Loading...
07 - April 14, 2026 Committee of the Whole Agenda PackageElgmCounty Elgin County Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Orders of the Day Tuesday, April 14, 2026, 9:30 a.m. Council Chambers 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON Note for Members of the Public: Please click the link below to watch the meeting livestream: https://video.isilive.ca/elgincounty/live.html Accessible formats available upon request. Pages 1. Meeting Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes 2 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 5. Members' Motions 6. Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards 6.1 Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk - ADM 26-13 4 Delegation of Powers During Restricted Period — Municipal Election 2026 6.2 Director of People and Culture - PAC 26-02 Benefits Provider RFP 9 6.3 Director of Engineering Services - ENG 26-09 Asset Management and 13 Work Order Software — Feasibility Study 7. Adjournment Elgin County Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes March 24, 2026, 9:30 a.m. Council Chambers 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON Members Present: Warden Dominique Giguere Deputy Warden Grant Jones Councillor Ed Ketchabaw Councillor Mark Widner Councillor Jack Couckuyt Councillor Andrew Sloan Councillor Todd Noble Councillor Mike Hentz Councillor Richard Leatham Staff Present: Blaine Parkin, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Nicholas Loeb, Director of Legal Services Brian Masschaele, Director of Community & Cultural Services Jennifer Ford, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning and Development Holly Hurley, Director of People & Culture Joe Anne Holloway, Director of Homes and Seniors Services Carolyn Krahn, Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic Initiatives Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk Jenna Fentie, Legislative Services Coordinator Stefanie Heide, Legislative Services Coordinator Meeting Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 11:01 a.m. with Warden Giguere in the chair. 2. Approval of Agenda Resolution Number: CW26-30 Moved by: Councillor Leatham Seconded by: Councillor Noble RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the March 24, 2026 Committee of the Whole Meeting be approved as presented. Motion Carried. 3. Adoption of Minutes Resolution Number: CW26-31 Moved by: Deputy Warden Jones Seconded by: Councillor Sloan Page 2 of 51 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting held on March 10, 2026 be adopted. Motion Carried. 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof None. 5. Members' Motions None. 6. Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards 6.1 Director of Community and Cultural Services - CCS 26-02 Unscheduled Closing of County Facilities Policy Approval The Director of Community and Cultural Services presented a report for Council's consideration recommending a policy be adopted to guide the decision -making process for closing certain County offices and/or facilities either owned or leased by the County of Elgin, including library branches. Resolution Number: CW26-32 Moved by: Councillor Ketchabaw Seconded by: Councillor Widner RESOLVED THAT the Unscheduled Closing of County Facilities Policy as attached as Appendix A to the report titled "CCS 26-02 Unscheduled Closing of County Facilities Policy Approval" from the Director of Community and Cultural Services dated March 24, 2026 be hereby approved. Motion Carried. 7. Adjournment Resolution Number: CW26-33 Moved by: Councillor Widner Seconded by: Councillor Sloan RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn at 11:10 a.m. to meet again on April 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. Motion Carried. Blaine Parkin, Dominique Giguere, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk. Warden. E Page 3 of 51 ElginCounty Report to Committee of the Whole From: Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk Date: April 14, 2026 Subject: ADM 26-13 Delegation of Powers During Restricted Period — Municipal Election 2026 Recommendation(s): THAT a by-law be presented for approval to delegate authority to the Chief Administrative Officer during a period of restricted acts in the 2026 municipal election year. Introduction: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the information regarding the "Restricted Acts" provisions contained in Section 275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. c.25 (The Municipal Act) and to recommend the adoption of a by-law temporarily delegating authority to the Chief Administrative Officer in the event that Council is restricted in its authority pursuant to these provisions during the 2026 Municipal Election. Background and Discussion: Council is elected for a four-year term. Within the fourth year of the cycle, during the election period, Council is subject to Section 275 of the Municipal Act. Section 275 of the Municipal Act restricts municipal councils from performing certain actions in a municipal election year where it is determined that the incoming council will be comprised of less than three quarters (75%) of its current membership. This is commonly referred to as the `lame duck' period. Every term of council, in order to prepare for the possibility of a `lame duck' period, a by-law is adopted to delegate certain authority to the Chief Administrative Officer during this period. The County of Elgin Council is comprised of (9) members, therefore the restricted clause would apply if fewer than seven (7) incumbent members of Council were to return for the 2026-2030 term. Elgin County Council could be in a restricted acts situation during one or both of the following timeframes in 2026: 1) From Nomination Day but before Voting Day (August 21, 2026 — October 26, 2026), or Page 4of51 2) From Voting Day through to the end of the current term of Council (October 26, 2026-November 15, 2026). If this occurs, Council would be precluded from making any decisions on the following matters, as laid out in Municipal Act Section 275 (3) until the end of the term (November 15, 2026): a) Appointing or removing any officer of the County; b) Hiring or dismissing any employee of the County; c) Disposing of any real or personal property of the County with a value over $507000-7 d) Incurring any expenditures or liabilities exceeding $50,000. Exceptions — Section 275 (4) Clauses (3) (c) and (d) do not apply if the disposition or liability was included in the most recent budget and adopted by the Council before Nomination Day. Emergencies — Section 275 (4.1) Nothing in this section prevents a municipality taking any action in the event of an emergency. In order to ensure accountability and transparency, the Chief Administrative Officer will report to the new Council in late 2026 indicating each use of the delegated authority during this period. An example of where this delegated authority might be used is the disposition of Whites Station, in accordance with Council's direction, should this matter extend into a period where restrictions are in place. As Nomination Day approaches, if staff become aware of any areas where delegated authority may need to be used, a report will be brought to Council seeking direction. Financial Implications: None. Advancement of the Strategic Plan: The initiatives outlined in this report are integral to the County's day-to-day operations, supporting effective governance and the efficient delivery of services to Council and the public. Together, they enhance organizational efficiency and reflect the County's ongoing commitment to transparency, accountability, and good governance. Local Municipal Partner Impact: None. Communication Requirements: Following Nomination Day, should Elgin County Council be considered `Lame Duck' the Clerk will notify Councillors, and the by-law will take effect. Additionally, should Elgin Page 5of51 County Council be considered `Lame Duck' after Voting Day, the Clerk will notify Councillors and the by-law will take effect at this time. Conclusion: In order to ensure that the Municipal Corporation can conduct normal business during a time where its actions may be restricted under Section 275 of the Municipal Act, it is prudent to enact a by-law delegating authority to the Chief Administrative Officer during this time. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Katherine Thompson Manager of Administrative Services/Clerk Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 6of51 COUNTY OF ELGIN By -Law No. 26-?? "BEING A BY-LAW TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO ACT IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNCIL'S ACTIONS BECOME RESTRICTED UNDER SECTION 275 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001." WHEREAS Section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, c. 25, as amended, authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws to exercise its municipal powers; AND WHEREAS Sections 224(d) and 224(e) of the Municipal Act, 2001, c. 25, as amended, provide that it is the role of council to ensure that administrative practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council and to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; AND WHEREAS Section 275(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, c. 25 as amended, restricts the actions of a council of a local municipality after the first day during the election period that the new council will include less than three-quarters of the members of the outgoing council; AND WHEREAS Section 275(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, c.25, restricts Council from taking action on the following: a) The appointment or removal from office of any officer of the municipality; b) The hiring or dismissal of any employee of the municipality; c) The disposition of any real or personal property of the municipality which has a value exceeding $50,000 at the time of disposal; and d) Making any expenditure or incurring any other liability which exceeds $50,000. AND WHEREAS Section 275(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, authorizes councils to delegate authority to persons prior to nomination day for the election of a new council; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin deems it expedient to delegate authority to the Chief Administrative Officer to take action, where necessary, on certain acts during the restricted period; NOW THEREFORE the Corporation of the County of Elgin HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT, in the event that the Council's actions become restricted under Section 275 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Council of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: (a) Where a joint delegation of authority is specified to be exercised, in the absence of consensus, the delegation of authority rests with the Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"); (b) All authorities in this By-law may be further designated in writing and are conveyed automatically to those performing the duties of a position in an Acting or interim capacity; (c) The CAO is delegated the authority to remove any employee or officer of the County; (d) The CAO is delegated the authority to hire any employee or officer of the County, other than statutory officers of the County, with this delegation of authority being conditional on not exceeding the previously allotted complement of staff positions- (e) The CAO is delegated the authority to appoint any Acting officer of the municipality in the event of a departure or vacancy of such statutory officer; (f) The CAO and Treasurer are jointly delegated as the financial signing authority for expenditures outside the current budget, exceeding $50,000; (g) The CAO is delegated authority for those actions identified in By -Law No. 20-07, being the "Purchasing By -Law" that would otherwise be performed by Council, (i) if an expenditure is being made or any other liability being incurred which exceeds $50,000 and was not included in the most recent budget adopted, or, (ii) an expenditure or liability which exceeds $50,000 is included in the most recent budget adopted by Council and is required to exceed the budgeted amount, or, (iii) if a single source or sole source expenditure is being incurred which exceeds $50,000. (h) The CAO and Clerk are jointly delegated the authority to give effect to a disposition of real or personal property of the County and to execute any Agreement of Purchase and Sale or other document pertaining to the disposition or interest in any real or personal property of the municipality which has a value exceeding $50,000 at the time of disposarage 7 of 51 (i) The CAO and Clerk are jointly appointed signing authority for all agreements authorized by section 1(h); and, Q) All use of delegated authorities enacted by this By-law shall be reported on to Council with details relevant to the exercise of the delegated authority to Council no later than March 31, 2027. 2. THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the final passing thereof. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 14th DAY OF APRIL 2026. Blaine Parkin, Dominique Giguere, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk. Warden. Page 8 of 51 ElginCounty Report to Committee of the Whole From: Holly Hurley, Director of People and Culture Mike Hoogstra, Manager of Procurement and Risk Date: April 14, 2026 Subject: PAC 26-02 Benefits Provider RFP Recommendation(s): THAT Desjardins Insurance be selected as Group Benefits Provider for the County of Elgin, RFP No. 26-P03, effective July 1, 2026; and THAT County Council approve the renewal coverage with AIG Insurance for AD&D coverage, effective July 1, 2026; and THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute all contracts and related documentation. Introduction: The Corporation of the County of Elgin conducted an RFP for the services of a group benefits provider. This RFP included the following three (3) agencies- - County of Elgin - Municipality of West Elgin - Township of Southwold The goal of the RFP was to find a group benefits provider who could effectively and competently manage the employee group benefits plan for the consortium ensuring a high level of customer service for both the employers and their members. The County of Elgin has engaged the services of our consultant People Corporation in an advisory capacity to this Request for Proposal. Background and Discussion: The above noted agencies were previously part of a larger insurance consortium with Manulife since 1978. AIG is the current provider for AD&D insurance for the County and Southwold. West Elgin's AD&D insurance is under Manulife. Page 9of51 It is unknown the last time the group benefits contracts were marketed. As such, it was prudent to survey the market for a provider that could meet our evolving needs. The RFP was released on January 30, 2026, with a closing date of February 27, 2026. Providers were allowed to quote on either Part 1, which included basic life, long term disability, health and dental insurance, or Part 2, which was specific to AD&D insurance only. There were 10 providers who were granted secure access to the required RFP documents. Of those, three (3) submitted for both Parts 1 and 2 and two (2) submitted for Part 2 only. People Corporation assisted with assessment of the qualitative and quantitative review of the RFP. The scoring criteria was broken down as follows: Part 1: Company Experience & Profile TotalItem 10.00 Service Questionnaire 25.00 Financial Questionnaire 20.00 Transition Questionnaire 15.00 Pricing 30.00 Total Points 100.00 Once the proposals for Part 1 were reviewed and evaluated based on the criteria noted above, Desjardins was the highest scoring firm. Desjardins stood out in the service questionnaire, which highlighted their customer service standards, clear disability management protocols, including detailed disability claims appeals procedures, fulsome mobile and web -based member and plan sponsor tools for ease of administration. In the financial questionnaire, Desjardins stood out due to the extended rate guarantee periods, maximum renewal adjustments for two (2) consecutive renewal periods, and no up front binder payment requirement. Part 2: Item Total AD&D Questionnaire 50.00 Pricing 50.00 Total Points 100.00 Note that Part 2, AD&D insurance, is a considered a "commodity insurance product". As AD&D claims are generally rare in frequency, there is generally little day to day service requirements; which therefore eliminates the need to assess the quotes at the same level as Part 1 benefits. AD&D insurance awards are generally as a result of matching plan design and/or enhancing existing coverage and best pricing. Page 10 of 51 Once the proposals for Part 2 were reviewed and evaluated based on the criteria noted above, AIG was the highest scoring firm. As the incumbent provider, AIG was able to match the existing plan design; in addition, they enhanced the plan by adding additional benefits including carjacking, criminal assault and cosmetic disfigurement. Other providers were not able to 100% match the existing benefits for all member organizations and did not offer any further enhancements in coverage. In addition to the evaluation process, all providers presented to the County on March 31. After reviewing proposals, pricing and presentations, we recommend a change in benefits provider to Desjardins Insurance. We recommend the AD&D insurance remain with AIG; with this, there is no carrier transition required. Financial Implications: Part 1: Financials were worth 30 points; for the County overall the annual estimated cost for Desjardins is noted below: Basic Life Insurance $ 357,525.84 Long Term Disability (Taxable) $ 2,194,001.61 Health $ 4,087,462.80 Dental $ 1,811,944.80 The total combined cost for Desjardin represents the lowest cost proposal. Part 2: Financials were worth 50 points; for the County overall the annual estimated cost for AIG is noted below: eB: l Advancement of the Strategic Plan: 24,230.25 This initiative supports the strategy for Organizational Culture and Workforce Development with a focus to develop competitive employment packages. It also contributes to a respectful, productive workplace culture by promoting staff wellness and development, enabling the County to continue delivering high -quality public services. It Page 11 of 51 also aligns with the County's values of respect, integrity, and service focus, fostering a positive organizational environment. Local Municipal Partner Impact: The County will work closely with Southwold and West Elgin if the proposed changes are approved Council. Participants from each Municipality were included on the presentations by the carriers. Communication Requirements: The People and Culture Team will work with the implementation team with Desjardin and the communications team to ensure a seamless transition to the new provider. Conclusion: All of which is Respectfully Submitted Holly Hurley Director, People and Culture Mike Hoogstra Manager of Procurement and Risk Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 12 of 51 ElginCounty Report to Committee of the Whole From: Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services Date: April 14, 2026 Subject: ENG 26-09 Asset Management and Work Order Software — Feasibility Study Recommendation(s): THAT staff be directed to report back to County Council with a procurement recommendation for an asset management and work order software solution that will meet the needs of the County and its local municipal partners complete with anticipated costs, resource needs and implementation timeline. Introduction: Council has directed staff to complete an asset management and work order software feasibility study as a regional computerized maintenance management system and asset management solution (MMS) across the County. Aspire Consulting has completed the study (study appended to this report) and this report discusses those findings and recommends that staff proceed to provide Council a procurement recommendation, anticipated costs, resource needs and an implementation timeline. Background and Discussion: The idea of a County -wide asset management and work order management system has been discussed for many years as municipalities have transitioned towards digital solutions to complete their business processes, to ensure compliance with municipal standards and to manage activities and costs more effectively. County Council retained Strategy Corp in 2021 to review the Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) and recommended to implement a standard format of service categories for LMPs to report their expenditures to establish consistencies for comparative purposes. A financial reporting standard is now included in the RMA. In June 2024, the Municipality of Central Elgin requested that the County explore the purchase of an asset and work order management software system so that all LMPs would be equipped with the necessary tools to track activities and generate accurate reports. Page 13 of 51 In November 2024, County Council directed staff to have an asset management and work order software feasibility study completed to gather input from all LMPs to determine existing conditions and service requirements. The resulting study will recommend what technological and staff resources would be required as well as create an implementation roadmap and timeline. In October 2025, Aspire Consulting was awarded the project through a competitive RFP process adhering to the County's Procurement Policy and began their work conducting interviews with all LMPs. The assessment confirmed that Elgin County and its LMPs operate within a highly variable and fragmented system ranging from manual or speadsheet-based environments to digital management platforms with limited integration between platforms resulting in inconsistent analytics in county -level data due to a lack of streamlined reporting. Despite differences, a strong alignment in core requirements is desired by all LMPs with broad support for improved consistency, visibility and reporting and limited tolerance for disruption, intensive retraining or wholesale system replacement. Considering system needs and LMP input, the study has confirmed that a flexible, hybrid approach best balances standardization with LMP autonomy. Long-term success will depend on phased implementation, clear governance, adequate resources and vendor supported training and integration. The recommended hybrid approach will retain local systems as the County implements a core computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). The County's CMMS system would be integrated with LMPs through data sharing agreements and `middleware' as required and LMPs could be onboarded to the County's CMMS platform at their pace. Fortunately, 4 of the 7 LMPs currently utilize the same CMMS system and this consistency provides an opportunity for the County to adopt the same system to take advantage of existing synergies and reduce onboarding efforts for those LMPs. While the study has documented concern about data migration, abandoning familiar tools, staff resistance and implementation fatigue, every LMP would benefit from standardization, asset management tools, resource planning and evidence -based decision making. The County will also benefit from the adoption of the CMMS citing these same benefits and the ability to adopt the platform across different departments (i.e. facilities) while streamlining asset management planning and financial management. Financial Implications: A County wide CMMS implementation will take years to implement fully and require permanent resources to manage. If supported by County Council, staff will develop a CMMS procurement recommendation with anticipated initial and ongoing costs and resource requirements for Council's consideration and approval. These costs would then be included in the 2027 budget. Page 14 of 51 A preliminary estimated value for system implementation and integration support would be approximately $600,000 (one-time) and $100,000 annually for licensing and support. The addition of 1 FTE within the Engineering Services department to manage the system is estimated to cost $100,000 annually. Staff proposes that the CMMS system be purchased by the County and that individual LMPs be responsible for their own support and licencing cost as well as costs for local integration due to differences in existing systems and desired functionality. Additional hardware and staff resources in the County IT department may also be required to adequately support the system. Advancement of the Strategic Plan: This initiative supports the responsible maintenance and management of County assets as laid out in the Asset Management Plan. This work reflects the County's ongoing commitment to maintaining safe, functional, and efficient facilities and infrastructure. This initiative also supports the County's commitment to strong financial management by promoting sustainable operations, responsible budgeting, and financial transparency, while ensuring a clear business plan is in place to guide future spending. Local Municipal Partner Impact: The recommended hybrid implementation approach would see the County implement a CMMS system that would be integrated into existing systems utilized by the County and its LMPs. The system would be able to onboard LMPs to the County CMMS at any future time. Communication Requirements: Once direction is received from Council and a vendor is selected, staff will establish a working group with LMPs to develop an implementation roadmap and plan. Conclusion: Council has directed staff to complete an Asset Management and Work Order Software feasibility study as a regional CMMS solution across the County. Aspire Consulting was retained to complete the study and which has concluded that while there are differences, there is a strong alignment in core requirements desired by all LMPs. If approved by Council to proceed with the implementation of a regional CMMS, staff will report back to Council with a procurement recommendation with anticipated initial and ongoing costs, implementation timeline and resource requirements for Council's consideration and approval for inclusion in the 2027 budget. Data from existing LMP systems will be integrated into the County's CMMS and LMPs can be onboarded to the County's platform at a future time they choose, if they don't already utilize the same platform. Page 15 of 51 All of which is Respectfully Submitted Peter Dutchak Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 16 of 51 I Memorandum 00%spffdo CONSULTING s e NA r'ii a g e i"'ri� e a r-i� d W o r k, 0 r d e r of"I,,"',ware S i idy Elgin County Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study Project Number: 25105 Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 Page 17 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G St.ate nii iiril. of Q �,Ai a 11 u`fi c afl qxa it s I1- h Dell a tat ii o ii IG S The attached Report (the "Report") has been prepared by Aspire Consulting Group Ltd. ("Consultant") for the benefit of the client ("Client") in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the "Agreement"). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the "Information"): • is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the "Limitations"); • represents Consultant's professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; • may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; • has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; • must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; • was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and • in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant's professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information ("improper use of the Report"), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� H!, c 11 Page 18 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G March 26, 2026 File No.: 25105 Attention: Peter Dutchak Director, Engineering Services Elgin County RE: Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study — Technical Memorandum: Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study Dear Peter Aspire Consulting Group Ltd. is pleased to submit Technical Memorandum for the Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study as a deliverable for the project. The memorandum documents the findings of the discovery and requirements -gathering phase undertaken as part of the feasibility study for a unified Asset Management and Work Order Management System for Elgin County and its seven Local Municipal Partners (LMPs): Town of Aylmer, Municipality of Bayham, Township of Malahide, Central Elgin, Township of Southwold, Dutton Dunwich, and West Elgin Should you have any questions regarding the information provided; we would be happy to discuss the memorandum with you at your convenience. Aslh:uVire C irmuul[thrl�g Simon Lau, P.Eng., CRL, PIMP Simon.Lau@aspireconsulting.ca 1416.831.3243 Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� H' c I H Page 19 of 51 I�',', eis i qxmp III o ri',1 Aspire S II g I ImMAi I` fit" A:s Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By: Elgin County March 26, 2026 Original Issue Simon Lau, P.Eng., CRL., PMP Vice President Daryush Esmaili, MBA, P.Eng., CRL, AMP, PMP Vice President Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G Jessica Angers Senior Asset Management Specialist Page 20 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G IIV! a IbIII...., e of, �IiiioNP' c',,� �', Q IIV llVn e", IIVI IIV llVln tl�o^iuu�pl Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction and Purpose.................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 LMP Engagement....................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Feasibility Study...........................................................................................................................................................2 3 Discovery...............................................................................................................................................................................3 3.1 Development of Survey Questionnaire................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Stakeholder Consultation......................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 LMP Discovery............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.4 Key Observations........................................................................................................................................................4 3.5 Current System Environments................................................................................................................................4 3.6 Findings of the Discovery Process............................................................................................................................ 6 4 Feasibility Study..................................................................................................................................................................6 4.1 Technical Requirements........................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 User Profile Requirements....................................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Functional Requirements..........................................................................................................................................7 4.4 Training, Change Management & Support.........................................................................................................8 5 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................. 9 5.1 Asset Registry & GIS Integration.........................................................................................................................10 5.2 Integration of Facilities, and Other Asset Classes.........................................................................................10 5.3 Work Order Management........................................................................................................................................11 5.4 Preventive Maintenance & Inspections...............................................................................................................11 5.5 Resources and Cost Management.......................................................................................................................11 5.6 Service Requests & Public Interface...................................................................................................................12 5.7 Performance Monitoring..........................................................................................................................................12 5.8 Report Standardization............................................................................................................................................12 5.9 Integration & Security across Multi -Municipality Architecture.....................................................................12 5.10 Training, Support, and Change Management............................................................................................ 13 6 Options.................................................................................................................................................................................13 6.1 PSD CityWide.............................................................................................................................................................14 Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study, c I iv Page 21 of 51 „,,,,,,,»�,,H,H,,,�,,,,u;;;��� . moire C O N S U L T I N G 6.2 ESRI CityWorks (Trimble).......................................................................................................................................14 6.3 Brightly.......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.4 OpenGOV (Formerly Cartegraph)........................................................................................................................14 7 Implementation Considerations and Roadmap......................................................................................................14 7.1 Organizational Readiness.......................................................................................................................................15 7.1.1 Workforce Capacity and Change Requirements..................................................................................15 7.1.2 Current Organizational Practices...............................................................................................................15 7.2 Implementation Roadmap.......................................................................................................................................16 7.2.1 Pre -Implementation Activity Considerations..........................................................................................18 7.2.2 Post -Implementation Activity Considerations........................................................................................18 8 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................................19 ICI ii nx;c NI, �r �i III ii g «<,, o iii@ � �� v,n,;,” Figure 1. Proposed Implementation Roadmap........................................................................................................17 �. w3?1 NIw Table 1. Existing Systems Overview.................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Existing Systems Integrations................................................................................................................................5 Table3. User Estimates............................................................................................................................................................7 Table 4. Anticipated Training and Change Management Requirements................................................................. 9 A III', III, e iii ii ci i c ev,xxc Appendix A Survey Questions and Results Appendix B Detailed Requirements Matrix Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study, c I v Page 22 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 1. IIU u, �� �evl, vNII° ve This Technical Memorandum documents the findings of the feasibility study for a unified Asset Management and Work Order Management System for Elgin County and its seven Local Municipal Partners (LMPs): Town of Aylmer, Municipality of Bayham, Township of Malahide, Central Elgin, Township of Southwold, Dutton Dunwich, and West Elgin for Roads Maintenance. Workshops and meetings with the LMPs established a clear, evidence -based understanding of current operating environments, system capabilities, organizational readiness, and future needs. The outcome of this work forms the foundation for evaluating feasibility options, assessing deployment approaches, and developing defensible vendor shortlisting and scoring criteria. This memorandum captures research, questionnaire responses, and consultations into a consolidated view of requirements, constraints, risks, and opportunities associated with implementing a shared or integrated Asset Management and Work Order Management framework across the County and LMPs. The study followed a structured and consistent approach across all organizations, including the development and distribution of a detailed survey questionnaire and virtual stakeholder consultation sessions. These engagements explored current workflows, system usage, pain points, and future needs related to maintenance operations, work order lifecycles, asset tracking, reporting, and integration with finance, GIS, and other enterprise systems. The assessment confirmed that Elgin County and its LMPs operate within a highly variable and fragmented system landscape, ranging from manual or spreadsheet -based environments to digital management system platforms. Laserfiche is used and valued for stability and document management but lacks full Asset Management and Work Order Management functionality and relies heavily on manual data entry. Burnside is used for road patrol, and PSD Citywide is used in some cases for asset management, maintenance management and road patrols. There is very limited integration between the platforms which causes issues in county - level data analytics due to a lack of streamlined reporting. Despite differences in maturity and variation in organizational readiness, there is strong alignment across the County and LMPs on core requirements. There is broad support for improved consistency, visibility, and reporting, and limited tolerance for disruption, intensive retraining, or wholesale system replacement. The study confirms that there is a need for improved coordination, visibility, and reporting across Elgin County. Existing investments, system maturity differences, and workforce capacity constraints preclude a full system replacement. The study also confirms that a flexible, integration -first, hybrid approach best balances standardization with municipal autonomy and long-term success will depend heavily on phased implementation, clear governance, strong change management, and vendor -supported training and integration. This approach can be utilized across multiple asset classes within the County including but not limited to Facilities where similar opportunities exist. The implementation roadmaps covers pre, post and during implementation requirements and it is recommended that Elgin County include a dedicated resource to this and begin completing the necessary action items on data and process readiness. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� he'd c 11 Page 23 of 51 \\\IWN,1111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 2 Ill iii iu NI,° iii@,,cr ,�i c J a� NI, i ci ii "i a iii ii ci ii@ e This Technical Memorandum documents the findings of the feasibility study for a unified Asset Management and Work Order Management System for Elgin County and its seven Local Municipal Partners (LMPs) for roads maintenance. The purpose was to establish a clear, evidence -based understanding of current operating environments, system capabilities, organizational readiness, and future needs across all participating municipalities. The outcomes of this work formed the foundation for evaluating Asset Management and Work Order Software options, assessing feasibility, and developing a potential vendor list. This memorandum consolidates desktop research, questionnaire responses and stakeholder consultations into requirements, constraints, risks, and opportunities related to implementing an Asset Management and Work Order Management system. 2� �„ ,�, I III,��u,� II�� N I I ul„ail �,u This feasibility study phase included engagement with the Elgin County (upper -tier municipality) and seven Local Municipal Partners (lower -tier municipalities): Town of Aylmer, Municipality of Bayham, Township of Malahide, Central Elgin, Township of Southwold, Dutton Dunwich, and West Elgin. The scope of assessment covered maintenance and operations, asset management and work order processes, supporting systems such as finance, GIS, and document management, organizational capacity, governance, and readiness for change. The study focused on identifying both common requirements suitable for standardization and municipal - specific needs that must be preserved within any future computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) solution. .2 1" e,, s iii b iii III iiit ' St UKl This study assessed the viability of implementing a single CMMS to satisfy the asset management and work order requirements across the County and its seven Local Municipal Partners (LMPs) while promoting a cohesive approach to work management planning for all municipal assets. Findings of the feasibility study are outlined in Section 3. This resulted in a list of system recommendations and requirements, documented in Section 4 and 5 of this technical memorandum, and further refined in Appendix B, that were assessed against the following three potential scenarios: Do nothing — Status quo, i.e., each municipality continues operating its existing systems, spreadsheets, or manual processes. Additional effort required for data -driven decision making through normalization of data and management of multiple data sources. Hybrid — Retain local systems with County -level integration and reporting. Each municipality continues operating its existing systems, spreadsheets, or manual processes. A deployment of an Elgin County CMMS integrated with LMPs through data sharing agreements and middleware as required. Future municipalities could be onboarded in and system configurations could be shared with LMPs wishing to adopt the same system and speed up the onboarding process and provide better support from the County. Full — A single enterprise system with multi -site configuration that all LMPs can use. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 12 Page 24 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G These requirements were further detailed in Appendix B in Table 131. Systems Requirements Matrix. The Systems Requirements Matrix captures all the user needs that would drive decision making around software system functionality. These were identified through stakeholder consultations with Elgin County and its seven LMPs. This matrix would be used to evaluate feasibility options as mentioned above and to support vendor shortlisting and scoring. This will help ensure traceability between stakeholder needs and system capabilities. The discovery phase of the project consisted of stakeholder consultation completed through distribution of a survey to employees and virtual meetings. The information was gathered to understand the existing systems in place, current challenges, and requirements for a future system. I'll Of S L i Yl ey' Based on the best practices, a detailed survey questionnaire was developed to cover the following main areas: • Organizational Readiness • Technical Readiness • Functional Requirements • KPIs and Reporting • Training and Support • Existing Systems (if applicable) The link to this questionnaire was shared with the county and all LMPs. The completed Survey Questionnaire is included in Appendix A for the county and all LMPs. 12 Based on the responses to the questionnaire, consultations were conducted with representatives from each organization using virtual sessions to maximize participation and flexibility. Consultations examined both the current operations and the future needs related to maintenance workflows and the work order lifecycle. They covered aspects such as preventive and reactive maintenance practices, system functionality and usability, and integration with finance, GIS, Automated Vehicle Locating (AVL), and asset management systems. Additionally, they addressed user roles, permissions, and licensing requirements. The interactive sessions also included discussions on reporting, performance measurement, and level of service (LOS) tracking. Key areas identified by most stakeholder groups included data management, migration, and security, as well as training, change management, and expectations for ongoing support. Existing systems for Elgin County and each LMP were discussed with each representative to identify common practices and highlight areas of variation across municipalities. During the workshop, the current work order platforms were discussed, including any asset management systems, data repositories, and financial and resource management systems. GIS platforms and spatial data integration, digital field tools and forms -based workflows were discussed for integration considerations. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 13 Page 25 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G The variation across LMPs ranges from integrated platforms to manual or semi -manual processes supported by spreadsheets and both digital and print forms. This diversity is a key consideration in assessing feasibility and implementation pathways. Existing systems range from no maintenance management system to enterprise platforms, with many LMPs using Laserfiche, CityWide, Pearl, Burnside, Excel, and email -based workflows. 14, Key Across eight organizations, maintenance activities are managed using a mix of reactive, preventive, corrective, and inspection -based approaches. While most municipalities track work activities, the level of structure, automation, and reporting maturity varies significantly. Common challenges identified include: • Manual data entry and duplicate record keeping. • Limited real-time visibility of work order status. • Inconsistent association of work orders and related costs to an assets. • Reliance on individual knowledge rather than systemized, documented workflows. Technological environments cover the full range of complexity. Some environments leverage integrated systems with Asset Management and Work Order tools, while others use document management systems out of excel or comparable platforms. There is reliance with several LMPs on LaserFiche, which, while a useful system for document management, does not satisfy the recommended requirements for a computerized maintenance management system, nor does it meet the typical performance expectations to be considered a work order management system. It does provide an electronic alternative to paper documentation of work orders but lacks crucial functionality to support analysis of these records or provide understanding of the relationships between the work completed and the assets and resources involved. Integration capability, data governance practices, and IT capacity differ substantially between organizations, influencing readiness for a shared or standardized solution. The following types of systems are utilized to varying degrees by the municipalities: • Asset Management Systems. • Work Order Systems. • GIS platforms. • Financial and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. • Document management tools. 15 C IL Ilr III eII't l' � Sy s't eII nl Ilf u," III it III III"'� ,W III it III"nl" Ilf III it j� �uw Documented below in Table 1, the County and LMP use a variety of different systems within their environment. Laserfiche is widely used and valued for stability, documentation, and form -based workflows, but is heavily reliant on manual entry and lacks crucial functionality to be considered an asset management and work order system. PSD Citywide provides more advanced capabilities and participants report satisfaction with the functionality meeting both asset management and work order execution requirements but indicated the training investment needed. Burnside Mobile is a route patrol and inspection tool and is capable of integration back into many asset management and work order systems, though does not offer the functionality to act as either of those. The variation in versions of Burnside Mobile has resulted in LMPs considering their options and in 2026 the Municipality of Bayham began the transition to PSD Citywide. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� H!, c 14 Page 26 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1,� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G Table 1. Existing Systems Overview pc ,s, ,s,s4,ss IO�i�i� NC�� �i�if � i„i���« �`r��rg� �i�i�11 N y� tl �ukh�`�n� �d o tatu>sa VSrnu poi � tl�i�ip u u k�k>ra �, Knn o i(rli��i�iV(i � uu„p (�i�i� iu«u �kkpnntlo if a,Kn� oJ,p� �, � (off N floi�i�1 �i�V,rt � �Ip�i�i�i(I iCl�i gV�i�1IW�I�a � I�NNM I Illl �IOIu �p �� tltl0 roa��� ( I � �` IVIII� Town of PSD Citywide LaserFiche Malahide handles Patrol and Yes Aylmer Maintenance Municipality LaserFiche LaserFiche PSD Citywide GeoTab of Bayham Township of Pearl Pearl Burnside Mobile Viaesys Malahide WorkTech Worktech Central Elgin WorkTech Pearl Burnside Mobile GeoTab WorkTech Township of PSD Citywide PSD Citywide PSD Citywide ACE Infobite Southwold Dutton PSD Citywide PSD Citywide PSD Citywide ACE Infobite Dunwich West Elgin PSD Citywide PSD Citywide PSD Citywide ACE Infobite Further to the table above, Elgin County's Facility Department currently uses WorxHubs for maintenance management. Table 2 below outlines the current level of integration between the existing systems. The platforms in use have limited existing integrations between them, though there is typically the capacity to implement these integrations. Limitations around integration are typically due to resource constraints — both financial and staff capacity. The benefits of these integrations can be further explored but are typically found to be automation of data population from inspections and work orders, historical asset information and preservation of inspection comments and open text fields. These can be valuable in reporting, performance metrics (where data is sufficiently structured against assets and asset attributes, and formal data management standards), cost and resource tracking, and in reducing staff burden in transferring this data to the primary system of record. Reports from municipalities are not standardized or streamlined and make reviewing and comparing data difficult. Table 2. Existing Systems Integrations ������` ��Un��lllllll��all��III�IIIIIu�,,I�NNNN�� Uu�lUp�u�du „����,�J�N banllullllllllllp, ��N�N,�I��n�U�III�UII��pu��pl�N���pN� Town of Aylmer Limited Partial Yes N/A Municipality of Limited Partial Manual Limited Bayham Township of Malahide Limited Yes No Limited Central Elgin Moderate Partial Partial Limited Township of Full Yes Yes Limited Southwold Dutton Dunwich Limited Partial No No West Elgin Limited Yes Yes Yes Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� H!, c 15 Page 27 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 3 6 FII I pd l I igs of fl";'nsl °i w.I mmm %�vsl °'If y U' if f,;;XVP; ess Across the board, there is concern about the data migration effort versus operational benefit, licensing and long-term sustainability, risk of abandoning familiar tools without clear gains, and staff resistance and implementation fatigue. LMPs report considerable investment of time and resources in implementing suitable existing asset management and work order systems, and refining business processes to support these systems, and notable satisfaction with the results of these efforts. There is uncertainty of the current asset management and work order tools outside of the roads, water and wastewater asset classes. The County and LMPs are all responsible for a wide range of asset classes and types that would all benefit from consideration in this initiative because those same benefits of standardization, asset maintenance history, cost and resource tracking and evidence -based decision making, to name only a few, apply to all assets within the County and LMP asset portfolios. Within the County the adoption of a platform used between departments such as Roads and Facilities would gain the benefits of above and also streamline Asset Management Plan programming and sustainment. Based on the findings, the key transition requirements include a preference for a hybrid or shared -service approach, rather than full replacement. The new software system must have: • The ability to integrate or coexist with existing systems where feasible; • The ability to support across multiple asset classes, categories and types; • Low -risk transition pathways that build on current practices and; • Clear articulation of benefits, particularly around consistency, visibility, and reporting. A fl fQ, o ci Technical requirements describe how the system will be built and the specifications it must meet to operate in the technical environment. Despite the differing technical environment within the County and across all participating LMPs, there is a strong core of consistent requirements. This is driven by shared management of cross -jurisdictional assets, a shared asset management operating context due to O. Reg 588/17 and shared priorities in maintenance and project planning undertakings. Through the engagement process, the following list of technical requirements were identified by participants: 1. Mobile functionality is essential, with lightweight mobile interfaces suitable for low -bandwidth environments. Inspection lists and work orders must be accessible at worksites, and should connectivity be disrupted, must support offline data capture, automatic synchronization once connectivity is restored. 2. The system must be cloud based (SaaS) with offline capabilities, with minimal local administration requirements. A robust technical support program by the system provider must be available for consideration, for the duration of the use of the system. 3. Clearly defined data ownership and access controls alongside strong system uptime and disaster recovery provisions. 4. Comprehensive training programs must be available to support the development staff skills and capacity in using the system. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,�s h!, c 16 Page 28 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 5. Integration of other systems and platforms within the County and LMPs must be optional, configurable, and role -based, supporting the unique operating context of participating LMPs. This includes: a. GIS integration is critical, particularly for asset location, mapping and spatial reporting. b. Financial system integration is essential for audit integrity. c. AVL integration is desirable but is not universally applicable, with GeoTab and Ace Electronics being the two primary AVL systems in place. d. Interoperability between County and LMP systems must avoid data duplication but remain updated, respect local ownership of asset and work order data and prevent unauthorized access across municipalities 4, 2 IIIi J � w eu IF, liaa flii III e I Table 3 User Estimates shows the estimated user count per municipality. Based on consultation findings, a preliminary estimate of system users was developed, segmented by role i.e. administrators, supervisors, field users and read-only or viewer users. While still preliminary, these estimated user counts can help inform licensing models, system configuration and permission structures. Table 3. User Estimates Administrators 1 - 7 Supervisors .................... 3. 10 Field Users 5 — 25__ View -Only Users Varies The key technical requirement is intuitive, role -based interfaces, simplified workflows for field staff and minimal reliance on complex configuration or advanced technical skills. 4,3 1` Functional requirements describe how the County and LMPs intend to use the system, or, in other words, the function the system is expected to provide. Despite varying maturity levels, there is strong alignment on a core set of functional requirements needed across all organizations. These functional requirements are: 1) The system must act as a primary asset register, providing configurable attribute fields that houses all necessary data to facilitate the development, management and continual improvement of maintenance, renewal, rehabilitation and replacement programs for asset infrastructure. 2) All aspects of the work order management system should be supported by the selected system including, but not limited to: a) Work order progress tracking and status updates. b) Resource usage per work order (staff hours, supplies and materials, and costs). c) Clear visibility between work orders and the assets being worked on (i.e assignment of the asset(s) to the work order). d) Identify basic work order lifecycle stages, such as request/intake, review/approval, assignment, in progress/completion / close-out. e) Track Work Order type, e.g. reactive, corrective, and planned work and capture work descriptions, completion notes, dates and response times. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� H!, c 17 Page 29 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�ll� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 3) Associate assets with physical locations and facilitate selection of assets during Work Order creations (and other relevant system functionality) through spatial mapping tools. 4) Allow in -field lookup of asset maintenance history and any other asset attribute information stored in the register. 5) Support effort and cost tracking to the work order. 6) Allow for service requests to be entered, either through integration with an existing system or through built-in functionality in the system. 7) Support dashboarding functionality to report on key, relevant KPIs as identified by the County and LMPs. Preliminary categories and examples are as follows: a) Work Order Performance, such as: i) Number of work orders created, completed, and outstanding. ii) Work order backlog by type and priority. iii) Average time from request to completion. iv) Emergency vs. non -emergency work orders. v) Reactive vs. preventive maintenance ratio. vi) Work order status visibility. vii) Labour hours per work order. viii) Compliance with Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) standard. ix) Response times by service request. x) Volume of service requests by category. b) Cost and Financial i) Cost per work order. ii) Cost per asset/asset class. iii) Labour vs. material vs. contractor cost breakdown. iv) Budget vs. actual maintenance spend. v) Historical cost trends. vi) Overtime tracking. c) Preventative Maintenance i) PM compliance rate (% completed on schedule). ii) Overdue PM tasks. iii) PM vs. corrective maintenance trends. iv) Seasonal maintenance completion rates. Training and change management emerge as critical success factors across the County and all LMPs. Based on the responses to the questionnaire and workshop sessions, Table 4 outlines a consolidated training, change management and support areas where the LMPs anticipate facing challenges: Table 4. Anticipated Training and Change Management Requirements lu IVV {uluf flYtl4l4tttt dtl>''pY!'J w,1 �(Y(1., pGN NttNtt V 1 Uk.....m6 tlVull!!>1 tr'li` 6Ktt Attl ,. ,,,�titt�ttlV(IIVttN (kK(ryttttl plVfl(@fl „„ kk..... tt VpIf.IOVVfhfIVVf Training time requirements Role -based training and materials, including recorded and digital content as well as in -person. .............. A formal change management plan tailored to varying Apprehension around adopting a shared readiness levels across participating municipalities. system & process Should reflect existing systems and tools, technology needs, and staff capacity to sustain system. Limited local IT support Named system account manager, and defined escalation routes to support the systems Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� h' c 18 Page 30 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G The key challenges are digital literacy among staff, especially field operators, and many LMPs report staff apprehension toward new systems. Time available for training is limited, and prior implementation experiences have made organizations cautious about repeating intensive training efforts. Preferred training approaches include in -person sessions for field staff, supplemented by online or role - based training for supervisors and managers. There is strong interest in demo periods, phased rollouts to create an internal support structure, and full-time hands-on support during the implementation period. It was also suggested to arrange training to occur outside of the winter maintenance period to avoid conflicts with reactive weather -related work. Throughout the engagement process and following review of the survey findings and feasibility study, there are two recommended options for consideration, with one the preferred option when it comes to system selection. 1) The first approach is implementation of a single, unified asset management and work order system. In this approach, the system would be managed by the County, with access provided to all LMPs. This approach would leverage existing County GIS datasets, ensure that data is established, maintained, and monitored in a cohesive and consistent manner, and would facilitate establishment of standardized reporting structures and streamline reporting processes. Additional foreseeable benefits include cost sharing opportunities that support economies of scale and practical system maintenance benefits reducing burden on LMPs in sourcing technical support to maintain the system. Likely challenges with this approach are data security and user role definitions that ensure each municipality is only accessing the data and work orders relevant to their organisation. Change management can also be challenging, particularly if the proposed system differs from an existing system in place at the municipality. This is also likely to be cost -intensive. 2) The second, and preferred, approach is a hybrid implementation that integrates systems currently in place. In this approach, a new system would be adopted by the County, with relevant support in place to integration or enable expedited adoption across other LMPs. Many of the practical benefits of identified in the first approach also apply here, while some of the anticipated challenges are mitigated. This is a similar approach to Middlesex County where their RFP in 2021 was intended to provide a cohesive, multi -functional, flexible, robust, and integrated system that will increase efficiency, support informed decisions, and support the County and Local Municipalities asset management needs (RFP ITS-02-21). The project was awarded to PSD Citywide. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� h' c 19 Page 31 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G This approach balances local autonomy with County -level coordination and integration. It will also enable standardization in reporting tools and forms without forcing any system replacement. It will reduce financial and operational risks and aligns well with feedback from advanced LMPs based on engagement and will allow participants to benefit from lessons learned by the more mature municipalities within the County. One anticipated challenge with this approach remains the topic of change management. To position the project for success, a robust plan for training, business process refinement and long-term support, is essential. Recommendations on this topic are included in Section 7 Implementation Considerations and Roadmap. The specific recommendations are provided in the following sections to address the technical and functional requirements previously identified. Additional recommendations identified are noted below. !."I Asset I` f "^ g III stIry ��;Rati'�. G S Establish a standard asset hierarchy and naming conventions: These will standardize data inputted into attribute fields (such as material type, measurement units, street naming approaches, location identifiers, etc.) as well provide a consistent approach developing asset ID codes. This will help operators find assets in the dataset, whether that is the CMMS or GIS, and streamline processes for linking assets to work orders. The future system should have a comprehensive asset registry, hierarchal asset structure, criticality ratings, integration with GIS, and the ability to filter assets by varying asset attributes and criteria. In addition to GIS, road patrol data and AVL integration are required for monitoring asset condition. Configurable attribute fields must be included and will have to reflect the minimum mandatory planning fields, such as install/acquisition year, replacement cost, estimated service life, and condition findings of the inspections. As identified in Appendix B, it should also include fields relating to the roles of the County and LMPs in planning for, and managing, cross -boundary assets, such as region, subregion, owner, maintainer, and planner. !,, ,2 III ul �I i� �, iu i�,� iii �I�I ul �I ����I �I I� ';(, ili III ili i i �,�a �� � �� �� �� �.. � �.. � � �� � II w � �"� III"'�I �� 1 �u„�� j�„ Yn f, III"' w w f, j� � �' � k4 ��',°w w fi w Select a system that supports implementation across a range of asset categories. While linear assets, particularly those required to adhere to the Minimum Maintenance Standards and other regulatory and legislative reporting requirements, are essential to account for in these systems, the County and their LMPs are also responsible for a variety of other asset types and categories. A notable category are Facilities; a complex combination of asset systems that support crucial community programming and service delivery objectives. The assets that make up these systems benefit from a wide range of intervention types, such as preventative and reactive maintenance, renewal, rehabilitation and replacement activities, all of which reflect significant resource investment. Other asset classes identified included water and wastewater. The system selected should support the variety of asset classes, categories and types used by the County and the LMPs to meet levels of service commitments and provide services to their communities. !,, 3 Wau Illf,w Gik deir Assign work order numbers, and develop standard work order status, prioritization categories, and workflows, including workorder templates where there are repetitive activities and time tracking to the work order. The system must have unique work order numbering and configurable work order types, prioritization, and workflows. The work orders should be integrated with the asset register so Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� H' c 110 Page 32 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G that they can be linked directly to the related assets. Work order templates must be available for common tasks, and response times should be tracked via the system to monitor service levels. These findings should be linked to a real-time dashboard to provide information on KPIs used to monitor service levels. By associating workorder information with the asset, staff will be able to readily assess what work was previously completed, and which approaches were most effective. There will also be comprehensive lifecycle information on the assets providing a deeper understanding of whole -life costs, allowing for design and asset selection processes based on historical information, selecting the best design, or the right make, model and manufacturer for the unique context and application. &III The selected system must support implementation of scheduled preventative maintenance inspection programs. Key functionality should include calendar and meter -based preventative maintenance scheduling, automatic work order generation for preventative maintenance and to address failed inspections, and configurable inspection forms that can be accessed through mobile devices rather than paper forms. This will reduce maintenance planning work on operations and maintenance staff, manage risk of unexpected asset failure by supporting proactive maintenance efforts, and allow for robust resource planning with regards to staffing, skills required, material and supply needs, and financial requirements. Like the requirements of the Work Orders, all Preventative Maintenance and Inspection -related activities must be tracked to the asset to associate all relevant historical information with the assets. This information should be accessible to staff whether on mobile or fixed platform access. The benefit of this work is enhanced understanding of lifecycle costs and needs, which can guide budgeting and planning efforts. With regards to inspection programs, the system should support all mandatory reporting requirements as outlined by the MMS, OSIM and RMA inspection standards, and should facilitate association of all findings of those inspections with the assets themselves. This is intended to support enhanced preventative maintenance and risk management planning and strengthen understanding of failure modes experienced by the county and its LMPs. As OSIM and BCA are completed and data is saved, the capability for the system to allow for bulk -uploading of data to reflect current state is critical for operational efficiency. It will also ensure that all participants in this system are able to readily manage and respond to regulatory and legislative requirements, and monitor and report on their compliance. I f, "^ S O Ui III" f,"" fi "^ °w Cost Staff time and the materials and supplies associated with the work should be tracked to the Work Order. The system should allow users to identify typical labour hours for Work Orders with material costs and/or quantities based on subject matter expertise. These should be automatically populated for these routine activities when a new work order is generated but allow the user to update these quantities during work order close out. The system should also facilitate cost tracking by work order and total cost calculation once the work is complete, where sufficient information is provided to do so. This information should be tracked through the real-time dashboard mentioned in Section 5.3 Work Order Management. This information is critical in planning for future activities and forecasting scheduled resource needs. Overtime, this will streamline the County and LMPs budget planning processes and help balance staff capacity with service delivery goals. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� h' c 111 Page 33 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G !,, 6 Seirvi r,,* I` e (',J IU e S 1S & IF"' IUl Ib III iii r,',� The system must support either integration with existing service request platforms or provide a public interface to submit a service request. Currently most LMPs receive work requests through multiple paths, so the new system must be able to receive multi -channel service requests and create work orders from them. A key component of this is to keep the request tracking separate from the work order tracking to reduce confusion between the work requests and execution. This is an opportunity to reduce administrative burden on staff and develop consistent process around work order setup. II\��I� � ���I ur,i iiit ���I iiw°iii ul°�I u The system must support performance monitoring relating to work order progress and statistics. As the County and the LMPs develop robust asset management systems that include levels of service frameworks, and other associated KPIs, there is the desire to strengthen evidence -based decision - making processes and approaches. The system must track and report on the work order backlog and status, as well as the preventative maintenance compliance. It should monitor the response time for different types of work orders, the ratio of preventative vs reactive work orders, and keep a real-time dashboard of visible KPIs. All work orders, whether for projects or maintenance activities, and inspections should be associated with the asset(s) involved to ensure historical information is maintained in a way that can be aligned with the asset register. The resulting information can be used by the County and LMPs to drive asset investment, maintenance and renewal program development, and resource planning as well as guiding budget and project prioritization. _,E3 11u '.e IIj�� art The system must support standardized reporting templates on Work Orders and assets aligned with County and LMP needs. A significant priority is the development of a standardized reporting approach for the County and the LMPs for cross -jurisdictional services. Creating a standard report format County -wide will ensure uniform data collection and presentation and facilitate data comparison across the LMPs. It will also reduce the burden on staff to support these reporting processes and enhance transparency across the process. It is crucial to have fixed reports with standardized data outputs, regardless of the CMMS system used by the LMP. To achieve this, data inputs should be selection -based rather than free text, for ease of data categorization and comparison. For seasonal operations, data should be nested to separate summer versus winter functions. Complicated data should be broken up in the same way among LMPs so that the final reports to the County Council are similar and comparable. ,9 System integration efforts will require clearly defined role and organization -based security processes. While each LMP utilizes GIS and CRM, there do exist dependencies on the County's GIS support for that platform, though existing integrations are currently limited. In addition, some of the LMPs have already implemented an asset management system, eg. PSD CityWide. These three systems reflect major platforms within each LMP and would be key considerations in any implementation going forward. Integration with these systems with each other and the desired CMMS presents an opportunity to improve asset location consistency, tracking, and status of associated work orders across all participating LMPs. Integrations represent an opportunity to streamline processes and process implementation, and support consistent reporting methods. Any integrations will need to ensure that security restrictions are maintained at the appropriate level to reduce the risk of unauthorized cross -municipal access. Multi -site Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 112 Page 34 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G configuration would help to address data separation and ownership concerns, and support change management work through the implementation process. Any CMMS implementation initiative should include resourcing for staff training, implementation support and change management strategies. Notable, and reasonable concerns were identified around participants accessing implementation support throughout the initial software roll -out, as well as in the longer term. The system implementation should include role -based training as part of the primary project workplan. This is often included as part of the platform implementation and can be identified as a requirement early in the RFP process. Another opportunity during the RFP and implementation process would be consideration of defined support Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to ensure continuous support from vendors at the appropriate level for each participating LIMP. Longer term, the County and its participating LMPs should review the opportunities to implement a clear internal roles and responsibilities matrix. This would outline reporting responsibilities, data upkeep expectations where relevant and data is shared, CMMS maintenance and resourcing plans, and other similar items of note. This will ensure clear understanding between all participants and outline explicit scope expectations around long term maintenance and resourcing items. llgtl V IIIiiN\\o `t�lr dill I9�mH� There are several CMMS offerings that could be effectively implemented by the County of Elgin to integrate asset and work data from the LMPs. The four offerings listed below are all cloud -based, with mobile data collection, work order scheduling and management, and GIS integration possibilities. Often systems with more capability are costly to implement with a greater need to spend considerable time from the County on configuration followed by more costly sustainment. While there are many systems available in the market, the platforms identified below have a strong Canadian presence with a proven background on municipal -centric implementations. Depending on specific requirements and specific integration needs, we anticipate for the County an initial implementation and license cost between $350,000 and $500,000 with and annual license and support fee between $50,000 and $75,000 increasing each year. Depending on the system of choice, middleware systems for integration will be required. These systems vary by subscription model in the $25,000 to $50,000 per year licensing and implementation varying from in-house development to $50,000 to $75,000 for additional support. 6."1 F "Sl"u) CIII'tyWIIId PSD Citywide has the capability to provide the required services and is a scalable system which can integrate other functions or municipalities as needed. As a cloud -based CMMS, Citywide has subsystem options dedicated to maintenance management and asset management. They offer a Route Patrol function that automates work orders and service requests, tracking deficiencies for each patrol. The municipalities of Bayham, Southwold, West Elgin, Dutton Dunwich, and Town of Aylmer are already using various Citywide programs and functions with varying levels of integration. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 113 Page 35 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 6.2 IN,SII'ZII CiiityWau Illy,s The County is familiar with ESRI through ArcGIS and Esri's Cityworks system is similarly designed for public works in a cloud -hosted system that can be accessed from mobile or desktop and focuses on asset, work, and property management. The asset management system, Cityworks AMS, is built on ArcGIS, and assets can be modelled and interacted with via the GIS map. Another optional application they feature is their Pavement Management System which can be integrated into their ESRI GIS system. 63 Brightly is another similar system with asset lifecycle management capabilities that can be integrated with existing systems and workflows. Brightly's Asset Essentials focuses on infrastructure asset management and has a native GIS system that specifically integrates with external GIS systems. Asset Essential also has an integrated citizen request portal, whereas some other providers offer it as an optional addition. The County is familiar with Brightly through the current Facilities maintenance management tool (TheWorxHub) 6 . 4� G O V (II" au iiri it eu IIIy Formerly known as Cartegraph, OpenGOV is a versatile system that is integrated natively with GIS, among other procurement, permitting and utility systems. It has a proven track record across all asset classes (e.g. transportation, stormwater, parks and recreation, facilities, water, wastewater and fleet), and promotes real-time GIS integration that tracks location, condition, costs and work history. The Enterprise Asset management module can be scaled to align with the asset categories being included in the licensing and includes the ability to identify custom asset classes and associated information, or use out - of -the -box structures. This is a cloud -based offering that includes by default much of the functionality required as mandatory through this undertaking, and additional functionality can be added to the license to include scenario and what -if analysis through the infrastructure planning modules and a community service request portal through the community engagement module. Ill iu III', Ill e iu r'ie iii ii NII °NI, i cii iii ii C cii ii ,,iu!"3 i cie iii@ a NII° ii cii iii ii!1x3 a iii ii cii IIF 1 (::ii a ci iu r i ,III', The preferred implementation option uses a hybrid approach that has been identified throughout the engagement process as manageable and effective. That said, there is still a need to consider the organisational readiness, change management strategies and business process improvements that would support engagement in the broader initiative, secure buy -in and user adoption, and create an actionable, efficient system. k 111 i1111 """& IN 111 ,lu 111°i1 k 1 I` e k4 c1) Ill llr't es s Across Elgin County and the participating municipalities, organizational readiness to adopt a new or shared asset management and work order management software varies. Readiness is influenced by prior investments in existing systems, staff capacity and digital literacy, availability of implementation time, and the presence of formal change management structures. While there is broad recognition of the potential value of improved maintenance management, it is also important to minimize disruption, retraining, and cost impacts. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 114 Page 36 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G 1 I[ , � I[ Woirlk"foir°r.,e Capacity ciity a iiiG(,,'J 0lmuiri�ge Several LMPs identify workforce characteristics as a major readiness constraint. This constraint reflects the complexity of succession planning within the workforce, as well as the need for robust resource planning to support adoption of the system. Ensuring that users of the system have access to the correct tools for their role and duties is essential, which is, in turn, best supported through a long-term resourcing plan for the CMMS. Documenting the informal processes by subject matter experts across the County and LMP will not only enhance succession as new members join the workforce, but it will also ensure that the system itself reflects the unique needs of each LMP, and that the implementation has maximized on system automation opportunities. This formalization of maintenance processes represents a significant opportunity across the County. Common expectations for any future initiative include a clear implementation roadmap with defined roles and responsibilities, as well as transparent communication. This should also include medium and long- term plans for on -going support provided by the County to the LMPs (or as agreed upon between the County and participating LMPs) to ensure trust and confidence in the process. 72 C�,Aiinreiiril: The current practices highlight the need for workflow standardization without eliminating local flexibility, automation that reduces administrative burden rather than increasing it and clear governance on who owns, manages, and validates data. Several LMPs have recently invested in systems such as PSD Citywide and for them the preferred readiness is contingent on integration rather than replacement, respect for existing system maturity and avoidance of duplicate effort and redundant configuration. To be organizationally feasible across Elgin County and all LMPs, an Asset Management and Work Order management software -related initiative must: • Support phased or "light" implementation pathways. • Allow municipalities to participate at different maturity levels. • Minimize disruption to day-to-day operations. • Reduce administrative burden rather than increase reporting effort. • Accommodate upcoming staff turnover and onboarding across municipalities. Any feasible asset management and work management strategy must be adaptive, respectful of local context, and grounded in strong change management, or it risks low adoption, operational disruption, and stakeholder resistance. To support development of an implementation roadmap, and associated understanding of resource and costing needs, a gap analysis was undertaken. This analysis compared current -state capabilities against identified requirements, and the results highlighted priority areas requiring special focus, including: • Data gaps that limit efficiency, visibility, or reporting. • Integration gaps between asset management, work order management, finance, and GIS. • Organizational gaps related to training, governance, capacity and support. • Risks associated with system fragmentation or over -standardization. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� h!, c 115 Page 37 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G This analysis, alongside the engagement activities and resultant requirements and recommendations, have provided the insight necessary to develop a preliminary sequenced list of activities that would support the County and LMPs in a successful implementation journey. These activities are grouped into three major phases and spread over a five-year period to balance burden on participating staff, and reflect activities intended to support both the immediate implementation and long-term sustainment of system adoption. These are outlined in Figure 1 below. Where activities are identified as phased, the suggestion is to focus on high priority areas first, and then gradually integrate additional areas of work. For example, phased data clean up should reflect the findings of the data gap analysis as well as the priority of the CMMS implementation by service or asset classes. If the County and participating LMPs chose to implement the new system for specific service areas or asset classes first, then the corresponding datasets should be prioritized first. This logic can be extended to the development of preventative maintenance schedules and benchmarks, condition programs, and other related undertakings. This approach will provide examples of successful outcomes, builds buy -in for the system and processes and allows participants to refine the implementation methodology as they gain a better understanding of how the system works. This iterative approach ensures later phases of work go smoother and quicker — particularly where these types of software systems may be very new — and mitigates risks relating to resistance and disengagement. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� h!, c 116 Page 38 of 51 Figure 1. Proposed Implementation Roadmap 01 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1 01 1 Q2 1 03 1 Q4 1,01 1 02 1 03 1 Q4 I Q1 I Q2 1 103 1 04 1 01 1 Q2 I Q3 1 04 Rft Data Standards R02: Data Gap Analysis R03: Phased Data Cleanup IR04: Data Governance & SOP Rog: Process ROS: Reporting Mapping Standardisation R07: Preventative Maintenance Schedules RW Condition Assessment Programs R10: CMMIS Implementation Rll: Cost and Inventory Tracking R1 2: System Training R13: Performance Reporting Rik Budget Process Alignment R15: System Audit "aspire 1 .. . .. .. . . I "n-1- 1 1 117 Page 39 of 51 \\\IWN11111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G ' 2 IC Activity C q a is k,'J e i� a t ii q3 iriG s Undertaking this implementation represents a significant investment of resources, both in staff time and financial commitments. To ensure the success of this implementation, it is recommended that the County and all participating LMPs consider completion of the following activities before beginning implementation. It will be necessary that the County dedicate a fulltime equivalent resource to their activities to ensure an efficient implementation and successful onboarding experience for staff. ➢ Data Readiness Review: Review the existing asset data, complete an Asset Data Gap analysis and prioritize key asset data sets for improvements. This should include estimation of necessary resources, timing and program requirements to collect the data. ➢ Data Management Standards and SOPS: Develop a Metadata Standard, and/or an Asset Information Management Strategy, and engage all participating LMPs to ensure consensus and alignment. Develop supporting training materials to ensure onboarding of staff is aligned with the recommendations and requirements of these standards and SOP. ➢ System SLAB and Governance: Develop, or update, SLAs for roles and responsibilities in maintaining and managing the data. Note that this is sometimes addressed as part of point two (2) above. ➢ Reporting Standardization: Identify and develop any key reporting requirements. Establish key reporting need between the County and participating LMPs based on the current documented approach that identifies timing, level of detail, mandatory information to be provided to the county. This can inform what asset attribute fields are mandatory, and the sequency of roles and reporting needs. ➢ Implementation Journey Change Management Strategy: Advance development of a change management plan for the project can also be beneficial. These plans address both the immediate needs of the project as well as the medium- and long-term needs of the broader program to ensure the success of the implementation. This typically considers things such as plans for long- term data management and updates, stakeholder engagement strategies, on -going support for participating LMPs that is driven by the County rather than terms of the system agreement, and other strategic needs that ensure the success of this project. It is also recommended that any data updates or cleanup for high -priority data sets, particularly those with legislative or regulatory requirements, be completed prior to initiation of this project. Additional resources are recommended to complete this. Having clean datasets to work with in the early phases of the implementation can help participants understand the full functionality and capacity of the system, as well help with change management by demonstrating early wins. 711 Activity C o iris a,.Ne r afi c Following the implementation, it is recommended that a dedicated fulltime equivalent resource is assigned for the County to ensure the successful and effective use of the system. This role is essential in mitigating one of the key risks commonly faced by these implementation journeys which is the long-term viability of the system, both with regards to maintaining user support and engagement with the system and in ensuring compliance with data management standards and relevant SLAs. This will ensure that the data inputted into the system will bolster evidence -based decision -making, provide transparent and clear support for business cases, and support efficient, effective identification of asset investment needs and priorities. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study III �,:� H!, c 118 Page 40 of 51 \\\IWN,1111NN1NN1NN11\\\�1�� � aspire C O N S U L T I N G This role would be responsible for continual improvements, data management and optimization, end -user engagement as well as liaising with the system implementor. Typical activities necessary to maintain the system include: ➢ Program Optimization: These activities are intended to develop and monitor key performance indicators, make recommendations to program areas and drive continual change for data driving decision making. They are used to assess how effectively the system is being used, and support targeted refinements to the system, training supports, and other continual improvement activities. ➢ Account Administration: This includes the onboarding and onboarding of users through system training, overviews and peer support. ➢ Updates to Master Data: These activities are intended to ensure data is relevant and accurate. This includes ensuring current asset information, spare parts, preventative maintenance activities, reports and activity cost rates. This can also include refinements to data schemas and structures to ensure consistency across multiple platforms or systems, and to facilitate reporting and business case development. ➢ Supporting Integrations: As the system is integrated with other systems within the County, GIS and ERP, ensuring the data flow is working and resolving errors that occurring during the integration will require support. In addition, as data flows in externally from the LMPs, adjustments may be required for fringe use cases not originally considered or as systems and processes from the LMPs evolve and improve. ➢ Enhancements to the System: Following the implementation, users will identify changes necessary to the system to improve on reporting or ease of use. The resource would support these initiatives and where necessary engage with the vendor on how it can be completed. ➢ Future Planning: While this is focused on Roads and Facilities, a properly selected system will be able to manage other core and non -core assets identified within the AMP. This resource can share learnings and support the onboarding of additional asset groups. 3 C c° ii Ilr"i c II IV The discovery and requirements -gathering phase confirms that there is a strong case for improved coordination, visibility, and reporting across Elgin County and its LMPs. Existing investments, system maturity differences, and workforce capacity constraints preclude a full system replacement. A flexible, integration -first, hybrid approach best balances standardization with municipal autonomy. Success will depend heavily on phased implementation, clear governance, strong change management, and vendor -supported training and integration as well as dedicated staffing commitments from the County to support the work. The recommendation to implement at a county level and allow LMPs to adopt or integrate with their existing functions and programs allows for data synchronization between municipalities and the county while each maintaining the privacy of their sensitive data. This approach aligns with the direction of the Asset Management Plan, enabling evidence -based planning, and decision making. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility Study 11, �,:� H' c 119 Page 41 of 51 spire CONSULTING 79mem ra ME Survey Questions and Results Page 42 of 51 Page 43 of 51 Page 44 of 51 Like activities need to be compared across LMPs to determine efficiencies and identify good question. answer is none. Solution should County of Elgin .... .. _. ..... ..... .. _. ..... room for improvement ..... .. _. ..... online ._. 3 half day sessions max. ..... ..... .. _. ..... have technical support built in. ..... .. _. ..... ... _. In person - General Staff/Supervisors/ What ever is needed? With supervisor and Upper -Tier Real time process status Managers managers full understanding -Communication between LTM and UTM for ability to define roles and responsibilities On-line- Possiblythe ability to have a demo period to help updates, training, funding support for system Municipality of Bayham ... ... Service request- Close out of request ... ... ... ...Work Documentation and clear communication ... Supervisor/Managers ... ... understand the implementation. ... ... ... ... licences. ... ... ... ..... complete as needed in Minimum Maintenance, customer complaints and further patrol indicate the need for additional financial, ease of use, a program that would match West Elgin N/A work. in person depends on the trainingand the need our needs, eg. citywide and supervisor direction Full cost recovery for our sunk cost, full cost recovery and fundingfor re-training and Numberof Request and Work Orders, implementation of the system, Data Migration and Average Cost per WO by department, Time Protection, IT Support, Data Security, Hosting. from Request to Completion, and about 30 Insurance, provision of devices at no cost to the other metrics the software automatically Forms part of our reportingto Council, In person, a significant Township, ifthe County forces this on the partners pulls and presents in Widget Format and automatic reminders are built into WOs to amount of in person this should be a zero cost to the Township, as we Township of Southwold Report formats. ensure timely attention. trainingwas required. Almost none currently, maybe an houra week. have workingsoftware already. Our staff have spent a substantial amount of time in the last 5 years implementingthe new systems and processes. The Towns AMP is drastically It should support Water& Wastewater improved and we continue to update accordingly. Origin of tasks - number of tasks assigned - accountability, not just roads. It should We do not have time or resources to dedicate to a time of completion- departments involved provide levels of service so these can be new system or training. Town of Aylmer with tasks reported. In -person Ability to report on job costs and completion Online and in -person Admin/Supervisory Staff — (16hrs) Township of Malahide None timelines where required Field Staff (Bhrs) As much as it takes, its a gradual process as you Central Elein Costs Meetine the MMS All the above develop you skills Page 45 of 51 GIS services to integrate with operations and the AMP would be great support. We do not want this to be levied bythe upper tier. The lower tier currently obtained and funds the system/software. It is working good and we continue to optimize. Troubleshooting, System Updates, and customization of reports We already have eood support from ourvendor Page 46 of 51 spire 0 N S U L T U N G Appendix B Detailed Requirements Matrix Page 47 of 51 moire . C O N S U L T I N G ,wa w✓ ._ .. vsx. a ., a, .. _.. _. _ wa _.. w nm .... r , ry ... ,, (1(iVV (ififU ✓ ! IOV(G V((IIV(A „�I(l(I(P1111((VVIV IV ,. ,, (1(iVV (ififU Nkk fJp;f�kQ RkUtloIQVAI<,ddAir "N,. fitt)VVf iVd(.. HfA rtl..., tth O�OVf ORG-01 Organizational Support phased, configurable implementation, allowing municipalities to adopt functionality incrementally (e.g., asset data, then service requests, then work orders, then financial and cost tracking) by asset or service areas (e.g. roads, culverts, facilities, sidewalks, etc.) minimizing operational disruption. ORG-02 Organizational Support municipality -specific configurations within a shared governance model, allowing each LMP to retain ownership of its workflows, data, and asset structures. ORG-03 Organizational The vendor shall provide a structured change management approach. ORG-04 Organizational 9 Shall be usable b staff with low digital literacy, emphasizing simple workflows Y 9 Y, p 9 p , minimal data entry burden, and intuitive mobile interfaces. ORG-05 Organizational Shall not require significant internal IT administration at the local or County level. ORG-06 Organizational 9 Allow LMPs to retain existing systems where required, supporting a hybrid 9 Y q pp 9 Y operating model rather than forcing full system replacement. ORG_07 Organization Shall provide mobile functionality to support in -field WO creation, data entries, and information retrieval. .............. AST-01 Asset Registry Comprehensive asset registry with unique identifiers that are aligned with County and LMP naming conventions. AST-02 Asset Registry GIS-based asset display and selection .............. AST-03 Asset Registry Hierarchical asset structure that identifies the relationship between assets and major components (major as defined by the County and LMP). For example, Transportation a Roadways a Local Road a Road Name. This hierarchy will reflect the service provided by the assets and facilitate logical groupings of assets for interventions. AST-04 Asset Register At a minimum, must include the following attribute fields, set as mandatory within the system, aligned with County and LMP expectations: • Install Year • Estimated Service Life • Asset Replacement Cost • Region • Subregion • Owner • Operator • Maintainer • Planner • Diameter • Length • Quantity WO-001 Work Orders Unique work order numbering and lifecycle management Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility g e I B1 Study Page 48 of 51 ,,,,,A,,,»�,,NN moire . C O N S U L T I N G „„((OVQ pfifk ^ G N IVOfiG if>rG AiIIGfP(il(fOJ�V@ „„(I(iVQ IVfiGA Vpkikk RktttlolQVAkddkir "N,. fittlVVf iVb(.. (kkik i., rch O�OVf WO-002 Work Orders Provide a standardized work order lifecycle, configurable by municipality, including: • Request • Review • Approval • Assignment • In Progress • Completed / Closed out WO-003 Work Orders Assign unique work order identifiers for all work, including internal tasks and public requests. WO-004 Work Orders Support multiple work order types, including: • Reactive • Preventive • Corrective • Inspection • Administrative • Capital • Project work WO-005 Work Orders Link work orders to specific assets WO-006 Work Orders Allow work orders to be linked to assets, locations, or spatial features at a practical level WO-007 Work Orders Support assignment of work orders to Individuals/Crews/Contractors WO-008 Work Orders The system shall capture labour, materials, equipment, and completion notes within each work order. WO-009 Work Orders Support configurable priority levels (e.g., Emergency, High, Medium, Low) aligned with MMS, safety, and service level objectives. WO-010 Work Orders Allow work order creation from multiple sources, including public service requests/Patrols / inspections/Internal staff req uests/G I S- based triggers PM-01 Preventive Calendar and meter -based PM scheduling that is based on County and LMP Maintenance scheduling requirements. PM-02 Preventive Ability to associate asset identifiers from the asset registry with preventative Maintenance maintenance workorders, even if autogenerated. PM-04 Preventive Allow assets to be displayed, selected, and filtered via GIS maps. Maintenance PM-05 Preventive Associate maintenance history and prior inspections with work orders to allow Maintenance users to access and review previously completed work. INSP-01 Inspections Auto -generate WOs from failed inspections. INSP-02 Inspections Ability to support regulated/legislated inspection programs such as MMS and OSIM, as well as other County and LMP condition inspection programs, such as CCTV and BCAs. This should include scheduling of inspections, and storing key defect and condition findings associated with the asset. INSP-03 Inspections Interface with specialized software such as Burnside. COST- Cost Mgmt Track actual labour, material, equipment, and contractor costs per work order, at a 01 minimum by allow user entry into appropriately defined fields during Work Order Completion, and attachments of photos, receipts, pdfs or other relevant support content. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility n g e I B2 Study Page 49 of 51 moire . C O N S U L T I N G a � iV ifi� ^ OV(V f iffif iu fO �V @... Of VfG A .V ik k o d d�itt fi VV iV(..fJfA f., N �iV COST- Cost Mgmt Support cost aggregation by Asset/Location/Municipality/Program/Time period. 02 COST- Cost Mgmt Support unit rate updates for labour and material 03 COST- Cost Mgmt Total work order cost (labour based on configurable burden rates + materials + 04 services). This should be accomplished, at a minimum, by providing defined fields for user entry at work order completion. COST- Cost Mgmt Export WO cost data for integration with municipal financial systems and audits. 05 RPT-01 Reporting Provide real-time dashboards for Work order backlog/Completion rates/Response times/PM compliance. This must include reporting on ratio of reactive to preventative maintenance Wos completed, as well as any other key LOS, MMS, and RMA-aligned performance reporting needs. RPT-02 Reporting Support standardized County -wide reporting, based on County reporting requirements that permits filtering to municipality -specific expenditures. RPT-03 Reporting Enable export of reports (Excel, PDF, CSV), RPT-04 Reporting Allow the user to specific which fields should be included in the Excel/PDF/CSV .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. report export. RPT-05 Reporting Support a user-friendly approach to development of additional, simple reports when they use existing fields and built-in functionality. INT-01 Integration Support multiple GIS / service request systems by LMP while maintaining the integrity of the asset hierarchy and work execution structure. TECH- Technical Multi -municipality architecture with data separation and secure user roles and p Y p 01 access privileges. TECH- Technical Becloud -hosted (SaaS) with no requirement for County or LMPs to maintain on- 02 premise infrastructure. TECH- Technical Support multiple municipalities (sites) within a single instance, with strict logical 03 separation of Assets/Work orders/Users/Reporting. TECH- Technical Support role -based access control, ensuring users can only view or edit data for 04 authorized municipalities. TECH- Technical The system shall provide robust offline mobile functionality, allowing field staff to 05 complete work, inspections, and data capture in low -connectivity environments TECH- Technical Integrate with GIS platforms, supporting Asset spatial location/Map-based work 06 order creation/Route and patrol visualization TECH- Technical Support secure data exchange (API / CSV) with existing platforms (e.g., Cit Wide 07 PSD) / Financial systems / Laserfiche or document repositories / AVL / telematics systems) where applicable. TECH- Technical Meet municipal data security and hosting requirements, including Canadian data 08 residency (preferred)/Encryption at rest and in transit/Audit trails/Permission logging. SR-01 Service Support centralized service request intake, including Email/Web forms/Manual Requests entry/Integration with existing systems. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility n g e I B3 Study Page 50 of 51 moire . C O N S U L T I N G ,�w�a w�✓ ._ .. vsx. a ., a, .. _.. _. _ ��w�a � _.. w nm .... �r , ry ... �,�, (1(iVV (ififU ✓ ! � IOV(G V((IIV(A „�I(l(I(P1111((VVIV IV �,. �,�, (1(iVV (ififU Nkk fJp;f�kQ RkUtloIQVAI<,ddAi�r �"N,. fitt)VVf iVd(.. HfA rtl..., tth O�OVf SR-02 Service Track service requests through to resolution, maintaining traceability to work Requests orders. SR-03 Service Reduce duplicate manual handling and redundant responses. Requests SR-04 Service Allow privacy controls for public requester data. Requests MOB-01 Mobile Support offline mobile functionality SEC-01 Security Ensure each user is able to access only the data associated with their role and municipality....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IMPL-01 Implementation Support role -based training programs that reflect County and LMP timelines. TRN-01 Training & Provide role -based training, including Field Transition staff/Supervisors/Managers/Administrators TRN-02 Tr' aining & Include in -person and online options, with emphasis on practical, task -based Transition learning, and recorded sessions for re -use by the municipality. TRN-03 Training & Include embedded guidance, help text, and user prompts. Transition .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. TRN-04 Training & Support selective data migration where beneficial, not mandatory. Transition TRN-05 Training & Enable County -level visibility without compromising municipal data ownership. Transition S00-01 Support Provide ongoing support, including defined SLAs Issue escalation/Software updates. SUP-02 Support Defined support response SLAs. Technical Memorandum I Asset Management and Work Order Software Feasibility rl g e I B4 Study Page 51 of 51