Information Technology
An internal service that provides and maintains technology and infrastructure management for the County of Oxford and local area municipalities. The Information Technology (IT) division is responsible for the technology tools used to ensure the safety and protection of the County’s data, information, and computer systems.
This portfolio is categorized into two components based on their life spans and maintenance strategies: computer equipment and supporting IT infrastructure (including servers and firewalls). Although the County’s IT division provides services to the local area municipalities, this AMP pertains only to those assets owned by the County.
Inventory
Assets under this portfolio are strongly impacted by consistent technological changes and pricing. This alters projected capital and operating budget requirements frequently over a 10-year period. As part of the annual budget process, County staff review current replacement values to ensure accurate information is available for decision-making purposes.
Asset Component | Unit | Replacement Cost |
Computer Equipment | total | $1,000,000 |
IT Infrastructure | total | 914,715 |
Total Replacement Cost | $1,914,715 |
Condition
The percentage of assets in poor or critical condition has increased from 0% as reported in the 2024 AMP to 31%. The percentage of assets in good or excellent condition has decreased from 90% as reported in the 2024 AMP to 66%. These changes are reflective of the shorter lifecycle of assets in this portfolio. The long term average condition rating for this portfolio is expected to be maintained at or above a fair condition rating. The current average condition rating of good suggests that assets within this portfolio are being maintained in the manner expected.
Key Performance
Information technology assets will be maintained and replaced in a manner that ensures continuity of service.
Key Service Attribute | LOS Statement | Performance Measure | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
Quality | Providing information technology services at the appropriate quality | % of IT assets in fair or better condition | 100% | 100% | 69% |
Proposed Levels of Service Review
Information on the scenarios reviewed is contained within the AMP document. The current reserve balance is factored into each scenario as available funding to complete existing asset lifecycle needs. This results in a similar condition outlook in the near term as the system draws down the reserve balance to fund capital needs.
Based on the analysis, staff are recommending Scenario B, the proposed level of service is based on existing anticipated useful lives. The fully funded scenario was selected due to the need for regular replacement of IT assets, their relatively short useful lives and staff’s confidence in the costs and lifecycle strategies of these assets. This scenario will reduce risk and funding shortfalls and ensure IT continues to support all divisions in the delivery of services. As an internal service, information technology is not included in the budget survey.
Annual Investment | Average Condition | Average Risk | % of assets in poor or critical condition | |
Scenario A | $318,000 | Fair | Minor | 34% |
Scenario B | 418,000 | Good | Insignificant | 20% |
Scenario C | 380,000 | Fair | Minor | 23% |
Scenario D | 368,000 | Good | Minor | 22% |
Funding Gap Analysis
Planned Investment Level
Inflationary increases are included in the table below in both the required investment and planned investment figures. Fluctuations in the anticipated reserve balance resulting from annual contributions and anticipated annual expenditures result in changes to the interest contribution.
Proposed Investment Change
An increase of $15,000 is proposed for the 2026 through 2033 years, reducing to $10,000 for 2034 and 2035, at which point full funding is achieved under this analysis. Although this recommendation results in a declining reserve balance, the balance is only minimally decreased at the end of the 10-year period. Maintaining the reserve helps ensure a contingency is in place should unanticipated failures or events occur.
Comparison of required investment to proposed investment (millions)
2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | |
Required Investment | $0.418 | $0.428 | $0.439 | $0.450 | $0.461 | $0.473 | $0.485 | $0.497 | $0.509 | $0.522 | $0.535 |
Planned Investment Level | 0.318 | 0.310 | 0.329 | 0.350 | 0.374 | 0.395 | 0.418 | 0.444 | 0.473 | 0.501 | 0.525 |
Proposed Investment Change | - | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
Unfunded Requirement | 0.100 | 0.104 | 0.095 | 0.085 | 0.072 | 0.063 | 0.052 | 0.038 | 0.021 | 0.011 | - |