Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Asset Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local officials describe varied asset-management systems and data practices in Chittenden County
Summary
Municipal staff and consultants discussed tools (NexGen, MicroPaver, Dude Solutions, CMMS/EAM) and workflows for asset management, noting urban towns have more capacity while rural communities often lack resources; presenters highlighted field data entry and the need for consistent condition assessments.
Municipal staff and a consultant outlined how jurisdictions in Chittenden County are scaling asset-management programs and the limits many towns face in staffing and software capacity.
Chris Dubin, a senior transportation planner with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, introduced John Jackman of consulting firm Hoyle Tanner, who presented an asset-management strategy adapted from the Drinking Water Asset Management Program. The presentation used a New Hampshire community example to show how a comprehensive system can be scaled to local needs.
John Jackman said that “in some cases operators carry tablets and can enter information in the field,” describing one practical method municipalities use to keep inventories current. Municipal representatives described a range of approaches: Winooski uses NexGen mainly for service requests and selected work orders but not yet for risk assessment; South Burlington uses MicroPaver for pavement management and Dude Solutions for work-order tracking; Burlington is inventorying GIS-based assets ahead of a cloud-hosted CMMS/EAM implementation.
Bryan Osborne of Colchester reported his town has completed condition assessments for most asset classes over the past decade and is looking to build in‑house capability and deepen its relationship with CCRPC. Jon Rauscher of Winooski said his city is “looking at how to make the data useful for City Council and others.” Gustave Sexauer described Burlington’s effort to move existing GIS inventories into a system that will allow regular condition ratings and lifecycle‑cost tracking.
Presenters and members noted rural towns typically have fewer resources to support CMMS/EAM systems and data-entry workflows. The roundtable flagged the need for consistent condition-assessment methods and staff time to enter and maintain data, and it noted opportunities to value nontraditional assets such as street trees and parklands.
The discussion did not include formal decisions; CCRPC staff encouraged follow-up with individual municipalities to identify technical assistance needs and next steps.
