Category:

Glen Brown coined the term Sustainable Service Delivery in 2010. Formal branding came with rollout of “Asset Management for Sustainable Service Delivery: A BC Framework” in 2015. The emphasis on service is a game-changer. Under Glen Brown’s leadership, Asset Management BC uses the term Sustainable Service Delivery to focus local government attention on desired outcomes. These flow from policy objectives in Living Water Smart to implement a life-cycle approach to asset management AND eliminate the unfunded gap for infrastructure replacement.

“Imagine yourself as the lead water and wastewater operator at your organization. At the front lines of it all managing or preventing failures, one after the other. You know the system inside and out and have grown a professional pride and ownership over the system. However, potential mechanical failure or permit violation is always on your mind. You know you need a better system in place than you have,” stated Anna Agnew. “We had the right combination of the people on the team, the right support and tools at the right time, a clear road map we set up, leadership’s support, and a stubbornness and commitment to the end goal. We started small.”

“The majority of consultant asset management (AM) related reports describe a catastrophic scenario where the municipality is in a crisis situation due to large portions of its infrastructure deemed to be past its useful life. The reports often communicate the need for immediate replacement of assets at costs that are multiples, if not tens of multiples of the municipality’s annual capital budget. So, why is this occurring? Municipal governments are not providing outside consultants with clear direction as to the nature of the problem being explored and the specific details required by the client of any analysis,” stated Joe McGowan.

A constant challenge for planning is not to prevent past events, but instead is to use past experiences to inform and create flexible strategies for the present and the future. Furthermore, this need for flexibility is not restricted to the immediate scope of the problem at hand; but must also consider the broader juggling of evolving local government priorities and service demands This leads to the challenge of assessing problems with sufficient complexity to arrive at flexible and resilient solutions. while at the same time not being overwhelmed and paralyzed by over-analysis,” stated Robert Hicks.

“Each natural / green asset can be recorded in a similar way to built assets. Many natural assets, however, will not have a beginning date and they will not have a fixed lifespan. For example, assets such as open waterways are maintained in perpetuity. Once natural / green assets are listed in an asset register  or inventory, you need to consider how to report the current value, the replacement value, and if the asset is to be included or excluded from a replacement program,” stated Bernadette O’Connor.

“The track record of urban settlements being perpetuated in hazardous areas with little abatement has resulted in an increase in vulnerability of our assets which results in the degradation of these assets and interruptions in the expected levels of service. Therefore, the call to encourage registered professional planners to come together with asset managers becomes an understandable priority. Both the asset management planning framework and the community planning framework resemble each other; planning is planning is planning,” stated Christine Callihoo.

“If we look at the variability in climate change impact scenarios that may occur within many asset lifecycles, we may get distracted by the uncertainty and statistical variance of the magnitude among the anticipated changes for key parameters that inform levels-of-service. Another way to consider this variance and uncertainty is to consider the time-range that a key performance threshold might be reached. For asset management, the consideration is how and when assets might be compromised in their lifecycle by climate change,” stated Robert Hicks.

“We received a proposal to manage stormwater using pipes, ditches, and a large sedimentation pond. It was going to cost roughly $850,000 and they were going to clear around a hectare of forest. Jason Gow, senior planner from the City of Powell River, and I went on site to review the proposed engineering design. We wondered why are we clearing a forest to put in infrastructure to manage run-off, when we know the forest can provide that service to some extent? We tried to look for any similar case studies for a “volume of water per area of forest” that can be safely managed, but we could not find anything,” stated Michael Wall.

“We had the same late awakening with natural assets – overlooking them until our physical infrastructure was exposed as vulnerable to climate change and tight budgets highlighted the cost effectiveness and resilience of natural assets like aquifers and wetlands. These natural gifts we had unconsciously relied upon are now being evaluated and ascribed a dollar value. Perhaps once this work is done, we will realize again, that we are all heavily invested,” stated Diane Kalen-Sukra.