 We've got three presenters today, and I'm just going to go through individual introductions for each of them, and then I'll pass the microphone over. Our first presenter today is Brian Bedford. Brian is the Acting Director for the Infrastructure and Engineering Branch in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Brian is responsible for providing guidance and feedback through all infrastructure funding from project applications and reviews through contract administration. His focus is on sustainable infrastructure planning. He's also responsible for planning, development, evaluation and facilitating implementation of initiatives designed to improve the long-term sustainability of local government infrastructure. And he's also a participant in asset management, DC. Our second presenter is Pat Gordon. Pat is the Sustainable Cities International Network Director. Pat has over 20 years experience in the not-for-profit and municipal, provincial and federal government sectors in Canada and Great Britain. Pat has been at the forefront of long-range urban planning with the City of Calgary. She managed the Imagine Calgary Project, Calgary's long-range urban sustainability plan with over 18,000 citizens engaged in the process. Building on Imagine Calgary, Pat then led the Planet Calgary Project, which has resulted in a sustainable, integrated land use and transportation plan for the City. Our third presenter is Eric McNaughton. Eric is the Acting Manager for Transportation Strategy at the City of Calgary. He's responsible for developing long-range strategies, policies and business plans to support the implementation of the Calgary Transportation Plan and Municipal Development Plan. Prior to joining Transportation Strategy, Eric worked as the team lead for the Calgary Transportation Plan as part of the multidisciplinary Planet Calgary process to create a new, more sustainable vision for Calgary. So we'll be moving through the agenda for the day, starting with Brian. And he'll be talking about aging infrastructure and asset management. And then we'll move on to Pat, who will discuss urban form and infrastructure costs. And then Eric will be our last presenter discussing the cost of growth the Calgary experience. We'll have about 25 minutes at the end of the session for questions and potentially some time for questions in between each of the presenters as well. So without further ado, I'm going to pass it back to Darby to start the session with our first poll. Thanks very much, Amy. And I would just like to say that there is a change to the agenda, and we will be hearing just a bit longer from Brian and just a little bit shorter from Pat. So that wasn't reflected in the agenda. But yes, the poll question. For right now, if I could ask the audience to actually indicate which is the most appropriate for you here. So please answer this. What is your role in your organization or community? So please click right on the slide that's in front of you. Click on the color that's appropriate for you. Planner, engineer, economic development officer, CAO, BFO, consultant, or other. And once we get to a place, I'll be sure to show the results here. There you should be able to see the results now and we'll just take down a quick tally of that. Great. Thanks very much. Still a little bit of movement there. And just one last thing I will ask is, please, if all of you could, if you have not done so already, please meet your line. Star six. And now, are you hearing from Brian? Interest in BC face various infrastructure challenges. And as well, I guess the province has an interest here as we provided or work with infrastructure funding programs from time to time. So where my background comes from and in this context, we do recognize these challenges need a long-term approach to ensure community sustainability. Education of solid infrastructure is key for communities to deliver services they need to their residents and also provide for the basis for economic development throughout their community. Of course, currently over the years, we've been hearing lots in the media and amongst colleagues about the infrastructure deficit and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 2007 provided an estimate that nationally is about $123 billion. This number can vary greatly depending on a number of factors and it's not so important what the number is, but knowing that we've got aging infrastructure and there is going to be a cost associated to renew and replace that. And of course, as infrastructure ages, our renewal and replacement costs increase and the aging infrastructure also can lead to a decrease in level of service. I said everybody on here, but local governments are responsible for a diverse number of services. As you can see in the picture, we've got a variety of structures here giving a swath of what local governments provide in everything from roads and parks, buildings, recreation, transit, as well as all the hidden services underground, the pipes for water, wastewater, and stormwater in some cases, energy. As such, local governments own and operate a significant amount of capital assets. And the level of service provided by these assets can vary greatly. You see we've got pictures of three roads here providing sort of an obvious distinction between the level of service and also maybe reflecting on some aging infrastructure. In the middle, we have a road in green condition providing a reasonably high level of service. And as you move to the slide, picture to the right, you can see the road that surfs the road starting to break up. So you've got degradation happening here of either a paved or perhaps a chip seal road. And finally, we have a gravel road on the left which in the wet season is obviously developing a number of potholes that you can see in the picture. The level of service can be driven by and determined by, in some cases, local government in the community. Certainly in some cases, local roads, whether a gravel road is sufficient for the area or you need a fully paved road with curb and gutter. In this case, you've got an example here of a paved road with a ditch for your drainage. In other cases, the level of service is not entirely determined by the community but is determined by regulation. An example would be what sort of water treatment is required for your water source. Of course, there's a cost to the level of service and it's not just reflected in the capital cost of the infrastructure. The other cost that we need that need to be considered beyond the capital cost. The long-term cost, the operation, the maintenance, which includes the repairs, the renewals and the eventual disposal of an asset can take up to 75 to 80% of your life cycle cost of that infrastructure. The capital cost, the 20 to 25%, is the number that is often more commonly dealt with. It's what we see with the grant funding programs, it's what we see in the media. But it's important that decision makers are basing their decisions on the full life cycle cost of the infrastructure. Can they afford to own and operate and maintain that infrastructure with a lifespan of it as opposed to just can they get the money together to provide capital to build it in the first place? Yeah, that's a whole question for you. If again, I could ask the audience to please indicate this next question. Is this the right question you wanted at this point? Not, but sorry, we may be moving to... Sure, that's it. Are the elected officials and community members aware of the resources required to continue to meet the current level of service? So like previously, if you could just indicate what's appropriate for you. And I'll show you the results again. A little bit of movement there, feedback on the line. So again, if I could remind people to please mute their line. Star 6, please. Thank you. And the Italy of that. Okay, let's go. 493% in the no and unsure category. It's a fairly high percentage. Hopefully over time we can shift that and certainly as we get further into the discussion of asset management, we'll talk more about community engagement. But to start, a lot of this asset management work that we're going to talk about in BC really got the lift when Low Grammets had to deal with the Public Sector Accounting Board Regulation 3150. Low Grammets are required to do this under Section 167, Subsection 2 of the Community Charter. Financial statements must meet the generally accepted accounting principles for local governments. And they were required to, for the first time, document exactly what they own and the historical costs condition of the infrastructure. And on the financial end, some provided by the engineering side, review the value of the infrastructure that Low Grammets own. And it provides a lot of baseline data that can be used to sort of, or that can be leveraged into an asset management plan or procedures within an organization. So it provides some of the baseline that's required and gets people going. And in this case, this is regulated, whereas asset management is not. So it sort of provides that stepping stone, as well as that, for some, and feedback we received here was an eye-opener to some as to actually what value and the actual diversity and value of infrastructure owned by their local government when it was all kind of rolled up together for the first time. What is asset management? Well, the integrated approach involving planning, engineering and finance, as well as all the works, effectively manage existing and municipal infrastructure in a sustainable manner, maximize benefits, reduce rates, provide satisfactory level of service to community user and environmentally and equologically responsible manner. And really the key here is the integration between the different disciplines, between the planners, the engineers, and operations, public works, that service that the infrastructure is there for within the community. Getting them all speaking the same language and working together can help further the asset management. Certainly, when the second and third part of their presentation come with Pat and Eric's portion, they'll highlight sort of the key influence that planners have and the effect on infrastructure and costs. Okay, I have another question. Was it the previous one there? Yeah. Again, trying to keep you engaged here. So do you see a role for asset management practices in your organization? So again, if you could please vote for what's appropriate for you again. Yes? No. 100% versus the previous one that the asset management practices have a role. And obviously, probably a lot of you may already be doing various portions of it. Much more positive results than the previous one. And I think that previous one probably is one that follows as the community is engaged for an asset management, it starts engaging the community and providing more of a dialogue. Some of the benefits of asset management, it helps in avoiding problems and potential crises. It assists with the long-term financial planning. It aims to provide a better and consistent level of service to the public at less cost. It keeps a happier community as well as a safer and healthier community, as well as one that we can better for investment. And the world reduces the risk to community. Another component in there that helps develop appropriate rate structures for services that are fee-based. It helps include costs for the overall wear and tear on the assets or the average annual asset consumption, so that you can recoup the costs that are required in the future to pay for the replacements. The people that are actually using the asset are also paying for the replacement rather than pushing that off on the future generation, which is partly what has happened with the current quote-unquote infrastructure deficit that was mentioned at the front. Those replacement costs were unaccounted for, and as the structures deteriorated, those costs have been pushed forward under future generations that need to pay to upgrade those deteriorating infrastructure. So it provides a much more forward-thinking and proactive approach to managing infrastructure in the community. It leaves more effective communication with the ratepayers. Certainly when you're discussing appropriate rate structures, you're going to have to involve those ratepayers and they get to understand the actual costs of delivering that service and just some that are subsidized for hidden costs. It's right out on the table. Elected officials and regulatory agencies as well. When you're dealing with your actual cost, it also, of course, allows for more accurate financial planning. When you're dealing with looking long-term, you can also predict when you're going to need some of the big replacements, again, helping with that financial planning. It needs more efficient data management and results in positive institutional change. It also probably requires some institutional change in some cases. Engaging the different departments to work together, where traditionally our departmental structure, both here at the province and local governments, often keep people working within their own department, their own walls and their own silo. And as well, again, it's mentioned, it engages the community. An anecdotal example, discussing with a mayor from a community in BC who's gone, their community's gone down the path of asset management. They've got a long-term, 20-25-year asset management plan in place. They've identified when they intend to replace different infrastructure, when they intend to upgrade it, what the condition is, and the life of their various pieces. And he feels very comfortable now when community members come to him or her and say, you know, when is this going to be done in my neighborhood or my portion of the community? When is this change going to happen? Or when is this piece of infrastructure going to be improved or replaced? He now feels very confident in responding to them and saying, you know, it's going to be done at this point. He can tell them when this plan is going to be done in the future. He can tell them also why that decision was made to prioritize it at that point. And he can provide the logic behind that decision-making. Also, the asset management work they've done. But in the end, it's been a lot of work, at least from this conversation. But he also meant something they couldn't do alone, and they have reached out for support. And one place where they've gotten support is through asset management DC, which is a group that has a steering committee, but it's here for the local governments throughout the province. There is no membership. There's no formal association. Everybody can be a part of it. The steering group itself was developed from the bottom up. There's a number of local governments at the table, sort of eight to 12 at any given time, in different sizes and regions of the province. They have the various professional associations that have a role in asset management at the table. The Engineers Association, the World Bureau of Management Association, the Planners Association, the Public Works. There's also UBCM is at the table. There's an education component through BCIT, who has an infrastructure management program, as well as we have representatives from the federal government, all working together, and essentially developing a network to facilitate knowledge transfer and capacity building and asset management throughout the province. We do have another poll question here. You're all able to see this poll question. The question is, are the infrastructure issues dealt with in an interdisciplinary setting or by an interdisciplinary team in your organization? So please, again, the audience, you could indicate what's appropriate for you. Yes, no, we're not sure. And we'll show you the results shortly. And I'll just take this moment just to ask, once again, if any of the attendees have not yet had an opportunity to press mute, please do so. We are still getting just a bit of feedback. So please hit star six to meet your line if you haven't done so already. I'll show you the results of where we're at right now. You're able to now see the results. We've got a tally there. A50, it was fluctuating before we showed you. It was sort of hovering at 50-50 in this, well, now we're at 47-52, which is a good sign. We can go to the next slide. We, in one of the first pieces of work that Asset Management B.C. did was get an assessment of what's going on in the province. And the study titled State of Asset Management B.C. was released in September 2010. The process was the results were gathered through interviewing 39 local governments spread throughout the province, again, various sizes, and getting a geographic representation from west and north to south. Certainly one of the outcomes of this identified was integration of staff and departments on the Asset Management Front in different requirements. And this is information coming from the local governments, not from the group. And seeing that we're polling here at close to 50-50, compared to what we were getting in this study, we're showing an increase already, which is certainly a good sign. A couple other issues that were identified through this, that there's information available to get started. The information, depending on where the local government's at, might not be perfect, but that's not necessary. It's just the fact that the information is based on information available and people have the ability to get started. One concern that was raised across the board by many was that capacity to implement Asset Management was or couldn't be an issue. One way some local governments have gotten around this is rather than identifying individual as an Asset Manager, they've built-in Asset Management into individual job descriptions in the different departments to bring people together. A real driver behind doing this document was to help guide Asset Management BC and moving forward and identifying what might be useful to develop as well as tools and resources to supply. One of the tools that come out of this is an Asset Management self-assessment tool titled Asset Smart. It's a paper-based tool. It can be downloaded and can be done by any local government. It's a series of questions that lead you through, or discussion points and questions that lead you through to identify what Asset Management strengths already have within your community, what you're doing well, and where you might have some gaps that need to be addressed. With the self-identification process, there are resources to support if needed. As far as I have undertaken using this tool and the feedback so far has been positive, and certainly if you do use it, feedback is always welcome to always improve the tool and share that with the community as a whole. This is an Asset Smart tool. It was identified that if we've identified what we're doing well and what we might need to do and where our gaps are, where we find that information, and that was sort of the next work for four communities to collaborate in the late country, Poplar, Latino, and Merritt. We've worked together in conjunction with Asset Management BC and a consultant to develop an Asset Management roadmap that can be applied to any local government in the province, but it's also in a sense fully customizable. This is a handout that's been supplied through this presentation so you can download it and see the full picture here. I just on the slide just have a snapshot of the top quarter or third, which identifies sort of the basic boxes as they were called. The documents are this one page or it's backed up with a sort of a guidebook on how to implement. You can see up there which is sort of a key step or one of many steps in the Asset Management map has a subsequent information sheet that goes with it on as to the sort of what that does for you, what's behind it, the details, and where the information comes from and what the information feeds into. The local government that have piloted this have found that right off the bat they're able to stick off, and formalize the Asset Management or under the umbrella of Asset Management to realize that the information is there where that procedure is already there and if you hold in. A few have used the Asset Smart Tool and then followed up by using Asset Management Roadmap to sort of start cleaning the gaps. Of course this roadmap was just officially released in September 2011 so just within the last month and is again open for feedback and the full document beyond supporting case studies that went with it are available for download online. Finally, a few other tools and resources. One of the boxes in the Asset Management Roadmap identifies that having Asset Management Policy for the organization is a useful tool to give direction and guidance to staff on going forward with Asset Management practices. From the feedback we got from local governments as well we don't have the time to develop a policy so a draft or a model policy was developed with a bit of a guide that can be taken and tweaked to fit individual organizations without a few communities that use this policy to adopt use this model to adopt a policy in their community and it helps them again to drop on those Asset Management Roadmap boxes if necessary. Working with local governments in the province about six at this time on two different pilot projects one testing an Asset Management what was at the time was in the various Canada. If you could please hit star six to mute your line and that seems to resolve the issues. Further to that we've also got how to recent pilot which is not complete yet using the NAMS system from Australia. Australia has been doing Asset Management for 15 plus years and it's developed quite an easy to use and robust system for developing your long-term Asset Management plans and identifying your priorities on replacements. The intention is to share these with local governments through the Asset Management BC forum as well as directly from the local governments that participated with any local government that's interested in finding out more on how it was applied. Again the results aren't available quite yet at this time because they're still going through the process but the update on that will be available probably by the beginning of the new year. As well on the website there's two other things available there's a regular newsletter, there's case studies, there's a discussion forum where questions can be asked and answered and results or presentations and such workshops as well as announcements for workshops on that and the website is there on the slide for you. The input is always welcome and the organization is always looking to find what the next sort of resource that might be required and help support the development of that within the province. Again it's been province-specific but it's been the group also networks with finally I guess from the ministry's perspective the province has been helping local governments meet the needs of communities and doing that in various ways to help with the development of sustainable infrastructure. Asset management is one piece of the puzzle and we see that as a key piece and sort of the long-term sustainability of local government infrastructure and the service that it provides. There's other future considerations of course to keep in mind as you move forward with your infrastructure planning there's climate change adaptation which is always something to consider. Changing in demographics is our population ages of course there's also a rise in expectation in service levels all these things can start being kind of rolled into sort of long-term asset management and infrastructure planning as you move forward and the key is not getting to the end result right away it's just getting started. We did try and plan for a bit of time for questions but we are running just a little bit behind so what I would ask is if you do have a question anytime there's that Q&A button at the top on your header you can put questions in there at any time and we will have time for discussion at the end so if you do have some questions just ask you to perhaps hold off at this point and we'll move to the next presentation which is how about if you could hit star 6 and mute your line and that's where you go. Okay. Just waiting for the presentation to come up. Is that there? You should be able to advance along the slides with those arrows in the bottom left-hand corner of your screen. Okay, great. Thanks, sorry. Well, hello everyone. My name is Pat Gordon. I'm the director of international network of cities that exchange experiences and learning about sustainable. I'm sort of the bridge between these two presentations or a nice way to look at it might be the best part of the sandwich here I hope. I'm going to tell you a little bit about ourselves around sustainable cities so you're probably wondering sort of what the link is or what the connection is but really one of the connections is myself. I was the project manager of the work that Eric is going to be talking about in the next presentation and that was when I was working in Calgary where I was employed for over nine years. The next thing is that Calgary is actually a member of this international network so this kind of practice that we're talking about here, this infrastructure costing study is the kind of information that we share between ourselves and we are mostly cities and towns and have quite a wide range of, excuse me, a wide range of participants from around the world. So our mission, I'll just briefly tell you about us, our mission is to catalyze action on urban sustainability in cities around the world. Sorry, I'm getting the hang of this here. Why cities? Probably if anyone's been reading the papers lately as we now know that we've passed the point that the majority of the world's population live in cities. Now I know that a lot of the BC communities are more sort of rural focused but inevitably municipalities are often built up or the rural area is always related to a city or has some sort of relationship with the city. So certainly in terms of our membership we've got regions from around the world that include in the rural areas as well as the urban core so that's just a map of some of the cities and regions that are members of our network. When we talk about sustainability and urban sustainability this is the way that we try to present it. It's the idea that the whole is stronger than the sum of parts. We're not just talking about the environment or the economy or society. Any of our projects and any of our work really try to focus on ways to build those three elements into a stronger place. Now the infrastructure problem, Brian mentioned at the start is over of 123 million. I've got an even scarier number here from the municipal world. A chap had written a recent study now equates it between 125 and 300 billion and that excludes the 300 billion estimated required to upgrade the electrical system. So more and more municipalities are engaging around their energy and how they're supplying energy to their citizens and so those, either way I think as Brian said that's a big number and it's a number we should all be thinking about. Now this work that Eric will talk about in a minute and I'm just going to try and put it into context and into place is part of the solution. So the work that Brian talked about about managing and understanding your assets, what they're costing you, where you should be saving more money to update them in the future, that sort of thing. This is another angle to that same argument. So it's just part of the solution. So I really want to try and show you where it fits in the overall kind of planning and thinking processes that we do within municipalities. So some of you may be familiar with this. I know we've got a mix of engineers and planners and other folks on here. The ICSP, the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan, it gives you sort of the strategic undertaking that lots of municipalities do at the top there. They then do their OCP or in Calgary's case an MDP which tends to be mostly the land use planning component but can also hold other pieces but it's often the statutory document of the municipality. And then under that, they do a whole bunch of functional, what I'll call functional plans for want of a better word. That includes asset management plans, transportation plans, affordable housing plans, community energy and environment plans, you name it. No shortage of planning in local government. One of the things we got to very early on in our Calgary experience was that you can't plan transportation free of land use. So I'm going to make this first statement here is that really you've got to bring the transportation piece up into the dialogue or up into the sort of core of the transportation and land use planning within the OCP and the MDP piece because they're both, they're two sides of the coin. We build roads, it fills up with different kinds of land use. We agree land use and then we start putting roads out to them. So it's not an either or and you'll find experts in both fields telling you that the transportation guys will say no we follow the land use and the land use guys will say well actually we're having to follow the transportation and the roads already there. So it's a bit of a sticky but one that really has to be tackled together. So that's that one piece. Now the work that we did in Calgary and that Eric will tell you in greater detail is should happen before you think about asset management and I'm not saying that you and I mean that sort of conceptually because what we're after here is talking about when you're growing, where you're growing, when you're growing but the key place for this kind of study is when you're making those kind of decisions. So for Calgary that really they do have a growth management process but it really was within their municipal development plan for other places it may be within their regional growth strategies but these kind of costing studies are really focused excuse me I've got a call these costing studies are really focused on the avoidance of spending in the first place. It's kind of a difficult thing to get our heads around sometimes. In particular Eric will get into this in more detail but if you think of capital being one part of your budget and operating being another part, capital often comes from other orders of government or other sources sometimes it's easier to round up capital and then have to deal with the operating when it comes along. But what we're talking about here is trying to avoid those costs in the first place. So I apologize to anyone if this seems simplistic but just as an environmental scientist and I was running these two planning initiatives in Calgary I had to figure a lot of this out the hard way so I've reduced some what I think are sort of complex notions down into some simple ideas. So you've got a choice when you're growing as a community. You've got for instance say you're a community of 300 people and you know you're going to have three new families come into your community over the year. So you've got a choice of putting those three new houses along one new road building one new kilometer of road for those three houses or you go back into your existing dock of roads and try to find a place for those three houses there. So what you've done with this is you've avoided the need to build that first road and then you've also read the cost of maintaining that existing piece of road over a lot greater number of people. So what it boils down to and Eric will touch on this as well is the tax dollar. Do you want to make an argument for growing for less sprawl for more smart growth? This is it because it all comes down to the tax dollar. There's also environmental benefits, social benefits everything else but when it comes down to the dollar that's a fairly loud and a fairly clear voice. So Eric will speak to that one as well. So we really are talking about avoidance the lower part of this picture we're also talking just about more users per unit of infrastructure. So it is avoidance but it's also efficiency. And my last slide to just tell you a little bit about what we're doing is we're trying to develop a guide on how to do this. We've had a lot of people express interest in how they would undertake this kind of study. Now CMHC has a guide that works at the suburb level only where you're comparing whether you're building new suburbs or building in sort of infill and regrowth in existing parts of the city. So we're doing a guide like this but we're looking to do it as a city-wide tool so a guide in the tool and make that available to municipalities. So that's me and I will pass it over. Thank you very much back to Darby and that's my piece. Thanks very much Pat and Pat actually I'll ask you right now to turn off your camera and I'm going to do the same and the reason we're doing that our attendees the reason we're doing that is just that Eric doesn't have a camera so it's not to distract you. We're going to turn off our cameras and there'll be no video there. But yes, like turn things over to Eric and again before we do that I'd like to invite you at any time to put in questions into the Q&A box and we will be having a discussion period towards the end. Eric, please take it away. Alright, thanks Darby. I hope everyone can hear me. Again, I apologize for not having the web camera. I was saying to Darby that some ways we're fairly advanced in the city but communication technologies we're a little behind the times. Hopefully the slides themselves are fairly interesting for you though. Oh, looks like we've got a quick poll here. Darby, if that's yours. Right, Pete is this I'm sorry Eric, if we do have things out of order, is this a question that speaks to one of your questions? It's a great place to start. Okay, great. How about we do this? Does your community have a long range land use and or infrastructure plan? Again, audience if you could please put in what's appropriate for you and I will show you the results as they develop here. Should be able to see the results now. For the most part, yes. Just a good place to start as you'll see as we start getting into the presentation here. Give us another minute. Great, seems like we've kind of got to a point there so we'll take a tally of that and thanks Eric, sorry to surprise you with that. No problem. Alright, so there's a nice picture of Calgary for everyone you can see the Rocky Mountains in the background there. So again, my name is Eric McNaughton. I am the Acting Manager for Transportation Strategy and happy to give you this presentation today. What I'm going to do is I'll go through quickly talking about what Planet Calgary is, but in the next time I'll go through this first set of slides fairly quickly so I can spend a bit more time talking about the actual costing study that we did that Pat gave a great lead in for. And so as Pat had indicated Planet Calgary was really a process that we went through over about three years to develop our new Municipal Development Plan, our statutory land use plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan. That's the part that I was leading. And the two of them were developed in concert the entire way through, even though that they're two separate documents at the end of the day. And those are both based on, I guess this would be our equivalent of the ICST strategic plan. This matching Calgary another project with Pat led was actually a 100 year vision for the City of Calgary looked at more than just transportation though it was also looking at a lot of the social, economic, environmental benefits and changes that Calgarians wanted to see in the City and also local government covered quite a range of things. The Planet Calgary was really taking the physical aspects of Imagine Calgary and landing them on the ground in the MDP and CTP. So there's a number of reasons why we went to update our land use and transportation plans. The first one probably one of the biggest which Brian mentioned was the demographic shifts and it was interesting we actually had a demographer come in right at the start of our project and he was looking at both just for the Calgary region but also Canada as a whole is a significant increase in the aging baby boomer population and you can see this number here which is really quite shocking. We're looking at a 1,333% increase in people 85 and over over the next 60 years. And also that any growth in Calgary and Canada is really going to be reliant on international immigration in about 20 years because naturally we don't have enough births in the population for native population to grow. So you can imagine with these changes that's going to have some pretty big implications in the way that we live and travel in cities and smaller communities. Also particularly in Calgary's case we've got a lot of emerging pressures from constant growth. One of our distinctions is having the largest per capita footprint in Canada. And you can see this table here the energy consumption makes up 56% of our footprint. But what's interesting is if you look at the middle three columns from the table we've got shelter, mobility, goods and services all three of those are directly related to the urban form of your community. And so going in with the upfront planning in terms of so what do we want our community to look like and how do we want it to look really crucial in terms of changing this pattern. Also we've got as has been mentioned multiple times already today we're really seeing unsustainable growth in our municipal spending. We've improved slightly just from some recent agreements but generally speaking we've been recovering less than 50% of the costs for new green fields suburban development in the past. I think we're probably just slightly over 50% now. Our share of that national infrastructure gap is estimated to be about 3.4 billion for just capital infrastructure right now and I think that's probably conservative and we also identified another 3.2 billion in terms of a maintenance gap. And it's fair to say although we're improving that there's really been little planning for true life cycle replacement in the past. There's been a lot of work over the last few years but even at this point in time for transportation our capital budget only both 4 or 5% of its allocated to life cycle replacement. Basically for planet Calgary what we were looking at was where are the next 1.3 million Calgaryians going to live and we got that number based on looking at growth projections out 60 years and that probably seems like quite a long way out but part of what we wanted to look at was what would change what would different look like for Calgary and if you were only to do a plan that was going out 20 or even 30 years there's only so much that can change so we went out actually full two generations of what would Calgary look like if it was truly different and with these 1.3 million people we had to figure out where are they going to work how are they going to travel and what are the implications of those choices. So I won't go through these in detail but we developed quite early on 11 sustainability principles and they're based very closely on smart growth principles which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. We also did a variety of research. We had the demographic study. We also looked at housing affordability, the implications of transportation on health building green infrastructure into our mobility systems energy mapping which is a piece that was introduced about halfway through the process. We also did stakeholder engagement with about 6,000 citizens over the course of the project. And all that led to this lovely slide here which probably looks really complicated but I'll just try to explain how we did our planning and this becomes an important piece for doing the costing that we'll talk about in a minute. So what we've got on the left hand side of the screen here as you can see is we actually worked with a group from the University of British Columbia, one of their urban design groups and they did some work for us looking at things from the bottom up because usually when we do video regional planning it's usually from the top down like we would call the 40,000 foot level. But what they did is they actually came to the bottom up and said okay so what kind of different types of communities or developments can you create to start looking at the scale of individual buildings, individual streets, the open spaces and how can you assemble them differently? It was interesting to realize the limited number of patterns of development Calgary had and we blended that with sort of the more traditional approach you can see sort of in the top middle of the screen there, sort of the city-wide views of Calgary. Where would the major piece of the land use fall as the city evolves over time? And you can see that there's three of those there. We actually developed several different scenarios and in those were informed partly just by the work from UBC but also partly from all that research I talked about on the last slide. And maybe one of the things that's important to mention here because I know there's a lot of different scales of sort of municipalities and governments listening to this presentation is the important thing when we start getting into how you compare the implications of different forms of growth not that you necessarily have all the specific pieces of research that I'm talking about here but what you really need is to be able to create a set of scenarios even just two scenarios that are really spatially defined and so that's really getting into so where are people living, where are they going to work and what are the major pieces of infrastructure? I mean you might only be focusing on roads and water and wastewater systems but as long as you can actually physically lay those out you can work with the same process that we did in Calgary to really try and quantify the benefits of looking at a different type of growth in your community. So here's just a visual example of what we were looking at in terms of redevelopment in some of the parts of Calgary so just that little visual splash and color. So you can see really again to this is where it starts tying into that the investments that we make as a community into our infrastructure can really have an impact on market interests to come in and start redeveloping parts of the city and post constantly looking at suburban growth and so this would be where we would go in, upgrade the street introduce new transit services and over time, could be a long period of time, you start seeing this sort of scale develop and you see even getting more upgraded transit vehicles here and eventually moving to something radically different from what you started with. It's the two scenarios that we looked at in Calgary for our costing study. The one on the left is what we call our business as usual and if you look, the areas in sort of gray are Calgary's physical footprint today. The beige areas are how much Calgary would grow if we just kind of continued with mostly or almost entirely suburban development over the next 60 years and it's interesting, I mean we're already getting close to being the size of five boroughs of New York City and we only have a million people right now so we're not the most efficient landform of the moon. The recommended direction on the right, which is pretty close to what our final plan came out to be really does have some suburban development but probably about half the amount shown in the dispersed scenario. So between the two of them, we actually save about 250 square kilometers or as one of my boss likes to say it's about the equivalent of four cities of Red Deer, if you're familiar with Red Deer, it's a city of about 70,000 people in the middle of Alberta. So that's a pretty substantial difference in terms of the amount of infrastructure that you would therefore need to actually service the grossing population. Both these scenarios have the same population, same amount of employment. It's just distributed quite differently. The recommended direction has a lot more of what we call nodes and corridors so areas of redevelopment like the previous slide I was showing you that actually are better able to use underutilized infrastructure within the city already. We'll jump onto the next slide here. Actually sorry, I forgot about this but the other thing that's important too is again, given this is both land use and transportation state that we did, those areas that just spread out on the left that are either existing or proposed light rail transit system. You can see very radial in and out of the downtown because there's really only one major destination category is the downtown core and a lot of east side industrial with no real transit service. A recommended direction because we're actually creating multiple nodes of activity in the city, you can see we've got those same L or T lines but they're all shorter which is significant because it's very expensive obviously to build rail systems. We're also looking at introducing these cross-town connections. This is really interesting from a transportation perspective because we can start connecting multiple destinations that don't exist in the business as usual scenario and that really creates the opportunity to reduce the amount of automobile use in the city and start focusing more on walking, cycling and from this image in particular transit and that again has pretty significant infrastructure implications. So sorry this looks like this the text isn't showing up really well in this slide yet I'm not going to go through these point by point. You can download the PDF to have a look. What we did after we went through all the work of developing these scenarios is we came up with A key directions to really where the A key points to the folks and it was very much about linking the land use with the transportation investment decisions. The last of the eight points actually says optimizing infrastructure. So the jump ahead here. What it means to us when we optimize infrastructure is that in our MVP now we actually say that municipal financial sustainability actually has to be a consideration for all new growth decisions and that we should be prioritizing redevelopment or current green field activity over new suburban development which is a complete reversal over what we've done in the past and again a very important part of that is focusing our transportation and overall all of our infrastructure investments to support the development of these what we call activity centers in many town towns and the corridors. And so this is where we can get into the real meanest presentation is the cost to growth study and you can also download a copy of this off the planet Calgary website which I've got a link to at the end of the presentation here. So the benefits for us as Pat has already alluded to in doing cost to growth study is that several things is that this is really about understanding the fiscal implications of different growth decisions. And I mean Calgary is a really business oriented city but I think across Canada what we've noticed is that sometimes it's really hard to get traction. If you want to talk about sustainability we'll often talk about environmental impacts, social impacts which some people feel very strongly about but a lot of people don't connect with the same way. However when we started talking about the money is that citizens and councils that can all relate to this because this is every growth decision is about costs that are paid to your taxes, utility rates, or even embedded in the cost of a new home. So it's all directly hitting the pocket book of the citizens. Another good thing in terms of the costing study we did is even if you don't have perfect estimates for each piece of infrastructure because you're just comparing two scenarios which use the same assumptions, it's all right because you're just looking for the cost differential but I wouldn't use a study like this for actually doing your budgeting. Another thing that we found is that going through this process really built up the capacity within our corporation to understand a lot of the implications of our infrastructure decisions. We did have IVI help us pull this study together but really a lot of the work came internally from the staff. So here's the summary that we found in terms of going through comparing those two scenarios. This is for the capital infrastructure costs and you can see here what we found is that we've got a few different categories. We looked at our roads, our transits, water, wastewater, fire and police stations, recreation and schools and what we came up with is a 33% cost avoidance as Pat said if you went with the recommended direction as opposed to continuing along with the business as usual. Now the same time to be fair is that both these scenarios are going to cost money growth costs money no matter what you do but at the same time what we found across the board was that going with a more compact type of growth and making better use of existing infrastructure was going to save us in the order of $11 billion over 60 years and that's all in about $2007 so it's quite substantial and that really ties back to the asset management piece in that by avoiding having to build the infrastructure to support additional suburban development we save money up front but that money could also therefore like if we actually had the $11.2 billion if need be that could actually be redirected into actually paying for the asset management lifecycle requirements of the aging infrastructure so it's almost a double benefit really. Now the only reason I've got schools blocked off in blue here is that those aren't actually a city of kind of responsibility they're managed by the province of Alberta but again it's still a citizen cost through tax dollars. So quickly just showing also we looked at annual operating costs this is a little harder to collect we found but for the information we were able to gather again we found across the board savings between the business as usual form of growth and our recommended direction was about 1% maybe one point that's important to make here is that Pat's show CMHC has a tool to do analysis of individual suburbs and we were actually looking at that at first when we started down this path but we quickly realized a problem with the approach that's taken there is because it's only looking at individual community a community that actually was more intense like had more people living in it had more jobs and it might require some more wastewater water facilities all that kind of thing so on an individual community basis it might actually look more expensive to build a more intense community but because it's more intense it means you're actually building fewer communities so from a city-wide basis you're actually saving money in the order of magnitude that I'm showing here now we're ready for the next poll and here's that poll question so again audience has your community looked at the cost implications of different potential growth patterns again if you could over it for your case and I'll show the results what we have so far say it was holding solid actually pretty good we're initially doing some investigation and I think we saw that there were one or two jurisdictions in Canada that had a look but that's definitely a positive result I'd say and also the groups of the clients here as well okay well we have the numbers here go back to the slide there here's that graphic there you go right quickly here just to give you a sense and again this is something that I think most any community can replicate no matter how large or small as long as you've got of the infrastructure that's required so again they have to be spatial scenarios if you've got that even just pieces of that you can get to the same kind of result that we did so the single biggest piece in terms of the whole process what we did is we actually measured the linear difference but literally just the length of the roads for both our high capacity say express ways and arterials and also the local roads within each community we had to make some estimates about the width of those roads but we just based out on some previous analysis that we had done and that we you know as I said earlier actual construction can vary but again as long as you use the same assumptions in each of your scenarios right because again you're really just focusing on what's your relative difference I think in this case I'm going to transition here but the capital savings for roads is about 36% comparing the recommended direction versus the business as usual scenario and another 18% savings in operating costs now we actually already got our operating costs from previous work that was undertaken in our asset management program in our roads business unit so that made life a lot easier so again in an ache thing the more asset management information that you've got even easier if it comes to start estimating in particular your operating costs transit may or may not be an issue depending on what community you're in but I would say this was actually the most complicated part of the study for us because it's not just a simple relationship that you have to just build more transit if you've got more density because you'll see a little equation I've got here is that the more density you have there's a very strong relationship to increasing ridership because you're putting more and more people within convenient access of transit services and also then convenient access to the nation on the other end so that actually increases the revenue that you get in your transit system so intuitively you can say okay if you have a more compact city most things should be cheaper but because we were actually relying on putting more transit infrastructure in better services we were quite convinced this would actually show up as being more expensive but when we actually did the analysis because the LRT lines in the more compact version would be shorter we actually discovered that we would still see a 9% savings in our infrastructure costs for transit even though we were going to put in many more roads and because of the increase in revenue our operating costs despite it being a much better transit system operating costs are exactly the same and we didn't cook those numbers trust me so we did have to bring in some previous analysis and estimates that we had done about how the transit ridership would change but there's some research available out there that can help guide you in terms of how transit ridership and auto use change as the density and amenities in your community change but again even this was a surprisingly positive finding in our analysis water and wastewater again this one in principle is pretty straightforward there's two pieces you need to look at when you're looking at water and wastewater systems in terms of the actual water and wastewater plants the number of plants is really constant with populations so there's no difference if your scenario is of the same population you're going to have the same number of facilities for all intents and purposes but there is a big difference as with roads in terms of the length of pipe that you have to install but one of the other interesting things that we found as we were going through the analysis is that when you build a new suburban community edge of your city or town is that you need all the new pipes obviously but you almost invariably need to make upgrades to the existing pipes within the older parts of the city with redevelopment if you can time it to sort of match up with your life cycle you actually might have very little impact in terms of costs for having to upgrade the size of your pipes to accommodate redevelopment and that's just because most of the cost comes into actually going through the work of digging up the pipe putting in a slightly larger pipe when you go in to replace the old pipe not a big cost implication though we actually found here even though it wasn't the largest difference in terms of dollars there was a little over a 50% potential savings in both capital and operating costs for wastewater if you focus more on a redevelopment approach to building your city as opposed to suburban growth approach fire and police services again the number of fire stations we found is heavily based on they determined based on response on the category they're trying to make sure that they always have a fire station within eight minutes of any home so the size of your city and the degree of congestion you've got with vehicles really heavily influences the number of fire stations you require the number of fire engines however is really linked very closely to the population so that was the same between the two scenarios police services I'm always kind of assuming this probably because they're thinking they've got a lot of vehicles just kind of patrolling the police service said they're really linked to population and not urban form but again here we're looking at almost the 50% savings in capital and another 18% in operating so it's pretty substantial percentage savings fire and police are pretty small in terms of the total dollar value but it still adds up recreation and parks again the number of recreation facilities is really closely linked to your urban form if you're building new suburban communities you probably need to start building new recreation facilities but regardless if you've got existing facilities in your city you still have to refurbish them so you're better off if you're looking at the redevelopment scenario to refurbish those older facilities anyways but actually get better use of the population making use of that asset management investment parks are really linked to urban density as well and one of the things we did recognize is that if you're going to do more compact city you have to change your perspective a bit if initially the size of the open spaces you're trying to provide but you certainly have opportunities operating costs were both linked to usage which we found wouldn't be that different but again we found potential for almost 20% in terms of capital savings costs and operating savings costs for going with the more compact recommended direction and again finally with schools as I said schools aren't a city responsibility here but at the same time the number of new schools as with any other facilities is pretty closely linked to urban density again if you're growing at the edges you need to provide new school facilities but you still have to upgrade or get rid of in some cases unfortunately schools in the existing parts of the city so again schools like many of the others are potential for cost savings but really no difference in the operating costs savings for schools because that's mostly where you have the number of teachers and supports to appetite to the number of students and that doesn't change between our scenarios so I know I went through that fairly quickly but I think we still have some time in the webinar for questions but I'll leave and again you can still go to our planet website and on the left hand side you'll see a link to our research which includes the cost implications study which I've been talking about here and that's it for me, thanks Thanks a lot Eric and indeed we do have some time here let's run over quickly we can speak to it now I do actually point our attendees back to the feedback button on the top right hand corner of the screen if you way up here but further up into the corner that header if you do have a question now and we certainly encourage them to use change that indicator from green to proceed to purple which is question so in a sense you're raising your virtual hand and then I'll just call on you and you can unmute your line and ask your question if you don't want to do it out loud you can also use the Q&A box which is again on the header the top of your screen and you can enter any question you like there we'll address it but we do have a question here pointed towards Brian and that question was what community has developed the long-term asset management plan that was mentioned in response to your question Jeff it's either you can either point to Lake Country or Gold both have done a fair bit of work in asset management there's a few other communities as well but those two kind of popped to mind first they're both actively involved in furthering asset management within their community and also involved with asset management BC so they're happy to share what they've learned at this point Thanks Brian Jeff please feel free to just raise your virtual hand there with the feedback indicator if you want to answer that question any further but we do have another question from Danielle if you could just please unmute your line and ask your question I agree but anybody else as well there's a lot in those scenarios that you compared and I was just wondering if you're familiar with any other cities that have done similar comparisons well actually that one I might pass over to Pat because Pat was doing some of the initial research about what the other cities in Canada had done Pat we may not be able to hear Thanks it's Danielle is it Yeah it's Danielle and friends I would be one of them Danielle and friends when we started off in Calgary there really wasn't anyone else doing this I found a similar study for Toronto at that time and so we ended up sort of doing it ourselves and that's why sustainable cities right now is looking to try and develop a guide for how to do it So are you going to make this? I would think that no matter where you're at if you're just starting an OCP you should be asking your consultants that are doing your OCPs to provide at minimum spatially developed scenarios because I know that other cities have got scenarios but then they can't do the work off of them because they're not spatially structured in the first place so that would be my sort of key guidance here but I know there's other big cities in the states have started to do this kind of work as well So are you basing your guide on the Calgary scenario or? No It would be based my vision for it is more sort of a generic how to first off is how to build those scenarios in a spatial way that they're of use to you because you can get far more than just costing data off them you can get lots of measures that were like walkability and everything else so it's quite important to do a spatial piece to your scenarios and I think what's happening as I understand it is that it's just not happening when municipalities are doing their OCPs so that I would say that if you're about to launch into one that just ask around of consultants that they can help you with that. Questions I know and again we invite further questions if there are any out there we did also put up a few discussion questions here on the screen to try and elicit those questions so what have been your challenges without that matter? We do, we want to hear from you What have been your successes without that matter? So what are the challenges and opportunities that you've experienced? Does anyone wish to either speak to those or ask any other questions? Comments at all from our participants or presenters as well? We do have a question actually coming through Paul, Paul if you get it to our six then ask your question Yes, can everyone hear me alright? Can hear you fine, please go ahead The question is in relation to tourism infrastructure more so I'm with the government of Alberta here with the Ministry of Tourism, Parks and Recreation and we're going through a reorganization and a strategy change we've been tasked to work closely with our municipal stakeholders and in that task again it's infrastructure and transportation are two key industries at the provincial level that we're making better connections with but also we need to work at our municipal levels throughout the province at a region by region basis so any advice or strategies from our experts on how they have incorporated I guess the tourism side into the asset management and the infrastructure challenges that they've seen particular types of tourism infrastructure you're thinking about? Well I mean they range from even LRT allows people to go out to different communities for recreational entertainment opportunities, events, those kind of things so it's a full range but some of the assets that I've seen out there are minor in something as small as you know interpretive planning and signage and most kind of things. In Calgary like going back if you sort of remember those maps that I was showing earlier it's definitely one of the things that we were trying to focus on more was trying to ensure that there was proper transit access to all the major destinations in Calgary and that would include tourism sites say Leone Heritage Park, access to the downtown you know in terms of arts and culture facilities and what have you but it's sort of in our case was in part built into the larger concept of trying to create these nodes because one of the things that you need really for reasonably cost effective transit services is sort of a critical mass of activity and that's where we always talk about it could be people and jobs it doesn't have to just be residential or just jobs and amenities it's trying to create some combination of them but in order to really make the infrastructure sort of cost effective it's trying to link those pieces together so again if you're looking at looking at any sort of new type of tourism infrastructure can it be positioned in such a way that it's easily accessible and adjacent to other types of developments because that improves the chances of trying to actually justify the expense of building new pieces of infrastructure to support it and also certainly from the transportation point of view increases the opportunity for just like walking and cycling access I guess an example here in Edmonton is the Royal Alberta Museum the new site right in the side is right in the heart of downtown very close to the extension of the LRT strategic in that some people don't agree with that but from a big infrastructure project that makes sense I guess the smaller communities the municipalities I think more front end planning needs to be done both from the provincial to the municipal side of things I'd like to invite Brian or Pat if they have anything additional to add for your question Paul and again invite any additional questions Dave Dave please star 6 Hello Hi there we can hear you go ahead Dave Dyer City Prince George and sorry I have a call today but our asset manager fellow is with me but I just wanted to comment on two of the questions you have here Prince George we've been I guess some of our successes and I guess a number of years ago probably going back 10 years ago was developing a pavement condition management system that helped us to rank our roads with respect to surface distress indicators and over time this has helped us in presenting to council the infrastructure gap or the funding gap that we've had in maintaining our roads and been able to increase our budget internally to emphasize the need for more action and however we still fall well short of that as over the number of years now we've been seeing even though we've improved on the infrastructure or overlays and maintenance on our roads we've actually not really improved too much in the actual kilometers of road overlays as a result of asphalt prices increasing so it's kind of an interesting sad situation but we're continuing to battle potholes and that's one of our biggest issues in Prince George and we attribute that to climate change and a few other things but with the success part was the fact that it really got the awareness of council when we were able to demonstrate there was a service level or a surface distress indicator that we could compare our roads with the challenges picked up on one of the presentations I think was Eric mentioning that difficult to find or get the operation maintenance cost and that is a challenge when you're looking at asset life expectancy and design life and your investment back into your infrastructure and getting a condition assessment to see if it's buried when it's a water main it's in particular difficult to get a condition assessment on your infrastructure all you can really base it on is age so that is one of the biggest challenges I think we have as time goes forward in first of all getting council or getting our people that are in decision making levels to be able to give them the best information on the life of our infrastructure so we know how much to invest that's where our observations are like here in Prince George sharing that Dave the message about having your asset management specific example to present to council is something we've been hearing consistently from local government staff it provides that logic and basis to make the argument as to why this needs funding and how much funding it might need and what that funding will do and how it fits in with the overall priorities and certainly provide that more clear engagement with council and that can roll out to council engaging with citizens in those discussions thanks for the example it's another good one to hear from the presenters we'll just have a couple minutes left I have one question it's Joan Chess also in Prince George with Fraser Basin Council I work with small communities local governments all across central and northern BC and I'm wondering if you have any case studies of communities that are actually declining in population I have a real mix of some are growing some are about the same and quite a few that have been losing population over the last 12-15 years thanks it relates specifically to a community with declining population however that would be a great one to work on so if you have a community in mind you're certainly welcome to get us in touch get them in touch with Asset Management BC and we can see what we can pull together any last question out there cultural development information there with TAS, Scenable Cities International and Planet Calgary with Eric resources for you there you can get to this PowerPoint presentation again through the handout section and the resources will be available to you and here are for each of our presenters today who have all expressed their willingness to speak to you at any time if you have some questions well there's some useful links so that's the end of our webinar for today I want to thank everyone for joining us we hope that the information that was provided was useful, I think it was a really interesting topic thank you Brian, Pat and Eric for your time and for sharing your expertise with all of us as I mentioned at the top the session was recorded and it will be posted on the Royal BC website soon, what's the timeline of getting that posted? next week if not the following for sure so next week for the following you'll be able to access the recorded version of the session and I also mentioned that we'd really like to hear your feedback on the session so you'll be receiving a survey and I encourage you to provide your comments on the session today as well as ideas and input for future sessions we try to keep a running list of potential topics and we'd welcome your input to that so thanks everyone and have a great afternoon thanks everyone thanks Pat and Eric Brian, I appreciate it