of service. One area that our municipality does not have any detailed information on that would be very time consuming to complete is full life cycle costing, although I do believe it is very important. This is will be a large strain on workload to try to complete for all asset classes, as we have no asset management software in place (which is another additional cost). An area of the regulation that I do not agree with is the signing off of an Engineer. There would be several different areas/asset classes that a municipal engineer would not be involved with or have the expertise on, such as the financial planning/strategy or sports complexes. This would then need to be out sourced at another additional expense. In summary, my main suggestions would be to extend the timelines for compliance and establish additional funding specifically for capacity building.

[Original Comment ID: 210310]