This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot bd8aa029d49a · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
MUNICIPALITY OF EAST FERRIS
2025 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Asset Management Plan
DECEMBER 2025
APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-34
2
Preface
This Asset Management Plan (AMP) is intended to describe the infrastructure owned, operated, and
maintained by the Municipality of East Ferris to support its core services. It is a compilation of studies and
work undertaken by the Municipality in its asset management planning and implementation over the
past few years. The plan is aligned to the content and format described in the Province of Ontario's
Building Together: Guide for Municipality Asset Management Plans to meet the requirements of Ontario
Regulation 588/17 and to guide long-term infrastructure and financial planning.
This Plan was developed by municipal staff utilizing internal data, and data found within reports the
municipality had commissioned through various consultants and partners:
-
Road Needs Study - WSP Canada Inc. (2022)
-
Bridge Management Study Report - HP Engineering Inc. (2024)
-
Culvert Evaluation and Survey - McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (2023)
-
Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Inspections and Inventory - Advantage Data Collection Ltd. (2024)
-
Capital Replacement Planning Report for Facilities - MPAC (2025)
-
Municipality of East Ferris - Internal data (Assets: street lighting; guiderails; land improvements;
vehicle and equipment; and recreational amenities).
This document identifies what has been achieved, what is being done, and what needs to be done to
ensure core services provided to citizens, businesses, and institutions attain sustainability. This document
provides information regarding the implementation of asset management in the Municipality of East
Ferris which describes the current state of the assets with recommendations regarding the next steps to
implement a comprehensive approach to asset management across the municipality. While this document
contains some details, many external documents contain additional levels of detail and are referenced
throughout this document.
Disclaimer
This AMP remains a strategic planning tool and does not commit the municipality to specific projects,
funding levels, or service outcomes. Council will continue to set all investment priorities and service levels
through the annual budget and capital planning process. All financial figures in this document are high-
level estimates derived from asset registers, staff input, condition assessments, and industry costing. These
estimates may change as new studies, inspections, or detailed designs are completed. This document
should not be used for litigation, claims, or any purpose beyond its intended scope.
Plan Updates
Since Regulation 588/17 came into effect, two AMP reports have been prepared and approved by Council:
Asset Management Plan - December 2013 and Asset Management Plan - December 2015.
This AMP, Municipality of East Ferris 2025 Asset Management Plan, satisfies the requirements under
section 6 of Ontario Regulation 588/17.
3
Table of Contents
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 REPLACEMENT COST .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.2
CURRENT NEED ............................................................................................................................. 10
1.3 FINANCIAL PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 13
2.1 GOALS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 13
2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMP ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3 AMP-RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS................................................................................................ 13
2.4 REFINEMENT OF THE AMP ................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY ........................................................................................ 14
3.
STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 15
3.1.3 Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.4 Data ................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 ROADS .................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Road - Inventory - What does East Ferris own? ........................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Roads - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? ......................................................... 16
3.2.3 Roads - Asset condition and remaining service life ....................................................................... 16
3.3 STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Structure - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? ................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Structure - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? ..................................................... 21
3.3.3 Structure - Asset condition and remaining service life ................................................................. 21
3.4 STORM DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Storm Drainage - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? ......................................................... 24
3.4.2 Storm Drainage - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? ........................................... 25
3.4.3 Storm Drainage - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life ..................................................... 26
3.5 STREET LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................. 27
3.5.1 Street Lighting - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? ............................................................ 27
4
3.5.2 Street Lighting - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? ............................................ 28
3.5.3 Street Lighting - Asset condition and remaining service life ......................................................... 28
3.6.1 Building & Land Improvements - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? ................................ 29
3.6.2 Building & Land Improvement - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? .................... 30
3.6.3 Building & Land Improvements - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life ............................. 31
3.7 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 33
3.7.1 Other Land Improvements - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? ........................................ 33
3.7.2 Other Land Improvement - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth? ........................... 33
3.7.3 Other Land Improvements - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life .................................... 34
3.8 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................. 36
3.8.1 Vehicles and Equipment - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost? ........... 36
3.8.2 Vehicles and Equipment - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life ....................................... 38
3.9.1 Signs - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost? .......................................... 40
3.9.2 Sign - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life........................................................................ 40
3.10 GUIDERAILS ........................................................................................................................................ 40
3.10.1 Guiderails - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost? ................................ 40
3.10.2 Guiderail - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life ............................................................. 40
4.
DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 ROADS - DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 42
4.1.1 Desired Level of Service for Roads ................................................................................................. 42
4.2 STRUCTURES DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................................ 43
4.2.1 Desired Level of Service for Structures .......................................................................................... 43
4.3 STORM DRAINAGE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 43
4.3.1 Desired Level of Service for Storm Drainage .................................................................................. 44
4.4 STREET LIGHTING DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................... 44
4.5 BUILDING AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................. 44
4.5.1 Desired Level of Service for Buildings and Land Improvements .................................................... 44
4.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................... 45
4.7 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................... 46
4.8 SIGNS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 46
4.9 GUIDERAILS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................................. 47
5.
RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................... 48
5
5.1 ROADS .................................................................................................................................................. 50
5.2 STRUCTURES ......................................................................................................................................... 50
5.3 STORM DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................... 51
5.4 STREET LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................. 51
5.5 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................. 51
5.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 52
5.7 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................. 52
5.8 SIGNS .................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.9 GUIDERAILS .......................................................................................................................................... 53
5.10 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 53
6.
ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................................................................................... 54
6.1 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................................. 54
6.1.1 Current Pavement Condition vs. Projected Pavement Condition .................................................. 54
6.1.2 Project Prioritization ...................................................................................................................... 54
6.1.3 Road Preservation Strategy ........................................................................................................... 55
6.2 STRUCTURES - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................... 55
6.2.1 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance ............................................................... 55
6.2.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Structures ......................................................... 55
6.3 STORM DRAINAGE - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ....................................................................... 55
6.4 STREET LIGHTHING - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...................................................................... 55
6.5 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................ 56
6.5.1 Buildings Lifecycle Maintenance .................................................................................................... 56
6.5.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Buildings ........................................................... 56
6.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .................................................. 56
6.7 VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................ 56
6.8 SIGNS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................................................................... 57
6.9 GUIDERAILS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................. 57
7.
FINANCING STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................ 58
7.1 FINANCING STRATEGY - ROADS ........................................................................................................... 58
7.1.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 59
7.1.2 Road Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................................ 59
7.1.3 System Performance at Various Budget Levels ............................................................................. 60
6
7.1.4 ROADS - How much will it cost? .................................................................................................... 60
7.1.5 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 60
7.2 FINANCING STRATEGY - STRUCTURES ................................................................................................. 60
7.2.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 60
7.2.2 STRUCTURES - How much will it cost? .......................................................................................... 61
7.2.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 61
7.3 FINANCING STRATEGY - STORM DRAINAGE ....................................................................................... 61
7.3.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 61
7.3.2 STORM DRAINAGE - How much will it cost? ................................................................................. 62
7.3.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 62
7.4 FINANCING STRATEGY - STREET LIGHTING ........................................................................................... 62
7.4.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 62
7.4.2 STREET LIGHTING - How much will it cost? ................................................................................... 62
7.4.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 62
7.4 FINANCING STRATEGY - BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................... 63
7.4.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 63
7.4.2 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS - How much will it cost? .................................................... 63
7.4.3 Recommendations - Long term sustainability............................................................................... 63
7.5 FINANCING STRATEGY - OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 64
7.5.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 64
7.5.2 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS - How much will it cost? .............................................................. 64
7.5.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 64
7.6 FINANCING STRATEGY - VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 64
7.6.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 64
7.6.2 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT - How much will it cost? ................................................................... 64
7.6.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 65
7.7 FINANCING STRATEGY - SIGNS ............................................................................................................ 65
7.7.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 65
7.7.2 SIGNS - How much will it cost? ..................................................................................................... 65
7.7.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 65
7.8 FINANCING STRATEGY - GUIDERAILS .................................................................................................. 65
7.8.1 Capital Depreciation ...................................................................................................................... 65
7
7.8.2 GUIDERAILS - How much will it cost? ............................................................................................ 65
7.8.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability .............................................................................. 65
7.9 FINANCING STRATEGY ALL ASSETS ...................................................................................................... 67
7.9.1
10 Year Program ........................................................................................................................ 68
8
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management
Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects from
the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, an
AMP had to be developed and approved by municipal Council.
This AMP includes all municipal infrastructure assets as required by O. Reg. 588/17: core municipal
infrastructure assets (roads, bridges, and culverts) and other municipal infrastructure assets
(facilities, street lighting, traffic signs, guiderails, land improvements, vehicle and equipment, and
recreational amenities).
The Plan is intended to provide a preliminary reference for renewing, operating, maintaining,
building, replacing and disposing of municipal infrastructure assets. As the plan is a living document,
it needs to be updated on a regular basis to reflect additional information as well as changing needs.
The plan is based on the guidelines provided in the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure's Building
Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans and Ontario Regulation 588/17.
This Plan reflects on the current and desired system condition, level of service, optimal asset
management and financial strategies based on currently available data and information on the road
and bridge assets. Municipal data collection is ongoing, and the plan will be updated over time as
more data in terms of condition, capacity, expansion and risks are available through ongoing data
collection, modelling and master planning programs. The first report was approved in 2014
representing the information available at that time. The current report reflects additional
information provided for building assessments, roads and structures.
Although the new plan was prepared using various new evaluation reports and surveys completed
in the last few years, there were still some data gaps requiring assumptions. These assumptions are
detailed in each section of this report. As additional information continues to be gathered over
time, the municipality will continue to update this plan and treat it as a living document.
1.1 REPLACEMENT COST
Table 1 provides a summary of the quantity of assets included in the AMP and the replacement costs as
of the end of 2024.
9
Asset Type
Length / Quantity
Replacement Cost
Roads
107.8
km
$60,878,814
Structures
2 bridges + 1
shared bridge
each
$2,353,000
Storm Drainage
6285.7
m
$8,005,837
Street Lighting
99 each
$354,900
Buildings
11 each
$37,133,640
Other Land
Improvements
52 each
$2,541,256
Vehicles
13 each
$4,165,000
Equipment
42 each
$605,096
Signs
514 each
$71,750
Guiderails
2315.5
m
$392,338
TOTAL
$116,501,630
Table 1: Full Asset Replacement Cost - 2024
Figure 1 provides a distribution of replacement costs by asset type as of the end of 2024
Figure 1: Percentage of Replacement Costs by Asset Type
10
1.2
CURRENT NEED
In terms of current needs based upon condition and remaining service life, East Ferris needs to invest
$11.55 million "now" to replace key infrastructure. Since the annual capital budget is on average
approximately $1 million, there is an existing infrastructure deficit. However, the financial plan in this
report will provide for the long-term preservation at current levels of service. This is addressed further in
the report.
Table 2 provides a breakdown of our current needs by asset type.
Asset Type
Current Need
Percentage of
Current Need
Road
$ 4,964,163
43.0%
Structure
$ 200,400
1.7%
Storm Drainage
$ 325,334
2.8%
Street Lighting
$ 15,375
0.1%
Buildings
$ 3,500,000
30.3%
Building Improvement
$ 1,758,956
15.2%
Other Land Improvement
$ 364,362
3.2%
Vehicle
$ 140,000
1.2%
Equipment
$ 270,000
2.3%
Sign
$ 5,300
0.0%
Guiderail
$ 5,000
0.0%
TOTAL NEEDS
$ 11,548,890
100%
Table 2: Current Needs ($ and Percentage of Need)
11
1.3 FINANCIAL PLANNING
With a comprehensive asset management approach as outlined in this plan, the combination of repair
and maintenance can reduce the cost of replacement and/or defer reconstruction. This is shown in the
table below.
In assessing the Municipality's state of the infrastructure, we examined and graded both the current
condition and remaining service life of our assets as well as the Municipality's financial capacity to fund
the average annual requirement, by asset category, for sustainability (funding versus need).
In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and
long-term budgeting.
Based on the Road Needs Study, the average recommended annual investment for our roads is $1.3
million in order to address the total needs. There is no average recommended annual investment for
buildings (budget for major building components and not regular maintenance); however, the 10-year
building need is identified.
If we maintain the current budget for the next ten (10) years, we will have a shortfall of $15.321 million. As
shown in the report, it is recommended to follow the developed strategy as follows:
-
allocate an average of $1.3 million to roads yearly to attain the recommended level of service
-
allocate $302,000 for bridges in the next five (5) years to maintain the recommended level of
service
-
allocate an average of $267,000 for storm drainage to maintain the recommended level of service
-
allocate $61,500 for streetlights in the next four (4) years to maintain the level of service
-
allocate $3.5 million for the future fire hall (buildings)
-
allocate $5 million for building improvements over the next 10 years
-
allocate $770,000 over the course of the next 10 years for land improvements to maintain the
level of service
-
allocate $4.2 million over the course of the next 10 years for vehicles and equipment to maintain
the level of service
-
allocate $71,750 for traffic signs over the course of the next 10 years to maintain the level of
service
-
allocate $50,000 for guiderails over the course of the next 10 years to maintain the level of service
Table 3 outlines the recommended allocation based on current budget allocations as well as the
requirements to meet total needs as well as replacement over 10 years.
12
Table 3: Recommended Capital Investments - 10 Year Period (2025-2034)
13
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 GOALS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT
The overall objectives of the plan are as follows:
-
To provide a comprehensive reference for council, managers and staff for renewing,
operating, maintaining, building, replacing and disposing of assets.
-
To reflect the current and desired system conditions, levels of service and safety.
-
To recommend optimal asset management and financial strategies.
-
To set strategic priorities to optimize decisions.
-
Maximize benefits, manage risks and provide satisfactory levels of service.
2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMP
The asset management plan was developed through consultations and the culmination of work completed
by staff over the last few years. As staff became aware of the need to undertake a comprehensive
approach to asset management planning, it engaged consultants to assist in collecting data, performing
condition assessments, and developing this strategy.
2.3 AMP-RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
An asset management plan is a key component of the Municipality's planning process linking with
multiple other corporate plans and documents:
-
Official Plan - The AMP should utilize and influence the land use policy directions for
long-term growth and development as provided through the Official Plan.
-
Strategic Plan - The strategic plan should guide the AMP in terms of service levels,
policies, processes, and budgets defined in the AMP.
-
Long Term Financial Plan - The AMP should both utilize and conversely influence the financial
forecasts within the long-term financial plan. East Ferris does not currently have a long-term
financial plan but has moved to longer-term capital planning.
-
Capital Budget - The decision framework and infrastructure needs identified in the AMP form
the basis on which future capital budgets are prepared.
-
By-Laws, standards, and policies - The AMP will influence and utilize policies and by-laws
related to infrastructure management practices and standards.
-
Regulations - The AMP must recognize and conform to industry and other government
regulations.
2.4 REFINEMENT OF THE AMP
The AMP is a living document that should be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes
available and as East Ferris changes and grows. This plan provides a horizon on the life of the assets but
focuses financially on the next 10 years. Ideally, the plan should be updated every 3-5 years once it is
complete.
14
As well, as infrastructure is replaced, updates to the performance model should be undertaken regularly
in order to ensure that the priorities reflect changing condition ratings as well as financial decisions.
2.5 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY
Through the development of this plan, all data, analysis, life cycle projections, and budget models were
provided through various reports and with the knowledge of municipal staff. The plan will be
synchronized, and therefore, will allow for ease of update and annual reporting of performance
measures and overall results.
This will allow for continuous improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended
that the plan be revisited and updated every 3-5 years.
15
3. STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Objective
To identify the state of East Ferris' infrastructure today, identify priorities for the near and long term, and
provide for a financing strategy based upon current funding sources as well as recommendations for change.
The report is also intended to highlight the current levels of service and a plan to develop the desired levels of
service based upon community needs.
3.1.2 Scope
Within this State of the Infrastructure and assets section, the following asset categories are included:
-
Road network
-
Structures (Bridges and Culverts)
-
Buildings (Municipal Facilities, Public Works Garage and Emergency Services)
3.1.3 Approach
The report is based on the seven key questions of asset management as outlined within the National Guide
for Sustainable Municipality Infrastructure:
-
What does East Ferris own? (inventory)
-
What is the replacement cost?
-
What is the condition / remaining service life of the asset(s)?
-
What needs to be done and when? (maintain, rehabilitate, replace)
-
How much will it cost?
-
What should be done in the future to improve asset management and ensure sustainability?
3.1.4 Data
The base data for the Municipality of East Ferris assets comes from various sources with the view to capture the
most up-to-date information as follows:
-
2015 PSAB 3150 Tangible Capital Asset information
-
2025 Capital Replacement Planning Report for Facilities - MPAC
-
2022 Road Needs Study by WSP
-
2023 Culvert Evaluation Survey by McIntosh Perry
-
2024 Bridge Management Study from HP Engineering
3.2 ROADS
16
3.2.1 Road - Inventory - What does East Ferris own?
This section provides a review and analysis of the road system from a surface type environment. Road sections
within road systems may be classified in a number of ways to illustrate their roadside environment, surface
type, functional classification, and so forth. The classifications provide assistance in developing further
information with respect to the road system, such as replacement costs and performance expectations.
On December 31st, 2023, the Municipality of East Ferris road network consisted of 107.8 kilometers of
roadways: 20.5km are paved with asphalt, 51.1km are surface treated, and 36.2km are gravel.
3.2.1.1 Surface Types
Surface type criteria of a road section are useful in characterization of the road section, and in determining costs
for replacement, reconstruction and rehabilitation treatments.
Roadside Environment
Surface Type
Hot Mix Asphalt
(km)
Surface Treated
(km)
Gravel
(km)
Total
(Centerline-km)
Kilometers
20.5
51.1
36.2
107.8
% of Total
19.1%
47.7%
33.5%
100%
Table 4: Surface Type Environment Distribution
3.2.2 Roads - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
The total historical cost for roads surface and base as of 2024 financial statements was combined with
bridges and is as follows:
2024 Financial Statements
Asset Type
Acquisition Cost
Accumulated
Depreciation
Net Book Value
Roads and bridges
$18,278,868
$3,079,307
$5,749,275
Table 5: Roads & bridges Historical Cost - Roads - 2024 Financial Statements
The estimated replacement value of all municipal roads, in 2024 dollars, is shown in the table below:
Roadside
Replacement Cost
Environment
Paved (HCB)
$16,607,418
Surface Treated (LCB)
$29,158,661
Gravel
$15,106,702
Total
$ 60,872,782
Table 6: Average Roads Replacement Costs by Road type
3.2.3 Roads - Asset condition and remaining service life
17
3.2.3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology
The provincial requirements for AMP's include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard
engineering practices. The Municipality's evaluation system was based on visual pavement condition surveys
for all gravel roads in accordance with current Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) practices. A pavement
condition index (PCI) was assigned to each gravel road roadway segment based on a riding condition rating
(RCR) and type, severity, and extent of distress referred in the Distress Manifestation Index (DMI). The PCI for
hot-mix-asphalt and surface treated roads were obtained by Local Authority Services (LAS) using their
StreetScan digital scanning survey. Additional field data was obtained through a visual examination of the road
system and included structural adequacy, level of service, maintenance demand, surface and shoulder width,
surface condition, and drainage. This report is essentially a desktop analysis. As such, some data fields in the
MTO Inventory Manual, such as substandard horizontal and vertical alignment, were not populated.
Evaluations of each road section were completed in accordance with the MTO standard. Data collected was
entered directly into the Decision Optimization Technology (DOT) Road's software and the Road Needs Study
was prepared by WSP Canada Inc. Condition ratings, time of need, priority ratings, and associated costs were
then calculated. Unit costs for construction were provided by staff. This report is essentially a desktop analysis.
As such, some data fields in the inventory manual, such as substandard horizontal and vertical alignment, were
not populated.
The condition ratings, developed through the scoring in the inventory manual, classify roads as 'NOW',
'1 to 5', or '6 to 10' year needs for reconstruction. The time of need is a prediction of the time until the
road requires reconstruction, not the time frame until action is required. For example, a road may be
categorized as a '6 to 10' year need with a resurfacing recommendation. This road should be resurfaced as
soon as possible to further defer the need to reconstruct.
Recommendations are made based on the defects observed and other information available in the database at
the time of preparation of the report. Once a road asset reaches the project level, the municipality may select
another alternative based on additional information, asset management strategy, development considerations
or available funding.
Time
of
Need
MTO PCI
Surface
Condition
Description
NOW
1 to 50
Now Needs - Reconstruction
or Major Rehabilitation
Poor to Very
Poor to Failed
1 to 5
51 to 70
1 to 5 year needs
more
extensive rehabilitation
Fair / Passable
6 to 10
71 to 80
6 to 10 year Needs
Resurfacing
Good
ADEQ
81 to
100
Adequate - Maintenance and
Preservation
Satisfactory/ Good/
Excellent
Table 7: Evaluation method comparison
3.2.3.2 Road System Adequacy and Condition by Time of Need
18
The inventory manual methodology results in overall rating of road sections by time of need (TON); NOW, 1 to
5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 16 below provides a breakdown of the road system by time of need and
roadside environment. In order to produce Table 15, we approximate the condition ratings to a time of need.
The system adequacy is a measure of the ratio of the 'NOW' needs to the total system and includes needs from
the six critical areas described earlier in the report. The overall TON is the most severe or earliest identified
need. For example, a road section may appear to be in good condition, but is identified as a NOW need for
capacity, indicating that it requires additional lanes.
Equation 1: System Adequacy Calculation
System Adequacy = Total System (km) - NOW Deficiencies (km) X 100
Total System (km)
The Municipality of East Ferris currently has a road system adequacy measure of 81.2%.
The road system currently measures 107.8 centreline kilometres (considering boundary roads), with 20.3
kilometers rated as deficient in the 'NOW' time period.
Time of Need
Total
(centerline-km)
Now
20.3
1-5
15.3
6-10
22.6
ADEQ
14.7
Gravel
35.1
Total
107.8
Table 8: Time of Need by roadside environment
All gravel roads are subject to a 5-year cycle maintenance plan. Such roads have a specific capital maintenance
plan with a time of need of 1 to 5 years, separate from the hard top road program.
Cost by Time of Need
Asset Type
Current need
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Totals 0-10 Years
Hard Top Roads
$4,875,069
$3,623,013
$3,876,485
$12,404,568
Gravel Roads
$ 89,094 $ 284,635
$ 224,412
$ 598,140
Grand Total
$4,964,163
$3,937,648
$4,100,897
$13,002,709
Table 9: Cost by Time of Need
The estimates provided in this report, Table 10, are in accordance with the estimated construction costs based
on 2024 construction costs based on current value. Detailed estimates on a road-by-road basis will vary from
these estimates as the detailed design will consider other road needs such as ditching, culvert, frost heaves and
others.
19
Item
Unit
2024 Costs ($)
Excavation
m3
21.00
Hot Mix Asphalt
t
225.00
Granular A
t
26.00
Granular B
t
30.00
Catch Basins - adjust
ea.
1000.00
Asphalt Pulverizing
m2
3.00
Crack Sealing
m2
1.25
Single Surface Treatment
m2
5.25
Double Surface Treatment
m2
10.00
Micro-resurfacing
m2
6.25
Table 10: Unit Costs
Based on these former MTO targets, which were in effect when the municipality grant system was in place, the
target adequacy for the county roads in Ontario should be 75%, as a minimum. The minimum target adequacies
were established by MTO, to reflect the nature and purpose of the road system. It is also a good and
recommended guideline for the Municipality of East Ferris.
3.2.3.3 Physical Condition
The physical condition of a road is also a factor in the decision matrix to prioritize roads. As traffic and use
change from road to road, priority to higher traffic is often given when facing budget constraints. Based on this
methodology, the municipality will continue to prioritize some roads such as arterial and collector roads
to ensure their physical condition remains better than some other local roads. On that concept, there will
continue to be some differences in the relationship between the average physical condition or certain roads and
the system adequacy.
3.2.3.4 Good to Very Good Roads
One of the requirements of the annual Financial Information Return (FIR) reporting is the percentage of the
roads that are good to very good. We use a calculation similar to the system adequacy calculation to determine
the good to very good roads as follows:
Equation 2: Good to Very Good Equation
Good to Very Good = Total System (km) - (NOW + 1 to 5 (km)) X 100
Total System (km)
The percentage of good to very good roads in EF is 67.0%.
3.2.3.5 Remaining Service Life
As indicated previously, the TON is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition
to the time for reconstruction. The TON also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road
system/section. The following figure summarizes the structural adequacy ratings of the road system and
illustrates the estimated remaining service life of the road system.
20
Figure 2: Remaining Service Life
3.3 STRUCTURE
3.3.1 Structure - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own?
This section of the report addresses structure assets with a span of 3 meters or greater only. Although this section
includes structures defined as bridges and larger culverts, since East Ferris' culverts are less than 3 metres in
diameter, this section will cover municipal bridges only. The content will provide review and analysis of the
structure inventory from several perspectives: condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment,
and replacement cost. Information for this section of the report is drawn from the 2024 Bridge Management
Report prepared by HP Engineering.
On December 31, 2024, the Municipality of East Ferris bridge network consisted of the following:
Total Span
Deck
Type of Structure
Quantity
Area
(m)
(m2)
Bridges
2
29
208.6
Shared Bridge
1
7.4 35.15
Total
3
36.4
243.75
Table 11: Structure Summary table
*Data from HP ENGINEERING 2024 Bridge Management Report
Note that the shared bridge is located on the boundary road shared with the Township of Chisholm, where capital
construction costs are shared at 50/50.
21
3.3.2 Structure - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
Budget costs for the replacement of bridges are usually based on the deck surface area of individual
structures (m2); therefore, benchmark replacement costs for this AMP were extracted from the 2022 HP
Engineering Bride Management Study Report along with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM)
inspection reports provided by the City of Ottawa for the boundary bridges. In the case of culvert type
structures, the plan area (or deck surface area) used in the calculation was:
('length of spans' + 1 m) x ('width of roadway' + 1 m).
The total historical cost for structures as of 2024, similarly to the road surface and base, have been combined
in the past and as of the 2024 financial statements, it remains as follows:
2024 Financial Statements
Asset Type
Acquisition Cost
Accumulated
Depreciation
Net Book Value
Roads and bridges
$18,278,868
$3,079,307
$5,749,275
Table 12: Roads & bridges Historical Cost - Roads - 2024 Financial Statements
The estimated replacement value of all municipal bridges and culverts, in 2024 dollars, is shown in the table
below:
Type of Structure
Quantity
Replacement Cost
Bridges
2
$2,068,500
Bridges (Chisholm
boundary)
1
$284,500
Total
109
$2,353,000
Table 13: Structure replacement costs
Note that the cost for the boundary structures with the Township of Chisholm has been reduced by 50% and that
the above costs represent the Municipality of East Ferris replacement costs, based on design that would meet
current standards.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structure inventory. It is
estimated that the cost to replace the bridge and culvert inventory is $2,353,000. This estimate is based on the
replacement costs from OSIM values for bridges and culverts. These benchmark costs can vary considerably
once specific project requirements are realized.
3.3.3 Structure - Asset condition and remaining service life
3.3.3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology
The provincial requirements for AMP's include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard
engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 meters or greater be
inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with OSIM or
equivalent. East Ferris reporting conforms to the OSIM format. Bridge and culvert structures are rated as
deficient in the 'NOW', 1 to 5 year or 6 to 10 year timelines due to:
22
-
Insufficient width of structure
-
Structural Capacity
-
Vertical clearance
-
Safety Treatments
-
Level of Service (cannot accommodate peak hour traffic/capacity)
The condition ratings, developed through the scoring in OSIM, classify structures as 'NOW', '1 to 5', or '6 to 10'
year needs for reconstruction or rehabilitation. From an asset management perspective and similar to roads,
structures with rehabilitation treatments offer the best return on investment, to further defer the need to
reconstruct and maximize the value and life cycle of the asset. Safety defects are the priority.
Field data is obtained through a visual examination of each structure. Overall ratings and time of need are
calculated based on the condition ratings and a combination of other calculations and data.
The asset management plan utilized condition data from the 2024 HP Engineering Report. For structure assets,
data and structure condition ratings were completed in accordance with the most current version of the OSIM.
3.3.3.2 Structure Inventory Overall Condition
Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge
structure evaluations will produce a 'NOW' need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the
corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the
overall bridge structures inventory, we used the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) information provided in the 2024
HP Engineering Report. The BCI is a measurement of the overall condition of the bridge. There are different
accepted methods of calculating BCI. To be noted, the index does not indicate the safety of a bridge.
From the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Website:
"A Bridge Condition Index (BCI) rating is a planning tool that helps the Ministry schedule maintenance
and upkeep. The BCI is not used to rate or indicate the safety of a bridge. The result is organized into
ranges from 0 to 100. Immediate action is taken to address any safety concerns.
Good - BCI Range 70 -100
For a bridge with a BCI greater than 70, maintenance work is not usually required within the next 5
years.
Fair - BCI Range 60 -70
For a bridge with a BCI between 60 and 70 the maintenance work is usually scheduled within the next
five years. This is the ideal time to schedule major bridge repairs from an economic perspective.
Poor - BCI Less than 60
For a bridge with a BCI rating of less than 60, maintenance work is usually scheduled within
approximately one year."
23
Asset Type
Poor
Fair
Good
East Ferris Bridges
1
1
Boundary Bridge
1
Table 14: Bridges & Culverts Condition
(Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Reports 2024)
3.3.3.3 Structure System Adequacy and Condition by Time of Need
Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge
structure evaluations will produce a 'NOW' need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the
corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the
overall bridge structures inventory, the current estimated replacement cost has been compared to the
estimated cost of the current needs that have been identified. The following equation describes the ratio of the
replacement cost to the needs costs:
Equation3: Bridge Structure Replacement to Improvement Ratio
Adequacy Index = Total Replacement Cost - Total Needs Cost X 100
Total Replacement Cost
Using Equation 3, the Adequacy Index for the East Ferris Bridge Structure Inventory is 88% using a replacement
as identified in the OSIM Report and the estimated improvement costs from the Bridge
Management Study.
Applying the same calculation to the culvert structures inventory produces and Adequacy Index of 66% using
a replacement cost as identified in the OSIM Report and the standardized improvement costs from the Bridge
Management Study.
The OSIM methodology results in overall rating of bridge and culvert structures by TON; NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or
Adeq (Adequate). Table 15 provides a breakdown of the bridge inventory and culvert structure inventories
system by TON.
Asset Type
Time of Need
< 1 year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10
Totals years Cost
Bridges
$67,900
$267,500
$0
$335,400
Table 15: Structures Needs, Cost by Time of Need
(Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Report 2024)
3.3.3.4 Record of Assumption - TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs - Structures
The methodology of this report is such that the OSIM itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions
in terms of:
24
-
Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs
-
Structural requirements based on field ratings of elements
-
Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations
3.3.3.5 Remaining Service Life
As indicated, the TON is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to
the time for reconstruction for some elements. The TON then may also provide an estimate of the remaining
life in the structure. The following figures summarize two different perspectives on bridge life expectancy -
design life and service life. This difference has a significant impact on development of the financial plan. Whereas
structures constructed prior to 2000 had a 50-year design life, they typically had a service life in the 75-year
range.
Upon further engineering review, load rating capacity will be required within the next 10 years. Remaining
Service Life speculation is shown in the table below.
Remaining Design Life (50 yr. Design Life)
Asset Type
Number of
Construction Last Major Construction Design Life
Total
Edmond Rd Baily Bridge
1984 1984 50 2034
Groulx Rd Concrete Bridge
1930
1984 50 2034
South Shore Wood Bridge
1910 2010 30 2040
Table 16: Remaining Design Life
Anticipated Remaining Service Life (75 yr. service Life)
Asset Type
Number of
Construction Last Major Construction Design Life
Total
Edmond Rd Baily Bridge
1984 1984 75 2059
Groulx Rd Concrete Bridge
1930
1984 75 2059
South Shore Wood Bridge
1910 2010 40 2050
Table 17: Anticipated Remaining Service Life (75 yr. Service life)
The condition reviews are just that, the physical condition of the structures. When other issues are considered,
the time of need could change dramatically. On bridges and similar structures, appropriate hydraulic capacity
may prioritize the time of need, or in some other examples, where a bridge was designed a single lane, and for
safety reasons it must be increased in size to accommodate true 2-lane traffic. As per both tables above, these
bridge structures are expected to last beyond the design life, but they may need to be replaced prior to the end of
their service life, unless they remain in excellent condition which will be defined by their BCI.
3.4 STORM DRAINAGE
3.4.1 Storm Drainage - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own?
This section of the report addresses storm drainage assets including all storm pipes crossing municipal roads
(culverts) under a 3-meter span as well as storm sewer system. For this section, all driveway culverts are not
accounted for as their maintenance and replacement fall under the municipal operating budget.
25
The content for this section will provide review and analysis of the storm drainage inventory from a number of
perspectives including, but not limited to, condition rating, roadside environment, replacement cost for road
culverts obtained in the 2023 Culvert Need Study prepared by McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers. As for the
storm sewer system, the assessment is based on good engineering practice using Design Service Life (DSL).
On December 31, 2024, the Municipality of East Ferris storm drainage network consisted of the following:
Table 23: Storm Drainage Summary table
3.4.2 Storm Drainage - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
The Culvert Needs Study included replacement costs for all municipal assets for this category. The costs were
verified and accurately represent the infrastructure value when the work is contracted out. It is noted that the
identified replacement costs could see savings of up to 50% if the work was to be done in-house; however, for
the purpose of the AMP, the contracted costs are being used.
There is no historical cost for this section; however, the estimated replacement value for assets within this
category, in 2024 dollars, is shown in the table below:
Type of Storm Drain
Quantity
Replacement Cost
Storm Pipes (Culverts)
431 units
$7,379,948
Storm Sewer
562 m
$625,889
Total
6,286 m
$8,005,837
Table 24: Storm Drainage replacement costs
It is estimated that the cost to replace the storm pipes (road cross culverts) and the storm sewers inventory is
$8,005,837. These benchmark costs can vary considerably once specific project requirements are realized, and
depending on whether some of the work is done in-house using municipal resources. For the purpose of the
AMP, all catch basins, manholes and headwalls owned by the municipality were included in the linear meter
cost under the storm sewer pipes category.
An asset that was not accounted for and that may fall under this section in the future is municipal ditches.
Since the majority of East Ferris' rural road network is composed of open ditches to control storm water
conveyance in combination with all storm pipes (road cross culverts) and storm sewers, these assets are
primordial as a whole.
Total Length
Type of Storm Drain
Quantity
(each) (m)
Storm Pipes (Culverts)
431
5,724
Storm Sewer
---
562
Total
---
6,286
26
Although the municipality maintains 107.8 kilometres of roads, ditches are not always present on both sides of
the road. A fair assessment can be made with the assumption that approximately 10% of the road network
only has ditches on one side of the road. This assumption represents that there are approximately 204.82
kilometres (107.8 km x 1.9) of ditches on municipal roads. Using a fair value of $12.00/m to construct such
ditches, the unaccounted replacement value for East Ferris ditches would be $2,457,840. As this asset is not
part of the AMP, it is simply identified but it is not included under this section.
3.4.3 Storm Drainage - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
3.4.3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology
The storm pipes were evaluated based on specific asset condition assessment in accordance with standard
engineering practices. The storm pipes road cross culverts were individually rated as deficient in the 'NOW',
nearing end of life in 1 to 2 years, fair in 3 to 5 years, good in 6 to 10 years based on:
- Material condition
- Capacity
- Shape
- Settlement
- Erosion
The condition ratings, developed through the evaluation for storm pipes, categorizes them as year of need to
replace being End of Life as 'NOW', nearing end of life as '1 to 2', fair as '3 to 5', good as '6 to 10' and very good
as 11+ years for reconstruction. Field data is obtained through a visual examination of each storm pipe. Overall
ratings and TON are calculated based upon the condition ratings. The asset management plan utilized
condition data from the 2023 McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineering Report. For storm sewer pipes, the
evaluation was based on their remaining useful Life.
Rating Category
% of Estimated Life
Asset Condition Characteristics
Remaining
"Fit for the Future"
Very Good
76% - 100%
New or recently rehabilitated.
Very low risk of failure.
"Adequate"
Good
51% - 75%
Low risk of failure
Some unplanned maintenance is required
"Requires Attention"
Fair
26% - 50%
Some signs of deterioration
Some failures occur. Rehabilitation possible
"At Risk"
Nearing End of Life
1% - 25%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
"At Higher Risk"
End of Life
0%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
Table 25: Storm Sewer Evaluation Table
3.4.3.2 Storm Drainage Inventory Overall Condition
27
Based on both evaluation methods for the storm pipes (road cross culverts) and the storm sewer system, the
findings for the network overall condition are as follows:
Asset Type
End of Life
Nearing
End of Life
Fair
Good
Very Good
Storm Pipe
(Individual Culvert)
19
38
47
48
279
Storm Sewer
(Linear Meter)
0
0
127.6 m
0
434.5 m
Table 26: Storm Drainage Condition
3.4.3.3 Storm Drainage Adequacy and Condition by Time of Need
Both storm drainage asset types were respectively evaluated based on pipe condition and sewer design life.
The AMP addresses the replacement requirement for these assets based on the TON. Although some of the
storm sewer assets are categorized as fair, they have projected remaining life of 25 years; therefore, the
storm sewer time of need remains beyond the 10-year projection for the AMP. Table 27 provides a breakdown
of the storm drainage inventory.
Asset Type
TON
Now
1 to 2 years
3 to 5
6 to 10
Total
TOTAL
$325,334
$650,668 $804,774 $821,897 $2,602,673
Storm Pipes
(Road Culvert)
$325,334
$650,668 $804,774
$821,897 $2,602,673
Storm Sewer
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Table 27: Storm Drainage Needs & Cost by Time of Need
3.4.3.4 Remaining Service Life
As indicated, the TON is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to
the projected time where reconstruction will be required for storm pipes and based on the design life for the
storm sewer. A 75-year service life was used for the storm sewer based on the fact that the sewer system is
made of concrete pipe.
The condition reviews are the physical condition of the system. When other issues are considered, the time of
need could change dramatically. On storm drainage, appropriate hydraulic capacity may prioritize the time of
need; however, storm sewers should be replaced prior to the end of their service life unless they remain in excellent
condition which will be defined by their detailed inspection such as CCTV.
3.5 STREET LIGHTING
3.5.1 Street Lighting - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own?
This section of the report addresses street lighting assets only as the municipality currently does not have traffic
28
signals or flashing lights. Streetlights remain a key component of our transportation system.
Each year, the municipality completes a full inspection of all its street lighting and notes their conditions. The
major change in street lighting in the last decade has been to replace the high-pressure sodium systems to LED.
Table 28 summarizes East Ferris' street lighting assets.
Category and Location
Quantity
Streetlights
99
Table 28 - Streetlights Summary Table
3.5.2 Street Lighting - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
The estimated replacement value of all municipal traffic signals, streetlights and caution flashing lights in 2017
dollars, is shown in the table below:
Category and Location
Quantity
Replacement
Cost
Streetlights
96
$354,900
Table 29 -Streetlights Replacement Cost Table
3.5.3 Street Lighting - Asset condition and remaining service life
All streetlights were assigned a life expectancy of 20 years. The high-pressure sodium lights have exceeded this
life expectancy, and they are falling in poor condition. Some of the poles belong to other utility companies, like
Hydro One or Bell, but the municipality does own at least 20 poles for its network. All LED installs were rated as
good condition based on their remaining life expectancy.
Rating
Number of Signals
Good
58
Fair
0
Poor
41
Total
99
Table 30 - Streetlight condition rating
Table 31 was developed to reflect how streetlights are rated.
Rating Category
% of Estimated Life
Asset Condition Characteristics
Remaining
"Adequate"
Good
70% - 100%
Low risk of failure.
Some unplanned maintenance is required.
"Requires Attention"
Fair
35% - 69%
Some signs of deterioration.
Some failures occur. Rehabilitation possible.
"At Risk"
Poor
0% - 34%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
Table 31 -Streetlights condition rating explanation
29
The life expectancy of East Ferris' streetlighting assets is shown in Table 32.
Category and
Location
Qty
Life
Expectancy
Average
Year of
installation
Average
Remaining
Life
Rating
Streetlight (LED)
58
20
2015
10
Good
Streetlight
41
20
2005
0
Poor
Table 32 -Streetlights condition rating
The replacement needs for streetlight assets is to replace the 41 high-pressure sodium lights to LED. In some
instances, the existing arms will be satisfactory, and in others they will need to be replaced. This is determined
on a case-by-case basis. For the AMP, it is assumed that 10% of the remaining arms will require replacement;
therefore, the total replacement cost is $61,500 and it was decided to evenly distribute that cost over a four-
year period.
As the network gets replaced, the municipality will continue to work with Hydro One to reflect further
reductions in electricity operating costs as LED consumes less watts in comparison to the high-pressure sodium
bulbs, and the consumption charges are based on a fixed price per unit.
3.6 BUILDING & LAND IMPROVEMENTS
3.6.1 Building & Land Improvements - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own?
The Municipality owns and maintains facilities and land improvements. The building condition assessments for
these buildings were undertaken by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in 2025, with
supporting data provided by the municipality. These facilities and land improvements support administrative,
operational, emergency, and community service functions while providing spaces for municipal staff and
equipment, and support recreational, cultural, and other services for residents.
For the purpose of the AMP, the information provided remains a financial tool and it is important to
understand that there are specific regulations in Ontario to guide the management of facilities, such as the
Building Code (OBC), the Fire Protection and Prevention Act (FPPA), the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Potential future needs, under
these regulations, are not captured in the AMP and are viewed as project specific. The sand storage building
is broken into two components as the fabric cover life expectancy differs from the building foundation. The
following buildings were included in the building condition assessments:
Building Category
Building
Description
Total # of
Buildings
Year of
Construction
Administrative
11
Municipal Office
1
2022
Public Works
Public Works Garage
1
2023
Sand Storage Dome
.5
2016
Stand Storage Dome - Fabric
.5
2016
30
Emergency Services
Corbeil Fire Hall
1
1967
Astorville Fire Hall
1
1990
Community Services
Corbeil Park Hall
1
1990
Corbeil Outdoor Shed
1
2014
EFCC
1
1990
Library
1
1999
Other Assets
OPP Training Center
1
1971
Medical Center
1
2022
Table 33: Inventory of Buildings Assessed
3.6.2 Building & Land Improvement - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
East Ferris has a good understanding of its building and land improvement values and replacement cost. While
MPAC provides additional information when it comes to older buildings, the municipality has most of the
recent cost information and understands its building needs. Below is a summary of replacement costs by
building assessed while providing projected replacement costs for the Corbeil Fire Hall.
Building Category
Building
Description
Replacement cost
Administrative
$ 37,133,640
Municipal Office
$ 5,601,044
Public Works
Public Works Garage
$ 2,500,000
Sand Storage Build.
$ 300,000
Stand Storage Fabric Cover
$ 150,000
Emergency Services
Corbeil Fire Hall
$ 3,500,000
Astorville Fire Hall
$ 700,000
Community Services
Corbeil Park Hall
$ 1,400,000
Corbeil Outdoor Shed
$ 40,000
EFCC
$ 15,000,000
Library
$ 2,000,000
Other Assets
OPP Training Center
$ 2,984,669.00
Medical Center
$ 2,957,926.48
Table 34: Building Replacement Costs as of 2024
31
3.6.3 Building & Land Improvements - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
MPAC building assessment reviewed the building components on the following basis:
Good Condition (Low Priority): The building component is in adequate condition, and no work is foreseen
in the next 5 years.
Fair Condition (Medium Priority): The building component is in deteriorating condition but is still
operational. Replacement/repair is expected in 3 to 5 years.
Poor Condition (Medium Priority): The building component will require replacement or major repair within
the next 1 to 3 years.
Critical Condition (High Priority): The building component is past the point of economic repair or is not
functioning and should be replaced or repaired within the year.
For the purpose of the AMP, it was decided to compare the age of the asset against its expected life and assign a
condition based upon the percentage of useful life remaining. The following table was developed to reflect the
method.
Rating Category
% of Estimated Life
Asset Condition Characteristics
Remaining
"Fit for the Future"
Very Good
76% - 100%
New or recently rehabilitated.
Very low risk of failure.
"Adequate"
Good
51% - 75%
Low risk of failure
Some unplanned maintenance is required
"Requires Attention"
Fair
26% - 50%
Some signs of deterioration
Some failures occur. Rehabilitation possible
"At Risk"
Nearing End of Life
1% - 25%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
"At Higher Risk"
End of Life
0%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
Table 35: Building Rating Categories
Table 36 summarizes the conditon of East Ferris' buildings.
Building Category
Building
Description
Overall % of
Estimated Life
Remaining
Rating
Administrative
Municipal Office
94%
Very Good
Public Works
32
Public Works Garage
96%
Very Good
Sand Storage Build.
82%
Very Good
Stand Storage Fabric Cover
55%
Good
Emergency Services
Corbeil Fire Hall
0%
End of Life
Astorville Fire Hall
30%
Fair
Community Services
Corbeil Park Hall
30%
Fair
Corbeil Outdoor Shed
56%
Good
EFCC
53%
Good
Library
48%
Fair
Other Assets
OPP Training Center
28%
Fair
Medical Center
94%
Very Good
Table 36: Building Condition Rating
3.6.3.1 Building & Land Improvements - By Time of Need
The building condition assessment provides detailed recommendations. The table below shows the
required investments by building type based upon time of need.
Building Category
Current
Need
1-5 years
6-10 years
Over 10
Years
Total Needs
for 20 years
Municipal Office
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Public Works Garage
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Sand Storage Build.
---
---
---
$25,000
$25,000
Stand Fabric Cover
---
---
---
$150,000
$150,000
Corbeil Fire Hall
---
$25,000
$20,000
$45,000
$90,000
Astorville Fire Hall
$25,445
$42,621
$192,350
$260,416
Corbeil Park Hall
$10,000
$19,004
$75,063
$283,555
$387,622
Corbeil Outdoor Shed
---
$2,500
$500
$2,000
$5,000
EFCC
$1,250,000
$1,823,045
$938,452
$2,177,105
$6,188,602
Library
---
$191,794
$71,565
$280,057
$543,416
OPP Training Center
$70,000
$27,990
$293,415
$882,314
$1,273,719
Medical Center
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Grand Total
$1,330,000
$2,144,778
$1,501,616
$4,172,381
$9,148,775
Table 37: Building improvements based upon time of need
The building improvements identified above are included in the overall 10-year AMP table where the 1-5 years
33
and 6-10 years investments were averaged over the years in addition to the current need.
3.7 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS
3.7.1 Other Land Improvements - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own?
This section of the report includes any land improvements that were not included in the "Building and Land
Improvements" section above. The land improvements were not part of the MPAC Assessments Report;
however, they still need to be considered in the asset management plan and are incorporated in the next
table of this section.
3.7.2 Other Land Improvement - Valuation/Replacement Costs - What is it worth?
A summary of what we own and their replacement costs by land improvements was prepared by East Ferris staff
and provided with estimated replacement costs in Table 38.
Category
Land Improvements & Location
Replacement Costs
Administration
Municipal Office Flagpole
$6,129
Public Works Garage
Septic Bed
$30,000
Parking
$25,000
Emergency Services
Astorville Septic Tank
$10,000
Astorville Parking
$20,000
South Shore Dry Hydrant
$10,000
Government Dock Dry Hydrant
$10,000
Community Services
Corbeil Park Hall Septic Bed
$100,000
Corbeil Park Hall Parking
$100,000
Outdoor Rink
$255,747
Soccer Field
$69,477
Tennis Courts
$248,900
Pickle Ball Courts
$139,322
Playground
$132,500
Volleyball Courts
$50,000
Gazebo/Tables/Bike Racks
$25,000
Bleachers
$20,000
EFCC Septic Bed
$125,000
EFCC Parking
$225,000
EFCC Flagpole
$4,086
34
EFCC Garbage Bins
$9,557
Astorville Tennis Court
$125,000
Library Septic Bed
$35,000
Cenotaph Flagpole
$4,086
Cenotaph Parking Lot
$5,000
MacPherson Parking Lot
$5,701
MacPherson Boat Ramp
$100,000
Big Moose Boat Ramp
$21,116
Big Moose Dock
$22,681
Big Moose Floating Dock
$10,328
Big Moose Gazebo/Table/Bike
$25,000
South Shore Boat Ramp
$109,200
South Shore Replacement Dock
$7,381
Other Assets
Welcome Signs
$45,045
Speed Signs
$25,000
Medical Building Parking
$35,000
Medical Building Septic Bed
$125,000
OPP Septic
$50,000
OPP Parking Lot
$175,000
Grand Total
$2,541,256
Table 38: Other Land Improvements Replacement Costs at 2024
3.7.3 Other Land Improvements - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
While direct measurements of asset conditions are necessary for implementing asset management strategies,
the use of asset age enables comparison when we do not have detailed condition information available. For the
purpose of this section, the method of evaluating asset conditions will be based on age. It was decided that we
would compare the age of the asset against its expected life and assign a condition based upon the percentage
of useful life remaining. The following table was developed to reflect the method.
Rating Category
% of Estimated Life
Asset Condition Characteristics
Remaining
"Fit for the Future"
Very Good
76% - 100%
New or recently rehabilitated.
Very low risk of failure.
"Adequate"
Good
51% - 75%
Low risk of failure
Some unplanned maintenance is required
"Requires Attention"
Fair
26% - 50%
Some signs of deterioration
Some failures occur. Rehabilitation possible
35
"At Risk"
Nearing End of Life
1% - 25%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
"At Higher Risk"
End of Life
0%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
Table 39: Other Land Improvements Condition Rating Explanation
Table 40 summarizes the conditon of East Ferris' land improvements.
Category
Land Improvements
Overall % of
Administration
Municipal Office Flagpole
90%
Very Good
AVERAGE
90%
Very Good
Public Works Garage
Septic Bed
96%
Very Good
Parking
87%
Very Good
AVERAGE
91%
Very Good
Emergency Services
Astorville Septic Tank
30%
Fair
Astorville Parking
Over
End of Life
South Shore Dry Hydrant
93%
Very Good
Government Dock Dry
93%
Very Good
AVERAGE
72%
Good
Community Services
Corbeil Park Hall Septic
16%
Nearing End of Life
Corbeil Park Hall Parking
Over
End of Life
Outdoor Rink
90%
Very Good
Soccer Field
Over
End of Life
Tennis Courts
85%
Very Good
Pickle Ball Courts
85%
Very Good
Playground
93%
Very Good
Volleyball Courts
85%
Very Good
Gazebo/Tables/Bike
Over
End of Life
Bleachers
40%
Fair
EFCC Septic Bed
72%
Good
EFCC Parking
7%
Nearing End of Life
EFCC Flagpole
75%
Good
EFCC Garbage Bins
0%
Nearing End of Life
Astorville Tennis Court
65%
Good
Library Septic Bed
48%
Fair
Cenotaph Flagpole
75%
Good
Cenotaph Parking Lot
53%
Good
MacPherson Parking Lot
53%
Good
MacPherson Boat Ramp
0%
Nearing End of Life
Big Moose Boat Ramp
72%
Good
Big Moose Dock
55%
Good
Big Moose Floating Dock
Over
End of Life
Big Moose
20%
Nearing End of Life
South Shore Boat Ramp
92%
Very Good
South Shore Replacement Dock
65%
Good
AVERAGE
57%
Good
36
Other Assets
Welcome Signs
65%
Good
Speed Signs
80%
Very Good
Medical Building Parking
Over
End of Life
Medical Building Septic Bed
80%
Very Good
OPP Septic
87%
Very Good
OPP Parking Lot
87%
Very Good
AVERAGE
80%
Very Good
Table 40: Other Land Improvements Condition Rating
3.8 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
3.8.1 Vehicles and Equipment - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost?
This section of the report addresses vehicles and equipment assets having a purchase value of more than
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) owned by the municipality. Information on vehicles and equipment was
prepared by Municipal Staff.
The Municipality of East Ferris has many vehicles with replacement costs that staff estimated to total
$4,165,000. Table 41 summarizes vehicle assets and replacement costs.
Vehicle
Category
Vehicle
Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Public Works
R01
Pick-up Truck
1
$ 85,000
R13
Pick-up Truck
1
$ 75,000
R02
Tandem Plow
1
$ 435,000
R03
Tandem Plow
1
$ 435,000
R04
Tandem Plow
1
$ 435,000
Average
Emergency Services
F105
Pumper Single
1
$ 750,000
F106
Dodge Rescue
1
$ 300,000
F107
Dodge Pickup
1
$ 95,000
F108
Crusader
1
$ 600,000
F109
Rescue Dodge
1
$ 75,000
F111
Pumper Single
1
$ 750,000
Average
Park & Rec.
P01
Pick-up Truck
1
$ 65,000
P02
Pick-up Truck
1
$ 65,000
Average
Grand Total
13
$ 4,165,000
Table 41: Inventory of Vehicles & Replacement Costs
Additionally, the Municipality of East Ferris has many pieces of equipment with replacement costs that are
estimated to total $605,096. Table 42 summarizes equipment assets and replacement costs.
37
Equipment
Category
Equipment Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Public Works
R05
Loader
1
$ 275,000
R06
Grader
1
$ 650,000
R12
Backhoe
1
$ 205,000
R16
Excavator c/w attachment
1
$ 225,000
Pickup Plow Kit
1
$ 5,500
Pickup 'V' Plow Kit
1
$ 12,500
Pickup Dump Box
1
$ 7,000
Plow Rear Back Blade
1
$ 18,000
Plow Rear Back Blade
1
$ 18,000
20-ton float
1
$ 35,000
Trailers
3
$ 15,000
Thompson Steam Jenny
1
$ 20,000
Tailgate Spreader
1
$ 25,000
Roller Packer Attach.
1
$ 28,000
Eddynet Sweeper
1
$ 30,000
Pavement Edger
1
$ 5,500
Pusher Blade Backhoe
1
$ 7,500
Garage Tools
1
$ 115,000
Survey Equipment
1
$ 15,000
Digital Signs
1
$ 30,000
Office Furniture
1
$ 35,000
Communication Radios
1
$ 15,000
Small Tools - Chainsaws
1
$ 25,000
Average
Landfill Site
R15
Dozer
1
$ 200,000
Average
Emergency Services
General
1
$ 523,266
Computer Hard/Soft
1
$ 14,478
Average
Park & Rec.
Zamboni
1
$ 150,000
Zero Turn
1
$ 15,000
Zero Turn
1
$ 15,000
Zero Turn
1
$ 15,000
Ice Edger
1
$ 3,000
Utility Trailer
1
$ 12,000
Equipment Trailer
1
$ 12,000
Snowblowers
2
$ 5,000
Floor Machine
1
$ 8,000
Small Tools - Chainsaws
1
$ 15,000
EFCC Office Equipment
1
$ 173,891
Average
Administration
General
1
$ 86,246
Computer Hard/Soft
1
$ 94,959
Average
Grand Total
42
$ 605,096
Table 42: Inventory Equipment & Replacement Costs
38
3.8.2 Vehicles and Equipment - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
While direct measurements of asset conditions are necessary for implementing asset management strategies, the
use of asset age enables comparison when we do not have detailed condition information available. For the purpose
of this section, the method of evaluating asset conditions will be based upon age. It was decided that we would
compare the age of the asset against its expected life and assign a condition based upon the percentage of useful
life remaining. The following table was developed to reflect the method.
Rating Category
% of Estimated Life
Asset Condition Characteristics
Remaining
"Fit for the Future"
Very Good
76% - 100%
New or recently rehabilitated.
Very low risk of failure.
"Adequate"
Good
51% - 75%
Low risk of failure
Some unplanned maintenance is required
"Requires Attention"
Fair
26% - 50%
Some signs of deterioration
Some failure occurs. Rehabilitation possible
"At Risk"
Nearing End of Life
0% - 25%
Failures will increasingly occur
Maintenance costs will likely increase
Table 43: Vehicle and equipment Condition Rating Explanation
Table 44 summarizes the conditon of East Ferris' vehicle assets.
Table 44: Vehicle Condition Rating
Table 45 summarizes the conditon of East Ferris' equipment assets.
Vehicle
Category
Vehicle Description
Qty
Life
Expect.
Average
Year
Remaining
Life
% of
Life
Rating
Public Works
R01
Pick-up Truck
1
7
2019
1
14%
Nearing End of Life
R13
Pick-up Truck
1
7
2017
0
0%
End of Life
R02
Tandem Plow Truck
1
10
2019
4
40%
Fair
R03
Tandem Plow Truck
1
10
2023
8
80%
Very Good
R04
Tandem Plow Truck
1
10
2023
8
80%
Very Good
Average
43%
Fair
Emergency Services
F105
Pumper Single Axle
1
20
2012
7
35%
Fair
F106
Dodge Rescue Van
1
20
2016
11
55%
Good
F107
Dodge Pickup 2500
1
20
2018
13
65%
Good
F108
Crusader Tanker
1
20
2016
11
55%
Good
F109
Rescue Dodge Pickup
1
10
2016
1
10%
Nearing End of Life
F111
Pumper Single Axle
1
20
2007
2
10%
Nearing End of Life
Average
38%
Fair
Park & Rec.
P01
Pick-up Truck
1
10
2022
7
70%
Good
P02
Pick-up Truck
1
10
2014
0
0%
End of Life
Average
35%
Fair
Grand Total
13
39
Table 45: Equipment Condition Rating
Equipment
Category
Equipment
Description
Quantity
Life
Expectancy
Average Year
Remaining
Life
% of
Remaining
Rating
Public Works
R05
Loader
1
15
2021
11
73%
Good
R06
Grader
1
25
2017
17
68%
Good
R12
Backhoe
1
15
2022
12
80%
Very
R16
Excavator c/w
1
20
2008
3
15%
Nearing
Pickup Plow Kit
1
15
2019
9
60%
Good
Pickup 'V' Plow Kit
1
15
2021
11
73%
Good
Pickup Dump Box
1
15
2021
11
73%
Good
Plow Rear Back
1
15
2023
13
87%
Very
Plow Rear Back
1
15
2023
13
87%
Very
20-ton float
1
25
2011
11
44%
Fair
Trailers
3
15
2020
10
67%
Good
Thompson Steam
1
15
2016
6
40%
Fair
Tailgate Spreader
1
25
1995
0
0%
End of
Roller Packer
1
25
2018
18
72%
Good
Eddynet Sweeper
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Pavement Edger
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Pusher Blade
1
25
2021
21
84%
Very
Garage Tools
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Survey Equipment
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Digital Signs
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Office Furniture
1
20
2023
18
90%
Very
Communication
1
10
2023
8
80%
Very
Small Tools -
1
25
2023
23
92%
Very
Average
72%
Good
Landfill Site
R15
Dozer
1
15
1999
0
0%
End of
Average
0%
End of
Emergency Services
General
1
33%
Fair
Computer
1
36%
Fair
Average
33%
Fair
Park & Rec.
Zamboni
1
10
2022
7
70%
Good
Zero Turn
1
10
2016
1
10%
Nearing
Zero Turn
1
10
2013
0
0%
End of
Zero Turn
1
10
2006
0
0%
End of
Ice Edger
1
10
2015
0
0%
End of
Utility Trailer
1
10
2014
0
0%
End of
Equipment Trailer
1
10
2022
7
70%
Good
Snowblowers
2
10
2017
2
20%
Nearing
Floor Machine
1
10
2017
2
20%
Nearing
Small Tools -
1
10
2022
7
70%
Good
EFCC Office
1
7
2022
4
57%
Good
Average
21%
Nearing
Administration
General
1
28%
Fair
Computer
1
10
2021
6
60%
Good
Average
28%
Fair
Grand Total
42
40
3.9 SIGNS
3.9.1 Signs - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost?
Although individual sign values remain below the ten-thousand-dollar value when it comes to replacement,
these assets are now subject to annual inspection under the Ontario Minimum Maintenance Standards where
the retroreflectivity is measured and reported. Signs that have a low retroreflectifity value are to be replaced.
The municipality currently has 514 signs installed as well as 6 digital signs.
The sign inventory is subject to increase with time; in most cases this takes place when warning signs are added
to curves or hill sections of rural roads currently not posted.
The replacement cost for each sign averages $50.00 for regulatory and warning signs, $75.00 for street name
signs, and $6,000 for digital signs. Digital signs are subject to repairs including battery replacement every 4-5
years.
The total replacement cost for these assets is $71,750.
3.9.2 Sign - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
The Municipality has scheduled to replace all signs that failed inspection in 2025. The last inspection identified
72 signs that passed inspection but are likely due to be replaced by 2030.
The overall condition of all municipal signs remains good although warning and street signs were rated as fair.
3.10 GUIDERAILS
3.10.1 Guiderails - Inventory - What Does East Ferris Own? Replacement Cost?
There are two (2) main road guiderail types in East Ferris - standard cable guiderails and 'W' beam guiderails.
All guiderails that are part of bridge structures are evaluated with the bridge asset as they are part of the
bridge structure elements; therefore, they are not quantified in this section.
The municipality of East Ferris owns 2,315.5 meters of guiderails with a replacement cost of $392,338.
Guiderails are devices designed to direct vehicles and/or traffic along the roadway and are mostly installed on
curved sections or sections of the road that have non-recoverable slopes.
The total replacement cost for these assets is $71,750.
3.10.2 Guiderail - Asset Condition and Remaining Service Life
Historically, the municipality has scheduled full guiderail replacement to coincide with capital road
reconstruction projects.
The overall condition of guiderails ranges from good to fair.
41
4. DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
In order to determine the "right" level of funding and what taxpayers can afford to pay for, the
municipality needs to establish levels of service. Some key factors to consider include: community
expectations; legislative requirements, such as bridge studies; expected asset performance; long-term
goals; and financial viability.
Currently, the municipality does not have an established system for collecting data regarding levels of
services beyond physical conditions. Some goals that can be associated with levels of services are
listed in Table 46.
Objective
Scope
Affordability
Costs are minimized and distributed such that access to service does not
cause undue hardship to customers and businesses.
Accommodating growth
Development is not hampered by the availability of capacity.
Adequacy
Services are delivered to acceptable quality and quantity.
Reliability
Service is reliable with minimal interruption.
Safety
Meet safety requirements, as regulated by legislation.
Compliance
Assure environmental compliance, as regulated by legislation and/or
operating licenses or agreements.
User services
Users' issues are captured and acted upon in an efficient and timely
manner.
Table 46: Goals for level of service
Traditional views of performance management focused on collecting data about physical conditions of
facilities and developing an engineering rehabilitation and/or maintenance plan (what to fix, what to
replace). However, the performance of assets (facilities) is not limited to their physical or engineering
conditions only. Equally important is the level of service (LOS) of the facility. In other words, how adequate
are the facility conditions and operational status in meeting its intended functions?
Understanding the balance between physical and service conditions is crucial for the success of facility
operations. Both are essential to manage and promote the socio-economic activities of the users. At the
same time, they both are needed to protect public health and safety.
There is, however, little agreement about the definition or elements of LOS. This stems from the
discrepancy between expected LOS and actual LOS; user desired LOS versus the needs to minimize the life
cycle costs of assets and their impact on the environment; and visual perception of service quality versus
and the actual/underlying status of the asset itself.
There are several factors that influence LOS. It is important to understand/track these factors to ensure
that the system is proactive. Table 47 summarizes LOS factors.
42
Table 47: Level of service factors
Multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various
user groups: condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various
measurements of level of service for the municipal assets.
4.1 ROADS - DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The proposed LOS is an established target set to guide the municipality in their current and future asset
management. Proposed LOS are a requirement for compliance with O. Reg. 588/17. The proposed LOS
established within this report relates to the target to be achieved within 10 years (2034).
4.1.1 Desired Level of Service for Roads
Factor
Impact
Climate
Change
Examples include:
1) extended winter months and more severe temperatures.
2) severe rainfall events and their associated impact on the effectiveness of the
Storm water system; and
3) flooding of roads and challenges in meeting winter control requirements
Social Trends
Societal influences will continue to shape the municipality's strategy and
priorities. Examples of such expectations include aspects like enhanced
environmental stewardship and more cost-effective delivery of services.
Aging
Infrastructure
The municipality has some infrastructure that is in better condition than other
Ontario municipalities. This provides an opportunity for our municipality to
focus on other parts of the network that continue to deteriorate and will
require increasing levels of funding to ensure that they continue to offer safe
and reliable services.
Growth
Forecasts
According to analysis of the latest data, the municipality continues to
experience population growth. It is anticipated that the trend will continue to
growth in the next decade. Uncertainty is not entirely within the
municipality's control and will continue to impact several financial and
operational performance indicators.
Funding
Mechanisms
Traditionally, the municipality has relied heavily on funding and tax levies.
Changes in grant programs make it difficult to maintain service, forcing it to
juggle priorities, and target where and how it invests. Continued vigilance in
asset management has allowed the municipality to extend asset life and
reduce the total cost of ownership. However, current spending is insufficient
to maintain service at current levels over the long-term.
43
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are
provided in Table 48.
MUNICIPAL ASSET CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Collector / Arterial
Roads
Average physical condition
of road system is 69
Average physical
condition of road system
is 75
Target achieved by
2034
Local Hard Top
Roads
Average physical condition
of road system is 59
Average physical
condition of road system
is 70
Target achieved by
2034
Gravel Roads
Average physical condition
of road system is 60
Average physical
condition of road system
is 65
Target achieved by
2034
Table 48: Desired Level of Service for Roads
4.2 STRUCTURES DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The calculated Bridge Condition Index (BCI) will be used in this section to determine the level of service.
This takes into consideration all bridge elements, their individual condition, and projects the residual
current value, at the time of the OSIM inspection, in comparison to the replacement cost. Overtime, the
elements will deteriorate, and the BCI will reduce. However, by investing in repairing and/or replacing
certain elements, while the remaining bridge life expectancy still warrants it, will increase the condition of
the rehabilitated elements, thus increasing the BCI, and the LOS. The following sections identify various
measurements of service of the structures inventory.
4.2.1 Desired Level of Service for Structures
The desired levels of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years
are provided in Table 49.
MUNICIPALITY
ASSET
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Bridges
Bridges are rated as
Good to Poor
Municipality Bridges
are rated as Fair
Maintain current level
of service
Table 49: Desired Level of Service Structures
4.3 STORM DRAINAGE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
Multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate to the condition of underground assets.
There are two separate categories under this section. The storm pipe is based on detailed condition
assessment, where the storm sewer has a linear rating based on design life. The following sections
identify various measurements of service of the structures inventory.
44
4.3.1 Desired Level of Service for Storm Drainage
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years
are provided in Table 50.
MUNICIPAL
ASSET
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Storm Pipe
(Culvert)
Storm Pipes are rated as
End of Life to Very Good
Storm Pipes should be
rated as Fair to Very
Good
Target achieved by
2034
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewers are rated as
Fair to Very Good
Storm Sewers should
be rated as Fair to
Good
Anticipate dropping
the current level of
service
Table 50: Desired Level of Service Storm Drainage
In addition to the above, the municipality recognizes that flooding may negatively impact the LOS. Under
these circumstances, the municipality will continue to implement feasible local improvements to improve
network reliability; however, that is not captured in the above LOS table.
4.4 STREET LIGHTING DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
For streetlights, a linear rating based on design life is utilized. The desired level of service as well as the
current and expected performance over the next ten years are provided in Table 51.
MUNICIPAL
ASSET
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Street Lighting
58% of streetlights are
rated as Fair
The average rating of
streetlights shall be
rated as Good
Maintain current level
of service
Table 51: Desired Level of Service Street Lighting
4.5 BUILDING AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
4.5.1 Desired Level of Service for Buildings and Land Improvements
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are
provided in Table 52.
45
MUNICIPAL ASSET
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Administration
Overall average condition is
rated as Very Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Very Good
Maintain current level
of service
Public Works
Overall average condition is
rated as Very Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Very Good
Maintain current level
of service
Emergency
Services
Overall average condition is
rated as Nearing End of Life
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Good
Improve current level of
service
Community
Services
Overall average condition is
rated as Fair
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Good
Improve current level of
service
Other Assets
Overall average condition is
rated as Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Good
Maintain current level
of service
Table 52: Desired Level of Service Buildings and Land Improvements
4.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are
provided in Table 53.
MUNICIPAL ASSET
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
DESIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS
Administration
Overall average condition is
rated as Very Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Very Good
Maintain current level
of service
Public Works
Overall average condition is
rated as Very Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Very Good
Maintain current level
of service
Emergency
Services
Overall average condition is
rated as Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Good
Maintain current level
of service
Community
Services
Overall average condition is
rated as Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Good
Maintain current level
of service
Other Assets
Overall average condition is
rated as Very Good
Overall average condition
should be maintained as
Very Good
Maintain current level
of service
Table 53: Desired Level of Service Other Land Improvements
The above table represents the average of other land improvements within each municipal asset category
or department. It is important that individual assets may be better or worse than the average. The
municipality will consider the worst individual assets to be replaced and/or improved as good
management and regulations requires.
46
4.7 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years for
vehicles and equipment are provided in Table 54 and Table 55, respectively.
Public Works
Vehicles
Overall average condition
is rated as Fair
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain current level
of service
Emergency
Services Vehicles
Overall average condition
is rated as Fair
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain current level
of service
Park & Rec.
Services Vehicles
Overall average condition
is rated as Fair
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain current level
of service
Table 54: Desired Level of Service for Vehicles
Public Works
Equipment
Overall average condition
is rated as Good
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain current level
of service
Landfill Site
Overall average condition
is rated as End of Life
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain or improve
current level of service
Emergency
Services Vehicles
Equipment
Overall average condition
is rated as Fair
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain or improve
current level of service
Park & Rec.
Services
Equipment
Overall average condition
is rated as Nearing End of
Life
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain or improve
current level of service
Administration
(Information
Technology
Equipment
Overall average condition
is rated as Fair
Overall average
condition should be
maintained at Fair or
better
Maintain current level
of service
Table 55: Desired Level of Service for Equipment
4.8 SIGNS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The desired level of service for signs is driven by the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) regulation.
Signs identified in the MMS are to remain in good to fair condition and must be replaced when they fail.
The street signs, as well as some warning signs and construction signs, are not included in the inspection.
47
Although this is subject to change with time, the municipality will continue to maintain all regulatory and
warning signs to a good to fair condition level based upon inspection.
For street signs and digital signs, the LOS is linear and based on age. The municipality will continue to
maintain these assets to fair condition level and replace them if damaged before they reach their end of
life.
4.9 GUIDERAILS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The desired levels of service for guiderails is mainly driven by their functionality. The municipality will
continue to repair damaged sections and continue to perform an annual spring inspection of its network.
However, this asset is also linear, and replacement is based on age. The municipality will continue to
maintain the level of service for these assets in good to fair condition level by synchronizing replacement
during full road reconstruction.
48
5. RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose of infrastructure risk management is to protect the municipality's ability to deliver essential
public services. It focuses on minimizing disruptions and ensuring assets continue to function in a way that
supports community safety, well-being, and service reliability. In order to do so, the municipality assesses
both the consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.
East Ferris' risk management framework considers a broad range of potential threats: impacts on asset service
levels; public and worker safety concerns; financial stability and sustainability; and environmental impacts.
For the purpose of this AMP, risk assessment is addressed on a high-level basis for each category under this
section of the report. Moving forward, the municipality is considering the model proposed by the Municipal
Finance Officers Association (MFOA) to rank risk in terms of likelihood and consequence of failure. This
approach weighs individual consequence categories (strategic, environmental, health & safety, etc.) which are
multiplied together to produce an overall consequence score. The likelihood of failure score does not require
weighting and focuses on ranking probability on a scale of 1 to 5. The likelihood of failure is based on the asset
condition. The weighted consequence score multiplied by the likelihood score is the overall risk score.
This approach provides a fair level of granularity in terms of assessing the asset condition, its failure rate and
handling of consequences from business objectives. It is often difficult to attribute one risk score to an asset
which may fail in a variety of ways with a variety of potential consequences. This can lead to opting for the
"worst case" scenario thereby overestimating the true likelihood and/or consequences of an asset failure,
skewing subsequent prioritization attempts. Therefore, adopting a summative approach to likelihood and
consequence that is standard across all service areas will address this issue. The proposed municipal wide risk-
based approach is intended to be relevant and to make the best use of current practices.
It is further understood that when using both the LOS (representing the needs) and the risks assessment for
each asset within the AMP, it will help set spending priorities which in turn can be used as a business case
when making capital investment decisions.
In addition, it is important to be mindful that East Ferris' population will continue to grow with steady
construction of single-family dwellings. This also represents a growth in service demand and revenues needed
to fund and maintain existing infrastructure.
Climate change is another factor that is already having an impact on maintaining municipal service levels. The
municipality already experienced extreme weather events with more frequent high intensity rainfall and storm
events, shifting temperature patterns, and more frequent freeze-thaw cycles affecting asset performance and
lifecycle costs. These environmental impacts are expected to continue to impact infrastructure in various ways
as follows:
-
Transportation: the life cycle of roads will be shortened with more frequent freeze-thaw cycles. High
intensity storm increases the risk of infrastructure failure for roads, bridges, and culverts.
-
Flooding: Rapid spring melt and intense storms will continue to cause localized flooding. This will
impact the LOS and increase the risk of infrastructure failure.
-
Buildings: The life cycle analysis of certain building elements will be shortened when considering their
environmental exposure. Extreme heat, increased precipitation, and wind levels are some of the main
environmental factors that will have that impact with other factors such as raising energy costs and
increasing maintenance demands.
-
Estimates for Asset Replacement Values: Replacement cost estimates in this AMP provide indicative
values for planning purposes. Actual costs for construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition will vary at
the time of procurement. These estimates allow the municipality to understand the scale of expected
capital needs but should not be relied on as contractor's estimates or for any purpose beyond general
reference.
49
Unforeseen future events including extreme weather, or regulatory changes may impact asset performance
and service demand in ways not anticipated in this AMP. These events may accelerate maintenance,
rehabilitation, or replacement needs beyond current forecasts.
MFOA utilizes the following consequence table, likelihood table, and risk matrix table (Tables 56-58) to
determine risk.
Table 56: Consequence Table
Table 57: Probability/Likelihood Table
50
Table 58: Risk Matrix Table
5.1 ROADS
For Roads, the risk analysis will be generally driven by the following factors:
Road Class - Traffic Count: The municipality maintains roads from Class 3 to Class 6. These road classes are
categorized by posted speed and traffic count. Usually Class 1 & 2 are provincial highways and maintained by
the province, although they are physically in the municipality. Historically, the main arterial and collector roads
were prioritized, and with better road conditions, users have the tendency to exceed posted speed limits. This
results in different levels of consequences based on road class.
Minimum Road Maintenance: In the winter months, risks increase for certain road conditions where horizontal
and vertical alignments exist. Curves and hills are at risk, especially during winter.
Major Storm Events: The municipality has experienced an increase in major storm occurrences, and in various
locations of the municipality. Risk mitigation strategies include regular condition assessments of the road
condition, its drainage elements and the readiness for such events. The municipality will continue to
proactively maintain the road network to mitigate the risk of failure under these circumstances.
Flooding: Roads located within floodplain remain at a higher risk when it comes to flooding. As the
municipality experiences flooding, action plans to raise these sections of road are identified. It may be
necessary to increase the size of culverts, increase the ditch capacity, and protect road embankments. The
North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority (NBMCA) works closely with the municipality to warn of potential
watercourse flooding as this may result in culverts being undersized to handle such flows resulting in road
failure and washouts.
5.2 STRUCTURES
The Municipality has identified the following risks associated to bridge assets:
Critical Bridges: Although most bridges are critical, some have more impact on the community, where for
instance Groulx Road bridge provides not only access to surrounding municipalities but also an alternative
route to the 4-lane Highway 11. Edmond Bridge, having no alternative route, has an increased risk when
considering emergency services accessing properties. These risk factors will contribute in setting priorities for
repairs and replacements.
51
Bridge Closure: Although this always remains an alternative when it comes to certain roads, closing bridges in
in East Ferris is not an option.
Aging Infrastructure: As all bridges continue to age, they will continue to deteriorate with time. The province
mandates an annual inspection (OSIM) every 2nd year to better manage the general bridge conditions. The
consultant provides a BCI score with each report that helps identify a risk increase for specific bridge
components.
5.3 STORM DRAINAGE
The Municipality has identified the following risks associated with storm drainage assets:
Critical Strom Drainage Pipes: In most cases, the critical infrastructure for this asset are the pipes located in
streams where there is continuous water runoff. More exposed to the elements, these pipes will deteriorate
faster, and with runoff water, health and safety risks increase.
Material Type: Another factor that is considered in risk assessment is the material type. This can be linked to
the design life cycle, but under risk assessment, it is mostly identifying the pipe type, as certain materials are
better suited for certain environments. For example, having a corrugated steel pipe in a creek will increase the
risk of failure for that pipe.
Climate and Environmental Impacts: With more severe storms and increased risk of flooding, certain pipes are
more at risk than others.
Beaver Dams: It is not without saying that beavers are present in our municipality. The risk associated with
beaver dams cannot be ignored. Often, dams will fail, and being mostly on Crown or private lands, they are
not always visible from the roads. Assets located on the downstream of beaver dams are more at risk of
failing with a high occurrence.
Safety and Compliance: To reduce the risk of failure for these assets, ongoing inspection is required to ensure
no sediment and/or debris remain near the inlet of the structures that could increase the risk of plugging
and/or failing.
5.4 STREET LIGHTING
The municipality has identified the following risks associated with street lighting assets:
Older High Pressure Sodium Streetlights: The older system has a higher risk of failure, and the replacement has
to be completed in a timely manner in accordance with Minimum Maintenance Standards. As these assets are
relatively simple, the municipality implemented a replacement plan and contracted out future repairs ensuring
availability of replacement parts.
5.5 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS
The Municipality has identified the following risks associated with buildings and land improvements assets:
52
Aging Facilities and Components: MPAC completed an analysis of the facilities helping to identify aging
components and associated risks. The Corbeil Fire Hall has been identified as the next new building given the
condition of the current building. Although East Ferris has many new buildings, large centers including the
East Ferris Community Center will continue to have specific needs.
Building Use: Each facility has different users, and different consequences when it comes to high vs. medium
vs. low building use. Some buildings are open to the public, some are fully utilized by the public, and some
remain for municipal staff only.
Post Disaster: The municipality owns buildings that must remain post disaster and continue to provide services
to the public under extreme situations. The consequence of failure for these infrastructure assets is much
higher, having an increased impact when it comes to risk analysis.
5.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS
When it comes to other land improvements, the consequence of failing plays a large role in risk assessment.
As this section includes a wide range of assets from flag poles to parking lots to septic systems, they each have
their priorities, consequence, and probability of failure. As identified in the consequence table, there are six
categories that influence risk assessment.
5.7 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
The municipality has identified the following risks associated with fleet assets:
Public Works: The municipal fleet when it comes to public works is critical to maintain a level of service on all
roads on a year-round basis. During winter for example, snowplows ensure roads are safe. It can take over a
year to replace plow trucks, and for this reason, certain pieces of equipment have their own risk assessment
when it comes to failure.
Emergency Services: Firefighting equipment is critical to the municipality's emergency response capability and
the safety of the residents. It is critical that the fire department fleet remains in excellent operating condition
and remains within a certain age.
Aging Fleet: Several high-use service and emergency vehicles have exceeded their useful lives, increasing risk
of breakdowns and service disruptions.
Operational Dependence: Dependence on single, specialized vehicles means that vehicle failures
could delay critical services such as snow removal or emergency response.
Risk mitigation strategies include periodic maintenance and inspection, good planning when it comes to
scheduled replacement, as well as good prioritization of the critical service vehicles to ensure the municipality
can continue to service the public with reliability and in a safe manner.
5.8 SIGNS
53
Risk mitigation strategies with signs are better managed through the internal annual inspection for the
retroreflectivity for regulatory and warning signs as per MMS requirements. Regular road patrol will continue
to take place as regulated by the Province of Ontario, and when signs are reported damaged, the Municipality
will continue to replace them in a timely manner. The AMP provides the anticipated year of replacement of
existing signs based on their current level of reflectivity.
5.9 GUIDERAILS
Risk mitigation strategies for guiderails are better managed through annual inspection, mostly in the Spring,
where damaged guiderails get scheduled for repair as soon as the damage is reported. The municipality will
continue to work in collaboration with Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to receive accident reports when
guiderails are subject to property damage. As this asset depression is linear with age, the municipality will
continue to incorporate that element with major road reconstruction projects.
5.10 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
There are several limitations and assumptions that are made when it comes to the risk assessment process,
including some of the following:
Limitation with the field condition assessment data: Detailed information is not always available at this point in
time to determine the exact state of infrastructure and risk. In the absence of field condition assessment data,
asset age and estimated useful life is usually used to approximate physical condition.
Premature wear of the asset: Condition assessment of certain assets is subject to premature wear, defaults,
etc. It is not expected that this element of failure be captured during field inspections, unless a specific and
detailed analysis is warranted.
Performance of certain assets may be assumed as "reliable" by staff, based on historical knowledge and
experience.
54
6. ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Municipality of East Ferris adopted a Strategic Asset Management Policy to help the Municipality
manage its assets by providing the necessary framework to integrate Asset Management into the
municipality's daily decision making. The Municipality of East Ferris is committed to providing fiscally
responsible services that support the sustainability and growth of its communities. The municipality will
achieve this commitment by aligning the management of municipal assets with the goals, plans and
policies of the municipality.
The purpose of the policy is to align the municipality's asset management with its current/future social and
economic goals, create consistent guidelines and standards for the management of municipal assets, and
meet the requirements of O. Reg. 588/17.
The section below identifies the strategy for each asset category.
6.1 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6.1.1 Current Pavement Condition vs. Projected Pavement Condition
The Roads Need Study completed a detailed analysis of the municipal road network confirming that the
current level of funding will slightly increase the current pavement condition index (PCI) to an average of
67 in the next 10 years however it does not address the roads categorized in the "Now". When increasing
the roads annual capital budget to an average of $1.38 million, the projected PCI will be increased to 79 in
the next 10 years.
This assumes that the municipality will be in a position to maintain new reconstruction with appropriate
maintenance and resurfacing, allowing the road system to reach a point where most activities will be
preservation and resurfacing.
Where funding is limited, it may be necessary to maintain the resurfacing and preservation programs
instead of the construction program. Many roads are currently beyond repair as they are categorized in
the 'NOW' category. As they continue to deteriorate, these roads will require increased maintenance, and
it is anticipated that the driving public will generate more complaints. To better manage, it may be
necessary to introduce a 'maintenance paving budget'. This is usually necessary when the municipality is
financially obligated to defer the reconstruction needs and will assist in reducing maintenance efforts as
well as anticipated complaints while deferring the road reconstructed.
6.1.2 Project Prioritization
When it comes to a Road Needs Study, the exercise to prioritize roads can be a straightforward exercise
as funding is not a constraint. However, the AMP needs to balance financial capacity to be able to fund
the road infrastructure while understanding what funds are available, while also juggling the other
financial obligations. The need to fund rehabilitation and reconstruction needs identified in the Road
Needs Study will present conflicting demands when it comes to prioritizing projects. The Road Needs Study
provides ratings that deal strictly with the condition of the evaluated section.
55
It may be necessary to consider other needs for certain sections of roads, for example paved shoulders for
active transportation or storm sewer replacement. Considering all needs, it may be necessary to break
down the construction in phases to reduce the cost in comparison to full reconstruction.
6.1.3 Road Preservation Strategy
As hard surface roads age, there are specific treatments that are triggered as the road ages. Generally
speaking, the roads will first require some crack sealing, later it will require a resurfacing that could vary
from a microsurfacing to a single asphalt resurfacing, and later in life to a full double asphalt resurfacing.
These treatments can be determined depending on the Pavement Condition Index. Once the road has
reached a PCI that is too low, a full road reconstruction is required.
For surface treated roads, the treatments vary and generally require an additional single resurfacing. This
treatment is often required once every 5 to 8 years depending on the traffic type and volume.
For gravel roads, the treatment consists in adding a new granular lift. Historically, the municipality has
implemented this practice by dividing the granular road network into three zones: north, center and
south. Each zone is scheduled to be resurfaced after a five-year cycle.
6.2 STRUCTURES - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6.2.1 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance
The OSIM reports provide recommendations including some rehabilitation work on a 1 to 10-year basis.
The minor and major rehabilitation recommendations are currently identified in the AMP 10-year plan
and will continue to be identified during capital budget deliberations. For structures, resurfacing and
bridge deck waterproofing and rehabilitations offer a very good return on investment.
6.2.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Structures
The municipality's practice has been to update the condition of the structures inventory in accordance
with the legislated requirements. The bridge and culvert structures, with a span greater than 3 meters,
should continue to be reviewed on a two-year cycle, as required by regulation.
6.3 STORM DRAINAGE - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The storm pipe (culvert) assets were all rated and prioritized based on condition assessment. Based on a
LOS and a risk assessment, the structures in the "Now" category were prioritized and all to be replaced
within the next 10 years were strategically assigned a replacement year identified in the AMP.
The municipality will continue to maintain all new structures, ensuring they remain free of debris and in
good condition.
6.4 STREET LIGHTHING - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
56
The strategy with this asset is strictly linear. The life cycle of aluminum signal poles, arms, conduit and
wiring might be considered to be 40-50 years.
Installing LED streetlights saves electricity costs, reduces maintenance and improves traffic signal visibility.
Currently, when streetlights fail or appear to produce insufficient luminosity and can't be repaired, they
are replaced with LED.
6.5 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6.5.1 Buildings Lifecycle Maintenance
After construction of a new building, some initial maintenance/rehabilitation efforts will have to be
undertaken within 12 to 25 years to maintain the lifecycle of the new building or structure. Generally, the
roof cladding, windows, HVAC system, some plumbing fixtures should be replaced in the 20-to-25-year
timeframe, with the building envelope being undertaken in the 25-to-35-year timeframe. Failure to follow a
preventive and proactive maintenance schedule of timely repairs and rehabilitations will result in higher-
than-expected repair costs, or worse, missing the optimum rehabilitation window completely.
6.5.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Buildings
The municipality has completed a recent condition of the building inventory. The municipality has not
established a systematic building inventory review and will review that need within the next five
years.
6.6 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The strategy with other land improvements assets is strictly linear. Although there is a wide difference in life
cycle for each item identified within this category, the condition rating remained based on individual age for
each asset evaluated. As the AMP is using projected needs, it is important to understand that further
evaluation of specific assets identified for replacement may be needed in the future. Some of these assets
may reach the 'End of Life' based on age; however, their condition may remain as good or fair. Under these
circumstances, evaluation reports may be justified.
6.7 VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Generally speaking, when vehicles or equipment are near their end of life, both the condition and annual
operating costs are evaluated and become indicators determining whether vehicles or equipment should
continue to be kept in service or be replaced.
The Municipality of East Ferris will also continue to prioritize Health and Safety by following Ontario
regulations to ensure motor vehicles and equipment are safe to operate.
With good monitoring strategies and preventative maintenance throughout the lifecycle of these assets,
the municipality will continue to minimize unplanned service interruption and unexpected
repair/replacement costs.
57
6.8 SIGNS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
For the purpose of the AMP, the municipality will continue to use a projected replacement year based on
sign conditions for regulatory and warning signs, while using a linear age depreciation approach for the
other signs.
6.9 GUIDERAILS - ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
For the purpose of the AMP, the municipality will maintain the annual maintenance costs to keep these
assets in good condition. Replacements are linear and based on age depreciation; however, the
municipality will continue to identify the replacement need for these assets as part of road reconstruction
projects.
58
7. FINANCING STRATEGY
Having a financial plan is critical for putting an asset management plan into action. The financing strategy
described in this section demonstrates the municipality's commitment towards integrating asset
management planning with financial planning and budgeting and to making full use of all available
infrastructure financing tools.
The AMP identifies a financial plan that will consider the following approaches to address the funding
shortfall while attempting to best align to the target lifecycle ratio:
Optimizing Asset Lifecycles
- Prioritize preventive maintenance to extend the useful life of assets.
- Implement efficient lifecycle strategies to reduce total costs while maintaining functionality.
Incremental Capital Budget Adjustments:
- Annual increases to the capital budget indexed to inflation or other cost indicators.
- Utilize assessment growth to add funds to capital reserves, where appropriate.
Enhanced Revenue Streams
- Explore additional grants, partnerships, and other funding mechanisms.
- Align projects with available senior government funding programs.
Risk-Based Prioritization
- Prioritize high-impact projects based on service levels and risk assessments.
- Shift resources to critical assets in need of urgent attention.
Revised Service Levels
- Adjust service levels where feasible to reflect financial realities while ensuring core services remain
unaffected.
Debt Utilization
- Employ strategic debt financing for long-term assets with multi-generational benefits.
This AMP will help identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based on
existing asset inventories, desired levels of service, and projected growth requirements.
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those
should be considered as additional.
7.1 FINANCING STRATEGY - ROADS
Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside
environment, functional class of the individual assets and current unit costing. Recommended funding for
the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of
infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance,
to ensure that full life expectancy may be realized.
59
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth;
those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system
would be funded from a different source, such as development charges.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. East Ferris
estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, is $60,878,814. The budget
recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the road system. This
represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in line with the asset management plan, for phased
implementation.
7.1.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the municipal road system to the current standard
is $60,878,814. This equates to an annual capital depreciation of $2,435,153 based on a 25-year design
life. The annual capital depreciation is strictly a function of the replacement cost and the design life. This
estimate does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 metres, ditching, road base repair,
grade raise, guiderails, signage or street lighting. The typical design life for a road structure is 25 years
before reconstruction/replacement. If the life span is 25 years, then 4% of the replacement cost should
be the annual contribution to the capital reserve, to ensure that it can be reconstructed in that time
frame. The full estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the road
system over a 25-year life cycle. However, the 25-year life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and
preservation treatments such as crack sealing and hot mix asphalt overlays are delivered at the
appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and
increased life cycle costs.
7.1.2 Road Rehabilitation
Roads requires preventative maintenance. These treatments vary based on the age of the road asset.
These include treatments such as crack sealing, slurry seal, resurfacing, etc. These treatments are
typically done when pavements are in good to excellent condition, for example when the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) ranges from 65 to 90. These treatments are intended to extend the life of the road
assets.
The treatment intervals vary, for pavement a resurfacing is likely to be recommended after the road
reaches its tenth year, for surface treatment a single overlay is recommended after five to eight years.
To improve the LOS for roads from fair to good, it will be necessary to improve the current average PCI
value of 60 towards a PCI of 80 as the adequacy level. To achieve this target in the next 10 years, it will
be necessary to maintain an annual resurfacing program at $1.3 million per year on average. Although
this cost represents the average annual financial need, it is important to identify that a total of almost $5
million is needed for current needs, representing investments needed to repair roads that require full
reconstruction.
These estimates were obtained for the AMP as explained in the road section. This identifies that the
municipality relies on Federal and Provincial funding assistance to carry out the full reconstruction of
these assets, and that a detailed cost estimate will be necessary when funding programs become
available.
60
7.1.3 System Performance at Various Budget Levels
WSP utilized prediction models to determine the future PCI values for the road assets. It is clear that
with a zero budget, all road assets would deteriorate very quickly. WSP carried out on the basis of using
the current funding model (indexed over 10 years), including the Canada Community Building Fund
municipal allocation. Using the current funding model of $500,000 annually for hard surfaces and
approximately $70,000 annually for gravel roads, the prediction model suggested rehabilitation
treatments where the 10-year PCI value would slightly increase from 60 to 67 after 10 years.
As the Municipality of East Ferris' average PCI of the road system is currently 60 and should be increased
to 80, it was determined that the existing budget level should be increased to meet the level of service
target level.
7.1.4 ROADS - How much will it cost?
Table 59 shows the recommended allocation based on the recommended average funding level. The
current needs are identified in the first column and would address the current priority needs to improve
the current service level. The table also shows the amount required annually based on the time of need.
Table 59: 10 Year Program - Performance Model Output (Average Funding Level)
7.1.5 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
This report identifies the overall condition of the system. It will be necessary to continue road
evaluation to confirm road adequacy and review the various strategies, programs and funding levels
required over time. It is recommended to have a 3-to-5-year cycle review period with an update of the
road system database.
The goal of pavement management strategy will remain to maintain the overall system adequacy. The
funding level for road-related programming should be set at a sufficient level so as to ensure that overall
system adequacy does not decrease over time.
7.2 FINANCING STRATEGY - STRUCTURES
7.2.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris bridge and culvert structures inventory to
the current standard is $1,705,000. The estimated capital depreciation is $35,973 based on a 50-year design
life for the steel and concrete structure and a 30-year service life for the wood structures. The annual
capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life or service life. The typical
design life for a bridge or culvert structure is 50 years if constructed prior to 2000, and 30 years was
61
selected for the wood structures; however, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and
preservation treatments such as waterproofing and resurfacing and minor rehabilitations are delivered at
the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and
increased life cycle costs.
7.2.2 STRUCTURES - How much will it cost?
Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the bridge and structure
inventory. Recommended funding for the structures inventory should include sufficient capital
expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached,
in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized.
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth;
those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system
would be funded from a different source, such as development charges.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. East
Ferris estimates the cost to replace the structures inventory to the required improved standard at
$2,353,000. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the
structures inventory. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in line with the asset
management plan, for phased implementation.
7.2.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed
for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows;
- $302,400 funding requirement, based on the recommendations for the next 10 years as per the
10 Year Asset Management Plan from the 2024 HP Engineering Bridge inspection report.
In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the
management of the structures inventory;
- The cycle for reviewing the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire
inventory on a two-year cycle.
- Structures with a BCI of less than 60 should be closely reviewed for replacement versus
rehabilitation.
- Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation
and other service life extension treatments are optimized.
7.3 FINANCING STRATEGY - STORM DRAINAGE
7.3.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris storm drainage assets to the current
standard is $7,379,948 (road cross culverts) and $625,889 (storm sewer) for a total of $8,005,837. As
this category combines both road culverts and storm sewers, their estimated capital depreciation is
62
$295,198 based on a 25-year design life for the road culverts and $8,345 based on a 75-year design life
for the storm sewers. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the
design life. However, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and minor rehabilitations are
delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and minor rehabilitation will result in
premature failure and increased life cycle costs.
7.3.2 STORM DRAINAGE - How much will it cost?
Although it is outlined in the AMP that it is recommended to invest a total of $2,602,673 over the
next 10 years, there may be some economy of scale of up to 50% for road cross culverts that can be
replaced in-house. The replacement cost identified assumes work will be done by contractors.
7.3.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed
for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows:
- $302,400 funding requirement, based upon the recommendations for the next 10 years
as per the 10 Year Asset Management plan from the 2024 HP Engineering Bridge
Inspection Report.
In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the
management of the storm drainage inventory:
-
Deteriorating storm drainage pipes should be closely reviewed to prioritize their
replacement.
7.4 FINANCING STRATEGY - STREET LIGHTING
7.4.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris street lighting to the current standard is
$354,900. The estimated capital depreciation is $17,745 based on a 20-year design life. The annual
capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life; however, the life
cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and minor rehabilitations are delivered at the appropriate
time. Inadequate maintenance and minor rehabilitation will result in premature failure and increased
life cycle costs.
7.4.2 STREET LIGHTING - How much will it cost?
As outlined in the AMP, it is recommended to invest a total of $61,500 should be undertaken over the
next 10 years to replace the old high pressure sodium lights with LED.
7.4.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
The maintenance cost of street lighting is very minimal and therefore will continue to be considered in
63
the operational budget only.
7.4 FINANCING STRATEGY - BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS
7.4.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris buildings to the current standard is
$37,270,051. The estimated capital depreciation is $631,384 based on a 50-year design life for all
buildings and on a 25-year design life for portable structures. The annual capital depreciation is
estimated based on replacement cost and the design life; however, the life cycle can only be a
reality if maintenance, preservation treatments and minor rehabilitations are delivered at the
appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and
increased life cycle costs.
7.4.2 BUILDINGS & LAND IMPROVEMENTS - How much will it cost?
The municipality identified the need to replace the Corbeil Fire Hall and a projected construction cost
of $3,500,000 has been identified for this new construction. In addition, and as outlined in subsection
3.6.3.1 of this report and re-shown below, the following recommended investments that should be
undertaken over the next 20 years in building improvement costs is $9,148,775.
Building Category
Current
Need
1-5 years
6-10 years
Over 10
Years
Total Needs
for 20 years
Municipal Office
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Public Works Garage
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Sand Storage Build.
---
---
---
$25,000
$25,000
Stand Fabric Cover
---
---
---
$150,000
$150,000
Corbeil Fire Hall
---
$25,000
$20,000
$45,000
$90,000
Astorville Fire Hall
$25,445
$42,621
$192,350
$260,416
Corbeil Park Hall
$10,000
$19,004
$75,063
$283,555
$387,622
Corbeil Outdoor Shed
---
$2,500
$500
$2,000
$5,000
EFCC
$1,250,000
$1,823,045
$938,452
$2,177,105
$6,188,602
Library
---
$191,794
$71,565
$280,057
$543,416
OPP Training Center
$70,000
$27,990
$293,415
$882,314
$1,273,719
Medical Center
---
$10,000
$20,000
$45,000
$75,000
Grand Total
$1,330,000
$2,144,778
$1,501,616
$4,172,381
$9,148,775
7.4.3 Recommendations - Long term sustainability
According to the MPAC Building Condition Report, the total requirements are $9,148,775 over the
next 20 years.
Based on the composition of the buildings, budget recommendations have been developed for
annual capital and maintenance programs as follows:
-
$631,384 for the buildings capital/depreciation
64
-
$457,439 for average annual requirement, based upon the recommendations for the next
20 years.
7.5 FINANCING STRATEGY - OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS
7.5.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris other land improvements to the current
standard is $2,541,256. The estimated capital depreciation is $132,465 based on itemized life
expectancy varying between 15 to 50-year design life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated
based on replacement cost and the design life.
7.5.2 OTHER LAND IMPROVEMENTS - How much will it cost?
Although the estimated replacement/depreciation value in this category remains high for the
municipality, the replacement plan identified in this AMP remains linear based on the individual asset
age. The projected $770,064 total replacement cost does not take into consideration depreciation.
7.5.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
As certain assets are identified as having reached their end of life, further evaluation will be required
to better determine if they can remain operational, thus postponing their replacement.
As the AMP gets reviewed in the future, the risk associated with this decision is that it will return the
assets that have beyond their expected life to the current needs, thus accumulating that financial
obligation.
7.6 FINANCING STRATEGY - VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
7.6.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of East Ferris vehicles and equipment to the current
standard is $4,165,000 and $3,159,841, respectively. The estimated capital depreciation for vehicles and
equipment is $132,465 and $228,058, respectively, based on itemized life expectancy varying between 5
to 25-year design life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the
design life.
7.6.2 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT - How much will it cost?
Although the estimated replacement/depreciation value in this category remains high for the
municipality, the replacement plan identified in this AMP remains subject to many factors, including
proper preventative maintenance that may extend the individual asset replacement year.
As outlined in the AMP, it is recommended to invest a total of $3,170,000 in vehicles and a total of
$1,009,350 in equipment over the next 10 years based on individual linear depreciation.
65
7.6.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
As certain assets are identified as having reached their end of life, further evaluation will be required
to better determine if they can remain operational, thus postponing their replacement.
As the AMP is reviewed in the future, the risk associated with this decision is that it will return the
assets that have reached beyond their expected life to the current needs, thus accumulating that
financial obligation.
7.7 FINANCING STRATEGY - SIGNS
7.7.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of signs to the current standard is $71,750. The
estimated capital depreciation is $6,673 based on itemized life expectancy varying between 10 to 20 years
design life.
7.7.2 SIGNS - How much will it cost?
As outlined in the AMP, it is recommended to invest a total of $71,750 that should be undertaken
over the next 10 years to maintain this asset to current standards. This amount represents a full
replacement of all signs. This projection remains linear based and is subject to change based on annual
inspection.
7.7.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
The replacement cost of signs is very minimal and therefore will continue to be considered in the
operational budget only.
7.8 FINANCING STRATEGY - GUIDERAILS
7.8.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of guiderails to the current standard is $392,338. The
estimated capital depreciation is $15,694 based on a 25-year design life.
7.8.2 GUIDERAILS - How much will it cost?
As outlined in the AMP, it is recommended to invest a total of $50,000 over the next 10 years to
maintain this asset to current standards. This amount is based on historical maintenance costs. The
replacement of these assets was historically incorporated in full road reconstruction, therefore the
recommendation for the municipality is to continue this practice.
7.8.3 Recommendations - Long Term Sustainability
66
The maintenance cost of guiderails is very minimal and therefore will continue to be considered in the
operational budget only, while the full reconstruction will remain part of road reconstruction projects.
67
7.9 FINANCING STRATEGY ALL ASSETS
The following table outlines the recommendations based upon current funding levels and TON. As shown,
the current funding level is approximately $15.321 million short of the recommended budget when you
consider the entire 10 years. Further analysis is required for recommendations with respect to debt and
financing based upon the desired levels of service.
68
7.9.1 10 Year Program
Table 60: Recommended Capital Investments - Next 10 Years