This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot dc3b4b2f98ff · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
June 14, 2022
[email protected]
Asset Management Plan
Township of Adelaide Metcalfe
FINAL
________________________
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table of Contents
Page
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Legislative Context for the Asset Management Plan .............................. 1-3
1.3
Asset Management Plan Development ................................................... 1-4
1.4
Maintaining and Integrating the Asset Management Plan ....................... 1-5
2.
State of Local Infrastructure and Levels of Service ..................................... 2-1
2.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2
Transportation ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1
State of Local Infrastructure ....................................................... 2-1
2.2.2
Condition .................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-15
2.3
Water .................................................................................................... 2-17
2.3.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-17
2.3.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-18
2.3.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-19
2.4
Wastewater ........................................................................................... 2-20
2.4.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-20
2.4.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-22
2.4.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-23
2.5
Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-25
2.5.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-25
2.5.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-26
2.5.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-28
2.6
Fleet ...................................................................................................... 2-29
2.6.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-29
2.6.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-29
2.6.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-30
2.7
Equipment and Land Improvements ..................................................... 2-30
2.7.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-30
2.7.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-31
2.7.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-32
2.8
Population and Employment Growth .................................................... 2-33
3.
Lifecycle Management Strategy ..................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast ............................................................... 3-1
3.2.1
Lifecycle Model Approach .......................................................... 3-2
3.2.2
Professional Judgement Approach ............................................ 3-3
3.2.3
As-needed Replacement Approach ........................................... 3-4
3.2.4
Summary.................................................................................... 3-5
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
Page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
3.3
Average Annual Lifecycle Costs ............................................................. 3-6
3.3.1
Lifecycle Models Approach ........................................................ 3-7
3.3.2
Replacement Only Approach ..................................................... 3-8
3.3.3
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Approach ......................... 3-9
3.3.4
Results ....................................................................................... 3-9
4.
Financing Strategy .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
Annual Contribution and Lifecycle Funding Target ................................. 4-1
4.3
Annual Costs .......................................................................................... 4-2
4.4
Funding ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.5
Tax Levy Impact ..................................................................................... 4-3
4.6
Water and Wastewater User Rates Impact ............................................. 4-4
Appendix A Financing Strategy Tables .................................................................. A-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BCI
Bridge Condition Index
C.I.R.C
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card
CCBF
Canada Community-Building Fund
HCB
High-Class Bituminous
IJPA
Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act
LCB
Low-Class Bituminous
O. Reg.
Ontario Regulation
OCIF
Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund
OSIM
Ontario Structure Inspection Manual
PCI
Pavement Condition Index
PSAB
Public Sector Accounting Board
ULC%
Useful Life Consumed Percentage
Report
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Chapter 1
Introduction
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-1
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
The main objective of an asset management plan is to use a municipality's best
available information to develop a comprehensive long-term plan for capital assets. In
addition, the plan should provide a sufficiently documented framework that will enable
continual improvement and updates of the plan, to ensure its relevancy over the long
term.
The Township of Adelaide Metcalfe (Township) retained Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. (Watson) to prepare a comprehensive asset management plan. One of
the objectives of this plan is to move the Township's asset management practices into
compliance with Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 588/17. It is also intended to be a tool for
municipal staff and Council to use during various decision-making processes, including
the annual budgeting process and future capital grant application processes.
This is a comprehensive asset management plan covering all capital assets under the
Township's ownership and management. The total current replacement cost of these
assets is estimated at $86.7 million, or approximately $85,600 per household[1]. A
breakdown of the replacement costs by major asset class is shown in Table 1-1, and
illustrated in Figure 1-1. Roads, sidewalks and streetlights account for 57% of
replacement cost, followed by bridges and structural culverts (structures) (18%), water
and wastewater (11%), facilities (6%), fleet (6%), and equipment and land
improvements (2%)
[1] Based on 1,013 occupied dwellings, as identified in the 2021 Census.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-2
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 1-1: Replacement Cost by Asset Class
Asset Class
Description
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Roads, Sidewalks,
and Streetlights
214.5 km of roads
3.5 km of sidewalks,
29 streetlights
$52,450,000
Structures
13 bridges
34 culverts
$14,150,000
Water
3.9 km of watermains
$2,500,000
Wastewater
5.0 km of wastewater mains
1 treatment plant
$6,270,000
Facilities
9 buildings
$5,210,000
Fleet
22 vehicles
$4,840,000
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
Various equipment (e.g., fire hoses,
welder, roadside mower)
5 land improvements (e.g., ball
diamond, dugouts)
$1,330,000
Total
$86,740,000
Figure 1-1: Distribution of Replacement Cost by Asset Class
Roads,
Sidewalks, and
Streetlights,
$52.4 M, 60%
Bridges and
Structural
Culverts,
$14.1 M, 16%
Water, $2.5 M, 3%
Wastewater,
$6.3 M, 7%
Facilities, $5.2 M, 6%
Fleet, $4.8 M, 6%
Equipment and Land
Improvements, $1.3 M, 2%
$87
million
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-3
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
The Township's goals and objectives with respect to asset management are identified in
its Strategic Asset Management Policy. A major theme within that policy is employing
sound asset management practices to ensure that all municipal infrastructure assets
meet expected performance levels and continue to provide desired service levels in the
most efficient and effective manner. Through the implementation of the asset
management plan, the Township's practice should evolve to provide services at levels
proposed within this document. Moreover, infrastructure and other capital assets
should be maintained at condition levels that provide a safe and functional environment
for the Township's residents. Therefore, the asset management plan and the progress
with respect to its implementation will be evaluated based on the Township's ability to
meet these goals and objectives.
1.2 Legislative Context for the Asset Management Plan
Asset management planning in Ontario has evolved significantly over the past decade.
Before 2009, capital assets were recorded by municipalities as expenditures in the year
of acquisition or construction. The long-term issue with this approach was the lack of a
capital asset inventory, both in the municipality's accounting system and financial
statements. As a result of revisions to section 3150 of the Public Sector Accounting
Board (PSAB) handbook, effective for the 2009 fiscal year, municipalities were required
to capitalize tangible capital assets, thus creating an inventory of assets.
In 2012, the Province launched the municipal infrastructure strategy. As part of that
initiative, municipalities and local service boards seeking provincial funding were
required to demonstrate how any proposed project fits within a detailed asset
management plan. In addition, asset management plans encompassing all municipal
assets needed to be prepared by the end of 2016 to meet Federal Gas Tax (now the
Canada Community-Building Fund) agreement requirements. To help define the
components of an asset management plan, the Province produced a document entitled
Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. This guide
documented the components, information, and analysis that were required to be
included in municipal asset management plans under this initiative.
The Province's Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 (IJPA) was proclaimed
on May 1, 2016. This legislation detailed principles for evidence-based and sustainable
long-term infrastructure planning. The IJPA also gave the Province the authority to
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-4
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
guide municipal asset management planning by way of regulation. In late 2017, the
Province introduced O. Reg. 588/17 under the IJPA. The intent of O. Reg. 588/17 is to
establish standard content for municipal asset management plans. Specifically, the
regulations require that asset management plans be developed that define the current
and proposed levels of service, identify the lifecycle activities that would be undertaken
to achieve these levels of service, and provide a financial strategy to support the levels
of service and lifecycle activities.
This plan has been developed to fully address the requirements of O. Reg. 588/17,
utilizing the best information available to the Township at this time.
1.3 Asset Management Plan Development
This asset management plan was developed using an approach that leverages the
Township's asset management principles as identified within its strategic asset
management policy, capital asset information, and staff input.
The development of the Township's asset management plan is based on the steps
summarized below:
1. Compile available information pertaining to the Township's capital assets to be
included in the plan, including attributes such as size, material type, useful life,
age, accounting valuation and current valuation. Update the current valuation,
where required, using benchmark costing data or applicable inflationary indices.
2. Define and assess current asset conditions, based on a combination of municipal
staff input, existing asset reports, and an age-based condition analysis.
3. Define and document current levels of service based on analysis of available
data and consideration of various background reports.
4. Set proposed levels of service that the Township believes are achievable and
affordable based on current information.
5. Develop lifecycle management strategies that identify the activities required to
sustain the levels of service discussed above. The outputs of these strategies
are summarized in the forecast of annual capital and operating expenditures
required to achieve these level of service outcomes.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-5
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
6. Develop a financing strategy to support the lifecycle management strategy. The
financing plan informs how the capital and operating expenses arising from the
asset management strategy will be funded over the forecast period.
7. Document the comprehensive asset management plan in a formal report to
inform future decision-making and to communicate planning to municipal
stakeholders.
1.4 Maintaining and Integrating the Asset Management Plan
The asset management plan should be updated as the strategic priorities and capital
needs of the Township change. This can be accomplished in conjunction with specific
legislative requirements (i.e., five-year review of the asset management plan as
required by O. Reg. 588/17), as well as the Township's annual budget process. Further
integration into other municipal financial and planning documents would assist in
ensuring the ongoing accuracy of the asset management plan, as well as the integrated
financial and planning documents.
When updating the asset management plan, it should be noted that the state of local
infrastructure, lifecycle management strategy and financing strategy are integrated and
affect each other. For example, the financing strategy outlines how the lifecycle
management strategy will be funded. The lifecycle management strategy identifies the
lifecycle activities that need to be planned for in order to enable the Township to
maintain or achieve proposed levels of service, and the associated costs.
The asset management plan is a snapshot in time and is based on a number of
assumptions regarding expected lifecycles and future performance of assets, lifecycle
intervention costs, among others. The Township will need to establish processes for
reviewing and updating these assumptions on a regular basis to keep the plan relevant
and reliable.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Chapter 2
State of Local Infrastructure
and Levels of Service
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-1
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
2. State of Local Infrastructure and Levels of
Service
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an analysis of the Township's assets and the current service
levels provided by those assets.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires that for each asset category included in the asset management
plan, the following information must be identified:
- Summary of the assets;
- Replacement cost of the assets;
- Average age of the assets (it is noted that the regulation specifically requires
average age to be determined by assessing the age of asset components);
- Information available on condition of assets; and
- Approach to condition assessments (based on recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices where appropriate).
Asset management plans must identify the current levels of service being provided for
each asset category. For core municipal infrastructure assets, both the qualitative
descriptions pertaining to community levels of service and metrics pertaining to
technical levels of service are prescribed by O. Reg. 588/17. For all other infrastructure
assets, each municipality needs to establish its own measures for levels of service.
The rest of this chapter addresses the requirements identified above, with each
subsection focusing on an individual asset category.
2.2 Transportation
2.2.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The assets that support the Township's transportation services comprise roads,
structures, sidewalks, and streetlights.
The Township's road network has 214.5 kilometres of roads with three different surface
types: high-class bituminous (HCB), low-class bituminous (LCB) and gravel. Over half
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-2
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
of the network (54%) is gravel. The next most common surface type is LCB, 38% of the
total road network length. Roads with HCB surface represent 8% of the total road
network length. The estimated replacement cost of roads is $51.7 million. The average
age of the road surfaces is 6.1 years. Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of the road
network length, age, and replacement cost by surface type. A visual rendering of the
data presented in Table 2-1 is provided in Figure 2-1
Table 2-1: Road Length, Age, and Replacement Cost by Surface Type
Surface
Type
Length
(Centreline-
kilometres)
Average Age
of Surface
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
HCB
16.5
8.8 years
$11,720,000
LCB
80.9
11.7 years
$17,290,000
Gravel
117.0
1.8 years
$22,710,000
Total
214.5
6.1 years
$51,720,000
In addition to roads, the Township's transportation assets also include 3,490 metres of
sidewalks and 29 streetlights with a combined replacement cost of $730,000. Table 2-2
provides a breakdown of sidewalk and streetlight quantity, average age, and
replacement cost by asset class. A visual rendering of the data presented in Table 2-2
is provided in Figure 2-2.
Table 2-2: Sidewalk and Streetlight Quantity, Age, and Replacement Cost by Asset
Type
Asset Class
Quantity
Average
Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Sidewalks
3,490 metres
7.2 years
$540,000
Streetlights
29 lights
17.3 years
$180,000
Total
9.8 years
$730,000
The Township has 13 bridges and 34 structural culverts. The estimated replacement
cost of the structures is $14.2 million. The average ages of bridges and structural
culverts are 62 years and 40 years, respectively. Table 2-3 provides a breakdown of
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-3
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
structure quantity, age, and replacement cost by structure type. A visual rendering of
the data presented in Table 2-3 is provided in Figure 2-3.
Table 2-3: Structure Quantity, Age, and Replacement Cost by Structure Type
Structure
Type
Quantity
Average
Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Bridges
13 bridges
62
$7,400,000
Structural Culverts
34 culverts
40
$6,750,000
Total
47 structures
52
$14,150,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-4
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-1: Road Length, Age, and Replacement Cost by Surface Type
Road Network Length
(Centreline-kilometres)
Average Age of Road Surface
(Years)
Replacement Cost
(2022$)
HCB,
17 km,
8%
LCB,
81 km,
38%
Gravel,
117 km,
54%
215
kilometres
8.8 years
11.7 years
1.8 years
HCB
LCB
Gravel
HCB,
$5.1 M,
12%
LCB,
$17.3 M,
38%
Gravel,
$22.7 M,
50%
$45
million
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-5
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-2: Sidewalk and Streetlight Age, and Replacement Cost by Asset Class
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
(2022$)
7.2 Years
17.3 Years
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Sidewalks
$540,000
75%
Streetlights
$180,000
25%
$730,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-6
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-3: Structure Quantity, Age, and Replacement Cost by Structure Type
Quantity
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
(2022$)
Bridges
13
28%
Structural
Culverts
34
72%
47
Structures
62.2 Years
40.0 Years
Bridges
Structural Culverts
Bridges
$7.4 M
52%
Structural
Culverts
$6.8 M
48%
$14
million
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-7
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
2.2.2 Condition
The Township had the condition of its paved roads assessed in 2021 by StreetScan.
Paved roads were assessed using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI is
measured on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being an asset in as-new condition and 0
being a failed asset. The condition of gravel roads was estimated through a desktop
exercise based on the time since the most recent re-gravelling. Gravel roads are re-
gravelled on a three-year cycle. A three-point scale - Good (3), Fair (2), and Poor (1) -
is used with the most recently re-gravelled roads being assigned a condition of "Good"
and condition assumed to deteriorate by one point each year.
To better communicate the condition of the road network, the numeric condition ratings
for roads have been segmented into qualitative condition states. Moreover, descriptions
and example photos of roads in these condition states are provided to better
communicate the condition to the reader. Table 2-4 summarizes the various Pavement
Condition Index ratings and the condition state they represent.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-8
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-4: Condition States Defined with Respect to Pavement Condition Index -
Roads
PCI
Range[1]
Condition
State
Example Photo
Description[2]
85 ≤ PCI ≤
100
Excellent
A very smooth ride. Pavement is
in excellent condition with few
cracks.
70 ≤ PCI <
85
Good
A smooth ride with just a few
bumps or depressions. The
pavement is in good condition with
frequent very slight or slight
cracking.
55 ≤ PCI <
70
Fair
A comfortable ride with intermittent
bumps or depressions. The
pavement is in fair condition with
intermittent moderate and frequent
slight cracking, and with
intermittent slight or moderate
alligatoring and distortion.
[1] The mapping of PCI values to Condition States (PCI Labels) is based on the intervals
used by StreetScan.
[2] Descriptions are from the SP-024 Manual for Condition Rating of Flexible Pavements
(Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2016)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-9
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
PCI
Range[1]
Condition
State
Example Photo
Description[2]
40 ≤ PCI <
55
Poor
An uncomfortable ride with
frequent to extensive bumps or
depressions. Cannot maintain the
posted speed at lower end of the
scale. The pavement is in poor to
fair condition with frequent
moderate cracking and distortion,
and intermittent moderate
alligatoring.
25 ≤ PCI <
40
Very Poor
A very uncomfortable ride with
constant jarring bumps and
depressions. Cannot maintain the
posted speed and must steer
constantly to avoid bumps and
depressions. The pavement is in
poor condition with moderate
alligatoring and extensive severe
cracking and distortion.
10 ≤ PCI <
25
Serious
No Examples
The pavement is in poor to very
poor condition with extensive
severe cracking, alligatoring and
distortion.
0 ≤ PCI < 10
Failed
No Examples
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-10
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-5 shows the average condition of the road network by surface type, which is
weighted based on centreline-kilometres. On average, HCB and LCB roads are in the
Good condition state and gravel roads are in the Fair condition state. Figure 2-4 and
Figure 2-5 show the distribution of road length by condition state.
Table 2-5: Average Road Condition by Surface Type
Surface Type
Centreline
Kilometres
Condition
(Weighted
Average)
Average
Condition State
HCB
16.5
82
Good
LCB
80.9
79
Good
Gravel
117.0
2.2
Fair
Figure 2-4: Distribution of Paved Road Length (centreline-km) by Condition State
Excellent, 39 km,
41%
Good, 32 km,
33%
Fair, 15 km,
15%
Poor, 9 km,
9%
Very Poor, 2 km,
2%
Overall Average:
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-11
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-5: Distribution of Gravel Road Length (centreline-km) by Condition State
The condition of the Township's sidewalks and streetlights are evaluated based on age
relative to the expected useful life (i.e., based on the percentage of useful life consumed
(ULC%)). A brand-new asset would have a ULC% of 0%, indicating that zero percent of
the asset's life expectancy has been utilized. On the other hand, an asset that has
reached its life expectancy would have a ULC% of 100%. It is possible for assets to
have a ULC% greater than 100%, which occurs if an asset has exceeded its typical life
expectancy but continues to be in service. This is not necessarily a cause for concern;
however, it must be recognized that assets that are near or beyond their typical life
expectancy are likely to require replacement or rehabilitation in the near term.
To better communicate the condition of sidewalks, streetlights and other assets where
ULC% will be used, the ULC% ratings have been segmented into qualitative condition
states as summarized in Table 2-6. The scale is set to show that if assets are replaced
around the expected useful life, they would have a rating of Fair. The rating of Fair
extends to 140% of expected useful life. Beyond 140% of useful life, the probability of
failure is assumed to have increased to a point where performance would be
characterized as Poor or Very Poor.
Good, 42.7 km,
37%
Fair, 57.8 km,
49%
Poor, 16.5 km,
14%
Overall Average:
Fair
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-12
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-6: Condition States Defined with Respect to ULC%
ULC% Range
Condition State
0% ≤ ULC% ≤ 45%
Very Good
45% < ULC% ≤ 90%
Good
90% < ULC% ≤ 140%
Fair
140% < ULC% ≤ 200%
Poor
200% < ULC%
Very Poor
The useful life is assumed to be 50 years for sidewalks and 40 years for streetlights.
With these assumptions, both sidewalks and streetlights are in the Very Good condition
state on average. Table 2-7 shows the results of the age-based condition analysis for
sidewalks and streetlights. Figure 2-6 shows the distribution of sidewalk and streetlight
replacement costs by condition state.
Table 2-7: Average Sidewalk and Streetlight Condition by Asset Class
Asset Class
Quantity
ULC%
(Weighted
Average)
Average
Condition
State
Sidewalks
3,490 metres
14%
Very Good
Streetlights
29 lights
43%
Very Good
Total
22%
Very Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-13
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-6: Distribution of Sidewalk and Streetlight Replacement Cost by Condition
State
In accordance with O. Reg. 104/97, the Township completes biennial inspections of its
bridges and culverts following the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). The
most recent inspections were completed by Spreit Associates Engineers & Architects in
2021. Each structure was assigned a Bridge Condition Index (BCI). The BCI is on a
scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being an asset in as-new condition and 0 being a failed
asset. Similar to road assets, to better communicate the condition of the bridge and
culvert inventory, the numeric condition ratings have been segmented into qualitative
condition states. Photographs and descriptions of these condition states and the
corresponding range of Bridge Condition Index (BCI) values are provided in Table 2-8.
Very Good,
$540,000, 75%
Good, $180,000,
25%
Overall Average:
Very
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-14
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-8: Condition States Defined with Respect to Bridge Condition Index - Structures
BCI Range
Condition
State
Bridge Photos
Culvert Photos
Description
70 ≤ BCI ≤ 100
Good
Maintenance is not usually
required within the next five
years.
60 ≤ BCI < 70
Fair
No Examples
Maintenance work is usually
scheduled within the next five
years. This is the ideal time
to schedule major bridge
repairs to get the most out of
bridge spending.
0 ≤ BCI < 60
Poor
Maintenance work is usually
scheduled within one year.
Structure may be at
increased risk of requiring a
loading restriction to be
posted.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-15
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-9 shows the average BCI for structures. On average, the Township's bridges
and structural culverts are in the Good condition state. Figure 2-7 shows the overall
distribution of the Township's structures by condition state.
Table 2-9: Average Structure Condition by Structure Type
Structure Type
Quantity
Condition
(Weighted
Average)
Average
Condition State
Bridges
13 structures
72
Good
Structural Culverts
34 structures
74
Good
Total
47 structures
73
Good
Figure 2-7: Distribution of Structure Replacement Cost by Condition State
2.2.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
The levels of service currently provided by the Township's transportation system are, in
part, a result of the state of local infrastructure identified above. A levels of service
analysis defines the current levels of service, establishes targets, and enables the
Township to periodically evaluate these service level objectives. There are prescribed
Good, $ 10.6 M,
75%
Fair, $ 2.0 M,
14%
Poor, $ 1.6 M,
11%
Overall Average:
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-16
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
levels of service reporting requirements under O. Reg. 588/17 for some transportation
assets (i.e., roads, bridges and culverts). Table 2-11 includes the prescribed technical
levels of service along with additional levels of service developed by the Township. The
level of service measures were developed through identification of service aspects that
are of interest to the users of roads and related assets.
The tables are structured as follows:
- The Service Attribute headings and columns indicate the high-level attribute
being addressed;
- The Community Levels of Service column in Table 2-10 explains the Township's
intent in plain language;
- The Performance Measure column in Table 2-11 describes a performance
measure connected to the identified service attribute;
- The 2021 Performance column in Table 2-11 reports current performance for the
performance measure; and
- The Target column in Table 2-11 reports the long-term performance that the
Township intends to deliver for the performance measure.
Table 2-10: Transportation Service Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Scope
The Township's transportation assets enable the movement of people
and goods within the Township and provide connectivity to County
and Provincial roads. In addition to passenger vehicles, the
Township's transportation assets support commercial truck traffic, and
provide reliable emergency vehicle access to all areas of the
Township.
The Township's roads are distributed evenly across the municipality.
The road network provides a good level of connectivity with few dead-
end roads.
Quality
The Township strives to maintain road and bridge surfaces to a level
that supports an adequate travel experience for road users.
Descriptions of roads and structures in different condition states are
shown in Table 2-4 and Table 2-8.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-17
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-11: Transportation Service Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Scope
Number of lane-kilometres of arterial roads as a
proportion of square kilometres of land area of the
Township
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Number of lane-kilometres of collector roads as a
proportion of square kilometres of land area of the
Township
0.83 lane-
km/km²
0.83 lane-
km/km²
Number of lane-kilometres of local roads as a
proportion of square kilometres of land area of the
Township
0.47 lane-
km/km²
0.47 lane-
km/km²
Percentage of bridges in the Township with loading
or dimensional restrictions
15%
15%
Quality
For paved roads in the municipality, the average
pavement condition index value
80
80
For unpaved roads in the municipality, the average
surface condition
Fair (2.2)
Fair
For bridges in the municipality, the average BCI
value (condition state)
72 (Good)
Good
For structural culverts in the municipality, the
average BCI value (condition state)
74 (Good)
Good
Average condition of sidewalks (ULC%)
Very Good
(14%)
Good
Average condition of streetlights (ULC%)
Very Good
(43%)
Good
2.3 Water
2.3.1 State of Local Infrastructure
There are three areas within the Township where water services are available. All three
areas are adjacent to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc, as illustrated in Map 2-1.
Treated water is supplied by the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and the Township is
only responsible for distribution infrastructure. Table 2-12 shows water main length,
age, and replacement cost.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-18
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-12: Water Distribution Asset Length, Age, and Replacement Cost by Asset
Class
Asset Class
Length (m)
Average Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Water mains
3,883
14 years
$2,500,000
Map 2-1: Water Service Area
2.3.2 Condition
The condition of the water distribution assets is evaluated based on age relative to the
expected useful life (i.e., based on the ULC%) as described for sidewalks and
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-19
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
streetlights assets in subsection 2.2.1. The useful life for water mains is assumed to be
80 years. With this assumption, all segments are in the Very Good condition state, with
an average ULC% of 17%.
2.3.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This subsection provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
water. Table 2-13 and Table 2-14 show community levels of service and technical
levels of service respectively.
Table 2-13: Water Service Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Scope
Water service is provided to customers in three areas adjacent to
the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc boundary. Properties along
three Township roads have water service available: Centre Road
from Pannell Lane to Highway 402, Grogast Court, and County
Lane.
The scope of the Township's water system is illustrated by Map
2-1. The map shows the areas with water service.
Reliability
The Township strives to minimize disruptions in water service.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires descriptions of boil water advisories and
service interruptions. They are not included in this plan because
the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc operates the system.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-20
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-14: Water Service Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Scope
Percentage of properties
connected to the municipal water
system.
3.6%
Increase
Percentage of properties where fire
flow is available.
3.6%
Increase
Reliability
The number of connection-days
per year where a boil water
advisory notice is in place
compared to the total number of
properties connected to the
municipal water system.
0 connection
days /
connection
0 connection
days /
connection
The number of connection-days
per year lost due to water main
breaks compared to the total
number of properties connected to
the municipal water system.
0 connection
days /
connection
0 connection
days /
connection
2.4 Wastewater
2.4.1 State of Local Infrastructure
There are two areas within the Township where wastewater services are available. One
area is adjacent to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc, as illustrated in Map 2-2.
Wastewater from this area is treated by the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and the
Township is only responsible for the collection infrastructure. The other area with
service is the community of Kerwood, as illustrated in Map 2-3. The Township is
responsible for both collection and treatment of wastewater from this area.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-21
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Map 2-2: Wastewater Service Area Neighbouring the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-22
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Map 2-3: Wastewater Mains in the Kerwood Community
Table 2-15 provides a breakdown of wastewater assets, including quantity, age, and
replacement cost by asset class.
Table 2-15: Wastewater Asset Quantity, Age, and Replacement Cost by Asset Class
Asset Class
Quantity
Average Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Wastewater
mains
5,024 metres
15 years
$3,110,000
Wastewater
Treatment plant
1 plant
12 years
$3,150,000
Total
13 years
$6,260,000
2.4.2 Condition
The condition of wastewater assets has not been assessed directly. The condition of
the wastewater distribution assets is evaluated based on age relative to the expected
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-23
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
useful life (i.e., based on the ULC%) as described for sidewalks and streetlights in
subsection 2.2.1. The useful life for wastewater mains is assumed to be 80 years. With
this assumption, all segments are in the Very Good condition state, with an average
ULC% of 18%. The wastewater treatment plant has been assigned the condition state
Very Good based on the age of the facility and the fact that none of its components are
expected to need replacement in the next 10 years. Table 2-16 presents the results of
the condition analysis for wastewater assets.
Table 2-16: Average Wastewater Asset Condition by Asst Class
Asset Class
Quantity
Average ULC%
Average
Condition State
Wastewater mains
5,024 metres
18%
Very Good
Wastewater
Treatment plant
1 plant
Not Applicable
Very Good
Total
Very Good
2.4.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This subsection provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
wastewater. Table 2-17 and Table 2-18 show community levels of service and technical
levels of service respectively.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-24
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-17: Wastewater Service Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Scope
The Township provides wastewater service in two areas, one
adjacent to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and the other
being the community of Kerwood. The area with service adjacent
to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc extends from Centre
Road 270 metres north of Pannell road to 200 metres south of
Highway 402. Wastewater from Centre Road is treated by the
Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. The community of Kerwood
has a small, self-contained system with both collection and
treatment.
The scope of the Township's wastewater system is illustrated by
Map 2-2 and Map 2-3. The maps show the serviced area
neighbouring the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and the
location of the wastewater mains servicing the community of
Kerwood.
Reliability
The Township strives to minimize wastewater service
interruptions.
Stormwater enters sanitary sewers by two routes: inflow and
infiltration. Inflow refers to stormwater flows entering into sanitary
sewers via access points, such as maintenance holes, that are
not fully sealed or through deliberate connection of sources of
stormwater to the wastewater system (e.g., downspouts and
basement sump pumps). Infiltration refers to groundwater
entering sanitary mains through cracks, holes, failed joints, and
incorrect or faulty connections.
Wastewater assets are designed to be resilient to stormwater
inflow and infiltration by having capacity to handle flows
significantly higher than average daily flows. This enables them
to keep up with higher flows that are created by stormwater inflow
and infiltration.
The final effluent design objectives for the Kerwood wastewater
treatment plant are identified in the facility's Environmental
Compliance Approval (ECA # 9920-7FARSJ)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-25
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-18: Wastewater Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Scope
Percentage of properties
connected to the municipal
wastewater system.
6.6%
Increase
Reliability
The number of connection-days
per year lost due to wastewater
backups compared to the total
number of properties connected to
the municipal wastewater system.
0.0174
connection
days /
connection
0 connection
days /
connection
The number of effluent violations
per year due to wastewater
discharge compared to the total
number of properties connected to
the municipal wastewater system.
0 violations /
connection
0 violations /
connection
2.5 Facilities
2.5.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township is responsible for nine facilities with a total replacement cost of $5.2
million, as shown in Table 2-19.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-26
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-19: Age and Replacement Cost by Facility
Facility
Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
B01 - Egremont Dr. Municipal Office
38
$790,000
B02 - Egremont Dr. Works Garage
44
$870,000
B03 - Napier Road Building
50
$560,000
B04 - Adelaide Metcalfe Storage Shed
72
$220,000
B05 - Sand Storage Shed
32
$150,000
B06 - Fire Station
12
$1,930,000
B07 - Washroom/pavilion
1
$420,000
B08 - Storage shed
57
$150,000
B09 - Pavilion
32
$120,000
Total
27
$5,210,000
2.5.2 Condition
All facilities were assigned a facility-level condition rating by Township staff using the
scale shown in Table 2-20. Table 2-21 shows the assessed condition for each facility.
The weighted average condition of the Township's facilities is Good. Figure 2-8 shows
the distribution of facility replacement cost by condition rating.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-27
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-20: Facility-level Rating Scale
Condition
Description
Very Good
5
No concerns.
Good
4
Deterioration causes minimal influence on use of facility.
Occasional concerns raised by users.
Fair
3
Some deterioration beginning to be reflected in minor restrictions
on operational uses. Concerns from users.
Poor
2
Regular complaints from users.
Very Poor
1
Generally not suitable for use.
Table 2-21: Overall Condition by Facility
Facility
Condition
B01 - Egremont Dr. Municipal Office
Fair
B02 - Egremont Dr. Works Garage
Fair
B03 - Napier Road Building
Fair
B04 - Adelaide Metcalfe Storage Shed
Very Poor
B05 - Sand Storage Shed
Fair
B06 - Fire Station
Very Good
B07 - Washroom/pavilion
Very Good
B08 - Storage shed
Very Poor
B09 - Pavilion
Fair
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-28
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-8: Distribution of Facility Replacement Cost by Condition Rating
2.5.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This subsection provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
Facilities. Table 2-22 and Table 2-23 show community levels of service and technical
levels of service respectively.
Table 2-22: Facility Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Quality
The Township maintains facilities at a level that provides a
reasonable user experience.
Table 2-23: Facility Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Quality
Average condition of facilities
Good (3.8)
Good
Very Good,
$2.3 M, 45%
Fair,
$2.5 M,
48%
Very Poor,
$0.4 M, 7%
Overall Average:
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-29
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
2.6 Fleet
2.6.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township currently maintains a fleet of 22 vehicles with a combined replacement
cost of $4.8 million. Table 2-24 shows fleet asset quantity, average age, and
replacement cost.
Table 2-24: Fleet Asset Quantity, Age and Replacement Cost by Asset Class
Asset Class
Quantity
Average Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Fleet
22 vehicles
11 years
$4,840,000
2.6.2 Condition
The condition of fleet assets is evaluated based on age relative to the expected useful
life (i.e., based on the ULC%) as described for sidewalks and streetlights in subsection
2.2.1. The expected useful lives of fleet assets range from five to 25 years. On
average fleet assets are in the Good condition state (ULC% is 67%). Figure 2-9 shows
the distribution of fleet replacement cost by condition state.
Figure 2-9: Distribution of Fleet Replacement Cost by Condition State
Very Good,
$1.9 M, 38%
Good,
$1.1 M,
24%
Fair, $1.8 M,
38%
Overall Average:
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-30
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
2.6.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This subsection provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
fleet. Table 2-25 and Table 2-26 show community levels of service and technical levels
of service respectively.
Table 2-25: Fleet Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Reliability
The Township maintains vehicles so that they can be relied upon to
perform as intended.
Table 2-26: Fleet Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Reliability
Average condition of vehicles
(ULC%)
Good (67%)
Good
2.7 Equipment and Land Improvements
2.7.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township has a variety of equipment and five land improvement assets. Table
2-27 provides a breakdown of equipment and land improvement quantity, age, and
replacement cost by asset class.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-31
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-27: Equipment and Land Improvement Quantity, Age, and Replacement Cost
by Asset Class
Asset Class
Quantity
Average Age
Replacement
Cost (2022$)
Equipment
Not available[1]
Not available
$770,000
Land
Improvements
5 assets
8 years
$560,000
Total
$1,330,000
2.7.2 Condition
The condition of land improvement assets is evaluated based on age relative to the
expected useful life (i.e., based on the ULC%) as described for sidewalks and
streetlights in subsection 2.2.1. The expected useful lives of land improvement assets
range from 20 to 50 years. On average, land improvement assets are in the Very Good
condition state (ULC% is 25%). Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of land improvement
replacement cost by condition state.
[1] Some equipment assets are recorded as pooled assets without explicit counts. For
example, there are 1,200 feet of fire hose where the number of sections is not recorded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-32
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 2-10: Distribution of Land Improvement Replacement Cost by Condition State
The condition of equipment has not been assessed. It is replaced on an as-needed
basis.
2.7.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This subsection provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
land improvements. No levels of service are being reported for equipment because
equipment is being replaced as required to meet operational needs. Table 2-28 and
Table 2-29 show community levels of service and technical levels of service
respectively for land improvements.
Table 2-28: Land Improvement Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Reliability
The Township maintains land improvements so that they can be
relied upon to perform as intended.
Very Good,
$0.3 M, 56%
Good, $0.2 M,
44%
Overall Average:
Very
Good
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-33
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 2-29: Land Improvement Technical Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2021
Performance
Target
Reliability
Average condition of land
improvements (ULC%)
Very Good
(25%)
Good
2.8 Population and Employment Growth
According to the 2021 census, the population of Adelaide Metcalfe was 3,011 in 2021.
Based on current estimates, the population is expected to increase to 3,907 by 2046.
This population growth is expected to result in incremental service demands that may
impact the current level of service. The Township plans to implement development
charges to cover growth-related capital costs. Utilizing development charges helps
ensure that the effects of future population and employment growth do not increase the
cost of maintaining levels of service for existing tax and rate payers.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Chapter 3
Lifecycle Management
Strategy
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-1
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
3. Lifecycle Management Strategy
3.1 Introduction
This chapter details the lifecycle management strategies that identify the recommended
lifecycle activities required to achieve the proposed levels of service discussed in
Chapter 2. Within the context of this asset management plan, lifecycle activities are the
specified actions that can be performed on an asset in order to ensure it is performing at
an appropriate level, and/or to extend its service life.[1] These actions can be carried out
on a planned schedule in a prescriptive manner, or through a dynamic approach where
the lifecycle activities are only carried out when specified conditions are met.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires that all potential lifecycle activity options be assessed, with the
aim of identifying the set of lifecycle activities that can be undertaken at the lowest cost
to meet the targeted levels of service. Asset management plans must include a 10-year
capital lifecycle activities expenditure forecast that forecasts the lifecycle activities
resulting from the lifecycle management strategy.
What follows are the lifecycle management strategies for all assets that have lifecycle
activities funded through the capital budget. Gravel roads are excluded from the
analysis because they are maintained through regular maintenance activities and a re-
gravelling program that is fully funded through the operating budget. There are two
outputs of the lifecycle management strategy. The first output is a 10-year lifecycle
expenditure forecast that informs short- and medium- term planning. The second output
is an estimate of average annual lifecycle costs to inform long-term financial planning
and tax and rate setting.
3.2 Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast
A 10-year forecast of lifecycle expenditures was developed for each asset class using
one of three approaches, depending on the complexity of the lifecycle strategy and data
availability for each respective asset class. The three approaches are:
[1] The full lifecycle of an asset includes activities such as initial planning and
maintenance which are typically addressed through master planning studies and
maintenance management, respectively.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-2
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
- Lifecycle model;
- Professional judgement; and
- As-needed replacement (annual provision).
The details of each approach are described in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Lifecycle Model Approach
For assets with fully-defined lifecycles and good age or condition data, the lifecycle
expenditure forecast was developed by first estimating where each asset currently is in
its lifecycle and then forecasting the timing and cost of future lifecycle activities. This
method was used to develop the lifecycle expenditure forecast for paved roads, water
mains, wastewater mains, fleet, and land improvements.
The lifecycle models used for roads are presented in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 in
subsection 3.2.1. The remaining asset classes for which the lifecycle model approach
was used (i.e., water and wastewater mains, fleet, and land improvements) have only
one lifecycle activity - replacement at the end of useful life.
Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 present the lifecycle expenditure forecasts for paved roads
and fleet respectively. No lifecycle activities were identified for the next 10 years for
water mains, wastewater mains, and land improvements.
Figure 3-1: Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast for Paved Roads (2022$)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars (Millions)
Year
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-3
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 3-2: Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast for Fleet (2022$)
3.2.2 Professional Judgement Approach
For structures, facilities, and the Kerwood wastewater treatment plant, data is not
currently available at a sufficiently detailed level to use the lifecycle model approach to
produce a lifecycle expenditure forecast. Instead, the forecasts were compiled based
on the professional judgement of Township staff and available background reports.
For structures, the lifecycle expenditure forecast is based on the 2021 OSIM report,
which identified lifecycle activities totalling $715,000 for the next five years. It is noted
that in the 2021 OSIM report, these lifecycle activities were not assigned to specific
years. Therefore, for the purposes of the lifecycle expenditures forecast in this asset
management plan, it was assumed that these lifecycle activities will be spread evenly
from 2023 to 2026, averaging $179,000 (2022$) per year, as shown in Figure 3-3.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars (Millions)
Year
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-4
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 3-3: Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast for Structures (2022$)
For facilities and the Kerwood wastewater treatment plant, Township staff developed
the lifecycle expenditure forecasts based on their operational knowledge of the assets.
For facilities, lifecycle activities totalling $405,000 were identified for the 10-year
forecast period, with timing of the corresponding expenditures shown in Figure 3-4. No
lifecycle activities were identified for the Kerwood wastewater treatment plant for the
next 10 years.
Figure 3-4: Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast for Facilities (2022$)
3.2.3 As-needed Replacement Approach
The Township intends to replace equipment on an as-needed basis. The lifecycle
expenditure forecast includes an annual provision for equipment replacement totalling
$77,000 (2022$), as shown in Figure 3-5.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars
Year
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars
Year
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-5
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 3-5: Lifecycle Expenditure Forecast for Equipment (2022$)
3.2.4 Summary
Figure 3-6 combines the lifecycle expenditure forecasts for individual asset classes in
one chart. The average annual capital expenditures over the 10-year forecast are
estimated at approximately $1.30 million, as shown by the dashed black line.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars
Year
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-6
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Figure 3-6: Annual Capital Expenditures by Asset Class (2022$)[1]
3.3 Average Annual Lifecycle Costs
While the 10-year capital plan provides an estimate of lifecycle expenditures in the
short- and medium-term, it does not help set capital funding targets because it does not
account for the full lifecycle of the assets. To account for needs beyond the 10-year
forecast period, average annual lifecycle costs[2] need to be estimated. Depending on
the asset class, one of three approaches was used to estimate average annual lifecycle
costs:
- Lifecycle models;
- Replacement only; and
- Annual reinvestment rates suggested in the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card.
[1] The costs of projects for Kerwood Park in 2022 have been included with Equipment
and Land Improvements.
[2] The average annual lifecycle cost for an asset is the total cost of all lifecycle activities
over its full lifespan divided by its expected useful life.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars (Millions)
Year
Roads, Sidewalks, and Steetlights
Structures
Facilities
Fleet
Equipment and Land Improvements
2022-2031 Average
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-7
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Each approach is described in the following subsections, followed by an overall
summary.
3.3.1 Lifecycle Models Approach
The lifecycles of roads and bridges typically involve both rehabilitative treatments (often
multiple rounds) before a full reconstruction or replacement. All of these lifecycle
activities need to be taken into account to quantify the full lifecycle cost of these assets.
Once the total lifecycle costs have been estimated for an asset, average annual
lifecycle costs can be calculated based on the asset's expected lifespan. The expected
sequence of lifecycle activities for the Township's roads and bridges, along with
estimated timing, unit costs, and the resultant average annual lifecycle cost per unit, are
presented in Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.
.
Table 3-1: HCB Road Lifecycle
Year
Lifecycle Activity
Unit Cost
($ per
centreline-
km, 2022$)
15
Resurface
$100,000
30
$100,000
58
Reconstruction
$310,000
Total Lifecycle Cost
$510,000
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
$8,790
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-8
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 3-2: LCB Road Lifecycle
Year
Lifecycle Activity
Unit Cost
($ per
centreline-
km, 2022$)
6
Resurface
(2/3 single surface treatment,
$3.00/m²;
1/3 pulverize and double surface
treatment, $6.33/m²)
$31,000
12
$31,000
18
$31,000
24
$31,000
30
$31,000
36
$31,000
42
$31,000
48
$31,000
54
$31,000
60
$31,000
69
Reconstruction
$212,000
Total Lifecycle Cost
$522,000
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
$7,560
Table 3-3: Bridges Lifecycle
Year
Lifecycle Activity
Unit Cost
(Percentage of
Replacement Cost)
25
Minor rehabilitation
15%
50
Major rehabilitation
35%
75
Replacement
100%
Total Lifecycle Cost
150%
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
2%
3.3.2 Replacement Only Approach
For many assets, the only lifecycle activity is replacement when the asset reaches the
end of its useful life. For these assets, long-run average annual lifecycle costs are
based on replacement cost and the expected useful life. Replacement costs for these
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-9
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
assets are summarized in Chapter 2, and the expected useful lives are summarized in
Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Expected Useful Lives for Replacement Only Assets
Asset Class
Expected Useful
Life (Years)
Structural Culverts
50
Water Mains
80
Wastewater Mains
80
Fleet
5 to 25
Land Improvements
20 to 50
Equipment
5 to 25
3.3.3 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Approach
The lifecycle models approach and the replacement only approach cannot be used to
estimate average annual lifecycle cost for facilities and the Kerwood wastewater
treatment plant because the detailed data required is not available. Instead, a high-
level approach is used for these asset classes, based on annual reinvestment rate
ranges recommended in the 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (C.I.R.C). The
C.I.R.C identifies a target annual reinvestment rate of between 1.7% and 2.5% of asset
replacement cost for buildings and non-linear wastewater infrastructure (i.e., facilities).
The mid-point of this range, 2.1%, was used to estimate average annual lifecycle costs
for the Township's facilities and the Kerwood wastewater treatment plant.
3.3.4 Results
Based on the various approaches to estimating average annual lifecycle costs
described above, the total average annual lifecycle cost for the Township's assets is
estimated at $1.68 million. A breakdown of this total by asset class is provided in Table
3-5.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-10
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table 3-5: Average Annual Lifecycle Cost by Asset Class
Asset Class
Average Annual
Lifecycle Cost
(2022$)
Tax Supported Assets
Roads, Sidewalks, and
Streetlights
$773,000
Structures
$283,000
Facilities
$109,000
Fleet
$274,000
Equipment and Land
Improvements
$99,000
Subtotal Tax Supported Assets
$1,539,000
Water and Wastewater Assets
Water
$31,000
Wastewater
$105,000
Subtotal Water and Wastewater
Assets
$136,000
Grand Total
$1,675,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Chapter 4
Financing Strategy
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-1
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
4. Financing Strategy
4.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the financing strategy that would sustainably fund the lifecycle
management strategies presented in Chapter 3. This financing strategy focuses on
examining how the Township can fund the lifecycle activities required to maintain its
assets at the targeted levels of service, as identified in Chapter 2. The strategy
presented is a suggested approach which should be examined and re-evaluated during
the annual budgeting processes to ensure the sustainability of the Township's financial
position as it relates to its assets.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires at minimum a 10-year capital plan that forecasts the costs of
implementing the lifecycle management strategy and the lifecycle activities required
therein. The financing strategy in this asset management plan has been developed for
a 10-year forecast period to be in compliance with this requirement.
Various financing options, including reserve funds, debt, and grants, were considered
during the process of developing the financing strategy and are described in more detail
in section 4.4 below.
4.2 Annual Contribution and Lifecycle Funding Target
An annual lifecycle funding target describes the amount of funding that would be
required annually to fully finance a lifecycle management strategy over the long term.
By planning to achieve this annual funding level, the Township would theoretically be
able to fully fund capital works as they arise. In practice, capital expenditures often
fluctuate year-to-year based on the asset replacement and renewal/rehabilitation
projects being undertaken in a particular year. By planning to achieve the lifecycle
funding target over the long term, however, the periods of relatively low capital needs
would allow for the building up of lifecycle reserve funds that could be drawn upon in
times of relatively high capital needs. The annual lifecycle funding target is the long-run
average annual lifecycle cost identified in subsection 3.3.4, $1,675,000. This is the
amount that has been built into the financial strategy outlined below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-2
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
In comparison, the Township budgeted to contribute approximately $1,343,000 from the
tax levy and other current revenue sources towards capital-related needs in 2022.
Included in this are budgeted contributions to capital projects in the current year,
contributions to capital-related reserve funds, and reliable and long-term federal and
provincial grants (i.e., Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF) and Ontario
Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF)). The sum of these components is the amount
of funding the Township contributed in 2022 to the provision of capital-related needs.
The difference between the annual lifecycle funding target and current annual
contribution is referred to as the lifecycle funding gap. The Township is currently
underfunding the annual lifecycle funding target by approximately $332,000 annually.
4.3 Annual Costs
The annual capital expenditures for the Township's assets from 2022 to 2031 are
presented in Table A-1 in Appendix A and are summarized in Figure 3-6 in subsection
3.2.4. This expenditure forecast is based on the Township's 2022 capital budget and
the lifecycle activities identified in preceding sections of this plan for 2023 and onwards.
The expenditure forecast includes a capital inflation factor of 4% annually, which aligns
closely with the historical 20-year annual average rate of inflation as witnessed in
Statistics Canada's Non-residential Building Construction Price Index.
4.4 Funding
Table A-6 in Appendix A summarizes the recommended strategy to finance the asset
lifecycle costs identified in Table A-1. This funding forecast was based on the funding
sources identified in the Township's 2022 budget.
The lifecycle costs required to sustain established level of service targets are being
recovered through several methods:
- OCIF formula-based funding is identified for years in which the funding amount is
known (2022). The Ontario Government more than doubled the Township's
OCIF grant in 2022 as part of a five year initiative to support small, rural, and
northern communities that started in 2022. In the financial strategy, the 2022
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-3
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
level of OCIF funding is maintained for the five-year duration of the provincial
initiative. It is then reduced back to the 2021 funding level for 2027 to 2031.
- CCBF funding has been shown as a stable and long-term funding source for
eligible capital projects. Annual funding estimates are based on the Township's
2022 funding level.
This financing strategy has been developed to be fully funded, and therefore no funding
shortfall has been identified. This means, however, that if identified grants are not
received at expected amounts then shortfalls may present themselves. In such an
event, the difference could be made up through increases to the tax levy/user rates
over-and-above those presented hereafter.
It is noted that this fully funded financing strategy phases in annual contributions
towards capital such that the Township reaches full lifecycle funding levels by 2031.
4.5 Tax Levy Impact
As discussed in section 4.2, while the annual funding requirement may fluctuate, it is
important for the Township to implement a consistent, yet increasing, annual investment
in capital so that the excess annual funds can accrue in capital reserve funds. Table A-
6 in Appendix A presents a summary of the impacts on the tax levy as a result of this
financing strategy.
In order to fund the recommended lifecycle management strategy using the Township's
own available funding sources (i.e., using taxation, CCBF funding, and OCIF funding),
an increase in the Township's taxation levy of 3.2% annually would be required from 2023
to 2031.
Consideration for cash flow and positive reserve fund balances has been included in
setting the capital reserve transfer amounts. A detailed continuity schedule of all
capital-related reserves/reserve funds related to assets other than water and
wastewater assets can be viewed in Table A-2, Table A-4, and Table A-5 in Appendix
A.
Layering on assessment increases resulting from new assessment growth, assumed to
be 0.64% annually, the impacts on individual property tax bills resultant from the
financial strategy are estimated to be increases of 2.6% annually from 2023 to 2031.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-4
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
The taxation impacts identified above include inflationary adjustments to the Township's
operating costs and revenues as identified in its 2022 budget (i.e., general operating
inflation of 2% annually). If, however, other funding sources become available (as
mentioned above), or if maintenance practices allow for the deferral of capital works,
then the impact on the Township's taxation levy would potentially decrease.
Further detail on the Financing Strategy is presented in Appendix A.
4.6 Water and Wastewater User Rates Impact
As discussed in section 4.2, while the annual funding requirement may fluctuate, it is
important for the Township to make consistent, annual investments in capital so that the
excess annual funds can accrue in water and wastewater capital reserves and reserve
funds. Consistent with the Township's historical practice, in this asset management
plan it has been assumed that the tax levy will cover the gap between full lifecycle
funding needed for water and wastewater and revenues raised through user fees. The
only adjustment made to user fees over the forecast period is an inflationary adjustment
of 2% per year. It is noted, however, that full cost user fees are strongly encouraged for
water and wastewater services. The Township should consider undertaking a detailed
rate study to identify appropriate full-cost water and wastewater rates. A detailed
continuity schedule of all capital-related reserves/reserve funds for water and
wastewater can be viewed in Table A-3 in Appendix A.
Appendices
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Appendix A
Financing Strategy Tables
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-1
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table A-1 Capital Budget Forecast (Inflated $)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Capital Expenditures
Tax Supported
Roads, Sidewalks, and Steetlights
270,000
2,798,811
1,382,843
379,505
448,054
561,631
59,090
1,292,778
948,547
806,275
Structures
-
185,900
189,280
201,913
212,622
-
-
-
-
-
Facilities
-
104,000
270,400
44,995
-
18,250
-
-
-
-
Fleet
418,000
630,573
466,819
877,394
91,249
-
-
61,586
853,987
-
Equipment and Land Improvements
81,700
80,378
83,593
86,937
90,414
94,031
97,792
101,704
105,772
110,003
Kerwood Park
428,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Tax Supported
1,198,200
3,799,661
2,392,935
1,590,743
842,339
673,912
156,882
1,456,067
1,908,306
916,278
Water and Wastewater
Water
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wastewater
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Water and Wastewater
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures
1,198,200
3,799,661
2,392,935
1,590,743
842,339
673,912
156,882
1,456,067
1,908,306
916,278
Capital Funding
Tax Supported
Debenture Issuance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer from Operating
656,385
-
108,200
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer from Capital R.F.s
27,500
3,232,285
1,985,135
1,285,243
530,739
469,912
(51,218)
1,243,867
1,691,906
695,478
Transfer from CCBF R.F.
334,543
333,908
98,700
100,600
102,600
104,700
106,800
108,900
111,100
113,300
Transfer from OCIF R.F.
175,172
233,468
200,900
204,900
209,000
99,300
101,300
103,300
105,300
107,500
Donation
4,600
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Tax Supported
1,198,200
3,799,661
2,392,935
1,590,743
842,339
673,912
156,882
1,456,067
1,908,306
916,278
Water and Wastewater
Debenture Issuance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer from Capital R.F.s
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Water and Wastewater
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Funding
1,198,200
3,799,661
2,392,935
1,590,743
842,339
673,912
156,882
1,456,067
1,908,306
916,278
Description
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-2
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table A-2 Tax Supported Capital Reserve Funds
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Opening Balance
4,528,045
4,839,427
2,922,345
2,207,199
2,383,642
3,418,288
4,624,211
6,478,111
7,144,002
7,466,071
Transfer from Operating
243,991
1,257,903
1,226,710
1,414,948
1,498,360
1,585,163
1,675,660
1,769,680
1,867,582
1,969,430
Transfer to Capital
27,500
3,232,285
1,985,135
1,285,243
530,739
469,912
(51,218)
1,243,867
1,691,906
695,478
Closing Balance
4,744,536
2,865,044
2,163,921
2,336,904
3,351,263
4,533,540
6,351,089
7,003,924
7,319,677
8,740,023
Interest
94,891
57,301
43,278
46,738
67,025
90,671
127,022
140,078
146,394
174,800
Table A-3 Water and Wastewater Capital Reserve Funds
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Opening Balance
899,178
1,074,706
1,240,912
1,416,231
1,601,076
1,795,878
2,001,088
2,217,174
2,444,625
2,683,948
Transfer from Operating
154,455
141,874
147,549
153,451
159,589
165,973
172,612
179,516
186,697
194,165
Transfer to Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Closing Balance
1,053,633
1,216,580
1,388,462
1,569,682
1,760,665
1,961,851
2,173,700
2,396,691
2,631,322
2,878,113
Interest
21,073
24,332
27,769
31,394
35,213
39,237
43,474
47,934
52,626
57,562
Table A-4 Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF) Obligatory Reserve Fund
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Opening Balance
472,272
237,208
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CCBF Grant
94,828
96,700
98,700
100,600
102,600
104,700
106,800
108,900
111,100
113,300
Transfer to Capital
334,543
333,908
98,700
100,600
102,600
104,700
106,800
108,900
111,100
113,300
Closing Balance
232,557
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interest
4,651
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table A-5 Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) Obligatory Reserve Fund
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Opening Balance
17,824
36,468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OCIF Grant
193,101
197,000
200,900
204,900
209,000
99,300
101,300
103,300
105,300
107,500
Transfer to Capital
175,172
233,468
200,900
204,900
209,000
99,300
101,300
103,300
105,300
107,500
Closing Balance
35,753
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interest
715
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-3
H:\Adelaide Metcalfe\2022 AMP\Reports\Adelaide Metcalfe AMP - Final R3.docx
Table A-6 Operating Budget Forecast (Inflated $)
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Tax Supported
General Government
1,183,829
1,148,200
1,171,200
1,194,600
1,218,500
1,242,900
1,267,700
1,293,100
1,319,000
1,345,300
Protection to Persons and Property
913,246
908,600
926,700
945,300
964,200
983,500
1,003,100
1,023,200
1,043,700
1,064,500
Public Works
1,931,019
1,937,500
1,976,300
2,015,800
2,056,100
2,097,200
2,139,200
2,182,000
2,225,600
2,270,100
Health Services
11,968
12,200
12,500
12,700
13,000
13,200
13,500
13,700
14,000
14,300
Parks & Recreastion
25,786
26,300
26,800
27,400
27,900
28,500
29,000
29,600
30,200
30,800
Planning & Development
26,000
26,500
27,100
27,600
28,100
28,700
29,300
29,900
30,500
31,100
Drainage
102,836
104,900
107,000
109,100
111,300
113,500
115,800
118,100
120,500
122,900
Transfer to Water and Wastewater
340,455
137,374
143,149
149,151
155,389
161,899
168,638
175,642
182,923
190,491
Water and Wastewater
292,475
104,000
106,100
108,200
110,400
112,600
114,900
117,200
119,500
121,900
Capital-related Expenditures
Tax Supported
Transfers to Capital Res./R.F.s
243,991
1,257,903
1,226,710
1,414,948
1,498,360
1,585,163
1,675,660
1,769,680
1,867,582
1,969,430
Transfer to Capital
656,385
-
108,200
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Water and Wastewater
Transfers to Capital Res./R.F.s
154,455
141,874
147,549
153,451
159,589
165,973
172,612
179,516
186,697
194,165
Repayment of Existing Debt
142,975
143,000
143,000
143,000
143,000
38,085
38,085
38,085
38,085
38,085
Total Expenditures
6,025,420
5,948,352
6,122,309
6,301,251
6,485,839
6,571,220
6,767,495
6,969,724
7,178,287
7,393,071
Revenues
Tax Supported
General Government
628,405
641,000
653,800
666,900
680,200
693,800
707,700
721,800
736,300
751,000
Protection to Persons and Property
110,320
112,500
114,800
117,100
119,400
121,800
124,200
126,700
129,300
131,800
Public Works
184,445
188,100
191,900
195,700
199,600
203,600
207,700
211,900
216,100
220,400
Health Services
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parks & Recreastion
4,800
4,900
5,000
5,100
5,200
5,300
5,400
5,500
5,600
5,700
Planning & Development
46,400
47,300
48,300
49,200
50,200
51,200
52,300
53,300
54,400
55,500
Drainage
65,036
66,300
67,700
69,000
70,400
71,800
73,200
74,700
76,200
77,700
Transfer from CCBF Obligatory Reserve Fund
37,000
Water and Wastewater
Transfer From Tax Levy
340,455
137,374
143,149
149,151
155,389
161,899
168,638
175,642
182,923
190,491
Debt Servicing Cost Recovery
151,350
151,400
151,400
151,400
151,400
46,459
46,459
46,459
46,459
46,459
Rate Revenue
98,100
100,100
102,100
104,100
106,200
108,300
110,500
112,700
114,900
117,200
Total Revenues
1,666,311
1,448,974
1,478,149
1,507,651
1,537,989
1,464,158
1,496,097
1,528,701
1,562,182
1,596,250
Tax Levy Analysis
Tax Revenues Required
4,359,109
4,499,377
4,644,159
4,793,600
4,947,849
5,107,062
5,271,398
5,441,022
5,616,105
5,796,821
Prior Year Tax Levy
4,359,109
4,499,377
4,644,159
4,793,600
4,947,849
5,107,062
5,271,398
5,441,022
5,616,105
Add: Tax Revenues from Incremental Assessment
28,075
28,978
29,911
30,873
31,867
32,892
33,951
35,043
36,171
Tax Revenues at 0% Tax Rate Increase
4,387,184
4,528,356
4,674,070
4,824,473
4,979,716
5,139,954
5,305,349
5,476,065
5,652,275
Additional Increase in Tax Levy
112,193
115,803
119,530
123,376
127,346
131,444
135,673
140,039
144,545
Total Tax Revenues
4,499,377
4,644,159
4,793,600
4,947,849
5,107,062
5,271,398
5,441,022
5,616,105
5,796,821
Estimated Impact on Tax Bills
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%