PGDOCS-#253870-v5-Strategic Infrastructure Plan and Work Plan Hall/Agendas/2017... · Strategic...

Strategic Asset Management Priorities And Work Plan February 2013

Executive Summary: Asset Management is the systematic and coordinated activities and practices of an organization to optimally and sustainably deliver on its objectives through the cost‐effective life cycle management of assets.1 The City implemented a Strategic Asset Management plan in 2004 which has guided the City’s development of asset management to date. Many of the goals contained in that plan have been substantially achieved or are well underway. As a result of this early work, Council has become increasingly aware of the City’s Infrastructure Gap which will require significant funds to be set aside for the future renewal or replacement of its core infrastructure. Recent Councils have made the development of the City’s asset management capacity and related activity a high strategic priority and is reflected in Council’s 2012‐2014 priorities for Sustainable Infrastructure as included under Effective Governance in the City’s Strategic Framework. This report summarizes the City’s asset management activities to date and proposes the strategic directions for the short to medium term to:

Identify the sustainability of proposed new and/or re‐developed areas

Develop Levels of Service (LoS) statements for all existing and proposed services

Develop, implement and maintain Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management system (CMMS)

Develop and maintain RIVA (the City’s long term infrastructure renewal planning tool)

Improve long term financial planning for infrastructure with a focus on facilities

Improve the City’s AM capacity referring to the Asset Management BC Roadmap

Introduction: The City of Prince George embarked on its asset management (AM) journey in 2004 by developing a Strategic Infrastructure Asset Management Plan that included three working papers:

Working Paper No 1: Current Prince George Asset Knowledge: o Summarized the City’s level of sophistication in addressing the Six Whats of Asset

Management with respect to assets managed by the Transportation and Utility Divisions.

Working Paper No 2: Comparison with Municipal Best Practices: o Outlined the City’s level of sophistication of applying best practices to the management

of its infrastructure

Working Paper No 3: Recommendations: o Provided guidance to the City’s development of improved approaches to municipal

infrastructure investment. This work was followed in late 2006 by the development of an AM System Business Requirements and Implementation Plan. This plan outlined optional approaches for the development of Infrastructure Planning and Maintenance tools to enable and support improved AM practices at the City.

1 AM definition is extracted from the International Infrastructure Management Manual(IIMM) 2011

Strategic Plan for Asset Management

Page | 2 Doc# 253870

An Asset Manager was appointed to a newly created position in 2007 and is responsible for the development of the City’s AM plans. This report will provide:

1. An update on AM developments to date by referring to the objectives originally outlined in the previously mentioned references.

2. An outline of the proposed strategic directions for the period 2013 – 2017 3. A draft multi‐year work plan to support the proposed strategies

1. Strategic Update: The City’s first strategic plan was outlined in Working Paper No 3 (December 2004). It identified the initial focus was on the management of the City’s linear assets (they form approximately 70‐80% of the replacement value of the City’s infrastructure assets). The plan update follows:

Item Strategy Development Activity and Current Status1 Establish an Asset

Management Coordinating Committee: I. Formulation of the City’s

strategic AM objectives II. Communication with and

education of stakeholders on AM related issues

III. Coordination of internal and external asset data collection efforts

IV. Establishing the structure of the AM database and giving consideration to linkages between divisions and to other municipal applications

V. Giving consideration to the establishment of levels of service(LoS) and benchmarks for service delivery

Establishing an AM Coordinating Committee met with limited success due to the primary focus of members being their primary responsibilities. Once appointed in 2007, the AM Manager called meetings for input and advice as required. I. Strategic AM objectives boiled down to identifying the

City’s infrastructure gap. The RIVA development and implementation in 2009 was a key support tool.

II. AM communications to date has been largely limited to City managers and Council.

III. Asset data collection has been very limited but some standards have been established including procedures to improve the capture of as‐constructed records(Jan‐2009)

IV. The existing AM repository for linear assets is GIS which uses an industry standard data model for Utilities. There has been little development of the understanding of JD Edwards AM capacity for vertical assets. We have developed an inventory collection and Long term Facilities Capital Planning Model to identify the long term funding requirements for our Civic and Utility vertical assets which is to be implemented in 2013.

V. LoS is well established in the Utility Division through membership in the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative (NWWBI). A network SDI of 7.0 has been indentified for Roads. Discussion has only recently begun (Fall 2012) on the broader development and application of LoS.

2 Formulate draft Strategic Asset management Objectives: I. Have stable rates that

ensure adequate funding for capital re‐investment

II. Start to understand levels of service for their eventual establishment

I. Capital re‐investment in roads has remained at approx 50% of the required amount since 2008 rising to 55% of this requirement in 2013. Utility rates are expected to meet the required sustainable funding levels for maintenance and capital re‐investment by 2015. Work will begin in 2013 to identify the requirements for the introduction of a combined Storm and Snow “Utility” to provide stable funding for these important services.

II. See comment in 1.V. above.


Page | 3 Doc# 253870

III. Build support for re‐investment through the education of stakeholders (politicians, the public and City employees)

IV. Manage all assets on a life‐cycle approach and define the correct balance between capital and operational expenditures

III. There is significant political support for infrastructure re‐investment as evidenced through current and proposed funding strategies. A Communication Plan has been developed to support the development of AM at the City.

IV. A recent internal proposal is that all capital project submissions include a life‐cycle cost analysis identifying the ROI of a project where appropriate. This requires the introduction of training and tools to support this initiative which is part of a grant submission to the Province’s 2012 Innovative Funding program under the General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF‐IF).

3 Conduct a top‐down asset management review: I. What do you have? II. What is it worth? III. What is its condition? IV. What is its expected

service life? V. What to do and when to

do it? VI. What is the impact on

rates?

I. Some gaps remain in our asset inventory II. Current infrastructure replacement cost estimates are in

the order of $2.1 billion. Some work remains in a few key areas.

III. With the exception of roads, there is very little asset condition assessment data. This is an area for development which would significantly improve our understanding of our buried infrastructure and the related capital projections.

IV. Condition assessment will inform the expected service life of assets.

V. We have developed an integrated approach to our linear infrastructure using RIVA which is a significant achievement. We have a good understanding of the requirements for our vertical assets; however, we have not captured this knowledge in any documented approach to their replacement and/or renewal. Work on this is planned for 2013.

VI. The RIVA work from 2009 and 2010 has guided the development and implementation of a funding strategy for Utilities and has identified the target for sustainable roads funding.

4 Produce long‐range capital re‐investment forecasts from the development of asset replacement curves: The development of capital replacement curves will represent the required annual expenditure on rehabilitation and/or renewal for all assets over the next 50 – 100 years

RIVA development has allowed improved reporting of the long‐term (100 year) capital requirements for the City’s linear assets annually since early 2010. Prior to this development, capital requirements were projected using simple spreadsheet models for each individual asset type. Replacement infrastructure rates were last updated in 2010 and it is expected that this data will again be updated in 2013. Further limited development of RIVA in 2013 will include the long‐term capital funding for utilities and paved roads in lanes. 2013 plans include the development of simple spreadsheet models for the long term Capital Planning for Facilities.

5 Define the magnitude of Prince George’s infrastructure re‐investment gap: Identify the difference in the City’s current funding level for infrastructure re‐investment and the amount that is

This has been a regular information item for Council since early 2010. Based on recent work and discussions with Finance, plans are underway to consolidate the systematic tracking and reporting of the City’s financial status of its infrastructure in future Annual Municipal Reports including the annual reporting of the City’s re‐investment in its infrastructure. While this may be difficult to reconcile when


Page | 4 Doc# 253870

needed to maintain the infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

compared to the City’s reported annual depreciation of its assets it is a significant step forward in developing integrated approaches to the management and reporting on the City’s assets.

As outlined above, the initial strategic direction for the development of Asset Management has provided significant development challenges for the City resulting in significant gains in some areas and development opportunities in others. It should be remembered that the development of the City’s AM capacity is a significant learning curve where little industry expertise exists and must compete with other organizational priorities which can also be equally challenging considering the resources that may be available for all areas of development.

1.1 AM System Business Requirements and Implementation Plan: Delivered in November 2006, this document provided guidance for the development of the City’s systems and tools in support of asset management. Phase 1 included the introduction of RIVA which was piloted in 2008 to confirm it met the City’s AM requirements and was later implemented in 2009 and populated with the linear assets. Innovative and integrated renewal processes demonstrated the power of the software in developing integrated long term infrastructure renewal/replacement plans and associated costs. It also showed the capacity to integrate risk frameworks for improved capital decision making. This has not been developed beyond identifying how this could be accomplished due to lack of resources to develop the required data and system development. Phase 2 included the introduction of a CMMS to support the data collection required for more robust infrastructure renewal and replacement planning. The CMMS would also allow an improved approach to managing the City’s linear assets which could not be effectively managed in the City’s JD Edwards Enterprise One system due to the complexity in simply and uniquely identifying asset locations throughout the City. The acquisition of a CMMS began in earnest in 2010 with a review of available systems. A CMMS Blueprint for a system design was also undertaken in 2010 with delivery in February 2011. Cityworks was identified as the preferred CMMS system due to its geo‐centric capability which means it does not duplicate the GIS data for use by the CMMS system which is expected to reduce the City’s systems maintenance requirements. Discussions to acquire the Cityworks CMMS system began in 2011 and continued throughout 2012 resulting in a signed agreement with Esri Canada Ltd. in late December 2012 for the installation and implementation of CMMS software to commence in early 2013.

1.2 Support of the Finance Division for the Implementation of PSAB 3150: Concurrent with the development of asset management, the City is now required to report the financial status of its assets commencing with the 2009 Annual Municipal Report. The Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) requires the reporting of the accumulated depreciation and remaining “book value” of its assets on an annual basis. The Asset Management Division has supported the reporting of the City’s assets through submission of asset quantity reports, asset starting values (2008 $’s) and the estimated service life of various assets to assist in identifying appropriate asset depreciation periods. AM has also supported discussion on strategies using JD Edwards for asset summation and reporting. It is believed that the AM perspective has brought a more integrated approach to asset reporting. This corporate AM perspective has also been brought to bear on the development of the City’s Capital Expenditure Program by supporting the creation of a multi‐functional team of managers bringing their knowledge and perspectives to help evaluate the broad value of capital projects to the community while considering Council’s Priorities.

I I


Page | 5 Doc# 253870

1.3 Implementation of the Asset Management Policy: At its meeting of December 3, 2012 Council adopted the Asset Management Policy. The Policy identifies the strategic actions and principles to be followed in developing infrastructure related plans and programs.

2. Proposed Strategic Direction(s): City Council adopted the outcomes of the myPG community planning and consultation processes in 2011. A significant outcome of this process was the development of a “strategic framework for a Sustainable Prince George guides the integration of the myPG community goals into the City’s operations.” The City Government Strategy includes a number of areas of focus including the following Policy Directions:

1. Sustainable Infrastructure: The City efficiently manages the procurement, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of its physical assets considering lifecycle cost, risk, and service level continuity.

2. Responsible Fiscal Management: The City will be financially sustainable, with the revenue resources required to support its plans and infrastructure and provide services that citizens and businesses need.

3. Organizational Excellence: The City is a responsive, cost effective, people centered service delivery organization that understands customer needs and strives to exceed the expectations of those it serves.

The recently adopted Asset Management Policy and the City’s Sustainable Finance Policy are primary drivers of the proposed strategic initiatives and work plan that follow.

2.1 Sustainable New and/or Re‐Development: Much has been written about sustainable development and how to move towards sustainability but surprisingly little has been developed to define exactly how to quantify the sustainability of new and/or re‐development areas. If you cannot quantify the sustainability of new and/or re‐development areas then you cannot confirm if new and/or re‐development contributes to the growth of the City’s infrastructure deficit or by how much. Without this basic information we will continue to address infrastructure funding issues while also continuing to approve development that may be contributing to the deficit. The Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) defines the Infrastructure Deficit as:

“Infrastructure Deficit is the added investment in (infrastructure) assets that would be required to maintain them at appropriate service levels and in a good state of repair”.

This writer suggests that the Infrastructure Deficit can be further defined by considering:

Capital: o The backlog of work on Existing Infrastructure to maintain defined service levels o The demand for new Infrastructure due to Growth/Limited Capacity o The future requirements for Renewal/Replacements


Page | 6 Doc# 253870

Operating & Maintenance: o The estimated cost to operate and maintain (O & M) infrastructure while delivering

defined service levels

The implementation of the RIVA tool has helped identify funding levels with respect to the capital backlog and the future requirements for infrastructure renewal/replacement. Given the City’s limited growth over the last 10 years combined with growth projections, there appears to be relatively little demand for new infrastructure. A work plan outline supporting this and the other proposed strategies is contained in Appendix A. The City has recently investigated the use of a tool developed by Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) in 2008 titled, Life Cycle Costing Tool for Community Infrastructure Planning (The Tool). The Tool was created to allow a user to estimate the major costs of community development, particularly those that change with different forms of development (for example, linear infrastructure), and to compare alternative development scenarios. The major categories of costing variables include: hard infrastructure, municipal services, private user costs, external costs, and can also include green infrastructure alternatives.

The Tool is geared towards estimating planning level costs and revenues associated with the residential component of a development, although financial impacts of commercial and other types of development can be incorporated provided that infrastructure requirements are specified correctly. Unfortunately the Tool is not widely used and as a result the outputs are not well understood at this time. It does however hold promise in increasing our understanding of the relative sustainability of various forms of development and so continuing to work on the potential application of the Tool may yield worthwhile benefits. This work would be led by the Long Range Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department and supported by the Asset Management Division.

2.2 Sustainable Operating and Maintenance: The implementation of the proposed CMMS supports the development of an improved understanding of the cost to operate and maintain infrastructure. Most of the City’s O & M budgets are historically (Transit excluded) based and have evolved over time. Over the last 20 years or so, the growth of O & M budgets has been generally restricted to the cost of inflation (Consumer Price Index) and in a few cases increased where extraordinary cost increases have been identified or a focused area of service is modified. This has arguably resulted in a number of O & M budgets being effectively reduced since the labour, equipment and materials elements in the O & M costs often significantly outstrip the general cost of inflation as defined by the CPI. This then suggests that an overall strategy for O & M with respect to establishing defined Levels of Service (LoS) is required and may consider the following framework:

Corporate/Community Objectives

Levels of Service

Operational Objectives

Performance Management Hierarchy

From IIMM‐2011 Figure 1


Page | 7 Doc# 253870

The City has only recently begun to discuss LoS while reflecting on its overall strategic framework as outlined in myPG and Council priorities. Figure 2 illustrates how LoS connects to program delivery and resource allocations:

Suffice to say that developing a solid understanding of Levels of Service will serve as an important foundation to an improved understanding of the City’s resource requirements and allocations as outlined in Figure 2.

2.3 Implement and Maintain Cityworks CMMS: Continuing a strategic direction first outlined in the 2006 report on the City’s AM System Business Requirements and Implementation Plan, the City is now positioned to implement the Cityworks CMMS. The foundational benefits of Asset Management are described in Figure 3 under:

Cityworks is a tool to help extend the life of the City’s assets through the delivery of optimized maintenance plans. The implementation of the first phase of Cityworks is scheduled to start in spring 2013 and is expected to require up to 15 months of development and implementation activity. A Project Terms of Reference

Achieved Performance

Levels of Service

Asset condition & performance measures

Programmes

Budgets

Resource Allocations

Resource Allocation driving Asset Management

From IIMM‐2011 Figure 2

Benefits of Asset Management

Figure 3

[

[ t

/ [ ]

~

] [

] [ ' [ ] ✓

Optimized Asset Management

Status Quo: No AMP

Lower the Cost of Renewal and Ensure Adequate Funding

Time (100 Years)

]

]


Page | 8 Doc# 253870

is available and Separate Steering and Working Committees have been struck. A number of education and awareness sessions have been delivered to City staff. This is a very significant undertaking for the City and will be a catalyst for change in the way Operational activities are managed, measured and reported. Phase 2 is anticipated to include the deployment of field tools to allow access to asset and work management data in the field. Once this system is up and running, it will allow the tracking of maintenance activities to assets, which in turn permits the rate of deterioration to be tracked over time and an optimum renewal and/or replacement strategy and timing to be identified. This renewal/replacement data will inform the RIVA long term infrastructure planning projections for improved financial planning. 2.4 RIVA Maintenance and Development: Since its implementation in 2009, RIVA has improved our understanding of the long term (100 year) funding requirements for the City’s linear asset renewals and/or replacements. Significant effort was put into identifying and training appropriate support staff in Operations to ensure that system information could be utilized and updated for use in operational and capital planning. The risk frameworks developed in 2009 appear to have had limited success in improving the strategic allocation of increasingly limited resources. There is significant opportunity in the re‐establishment of Operational support for, and the continuing development of RIVA. It is also critical that capital project records are updated to RIVA on a timely basis for the accurate future projections of candidate capital projects, the associated funding requirements and improved PSAB reporting. Timely record updates also improve the quality of information available when required. There is also an opportunity to improve O & M decision making by incorporating the various asset risk frameworks into day to day Operations. Connecting the Risk Frameworks to Levels of Service could also provide powerful statements regarding the delivery of municipal services with related costs and rationale. Capital and maintenance infrastructure strategies should employ best practices that typically recommend more frequent lower cost re‐investments yielding improved asset condition and lower total re‐investment costs over time – i.e. “investing in the right strategy at the right time”. This best practice approach is challenging and dependent upon resources which has been particularly difficult for our road assets. The challenge going forward will be developing a transition plan to incorporate best practice approaches. Reference to the RIVA Asset Management System documentation will provide the necessary details to help re‐establish the required Operational support and understanding for RIVA. 2.5 Improved Long Term Financial Planning for Infrastructure: Many cities are beginning to identify the need for longer term (> 5 years) financial plans to help improve the financial sustainability of their communities. This is coupled with a desire to see improved infrastructure funding programs from the Provincial and Federal governments which provide for re‐investment in existing infrastructure in addition to new infrastructure. The City of Prince George has already submitted a grant request under the Innovation Fund of the General Strategic Priorities Fund to improve its approach to infrastructure investments. An outline of the proposed benefits from the GSPF‐IF project outlined in the grant application are noted under: Included Deliverables:

Summary Asset Data and Replacement Costs for Parks, Utility and Civic Facilities

A Populated Long‐term Financial Planning Model

Final Report including business process documentation

Presentation Materials to communicate results to internal/external stakeholders

Optional Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Task:

LCC Tool and User Guide


Page | 9 Doc# 253870

Optional Sustainable Finance Policy Review and Update:

Sustainable Finance Policy update to guide Administration

2.6 Adoption and Implementation of the Asset Management BC Roadmap: The AMBC Roadmap was published in May 2011 and resulted from the work of Asset Management BC working with a number of BC communities and the Province of BC to develop a simplified approach to asset management in British Columbia:

Detailed descriptions of how to approach completing the basic requirements of asset management are available in the Roadmap. It is proposed that the City develop its asset management capacity by creating work plans that follow the guidance provided in the Roadmap. Generally the Roadmap identifies an increasing level of sophistication in each area as you progress from top to bottom and in increasing sustainability as you progress from left to right. It is further proposed that Operational work plans include specific Asset Management objectives that can be aligned with the Roadmap and reported on annually to identify progress. Without a specific work plan and accountability for its completion it is unlikely that any cohesive and significant development activity will occur. The development of a work plan following the AMBC Roadmap is considered complementary and supportive to the goals of a CMMS. A proposed long‐term Asset Management development work plan is included in Appendix B which also outlines the proposed approach to reporting progress at the Divisional and Corporate levels.

SUMMARY: This report provides an outline of the City’s development of asset management to date and it also provides proposed strategic priorities for continuing asset management development over the next 5‐10 years including:

1. Identify the sustainability of proposed New and/or Re‐Development areas 2. Develop Levels of Service statements for all existing and proposed Services 3. Develop, Implement and Maintain Cityworks CMMS 4. Develop and Maintain RIVA 5. Improve Long Term Financial Planning for Infrastructure 6. Develop the City’s AM capacity following the AMBC Roadmap

Asset Management BC Roadmap Figure 4

.&MDC : Aact M..,...<JCIW!&I Bu.il<Wl.OJ Block• : Ro•drn.af,

Guide for using the Asset Management BC Roadmap

Asset Management B.C.

ROADMAP MAY 2011

1 ·-·· .. --.-, .. --1 D ---~••·•-"·••~--,-, • •---- . -· -· • •-···--··----


Page | 10 Doc# 253870

The Strategic Priorities noted above have been coupled with a proposed Corporate Work Plan and are outlined in Appendix A. Continuing to develop the City’s Asset Management capacity is expected to yield significant benefits over the long term by extending the life of the City’s assets and by reducing the costs of capital infrastructure/renewal. Guidance for this development is available through the Asset Management BC Roadmap which is included for reference in Appendix B Respectfully Submitted, Frank Blues Asset Manager


Page | 11 Doc# 253870

Appendix A AM Strategic Priorities and

Associated Proposed Corporate Work Plan

Item Strategy Development Activity Supported myPG

Strategies

2.1

Identify the sustainability of proposed New and/or Re‐

Development areas

1. Referring to the CMHC Life Cycle Costing Tool for Community Infrastructure Planning, continue to develop the City’s understanding of the sustainability of New Development and/or Re‐Development.

2. Develop a communication plan to improve the stakeholder/community awareness of the lessons learned.

3. Following feedback, incorporate the lessons learned into the Planning and Development processes as desired.

Sustainable Infrastructure

Responsible Fiscal Management

Organizational Excellence

2.2

Develop Levels of Service(LoS)

statements for all existing and

proposed Services

1. Referring to myPG, and other available resources, develop the City’s understanding of Levels of Service and how this relates to the myPG strategic framework and to the delivery and performance of City services.

2. Develop the Level of Service Statements that support Council’s Priorities and 2012‐2014 Work Plan

3. Develop LoS statements that support the delivery of a minimum of six key services from each Operational area and their associated budgets.

4. Continue to develop LoS standards for the delivery of City services




2.3

Develop, Implement and

Maintain Cityworks CMMS

1. Develop and Implement Cityworks CMMS 2. Integrate JD Edwards financials and Tempest

Calls for Service to Cityworks 3. Develop and Implement Field Tools to

increase the efficiency of asset data collection, Service Response and Work Management

4. Incorporate and continue to develop the AM processes related to CMMS in Operations





Page | 12 Doc# 253870

2.4 Develop and Maintain RIVA

1. Re‐establish Operational support for RIVA. 2. Continue to develop and implement the Risk

Frameworks for Water, Sanitary, Storm and Sidewalk networks.

3. Develop an improved strategy for the replacement/renewal of water mains and services to reduce the forecasted “open‐cut” cost of capital for water renewals/replacements.




2.5

Improve Long Term Financial Planning for Infrastructure

Develop the City’s Long term financial planning as outlined in items 2.1 to 2.4 under “Know Your Financial Situation” as outlined in the AMBC Roadmap and as further described in the City’s grant submitted to the GSPF‐IF program under the Gas Tax Agreement as administered by UBCM. Improved understanding of the City’s long term funding requirements for Utility and Civic Facilities is a high priority for development.




2.6

Improve the City’s AM capacity

referring to the AMBC Roadmap as

the primary guidance tool.

Support the continuous corporate development of Asset Management by completing the Basic Components of section 1 to 5 of the AMBC Roadmap. For example: 1. Know Your Assets ‐ Refer to Phase 1 as

outlined in Appendix B, Figure 5 2. Know Your Financial Situation 3. Understand Decision‐Making 4. Manage Your Asset Lifecycle 5. Know the Rules





Page | 13 Doc# 253870

Appendix B AM Development Work Plan Using the AMBC Roadmap

AMBC Roadmap Figure 5

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 AMBC Ass t Management uilding Bl ock

:n.o _Know You r

Assets.

2.0 _ Kn ow You r

Pin a nci:a.l Situat ion

3.0 _u nd ersta nd

Decision-Making

4,0 _Manage Your

Ass.et Lifecyd e

consultaition / mmunkation

1 .l _Basic Asset Inventory

al Asset rype b) Location c) O,,,,ntity& Size d) Material •l Useful Life f) Install Date & Agel gj Remainq; Life

1 .2_Componentized Ass.et Inve nt ory

1 .. 3_Current Data software and Tools

al Asset data b) Acco•irting c) worlclastoly d) Decision tool, •I GIS

1.4_Dat.a

M anageme.nt al Data accuracy b) Data

c.omp)eteness c) Data gap, d) Data mntrals

1,5_Dat:iil

Accessibility al Data famat b) Geogapllic lioks c) condition data d) Financial data

1,6 _ Data, software

and Tools Strategy

al currelll Tools b) Data

Mar.agernent c) Data Aa:essibuty d) Decision Tools

2.. l _ CUrire_rrt A sse t

Investm ent

al Replacement

value b) Depreciated

v.atue

2.2._ CUr;re Bt O &M

Cost,

al Historical O&M

b) Cllll'ent o&M costs

2.~_F•ture Capital Co sts

Multi-year Plans al Renewal Prnjects b) New Assets

2.4_ Fundi og So urces

Multi-year Plans al Ta<e, b) R"""""" c) F•rxflngRlles

2.5 _ Rltu re O&M

Costs Multi-year Plans

al Qperilllior,al costs b) Maintenanc•

costs

2,6_Maintenance

Liabi f"rty al Cllll'ent o.ferred

Maintenance costs

b) IBVestment

Strategies

2, 7 o pt imized

Capita l Plan

•I Renewal Plan b) m;r-ovement

Plan

3.1_Evaluate Decisio n Process

a ) current Processes bl Desired Processes <I lmprovemeirt Gap

3.2_1m ,prov eme nt

Plan & P:rocess a) Identify tasks bl De'iElop basic

plan <I Implement

Improvement Process

3.3_Prior it ized

lmp ro¥em ent

Pfan •l De'iElop

prioritiza'tion process / tool

bl Budge.t i limelines

3.5 coUabo ration / tnte~ration Plan

a) Internal betwl,en

Departments bl EXier...! bemeen

Orgarnatioru

3.6 Advanced Dec~ion ... Making

Too ls &

software

3.7 1mpro11ement :strategies

Colour Key for Asset Ma nagerrent (AM) Pra.ctice Modules

D Mod • les r• qui red for Basic i..vel As5"t Manageme nt (At.t ]

D Additional Modules req uir• d for lnte,mediate AM

D Adv.a oced Asset M.a.nagement P,ractice Mod ules

4.l _Assel conditio n

a) CUrr.nt COnartion bl conditionRamg <I condition

Monitoriing dl Deterioration

Moo. ling •l w o,k Histo,.,,.

Trading

4.2_Level o f Se rvice

a] curr.nt LOS bl oesiredLoS <I l'<!lfomlance

Measwes and Mentoring

4.3 _Assess Asset

Renewal AEt:e m.at ives

aJ Tr .. tment Options

bl Evalllillion <I Tr .. tment

:seJectioo di Review Outcome

4!.4 _ Assess Asset

Main ten ance

Strateg ies

.a) Mainter.ance Optioris

bl Evafllillion <I Dl!';e[qp Strategy

di Review o utcome

4 .5 _Liferyde strat~ies

a) operations bl M aiirteoance

<I R•newals di 1New Assets

4.6 _Utilization and Demand

4.7 Optimize Treatment

Selection

4.B uve.l of service/

cost of servic.e A.evie·ws

4.9 Optimized Level of Service

a) Targ,,t Las bl Budge.t S.rvice

cost

Roadmap

5.,0 _Know the Ru les

5.l _Strat egic Go ats

aJ o,ganiiatianai Goals

b) 51.!keholder Goals

5..2_~gisla tion, Regula tion, Policy

& Standards

a) List al' requirements

b) Associated POficies & Best Practic• 51.!ndards

5.3_Monitoring a) sme of

com:p1iance b) Measuning

com:p'liance

5.4_R~orting a) CDrnpflance

Results

b) Benctmarl CDrnparisoos

5.s_ownership Issues

a) Histo,.,,. b) 8"nelru c) Qplioos

5.6_Risk Evaluation a) Risk Assessment

b) Mitption Measures

5.7 Review of Go.a ls and Performance

Targets

6. 0 _ sustaina birrty

Mon.it o rimg

6.l_Sustainabi lity

Assessme nt

a] currelll state of sustailliilbi lity

b) Desired Prncesses c) lmprOYemeirt Gap

6..2 _ co-ordina t ing

Infrastructure Wo rks

a) Identify Tasks b) Develo p Basic

Plan c) lmpl.ment

1mprOYe1T1ellf: P"""'5S

6.3 Demand Man.ageme:nt

al Alternative st rate.flies

6..4 Emerging

Technology a] Altemanve

strategjes b) lnno,ation


Page | 14 Doc# 253870

Corporate Asset Management Development Status and Planning: The one page Roadmap can be used to illustrate the desired multi‐year Corporate “goal posts” for the development of Asset Management. The departmental/divisional AM development status can also be graphically depicted in the table as illustrated in Figure 6 below:

The Roadmap provides a single page view of the proposed development plan or the status of development but it is not intended to be a substitute for an appropriate level of documentation that may be required in support of the Corporate plans. Referring to Figure 5 and using the approach described above it is proposed that the AM Development Work Plan for the various Operational areas include a minimum 90% and preferably a 100% completion rating in the following areas:

Phase 1: Know Your Assets – Basic Level ‐ Refer to sample outlined area in Figure 5

Phase 2: Know Your Financial Situation – Basic Level

Phase 3: Understand Decision‐Making – Basic Level

Phase 4: Manage Your Asset Lifecycle – Basic Level

Phase 5: Know the Rules – Basic Level

Corporate items for

priority development

AMBC Roadmap Development Activity Reporting Figure 61.0 Know Your

... •·········· Assets / __ Bas,c Asset · ,,. entory

a) Asse Type

b} ocation

c} Quanti y & Size

d} Ma erial

e} Useful ,fe

f) Insta ll Date

&Age

\ g) Remaining ife \

·• ....... .

1.2 Component ized

: Asset Invent ory

Divis ion

t: "' .., 0 ~ "' (0 ..,

&; :,e ~ ': ~ 2.0 Kr !ii ·.:; :_ :§: ~ Financi;

.. .,: ..... :::t ............ !..! .. ·····• ..

:2..1 Currer

h vest me

Q < 10% Complete

~ 10 - 50% Complete

e 51- 90% Complete

• > 90% Complete

City Roadmap Activity Status

PGDOCS-#253870-v5-Strategic Infrastructure Plan and Work Plan Hall/Agendas/2017... · Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of PGDOCS-#253870-v5-Strategic Infrastructure Plan and Work Plan Hall/Agendas/2017... · Strategic...