Report for City Council November 19, 2008 Meeting

E includes; Road Right-of-Way, Sewer Life Cycle Cost and Network, Buildings, Transit Facilities 4 and Equipment, Municipal and Replacement Transit Fleet, and Parks and Natural Strategies for Major Areas.  The data for this analysis was based Assets (Capital on the current replacement value, expected asset age, and 2008 levels Budget) of investment in operations and maintenance (O&M) and renewal Recommendation: (rehabilitation and reconstruction). That the October 14, 2008, Finance and The recommended renewal figures Treasury Department report 2008FTI006, are derived from work completed by be received for information. SMA Consulting Ltd, whereas the recommended O&M percentages Report Summary were obtained from the departments. This report provides a high level  As the analysis was done at a summary of the estimated life cycle macro-level, the results from this needs of the City’s major exercise should be viewed as an infrastructure assets, their indicator of the level of investment replacement strategy and schedule required over the life of the asset. as well as potential alternative  Attachment 1 summarizes the Major funding sources. Asset Classes and associated life Previous Council/Committee Action cycle costs, replacement strategy and schedule, and potential At the July 23, 2008, City Council alternative sources of funding. meeting, the following motion was  Attachment 2 details each of the passed: Major Asset Classes. That Administration provide a report to City Council in November 2008 Focus Area outlining the “lifecycle” costing and Environment: Balanced Infrastructure replacement strategies for the City’s Management major asset classes (i.e. Fleet, Buildings) with potential alternative Attachments funding sources and replacement schedules. 1. Summary Analysis of Major Asset Classes Report 2. Breakdown of Major Asset Classes  Life Cycle Costing is a method of Others Reviewing this Report expressing costs in which both capital costs and operations and  R. Boutilier, General Manager, maintenance costs are considered Transportation Department over the expected service life of an  J. Tustian, Deputy City Manager asset.  R. G. Klassen, General Manager,  A high level analysis of the major Planning and Development asset classes was completed, which Department

ROUTING - CITY COUNCIL | DELEGATION – C. Warnock / K.L. Siu WRITTEN BY – J. Florax/R. Kabalin | October 14, 2008 – Finance and Treasury Department 2008FTI006 Page 1 of 2 Life Cycle Cost and Replacement Strategies for Major Assets

 L. Rosen, General Manager, Asset Management and Public Works Department  L. Cochrane, General Manager, Community Services Department  D. H. Edey, General Manager, Corporate Services Department  M. Koziol, General Manager, Capital Construction Department

of 2 Attachment 1

Summary Analysis of Major Asset Classes

What is life cycle costing? By definition, life cycle costing is a method of expressing costs in which both capital costs and operations and maintenance costs are considered over the expected life of an asset. In other words, if we build it, we have to have the money to operate and maintain it over its life, and eventually replace it. The failure to provide the appropriate funding for either the capital or operating components inevitably results in an erosion of the intended service level, a higher than expected life cycle cost, or both. This is an infrastructure principle, approved by council, which is also expressly stated in the City’s Preliminary 10-Year Capital Investment Agenda which calls for “maintaining what is built” and “only building if the life cycle costs are affordable.”

How does the City employ life cycle costing? At this time, only Mobile Equipment Services employs true life cycle costing to direct their infrastructure spending needs. Other areas, while moving in this direction, make investment decisions for major asset classes by considering the present condition of the assets and by using various criteria based on established industry practices.

To ensure limited capital resources are invested wisely and in the most cost effective manner, there is a tremendous advantage to moving to true life cycle costing for all asset classes. Having quantitative data that tells us how much it costs to operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and replace an asset beyond the initial capital costs allows for better budget planning. And, perhaps more importantly, enhances decision-making by telling us whether we can afford to invest in a capital project over its entire life cycle to begin with.

For the City of Edmonton to move towards full life cycle costing, the following steps are required: 1. Undertake an extensive life cycle cost analysis on each asset class and sub-group to determine the actual required annual investment needed. Detailed analysis would include; operations and maintenance (O&M), renewal (rehabilitation and replacement) of assets to determine a comprehensive life cycle costing model. 2. Implement full life cycle costing across all city departments. 3. Include life cycle costs as part of project approval process.

What does the analysis show? Given the limited time and amount of information available, the high-level analysis undertaken represents a snap-shot of our current infrastructure investment at this time. The analysis shows that our average annual investment in O & M and Renewal is not adequate over the life of the assets.

Our current reinvestment rates cannot preserve the City’s $33 billion in existing infrastructure. Moreover, chronic under funding is simply creating a growing backlog of

of 5 Report: 2008FTI006 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 deferred projects that will become more expensive to bring back to an acceptable condition – thereby increasing the overall cost of the asset over its life cycle.

With full life cycle costing, the City can begin to correct this scenario of inadequate resources to reinvest in its existing infrastructure, since the total funding considerations for a specific asset would be factored in before the capital investment was made. In addition, the total costs of the asset would be accounted for in the City’s budget planning for the course of the asset’s expected life.

The summary results of the life cycle cost analysis are shown in Table 1. The current replacement strategies and schedules are summarized in Table 2, while suggestions provided by each of the respective line areas for infrastructure-specific alternative revenue sources are outlined in Table 3.

How was the analysis done? For this exercise, only major infrastructure classes were examined. Each class (e.g. Road Right-of-Way) is made up of many different assets (e.g. arterials, collectors, local roads) with differing asset lives. As such, the reported results are an aggregate of these assets and are to be viewed as a macro-indicator of the annual level of investment required.

The analysis was based on the 2008 infrastructure inventory (data as of December 31, 2007) and approved 2008 budget. The data used was replacement value, expected asset age, investment in O&M; and investment in renewal.

It should be noted that the 2008 O&M and renewal spending levels may not truly represent the average investment. For example, reinvestment in some asset classes is higher in 2008, since this year includes additional funding from the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI). Higher reinvestment in some asset classes (e.g. Fleet) aims to address the backlog of infrastructure for which required rehabilitation was deferred. To make the analysis more comparable, O&M and renewal costs are expressed as a percentage of the replacement value per unit of infrastructure.

In addition to current O&M and renewal costs, the report also includes recommended O&M and renewal costs. These O&M costs were provided by the departments, as they are most familiar with their specific lines of business.

The recommended renewal figures were generated by a life cycle model using infrastructure deterioration, renewal options and costs, and expected performance. The model is similar to the one used by SMA Consulting Ltd. to develop the neighbourhood renewal program. In some cases, the renewal needs were also determined from generally accepted industry practices.

of 5 Report: 2008FTI006 Attachment 1 Attachment 1

Summary of Results

Table 1: Summary of Life Cycle Costs for Major Asset Classes

Replacement Expected Recommended Recommended Infrastructure Unit Value (RV) per 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Life Annual Renewal Annual O&M Unit Years % of RV % of RV % of RV % of RV

Road Right-of-way lane-km $ 1,100,000 25 1 1.0% 0.9% 3.0% 1.7%

Sewer Network km $ 1,800,000 75 0.3% 0.1% 2.0% 0.2%

Buildings m2 $ 3,000 42 1.5% 1.1% 6.3% 2.0%

LRT Major Facilities each $ 34,000,000 95 0.6% 1.4% 5.9% 1.5% LRT Fleet each $ 4,300,000 35 7.2% 5.2% 6.2% 5.2% LRT Line line km $ 6,200,000 69 0.1% 0.9% 7.4% 1.0% LRT Equipment each $ 52,000 24 13.6% 4.1% 8.6% 4.1% Bus Facilities each $ 2,200,000 24 1.3% 6.7% 7.1% 6.7% Bus Equipment each $ 15,000 13 0.0% 2 4.9% 6.8% 5.0%

Transit Bus Fleet each $ 353,000 19 1.3% 15.0% N/A 3 N/A 3 Municipal Fleet each $ 106,000 12 19.0% 28.0% N/A 3 N/A 3

Parks and Natural Areas ha $ 604,000 52 4 0.7% 1.2% 4.0% 5 2.0%

Notes: 1. The recommended O&M and renewal will extend the road life beyond 50 years 2. In the 2008, no rehabilitation dollars have been assigned to Bus Equipment 3. For details, refer to Attachment 2, Municipal and Transit Fleet 4. Parks expected age is higher due to longer lives on assets such as pedestrian bridges and horticulture 5. The majority of Park assets, other than horticulture, have an expected life of 15-20 years, resulting in higher annual renewal because of the shorter life span.

Table 2: Summary of Replacement Strategies

Infrastructure Replacement Strategies Road Right of Way  Transportation has several renewal and maintenance programs running in parallel to each other  More available funding will result in a renewal of assets on a more optimal schedule Sewer Network  20-year Capital Plan to implement necessary rehabilitation, upgrading, replacement and expansion of drainage infrastructure  Relining of deteriorated pipes will be used to extend the useful life of the sewer network whenever suitable  Long term asset management strategies will continuously be fine-tuned to respond to new technologies and changing priorities Buildings  No consistent replacement strategy across the corporation, although some departments have been proactive in the development of a strategy  Corporate Properties have embarked on a process of systematically evaluating the City’s building assets to project repair, renewal or replacement needs Transit Facilities and  Achieving the design life of major Transit assets can be Equipment contingent upon maintenance and replacement of the sub- assets which generally have shorter design lives (e.g. LRT equipment includes; communications, fare collection, etc.)  A decision for replacement or major refurbishment is determined by the age, physical condition, capacity, and functionality assessments of the asset and key sub-assets Municipal and  Vehicles are on a regular replacement cycle Transit Fleet Parks and Natural  Parks has in place a number of conservation programs Areas  Replacement needs are identified through inspection as part of regular maintenance programs  Current investment ratios do not follow typical industry standards given the biological nature of some of the assets

Table 3: Summary of Alternative Sources of Funding – Infrastructure Specific Options

Most infrastructure areas are dependant on property tax levies, federal and provincial grants and some user fees. Administration is exploring other alternative sources of revenue in general. The following is a summary of potential infrastructure specific options.

Infrastructure Alternative Funding Source Road Right of Way  Local Improvement Levies Sewer Network  Increase in utility rates Buildings  User pay at city owned facilities  Cost recovery from the client departments Transit Facilities and  Increasing the fare rate Equipment  Applying a special capital investment surcharge to the fare  Transit Levy for new development Municipal and  Raise fixed rate paid by client departments Transit Fleet Parks and Natural  Parking fees at centrally located parks Areas  Impose a special levy to fund parkland development  Developer funded parks

Breakdown of Major Asset Classes

ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

Background This asset category consists of Roads (local, collector, primary highway and arterial), Sidewalks, Auxiliary Structures and Bridges. The city currently has 10,400 lane-km of roads, 4,800 km of sidewalk and 157 bridges, with a 2007 replacement value of $11 billion. The expected asset life of this group of assets is 25 years with an average age of 34 years. This extended life is due to the rigorous maintenance program implemented by Transportation. A comprehensive maintenance and renewal program will extend the life of a road up to approximately 50 years.

Life Cycle Costs The life cycle costs were calculated based on the quantity of lane-kilometers of roads and the full replacement cost of all Road Right-of-Way assets.

Expected life of Asset 25 years Current average replacement cost per lane- $1.1 million km Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

1.0% 0.9% 2.8% 1.7%

The necessary level of operations & maintenance funding depend heavily on expected service levels and the adequacy of current rehabilitation funding. Given that the levels of spending in rehabilitation and O&M are intertwined, estimates suggest that maintenance funding would ideally need to be at least double the current expenditures to achieve acceptable infrastructure conditions throughout the network. Should additional funding be required it would be more effective if directed toward renewal as it may be more cost effective to repave some roads than to continuously fill potholes in certain locations.

Replacement Strategy Transportation has several renewal and maintenance programs running parallel to each other. For example, local and collector roads fall under the Neighbourhood Infrastructure Renewal Program. Other programs include preventative maintenance, which are in place to ensure that roads achieve the longest possible service life for the least amount of cost. Although there are various programs in place, the timing of implementation is dependent on set parameters of road conditions and based on road classification.

Replacement Schedule The replacement schedule for transportation assets is closely tied to the available funding. More available funding will result in a renewal of assets on a more optimal schedule.

Alternative Funding Sources  Local Improvements Levy – whereby area specific and community initiated repairs (street lights, alleys sidewalks) are funded by the citizens in the community through an additional line item on their tax bill.

SEWER NETWORK

Background The City of Edmonton owns and operates over 5,100 kilometers of sanitary, storm and combined sewers. The average age of the pipes is 40 years with an expected asset life of 75 years.

Lifecycle Costs Rehabilitation work is planned when critical needs are identified to prevent further deterioration of pipe condition. The intent of this work is to maintain the condition of the sewer pipes for as long a period as possible. Once a pipe reaches the end of its useful life, it is replaced. The life span of sewer pipes will include associated costs such as maintenance, which generally involves cleaning and localized blockage removal.

The total life cycle costs of a kilometre long segment of sewer pipe are summarized in the table below:

Expected life of Asset 75 years Current average replacement cost per km $1.8 million Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

0.3% 0.1% 2.0% 0.2%

In the past 5 years, the City of Edmonton has acquired, on average, 88 km of new sewer pipes per year.

Replacement Strategies Due to the nature of this type of asset, minimal investment is required to maintain an acceptable level of service within the early stages of the asset. However, should the asset be allowed to deteriorate the costs will become substantial to return the asset condition to an acceptable level.

Maintaining an adequate level of service in a cost effective manner requires a combination of inspection, rehabilitation and replacement technologies coupled with asset management best practices. Inspection of most sewers is completed using Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) and is analyzed by City staff. Once the sewer condition is determined, a course of action is decided for each pipe segment. Most rehabilitation involves the use of Cured-In-Place fiberglass or felt- based liner which is installed inside the existing sewer with minimum disruption to the pavement. The liner improves the structural integrity and extends the useful life of the existing pipe.

In most cases, full replacement requires excavation and restoration of road pavement. This method can be time consuming, expensive and disruptive to the community.

Replacement is considered when the sewer condition is beyond the point of rehabilitation or when an increase to the pipe size is required.

Replacement Schedule Drainage Services has a 20-year Capital Plan to implement necessary rehabilitation, upgrading, replacement and expansion of the drainage infrastructure. Relining of deteriorated pipes will be used to extend the useful life of the network whenever suitable. At the same time, long term asset management strategies will continuously be fine-tuned to respond to new technologies and changing priorities.

Alternative Funding Sources Drainage Services is proposing an 8% rate increase for both Sanitary and Land Drainage Charges over the next few years as well as borrowing to the maximum limit identified in the Utility Fiscal Policy to raise the necessary funds. In the absence of alternative sources of funding, further increase to the Sanitary and Land Drainage Charges is the only available option to address the unfunded program.

Drainage Services will continue to work towards reducing the infrastructure gap particularly the rehabilitation of existing sewer network, but replacement will be particularly challenging in the upcoming years considering the expected high cost escalation and the limited funding resources.

BUILDINGS

Background This category includes buildings that are owned and maintained by the city. The facilities include; civic office buildings, recreation facilities, arenas, fire stations, attractions, vehicle repair facilities, stadiums, operation and service yards and a variety of smaller buildings. Corporate Properties does provide rehabilitation and maintenance on additional city buildings, however, under the Tangible Capital Asset Guidelines, LRT Facilities, Police, Library and Drainage buildings are accounted for under their respective infrastructure categories.

This group of assets has a replacement value of $2.4 billion with an average age of 37 years and a design service life of 42 years.

Life Cycle Cost

Expected life of Asset 42 years Current average replacement cost per m2 $3,000 Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

1.5% 1.1% 6.4% 2.0%

Replacement Strategy Currently, buildings and facilities are being replaced and renewed primarily on a departmental or program basis rather than on the basis of condition assessment. This is due to limited available funding on a corporate level to implement a global renewal & replacement strategy. Administration has recognized the need to develop a global approach for managing city buildings.

Corporate Properties branch has embarked on a process of systematically evaluating the City’s building assets in order to project repair, renewal or replacement needs. Critical to this process is the ongoing inspections of individual facilities. While 30% of the building inventory have been assessed (those deemed highest risk or poorest condition), it is anticipated that the current facility condition assessment process would take another 4-5 years to complete with current resources. The information gathered is being used to provide accurate and supportive information for planning, establishing priorities, and developing budget and funding strategies.

Replacement Schedule The current building renewal and replacement schedule is mostly reactive and does not consider buildings on a global basis. Certain facilities, such as leisure centres, do have regular scheduled shut downs where renewal and upgrading work are performed. In addition there are other programs in place that attempt to address building components, such as roofs. Until additional information becomes available through facility condition assessments, Administration will prioritize renewal needs with the information it currently has and will maximize the value of available funding.

Alternative Funding Sources  User pay at city owned facilities  Cost recovery from the client departments

TRANSIT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Background The Transit Facilities and Equipment have been grouped into six smaller categories due to the complexity in which they operate. Within each of these systems there are smaller components that operate together to deliver transit programs. As an inventory asset class the full replacement value is $1.4 billion with an average age of 23 years and an expected asset life of 62 years.

Life Cycle Cost As noted above the components of Transit Facilities and Equipment are very different and not easily accounted for as a large grouping.

LRT Major Facilities Expected life of Asset 95 years Current average replacement cost each $34 million Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

0.6% 1.4% 5.9% 1.5%

LRT Fleet Expected life of Asset 35 years Current average replacement cost each $4.3 million Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

7.2% 5.2% 6.2% 5.2%

LRT Line Expected life of Asset 69 years Current average replacement cost line km $6.2 million Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

0.1% 0.9% 7.4% 1.0%

LRT Equipment Expected life of Asset 24 years Current average replacement cost each $52,000 Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

13.6% 4.1% 8.6% 4.1%

Bus Facilities Expected life of Asset 24 years Current average replacement cost each $2.2 million Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

1.3% 6.7% 7.1% 6.7%

Bus Equipment Expected life of Asset 13 years Current average replacement cost each $15,000 Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

0.0%* 4.9% 6.8% 5.0% *Note: In the 2008, no rehabilitation dollars have been assigned to Bus Equipment

Replacement Strategy Achieving the design life of a major Transit asset can be contingent upon maintenance and replacement of the sub-assets which generally have a shorter design life (e.g. an Underground LRT Station). The overall design life of a given structure is 70-100 years; however, there are a number of sub-systems that will require replacement or upgrading during the useful life of the structure (e.g. electrical panels and transformers, fire alarm systems, architectural finishes, escalators, plumbing, lighting). If upgrades or replacement of sub-assets are not completed according to their design life, the overall station will be become unusable before the design life of the structure.

A decision for replacement or rehabilitation is determined by the age, physical condition, capacity, and functionality assessments of the asset and key sub-assets. These assessments are conducted annually. Not all assets are replaced once their design life has been achieved if their condition assessment does not warrant it. Major rehabilitation or upgrade to an asset can extend the serviceable life.

Replacement Schedule

Generally, funding for replacement of assets and sub-assets are identified through the 10 Year Capital Priorities Plan based on the age of the asset; it’s physical condition, functionality and capacity; as well as the age and condition of the associated sub- assets.

Transit Design Life Planned Full Replacement Asset LRT Major 95 years - 100 years for Underground Stations Facilities average - 75 years for Surface Stations LRT Fleet 35 – 40 years - 35- 40 years LRT Line 69 years - 43 years for Track & ROW average - 100 years for tunnels & bridges - 40 years for Electrification System - 25 years for Signals System LRT 24 years - 14 years for Fare Collection System Equipment average - 15-50 years for Shop Equipment (varies depending on piece of equipment) - 15-50 years for LRT Auxiliary Equipment (varies depending on piece of equipment) - 13.5 years for Transit Communications Systems Bus Facilities 24 years - 27 years for Busways & Platforms average - 25 years for Major Facilities - 17 years for Bus Stops Bus 13 years - 25 years for Bus Fare Collection Equipment Equipment average - 15 years for Transit Communication Systems - 10 years for Bus Onboard Systems - 8 years for Bus Support Systems

Alternative Funding Sources  Additional revenues by raising the current general fare rate  Applying a special capital investment surcharge to the fare  Transit Levy for new development

MUNICIPAL AND TRANSIT FLEET

Background In reviewing the major asset class of Fleet the distinction between Transit Fleet (buses) and Municipal Fleet was determined given recent emphasis on providing enhanced transit service within the city.

Municipal Fleet includes police vehicles, fire rescue vehicles, shop equipment required to maintain the fleet and over 1400 other municipal vehicles that assist in the day to day operations of the city. The 2007 replacement value of the municipal fleet is $268 million. The average age is 10 years with an expected asset life of 12 years. *note that emergency medical vehicles have not been included in this analysis.

Transit Fleet includes 40 foot buses, 60 foot articulated buses and small community buses with a 2007 replacement value of $328 million. The average age of the transit fleet is 7 years with an expected asset life of 19 years.

Life Cycle Cost As noted above the Fleet category has been divided into two distinct sections of Municipal Fleet and Transit Fleet.

Transit Fleet Expected life of Asset 19 years Current average replacement cost per unit $353,000* Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

1.3% 15.0% N/A** N/A*** *Note: Replacement cost per unit includes smaller community buses as well as full size buses. **Note: Historical bus replacement was not previously included in the MES life cycle program; current requests for funding are to address the backlog of required transit fleet. The 2008 figure of 2% is only rehabilitation; replacement costs have not been assigned in 2008. ***Note: MES does not currently charge fixed and variable rates for the maintenance and use of transit fleet.

Municipal Fleet Expected life of Asset 12 years Current average replacement cost per unit $106,000 Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

19.0% 28.0% N/A* N/A* *Note: Recommended renewal and O&M percentages are considered sufficient at this time due to implementation of life cycle costing.

The operation and maintenance costs are based on a full life cycle costing model, technical engineering studies and manufacturer recommendations. The associated O&M costs are flexible in that should additional funds be required the rates will be adjusted based on the need of the infrastructure.

The rehabilitation percentage is also based on full life cycle costing model, technical engineering studies, usage expectations and communication with the user. The rehabilitation percentage is considered sufficient at this time however should additional funding be required the rates will be adjusted as required.

Mobile Equipment Services implemented the concept of life cycle costing prior to 1986; this suggests that because of the life cycle costing methodology Mobile Equipment is in a relatively sound position with regards to current spending needs.

Replacement Strategy Currently Mobile Equipment Services has a solid replacement schedule to replace the fleet. Vehicles in general are on a regular cycle in that once they reach the end of their expected asset life they are replaced by a fund that has been set aside for that purpose. This fund is generated by the rate paid to MES by the client departments.

Replacement Schedule The set schedule for the replacement of current vehicles is tied directly to the replacement strategy.

Alternative Funding Sources Mobile Equipment Services funded by a fixed rate paid by their client departments. In order to provide additional sources of funding for municipal and transit fleet the client departments would have to provide funding through their own capital programs.

PARKS & NATURAL AREAS

Background Parks have a variety of assets which include; roads, parking lots, playgrounds, water features, protection elements, sports fields, furniture, bridges and horticulture. Parks has a total 2007 replacement value of $2.8 billion. The current average age of park assets is 28 years with an expected asset life of 52 years.

Life Cycle Costs The life cycle costs were calculated based on the hectares of parkland maintained by the City and the full replacement cost of all Park assets.

Expected life of Asset 52 years Current average replacement cost per $604,000 hectare Recommended Recommended 2008 Renewal 2008 O&M Annual Renewal Annual O&M

0.7% 1.2% 6.5% 2.0%

Replacement Strategy Asset replacement /renewal needs are identified through inspection as part of regular maintenance programs and an analysis of three criteria; Physical Condition, Capacity and Functionality. Although each asset has an expected life, the need to replace or renew is determined by the rating of each criteria. Current investment ratios do not follow typical industry standards given the biological nature of some of the assets. Parks has a number of conservation programs in place, such as; Playgrounds, Sports field and Parks Conservation Programs to renew and rehabilitate basic park infrastructure.

Replacement Schedule Determining when park assets need to be renewed of replaced is based on the need, average life and any circumstances that have impact on the condition or function of the asset.

Alternative Funding Sources  Parking fees at centrally located parks  Under the Municipal Governance Act (MGA) there is the potential to impose a special levy to fund parkland development  Developer funded parks

of 12 Report: 2008FTI006 Attachment 2