This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot 0844ea4ac300 · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY HEMSON FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
June 12, 2025
1000 - 30 St. Patrick Street, Toronto ON M5T 3A3
416 593 5090 | [email protected] | www.hemson.com
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
4
A.
Purpose of the Asset Management Plan
4
B.
Regulatory Context
5
C.
Asset Management Plan Structure
7
2.
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
8
A.
Replacement Cost of Infrastucture
8
B.
Remaining Useful Life of the Infrastructure
9
C.
Condition of the Infrastructure
10
3.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
15
A.
The Township's Level of Service Goals
15
B.
Customer Levels of Service (CLOS)
15
C.
Technical Levels of Service (TLOS)
16
D.
overview of the Township's Level of Service
16
4.
ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
24
A.
Overview of Full LifeCycle Cost Model
24
B.
Risk Analysis
29
C.
Managing Risk
31
D.
Future Demand
32
E.
Climate Change Integration
33
5.
FINANCING STRATEGY
36
A.
Analysis of Available Revenues
36
B.
Benchmark Infrastructure Funding Gap
37
C.
Proposed Level of Service Infrastructure Funding Gap
39
D.
the Relationship to the Proposed Level of Service
40
6.
MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN
43
A.
Asset Management Maturity Assessment
43
B.
Improvement Plan
45
APPENDIX A - STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
48
APPENDIX B - DETAILED FINANCING STRATEGY TABLES
57
Executive Summary | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Asset Management Plan (2025 Plan) has been developed to be consistent with the
requirements of Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O Reg. 588/17) and meet the 2025 proposed level of service requirements.
This 2025 Plan includes current level of service measures for all core and non-core
infrastructure assets and defines proposed levels of service over a ten-year period in
compliance with the regulation. A summary of the key results of the 2025 AMP is noted
below along with relevant reporting outputs provided in the summary dashboard. Note that
all figures are in constant 2024 dollars.
The Township's infrastructure has an estimated replacement value of $667.4 million. The
largest share is roads and accounts for about $456.9 million (68%). The next highest
share is bridges and culverts at $93.8 million (14%) and is followed by buildings at $84.2
million (13%). The other asset categories are made up of $32.5 million (5%) for land
improvements, stormwater infrastructure, equipment, furnishings, vehicles, sidewalks,
and pathways.
Township assets are determined to be in Good condition overall. About $383.2 million
(58%) of the assets are in Good to Very Good condition while $184.0 million (28%) of the
assets are Fair condition. The remaining $100.2 million (15%) are in Poor to Very Poor
condition.
The proposed level of service is generally set to maintain the current level of service
over the planning period (2024-2034) with some exceptions for certain assets.
Paved roads and unpaved roads are, on average, in Fair condition and are proposed
to be maintained in this condition.
One bridge or culvert within the Township current has seasonal loading restrictions.
The current weighted average BCI of bridges is 68, while the same metric for
structural culverts is 64. This BCI proposed to be increased to an average of 75 for
each by 2034. This is expected to be achieved if the full lifecycle cost
recommendations of the 2023 Structures Inspection Report (OSIM) are undertaken.
The level of service for the condition of both buildings and vehicles has been
delineated by function or department, and are proposed to remain at the current
performance by 2034.
Executive Summary | 2
-
The total 10-year lifecycle costs to meet proposed levels of service amount to $98.5
million (an average of $9.0 million per year). To meet proposed levels of service an
average increase to contributions to capital reserves of $83,400 per year would be
required which is equivalent to a 3.2% annual increase to the tax levy in 2025 ($2024).
Going forward, this amount would need to be adjusted by inflation on an annual basis to
ensure the Township's funding levels are sufficient to meet general market price
increases.
Summary of 2025 Asset Management Plan
Buildings,
$84.2 , 12%
Vehicles and
Machinery, $12.4 ,
2%
Land Improvements,
$5.5 , 1%
Stormwater
Infrastructure, $4.6 ,
1%
Equipment &
Furnishings, $4.7 ,
1%
Sidewalks &
Pathways, $5.2 ,
1%
Bridges &
Culverts, $93.8
, 14%
Roads,
$456.9 ,
68%
Summary of Total Replacement Value ($M)
$667.4
Million
Very Good,
$25.3 , 4%
Good,
$357.9 ,
54%
Fair,
$184.0 ,
27%
Poor, $74.8
, 11%
Very Poor,
$25.4 , 4%
Summary of Asset Condition ($M)
Overall
Condition
Good
$29.1
Million
Total Need to Meet PLOS
2024-2034
55/60
Maturity Assessment
Current
Score
Target
Score
Executive Summary | 3
Introduction | 4
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Township of Brock 2025 Asset Management Plan (2025 AMP) provides the Township
with a tool to assist in asset management financing decisions. The AMP covers all Township
owned and operated assets and follows the format set out by the Ministry of Infrastructure
through the Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, the
requirements of Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O. Reg. 588/17) and the Township's Strategic Asset Management Policy.
An Excel based asset management financial model has been developed as part of the 2025
AMP. The model contains the Township's detailed asset inventory and financing strategy
used to develop this AMP. The model is provided to municipal staff and is intended to be
updated on a regular basis to inform future capital investment decisions.
A.
PURPOSE OF THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
The main purpose of the 2025 AMP is to advance the Township's asset management
practices by developing a set of asset management strategies to the specific needs of each
service area. At the same time, these strategies align with the objectives of the requirements
of Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O. Reg. 588/17). This plan is focused on achieving several key
objectives:
Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability - management of the Township's assets is a long-
term commitment that must be sustainable to ensure effective service delivery for future
generations.
Lowest Cost of Ownership - long-term sustainability is only possible by ensuring costs
are minimized through efficient management of assets by developing service area and
asset specific objectives.
Minimizing Risk - risk is minimized through the assessment, management and long-
term planning of assets at more focused levels and through consultation with service
area staff.
Enhancing Service Delivery - the Township strives for continual improvement in its
asset management strategies as outlined in the Strategic Asset Management Policy and
therefore tailored approaches to assessing long-term needs unique to each asset
category is captured through this AMP.
Introduction | 5
Supporting Informed Decision-Making - development of a set of asset management
tools that help the decision-making process make evidence-based decisions. The Excel
based financial model can be used to continually keep asset information up to date.
By following the key objectives above, the AMP establishes a "clear line of sight" from the
service being provided to residents and businesses in the Township. Any investment
requirements included in the AMP are clearly linked to a well-defined need. These needs
over the 10-year period are set to meet the proposed level of service, which in the case of
Faraday, is largely related to maintaining levels of service. Furthermore, the needs should be
aligned with strategic objectives through capital and operating decisions made in the budget
process.
B.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
In 2015, the Province of Ontario established the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act.
The purpose of this Act is to establish mechanisms to encourage principled, evidence-based
and strategic long-term infrastructure planning that supports job creation and training
opportunities, economic growth, protection of the environment, and incorporate design
excellence into infrastructure planning.
In December 2017, Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O. Reg 588/17) was passed under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity
Act. The regulation requires municipalities to develop a Strategic Asset Management Policy,
which will help municipalities document the relationship between their Asset Management
Plan and existing policies and practices as well as provide guidance for future capital
investment decisions. The regulation also contains more specific requirements on the type
of analysis municipal asset management plans should contain, including policies, levels of
service, lifecycle management and financing strategies. The aim is to provide guidance to
municipalities so that asset management plans are more consistent across the Province.
Furthermore, in March 2021 the Province amended the regulation to extend the regulatory
timelines by one year. A summary timeline of the requirements of the regulation are outlined
in Figure 1.
Introduction | 6
Figure 1 - Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements
A high-level summary of the technical requirements to be addressed for July 1, 2025
include1:
An AMP for all municipal infrastructure assets that builds upon the previous
requirements for all asset categories (core and non-core).
Identification of the proposed levels of service for each of the next 10-years (core and
non-core).
The lifecycle activities required to meet proposed levels of service.
The risks associated with the lifecycle activities to meet proposed levels of service and
their associated costs.
The 2025 AMP meets the requirements of the regulation as it includes the proposed levels of
service requirement to meet the 2025 deadline for all assets considered in this AMP. The
2025 AMP builds on the work completed in the Township's 2019 Asset Management Plan
which included all asset categories (core and non-core) and reported on the current level of
service. Through this update, the Township has updated the current level of service utilizing
more recent engineering reports, updated inventories and datasets compiled through
consultation with Township staff.
1 There are additional requirements of the regulation not explicitly stated here, however, this AMP meets all
requirements needed. Only the most relevant reporting requirements are listed for simplicity. See
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r17588#BK7.
Introduction | 7
C.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE
The 2025 AMP is developed to be consistent with the structure recommended through the
2013 Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. At the same time, it
has been developed to meet the requirements of O Reg. 588/17. Table 1 provides a guide to
the sections of the 2025 AMP.
Table 1 - AMP Report Structure
Section
Requirement
Main Body
Section 2 - State of Local
Infrastructure
Summarizes the state of the Township's infrastructure with reference
to infrastructure quantity and quality. Additional details are provided in
Appendix A.
Section 3 - Level of Service A summary of the current and proposed levels of service summarized
for each asset category. This section is consistent with the reporting
requirements of O. Reg. 588/17.
Section 4 - Asset
Management Strategy
Sets out several strategies and lifecycle costs that will assist the
Township in maintaining assets so that proposed levels of service can
be met. This section also includes a risk analysis of Township assets.
Section 5 - Financing
Strategy
Establishes how asset management can be delivered in a financially
sustainable way for all services. Outlines the lifecycle costs and
funding strategy to meet proposed levels of service. Additional detailed
calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Section 6 - Monitoring and
Improvement Plan
Provides key recommendations on how to improve the asset
management plan and related practices over the long-term.
Appendices
Appendix A - State of Local
Infrastructure Report Cards
Detailed reports on the state of local infrastructure by asset category
including the asset portfolio, replacement values, age and condition.
Appendix B - Detailed
Financing Strategy Tables
Additional detailed tables related to the lifecycle cost and financing
strategy.
State of Local Infrastructure | 8
2.
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides a summary of the Township's assets with reference to asset quantity
and quality. Some assets have condition assessments based on engineering inspections,
while the balance of asset conditions are based on the useful life of the asset relative to its
age or a high-level condition assessment developed in consultation with Township staff.
Detailed technical information on the asset inventory, remaining useful life and conditions
for each asset category is provided in Appendix A.
A.
REPLACEMENT COST OF INFRASTUCTURE
The replacement cost for all Township assets considered in the 2025 AMP is estimated at
$667.4 million (represented in constant 2024 dollars). The largest share is related to roads
and accounts for about $456.9 million (68%) of the total replacement value. The next highest
share is attributed to bridges and culverts at $93.8 million (14%) and this is followed by the
buildings at $84.2 million (13%). The other asset categories in the Township's asset portfolio
are made up of $12.4 million for vehicles and machinery, $5.5 million for land improvements,
$5.2 million for sidewalks and pathways, $4.7 million for equipment and furnishings, and $4.6
million for stormwater infrastructure.
Figure 2 - Summary of Assets by Total Replacement Value ($2024 millions)
Buildings, $84.2 , 12%
Vehicles and Machinery,
$12.4 , 2%
Land Improvements,
$5.5 , 1%
Stormwater Infrastructure,
$4.6 , 1%
Equipment & Furnishings,
$4.7 , 1%
Sidewalks & Pathways,
$5.2 , 1%
Bridges & Culverts,
$93.8 , 14%
Roads, $456.9 , 68%
$667.4
Million
State of Local Infrastructure | 9
Replacement values are used to estimate the cost of replacing an asset when it reaches the
end of its engineered design life. For this reason, the replacement values represent an
important input into the lifecycle cost analysis. The total replacement cost of assets of
$667.4 million has been determined utilizing different methods that are appropriate for each
asset category and dependent on data available at the time of developing this AMP.
Table 2 - Methodology Used for Replacement Values
Asset Category
Methodology
Roads
Based on benchmark costs per kilometre in similar
municipalities
Bridges and Culverts
Based on benchmark costs per square metre of deck area
Buildings
Based on replacement values identified in the
Development Charges Background Study, and allocated to
individual building components. For Buildings that were
not included, a cost per unit of gross floor area, taken from
Altus 2024 Cost Guide, was applied.
Vehicles and
Machinery
Adjust acquisition costs to 2024 dollars based on average
NRBCPI (2% annual)
Land Improvements
Adjust acquisition costs to 2024 dollars based on average
NRBCPI (2% annual)
Stormwater
Infrastructure
Adjust acquisition costs to 2024 dollars based on average
NRBCPI (2% annual)
Equipment and
Furnishings
Adjust acquisition costs to 2024 dollars based on average
NRBCPI (2% annual)
Sidewalks and
Pathways
Based on benchmark costs per metre in similar
municipalities
B.
REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 3 provides a summary of the assets by replacement value shown by their remaining
useful life (years).2 About $17.1 million (8%) of the infrastructure has greater than 50 years
of remaining useful life. About $74.0 million (35%) has between 10 and 49 years of remaining
useful life while about $70.1 million (33%) has 0 to 9 years of remaining useful life.
The remaining $49.2 million (23%) is considered overdue and past its design life. This is
largely related to building components and bridges and culverts, which routinely outlive their
expected useful life as a result of the maintenance and renewal activities undertaken by the
2 The summary shows infrastructure totalling about $210.5 million of the total Township replacement value of $456.9
million as roads have been excluded from the summary. Roads are excluded as no acquisition date or useful life
information is available as the Township maintains the roads based on its condition and not on age.
State of Local Infrastructure | 10
Township. Although this infrastructure is considered past its design life, the infrastructure
continues to be maintained and is in good working order.
Figure 3 - Summary of Assets by Remaining Useful Life ($2024) - excluding Roads
Note: Roads are excluded as no acquisition date or useful life information is available as the Township maintains
the roads based on its condition and not on age.
C.
CONDITION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Consistent with the Canadian National Infrastructure Report Card, as well as other major
organization and institution reporting formats, a five-point rating scale was used to assign a
condition to all assets. This methodology provides a standard and easy to understand way of
reporting on the condition of assets. Table 3 summarizes the assumed parameters.
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
overdue assets are just under $50 million
assets with zero to nine years of remaining life are $70 million
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50+
Millions
Buildings
Vehicles and Machinery
Land Improvements
Stormwater Infrastructure
Equipment & Furnishings
Sidewalks & Pathways
Bridges & Culverts
State of Local Infrastructure | 11
Table 3 - Condition Assessment Parameters
Condition Rating
Definition
Very Good
Well maintained, good condition, new or recently rehabilitated
asset.
Good
Good condition, few elements exhibit existing deficiencies.
Fair
Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies. Asset requires
attention.
Poor
A large portion of the system exhibits significant deficiencies.
Asset mostly below standard and approaching end of service life.
Very Poor
Widespread signs of deterioration, some assets may be unusable.
Service is affected.
Assets were categorized in the 5-tier rating system on an asset-by-asset basis. Three
approaches have been utilized for the assets considered in this AMP. The approaches for
each of these methods is outlined.
1.
Engineered Conditions
Condition rating systems based on engineered and professional standards. These measures
can then be translated into a 5-tier rating system. The Township aims to continually update
the asset inventory to reflect changes in conditions or when assets are replaced.
Condition assessments for the roads are based on the engineered assessments
developed through the 2023 Road Needs Study (2023 RNS). The RNS rates the roads
utilizing a 100-point scale for surface condition. The condition of the roads has been
translated to the 5-point scale based on the scale in Table 4. The scale has been
adapted from the scale used in the RNS.
Table 4 - Road Surface Condition Parameters
Condition Rating
Surface Condition Range
Very Good
90 - 100
Good
70 - 90
Fair
60 - 70
Poor
50 - 60
Very Poor
Less than 50
State of Local Infrastructure | 12
Condition assessments for the culverts are based on the engineered assessments
developed through the 2023 OSIM report (Ontario Structure Inspection Manual). The
OSIM report rates the culverts utilizing a 100-point Bridge Condition Index scale (BCI).
The condition of the culverts has been translated to the 5-point scale based on the scale
in Table 5 below.
Table 5 - Bridges and Culverts Condition Parameters *
Condition Rating
BCI Range
Very Good
80 - 100
Good
60 - 80
Fair
40 - 60
Poor
20 - 40
Very Poor
Less than 20
* BCI Categorization has been maintained from the previous AMP
2.
Staff Consultation
For some assets where engineering conditions were not available, estimates were developed
in consultation with Township staff. This approach is important where there is low
confidence that age and useful life represents the condition of a particular asset. This
method has been used for a series of assets in this 2025 AMP:
Vehicles and Machinery - some vehicles and machinery are older based on their design
life; however, they continue to be well maintained and are in working condition. It has
been assumed that fire vehicles and machinery are in Fair condition in the instances
where their age would suggest they would be in Poor or Very Poor condition.
Buildings - condition for building structures and components have been assessed by
Township staff to ensure the reported condition is consistent with the real condition of
these assets. The Township continues to maintain its buildings to ensure they are
available for service. Generally, buildings are long-lived assets and can continue to be
used well past their design life with proper ongoing maintenance.
Sidewalks - condition was assessed by staff and provided in the asset listing provided
for purposes of this study.
3.
Age Based Approach
For some asset types where the Township was not able to provide a condition assessment
based on existing knowledge or inspection, the condition is estimated based on age and the
State of Local Infrastructure | 13
remaining useful life of the asset. It is the intention that the Township move towards a
condition assessment methodology using approach 1 and 2 wherever possible. The age-
based condition methodology is more appropriate for lower valued assets that have a shorter
useful life. Table 6 shows the methodology where the condition is assigned based on the
remaining useful life of the assets.
Table 6 - Age Based Condition Parameters
Condition Rating
Percentage of Remaining
Useful
Very Good
80% - 100%
Good
60% - 80%
Fair
40% - 60%
Poor
20% - 40%
Very Poor
Less than 20%
Summary of the Condition of Assets
Figure 4 summarizes the condition of Township assets which are determined to be in Good
condition on average. Overall, about $305.8 million (60%) of the assets are in Good to Very
Good condition while $141.7 million (28%) of the assets are Fair condition. The remaining
$61.0 million (12%) are in Poor to Very Poor condition.
Figure 4 - Summary of Asset Condition ($2024 - in millions)
Very Good,
$25.3 , 4%
Good, $357.9 ,
54%
Fair, $184.0 ,
27%
Poor, $74.8 ,
11%
Very Poor,
$25.4 , 4%
Overall
GOOD
Condition
State of Local Infrastructure | 14
Figure 5 shows the condition of assets delineated by each asset category. Figure 5 shows
the following:
The Township's largest component in the asset portfolio of roads, making up 68% of the
replacement value, is the main driver of the Township's overall asset condition. About
$216.8 million (47%) of the roads are in Good to Very Good condition as these assets
were assessed through the 2023 Road Needs Study. A smaller share of about $84.4
million (18%) of the roads are in Poor or Very Poor condition.
About $83.6 million (89%) of the bridges and culverts are in Good to Very Good condition
as these assets were assessed through the 2023 OSIM report. A small share of about
$4.3 million (5%) of the culverts are in Poor or Very Poor condition.
Buildings are generally in Good condition or better with about $66.9 million (79%) of the
building components failing in this category and only $1.3 million (2%) of the buildings
are in Poor or Very Poor condition.
Figure 5 - Summary of Asset Condition by Asset Category ($2024 - in millions)
Note: The percentages above the bars represent the shares of replacement value relative to the total replacement
value of Township assets at $667.4 million.
68.5%
14.1%
12.6%
1.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
roads 68.8 percent
bridges a
nd culverts 14.1 percent
buildings 12.6 percent
vehicles and
machinery 1.9 percent
land
improvements .8 percent
sidewalks
and pathways .8 percent
stormwater
infrastructure
equipment a
nd furnishings .7 percent
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Level of Service | 15
3.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Levels of service (LOS) describe the outputs or objectives the Township intends to deliver to
its residents, which includes measures from a customer, technical and community
perspective. LOS provides a description of a particular activity or asset metric where
performance may be measured to benchmark the current state and set targets to ensure
resident's needs are met.
Levels of service measure how well the Township is meeting business needs and this
information can be utilized as key drivers to inform future investment decisions. Having well-
defined service levels will allow the Township to be transparent with its stakeholders to find
the appropriate balance between affordability and service expectations.
A.
THE TOWNSHIP'S LEVEL OF SERVICE GOALS
The LOS Framework helps support and achieve key asset management goals:
Develop and continuously improve asset management related documentation to provide
evidence-based level of service linkages between the customer and technical levels with
integration directly into service-based activities as it relates to both the operational and
capital expenditures. This objective is achieved through development of the AMP
financial model, and the Township expects to continue to make improvements to its
available asset data over the longer-term.
Develop a clear relationship between the level of service and the costs associated to
meeting level of service objectives by integrating the AMP LOS framework into the
budget process. This integration is expected to be achieved over the longer-term
however, the financing strategy makes recommendations on the financial needs to meet
the proposed level of service which can be utilized to help inform the budget process.
Meet the requirements of O. Reg. 588/17 for 2025 to define the proposed level of
service, identify costs to meet the proposed level of service and identify any risks of not
meeting these targets.
B.
CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICE (CLOS)
Customer Levels of Service are specific parameters that describe the extent and quality of
services that the Township provides to residents from the resident's perspective. CLOS is
comprised of qualitative measures such as the description of assets or the related service
Level of Service | 16
provided. CLOS can be evaluated through an understanding of the wants and needs of
residents while understanding the assets the Township owns and operates. The CLOS are
documented as high-level qualitative statements that capture these characteristics. For the
purposes of meeting O. Reg. 588/17 requirements, the Community Levels of Service
(outlined in the regulation) are also included under the CLOS.
C.
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE (TLOS)
Technical Levels of Service are specific parameters that measure asset performance. TLOS
is comprised of quantitative measures such as asset age/condition or service performance.
Part of the TLOS is to consider both the individual asset capability and how the assets are
scheduled to be utilized as part of a system of service delivery. These measures are
developed through a review of the Township's asset data, engineering reports and in
consultation with staff.
The technical levels of service have been defined to meet the following criteria:
TLOS measures are relevant to the operation of Township services
TLOS are feasible to track and the data to inform the technical measures are readily
available or will be tracked for future iterations of the AMP
TLOS are developed recognizing the public as the main driver of service, they are
designed to track internal asset specific performance, but the resulting quality of service
will continue to be based on public input
TLOS measures are crucial for tracking levels of service as they provide quantifiable
measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. By systematically
monitoring these measures, the Township can assess whether service standards are being
met, identify areas for improvement, and allocate resources effectively. An iterative
consultation process with staff helped in developing an internal tracking tool to capture the
necessary data for calculating the current and proposed levels of service and monitoring the
trends moving forward.
D.
OVERVIEW OF THE TOWNSHIP'S LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Township's 2019 Asset Management Plan was prepared for all Township infrastructure
assets under the "current level of service" framework as required by O. Reg. 588/17. The
Township defined its current levels of service in accordance with qualitative and technical
metrics that have been established through the regulation and in consultation with staff. In
Level of Service | 17
general, the measures were derived from data collected in 2019 and the process ensured
that the current level of service accurately reflected the performance and condition of
infrastructure assets given the available data of the day.
Current Level of Service
For the purposes of this 2024 Asset Management Plan, the customer and technical level of
service reporting measures remain generally consistent with those established through the
2019 process, however, the "current" baseline data has been updated with information that
has been made available since 2019. Furthermore, improvements have been made to
streamline the measures to focus in areas that are relevant and useful for service level
monitoring and meeting the regulatory reporting requirements.
Proposed Level of Service
O. Reg 588/17 requires municipalities to define its proposed levels of service by July 1st,
2025. These proposed levels of service (PLOS) are intended to provide the Township with a
measurable future target state for the services it provides. The proposed level of service
focuses on asset specific measures that capture the performance of infrastructure which
forms part of the services provided by the Township. Best efforts have been made to
maintain the focus of the proposed level of service to infrastructure assets that support the
service rather than the overall services provided by any specific service area. However, it is
noted that in general the proposed level of service outlined in this AMP are required to
continue to provide the overall level of service objectives of the Township.
For every level of service that the Township measures, a corresponding set of PLOS
measures have been developed. Consultation with Township staff was conducted to develop
the proposed levels of service based on the needs of the community, existing data and
assessing their appropriateness for the Township. Overall, the proposed levels of service
outlined in this report have been carefully evaluated based on the following criteria:
Options & Associated Risk - Staff assess various options for the proposed levels of
service and analyze the risks associated with each option to the long-term sustainability
of the Township. This assessment considers factors such as service quality, operational
efficiency, and financial sustainability.
Differences from Current Levels of Service - The analysis looks at a comparison of the
proposed levels of service with the current levels to identify areas where adjustments or
enhancements are necessary. While some proposed levels of service may mirror the
current levels outlined in this AMP, adjustments or enhancements to the current
procedures may still be necessary to ensure alignment with longer-term goals.
Level of Service | 18
Achievability - The feasibility of achieving the proposed levels of service considering
factors such as available resources, technological capabilities, and operational
constraints have been evaluated. Efforts have been made to ensure that the proposed
targets are realistic and attainable within the Township's operational capacity.
Notwithstanding the Township's intended ability to achieve the targets, it is expected
that the proposed levels of service continue to be reviewed and monitored - further
adjustments may be warranted moving forward.
Affordability - The affordability of the proposed levels of service is conducted in
conjunction with the budget process, ensuring alignment with the financial resources
and fiscal capacity available. This process inherently involves approval by Council and
the organization, with affordability considerations integrated into budgetary decisions.
Summary of the Level of Service
Table 7 summarizes the customer levels of service while Table 8 shows the technical levels
of service. Table 8 shows:
Road lane-km as a proportion of the total land area in the Township. The proposed level
of service is to maintain the current level of service as the Township does not expect to
undertake major works that would result in the reclassification of any roads to anther
category.
Paved roads in the Township are on average in Good condition with an average PCI of
71. Unpaved roads in the Township are, on average, in slightly worse condition than the
paved roads in the Township, with a PCI of 68. This information is based on the
Township's 2023 Road Needs Study (RNS) with some updates to conditions captured
through consultation with staff. Given the overall "Good" condition of the road network,
the extensive workplan laid out in this RNS, and the Township's funding constraints, the
proposed level of service is to maintain the current PCI of roads, which is consistent with
the Township's existing practices. The cost implications of achieving this target are
included in the financing strategy section of this report.
Township bridges are on average in Good condition (68 BCI) with one structure (or 2%)
currently having loading or dimensional restrictions. Structural culverts are also in Good
condition, despite a slightly lower BCI of 64. Going forward, the Township aims to
maintain the current structure's loading restriction for specific season's of the year. Staff
have identified a goal of increasing the BCI for both bridges and culverts to 75. Given the
long useful life of bridges and culverts, staff have identified that this would be achieved
Level of Service | 19
if the is maintained for culverts based on the recommendations of the OSIM reports
completed every two years.
For Township buildings, the current level of service is based on an average condition of
Good. As repairs and maintenance are needed on buildings, the Township expects to be
able to respond to these needs. Therefore, the proposed level of service is to maintain
buildings in their current condition by department. To achieve this, an additional need
beyond the current investment has been identified in the financing strategy section of
this report.
The level of service for the condition of vehicles has been delineated by function or
department. While these condition-based metrics are set to be maintained at their
current performance, there are some slight differences in the current performance
between these classifications. An additional need beyond the current investment for
vehicles is outlined in the financing strategy section of this report.
The proposed levels of service for other asset categories, such as sidewalks, parks and
recreation, and library are not forecast to require additional contributions beyond their
current investment. It is assumed that these targets can be achieved with current
investment from tax levy, and development charges revenue where they relate to
growth-assets.
Level of Service | 20
Table 7 - Customer Levels of Service
Asset
Category
Customer LOS
Community Level of Service
Roads
Maintain safe and reliable roads
and to meet reporting
requirements of (O. Reg.
588/17)
Description, which may include maps, of
the road network in the municipality and its
level of connectivity.
The Township maintains a complete listing of the road
network in Appendix A of the 2023 Roads Needs Study
developed by Chisholm, Fleming and Associates.
Description or images that illustrate the
different levels of road class pavement
condition.
The Township maintains surface condition ratings of the
road system condition by roads segments on a scale from
0-10. The asset inventory found in Appendix A of the
2023 Roads Needs Study developed by Chisholm,
Fleming and Associates also includes the surface
condition rating for each road segment.
Bridges and
Culverts
Maintain safe and reliable
culverts and to meet reporting
requirements of (O. Reg.
588/17)
Description of the traffic that is supported
by municipal bridges (e.g., heavy transport
vehicles, motor vehicles, emergency
vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists).
Bridges and culverts support all local traffic. Information
about Load Restrictions can be found in the TLOS (Table
8).
Description or images of the condition of
culverts and how this would affect use of
the culverts.
Details on engineered culvert conditions including
images and technical specifications are included in the
2023 OSIM Structure Inspections Summary Report by
Chisholm, Fleming and Associates.
Buildings
Maintain safe and functional
buildings with sufficient
capacity for residents and staff.
The Township owns and operates 28 buildings which includes various fire halls, arenas, community
centres, garages, town halls, public works facilities, public washrooms, an animal shelter, and a library.
Level of Service | 21
Asset
Category
Customer LOS
Community Level of Service
Vehicles and
Machinery
Maintain safe and functional
motor vehicles and machinery
available to respond to service
needs when required.
The Township owns and maintains 140 different vehicles and pieces of machinery. The majority of the
replacement value for these assets sits under Public Works.
Equipment
and
Furnishings
Maintain safe and functional
machine equipment that is
reliable and available for use
when needed.
The Township maintains and operates many pieces of machinery and equipment that are critical to the
operations of their arenas, parks, roads, library, fire, administration, and other functions,
Sidewalks
and Pathways
Maintain a safe and functional
sidewalk and active
transportation network that is
available for use by residents.
Description, which may include maps, of
the sidewalk network in the municipality
and its level of connectivity.
The Township maintains a complete listing of the
sidewalk and pathway network, which can be found on
pages 12 to 14 of the 2023 Sidewalk Inventory and Plan.
Level of Service | 22
Table 8 - Technical Levels of Service
Asset Category
Technical Level of Service
Source
Current LOS
Proposed LOS
Roads
Number of lane-kilometres of each of arterial roads,
collector roads and local roads as a proportion of square
kilometres of land area of the municipality (O. Reg.
588/17)
2023 RNS
Arterial: 0%
Collector: 87%
Local: 86%
Maintain CLOS
For paved roads in the municipality, the average
pavement condition index value (O. Reg. 588/17)
2023 RNS
71 out of 100
Maintain CLOS
For unpaved roads in the municipality, the average
surface condition (O. Reg. 588/17)
2023 RNS
68 out of 100
Maintain CLOS
Ratio of Paved vs. Unpaved Roads
2023 RNS
1.47
Maintain CLOS
Bridges and
Culverts
Percentage of bridges in the municipality with loading or
dimensional restrictions (O. Reg. 588/17)
2023 OSIM
2% (1 of 45)
Maintain CLOS
For bridges in the municipality, the average bridge
condition index value (O. Reg. 588/17)
2023 OSIM
68 out of 100
75 out of 100
For structural culverts in the municipality, the average
bridge condition index value (O. Reg. 588/17)
2023 OSIM
64 out of 100
75 out of 100
Stormwater
Infrastructure
Percentage of properties in municipality resilient to a
100-year storm (O. Reg. 588/17)
AMP Model
Estimated at 90%
(Urban Area)
95% (Urban Area)
Percentage of the municipal stormwater management
system resilient to a 5-year storm (O. Reg. 588/17)
AMP Model
100% (Urban Area)
100% (Urban Area)
Sidewalks
Total Meters of Sidewalk Constructed per Annum
2023 Sidewalk
Inventory and Plan
425 M
500 M
Buildings
Asset Replacements that result in improved
environmental efficiencies (where feasible)
Township Staff
100%
Maintain CLOS
Level of Service | 23
Asset Category
Technical Level of Service
Source
Current LOS
Proposed LOS
Energy efficient Lighting Retrofits (LED Conversions)
Township Staff
14%
100%
Average Facility Condition
Index by Department:
Library
AMP Model
Good
Good
Recreation
Good
Good
Public Works
Good
Good
Health Services
Good
Good
Animal Services
Very Good
Very Good
Fire
Good
Good
Fire
Average Response Time
Township Staff
7 Minutes, 17 Seconds
Maintain CLOS
Percentage of Regulated Inspection Completed
Township Staff
100%
Maintain CLOS
Vehicles
Average weighted condition
assessment
Public Works
AMP Model
Fair
Fair
Canine/By-Law
Fair
Fair
Building Services
Fair
Fair
Recreation and Culture
Fair
Fair
Parks
Fair
Fair
Fire
Good
Good
Library
Number of Book Lockers
Township Staff
0
2
Average Wait Time for Requested Material
Township Staff
1 Week
1 Week
Number of Hotspots Available for Use
Township Staff
9
Maintain CLOS
Parks and
Recreation
Grass Cutting Frequency in Parks
Township Staff
Weekly
Weekly
% of Play Structures that are AODA Compliant
Township Staff
15%
50%
Asset Management Strategy | 24
4.
ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This section sets out an action plan that will assist the Township in maintaining assets to
meet proposed level of service objectives. The asset management strategy includes current
practices and potential future practices related to non-infrastructure solutions, maintenance
activities, renewal/rehabilitation, disposal, and expansion activities. It outlines the lifecycle
costs needed to meet proposed levels of service over the next 10-years for each lifecycle
activity and the methodology used to develop the costs. The final component of this section
includes a risk analysis, which outlines a summary of assets that can be prioritized for
repair/replacement if needed.
A.
OVERVIEW OF FULL LIFECYCLE COST MODEL
As part of the Asset Management Plan, the Township, along with Hemson, have identified
the total full life cycle costs that corresponds to the requirements of the regulation. This
would entail a cost estimation throughout the asset's life including planning, design,
construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, renewal (and disposal). In addition, the
analysis also takes into consideration the inclusion of expansion related infrastructure into
the lifecycle management strategy. This approach ensures that the additional lifecycle costs
associated with newly constructed/acquired assets are accounted for in the long-term
forecast, if any.
A "lifecycle management approach" in asset management planning not only includes
estimating future lifecycle costs based on a set of lifecycle activities. These lifecycle
activities can be segmented into six (6) categories: non-infrastructure solutions,
operations/maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement, disposal, and expansion
activities. Table 9 provides a description of each lifecycle category. The Township
undertakes all the activities described in Table 9, however, the Township's budget generally
accounts for these expenditures in different categories.
Table 9 - Overview of the Full Life Cycle Activities
Category
Description
Non-
Infrastructure
Solutions
Actions or policies that can lower costs or extend asset life (e.g., better integrated
infrastructure planning and land use planning, demand management, insurance,
process optimization, etc.). Associated to work needed to manage assets but not
necessarily direct work on those assets.
Asset Management Strategy | 25
Category
Description
Maintenance
Activities
Servicing assets on a regular basis to fully realize the original service potential.
Maintenance will not extend the life of an asset or add to its value. Not
performing regular maintenance may reduce an asset's useful life.
Renewal/
Rehabilitation
Activities
Mostly associated to significant repairs designed to extend the useful life of an
asset. These types of activities are typically done at key points in the lifecycle of
an asset to ensure the asset reaches it designed useful life.
Replacement
Activities
Activities that are expected to occur once an asset has reached the end of its
useful life and renewal/ rehabilitation is no longer an option.
Disposal
Activities
The activities associated with disposing of an asset once it has reached the end
of its useful life or is otherwise no longer needed.
Expansion
Activities
Planned activities required to extend or expand municipal services to
accommodate the demands of growth.
As the Township's infrastructure assets are long-lived, the starting point for the lifecycle
costs analysis covers a 40-year planning period. However, consistent with O. Reg. 588/17,
the planning period focuses on the first 10-years to meet proposed levels of service. In this
period, various methodologies have been utilized to determine the long-term lifecycle costs
to maintain, repair and replace assets under an "ideal" investment scenario. This means that
the full recommendations of works from the engineered reports (2023 OSIM and 2023 Roads
Needs Study) were implemented into the cost model, and all other assets are planned for
replacement at the end of their useful life. No adjustments were made in consideration for
existing municipal asset practices or relationship to the target level of service set. These
costs are referred to as the "benchmark" lifecycle costs.
Table 11 outlines the methodologies and costs from 2024-2035 to meet this ideal scenario.
Over the planning period, the total costs needed to undertake the lifecycle activities is
estimated at $212.9 million (an average of about $19.4 million per year).
Of the total lifecycle costs, most costs can be attributed to saving for the renewal,
rehabilitation or replacement of infrastructure, making up about 87% of the total lifecycle
costs. The average annual need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation or replacement of
infrastructure is about $16.8 million per year (see Table 10). The difference between the
total need, and the need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation or replacement is an average
of $2.6 million per year, which represents the average annual operating, maintenance, and
non-infrastructure solution costs.
Asset Management Strategy | 26
Table 10 - Average Annual Renewal/Rehabilitation/Replacement Need by Asset Category
Asset Category *
Benchmark Average
Annual Requirement
PLOS Average
Annual
Requirement
Roads
$11.4 million
$3.6 million
Bridges
$0.7 million
$0.7 million
Vehicles
$1.0 million
$1.2 million
Buildings
$2.4 million
$1.2 million
Other Assets
$1.2 million
$0.4 million
Total *
$16.8 million
$6.4 million
* Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
To determine the total lifecycle costs to meet proposed levels of service over the 2024-2034
period, consultations with Township staff were undertaken to determine the best approach.
Table 11 outlines the lifecycle costs needed to meet the proposed level of service. Over the
2024-2034 period, a total lifecycle need of about $98.5 million is identified (an average of
about $9.0 million per year). The average annual need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation
or replacement of infrastructure is about $6.4 million per year (see Table 10).
Asset Management Strategy | 27
Table 11 - Overview of the Full Life Cycle Activities and AMP Approach
Category
Lifecycle Cost Approach to Meet PLOS
2024-2034
Cumulative
Benchmark
Lifecycle Costs
2024-2034
Cumulative
Lifecycle Costs
to Meet PLOS
Non-Infrastructure
Solutions
-
Provision of $50,000 per year to undertake activities to manage assets.
$550,000
$550,000
Operations and
Maintenance
Activities
-
Based on a review of recent budgets by service area. Includes costs that can be reasonably attributed
to asset specific maintenance - estimated at $2.5 million per annum (based on 2024 budget)
-
In most instances, does not include general operating costs associated to staffing, with the exception
of staff that carry out specific lifecycle activities
$27.5 million
$27.5 million
Replacement and
Rehabilitation
Activities
-
Benchmark lifecycle costs were determined using risk-based replacement schedule for the following
asset categories: Buildings, Vehicles and Machinery, Land Improvements, Stormwater Infrastructure,
Equipment and Furnishings, and Sidewalks and Pathways.
-
Adjustments made to determine the lifecycle needs to meet PLOS are listed below:
o
For buildings, a 100% useful life extension has been applied to recognize the extension of
asset life due to proactive rehabilitation activities undertaken by the Township, rather than
full replacement.
o
The useful life of certain front-line Fire Vehicles has been extended from 15 to 20 years,
slightly reducing the annual provision for replacement.
o
Beyond the existing capital investment in stormwater infrastructure, an additional 50% of the
calculated lifecycle need has been identified.
o
Existing investment in land improvements, equipment and furnishings, sidewalks,
$51.7 million
$30.8 million
Asset Management Strategy | 28
Category
Lifecycle Cost Approach to Meet PLOS
2024-2034
Cumulative
Benchmark
Lifecycle Costs
2024-2034
Cumulative
Lifecycle Costs
to Meet PLOS
Renewal Activities
(Roads, Bridges,
and Culverts)
-
Benchmark renewal expenditures for bridges were calculated based on an annualized contribution
calculated based on the costs identified in the 2023 Structure Inspection Summary Report (OSIM) for
the 2023-2032 period. Through discussion with staff, the need for the full recommended OSIM
program was identified to achieve the PLOS.
o
The total 10-year need of $8.2 million resulted in an annual need of approximately $820,000
per year, which was applied across the full 2024-2034 planning period.
-
Benchmark renewal expenditures for roads were calculated based on those costs identified in the
2023 Road Needs Study (RNS), which includes annual preservation programs. The improvement costs
and timelines laid out in this study are listed below:
o
$36.4 million has been identified as an immediate need, $10.9 million has been identified over
the 2024-2028 period, and $74.3 million has been identified over the 2029-2033 period. An
additional $3.4 million has been assumed to be required for roads that were deemed
"Adequate" at the time of the 2023 RNS.
-
Adjustments made to determine the lifecycle needs to meet PLOS are listed below:
o
Only the Roads identified as an immediate need were planned to be undertaken over the
2024-2034 period. Staff expect the condition of roads to exceed the PLOS target set, if all
activities in the RNS are undertaken.
$133.2 million
$39.6 million
Disposal
Activities
-
No disposal activities have been explicitly identified, but costs for disposal have been assumed to be
included in renewal/rehabilitation/replacement activities
$ -
$ -
Expansion
Activities
-
The approximate operations and maintenance costs of expansion assets have been accounted for in
the lifecycle costs for future years.
$33,000
$33,000
Cumulative Total
$212.9 million
$98.5 million
Average per Year (Total)
$19.4 million
$9.0 million
Average per Year (for Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Activities)
$16.8 million
$6.4 million
Note: All costs expressed in constant 2024 dollars.
Asset Management Strategy | 29
B.
RISK ANALYSIS
It is important to assess the risk associated with each asset and the likelihood of asset
failure. Asset failure can occur as the asset reaches its limits and can affect the level of
service. In addition, certain assets have a greater consequence of failure than others. A risk
matrix can help prioritize which assets should be repaired/replaced, even those which the
Township has already identified to be in Poor or Very Poor condition. The evaluation rating is
then linked to the condition assessment parameter discussed in Section 2. The formula to
determine asset risk is as follows:
(Likelihood of Failure) X (Consequence of Failure) = (Risk Rating)
Each of the components of the Risk Rating methodology is defined as follows:
Likelihood of Failure: is directly linked to the condition of an asset. For example, an asset in
Very Poor condition would have a high probability of asset failure in the short-term. This
type of asset would be assumed to have deteriorated significantly or may be near the end of
its useful life. Conversely, it would be considered rare for an asset to fail in the short-term if
it is in Good or Very Good condition. Table 12 outlines the definition of likelihood of failure
used for the Township's assets.
Table 12 - Probability of Failure
Condition
Probability of
Failure
Description
Very Good
1
Rare
Good
2
Unlikely
Fair
3
Possible
Poor
4
Likely
Very Poor
5
Almost Certain
Note: Definitions are based on the MFOA Asset Management Framework.
Consequence of Failure: refers to the impact on the Township if an asset were to fail to
provide the desired level of service. The consequence of failure has been determined
separately for each asset category, as the impact to the Township differs greatly by asset
type. For example, if a fire emergency vehicle was not available for service, the potential
impact could be more severe compared to a vehicle used for administrative purposes. For the
purposes of this analysis, assets were assigned a consequence of failure based on a review of
the assets and the service area they are attributed to. Table 13 below outlines the definition of
consequence of failure used for the Township's assets. The consequence of failure, rated on a
1-5 scale, was weighted relative to each category in Table 13 depending on how impactful the
consequence may be to the Township.
Asset Management Strategy | 30
Table 13 - Consequence of Failure
Consequence
of Failure
Description
1 - Insignificant
No impact to operations.
2 - Minor
Minor impact to operations, all major operations can continue to function.
3 - Moderate
Moderate impact to operations some critical operations may need to stop
functioning temporarily.
4 - Major
Major operations seize and some damage control necessary.
5 - Significant
All operations seize to function and major damage control is necessary.
Risk Rating: categorizes assets based on the level of risk to the Township. The risk rating
provides a guide to prioritize assets by determining which assets require attention first and
which capital works can be deferred. Higher risk assets should be prioritized for attention in
the short term by determining which of the lifecycle actions is required to be performed on
the asset. Table 14 below provides a summary of the risk matrix.
Table 14 - Risk Matrix
Evaluation Rating
Consequence of failure
Color Code
1
2
3
4
5
Likelihood of
Failure
1
1
2
3
4
5
Very Low Risk
2
2
4
6
8
10
Low Risk
3
3
6
9
12
15
Moderate Risk
4
4
8
12
16
20
High Risk
5
5
10
15
20
25
Very High Risk
Table 15 presents the findings of the risk analysis and illustrates the Township's asset risk
rating. Most of the Township's assets continue to have relatively low risk, an indication of
good maintenance practices overall.
The risk of each asset and asset category has been determined with reference to the parameters
outlined in Table 14. It is important to note, that the Township will need to continue regular
maintenance activities and capital works to ensure that the proposed level of service can be met,
or otherwise additional risk can be expected. Please note roads and culverts have been excluded
from the risk analysis in Table 15 as the infrastructure needs and timing of repair and
replacement has been informed based on detailed engineered assessments outlined through the
2023 Road Needs Study and 2023 OSIM reports, respectively.
Evaluation Rating
Color Code
1
2
3
4
5
Likelihood of
Failure
1
1
2
3
4
5
Very Low Risk
2
2
4
6
8
10
Low Risk
3
3
6
9
12
15
Moderate Risk
4
4
8
12
16
20
High Risk
Asset Management Strategy | 31
Table 15 - Summary Risk Assessment
Asset Type
Replacement Cost
2024
Risk
(Weighted Average)
Buildings
$84.2 M
Low
Vehicles and Machinery
$12.4 M
Low
Land Improvements
$5.5 M
Low
Equipment and Furnishings
$4.7 M
Moderate
Stormwater Infrastructure
$4.6 M
Low
Total
$508.5 M
Low
Note: Roads, Bridges, and Culverts are excluded from the risk analysis as risk factors and prioritization have been
addressed through the 2023 Road Needs Study 2023 OSIM Reports.
Further to Table 15, the 2024 AMP includes an estimate of the timing for replacement of all
assets. Using the risk assessment, a schedule for the replacement of assets has been
developed on an asset-by-asset basis. Assets with a higher risk rating are prioritized earlier
in the schedule to reflect a higher priority, while assets with lower risk ratings are moved
further out into the future forecast to reflect a more "smoothed" expenditure outlook. The
timing is based on a percentage of the useful life of the asset. Table 16 below provides a
summary of the risk thresholds used to calculate timing of replacement needs. Section 5
discusses the results of the lifecycle cost analysis and financing strategy.
Table 16 - Risk Threshold for Asset Life Extension
Percentage of Useful Life Added
Color Code
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Very Low Risk
80%
65%
50%
30%
16%
Low Risk
60%
50%
35%
25%
10%
Moderate Risk
40%
30%
25%
15%
2%
High Risk
20%
16%
10%
2%
0%
Very High Risk
C.
MANAGING RISK
It is important to recognize the risk associated with the Township's ability to deliver the plan
while recognizing that any deviation may affect the overall ability to deliver service. Table 17
below provides a summary of the identified risks, potential impacts and mitigating actions
associated with the asset management program. Table 17 is intended to provide the
Township with a framework that can be continually updated to track potential asset related
risks and document mitigation actions so that they can be implemented into the Township's
asset management practices.
Asset Management Strategy | 32
Table 17 -Risk Associated to the Plan
Risk Associated to the Plan
Identified Risk
Potential Impact
Mitigating Action
Failed Infrastructure
Delivery of service
Asset and equipment damage
Repair and rehabilitate as
necessary
Increase investment
Inadequate Funding
Delivery of service
Increased risk of failure
Shorten asset life
Defer funding to future
generations
Reductions of service by
reviewing the current level of
service
Find additional revenue sources
Regulatory
Requirements
Non-compliance
Mandatory investments
Increased costs
Find additional revenue sources
Lobby actions
Plan is not followed or
not undertaking
required lifecycle
activities
Shorten asset life
Inefficient investments
Prioritization process failure
Failure to deliver service
Monitor and review levels of
service
Implement process to implement
AMP
Investigate alternative lifecycle
management options
D.
FUTURE DEMAND
The 2024 Plan reflects the assets that the Township currently owns and operates. According
to Statistics Canada census, over 5 years (2016-2021) the Township's population has
increased by 925 people from about 11,642 to 12,567 people in 2021, a 7.9% increase (or
about 1.5% per year). This would represent a steady rate of growth since 2016.
Moving forward. by 2034, the Township's population is expected to increase to about 15,300
people with occupied households increasing to 5,835 over the same period. The increase
over the ten-year period from 2025-2034 is approximately 2,140 persons and 820
households. Lastly, Place of Work employment is projected to grow by about 525 employees
over the period reaching 3,750 by 20343.
3 Employment figures referenced are from the DC Study which utilize place of work employment values. Place of work
employment considers where people work irrespective of their place of residence. The work at home employment is
excluded from these figures.
Asset Management Strategy | 33
The projections outlined are consistent with those outlined in the Township's most recent
Development Charges Background Study (July 10, 2024) which are rooted in the targets
prepared for the Region of Durham's 2022 Area Municipal Growth Allocations and Land
Needs by 2051.
E.
CLIMATE CHANGE INTEGRATION
The management of a municipal assets plays a fundamental role in the delivery of services,
which depends on the infrastructure available to deliver the service. Corporate asset
management in municipalities largely relates to the management of existing assets to keep
them in a state of good repair while planning for future repair and/or replacement of their
assets across all service areas. Impacts of climate change are already being experienced
around the world, including Canada. It is important for municipalities to begin considering
and planning for future climates to ensure the delivery of services, especially as it pertains to
the maintenance of key municipal infrastructure. As per Ontario Regulation 588/17 s3(5),
municipalities must include a commitment in their asset management planning to address
the vulnerabilities of climate change with respect to operations, levels of service and
lifecycle management. There must also be consideration for anticipated costs, mitigation
and adaptation approaches and disaster planning to meet all regulatory requirements in
Ontario municipal asset management. In response to the regulatory requirements, the
Township adopted its first Strategic Asset Management Policy in 2019 and committed to
integrating climate change as part of its asset management planning.
Expected climate change impacts include hotter, drier summers, warmer winters with
increased precipitation, increased frequency and intensity of storms and increased intensity
of extreme winds. These changes in climate will likely lead to increased risks associated
with flooding, heatwaves, risk of infrastructure damage, health and safety of residents, the
alteration or loss of habitats, etc.
Many of these risks are associated with municipal assets and may impact the levels of
service. Climate change mitigation and adaptation planning is an important step for
municipalities to take to begin managing risks associated with climate change. Therefore,
the Township is taking steps towards the integration of climate change considerations into
their asset management planning framework moving forward.
The table below considers municipal owned and operated assets, although, regional critical
infrastructure related to roads or public health may also be impacted by the noted hazards.
Table 18 provides a risk summary at this time for information purposes to help further propel
climate change integration with asset management, although, recognizing the full utilization
Asset Management Strategy | 34
would still need to be applied and understood at the staff level. In asset management terms,
this table shows the big picture effects that climate change hazards may have on the level of
service for various service areas. The specific climate change impacts on levels of service
could vary considerably and will need to be monitored over a longer time period.
Through further understanding of the anticipated extent of climate change events, climate
change adaptation projects at the Township will provide additional parameters as to the
likelihood and severity of events. At its most simplistic form, the table below provides a
range from a "rare" occurrence to "almost certain." A rare occurrence could be correlated to
falling into the tenth percentile of probability, with an almost certain occurrence falling into
the ninetieth percentile of probability.
Table 18 - Framework for Climate Change Integration with Risk
Hazards/Risks
Likelihood
Consequence
Asset Category
Possible Service Impacts
Freezing Rain / Ice
Storm
Rare to almost
certain
Roads
Bridges and Culverts
Buildings
Stormwater
Reduced road and culvert
conditions, potential for closures
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
Extreme
Temperatures -
Cold Wave
Rare to almost
certain
Roads
Bridges and Culverts
Buildings
Stormwater
Land Improvements
Closures of outdoor amenities
due to extreme weather
conditions
Increased strain on indoor
heating systems leading to
reduced service life and
functionality of components and
systems
Tornado
Rare to almost
certain
All Services
Potential damage to various
municipal assets due to high
winds
Intense Rain
Rare to almost
certain
Roads
Bridges and Culverts
Buildings
Flooding of bridges and
roadways leading to closures
Disruptions to service due to
flooding of roads, leading to
decreased levels of service
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
Asset Management Strategy | 35
Hazards/Risks
Likelihood
Consequence
Asset Category
Possible Service Impacts
Flood - Urban
Rare to almost
certain
Roads
Bridges and Culverts
Buildings
Land Improvements
Flooding of culverts and
roadways leading to closures
Disruptions to service due to
flooding of roads, leading to
decreased levels of service
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
Flooding of parks leading to
closures and reduced levels of
service
Extreme
Temperatures -
Heat Wave
Rare to almost
certain
Buildings
Land Improvements
Potential closure/reduce used of
outdoor amenities due to high
temperatures (reduced levels of
service).
Lost habitats leading to reduced
environmental diversity.
Increased strain on indoor
cooling systems leading to
reduced service life and
functionality of components and
systems
Windstorm
Rare to almost
certain
Buildings
Land Improvements
Closure of outdoor assets due to
potential hazards for residents
Increased strain on facility
assets leading to potential
damages and reduced service
life and functionality of
components and systems
Source: https://www.assetmanagementbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Climate-Change-and-
Asset-Management.pdf
Financing Strategy | 36
5.
FINANCING STRATEGY
The Township has continually undertaken both operating and capital expenditures
necessary for to maintain tax funded services, however, the investments made fall short of
the required need to meet the proposed levels of services. The Township will need to
monitor funding levels over the next few years in relationship to the levels of service. This
section of the Plan is intended to help the Township build on the existing asset management
practices already in place. The financing strategies presented provide the Township with
feasible options to increase capital funding in a sustainable manner to meet proposed levels
of service. It is noted that all values are presented in constant 2024 dollars.
A.
ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE REVENUES
The municipal revenue sources available to address the identified full lifecycle cost
requirements outlined in Section 4 are limited. Generally, the type of capital project aligns to
its funding source. In this regard, growth-related projects receive most of their funding
through development charges in communities that impose DCs; replacement projects are
predominantly funded through tax-based contributions for tax supported assets and water
and wastewater rates for rate-based services.
When assets require rehabilitation or are due for replacement, the source of funds are
essentially limited to reserves or contributions from the operating budget regardless of how
the initial first round capital asset was funded. The table below provides a summary of the
revenues assumed in this analysis for tax supported assets.
Table 19 - Financing Strategy Key Assumptions for Tax Supported Assets
Category
Assumptions
Cumulative 10-
Year Revenue at
Current Levels
Operations and
Maintenance
from Taxation
The Township prioritizes operating costs
associated to providing services and it has been
assumed that revenue from taxation will fully
fund operating needs as they arise.
Tax funding for ongoing operations and
maintenance costs of expansion assets.
$27.5 million
Capital from
Taxation
Existing 2024 tax supported capital funding of
about $2.6 million is assumed to be the starting
point and base case for increasing annual
$47.8 million
Financing Strategy | 37
(including
reserve
contributions)
capital contributions. This includes the capital
contributions to reserves net of transfers from
reserves or capital related grant funding.
Canada
Community
Building Fund
(CCBF)
Gas tax funding for 2024 of approximately
$395,000. Confirmed CCBF funding has been
included. The confirmed amount for 2028 has
been assumed to continue through to 2034.
$4.6 million
Other Grants
Upper-level government grants of approximately
$10.1 are assumed for the next 5-years only.
This includes OCIF and a $1.9 million confirmed
grant for the Sunderland Arena.
$10.1 million
Existing
Reserves
Existing asset management related reserve
funds of $8.5 million have been accounted for
and are applied against the lifecycle cost
expenditures over a 10-year period for the
purposes of the analysis.
The reserves included for in the analysis only
captures funds available for capital repair and
replacement.
Excludes obligatory DC reserve funds
$7.9 million
Total
$98.5 million
B.
BENCHMARK INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING GAP
To implement sustainable asset management practices the Township needs to understand
the current "benchmark infrastructure funding gap" that would arise should the required full
lifecycle costs related to capital be delayed. The funding gap shown in Figure 6 represents
the difference between the benchmark lifecycle costs and the funding available for tax
supported assets over the 10-year period from 2025 to 2034. The benchmark funding gap
represents a measure of the "ideal" spending that would need to be undertaken if all assets
were repaired or replaced as outlined in the engineered reports or on their design life
schedule as shown in Section 4 versus the case if funding levels were maintained at current
levels (see Table 19). Figure 6 indicates that existing funding levels are insufficient to cover
projected costs over the 2024-2034 planning period, as a result, a notional gap of $133.4
million exists over the same period.
Financing Strategy | 38
Figure 6 - 10-Year Need vs Funding (Benchmark Funding Gap for Tax Supported Assets)
If the Township were to implement a funding strategy to eliminate the benchmark funding
gap, the Township would be required to increase capital contributions on an annual basis by
an average of about $2.4 million from 2025-2034 (plus annual inflation). For 2025, the
increase would be in addition to the funding sources already identified in Table 19. The
yearly revenue requirement is equivalent to about 23% of the Township's 2024 tax levy
revenues of about $10.6 million. A detailed table of this strategy can be found in Appendix A.
It is unrealistic to expect the Township to address the total benchmark funding gap in the
short-term. Eliminating the gap by 2034 is an aggressive objective - a few reasons include:
The required capital contributions (to eliminate the gap) will necessitate an increase to
property taxes beyond a reasonable measure;
The Township would need to decrease or limit funding of other key services or initiatives
in lieu for capital repair and replacement activity;
Importantly, closing the benchmark funding gap would ultimately result in a service level
increase beyond those targeted in this report over the long-term;
Assets can remain in use past their engineered design life and can perform to meet the
Township's level of service under these circumstances. Therefore, in such instances, the
asset does not necessarily need to be replaced by virtue of exceeding their design life;
and
10-Year Total Need
$212.9 M
10-Year Current
Funding $79.5 M
10-Year Funding
Gap $133.4M
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Millions
Financing Strategy | 39
Prudent asset management strategies, which are currently employed by the Township
can often extend the requirement of major repair or replacement of capital assets and
may prolong the life of the asset.
Therefore, a long-term lifecycle cost and funding strategy that reflects the proposed level of
service shown in Section 4 would need to be developed.
C.
PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
GAP
The 2025 AMP combines the analysis on proposed levels of service developed in Section 3
with the corresponding lifecycle costs in Section 4 to develop a 10-year adjusted funding gap
analysis that considers a more manageable set of costs to meet proposed levels of service
(PLOS funding gap). The funding gap shown in Figure 7 represents the difference between
the lifecycle costs needed to meet proposed levels of service and the funding available for
tax supported assets over the planning period from 2024 to 2034.
The PLOS funding gap represents a measure of the spending that would need to be
undertaken to meet proposed levels of service as shown in Section 4 versus the case if
funding levels were maintained at current levels (see Table 18). Figure 7 still indicates that
existing funding levels are insufficient to cover projected costs over the planning period, as a
result, a funding gap of $19.5 million exists over the same period. Notably, the funding gap
under the proposed level of service target is significantly reduced from the benchmark gap of
$133.4 million over the planning period.
In order to fund this $19.5 million infrastructure gap over the 2024-2034 planning period, a
tax levy increase of 3.3% would be required in 2025, raising approximately an additional
$350,000 over the existing 2024 tax levy revenue of $10.6 million. This strategy would require
the Township to increase capital spending by an additional $350,000 per annum over the
planning period to meet the proposed level of services set out.
Financing Strategy | 40
Figure 7 - 10-Year Need vs Funding (Proposed Level of Service Funding Gap for Tax Supported
Assets)
D.
THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The information illustrated emphasizes the need for the Township to continue the utilization
of these funding programs to meet service levels over the long-term. However, as the
Township's asset management program further advances, it can be expected that the costs
analysis be improved to better reflect asset risks, levels of service and a better
understanding of the condition of the infrastructure.
Prior to the publication of this Asset Management Plan, Brock Council adopted the
recommendations of a staff report to implement an additional 2% dedicated infrastructure
levy. Figure 8 below shows the revised infrastructure gap for the 2024-2034 planning period,
given this new initiative assuming it is maintained over the planning period.4
4 The amount of money dedicated to asset management would still be subject to council approval each year through
the budget.
10-Year Total Need
$98.5 M
10-Year Funding
from Tax Levy,
$56.2 M
10-year Anticipated
Grant Funding,
$23.2 M
10-Year Funding
Gap, $19.1 M
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Millions
Financing Strategy | 41
Figure 8 - Revised 10-Year Need vs Funding (After implementation of Dedicated 2% Levy)
Overall, the infrastructure gap depicted in Figure 7 is required to ensure the Township
delivers the proposed levels of service identified in Section 3 of the AMP, which represents
the lifecycle activities outlined in Section 4. Given the adoption of this strategy, which does
not align with the funding needed to meet the proposed level of services, other qualitative
improvements and other financial solutions need to be explored. Table 20 outlines several
approaches to closing the revised funding gap.
Table 20 - Approaches to Closing the Funding Gap
Category
Description
Improved Data
Quality
As the Township matures its asset management practices,
improving data quality across service areas will help to achieve
a proper assessment of the condition of assets. Improved
lifecycle cost data will facilitate evidence-based decision
making and support in achieving lowest lifecycle costing
through prioritization of repair and replacement activities.
Levels of Service
Measures
As part of the 2024 AMP, levels of services measures by asset
category have been established. Tracking LOS measures may
identify areas where funding needs could be recalibrated based
on performance.
10-Year Total Need
$98.5 M
10-Year Funding
from Tax Levy,
$56.2 M
10-year Anticipated
Grant Funding,
$23.2 M
Dedicated 2% Levy,
$12.5 M
10-Year Funding
Gap, $7.0 M
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Millions
Financing Strategy | 42
Assessing Risk
Tolerance
Further detailed risk analysis including defining risk tolerance
level for individual asset classes will help to further refine
prioritization of the investment needs and levels of service.
Although not always desirable, it may be possible to accept a
higher degree of asset risk to help lower ongoing asset costs.
Seek Funding
Support from Upper
Levels of
Government
The Township continues to demonstrate a significant
commitment to asset management and developing a set of
renewal practices to ensure that services are delivered in the
most cost-efficient manner.
Despite the efforts, upper level of government support is
required to supplement the Township's practices to balance
affordability. For long-term financial planning and accurately
assessing the infrastructure gap, it is equally important that
upper-level government funding is stable and predictable.
Continued Project
Co-ordination with
the Region on
Infrastructure
Projects
In exploring opportunities with the Region, overall cost
efficiencies may be achieved during linear asset rehabilitation
and replacement (e.g. storm sewers, roads, bridges, culverts)
by better aligning capital ventures (if applicable).
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 43
6.
MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The major premise of a comprehensive asset management plan is that a municipality will
seldom have perfect processes and data to manage the asset portfolio. Instead, the
underlying culture of continuous improvement and reliability is its key to success. The
monitoring and improvement plan forms part of the Township's evolving asset management
planning moving forward. It has been developed using an asset management maturity scale
to assess areas for improvement.
A.
ASSET MANAGEMENT MATURITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of an asset management maturity assessment is to identify a municipality's
current maturity and to establish a target maturity that can be reasonably achieved in the
near future. Using the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) tool,
information on asset maturity was assessed under three categories:
1.
Understanding and Defining the Requirements
2.
Development of Asset Management Lifecycle Strategies
3.
Asset Management Enablers
The three maturity categories are broken down into 16 elements that are assessed in the
individual Asset Maturity Radar Graph in Figure 8. The elements in each maturity category
are outlined in Table 21.
Table 21 - Asset Management Maturity Assessment Elements
Category
AM Element
Understanding and
Defining the
Requirements
Analysing the Strategic Initiatives (AM Policy and Objectives)
Levels of Service Framework
Demand Forecasting and Management
Asset Condition and Performance
The Strategic Asset Management Plan
Developing Asset
Management
Lifecycle Strategies
Managing Risk and Resilience
Operational Planning
Capital Works Planning
Asset Financial Planning and Management
AM Plans (for the Asset Portfolio Assets)
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 44
Category
AM Element
Asset Management
Enablers
AM People and Leaders
Asset Data and Information
Asset Information Management Systems (AIMS)
AM Process Management
Outsourcing and Procurement
Continual Improvement
Each element is assessed independently and assigned a score based on criteria outlined in
Table 22 which scores each criteria between 0 and 100 for each element. In general, a
municipality in the "Aware" category recognizes that there are regulatory or service
requirements that need to be met to maintain levels of service. However, no formal plans are
in place to meet these objectives and asset management planning may be done on an ad
hoc basis. A municipality in the "Advanced" category has integrated the asset management
plan into its budget process and budget planning is well informed by the asset management
plan. In general, most municipalities would fall in the "Core" or better category, for this
reason the target score would be to achieve an "Intermediate" score over the longer-term.
Table 22 - Maturity Assessment Scoring Scale
Maturity Level
Score
Aware
0-20
Basic
21-40
Core
41-60
Intermediate
61-80
Advanced
81-100
Figure 8 outlines the results of the Asset Maturity Rating. The Current Score accounts for all
advancements in individual maturity as part of this 2024 AMP. Overall, the following were
achieved:
Understanding of levels of service focused on the condition of assets which is
appropriate for the size and services provided by the Township;
Enhancement in understanding the Township's asset management practices and general
alignment with other key planning documents like the 2022 Roads Needs Study and
OSIM reports; and
General understanding of the Township's assets and the data available through
consolidation of various data sources into the AMP financial model.
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 45
Figure 8 - Asset Maturity Rating
B.
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Continuous improvement is a fundamental aspect of municipal asset management. This
process involves systematically identifying areas for enhancement, implementing changes,
monitoring outcomes, and adjusting strategies based on feedback and new insights. The
goal of the municipal asset management planning regulation (O. Reg. 588/17) is to promote
municipalities to take incremental steps to maximize benefits, manage risk and provide
satisfactory levels of service to the public in a cost-effective manner.
Improvement initiatives have been identified that will enhance the effectiveness of the
Township's asset management program. The following table provides recommended
improvement initiatives with associated priorities and timelines. While some areas for
improvement can be addressed more immediately, others could be undertaken over the
long-term.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Analysing the Strategic Direction
(AM Policy and Objectives)
Levels of Service Framework
Demand Forecasting and
Management
Resilience to Climate Change
Asset Condition and Performance
The Strategic Asset Management
Plan
Managing Risk and Resilience
Operational Planning
Capital Planning & Prioritization
Asset Financial Planning and
Management
Asset Specific Plans
AM People and Leaders
Asset Data and Information
Asset Information Management
Systems (AIMS)
AM Process Management
Outsourcing and Procurement
Continuous Improvement
Current Score
Target Score
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 46
Table 23 - Improvement Plan Initiatives
Area of
Improvement
Action
Outcome
Timeline
Priority
Comments
Levels of
Service
Align AMP with
budget process
Determine capital
contributions
Medium
Medium
Ensuring that the
AMP remains up
today will help
guide tax funded
capital
contributions
needs to meet
long-term asset
management
needs
Climate
Change
Integration
Further
development of
mitigation and
adaptation
strategies into
asset management
Further
understanding of
climate change risks
on Township's
delivery of services
and support
informed
prioritization of
strategies.
Long
Medium
The Strategic
Asset
Management
Policy requires a
commitment to
integrate climate
change
considerations
through capital
planning.
Asset Data
Continually update
the asset inventory
More informed
ecision making for
apital budget
urposes
Medium
Medium
The AMP needs to
be updated every
5-years as per
regulation after
2025, this is an
opportunity to
ensure asset data
including
conditions remains
up to date.
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 47
Area of
Improvement
Action
Outcome
Timeline
Priority
Comments
Financing
Strategy
Continue to monitor
infrastructure gap
Continue to monitor
funding needs to
meet proposed level
of service
Medium
Medium
While
infrastructure gap
has been
monitored as part
of this plan, it will
need to be
updated along
with regular
reviews of the
AMP in the future.
Seek funding
support from upper
levels of
government
Continue bridging of
funding gap for
improved financial
sustainability.
Long
High
The Township
expects to
continue to rely on
grant funding for
capital projects.
Appendix A | 48
APPENDIX A
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Roads
very good - $11.17 m, 3 percent
good - $205
.59 m, 45 percent
fair - $155.77 m, 34 percent,
fair - $155.77 m, 34 percent
poor - $68.66 m, 15 percent,
poor - $68.66 m, 15 percent
very ppor - $15.69 m, 3 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current Replacement
Value
$456.9
Million
Asset Inventory
367.3
KM
Appendix A | 49
Bridges and Culverts
Very good
- $6.60 m, 7 percent
good - $76
.97 m, 82 percent
fair - 5.
96 m. 6 percent
poor - $2.35 m, 3 percent
poor - $1.92 m, 2 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current Replacement
Value
$93.8
Million
Asset Inventory
52
Units
Appendix A | 50
Buildings
very good - $2.96 m, 4 percent
good - $63
.90 m, 76 percent
$16.04 M,
fair - $16.04 m, 19 percent
poor - $1.01 m, 1 percent
very poor - $0.26 m, zero percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
28
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
10-100
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$84.2
Million
Asset Inventory
28
Facilities
Appendix A | 51
Vehicles and Machinery
very good - $2.43 m, 20 percent
good - $3.60 m, 29 percent
fair - $2.28 m, 18 percent
poor - $1.59 m, 13 percent
very poor - $2.53 m, 20 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
8
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
10-20
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$12.4
Million
Asset Inventory
140
Units
Appendix A | 52
Equipment and Furnishings
very good - $0.53 m, 11 percent
good - $0.67 m, 14 percent
fair - $0.62 m, 13 percent
poor - $0.32 m, 7 percent
very poor - $2.57 m, 55 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
0
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
20
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$4.7
Million
Asset Inventory
174
Units
Appendix A | 53
Land Improvements
very good - $0.60 m, 11 percent
good - $0.31 m, 6 percent
fair - $2.02 m, 36 percent
poor - $0.22 m, 4 percent
very poor - $2.39 m, 43 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
4
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
10-40
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$5.5
Million
Asset Inventory
Pooled
Appendix A | 54
Stormwater Infrastructure
very good - $0.98 m, 21 percent
good - $2.28 m, 50 percent
fair - $0.96 m, 21 percent
poor - $0.39 m, 8 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
51
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
15-25
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$4.6
Million
Asset Inventory
Pooled
Appendix A | 55
Sidewalks
good - $4.63 m, 88 percent
fair - $0.32 m, 6 percent
poor - $0.30 m, 6 percent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
20
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
30
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$5.2
Million
Asset Inventory
25,732
Metres
Appendix A | 56
Appendix B | 57
APPENDIX B
DETAILED FINANCING STRATEGY TABLES
7DEOH
7RZQVKLSRI%URFN
$VVHW0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ
%DVH6FHQDULR&ORVH&XPXODWLYH,QIUDVWUXFWXUH'HILFLWE\<HDUV
/LIHF\FOH&RVWV
)RUHFDVWRI5HYHQXHV
)XQGLQJ*DS&DOFXODWLRQ
1RQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
6RORXWLRQV
2SHUDWLRQV
0DLQWHQDQFH
5HSODFHPHQW
5HQHZDO
5RDGVDQG%ULGJHV
2SHUDWLRQVDQG
0DLQWHQDQFHRI
([SDQVLRQ$VVHWV
7RWDO/LIHF\FOH&RVWV 2 0IURP7D[DWLRQ
&DSLWDOIURP
7D[DWLRQ,QFOXGLQJ
7UDQVIHUVWR
5HVHUYHV
<HDUO\,QFUHDVHLQ
7D[)XQGLQJ
<HDUO\,QFUHDVHLQ
7D[)XQGLQJ
&DQDGD&RPPXQLW\
%XLOGLQJ)XQG&&%)
IRUPHUO\*DV7D[
2WKHU*UDQWV2&,)
6XQGHUODQG$UHD
*UDQWQRQJURZWK
6KDUH
([LVWLQJ5HVHUYHV
7RWDO)XQGLQJ
$QQXDO)XQGLQJ*DS
&XPXODWLYH
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
'HILFLW
7RWDO
<HDU
7DEOH
7RZQVKLSRI%URFN
$VVHW0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ
3/266FHQDULR&ORVH&XPXODWLYH,QIUDVWUXFWXUH'HILFLWE\
ZLWK/LIHF\FOH$FWLYLWLHV7DLORUHGWR3/26
/LIHF\FOH&RVWV
)RUHFDVWRI5HYHQXHV
)XQGLQJ*DS&DOFXODWLRQ
1RQ
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
6RORXWLRQV
2SHUDWLRQV
0DLQWHQDQFH
2SHUDWLRQVDQG
0DLQWHQDQFHRI
([SDQVLRQ
$VVHWV
([LVWLQJ&DSLWDO
,QYHVWPHQW
$GGLWLRQDO&RVW
WR0HHW3/26
5HQHZDO
5RDGVDQG
%ULGJHV
$GGLWLRQDO&RVW
WR0HHW3/26
5HQHZDO
9HKLFOHV
$GGLWLRQDO&RVW
WR0HHW3/26
5HQHZDO
)DFLOLWLHV
$GGLWLRQDO&RVWWR
0HHW3/26
5HQHZDO
6WRUPZDWHU
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
7RWDO/LIHF\FOH
&RVWV
2 0IURP
7D[DWLRQ
&DSLWDOIURP
7D[DWLRQ
,QFOXGLQJ
7UDQVIHUVWR
5HVHUYHV
<HDUO\,QFUHDVH
LQ7D[)XQGLQJ
<HDUO\
,QFUHDVH
LQ7D[
)XQGLQJ
&DQDGD
&RPPXQLW\
%XLOGLQJ)XQG
&&%)IRUPHUO\
*DV7D[
2WKHU*UDQWV
2&,)
6XQGHUODQG
$UHD*UDQWQRQ
JURZWK6KDUH
([LVWLQJ
5HVHUYHV
7RWDO)XQGLQJ
$QQXDO)XQGLQJ
*DS
&XPXODWLYH
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
'HILFLW
7RWDO
<HDU
$SSHQGL[%e