city of p.rince george ' ii ~ sset management p

' II II II

I • • • •

CITY OF P.RINCE GEORGE

Str.ategic lnfr.astr.ucture ~ sset Management P.lan

:~~· Prepared to,:=-' ~--------- -· ·_ -: --• _-_-:___ __ tf . - .

_ . The City of Prince George ·- --- · -·· :::-: :::::: · ------ -. Supply Services Division - - ·_::-:: ::==-::::: -

--4050 . 18th Avenue_-::-:::::--:_: :: - - ______ ::=-::.==-::::=::::-.. , - '. : · -,-_ - Prince George, BC V2N 4R8 --: :.. ___ ::==::::=:::-- . ::·: • - : --Attention: Wendy Nordlin : ::-: : '. · - · ---- --- -- ---::=-==:: :_:::_ __ _

Tel: 250.614. 7826 .::.: :..~:: - .. : -- : · -- :__:_:__:_: __ _ - -- ---.--·--~-------- ---- ----···--·. -- --

: _ ·: ___ .. ::.:c. -Prepared by:--- _- -- _ _-•-- __ -____ -- - - ~---· : - ··-,---,-•··-·

- - -:1901 Rosser Avenue -- --- -: :::::: :Scouten & Associates Engineering Ltd. B~ma1:>i 'ec-vsci,s3 ·_:_:: ........ - :201 - 1968 Queenswoy Street Contact:: Chris Lombard ·_.:_:· - ··· · - · :-- : _Pri'!te_George, BC V2L 1M2 > tel: : 604.298.6181 -:- -: : _ Contact: Dove Scouten

· =----:Tel: 250.562.7050 ~=~--~--:-~-~---~--: __ ----- --

Protect No.: 78746

L:\ work\ 78000\ 78746\ 03-Report\ FINAL PEPORT PDF\ PG_SIMP_Working Paper 1_FINAL.doc

CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Working Paper 1: Current Prince George Asset

Knowledge

Prepared for:

The City of Prince George 4050 – 18th Avenue Prince George, BC V2N 4R8 Attention: Wendy Nordin Tel: 250-614-7826

Prepared by:

Earth Tech Inc. 6th Floor - 1901 Rosser Avenue Burnaby, BC V5C 6S3 Contact: Chris Lombard Tel: 604-298-6181

Scouten & Associates Engineering Ltd. 201-1968 Queensway Street

Prince George, BC V2L 1M2

Contact: Dave Scouten Tel: 250-562-7050

Project No.: 78746_03 Report

Date: February 2005

@) EarthTech A Tyco International Ltd. Company

CITY OF

PRINCE GEORGE

EARTH TECH Inc.

Table of Contents

SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. I

SECTION 1.0 IN TRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................................................1-1 1.2 THE MIIP PROJECT ......................................................................................1-1 1.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE.................................................................................1-2 1.4 THE NEED FOR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY..............................1-5 1.5 WORKING PAPER 1......................................................................................1-7

SECTION 2.0 TRAN SPORTATION DIVISION .......................................................... 2-1

2.1 OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 WHAT DO YOU HAVE?...............................................................................2-1 2.3 WHAT IS IT WORTH?...................................................................................2-4 2.4 WHAT IS ITS CONDITION?.......................................................................2-5 2.5 WHAT IS THE REMAINING SERVICE LIFE?......................................2-7 2.6 WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT?................................................2-8 2.7 WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON RATES?.......................................................2-10

SECTION 3.0 UTILITIES DIVISION ........................................................................... 3-1


SECTION 4.0 EN VIRON MEN TAL SERVICES DIVISION ....................................... 4-1


APPEN DIX A ASSET REPLACEMEN T VALUES……………………………………A-1

EARTH TECH Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Earth Tech and Scouten & Associates project team has conducted a number of workshops on the level of sophistication of asset management in the Transportation, Utilities and Environmental Services Division, and on the ability of these divisions to answer the Six “Whats” of asset management. Based on the discussions with City staff and a review of reports and other sources of information, an assessment of each Division in terms of the Six Whats questions is presented in diagrammatical format in Figures 1 to 3 on the following pages. The following general observations on the assessments are made:

�� What Are Figures 1-3 Actually Telling Us?: The “Assessment Scores” are used to reflect the current ability of the Divisions to answer the Six Whats questions. Please note that it is not a reflection of how well work is performed or how successful the Divisions are in achieving its goals or delivering the required levels of service (although a higher score on each criteria might indicate a higher probability of being able to do so). The (subjective) assessments are rather a reflection of how far each Division has progressed, and the resources that each Division has employed or been given towards integrating asset management principles into its daily functions.

�� The Assessment Confirms What The City Already Knows: the Transportation Division is the most advanced of the three divisions in asset management, and the implementation of the Pavement Condition Management System (PCMS) four years ago is bearing fruit in terms of e.g., an improved asset inventory, and could serve as an example for the other Divisions.

�� A Detailed Inventory Is Key: The assessment scores for questions 1-6 of the Six Whats follow a set pattern in that success in answering questions 2-6 is absolutely dependant upon the Division’s ability to answer question 1 namely, “What do you have?”. If the asset inventory is lacking or has significant data gaps, it is virtually impossible to answer the remaining Six Whats questions with any level of certainty. As Lord Kelvin said: “You cannot manage what you do not measure”.

�� Capital Versus O&M: Two general observations with all Divisions were:

♦ There are concerns that the current levels of funding and resources are inadequate to successfully operate and maintain assets on a daily basis. This is perhaps exacerbated by too much of a focus on executing capital construction projects according to tight schedules during summertime and with City staff, at the expense of O&M functions.

♦ Even with the advances made as a result of implementing PCMS in the Transportation Division, there is still an inability to determine long-term capital expenditure needs and the impact thereof on City rates. The Utilities and Environmental Services Divisions are further behind Transportation in its ability to predict and plan for rising expenditures on capital rehabilitation and replacement as a result of infrastructure ageing.

Executive Summary Page ii

EARTH TECH Inc.

�� Information technologies and tools: The City has implemented a variety of information technology tools such as GIS, a scanned a database of drawings, computerized maintenance management systems and tablet PC’s. These information technologies are integrated into the City’s operations with varying degrees of success. The result is somewhat of a “ technology overload” in that the various technologies are not yet delivering all that it was made out to be. The wish was expressed that the solution to the City’s asset management needs should not necessarily be “ yet another piece of software” .

�� Development Services Already Performs Asset Management: A common mistake that infrastructure managers make is to think that asset management is a new concept. In fact, the Development Services Department is already performing Basic asset management functions at the minimum, with a number of areas operating at the Competent level of asset management. The real challenge rather lies in improving the City’s ability to answer the Six Whats of asset management. Ultimately, this will enable the City to combine its management, financial, engineering, and other practices with the objective of providing the required level of service in the most cost effective manner over the short, medium and long term.

The abilities of the Transportation, Utilities and Environmental Services Divisions to answer the Six Whats of asset management are assessed as follows :

Exe

cutiv

e Su

mm

ary

Pa

ge ii

i

EA

RT

H T

EC

H In

c.

Figu

re 1:

The

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Div

isio

n An

d T

he S

ix W

hats

Of A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Roads

Bridges

Other

Roads

Bridges

Other

Roads

Bridges

Other

Roads

Bridges

Other

Roads

Bridges

Other

Roads

Bridges

Other

100

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Condition rating systems for sidewalks and signs. Other assets still to be inventoried and condition rated.

PCMS does not have remaining life as an attribute. Limited information, calculations or examples from other cities being used.

Prioritization is reactive and based upon complaints, known concerns and consultant reports, no scientific method.

Roads has the most advanced asset management system in place enabling long-term (5 years ) planning through some rules of thumb. However, limited grasp on what infrastructure gap exists, whether expenditure on maintenance is sufficient, and what is needed to sustainably maintain roads in the future. The absence of detailed inventory, asset valuation, condition and service life assessment hinders sustainability planning for Bridges and Other assets.

Service life briefly dealt with in AMEC report. Would need to conduct CSE testing to confirm bridge remaining life.

No reliable service life estimation available for any Other assets.

PCMS provides a list of capital projects, but there are still lots of data gaps in the inventory. Some coordination with other asset classes e.g., Utilities.

Maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations available from AMEC report.

No confidence in the accuracy of current bridge replacement value of $26m. Should be 100m?

The inventory is incomplete and therefore reduces the confidence in the replacement values currently available.

PCMS rating system in place for arterials and collectors, but not for gravel roads. Some data gaps. 3-5 year inspection plan.

Nov. 2002 AMEC report on the condition of nine bridges provides description on problems on each structure.

Information in a number of drawings and summary sheets. Two bridges do not have any drawings available.

CO

MM

EN

TS

A good number of these assets are in GIS, but there are also data gaps e.g., retaining walls, culverts, barriers, etc.

The detailed inventory supports the accuracy of replacement value estimation, but is the inventory complete?

Assessment Score

CO

MPE

TE

NC

E

KN

OW

LED

GE

Road assets are inventoried in GIS with location, type, name, dimensions, material attributes. However, there are data gaps e.g., local roads.

WH

AT

TO

DO

&

WH

EN

TO

DO

IT?

WH

AT IS

TH

E

IMPA

CT

ON

RAT

ES?

WH

AT

DO

YO

U

HAV

E?

WH

AT IS

IT W

OR

TH

?W

HAT

IS T

HE

R

EM

AIN

ING

SE

RV

ICE

LI

FE?

WH

AT IS

ITS

CO

ND

ITIO

N?

AD

VAN

CE

D

SOPH

IST

ICAT

ED

BA

SIC

Exe

cutiv

e Su

mm

ary

Pa

ge iv

EA

RT

H T

EC

H In

c.

Figu

re 2

: The

Util

ities

Div

isio

n A

nd T

he S

ix W

hats

Of A

sset

Man

agem

ent

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

Water

Wastewater

Storm & Other

100

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

WH

AT

TO

DO

&

WH

EN

TO

DO

IT?

WH

AT IS

TH

E

IMPA

CT

ON

RAT

ES?

WH

AT

DO

YO

U

HAV

E?

WH

AT IS

IT W

OR

TH

?W

HAT

IS T

HE

R

EM

AIN

ING

SE

RV

ICE

LI

FE?

WH

AT IS

ITS

CO

ND

ITIO

N?

AD

VAN

CE

D

SOPH

IST

ICAT

ED

BA

SIC

Assessment Score

CO

MPE

TE

NC

E

KN

OW

LED

GE

Large gaps exist in inventory e.g., service connections, main material and diameter, backflow preventors, some water meters.

WWTP inventory is detailed. Otherwise, large gaps e.g., sewers mains only 60% complete, manhole inventory incomplete.

CO

MM

EN

TS

Different information sources e.g., GIS, as-builts and base maps. Snr. Utility staff close to retirement - potential problems with knowledge retention.

Study under way to refine replacement values of plants and pump stations. Gaps in inventory might affect replacement values. Right-of-way-issues?

Study under way to refine replacement values of plants and pump stations. Gaps in inventory might affect replacement values. Right-of-way-issues?

Gaps in storm water inventory e.g., catch basins. Confidence in street light and traffic light values.

Water main condition based upon anecdotal evidence. Water model available. Amalgamated areas?

Sewers currently being WRc-coded, but at beginning of assessment. Sewer model available to assess capacity.

Some CCTV coding available. Storm model at beginning of development. Galvanised light poles need assessment.

Setting of levels of service would be helpful in capital planning and to justify rate increases. Water and Sewer are utilities, therefore has dedicated sources of funding. Storm is not a utility and therefore funding for Storm deemed to be "somewhat neglected". Funding for O&M costs is generally considered to be inadequate. No long-term planning beyond five years, therefore no planning or dedicated reserve funds for expenditure "bubbles" due to rehabilitation or replacement.

Due to the limited condition information available, the potential for remaining service life assessment is limited. Some guidelines on expected service life exist e.g., National Guide, but inventory and condition information is needed as a start. In many cases, assets require replacement due to reasons other than condition.

Capital planning extends to a five year horizon, although most planning after year 2 is somewhat "blurred". An annual decision matrix identifies potential capital projects, but is subject to budget, political, timing and other constraints. No long term planning for main rehabilitation, although mains constitute nearly 40% of the replacement value of the Utilities assets. The extent of capital work performed by City limits O&M of assets.

Exe

cutiv

e Su

mm

ary

Pa

ge v

EA

RT

H T

EC

H In

c.

Figu

re 3

: The

Env

ironm

enta

l Ser

vice

s D

ivis

ion

And

The

Six

Wha

ts O

f Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

100

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

There are potentially large expenditures ahead that are not currently budgeted for, such as the impact of the beetle kill on the City trees, or the rehabilitation of tennis courts. The absence of detailed inventory, asset valuation, condition and service life assessment hinders sustainability planning for Environmental Services assets. There are some concerns that the current expenditure on O&M is insufficient and that the division is losing ground, both in terms of O&M and capital reinvestment.

The expected life of trees varies by species, location, weather, as well as the infrastructure surrounding it. Analysis of the decay of trees could be performed, but the results are site and tree specific. The new CSA Standards for playground equipment has contributed to a better understanding of condition, functionality and utilization of playground equipment. Generally, the expected service lives of Environmental Services assets are unknown.

Currently, the prioritization of Environmental Services capital projects is largely based upon a number of criteria such as complaints by the public, public pressure for new facilities, the potential to reduce operation and maintenance costs (automization), regulatory or mandatory requirements, capacity or the risks associated with deteriorated assets. Currently, there is no scientific approach to capital planning.

CO

MM

EN

TS

The Division has started an inventory of assets, but is still far from complete. Some assets like park space and trials are in GIS. Large data gaps exist for "soft" assets such as trees, or miscellaneous assets such as the City’s irrigation systems, signs and garbage cans. A large number of assets is shared with other City departments but it is not defined who has responsibility. The majority of information resides in hard copy form only, or in the memory of Environmental Services staff.

An initial assessment by the City pinned the Environmental Services asset replacement value at $169m, including $101m for park land. However, the large number of gaps in the inventory places a question mark on the accuracy of the total replacement value. Also, land value has no real bearing on the financial planning for capital reinvestment or O&M.

Some condition rating is performed e.g., CSA Standards for playgrounds or BC Landscaping Standards. Other assets are visually inspected, or the City receives complaints about the condition of assets such as hazardous trees. The City’s level of service surveys did not extend to Environmental Services assets. The limited of inventory of Environmental Services assets currently hinders any form of detailed condition assessment.

Assessment Score

CO

MPE

TE

NC

E

KN

OW

LED

GE

Env

ironm

enta

l Se

rvic

es

WH

AT

TO

DO

&

WH

EN

TO

DO

IT?

WH

AT IS

TH

E

IMPA

CT

ON

RAT

ES?

WH

AT

DO

YO

U

HAV

E?

WH

AT IS

IT W

OR

TH

?W

HAT

IS T

HE

R

EM

AIN

ING

SE

RV

ICE

LI

FE?

WH

AT IS

ITS

CO

ND

ITIO

N?

AD

VAN

CE

D

SOPH

IST

ICAT

ED

BA

SIC

Env

ironm

enta

l Se

rvic

esE

nviro

nmen

tal

Serv

ices

Env

ironm

enta

l Se

rvic

esE

nviro

nmen

tal

Serv

ices

Env

ironm

enta

l Se

rvic

es

EARTH TECH Inc.

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The City of Prince George Development Services Department (the Department) is proceeding with an Infrastructure Asset Management Approach to municipal infrastructure investment, similar to what is now pursued by several Canadian municipalities. To that end, the City of Prince George has appointed Earth Tech Inc. in participation with Scouten & Associates Engineering Ltd. to develop a Strategic Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (SIMP). The intent of the SIMP would be to provide the City with the guidance needed to stay on course as the asset management plan is implemented during subsequent stages. A key step of the project is to determine the current status of the Department’s asset knowledge and the steps needed to complete the tasks of obtaining the asset knowledge.

Through a series of workshops with the operating divisions within the Department, a number of key inputs to asset management within the City was established, including deficiencies in the asset inventory, condition assessment standards, life span assessment, life-cycle costing and risk analysis. The final stage of the project will include recommendations on a series of steps for each Division to take to implement the SIMP.

1.2 THE MUN ICIPAL IN FRASTRUCTURE IN VESTMEN T PLAN N IN G PROJECT

To further its understanding of municipal infrastructure asset management, the City of Prince George has recently joined with eight other municipalities from across Canada to contribute time and resources to the 3-year Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning (MIIP) project spearheaded by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). The project is aimed at improving the efficiency of managing municipal assets, and was initiated to investigate decision support tools for strategic asset management planning for Canadian municipalities. Current participants in the project include the City of Prince George, City of Calgary, City of Ottawa, City of Hamilton, Region of Durham, Region of Halton, Niagara Region and the City of Edmonton.

A framework for the implementation of asset management proposed by the NRC has been successfully incorporated by a number Canadian municipalities and will form the basis of the investigation on the maturity of the City of Prince George’s asset knowledge and asset management in general. The framework called the “ Six Whats” of asset management consists of six questions, summarized as follows:

Section 1.0: Introduction & Project Overview Page 1-2

EARTH TECH Inc.

1. What do you have?

2. What is it worth?

3. What is its condition?

4. What is the remaining service life

5. What to do and when to do it?

6. What is the impact on rates?

1.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE

The ultimate objective of the SIMP is to form the basis for the second stage of the project, namely the Functional Infrastructure Management Plan (FIMP). Implementation of the SIMP and FIMP will enable the City to not only meet required levels of service in the most cost effective manner, but to also ensure the long-term financial sustainability of its municipal infrastructure. To meet the objectives of this project and the SIMP in general, the project has been divided into three phases, each with a particular deliverable at the end of each stage, as follows:

�� Phase 1 - Determine the Current City of Prince George Asset Knowledge: What is the current level of asset information in the City of Prince George? The project team has investigated where Prince George is in its current ability to answer the “ Six Whats” of asset management for each of the utilities, parks and transportation infrastructure classes. This first portion of the project has served to document the state of current asset inventories, current condition assessment standards, the ability of the City to conduct life-cycle analysis on its assets, to know what risk analysis parameters should be used, and anticipate and plan long term asset replacement capital budgets, etc. This phase of the work was conducted through a number workshops with City staff, interviews and other information gathering techniques to establish the City’s current level of asset knowledge, the results of which is recorded in this report named Working Paper 1: Current Prince George Asset Knowledge.

�� Phase 2 - Comparison With Municipal Best Practices: What level of sophistication does Prince George require in terms of its asset management solution? The project team will conduct an asset management “ gap” analysis between the observed level of asset knowledge within the City, and municipal best practice as defined by best practice guidelines like the National Guide on Sustainable Municipal Best Practices and the NRC’s Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning project. The outcome of this gap

What dowe own?

What/When do

we need todo it?

What is theremaining

service life?

What isthe impacton rates?

What is itscondition?

What is itworth?

1

2

3

4

5

6


EARTH TECH Inc.

analysis will form the foundation of a defensible business case to support the Functional Infrastructure Management Plan.

�� Phase 3 - Recommendations: What is the optimal asset management solution for the City of Prince George and how will this solution be implemented? This implementation plan will detail the precise steps and resources that will be required to implement the selected Strategic Infrastructure Management Plan. This deliverable could be used by Prince George to consider the need for consultants and internal resources to implement the plan in the most cost effective manner. The implementation plan could also form the basis of the terms of reference for the next phase of the project.

The basic structure of the project could be summarized in the diagram shown in Figure 1-1. The diagram reflects the recognition that there is potentially a spectrum of strategic asset management solutions available to the City, ranging from basic to sophisticated. The most preferable plan for Prince George will be contingent upon a range of factors, as follows:

�� Costs and benefits to the City

�� Legislative requirements

�� The size, complexity and condition of the assets

�� The risks associated with failure

�� Time to implement

�� The skills and resources available to the organization

�� Customer expectations

�� Organizational design

�� Ability to integrate current City systems and work groups

�� Hardware and software solutions

Based on the findings of the first two phases of the project, the recommended strategic infrastructure asset management plan for the City would strive to find the optimal balance between these factors.


EARTH TECH Inc.

Figure 1-1: Diagrammatical Presentation Of The Project Structure

Strategic Infrastructure Asset Management Program Options(Increasing Detail and Complexity)

STRATEGIC PLANNING:Answers The Following Questions

Related To The City Of PrinceGeorge’s Assets:

1. What do you have?

2. What is it worth?

3. What is its condition?

4. What is the remaining service life?

5. What do you need to do & When doyou need to do?

6. What is the impact on City cost?

Option 1Basic

Option 2Knowledge

Option 3Competence

Option 4Advanced

Most basic functionalityonly. Data may beincomplete, missing keyfunctions, or only partiallyeffective

All functionality is presentand meets allrequirements. Goodoverall practice, optimalbalance between costand benefit

Some functionalitypresent. May servebasic purpose, but belimited or timeconsuming

Most functionality ispresent. Meets mostrequirements, but thereis room for improvementin terms of data quality,access to information,time requirements, etc

PHASE 1 - DETERMINE THECURRENT CITY OF PRINCEGEORGE ASSET KNOWLEDGE:

What is the City’s current abilityto answer the "Six Whats" ofasset management?

PHASE 2 - COMPARISON WITHMUNICIPAL BEST PRACTICES

According to municipal best practice,evaluation of the City’s currentsituation, levels of service and othercriteria, where should the City be interms of its ability to answer the "SixWhats" of asset management?

PHASE 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS:

What resources does the City need to enable it toanswer the "Six Whats" of asset management?

- What hardware and software are recommended?- What manpower is recommended?- What organisational structural changes arerecommended?- What financial resources are recommended?

Option 5Sophisticated

State of the arttechnology used.Conforms to bestcurrent internationalpractice. The "Ideal"situation if there were nofinancial or otherresource constraints

[[ ~-----~------,/I Ct


EARTH TECH Inc.

1.4 THE NEED FOR CITIES TO ENSURE FIN AN CIAL SUSTAIN ABILITY

The need for asset management strategies is not unique to the City of Prince George. Current statistics regarding the state of municipal infrastructure in Canada and the USA paint a bleak picture. Canadian municipalities spend between $12 and $15 billion per year to maintain, repair and reconstruct their infrastructure. Even with this massive annual investment, a study established that the backlog to bring these assets to an acceptable level of repair has more than doubled in the ten years preceding the study. Figure 1-2 provides a comparison of the various Canadian municipal infrastructure repair needs.

Figure 1-2: Required Funding To Bring Canadian Infrastructure To An Acceptable Level Of Repair

In North America, many municipal organizations are considering asset management programs to comply with new capital asset financial management legislation that has been implemented in their jurisdictions. In most cases, the legislation has been considered as a tool to ensure that public agencies are managing their asset base appropriately over its full life cycle. As was noted in the above section, most cities have nearly depleted their infrastructure base with no strategy in place to replace or renew vital public assets. As a result, future ratepayers may find themselves heavily burdened by huge increases in utility rates simply to maintain service levels.

Current examples of capital asset accounting legislation include:

Required funding to bring Canadian municipal infrastructure to acceptable level of repair

(in millions of dollars)

Solid waste facilities

$810

Bridges$840 Sewage collection

$4,560

Treatment plants$4,380

Water distribution$6,060

Roads$8,670


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� U.S. Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments, Statement # 34 (GASB 34): Among its many provisions, GASB 24 requires state and local governments to start reporting on the value of their infrastructure assets such as roads, bridges, water and wastewater facilities, and dams. One of the main drivers behind GASB 34 was that state and local governments in the U.S. spend approximately $140-$150 billion annually on the construction, improvement and rehabilitation of capital assets. These expenditures are significant, representing more than one out of every ten dollars spent by those governments. The need for public accountability arises when such sums are spent and when current and future generations are committed to repay such debts.

�� The Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, Ontario Bill 175: Bill 175 was recently passed into legislation in Ontario (partially as a result of the Walkerton Inquiry) and has far-reaching effects. Bill 175 will require water system owners to undertake a full accounting of the costs associated with delivering water services to the public and to submit, upon approval by the Minister, implement a plan to finance the operating and capital costs of these systems on a long-term basis. While the approach is somewhat different from GASB 34, the intent is the same.

�� The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants – Accounting for Infrastructure in the Public Sector: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants issued a research report in 2002 titled A ccounting for Infrastructure in the Public Sector. The report outlines alternatives for accounting and financial reporting of infrastructure as assets and provides guidance on what other information should be provided by governments. The findings of the report were:

♦ Financial information about infrastructure should be provided.

♦ Infrastructure should be reported as an asset.

♦ Infrastructure acquired in lieu of developer charges or other fees, and other "acquired" infrastructure should be included in the stock of infrastructure.

♦ The cost of using infrastructure should be reported.

♦ Information about the stock of infrastructure should be accounted for on a component basis.

♦ Infrastructure should be depreciated over its useful life. At acquisition, acquired or self-constructed infrastructure should be measured at cost.

♦ At acquisition, "contributions" of infrastructure should be measured at estimated cost.

♦ Subsequent to acquisition, infrastructure should be measured at current depreciated reproduction cost. Until the issue of accounting for inflation is addressed for all assets and liabilities, however, measurement subsequent to acquisition would remain on a historical cost basis with disclosures of current depreciated reproduction costs.

♦ Information about infrastructure condition should be provided.

♦ Information related to deferred maintenance should be provided as part of the infrastructure condition information.


EARTH TECH Inc.

♦ Information about a government’s infrastructure management plan should be provided.

The last points brings us to a significant benefit of this study, which is the formulation of a well-organised strategic asset management plan that will contribute to the financial in physical sustainability of the City of Prince George’s infrastructure. The resulting plan, if implemented correctly, should be able to meet the financial reporting requirements of any legislation that might be considered in British Columbia.

1.5 WORKIN G PAPER 1: CURREN T PRIN CE GEORGE ASSET KNOWLEDGE

As was mentioned in Section 1.2, Working Paper 1 would provide a current or “ as-is” picture of the City of Prince George’s asset knowledge, in particular related to the following Divisions and asset classes that fall within the City’s Development Services Department:

�� Transportation (roads and bridges)

�� Utilities (water, wastewater, storm water, street and traffic lights)

�� Environmental Services (parks, cemetery and solid waste management)

A total of three workshop sessions were held with representatives of the above City Divisions, which consisted of a thorough review of the “ Six Whats” questions for each. The following sections summarize the findings for each of the asset classes managed by the respective Divisions.

EARTH TECH Inc.

SECTION 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DIVISION

2.1 OVERVIEW

The Transportation division is responsible for road maintenance and snow clearing for the City’s transportation network, as well as project surveys and inspections, traffic and transportation project engineering and management, and engineering. The division is also responsible for the administration of the City’s transit system. The workshop with the Transportation division was held on August 12th 2004 and was attended by the GIS Coordinator, Chief Engineer, Bridges Engineer, Manager of the Transportation Division, Supervisor of Streets and two Transit Engineers.

The Transportation Division is potentially the most advanced of the Development Services Divisions, as it has implemented its Pavement Management Condition (PCMS) for road rehabilitation in 2000. According to the City, the PCMS has proven to be a vital tool in preparing financial capital expenditure plans to maintain acceptable service levels for the City’s road network. Resurfacing projects are prioritized based upon a series of criteria that include pavement condition, traffic volume and capital cost.

The extent of asset management within the Transportation Division is subsequently discussed in terms of the Six Whats of asset management:

2.2 WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

2.2.1 Roads

The Roads assets are inventoried in terms of a limited set of GIS datasets listing the assets and appropriate attribution, as follows:

��Road Center Lines: Street Name, Street From, Street To, Surface Distress Index, Surface Type

��Road Edges: Surface Type (gravel, asphalt, curb)

��Walkways: Surface Type (gravel, asphalt)

��Sidewalk: Surface Type (asphalt, concrete, paver brick, undeveloped)

��Trails: Surface Type, usage

��Structures/ Bridges

��Stairways

Section 2.0: Transportation Division Page 2-2

EARTH TECH Inc.

��Open Drainage Ditches

��Road Culverts

��120 Highway interfaces with the province

��Pedestrian culverts

��Retaining walls, soil structures

��Parking places

��Pavement edges

��Signs

��Lights

��Signals

��Railway crossings

��Crash Attenuators

��Guardrails, handrails, barriers, boards, fences, gates

��Bus shelters and canopies

��Survey control and benchmarks

��Road markings

��Snow disposal sites

��Pipe bridge

��Islands, medians, boulevards

2.2.2 Bridges

The City maintains ten bridges including the Ospika Pedestrian Underpass, the Foothills Pedestrian Underpass, the University Way Bridge, the Ferry Avenue Underpass (Under Simon Fraser bridge), the 15th Avenue Overpass(Over Winnipeg Street), the Otway Road overpass(Over Foothills Boulevard), the Foothills Bridge, the River Road Overpass, the Cameron Street Overpass and the Cameron Street Bridge.


EARTH TECH Inc.

The City’s Bridge information is captured in a number of drawings with a summary sheet for each bridge. The summary sheet includes some information on the history of the structure and some condition information. No drawings are currently available for the Ferry Avenue Underpass and the Foothills Bridge.

2.2.3 Other

There is a wide range of structures related to the roads and bridges in Prince George for which there is limited information available or where the actual responsibility for maintenance and management of the structures are not currently defined. These include:

�� The Transportation Division is responsible for two corrugated iron pedestrian underpasses with related retaining walls (of a variety materials).

�� The Division is responsible for a significant number of retaining walls, including the large retaining wall on Continental Way, the earth retaining wall on University Way (approximately 400m long) and a retaining wall in the proximity of UNBC. Both of the earth retaining walls are currently monitored by survey equipment and a protocol is in place for maintenance or new construction.

�� Pedestrian stairways were identified to be a large group of assets for which the responsibility of maintenance and management is currently undefined. A number of stairways were recently taken over from the Parks department. No inventory for the stairways exists currently in the GIS, although drawings are available for some of the stairways. Storm drainage overlaps with Roads and Bridges in numerous locations. However, responsibility has not clearly been defined other than for the following:

♦ Culverts: Transportation Division.

♦ Manhole access: Utilities Division.

�� There are a total of 120 highway interfaces and “ interface” agreements are in place with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to deal with the maintenance or service thereof e.g., road signage. The data related to the interfaces is not being maintained, and the responsibility of culverts related to the interfaces has not yet been defined.

�� According to the City, good information is available on sidewalk canopies as businesses are charged for these structures.

�� A number of private pipe bridges exist that are regulated according to an agreement between the City and the private property owners.

�� The Division manages five snow disposal sites (one of which is purpose built according to environmental regulations). Maintenance of these sites will be regulated through the applicable environmental regulations.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� No inventory data exists for the following assets: signs, crash attenuators and end of no-post barriers (e.g., end of University Way), road side barriers, guard rails, hands rails, bollards, paint markings and bus shelter benches.

2.3 WHAT IS IT WORTH?

The City provided a preliminary asset valuation of the Development Services Department’s assets – refer to Appendix A. The Transportation division assets are valued as follows:

Table 2.1: Valuation of Transportation Division Assets

2.3.1 Roads

Roads have a limited set of GIS datasets listing all the assets and appropriate attribution as listed in Section 2.2.1, which were used to generate the replacement values shown above. There is limited information available that would provide road asset values. Indirect sources of financial information that could be used include the following:

�� Various contracts and contracted programs provide unit costs for roads construction and rehabilitation.

�� There are limited insurance records that could be used to derive values.

�� A local improvement process for residential areas is not in place. It has been used for commercial zones, however, and thus can be used to provide asset values.

Divisional Responsibility Asset Group Asset Type Quantity Units Unit Rate Total Value

Culverts Driveway 8,136 ea $ 600 $ 4,881,600 Curb Erect 374,947 m $ 85 $ 31,870,495 Curb Roll 220,512 m $ 85 $ 18,743,520 Ditch Open Ditch 217,823 m $ 20 $ 4,356,460 Lane Asphalt 226,314 sq m $ 38 $ 8,599,932 Lane Gravel 139,650 sq m $ 20 $ 2,793,000 Road Asphalt 7,123,150 sq m $ 35 $ 249,310,250 Road Gravel 875,380 sq m $ 17 $ 14,881,460 Sidewalk Asphalt 189,885 sq m $ 50 $ 9,494,250 Sidewalk Concrete 50,683 sq m $ 85 $ 4,308,055 Signs Street 7,500 ea $ 150 $ 1,125,000 Structure Bridge 9,800 m sq $ 2,500 $ 24,500,000 Structure Pedestrian Underpass 2 ea $ 300,000 $ 600,000 Structure Stairs 350 m sq $ 1,050 $ 367,500 Walkways Asphalt 24,494 sq m $ 50 $ 1,224,700 Walkways Gravel 22,242 sq m $ 30 $ 667,260

$ 377,723,482 TOTAL

Transportation


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� Work order management information provides resources and material tracking for road maintenance and rehabilitation.

2.3.2 Bridges

The value of $26 million provided in Table 2.1 for the City’s six bridges was considered to be too low and should rather be in the order of $100m. Maintenance costs are available only for the Cameron Street (timber) bridge, while the other bridges have a nominal budget for accident repairs. The majority of bridge maintenance costs are spent on road surface maintenance. No maintenance or funding is provided for the pedestrian culverts. Generally, the bridge maintenance budget is reactionary and is based upon a best guess from year to year on what the maintenance requirements would be.

2.3.3 Other

There are specific historical costs that have been used to set yearly budgets. Signs for instance have a $120,000 manufacturing budget and a $92,000 budget for patrolling and maintenance.

2.4 WHAT IS ITS CONDITION ?

There is no complete list of assets with their condition rated. However, there are rating systems defined for the roads, a new one for bridges, and sidewalks are currently being developed. The rating system is understandable within the corporation by technical and financial staff. The rating system is comparable to other jurisdictions for benchmarking and comparison. Assets conditions are updated on a daily, monthly, yearly, bi-annual basis upon expected deterioration rates.

Specific condition information is as follows:

2.4.1 Roads

�� Roads division is using a PCMS (Pavement Condition Management System) for rating its surface road condition through current information. There is a 3-5 year inspection plan in place for arterials and collectors. The PCMS condition rating notes cracking, potholes, bleeding, rutting, alligator cracking severity and intensity. PCMS does not have subsurface material information. Gravel roads are not rated. Subsurface material is gleaned from disparate repair project reports.

�� PCMS is a visual subjective ranking by severity (an SDI index 1-10) weighted by type of distress (alligator cracking is ranked worse or more significant, than a pothole for instance.) The average arterial/ collector ranking is 7.2 in the City of Prince George. There is no residential road inspection process or condition rating process. There is no linkage between road condition rating and subsequent planning for rehabilitation and utility condition rating and their rehabilitation plans. There is no additional NDT (non-destructive testing) performed.


EARTH TECH Inc.

2.4.2 Bridges

During the month of November 2002, nine bridge-structures were inspected by AMEC Infrastructure Limited. The inspections were primarily visual and provided the following information:

�� Description of the problems on each structure component

�� Recommended action and a priority rating to categorize the importance of the action

�� Estimate of repair costs

�� Recommendation of the year when repair is to be carried out

�� Photograph of defects

�� A general condition rating of each structure sub and main component to establish the extent to which the component has deteriorated and how this has affected the structural integrity of the component and structure

The inspection report is extensive and dealt with the maintenance and rehabilitation issues for the bridges in detail. It is understood that the method and rating of the bridges during this round of inspection followed recommendations from what is considered as general practice in the state of Alberta.

The timber deck at Cameron Street River Bridge is deteriorated and therefore requires regular maintenance and rehabilitation. A special budget has been set aside for the continual rehabilitation of this bridge. The bridge is considered to be at the end of its life from a structural integrity and functionality perspective and will required replacement in the near future.

2.4.3 Other

The University Way earth-retained wall has failed and has been rehabilitated in the past. Both earth-retained walls are monitored by survey equipment with a protocol for maintenance or new construction. Survey control monitors are not presently being maintained. Apart from the bridges and the earth-retained walls, some of the other structures have yet to be assessed and inspected to establish their condition, as follows:

�� Sidewalk condition is being developed presently by LMN Engineering & Hamilton & Assoc and will use a rating system. Key indicators will be developed and condition inspection processes will be defined and ratings collected for the first time.

�� The trail (walk/ bike) is not formally inspected formally for condition. As problems arise, they are brought to the attention of roads maintenance crews for repair.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� The sign condition rating is a 2-point system: the sign exists and is operational, or it requires replacement.

�� Wheel chair ramps have no condition data collected.

�� The City has a full inventory of road markings.

2.5 WHAT IS THE REMAIN IN G SERVICE LIFE?

The assets listed in the Transportation jurisdiction would require a predicted asset life to assist in planning and to provide a basis upon which budgets can be built. The remaining life is typically a calculation or prediction based on a theoretical decline curve indicating the level of service for a period of time. As time goes on and the asset experiences more use and wear and tear, its remaining life diminishes until it is no longer able to provide its design level of service. The following observations are noted:

2.5.1 Roads

�� PCMS does not have remaining life as an attribute. Calculations have been performed to estimate remaining life based on the year of installation, traffic volumes, SNIC efforts, PCMS condition rating and trend analysis. If available the sub-surface material is also a factor in determining remaining life. Unfortunately, it is not always available for all roads. The Utilities Division has been a source for this information.

�� Standards are currently being investigated and potentially revised to ensure over-design and subsequent over-payment is not occurring in Prince George. The road condition, and remaining life calculation will assist this process. Road overlays have an estimated life in the range of 10-14 years, based upon personal road maintenance crew experience.

�� There are work orders for signs that provide a date of installation, but this is not a highly accurate source and the remaining life is not recorded.

2.5.2 Bridges

Bridge service life is very briefly dealt with in the AMEC report. An estimated remaining life is given for the two tunnels only. The report recommends CSE testing of the bridge decks. The results of CSE testing is often used to determine management strategies which best minimize lifecycle costs. CSE testing has been carried out at some of the structures. The results of the tests were however not made available to Earth Tech for comments.

2.5.3 Other

�� Sidewalks do not have a remaining life estimate.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� The drainage system that Roads is responsible for does not have a remaining life estimate. Although sediment loading cleanup costs are well established, there is no link to asset condition and remaining life assessments and estimates.

�� SNIC (Snow and Ice Control) affects the road surface, but condition impacts are not noted at the time of SNIC operations.

�� Sidewalks have no remaining life estimates. They are affected by their subsurface, which is also unknown. This information is used for decision support also, but this fact is not communicated completely and may need to be in order to obtain accurate remaining life estimates. M-Pls. provide bulleted points for each asset group.

�� Culvert and ditches at times have a one year life span due to sediment loading. But there is no accurate service life estimate.

2.6 WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT?

How efficiently could the Transportation Division create a maintenance activity and capital budget and plan? These plans include a scope, or level of effort definition both for the operational year, and for capital projects. In addition budgets and schedules, along with the requisite resource leveling efforts need to take place. In order to set priorities in both the operational/ maintenance and the capital realm; the asset managers at Prince George must have available to them the list of road assets with their ranked condition and remaining service life and value. Once these assets are ranked in such a manner, the priorities will have been objectively analyzed and those that require action either from an operational/ maintenance tactic or from a capital project will have a higher ranking and will come to the forefront from within the evaluation asset management system and business processes. The following observations are noted:

2.6.1 Roads

�� Within Prince George the PCMS provides a list of candidate road projects. This list is supplemented with input from field staff site visits, public complaints, local comments. The spreadsheet of candidate projects also includes information pertaining to volumes and typical maintenance unit costs. Coordination with utilities for project planning and interferences checking occurs at this point. Given the history of the PCMS spreadsheet and staff experience, business plans are produced in order to plan for larger maintenance or capital projects.

�� SNIC operational plans are made on the basis of assigning priority roads given the level of service Prince George hopes to achieve on those roads.

�� Street sweeping is a 10-week effort in the spring, and has similar priorities.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� Sidewalk repair activities are limited by budget, but not necessarily ranked according to level of service, remaining life, value & condition.

�� Bicycle lane pavement markings are visually inspected and budgeted for yearly.

�� All substantial projects and programs are evaluated by preparing preliminary scope, budget, schedule estimates for multi-project comparison and priority setting. Recommendations go to council for funding approval. There is no key performance indicators except for those alluded to in SNIC and the pothole database to indicate level of service.

2.6.2 Bridges & Other

A five-year plan for bridge maintenance and rehabilitation to carry out the recommended actions can be obtained from the 2002 AMEC report. Further to this, general items of rehabilitation are identified for each bridge and a year allocated for implementation. A similar scientific approach to establish the required prioritization of maintenance and rehabilitation work for all other structures has not been done.

Generally prioritization of work is not scientifically based. Prioritization is presently based on complaints, known concerns, consultant’s reports if available, etc. A list is drawn up of the most pressing work, meetings are held to determine the direction to take for implementation of the rehabilitation work and to finalize the list. Each department produces their own list of urgent work. Recommendations are generally based on visual inspections and supplemented by further testing if available and required. These are presented to Council for final approval.

Once projects are identified, the next step is the implementation of the design stage. The scope is described, and costs estimates determined in-house. Then council approves the detailed design and costing. The project manager determines who can perform the work (in-house or consultant) and schedules are also determined.

�� SNIC operational plans are made on the basis of assigning priority roads given the level of service Prince George hopes to achieve on those roads.

�� Street sweeping is a 10-week effort in the spring, and has similar priorities.

�� Sidewalk repair activities are limited by budget, but not necessarily ranked according to level of service, remaining life, value and condition.

�� Bicycle lane pavement markings are visually inspected and budgeted for yearly.

�� All substantial projects and programs are evaluated by preparing preliminary scope, budget, schedule estimates for multi-project comparison and priority setting. Recommendations go to Council for funding approval. There is no key performance


EARTH TECH Inc.

indicators except for those alluded to in SNIC and the pothole database to indicate level of service.

2.7 WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON RATES?

Given the previous section regarding setting priorities and determining which projects (operational/ maintenance or capital) have priority; Prince George now has a list of projects/ programs and their costs. Prince George will also have their current rate base and tax base for utilities and property tax, and other revenue sources. Also available will be the level of service Prince George wishes to maintain for its road assets. It then is requisite upon Prince George to determine the impact of the maintenance of these levels of service for the various road assets, in monetary terms, and to allocate these project/ program budgets back onto the rates and tax bases of the City. The following observations were made for the Transportation Division:

Rates are determined in a number of ways. Developers are charged development rates based on market forces and negotiation, as well as bylaw dictates. These funds are collected in a reserve fund for future road infrastructure requirements. Transit fares also contribute, but they are not self-sufficient. Fuel tax revenue is also being anticipated and earmarked for roads. There has been level of service preference questionnaires given to residents. These however had residents trade-off such services as road/ police/ ambulance. Other levels of service have been set by expectation as a result of previous site performance on such matters as SNIC, street sweeping, and by bylaw in regards to sidewalk condition. General taxes have been collected and allocated according to requirements and council priorities. There is no direct links between condition, value, remaining service life, operational budgets and rate setting.

EARTH TECH Inc.

SECTION 3.0 UTILITIES DIVISION

3.1 OVERVIEW

The Utilities Division manages the City’s water supply and distribution systems, the wastewater collection and wastewater treatment plants, and maintains the street and traffic lights. The workshop was held on August 13th 2004 and was attended by the GIS Coordinator, Utility Operator, Manager of Treatment Plants, Chief Engineer, Manager of Utilities, Capital Projects Engineer, two Water, Sewer and Storm Superintendents and the Wells, Electrical, Lift Station and Plant Superintendent.

Over the past three years, the City has commissioned a number of reports from consultants to assist with the long-term planning of the City’s utilities, as follows:

�� City of Prince George Water Service Infrastructure Master Plan 2000 – Dayton & Knight Ltd., December 2001

�� City of Prince George 2001 Sanitary Sewer Study – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd, June 2002.

�� City of Prince George Watershed Drainage Plans Gladstone, Varsity and Trent Catchments – Associated Engineering, December 2002

Although these reports did not address asset management per se, they serve as an important source of asset inventory, condition etc., information for this review.

Based on the discussions held at the Utilities Division workshop, the following observations are made for the Division’s ability to answer the Six Whats of asset management.


The assets currently managed by the Utilities division ranges from assets as large as a wastewater treatment plant to individual street lights. As a result, the level of detail of information captured in the asset inventory differs from asset to asset, as do the manner in which asset data is stored. Also, the age of the assets, especially the buried assets such as water, wastewater and storm water mains affects the availability of inventory information e.g., the City does not have pipe material information for as much as 40% of the wastewater collection system. On the other hand, very detailed asset information is available for the wastewater treatment plant, with all assets documented through a detailed hierarchy supported by a nine-digit code representing individual assets.

The following comments were made for the water, wastewater and general utility asset inventory:

Section 3: Utilities Division Page 3-2

EARTH TECH Inc.

3.2.1 Water

�� The linear portion of the water system inventory has a large number of gaps related to the sections of mains taken over during the amalgamation of improvement districts e.g., the mains in College Heights. The main information for the downtown area is unreliable, but is being supplemented with information as and when pipes are unearthed as part of daily operations and maintenance. Approximately 200 digs are performed annually and the pipe inventory is updated when and where possible.

�� The design drawings for the six water wells are estimated to be 95% accurate, and good information exists for the repair and operations and maintenance costs for the plants.

�� The water crews generally make use of base maps as these maps contain updated information that does not appear on the as-built drawings.

�� PG Map, the centralized database for all maps and drawings within the City, does not have sufficient information on water main valves and fire hydrants. This causes difficulty in the maintenance and operation of valves at for example schools and water booster stations where the valves are difficult to locate.

�� Approximately 1,250 water meters are located at commercial, industrial and some apartment buildings. Currently the Utilities Division does not have a detailed inventory of the water meters (the Building Department might have a more detailed inventory) and no program is in place for the repair or replacement of these meters.

�� The number and location of backflow preventors is currently unknown.

�� The PRV chambers (18), air valve chambers (56), reservoirs (14) and water supply wells (10) to the greater extent appear in the City’s GIS.

�� In a number of instances, the actual location of service connections is unknown. For example, where the building corner was used as a reference point, and the building is not in existence anymore, the location of the service connection becomes unknown.

3.2.2 Wastewater

�� The wastewater treatment plant generally has extensive information related to all assets on the plant, including an asset inventory, repair history and costs. All assets are inventoried by a nine-digit asset hierarchy representing the location of the asset. The treatment plant uses a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) called “ ToolTime” , with related data trending capability.

�� The sewer main inventory is estimated to be approximately 60% complete, with the outstanding information predominantly related to the main size or the main material.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� PG Map does not have a full inventory of the City’s manholes.

�� The location of sanitary clean-outs are generally known, barring some of the older clean-outs in certain areas, or where clean-outs have been buried below ground level and are not visible.

�� A sewer report log is recorded for sewer blockages in a database, which will eventually be attached to a layer in the GIS and associated with the property where it occurred.

3.2.3 General

�� The City’s sources of asset information are as follows:

♦ GIS (City Hall)

♦ As-built drawings (at the new works yard)

♦ Manual base maps (at the existing works yard; these go to City Hall and eventually the GIS, except for the water treatment information)

�� As-built drawings exist for the majority of the Division’s assets. Utility field staff make use of base maps which are updated by the field staff when and where required. However, the information in many cases does not get transferred to the as-built drawings that are scanned into the City’s database of drawings.

�� Approximately 50,000 drawings have been scanned and are available on-line. However, the need for a comprehensive database listing of all drawings is required (currently only 30% complete) as for example the wastewater utility manager was unaware that all the wastewater treatment plant drawings are available on-line. The water well and pump stations record drawings are available in GIS, and some AutoCad drawings are available for more recent construction. Schematics for electrical drawings are not yet available.

�� The City is heavily dependant upon the knowledge of senior staff on the location, material type, operational characteristics etc., of the utility assets. However, a large number of staff members are expected to retire within the next three to five years, when this knowledge will potentially be lost when the employees leave the City’s employment.

�� According to the workshop participants, the internal communication between the different working groups in the Utilities Division is better than external working relationships with other City Departments such as Roads and Environmental Services.

�� The information on storm water outfalls is very limited. As well, approximately 90 recharge tanks have been installed for which no drawings are available.

�� Storm water catch basins are not shown on storm water drawings but appear on road drawings. This presents a lot of difficulty for those responsible for maintaining the storm


EARTH TECH Inc.

water system as it is unclear whether the catch basins are connected to a manhole (standard) or to a main (non-standard).

�� The need for a link between the CMMS (JD Edwards or JDE) and GIS was identified. The workshop participants generally felt that the JDE implementation was fast tracked and did not receive a lot of “ buy in” from City staff. Staff found that it was difficult to obtain help with JDE as there is no local vendor support.


The City’s preliminary replacement valuation of the Utility division assets is as follows:

Table 3.1: Valuation of Utility Division Assets


Sanitary Cap 108 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 648,000.00 Sanitary Connection 22000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 132,000,000.00 Sanitary Liftstation 29 $ 9,411,000.00 Sanitary Main 422253 m $ 300.00 $ 126,675,900.00 Sanitary Manhole 4923 ea $ 7,500.00 $ 36,922,500.00 Sanitary Treatment Plant 5 $ 36,856,000.00 Strorm Cap 102 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 612,000.00 Strorm Catch Basin 4702 ea $ 3,500.00 $ 16,457,000.00 Strorm Catch Basin Lead 55606 m $ 300.00 $ 16,681,800.00 Strorm Connection 15000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 90,000,000.00 Strorm Culvert 10004 m $ 300.00 $ 3,001,200.00 Strorm Flumes 2000 m $ 100.00 $ 200,000.00 Strorm Inlet 10 ea $ 25,000.00 $ 250,000.00 Strorm Main 252204 m $ 300.00 $ 75,661,200.00 Strorm Manhole 3304 ea $ 7,500.00 $ 24,780,000.00 Strorm Outfall 102 ea $ 30,000.00 $ 3,060,000.00 Strorm Pumpstation 3 $ 454,000.00 Strorm Wood Stave 338 m $ 300.00 $ 101,400.00 Streetlight Ornamental 3448 ea $ 4,000.00 $ 13,792,000.00 Traffic Control 4 Way Flasher 4 ea $ 20,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Traffic Control Crosswalk Flashing Light 5 ea $ 25,000.00 $ 125,000.00 Traffic Control Intersections 31 ea $ 100,000.00 $ 3,100,000.00 Traffic Control Pedestrian Crossing 10 ea $ 40,000.00 $ 400,000.00 Water Airvalve 37 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 222,000.00 Water Blowoff 66 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 396,000.00 Water Boosterstation 11 $ 2,999,000.00 Water Cap 529 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 3,174,000.00 Water Connection 22000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 132,000,000.00 Water Hydrant 2023 ea $ 7,600.00 $ 15,374,800.00 Water Hydrantlead 14000 m $ 300.00 $ 4,200,000.00 Water Main 521927 m $ 300.00 $ 156,578,100.00 Water PRV 10 $ 1,060,000.00 Water Reducer 23 ea $ - $ - Water Reservoir 14 $ 20,380,000.00 Water Valve 4054 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 24,324,000.00 Water Well 13

$ 975,252,900 $23,276,000.00

TOTAL

Utilities

I


EARTH TECH Inc.

Regarding the replacement values shown in Table 3.1, the workshop participants were generally satisfied with the values shown, with the following exceptions or clarifications:

�� Dayton & Knight is currently conducting a study on the 20-year investment plan for the treatment plant, pump stations and wells. This study should provide refined replacement values for all of these assets. Some of the pump stations are past their estimated service life (some are 30 years old) and would require immediate replacement.

�� The water and sewer main lengths shown above were deemed to be acceptable. Some concerns were raised about the accuracy of material information and the appurtenances related to the water and wastewater network. For the calculation of replacement values, it was assumed that water mains would be replaced with PVC, trunk mains with ductile iron, storm mains with PVC, CSP for mains and catch basin leads and PVC for sewers.

�� The electrical values such as street lighting and traffic lights were considered to be accurate.

�� Currently, storm water is funded through general revenue. However, in the future storm water could potentially be a separate utility with its own, dedicated source of funding.

�� One issue that could potentially affect main replacement values are right-of-ways that were not officially established when the mains were laid (i.e., “ handshake deals” ). The GIS has limited documentation on these right-of-ways, and only has mention of those properties where the City requires access to maintain its assets. The extent of this problem is unclear, and it would be difficult to fully establish how many properties are affected without arousing the suspicion of property owners, thereby exacerbating the problem. These right-of-way problems are especially prevalent in Western Acres and the Lagoons areas.


The asset condition information currently available varies by asset type, location and the difficulty in obtaining condition information. The following asset condition information is available:

�� The sewers are currently being coded according to the WRc standard (contractor: Northern Light Technology), with the CCTV information stored on VHS tapes. Some older videos are being transferred from Beta format to VHS. The focus of the CCTV efforts is on the downtown area, while sewers in new developments are also inspected with CCTV. Some videos are available of the condition of service connections, but these are mostly performed by private plumbers.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� The use of CCTV to code storm water mains is limited to a small number of areas within the City. A systematic process is needed to make progress with the CCTV of storm water mains.

�� New water mains are inspected with CCTV before commissioning. The water mains in the downtown area will be the focus of a study in the upcoming year. Some non-destructive testing information is available, which will be reviewed during the study. Currently, the majority of the water main condition information is based upon anecdotal evidence. The amalgamated areas presents the biggest information challenge, both from a condition and main size/ material perspective. Flow testing of water mains has in the past contributed to the estimation of main sizes. The does not have any indication as to the extent or occurrence of water loss in its water distribution system.

�� The City has a water and sewer flow model that provides fire flow information such as existing capacity, zone capacity, fire flow capacity etc.

�� A storm water model is available for College Heights that provides good information on capacity (assuming the pipes are clean). Condition information is not known, but limited CCTV inspections showed a number of blockages in the storm water mains. The storm water mains are often under-designed due to the severity of intense, isolated storm events. There are some concerns with regards to the on-site drainage of a number of properties, as well as the sedimentation of storm water mains in general.

�� In terms of asset utilization, the water and sewer models provide a good indication of the mains that need replacement due to capacity limitations. The storm water model is in the initial stages of development, but there is no budget available to maintain the model. Inflow and infiltration into the storm and sewer mains is a problem and would need further analysis.

�� In terms of asset functionality, the Blackburn treatment plant (aerated lagoon) is being phased out and the Danson treatment plant is currently being upgraded. DFO has suspended solids concerns with some of the storm water outfalls.

�� Non-galvanized street light poles are heavily corroded, resulting in a number of complaints from the public.


Similar to the knowledge on the condition rating of the City assets, the knowledge on the expected service lives of the assets varies from asset to asset, as follows:

�� Some of the sewer pump station parts are hard to find as the pumps are more than 30 years old. These pumps are normally replaced due to a loss of efficiency.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� SCADA equipment in the pump stations and treatment plants is reviewed annually. Control systems are updated every 10 to 15 years, or sooner if new technological advances make it worthwhile to replace the equipment.

�� Computers (PC’s) are upgraded are every 5 years. The storage of information is a concern as the service life of media (e.g., CD’s) is shorter than expected.

�� In many cases, assets require replacement due to limitations in capacity or functionality, not condition.


�� Annually a decision matrix is conceived that identifies potential projects, based on recommendations from:

♦ Consultant studies, or

♦ An operational wish list developed throughout the year by operations staff based on issues such as worker safety, public safety or financial impact.

�� Capital planning occurs over a five-year cycle, and the current capital budget is approximately $13m per year. The five-year plan changes year to year based on political will, City needs, regulatory changes or other factors. DCC’s are used to support the growth of the network, and grant programs could be used to help offset costs. The majority of capital expenditures are related to new infrastructure, with the remainder related to rehabilitation of existing assets. There is a need for including main rehabilitation in the capital budget.

�� The decision makers should preferably be all active stakeholders within the City, from Supervisors to Directors to Council. The water and sewer departments are generally able to obtain its funding. However, funding for projects funded through general revenue is harder to obtain. Linking of budgets and levels of service would be helpful in maintaining funding (e.g., to keep providing the same level of service may require increasing the budget).

�� Target projects are usually based on availability of funds. Regulatory projects are given priority (to meet regulations). The allocation of capital funds between departments is regulated very well, i.e. “ there is no skimming from other departments” .

�� The availability of qualified consultants is a concern to the City of Prince George. Some work invariably goes to consultants not based within the City. The quality of contractor work depends on the consultant’s level of inspection – “ local contractors are only as good as the local consultants” . Budgets tend to balloon due to improper supervision and management of contracts.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� The City does some capital work internally. Although there is value in doing contracting work internally, in many cases resources are taken up doing capital work when O&M should rather be performed. The ideal situation would be where the City does all operation and maintenance and capital work is outsourced to contractors.

�� There is a significant time lag in the execution of capital projects. Usually it takes the first year to do the property acquisition, the second year to do the design and the third year to construct. There is also an annual delay in obtaining capital approvals, which means that ground is only broken in June or July, thereby putting pressure on the contractor to complete the project before the onset of winter only a number of months later.

�� The funding of operations and maintenance costs was considered not to be adequate. It would be preferable that City staff do more O&M and have proper equipment such as vactor trucks to perform work internally. Also, the City would like to know whether the current level of maintenance is sufficient to maintain the infrastructure at an acceptable and sustainable level of service. For example, is the current method of manhole cleaning efficient, are the right manholes cleaned and is the frequency of cleaning sufficient?

�� The City has no set formula to determine whether an asset needs to be maintained/ repaired or should be replaced. For example, the water or sewer pumps are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the required action.


The City’s water and wastewater infrastructure is generally well funded due to dedicated rates to support the operation, maintenance and capital expansion or rehabilitation. The funding for storm water infrastructure is to some extent insufficient as the assets are shared between, among others, Utilities, Roads and Parks and there is no dedicated source of funding for storm water management. Specific comments related to funding for the water, wastewater and storm water assets are as follows:

�� Water meters are currently only mandatory for commercial properties and optional for residential customers through a voluntary metering program, which is part of an effort to reduce residential water consumption. Water rates are currently based upon the non-commercial component of consumption and dividing the cost by the number of residences, which results in a flat monthly fee per customer. The commercial water rates are based upon a flat rate and a variable charge based on consumption.

�� The sewer charges are also separated between un-metered and metered or commercial customers. Un-metered customers pay a flat monthly fee, and metered customers pay 119% of the consumption charges of their water bill. An over strength charge is also raised for the treatment of water with BOD higher than the set limit.


EARTH TECH Inc.

�� The funding for the storm system is deemed to be somewhat neglected. There is a need to document and quantify storm water problems to assist in obtaining funding, especially as extreme events seem to occur more frequently. For example, the Winnipeg Street experiences flooding every year but there is not enough funding to mitigate the flooding. In addition, insurance companies are starting to question the City’s management of storm water and have threatened not to extend flood insurance in some instances. The storm water experience stands in contrast with funding for water and sewer that usually gets funding “ without a fight” as it has its own, dedicated source of funding.

�� The funding for GIS is taken project to project from other Divisions, or from capital projects where applicable.

�� The City bylaws have rates for developers to pay the City for providing sewer and water connections, including restoration. However, these rates need to be examined as it is likely too low due to deeper connections.

�� DCC’s are intended to fund only the growth portion of infrastructure provision. However, the additional infrastructure costs have to be accounted for properly as currently the demands on the systems are not recognized for sewer, storm and water. DCC’s are dedicated for new capital infrastructure only and may not be used to fund operations and maintenance.

�� In the past number of years the City has been very successful in obtaining grants for infrastructure projects, such as the Federal “ green” projects (e.g., well for Hart) and the LIP for sewer.

�� The capital planning horizon is five years and is developed in conjunction with the Finance Department, but could vary depending on the listed projects and the political will to execute.

�� Reserve funds for capital expenditure is available, but might not be sufficient for all the City’s assets, and may vary depending on the perceived level of service required. Any capital funds not spent in a year get transferred to the capital reserve fund. A general capital reserve fund is a politically sensitive issue.

�� The economic activity in the City and related expansion of City has in the past been mostly driven by the forestry industry. The City is currently seeing some government agencies moving to Prince George, UNBC has a new medical program and some expansion is seen in the mining industry.

EARTH TECH Inc.

SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION

4.1 OVERVIEW

The Environmental Services Division is responsible for the City’s park maintenance and construction, horticulture, cemetery, solid waste services, environmental initiatives and mosquito control. The Environmental Services workshop was held on August 27th and was attended by the GIS Coordinator, Manager of Environmental Services, Chief Engineer, Assistant Parks Operator, Administration Assistant for Parks, the Solid Waste Operator, IPM Coordinator, Foreman for Centers, Urban Forestry and Parks, Foreman for Parks and Playgrounds, the Arborist, Foreman for Cemeteries and the Operations supervisor for Parks.

Possibly due to the complexity and wide variety of assets managed by Environmental Services, ranging from the City’s cemetery to irrigations systems and even City trees, this division is perhaps the least sophisticated in terms of asset management. The extent and sophistication of asset management within the environmental services division is subsequently discussed in terms of the Six Whats of asset management:


The Environmental Services Division manages a significant number of assets and provides services ranging from mosquito control to playground maintenance, tree pruning and solid waste management. The assets under management are in many cases not as easily defined as civil structures such as roads and bridges or water and wastewater mains, and might include assets as diverse as playground equipment, cemetery headstones and boulevard trees and irrigation systems. As a result, the Division will have to spend considerable effort in compiling a full inventory of assets.

Specific comments related to the Environmental Services asset inventory are as follows:

�� In May 2004 the Division commenced with compiling an asset inventory through taking digital photos of assets such as signs, buildings and playgrounds, but it was unclear how far the City has progressed with this inventory. The City has as-built drawings of irrigation systems (lane irrigation is indexed digitally from the 1980’s onwards), maps of park lands, and an inventory of equipment such as lawnmowers and trimmers. According to the workshop participants, a significant amount of information is in hard copy form only, such as reports and studies at City Hall. The remainder of information resides in the memory of Environmental Services. There is also an incomplete signs database. The Environmental Services lands are incorporated in the GIS system, and the City has an inventory of its trails providing details on items, lengths, path material (rustic, gravel and paved) in CAD format.

Section 4: Environmental Services Division Page 4-2

EARTH TECH Inc.

�� Maintenance of assets such as fencing and the 23 parking lots that form part of the Environmental Services area of responsibility is currently being performed by the Roads Department. The parking lot maintenance activities include repair of asphalt, grading, and curb and gutter cleaning. The maintenance of lights on the City’s parks is performed by the Leisure Services Department, through the issue of work orders in JD Edwards.

�� The maintenance of the City’s irrigation systems is somewhat of a gray area: Although the irrigation systems are essentially and extension of the City’s water mains, the maintenance thereof is currently performed by the Environmental Services, and includes the irrigations systems in the City’s boulevards, roads medians, soft landscape, parks and sports fields. The Environmental Services responsibility on the irrigation systems extends from the service connection onwards, which may or may not be fitted with a meter. The full metering of all such connections to the City’s water distribution system might be required in the future, however this would have an adverse effect on the budget of Environmental Services.

�� The buildings maintained by Environmental Services include the Massey Place Stadium, a band shell, picnic building, a storage shed, out houses, a greenhouse, the cemetery, sports fields, viewing platforms and canopies. Other miscellaneous assets include playground equipment, skate parks, a water park, pedestrian bridges at parks, stairways (as was mentioned under Section 2.2.3, the responsibility for stairways has not been clearly defined between the Transportation and Environmental Services Divisions), renovations of sports fields and trees.

�� “ Soft assets” maintained by Environmental Services include high value trees, side walk landscaping, boulevard trees, a number of hectares of forest land, landscapes, flowerbeds and medians. The extent of pinecone beetle infestation of the City’s trees is of great concern and efforts are under way to map the City’s trees in GIS up to a level of detail of ten trees, by species. The Forestry Department of UNBC has some information on the City’s heritage trees. Generally, there is a need for software to assist the Division in managing soft assets like City trees.

�� Other miscellaneous assets include turf grass, park benches, 75 tennis courts with related fencing, gates and nets, post baskets, bollards, retaining walls, fencing, planters, a steam train, water fountains, murals, sculptures, monuments, rock cairns, the City’s “ Welcome” sign (value: $20,000) and other park signage. It is unclear whether the responsibility for banners along City boulevards lies with Leisure Services or with Environmental Services.

�� The City has a number of contracts with “ Exclusive User Groups” for the use of City-owned facilities for activities such as baseball, softball, soccer, lacrosse, lawn bowling and horseshoe pitching. A common concern is that if the User Group fails the City has to


EARTH TECH Inc.

take control of the assets without knowing the condition of the buildings or how they have been maintained.

�� The Pine Valley Golf Course is a City asset that is managed by a private contractor. However, the ultimate responsibility for assets such as the trees on the golf course (ref. the pine cone beetle kill) remains with the City.

�� The City cemetery requires a one-off payment of a fee towards the maintenance of headstones (not City owned) and the cemetery grounds, buildings, irrigation system, roads, lights and fencing. The income from the fund is distributed as follows: 25% of the income is invested in the fund; 20% is spent on capital improvements and the remainder (including interest) is spent on operation and maintenance of the cemetery. The income from the so-called “ perpetual care” fund is deemed insufficient to cover the long-term maintenance costs of the cemetery assets and grounds. The older part of the cemetery, consisting of a disorganized layout of plots from 1913, is not maintained other than for the cutting of the grass. The City also maintains the Fort George Park cemetery (First Nations) through cutting of grass and repair or replacement of headstones.

�� The Solid Waste assets include the concrete garbage cans, plastic litter containers and pole mounted litter containers. The solid waste transfer station is operated by the Regional District, although City owns the land and the shed, concrete slabs and fencing at the station.

�� The services provided or the assets maintained by the Environmental Services Division sometime overlap with that of other City departments. These include (but are not limited to) soft landscaping (Leisure Services), maintenance of boulevard trees (Roads), mosquito control and catch basin maintenance (Utilities) and weed control on Native Lands.


The preliminary asset valuation of the Development Services Department’s assets (shown in Appendix A) has the following valuation on Environmental Services assets:

Table 4.1: Valuation of the Environmental Services Division Assets

Divisional Responsibility Asset Group Asset

Type Quantity Units Unit Rate Total Value

Park Building $ 67,329,400.00 Parkland $ 101,387,875.00

$ 168,717,275

Environmental ServicesTOTAL


EARTH TECH Inc.

The above valuation presents a first step to the full valuation of the Division’s assets, but there are a significant number of smaller assets that would still need to be valued. Specific comments related to the asset valuation are as follows:

�� The BC Assessment Authority has values available in spreadsheet format for real estate (land value) and improvements of buildings (not landscaping, or trees, etc.).

�� The per-unit replacement values for turf are available.

�� Neither replacement values nor operations and maintenance costs are currently available for the City’s trails.

�� Generally, the differentiation between maintenance and rehabilitation or replacement is not clearly defined. The division performs maintenance when required, and might apply rehabilitation funds sourced from other departments, such as for the leveling of paving stones. The transfer of rehabilitation funds to Environmental Services is a new concept to the Division, and there is currently no real direction of how to apply these funds. It is hoped that new standards, such as the CSA standard for playground equipment will provide guidance and assist with the prioritization of capital expenditure.


At the moment, condition assessments are mostly visual inspections performed by experienced City personnel (e.g., where condition is affected by safety issues, vandalism, usage). Other examples of condition assessment include the visual inspection of trails, or the consultant assessment of sidewalks currently under way. Some standard condition rating systems are used, such as the CSA Standards for playgrounds, or the BC Landscape Standards that covers issues such as irrigation and level of service ($/ m2). Standards for cutting grass are set by budget availability and complaints. Formal standards are not followed for the length of grass, other than at holes and depressions (due to safety & liability issues).

The Tempest software is used to track complaints on e.g., hazardous trees. A method of tracking when and where maintenance problems occur would be useful to improve the planning and execution of e.g., tree maintenance. This type of documentation of maintenance needs has in the past been unsuccessful due to the fear of contracting out of work currently performed by union staff. The City performs level of service surveys, which in the past has proven to be a useful method of obtaining additional funding. Unfortunately, these surveys did not cover the assets maintained and operated by Environmental Services.

A number of examples were named where utilization has an impact on asset condition. These include examples where gravel roads are grassing over due to low usage, or where the City’s 75 tennis courts are severely under-utilized. One case was recorded where the City has not received any complaints in close to a year for not putting up tennis nets on a specific set of courts.


EARTH TECH Inc.

In terms of asset functionality, the majority of City playgrounds are not meeting current requirements. Most of these playgrounds are outdated but still functional. The City has not tested the playground equipment for arsenic in the wood has not been tested for. The City will be removing old wood “ adventure playgrounds” in the immediate future. Other asset functionality issues include unsafe trees in Cottonwood Island Park that would need removal, but which would probably not occur due to the role these trees play in the overall aesthetics of the park. Rainbow Park has a dried up creek that is aesthetically unpleasing, but which requires mosquito control when it is not dry. The Heritage River Trail is currently experiencing sloughing into the Nechako River. The City working with DFO to solve the problem, but it could cost in excess of $1m to repair.


The expected life of trees varies by species, location, weather, as well as the infrastructure surrounding it. Analysis of the decay of trees could be performed, but the results are site and tree specific. Some expected service lives of trees are:

�� Deciduous trees: 60-100 years

�� Conifers: 100 –150 years

�� Elm trees (downtown): 15-20 years

Playground equipment lasts between 20 and 40 years, but will depend on usage, weather, material used and maintenance. The trails at Fort George and Heritage are expected to last 30 years, and require ongoing maintenance due to tree roots resurfacing and reshaping the trials. Solid waste bins have 10 to 15 year guarantee from the manufacturer. The plumbing on some of the buildings has reached the end of its expected service life and would need immediate replacement.

Generally, the expected service life of assets under the management of Environmental Services is unknown, although there are broad guidelines available for estimating purposes.


Currently, the prioritization of Environmental Services capital projects is largely based upon a number of criteria such as complaints by the public, public pressure for new facilities, the potential to reduce operation and maintenance costs (automization), regulatory or mandatory requirements, capacity or the risks associated with deteriorated assets. Detailed comments on capital project prioritization and timing are as follows:

�� The planning horizon for Environmental Services is five years, but the confidence in expenditures beyond two years into the future is low. One known expenditure is the amount of approximately $275,000 that is spent every ten years on the resurfacing of the


EARTH TECH Inc.

Massey Place track. In most cases, the planning for capital expenditures requires improved master plans, and more input from the community and politicians on what is needed.

�� In terms of linkages with other City departments, the trails have a natural linkage with Roads, and initial steps are just being taken to better coordinate with the Transportation division for the identification and condition assessment of trails, and to ensure there are service connections available for median irrigation when paving a new section of road.

�� It was generally observed that Parks and Roads have more difficulty in capital planning because its funding is generated from form general revenue, with the exception of odd donations for specific projects. Solid waste has a separate fee for its capital projects. Projects are usually prioritized by administration services and the level of priority is identified by public complaints. This is not a well-established process and the division needs a more scientific approach to help prioritize its capital projects.

�� In terms of managing an increasing number of capital projects, the general consensus was that staff has the ability to manage but generally does not have the time to do so. It was felt that the maintenance of the existing assets already occupies everyone, and that the Division is already severely resource constrained. Capital works by and large displaces the operation and maintenance of assets, and the City might be already be “ loosing ground” as a result of this.

�� The workshop participants agreed that there is the potential for contracting out of capital projects in Prince George, but at a price: There is often a gap between the end product and the requirements of the City. City staff does not have the time to “ baby sit” contractors, which has an adverse effect on the quality of the product. Another problem with contracting out is that due to seasonal variation there is limited capacity with contractors during winter months. Local expertise is critical and lacking in many cases such as engineering and forestry, and many areas specialization are required in Environmental Services. Many outside consultants do not understand local conditions in Prince George (e.g., plant species), but local consultants either do not meet the current standards or do not know them. Specifically the number of local landscaping contractors is lacking, therefore the City had to lead development and training of local consultants and contractors.


The funding for Environmental Services is sourced from general revenue, the cemetery and solid waste has dedicated sources of funding, and some income is derived from events held in city parks. DCC’s are used for growth only – the Chief Engineer works through the DCC’s to see if it


EARTH TECH Inc.

could be applied to Environmental Services on a case by case basis, such as the irrigation of parks at Westgate.

Some community fundraising occurs e.g., for the skate park, and some local parks (by the Rotary club) or in the case of the women’s soccer club where the club paid 2/ 3rds for new fields and the City paid one 1/ 3rd. Grants are available for specific projects are available, but these are usually some of the larger projects. Other sources of funds include the “ adopt a bench” program that covers the costs to install new benches, or the sale of existing park land which is then applied to fund other park developments. The approval of the funds required for the maintenance of new assets does not yet form part of the approval process for new developments.

General consensus was that Environmental Services is now faring better than previous years when there was the perception that Leisure Services was obtaining the lion’s share of funding for structures. However, the funding for operation and maintenance still seem to fall short of what it should be. Project funding now occurs by service categories where all funds are spent on services such as parks, weed and pest control, garbage pick-up etc. The City received feedback from the public through Quality Service surveys. However, priority always seems to lie with the more tangible asset classes such as roads (i.e., “ fix the potholes first, then worry about cutting the grass).

The rate-planning horizon is five years, similar to the other Divisions. However, there are potentially large expenditures ahead (so-called expenditure “ bubbles” ) that are not currently budgeted for, such as the impact of the beetle kill on the City trees, or the rehabilitation of tennis courts (estimated to be in excess of $2m for all 75 courts). The City’s cemetery is the only Environmental Services asset for which a reserve fund is currently available.

EARTH TECH Inc.

APPENDIX A Development Services:

Asset Replacement Values

APPENDIX A Page A-2

EARTH TECH Inc.

Development Services Department: Preliminary Asset Valuation – Replacement Cost


Environmental Services Park Building $ 67,329,400.00

Parkland $ 101,387,875.00 Transportation Culverts Driveway 8136 ea $ 600.00 $ 4,881,600.00

Curb Erect 374947 m $ 85.00 $ 31,870,495.00 Curb Roll 220512 m $ 85.00 $ 18,743,520.00 Ditch Open Ditch 217823 m $ 20.00 $ 4,356,460.00 Lane Asphalt 226314 sq m $ 38.00 $ 8,599,932.00 Lane Gravel 139650 sq m $ 20.00 $ 2,793,000.00 Road Asphalt 7123150 sq m $ 35.00 $ 249,310,250.00 Road Gravel 875380 sq m $ 17.00 $ 14,881,460.00 Sidewalk Asphalt 189885 sq m $ 50.00 $ 9,494,250.00 Sidewalk Concrete 50683 sq m $ 85.00 $ 4,308,055.00 Signs Street 7500 ea $ 150.00 $ 1,125,000.00 Structure Bridge 9800 m sq $ 2,500.00 $ 24,500,000.00 Structure Pedestrian Underpass 2 ea $ 300,000.00 $ 600,000.00 Structure Stairs 350 m sq $ 1,050.00 $ 367,500.00 Walkways Asphalt 24494 sq m $ 50.00 $ 1,224,700.00 Walkways Gravel 22242 sq m $ 30.00 $ 667,260.00

Utilities Sanitary Cap 108 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 648,000.00 Sanitary Connection 22000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 132,000,000.00 Sanitary Liftstation 29 $ 9,411,000.00 Sanitary Main 422253 m $ 300.00 $ 126,675,900.00 Sanitary Manhole 4923 ea $ 7,500.00 $ 36,922,500.00 Sanitary Treatment Plant 5 $ 36,856,000.00 Strorm Cap 102 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 612,000.00 Strorm Catch Basin 4702 ea $ 3,500.00 $ 16,457,000.00 Strorm Catch Basin Lead 55606 m $ 300.00 $ 16,681,800.00 Strorm Connection 15000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 90,000,000.00 Strorm Culvert 10004 m $ 300.00 $ 3,001,200.00 Strorm Flumes 2000 m $ 100.00 $ 200,000.00 Strorm Inlet 10 ea $ 25,000.00 $ 250,000.00 Strorm Main 252204 m $ 300.00 $ 75,661,200.00 Strorm Manhole 3304 ea $ 7,500.00 $ 24,780,000.00 Strorm Outfall 102 ea $ 30,000.00 $ 3,060,000.00 Strorm Pumpstation 3 $ 454,000.00 Strorm Wood Stave 338 m $ 300.00 $ 101,400.00 Streetlight Ornamental 3448 ea $ 4,000.00 $ 13,792,000.00 Traffic Control 4 Way Flasher 4 ea $ 20,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Traffic Control Crosswalk Flashing Light 5 ea $ 25,000.00 $ 125,000.00 Traffic Control Fully Actuated Intersections 31 ea $ 100,000.00 $ 3,100,000.00 Traffic Control Pedestrian Crossing 10 ea $ 40,000.00 $ 400,000.00 Water Airvalve 37 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 222,000.00 Water Blowoof 66 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 396,000.00 Water Boosterstation 11 $ 2,999,000.00 Water Cap 529 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 3,174,000.00 Water Connection 22000 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 132,000,000.00 Water Hydrant 2023 ea $ 7,600.00 $ 15,374,800.00 Water Hydrantlead 14000 m $ 300.00 $ 4,200,000.00 Water Main 521927 m $ 300.00 $ 156,578,100.00 Water PRV 10 $ 1,060,000.00 Water Reducer 23 ea $ - $ - Water Reservoir 14 $ 20,380,000.00 Water Valve 4054 ea $ 6,000.00 $ 24,324,000.00 Water Well 13 $23,276,000.00

Total $1,521,693,657.00

city of p.rince george ' ii ~ sset management p

Documents