This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot d52184af9803 · verified 2026-06-09 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
Asset Management
Plan
2025
This Asset Management Program was prepared by:
Empowering your organization through advanced
asset management, budgeting & GIS solutions
i | P a g e
Table of Contents
List of Figures ...................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1
About this Document ............................................................................ 3
An Overview of Asset Management ......................................................... 6
Portfolio Overview .............................................................................. 16
Financial Strategy ............................................................................... 34
Recommendations and Key Considerations ............................................ 41
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements ..................... 43
Appendix B: Vehicles .......................................................................... 55
Appendix C: Trail Network ................................................................... 65
Appendix D: Proposed LOS 10-Year Capital Requirements ....................... 76
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria ........................................................... 78
Appendix F: Condition Assessment Guidelines ........................................ 82
ii | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1 Asset Classifications ................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Service Life Remaining Calculation ............................................ 9
Figure 3 Standard Condition Rating Scale ................................................ 9
Figure 4 Lifecyle Management Typical Interventions ................................ 11
Figure 5 Risk Equation ........................................................................ 12
Figure 6 Full Funding vs Actual Reinvestment Rates ................................ 18
Figure 7: Portfolio Replacement Value ................................................... 18
Figure 8 Forecasted Capital Requirements ............................................. 19
Figure 9 Service Life Remaining - All Assets ........................................... 21
Figure 10 Overall Asset Risk Breakdown ................................................ 22
Figure 11 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Replacement Cost
........................................................................................................ 43
Figure 12 Buildings, Equipment Land Improvements Average Age vs Average
EUL................................................................................................... 44
Figure 13 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Condition
Breakdown ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 14 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Current Lifecycle
Strategy ............................................................................................ 45
Figure 15 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Forecasted Capital
Replacement Requirements ................................................................. 47
Figure 16 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Risk Matrix ........ 48
Figure 17 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Strategic Levels of
Service .............................................................................................. 49
Figure 18 Scenario Comparison: Ambulance Base Conditions ................... 52
Figure 19 Scenario Comparison: County Admin Conditions....................... 53
Figure 20 Scenario Comparison: Fairmount Home Conditions ................... 54
Figure 21 Vehicle Replacement Costs .................................................... 55
Figure 22 Vehicles Average Age vs Average EUL ..................................... 56
Figure 23 Vehicles Condition Breakdown ................................................ 56
Figure 24 Vehicles Current Lifecycle Strategy ......................................... 57
Figure 25 Vehicle Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements .............. 58
iii | P a g e
Figure 26 Vehicles Risk Matrix .............................................................. 59
Figure 27 Vehicles Strategic Levels of Service ........................................ 60
Figure 28 Scenario Comparison: Ambulances Conditions ......................... 63
Figure 29 Scenario Comparison: Paramedic (Non-Ambulance) Conditions .. 64
Figure 30 K&P Trails Replacement Costs ................................................ 65
Figure 31 K&P Trail Average Age vs Average EUL.................................... 66
Figure 32 K&P Trail Condition Breakdown .............................................. 66
Figure 33 K&P Trail Current Lifecycle Strategy ........................................ 67
Figure 34 K&P Trail Network Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements
........................................................................................................ 68
Figure 35 K&P Trail Network Risk Matrix ................................................ 70
Figure 36 K&P Trail Network Strategic Levels of Service .......................... 71
Figure 37 K&P Trail Map ...................................................................... 73
Figure 38 Scenario Comparison: K&P Trail Conditions.............................. 75
iv | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements and Reporting Deadlines .. 3
Table 2 Frontenac County & Ontario Census Information ......................... 16
Table 3 Frontenac County State of the Infrastructure Summary ............... 17
Table 4 Assessed Condition Data Sources .............................................. 20
Table 5 Frontenac County Populations Projections ................................... 24
Table 6: Scenario 1 Results ................................................................. 27
Table 7: Scenario 2 Results ................................................................. 28
Table 8: Scenario 3 Results ................................................................. 28
Table 9 Average Annual Capital Requirements ........................................ 35
Table 10: Current Funding Position vs Required Funding .......................... 36
Table 11: Current Funding Allocation by Asset Category and Source ......... 37
Table 12: Average Annual Investment by Asset Category and Funding
Source .............................................................................................. 38
Table 13: Net New Funding Required Under Scenario 3 by Funding Source 39
Table 14 Phasing in Annual Tax Increases .............................................. 39
Table 15 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements State of
Infrastructure Summary ...................................................................... 43
Table 16 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements System-Generated
10-Year Capital Costs .......................................................................... 47
Table 17 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Buildings, Equipment and Land
Improvements Community Levels of Service .......................................... 50
Table 18 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Buildings, Equipment and Land
Improvements Technical Levels of Service ............................................. 50
Table 19 Vehicles State of Infrastructure Summary ................................. 55
Table 20 Vehicles System-Generated 10-Year Capital Costs ..................... 58
Table 21 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Vehicles Community Levels of Service 61
Table 22 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Vehicles Technical Levels of Service ... 61
Table 23 K&P Trails State of Infrastructure Summary .............................. 65
Table 24 K&P Trail Network System-Generated 10-Year Capital Costs ....... 69
Table 25 Ontario Regulation 588/17 K&P Trail Network Community Levels of
Service .............................................................................................. 72
v | P a g e
Table 26 Ontario Regulation 588/17 K&P Trail Network Technical Levels of
Service .............................................................................................. 72
Table 27 System-Generated 10-Year Capital Requirements - All Asset
Categories ......................................................................................... 76
Table 28 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Risk Frameworks . 79
Table 29 Bridges Risk Frameworks ........................................................ 80
Table 30: Culverts Risk Frameworks ..................................................... 81
Table 31 Machinery & Equipment, Trails, and Vehicles Risk Frameworks .... 81
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
1 | P a g e
Executive Summary
Introduction
Frontenac County's municipal infrastructure provides the foundation for the
economic, social, and environmental health and growth of a community
through the delivery of services. The goal of asset management is to balance
delivering critical services in a cost-effective manner. This involves the
development and implementation of asset management strategies and long-
term financial planning.
This 2025 Asset Management Plan establishes new service level targets that
align infrastructure performance and funding capacity, outlining the
strategies and financial requirements to achieve them.
Key Findings
The overall replacement cost of the asset categories owned by Frontenac
County totals $129.7 million; 81% of all assets analysed are in fair or better
condition and assessed condition data was available for 80% of assets. For
the remaining assets, assessed condition data was unavailable, and asset
age was used to approximate condition - a data gap that persists in most
municipalities. Generally, age misstates the true condition of assets, making
assessments essential to accurate asset management planning, and a
recurring recommendation.
The County has selected a Proposed Level of Service Scenario that sets new
service level targets and applies 1.5% annual budget increases for the K&P
Trail, Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration assets, and 5%
annual increases for Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicles. This balanced
approach strengthens financial sustainability while supporting key priorities
such as timely ambulance replacements, reinvestment in aging
infrastructure at Fairmount Home, and consistent funding for essential
facilities, fleet, and staff training. These increases will be phased in over a
10-year period, aligning long-term financial planning with the County's new
service objectives. In addition, an infrastructure backlog of $7.2 million
remains, representing assets that have exceeded their estimated useful life.
While not all require immediate replacement, targeted condition
assessments will refine backlog estimates and help prioritize investments.
Recommendations
Risk frameworks and levels of service targets can then be used to prioritize
projects and help select the right lifecycle intervention for the right asset at
the right time - including replacement or full reconstruction. The County has
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
2 | P a g e
developed preliminary risk models which are integrated with its asset
register. These models can produce risk matrices that classify assets based
on their risk profiles.
Most municipalities in Ontario, and across Canada, continue to struggle with
meeting infrastructure demands. This challenge was created over many
decades and will take many years to overcome. To this end, several
recommendations should be considered, including:
-
Continuous and dedicated improvement to the County's infrastructure
datasets, which form the foundation for all analysis, including financial
projections and needs.
-
Continuous refinements to the risk and lifecycle models as additional
data becomes available. This will aid in prioritizing projects and creating
more strategic long-term capital budgets.
The County has taken important steps in building its asset management
program, including developing a more complete and accurate asset register
- a substantial initiative. Continuous improvement to this inventory will be
essential in maintaining momentum, supporting long-term financial planning,
and delivering affordable service levels to the Frontenac County community.
Compliance
With the development of this AMP, Frontenac County has achieved
compliance with July 1, 2025, requirements under O. Reg. 588/17. This
includes requirements for proposed levels of service and inventory reporting
for all asset categories.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
3 | P a g e
About this Document
The Frontenac County Asset Management Plan was developed in accordance
with Ontario Regulation 588/17 ("O. Reg 588/17"). It contains a
comprehensive analysis of Frontenac County's infrastructure portfolio. This is
a living document that should be updated regularly as additional asset and
financial data becomes available.
Ontario Regulation 588/17
As part of the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, the Ontario
government introduced Regulation 588/17 - Asset Management Planning for
Municipal Infrastructure. Along with creating better performing
organizations, more livable and sustainable communities, the regulation is a
key, mandated driver of asset management planning and reporting. It places
substantial emphasis on current and proposed levels of service and the
lifecycle costs incurred in delivering them.
Table 1 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements and Reporting Deadlines
Requirement
2019
2022
2024
2025
1. Asset Management Policy
2. Asset Management Plans
State of infrastructure for core assets
State of infrastructure for all assets
Current levels of service for core assets
Current levels of service for all assets
Proposed levels of service for all assets
Lifecycle costs associated with current levels of
service
Lifecycle costs associated with proposed levels of
service
Growth impacts
Financial strategy
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
4 | P a g e
Scope
The scope of this document is to identify the current practices and strategies
that are in place to manage public infrastructure and to make
recommendations where they can be further refined. Through the
implementation of sound asset management strategies, the County can
ensure that public infrastructure is managed to support the sustainable
delivery of municipal services.
The following asset categories are addressed in further sections:
Non-Core
Assets
Buildings,
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
Trail Network
Vehicles
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
5 | P a g e
Limitations and Constraints
The asset management program development required substantial effort by
staff, it was developed based on best-available data, and is subject to the
following broad limitations, constraints, and assumptions:
-
The analysis is highly sensitive to several critical data fields, including
an asset's estimated useful life, replacement cost, quantity, and in-
service date. Inaccuracies or imprecisions in any of these fields can
have substantial and cascading impacts on all reporting and analytics.
-
User-defined and unit cost estimates, based typically on staff judgment,
recent projects, or established through completion of technical studies,
offer the most precise approximations of current replacement costs.
When this isn't possible, historical costs incurred at the time of asset
acquisition or construction can be inflated to present day. This
approach, while sometimes necessary, can produce highly inaccurate
estimates.
-
In the absence of condition assessment data, age was used to estimate
asset condition ratings. This approach can result in an over- or
understatement of asset needs. As a result, financial requirements
generated through this approach can differ from those produced by
staff.
-
The risk models are designed to support objective project prioritization
and selection. However, in addition to the inherent limitations that all
models face, they also require availability of important asset attribute
data to ensure that asset risk ratings are valid, and assets are properly
stratified within the risk matrix. Missing attribute data can misclassify
assets.
These limitations have a direct impact on most of the analysis presented,
including condition summaries, age profiles, long-term replacement and
rehabilitation forecasts, and shorter term, 10-year forecasts that are
generated from Citywide, the County's primary asset management system.
These challenges are quite common among municipalities and require long-
term commitment and sustained effort by staff. As the County's asset
management program evolves and advances, the quality of future AMPs and
other core documents that support asset management will continue to
increase.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
6 | P a g e
An Overview of Asset Management
Municipalities are responsible for managing and maintaining a broad portfolio
of infrastructure assets to deliver services to the community. The goal of
asset management is to minimize the lifecycle costs of delivering
infrastructure services, manage the associated risks; while maximizing the
value and levels of service the community receives from the asset portfolio.
Lifecycle costs can span decades, requiring planning and foresight to ensure
financial responsibility is spread equitably across generations. An asset
management plan is critical to this planning, and an essential element of the
broader asset management program. The industry-standard approach and
sequence to developing a practical asset management program begins with
a Strategic Plan, followed by an Asset Management Policy and an Asset
Management Strategy, concluding with an Asset Management Plan (AMP).
This industry standard, defined by the Institute of Asset Management (IAM),
emphasizes the alignment between the corporate strategic plan and various
asset management documents. The strategic plan has a direct, and
cascading impact on asset management planning and reporting.
Foundational Documents
In the municipal sector, 'asset management strategy' and 'asset
management plan' are often used interchangeably. Other concepts such as
'asset management framework', 'asset management system', and 'strategic
asset management plan' further add to the confusion; lack of consistency in
the industry on the purpose and definition of these elements offers little
clarity. To make a clear distinction between the policy, strategy, and the
plan see the following sections for detailed descriptions of the document
types.
Strategic Plan
The strategic plan has a direct, and cascading impact on asset management
planning and reporting, making it a foundational element. At the beginning
of each term of Council, Council holds strategic planning exercises and
discussions to identify major initiatives and administrative improvements it
wishes to achieve during its tenure. Staff then identify the scope, resources,
timing & other logistical matters associated with proposed initiatives.
Asset Management Policy
An asset management policy represents a statement of the principles
guiding the County's approach to asset management activities. It aligns with
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
7 | P a g e
the organization and provides clear direction to municipal staff on their roles
and responsibilities.
Frontenac County adopted their asset management policy 2019-068 on June
19, 2019, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 588/17. The policy
identifies the asset management vision is to proactively manage its assets to
best serve the County's objectives, including:
-
Provide a consistent framework for implementing asset management
throughout the organization
-
Provide transparency and accountability to its stakeholders with
evidence based decision-making processes that align with strategic
plans, budgets, service levels and risk management practices
-
Prioritize the need for existing and future assets to effectively deliver
services to the community and stakeholders
-
Maintain prudent financial planning and decision-making
-
Support sustainability and economic development
Asset Management Strategy
An asset management strategy outlines the translation of organizational
objectives into asset management objectives and provides a strategic
overview of the activities required to meet these objectives. It provides
greater detail than the policy on how Frontenac County plans to achieve its
asset management objectives through planned activities and decision-
making criteria.
Asset Management Plan
The asset management plan is often identified as a key output within the
strategy. The AMP has a sharp focus on the current state of the County's
asset portfolio, and its approach to managing and funding individual service
areas or asset groups. It is tactical in nature and provides a snapshot in
time.
Key Technical Concepts
Effective asset management integrates several key components, including
data management, lifecycle management, risk management, and levels of
service. These concepts are applied throughout this asset management plan
and are described below in greater detail.
Asset Hierarchy and Data Classification
Asset hierarchy illustrates the relationship between individual assets and
their components, and a wider, more expansive network and system. How
assets are grouped in a hierarchy structure can impact how data is
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
8 | P a g e
interpreted. Assets were structured to support meaningful, efficient reporting
and analysis. Key category details are summarized at the asset segment
level.
Figure 1 Asset Classifications
Replacement Costs
There are a range of methods to determine the replacement cost of an
asset, and some are more accurate and reliable than others. The two
methodologies are:
-
User-Defined Cost and Cost/Unit: Based on costs provided by municipal
staff which could include average costs from recent contracts; data from
engineering reports and assessments; staff estimates based on
knowledge and experience
-
Cost Inflation/CPI Tables: Historical cost of the asset is inflated based
on Consumer Price Index or Non-Residential Building Construction Price
Index
User-defined costs based on reliable sources are a reasonably accurate and
reliable way to determine asset replacement costs. Cost inflation is typically
used in the absence of reliable replacement cost data. It is a reliable method
for recently purchased and/or constructed assets where the total cost is
reflective of the actual costs that the County incurred. As assets age, and
new products and technologies become available, cost inflation becomes a
less reliable method.
Estimated Useful Life and Service Life Remaining
The estimated useful life (EUL) of an asset is the period over which the
County expects the asset to be available for use and remain in service
before requiring replacement or disposal. The EUL for each asset was
assigned according to the knowledge and expertise of municipal staff and
supplemented by existing industry standards when necessary.
-County Administration
-Fairmount Home
-Ambulance Bases
Buildings,
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
-Trail
-Trail Bridges
-Trail Culverts
-Trail Equipment
-Trail Parking Lots
Trail Network
-County Administration
-Ambulances
-Paramedic (Non-
Ambulance)
Vehicles
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
9 | P a g e
By using an asset's in-service date and its EUL, the County can determine
the service life remaining (SLR) for each asset. Using condition data and the
asset's SLR, the County can more accurately forecast when it will require
replacement. The SLR is calculated as follows:
Figure 2: Service Life Remaining Calculation
Asset Condition
An incomplete or limited understanding of asset condition can mislead long-
term planning and decision-making. Accurate and reliable condition data
helps to prevent premature and costly rehabilitation or replacement and
ensures that lifecycle activities occur at the right time to maximize asset
value and useful life.
A condition assessment rating system provides a standardized descriptive
framework that allows comparative benchmarking across the County's asset
portfolio. The table below outlines the condition rating system used to
determine asset condition. This rating system is aligned with the Canadian
Core Public Infrastructure Survey which is used to develop the Canadian
Infrastructure Report Card.
Figure 3 Standard Condition Rating Scale
Condition
Description
Criteria
Service Life
Remaining (%)
Very Good
Fit for the
future
Well maintained, good condition, new
or recently rehabilitated
80-100
Good
Adequate for
now
Acceptable, generally approaching
mid-stage of expected service life
60-80
Fair
Requires
attention
Signs of deterioration, some
elements exhibit significant
deficiencies
40-60
Poor
Increasing
potential of
affecting
service
Approaching end of service life,
condition below standard, large
portion of system exhibits significant
deterioration
20-40
Very Poor
Unfit for
sustained
service
Near or beyond expected service life,
widespread signs of advanced
deterioration, some assets may be
unusable
0-20
The analysis is based on assessed condition data (only as available). In the
absence of assessed condition data, asset age is used as a proxy to
determine asset condition. Appendix F: Condition Assessment Guidelines
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
10 | P a g e
includes additional information on the role of asset condition data and
provides basic guidelines for the development of a condition assessment
program.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This
process is affected by a range of factors including an asset's characteristics,
location, utilization, maintenance history and environment. Asset
deterioration has a negative effect on the ability of an asset to fulfill its
intended function, and may be characterized by increased cost, risk and
even service disruption.
To ensure that municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting the
needs of customers, it is important to establish a lifecycle management
strategy to proactively manage asset deterioration. There are several field
intervention activities that are available to extend the life of an asset. These
activities can be generally placed into one of three categories: maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement. The following table provides a description of
each type of activity and the general difference in cost.
Depending on initial lifecycle management strategies, asset performance can
be sustained through a combination of maintenance and rehabilitation, but
at some point, replacement is required. Understanding what effect these
activities will have on the lifecycle of an asset, and their cost, will enable
staff to make better recommendations.
The Figure below provides a description of each type of activity, the general
difference in cost, and typical risks associated with each.
The County's approach to lifecycle management is described within each
asset category. Developing and implementing a proactive lifecycle strategy
will help staff to determine which activities to perform on an asset and when
they should be performed to maximize useful life at the lowest total cost of
ownership.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
11 | P a g e
Figure 4 Lifecyle Management Typical Interventions
Risk Management Strategies
Municipalities generally take a 'worst-first' approach to infrastructure
spending. Rather than prioritizing assets based on their importance to
service delivery, assets in the worst condition are fixed first, regardless of
their criticality. However, not all assets are created equal. Some are more
important than others, and their failure or disrepair poses more risk to the
community. For example, a road with a high volume of traffic that provides
access to critical services poses a higher risk than a low volume rural road.
These high-value assets should receive funding before others.
By identifying the various impacts of asset failure and the likelihood that it
will fail, risk management strategies can identify critical assets, and
determine where maintenance efforts, and spending, should be focused.
- General level of cost is $
- All actions necessary for retaining an asset as near as
practicable to its original condition,but excluding rehabilitation
or renewal. Maintenance does not increase the service
potential of the asset or keep it in its original condition;
- it slows down deterioration and delays when rehabilitation or
replacement is necessary.
Maintenance
- General level of cost is $$$
- Works to rebuild or replace parts or components of an asset,
to restore it to a required functional condition and extend its
life, which may incorporate some modification.
- Generally involves repairing the asset to deliver its original
level of service (i.e. milling and paving of roads) without
resorting to significant upgrading or replacement, using
available techniques and standards.
Rehabilitation / Renewal
- General level of cost is $$$$$
- The complete replacement of an asset that has reached the
end of its life, so as to provide a similar, or agreed alternative,
level of service.
- Existing asset disposal is generally included.
Replacement
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
12 | P a g e
A high-level evaluation of asset risk and criticality was performed. Each
asset has been assigned a probability of failure score and consequence of
failure score based on available asset data. These risk scores can be used to
prioritize maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement strategies for critical
assets.
Risk is a product of two variables: the probability that an asset will fail, and
the resulting consequences of that failure event. It can be a qualitative
measurement, (low, medium, high) or quantitative measurement (1-5), that
can be used to rank assets and projects, identify appropriate lifecycle
strategies, optimize short- and long-term budgets, minimize service
disruptions, and maintain public health and safety.
Figure 5 Risk Equation
Probability of Failure
Several factors can help decision-makers estimate the probability or
likelihood of an asset's failure, including its condition, age, previous
performance history, and exposure to extreme weather events, such as
flooding and ice jams--both a growing concern for municipalities in Canada.
Consequence of Failure
Estimating criticality also requires identifying the types of consequences that
the organization and community may face from an asset's failure, and the
magnitude of those consequences. Consequences of asset failure will vary
across the infrastructure portfolio; the failure of some assets may result
primarily in high direct financial cost but may pose limited risk to the
community. Other assets may have a relatively minor financial value, but
any downtime may pose significant health and safety hazards to residents.
See for definitions and the developed risk models.
Levels of Service
A level of service (LOS) is a measure of the services that Frontenac County
is providing to the community and the nature and quality of that service.
Within each asset category, technical metrics and qualitative descriptions
that measure both technical and community levels of service have been
established and measured as data is available.
Risk
Probability
of Failure
Consequenc
e of Failure
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
13 | P a g e
At this stage, three strategic levels of service are measured for every asset
category, and they are:
-
Financial - this is the full funding reinvestment rate compared to the
actual current reinvestment rate.
-
Performance - this is the condition breakdown for the asset category.
-
Risk - this is the risk profile for the asset category.
Only those LOS that are required under O. Reg for core asset categories are
included in addition to the strategic LOS.
Community Levels of Service
Community LOS are a simple, plain language description or measure of the
service that the community receives. For core asset categories, the Province
through O. Reg. 588/17, has provided qualitative descriptions that are
required. For non-core asset categories, the County must determine the
qualitative descriptions that will be used. The community LOS can be found
in the Levels of Service subsection within each core asset category section.
Technical Levels of Service
Technical LOS are a measure of key technical attributes of the service being
provided to the community. These include mostly quantitative measures and
tend to reflect the impact of the County's asset management strategies on
the physical condition of assets or the quality/capacity of the services they
provide.
For core asset categories, the Province through O. Reg. 588/17, has
provided technical metrics that are required. For non-core asset categories,
the County must determine the technical metrics that will be used. The
metrics can be found in the LOS subsection within each core asset category.
Current and Proposed Levels of Service
Current LOS are the past performance metrics of an asset category up until
present day. In contrast, Proposed LOS looks toward the municipality's goal
for asset performance by a defined future date.
It is important to note that O. Reg 588/17 does not dictate which proposed
LOS metrics municipality's need to strive for. A proposed LOS will be very
specific to each community's resident desires, political goals, and financial
capacity. This can range from increasing service levels and costs, to
maintaining or even reducing current performance in order to mitigate future
cost increases. Regardless of the proposed LOS chosen, O. Reg 588/17
requires municipalities to demonstrate the achievability of their selected
metrics.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
14 | P a g e
Climate Change
Climate change can cause severe impacts on human and natural systems
around the world. The effects of climate change include increasing
temperatures, higher levels of precipitation, droughts, and extreme weather
events. In 2019, Canada's Changing Climate Report (CCCR 2019) was
released by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).
The report revealed that between 1948 and 2016, the average temperature
increase across Canada was 1.7°C; moreover, during this period, Northern
Canada experienced a 2.3°C increase. The temperature increase in Canada
has doubled that of the global average. If emissions are not significantly
reduced, the temperature could increase by 6.3°C in Canada by the year
2100 compared to 2005 levels. Observed precipitation changes in Canada
include an increase of approximately 20% between 1948 and 2012.
By the late 21st century, the projected increase could reach an additional
24%. During the summer months, some regions in Southern Canada are
expected to experience periods of drought at a higher rate. Extreme weather
events and climate conditions are more common across Canada. Recorded
events include droughts, flooding, cold extremes, warm extremes, wildfires,
and record minimum arctic sea ice extent.
The changing climate poses a significant risk to the Canadian economy,
society, environment, and infrastructure. Physical infrastructure is vulnerable
to damage and increased wear when exposed to these extreme events and
climate variabilities. Canadian municipalities are faced with the responsibility
to protect their local economy, citizens, environment, and physical assets.
Integration Climate Change and Asset Management
Asset management practices aim to deliver sustainable service delivery - the
delivery of services to residents today without compromising the services
and well-being of future residents. Climate change threatens sustainable
service delivery by reducing the useful life of an asset and increasing the risk
of asset failure. Desired levels of service can be more difficult to achieve
because of climate change impacts such as flooding, high heat, drought, and
more frequent and intense storms.
To achieve the sustainable delivery of services, climate change
considerations should be incorporated into asset management practices. The
integration of asset management and climate change adaptation observes
industry best practices and enables the development of a holistic approach
to risk management.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
15 | P a g e
Reinvestment Rate
As assets age and deteriorate, they require additional investment to
maintain a state of good repair. The reinvestment of capital funds, through
asset renewal or replacement, is necessary to sustain an adequate level of
service. The reinvestment rate is a measurement of available or required
funding relative to the total replacement cost. By comparing the actual vs.
full funding reinvestment rate the County can determine the extent of any
existing funding gap.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
16 | P a g e
Portfolio Overview
Community Profile
Frontenac County is an upper tier municipality located along Lake Ontario,
southwest of Ottawa. The County is comprised of the townships of North
Frontenac, Central Frontenac, South Frontenac, and the Frontenac
Islands. The City of Kingston resides within the borders of the Frontenac
census division but is not included in the County.
The County has incredible access to natural areas through the nearby
provincial park and the Frontenac K&P Trail. This offers tourists and locals
the opportunity to fish, bike ride, canoe, and explore. In addition, the
County boasts one of the best stargazing locations in the province at the
Dark Sky Preserve.
Frontenac County is located near Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto, allowing
local businesses access and exposure to these large markets and
opportunities that they offer. The County has full time staff dedicated to
continued economic development including one on one business
consultations. The County places particular emphasis on supporting brand
fortitude, supporting business profitability, and growing the artisan
beverage and food sector.
The County has experienced continued growth over the last 15 years.
Around 22% of the population is above the age of 65, this is around 4%
higher than for Ontario as a whole.
The County generates a total revenue of $12,827,970 million from taxes
and has an annual capital budget of $2.6 million as of 2023. The County's
infrastructure priorities include maintaining County facilities, K&P Trail,
machinery, equipment, and vehicles.
Table 2 Frontenac County & Ontario Census Information
Census Characteristic
Frontenac County
Ontario
Population 2021
29,255
14,223,942
Population Change 2016-2021
+9.8%
+5.8%
Total Private Dwellings
80,226
5,929,250
Population Density
43.4/km2
15.9/km2
Land Area
3,725 km2
892,411.76 km2
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
17 | P a g e
State of the Infrastructure
The following summarizes the state of infrastructure across all asset
categories and assesses the County's capacity to meet capital
replacement needs relative to the reinvestment rate required under a full
funding scenario, while maintaining existing levels of service across the
asset portfolio.
Table 3 Frontenac County State of the Infrastructure Summary
Reinvestment Rate
The graph below depicts funding gaps or surpluses by comparing full
funding vs actual reinvestment rate. To meet the long-term replacement
needs, the County should be allocating approximately $4.9 million
annually, for a full funding reinvestment rate of 3.78%. Actual annual
spending on infrastructure totals approximately $2.66 million, for an
actual reinvestment rate of 2.1%.
Asset Category Replacement
Cost
Asset
Condition
Financial
Capacity
Buildings,
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
$112,165,106 Fair (52%)
Annual Requirement:
$3,408,535
Funding Available:
$1,779,136
Annual Deficit:
$1,629,399
Trail
$12,671,033
Good (73%)
Annual Requirement:
$761,465
Funding Available:
$100,000
Annual Deficit:
$661,465
Vehicles
$4,830,298
Fair (42%)
Annual Requirement:
$733,924
Funding Available:
$782,330
Annual Surplus:
($48,406)
Overall
$129,666,437 Fair (54%)
Annual Requirement:
$4,903,925
Funding Available:
$2,661,466
Annual Deficit:
$2,242,479
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
18 | P a g e
Figure 6 Full Funding vs Actual Reinvestment Rates
Replacement Cost
The asset categories have a total replacement cost of $129.7 million
based on available inventory data. This total was determined based on a
combination of user-defined costs and historical cost inflation. This
estimate reflects replacement of historical assets with similar, not
necessarily identical, assets available for procurement today.
Figure 7: Portfolio Replacement Value
3.04%
6.01%
15.19%
1.59%
0.79%
16.20%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
Buildings & Land Improvements
Trail
Vehicles
Actual Reinvestment Rate
Full Funding Reinvestment Rate
$4.8m
$12.7m
$112.2m
$20m
$40m
$60m
$80m
$100m
$120m
Vehicles
Trail
Buildings & Land
Improvements
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
19 | P a g e
Forecasted Capital Requirements
Aging assets require maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. Figure 8 below illustrates the cyclical
short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure replacement requirements for all asset categories analyzed.
On average, $4.9 million is required each year to remain current with capital replacement needs for
Frontenac County's asset portfolio (red dotted line represents the annual requirement trend).
Although actual spending may fluctuate substantially from year to year, this figure is a useful benchmark
for annual capital expenditure targets (or allocations to reserves) to ensure projects are not deferred and
replacement needs are met as they arise. This figure relies on age and available condition data. Based on
the current replacement cost of the portfolio, estimated at $129.7 million, this represents an annual
reinvestment rate of 3.78% under.
Figure 8 Forecasted Capital Requirements
$4.9m
$7.2m
$19.6m$20.9m
$16.2m
$21.4m
$37.1m
$21.4m$17.7m
$57.7m
$24.5m
$16.8m
$28.4m
$19.3m
$26.2m
$16.0m
$0
$10m
$20m
$30m
$40m
$50m
$60m
$70m
Buildings & Land Improvements
Trail
Vehicles
Annual Requirement
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
20 | P a g e
The chart also illustrates a backlog of $7.2 million, comprising assets that
remain in service beyond their estimated useful life. It is unlikely that all
such assets are in a state of disrepair, requiring immediate replacements or
major renewals. This makes targeted and consistent condition assessments
integral.
Risk frameworks, proactive lifecycle strategies, and levels of service targets
can then be used to prioritize projects, continuously refine estimates for both
backlogs and ongoing capital needs and help select the right treatment for
each asset.
Condition of Asset Portfolio
The current condition of the assets is central to all asset management
planning. Collectively, 81% of assets in Frontenac County are in fair or
better condition. This estimate relies on both age-based and field condition
data.
Assessed condition data is available for 80% of assets; for the remaining
portfolio, age is used as an approximation of condition. Assessed condition
data is invaluable in asset management planning as it reflects the true
condition of the asset and its ability to perform its functions. The table below
identifies the source of condition data.
Table 4 Assessed Condition Data Sources
Asset Category
Assets with
Assessed Condition
Source of Condition Data
Buildings and Land
Improvements
86%
2022 & 2023 ABSI Inc.
Trails
52%
2020 & 2022 OSIM
Vehicles & Equipment
0%
No Condition Data Available
Very Poor,
$13,516,524
(10%)
Poor,
$11,024,976
(9%)
Fair,
$73,002,784
(56%)
Good,
$24,682,633
(19%)
Very Good,
$7,439,519
(6%)
Overall Portfolio Condition
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
21 | P a g e
Service Life Remaining
Based on asset age, available assessed condition data and estimated useful
life, 20% of the County's assets will require rehabilitation / replacement
within the next 10 years. Details of the capital requirements identified in
each asset section.
Figure 9 Service Life Remaining - All Assets
Risk & Criticality
Frontenac County has noted key trends, challenges, and risks to service
delivery that they are currently facing:
Growth
Frontenac County is experiencing higher than projected growth, and it
is expected to continue. Population and employment growth will
increase the demand on municipal services and potentially decrease the
lifecycle of certain assets. As the population continues to grow, the
County must prioritize expanding its capacity to serve a larger
population.
Funding
Major capital rehabilitation projects (bridges and culverts in particular)
are entirely dependent on the availability of grant funding
opportunities. When grants are not available, projects may be deferred.
Aging Infrastructure
$1.1m
$6.1m
$3.6m
$2.4m
$98k
$2.7m
$5.9m
$7.5m
$96.0m
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Vehicles
Trail
Buildings &
Land
Improvements
Service Life Expired
0 - 5 Years Remaining
6 - 10 Years Remaining
Over 10 Years Remaining
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
22 | P a g e
Historically, lifecycle management strategies have been reactive.
Focusing on replacing poor condition assets at the end of their life
expectancy but playing catch up on deferred lifecycle activities is an
ongoing issue.
The over all risk breakdown for Frontenac County's asset inventory is
portrayed in the figure below.
Figure 10 Overall Asset Risk Breakdown
1 - 4
5 - 7
8 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 25
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
$17,565,636
$13,484,208 $21,135,047 $65,027,161
$12,454,385
(14%)
(10%)
(16%)
(50%)
(10%)
Reviewing the list of very high-risk assets to evaluate how best to mitigate
the level of risk the County is experiencing will help advance Frontenac
County's asset management program.
Frontenac County Climate Profile
Frontenac County is located in Eastern Ontario where the St. Lawrence
meets Lake Ontario. The County is expected to experience notable effects of
climate change which include higher average annual temperatures, an
increase in total annual precipitation, and an increase in the frequency and
severity of extreme events. According to Climatedata.ca - a collaboration
supported by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) - the County
may experience the following trends:
Higher Average Annual Temperature:
- Between the years 1971 and 2000 the annual average temperature
was 5.9 ºC
- Under a high emissions scenario, the annual average temperatures are
projected to increase by 2.7ºC by the year 2050 and over 6.5 ºC by
the end of the century.
Increase in Total Annual Precipitation:
- Under a high emissions scenario, the County is projected to experience
a 12% increase in precipitation by the year 2050 and a 17% increase
by the end of the century.
Increase in Frequency of Extreme Weather Events:
- It is expected that the frequency and severity of extreme weather
events will change.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
23 | P a g e
- In some areas, extreme weather events will occur with greater
frequency and severity than others, especially those on or near the
many bodies of water in the area.
Growth
The demand for infrastructure and services will change over time based on a
combination of internal and external factors. Understanding the key drivers
of growth and demand will allow the County to plan for new infrastructure
more effectively, and the upgrade or disposal of existing infrastructure.
Increases or decreases in demand can affect what assets are needed and
what level of service meets the needs of the community.
Frontenac County 2023-2026 Strategic Plan
The 2023-2026 strategic plan for Frontenac County has indicated "Develop a
Regional Approach to Overcome Infrastructure Issues and Maximize
Infrastructure Development Opportunities" as a strategic goal moving
forward. This strategic goal is intermingled with another indicating
"Contribute to the Progress of Sustainable Economic Growth and Prosperity
Throughout the County". With these two goals together, the County has
communicated the readiness and desire to grow sustainably and manage
assets efficiently through this process. The commitment to growth will be
completed in a matter that maintains or enhances the natural environment
and assets of the County.
Frontenac County Population Housing and Employment
Projections (2016-2046)
The goal of the projections was to communicate the long-term growth and
the drivers for such growth. The report indicated that the Counties
population will increase over the next 30 years with an annual growth rate of
0.7%. This would mean a population of 33,200 by 2046. Within this
population, the study identified that the aging population is higher than the
provincial average. With a projected 35% of the population being older than
65, there will be challenges in employment, housing, and healthcare within
the area. The aging population will also lead to a decrease in the yearly
annual growth rate as the average home occupancy is inversely correlated
with the size of the aging community.
Approximately 80% of the growth expected for the County will be within the
Township of South Frontenac. This large bias is due to its proximity to the
City of Kingston. The plan indicates that growth will not only be achieved
through an increase of permanent residents and that seasonal housing will
grow as well, empowered by the population and economic activity of the City
of Kingston.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
24 | P a g e
Table 5 Frontenac County Populations Projections
Historic & Projected
Figures
2006
2016
2026
2036
2046
Population
27,52
0
27,29
0
29,60
0
31,800
33,200
Population Over 65
14%
21%
27%
31%
35%
Frontenac County 2024 Long-Range Financial Plan
The County's 2024 Long-Range Financial Plan further supports these efforts
by providing a comprehensive 10-year forecast that guides capital
investment, operating budgets, and reserve funding. It outlines strategies to
address inflationary pressures, evolving service expectations, legislative
changes, and risks such as climate change. Frontenac is fostering financial
sustainability and infrastructure resilience, enabling it to maintain quality
service delivery alongside community growth.
Impact of Growth on Lifecycle Activities
Frontenac County's forecasted growth will have a significant influence on its
infrastructure portfolio and long-term service delivery. With an expected
annual population growth rate of 0.7% leading to approximately 33,200
residents by 2046, and with 35% of the population projected to be over the
age of 65, the County will need to adapt lifecycle planning to reflect both an
aging demographic and a concentration of growth in South Frontenac. These
demographic and spatial trends will shape infrastructure demand and
lifecycle responsibilities across multiple asset categories:
- Transportation: Growth centered in South Frontenac will lead to
increased usage of regional road systems. This is anticipated to
elevate the need for resurfacing, bridge rehabilitation, and intersection
improvements to maintain safe and reliable connections.
- Housing and Seniors' Services: With 35% of residents projected to
be seniors by 2046, growth-related infrastructure will need to prioritize
accessibility, specialized housing forms, and supportive transportation
services. The aging demographic will accelerate adaptation of facilities
and may shorten rehabilitation intervals for assets such as long-term
care facilities, social housing units, and transit-supportive
infrastructure.
- Seasonal and Recreational Infrastructure: Growth in seasonal
housing and tourism-oriented activity will increase demand on
recreational assets and trails. These assets experience accelerated
wear due to seasonal peaks in use, necessitating more frequent
inspection, maintenance, and eventual replacement scheduling.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
25 | P a g e
- Social and Health Services: With the aging population, there will be
heightened demand for paramedic services, community health
facilities, and age-friendly public amenities. This will expand the
County's obligations in lifecycle management of ambulance fleet assets
and healthcare-related facilities. Strategic replacement schedules and
adequacy of reserves will be necessary to maintain service
responsiveness.
- Asset Management and Financial Planning: The 2024 Long-Range
Financial Plan emphasizes inflationary pressures, climate risks, and
service-level expectations as key considerations. As the County's
infrastructure profile evolves, it will be vital to incorporate growth-
related assets into lifecycle forecasting and integrate them with
existing assets in condition assessments, risk evaluations, and renewal
planning. Multi-year funding strategies, reserve strengthening, and
alignment of capital planning with realistic growth rates will ensure
sustainability.
Levels of Service
The County's mission to deliver effective, efficient, and sustainable services
to citizens requires that all ongoing initiatives across the organization be
aligned toward this goal. This alignment ensures that the level of service
provided by both existing and planned assets properly supports the County's
mission and objectives. To achieve this, the County must:
- Prioritize both current and future asset needs to ensure the effective
delivery of services to the community and stakeholders
- Uphold sound financial planning and informed decision-making
The County has utilized the Strategic Asset Management Policy as a guide in
developing proposed levels of service.
Current Levels of Service
Frontenac County has defined its current levels of service for each
infrastructure category by breaking them down into three service attributes:
Accessible & Reliable, Affordable, and Safe & Regulatory. Each attribute is
described as follows:
Accessible & Reliable - Focuses on the condition of assets and their
reliability, emphasizing availability and consistency of services for users.
Affordable - Concentrates on maintaining long-term financial sustainability,
measured through risk and cost parameters to ensure services remain
financially responsible.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
26 | P a g e
Safe & Regulatory - Ensures compliance with safety standards and
regulations, incorporating condition assessments and other relevant
reliability measures for each asset category.
Based on an analysis of each asset category the current level of service is
provided in each asset section.
Proposed Levels of Service
Through a comprehensive assessment proposed levels of service for the
County have been developed. To ensure long-term sustainability and overall
achievability the following were utilized / developed as part of the analysis.
Stakeholder Engagement - Regularly engage with stakeholders to gather
feedback and communicate changes transparently.
Data-Driven Decision Making - Use data analytics to inform decision-making
processes and identify areas for improvement.
Flexibility and Adaptability - Design the methodology to be flexible, allowing
for adjustments based on evolving priorities.
Continuous Improvement - Establish a process for continuous review and
improvement of the LOS methodology itself.
Scenario 1: Current Capital Reinvestment Rate
Purpose: This scenario evaluates the current condition of the County's
infrastructure based on existing capital reinvestment levels. It assesses how
the infrastructure is performing under current funding allocations and
examines whether present investment levels are sufficient to maintain
service standards over time.
Key Focus: Maintaining existing annual capital investment levels and
assessing their impact on the long-term condition and sustainability of the
infrastructure.
Outcome: This scenario provides a baseline for understanding the
effectiveness of current funding levels. It highlights whether the existing
reinvestment rate is adequate to sustain asset condition and service delivery
or if it may lead to gradual decline over time.
Scenario 2: Full Funding
Purpose: This scenario explores an idealized situation with no financial
constraints on capital investment. It models the level of investment required
to achieve full funding and maintain ideal condition and performance across
all assets categories.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
27 | P a g e
Key Focus: Determining the investment level required to fully address all
identified infrastructure needs without budget limitations.
Outcome: This scenario identifies the total funding necessary to achieve the
best possible state of infrastructure. It serves as a benchmark for comparing
the gap between the ideal funding requirements and actual investment
levels.
Scenario 3: Strategic Funding
Purpose: This scenario evaluates the impact of modest funding increases
across specific asset categories, including a 1.5% annual increase to the
Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration funding envelopes, and a
5% annual increase to the Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets.
The goal is to determine whether these incremental increases improve
infrastructure condition and sustainability compared to the current
reinvestment rate.
Key Focus: Assessing how Strategic Funding in funding affect asset
condition, lifecycle performance, and long-term service delivery outcomes.
Outcome: This scenario provides insights into the effectiveness of
incremental budget adjustments, helping determine whether moderate
increases can significantly improve infrastructure performance and reduce
long-term funding gaps.
Results
Scenario 1: Current Capital Reinvestment Rate - this scenario utilizes the
current capital reinvestment within each asset category. Existing annual
investment levels were modeled and resulting asset conditions were
projected accordingly.
The table below summarizes the results of each asset category and overall.
Table 6: Scenario 1 Results
Asset
Category
Service Area
Current
Average
Condition
Projected
Average
Condition
Funding
Required
Buildings,
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
Ambulance Bases
Fair (53%)
Fair (41%)
$336,381
County
Administration
Fair (43%)
Fair (40%)
$656,907
Fairmount Home
Fair (52%)
Poor (32%)
$785,848
K&P Trail
All Service Areas
Fair (53%)
Poor (32%)
$100,000
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
28 | P a g e
Vehicles
Ambulances
Poor (39%)
Fair (53%)
$667,724
Paramedic (non-
ambulance)
Poor (31%)
Fair (41%)
$114,606
Overall Fair (51%)
Poor
(34%)
$2,661,466
Scenario 2: Full Funding - this scenario assumes unlimited capital
reinvestment within each asset category. Asset condition is modeled without
any constraints on the annual capital funding available.
The table below summarizes the results of each asset category and overall.
Table 7: Scenario 2 Results
Asset
Category
Service Area
Current
Average
Condition
Projected
Average
Condition
Funding
Required
Buildings,
Equipment and
Land
Improvements
Ambulance Bases
Fair (53%)
Fair (47%)
$860,386
County
Administration
Fair (43%)
Fair (40%)
$328,016
Fairmount Home
Fair (52%)
Poor (37%)
$2,220,133
K&P Trail
All Service Areas
Fair (53%)
Fair (53%)
$761,465
Vehicles
Ambulances
Poor (39%)
Fair (54%)
$589,739
Paramedic (non-
ambulance)
Poor (31%)
Good
(60%)
$144,185
Overall
Fair (51%)
Fair
(41%)
$4,903,924
Scenario 3: Strategic Funding - this scenario utilizes modest funding
increases across asset categories over 10 years, with a 1.5% annual
increase applied to the K&P Trail, Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and
Administration budgets, and a 5% annual increase applied to the Ambulance
and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets. The resulting infrastructure condition
was determined based on these adjusted annual funding levels.
The table below summarizes the results of each asset category and overall.
Table 8: Scenario 3 Results
Asset
Category
Service Area
Current
Average
Condition
Projected
Average
Condition
Funding
Required
Buildings,
Equipment and
Ambulance Bases
Fair (53%)
Fair (42%)
$390,384
County
Administration
Fair (43%)
Fair (40%)
$762,367
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
29 | P a g e
Land
Improvements
Fairmount Home
Fair (52%)
Poor (33%)
$912,009
K&P Trail
All Service Areas
Fair (53%)
Poor (33%)
$116,054
Vehicles
Ambulances
Poor (39%)
Fair (54%)
$1,087,652
Paramedic (non-
ambulance)
Poor (31%)
Fair (50%)
$186,681
Overall Fair (51%)
Poor
(35%)
$3,455,147
Stakeholder Engagement
Staff workshops were conducted in the winter of 2024 and 2025 to gather
insights on operational challenges, infrastructure priorities, and service
delivery needs across the County. Key challenges identified by staff included
delays in ambulance replacements, limited indoor parking for ambulances
resulting in vehicle idling issues outdoors and subsequent premature engine
wear, aging facilities at Fairmount Home and paramedic stations, and
increasing operational demands due to shifting service requirements and
staffing constraints. Staff emphasized the need for phased infrastructure
upgrades, targeted funding increases, and improved maintenance and
lifecycle planning to sustain service levels and support long-term operational
efficiency.
Proposed Levels of Service Summary
While all three scenarios were considered, the Strategic Funding Scenario
has been identified as the most appropriate and sustainable approach for the
County. This scenario applies a 1.5% annual increase to the K&P Trail,
Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration funding envelopes, and a
5% annual increase to the Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets.
It is reflected in the financial strategy and 10-year capital replacement
forecasts, balancing financial responsibility with the urgent need to address
critical asset and service-level challenges identified across multiple
departments.
The following outlines initiatives that reflect how the County will prioritize
proactive management, optimize asset performance, and ensure long-term
financial sustainability alongside the proposed budget increases:
1. Paramedic Services
The County's Paramedic Services division faces significant operational and
capital challenges related to ambulance replacement cycles, and facility
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
30 | P a g e
conditions. To sustain service levels, several maintenance and lifecycle
initiatives will be advanced:
-
Proactive Fleet Planning
♦ Due to 18-24-month delivery delays, the County will adopt a
forward-looking strategy and explore simultaneous procurement
for multiple years (2026-2027). This will help avoid vehicle
shortages and maintain response readiness.
-
Optimized Asset Utilization
♦ A spare ambulance program will be developed to reduce service
interruptions during maintenance or unplanned downtime.
-
Lifecycle and Fleet Sustainability
♦ Fleet management will shift focus from extending vehicle life to
reducing downtime through a balanced approach considering
vehicle age, mileage, engine hours, and budget. Wear reduction
will be supported by indoor housing, idle-time management, and
supervisory coaching on anti-idle system use. A cost-benefit
analysis of idling reduction and remounting is planned to inform
future planning.
-
Facility Maintenance and Space Planning
♦ Paramedic Stations 02 (Woodbine Road) and 03 (Highway 15),
owned by the City of Kingston, along with the County-owned
Parham Base, require upgrades or replacement to meet
operational and Ministry standards. Interim solutions such as
heated coverall structures will be considered to protect vehicles
and reduce idling-related wear until permanent facilities are
constructed.
-
Governance and Accountability
♦ The 2025 AMP will introduce measurable service targets for
ambulance replacement cycles, and facility readiness, supported
by annual Council reviews to monitor progress and funding
adequacy.
Together, these actions will help balance short-term operational risks with
long-term sustainability, ensuring that maintenance and lifecycle strategies
align with service delivery expectations.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
31 | P a g e
2. K&P Trail
The K&P Trail network is expanding while facing ongoing maintenance and
volunteer capacity challenges. To preserve user experience and asset quality
as the system grows, the County will focus on building a more structured
and data-informed maintenance program:
-
Formalized Maintenance Oversight
♦ The County will explore establishing a centralized maintenance
framework, supported by a GIS-based reporting and work order
system, to improve accountability and record-keeping.
-
Lifecycle Forecasting
♦ Maintenance costs currently average $2,200/km per year; this
will be refined using historical cost and usage data to forecast
future lifecycle needs and funding requirements.
-
Proactive Condition Monitoring
♦ Volunteer and contractor inspection data will be standardized to
enable consistent reporting and prioritization of repairs,
particularly for bridges and high-use segments.
-
Grant Optimization
♦ Ongoing grant applications and partnerships will be used to
supplement capital reserves for rehabilitation and expansion
projects.
-
Long-Term Asset Planning
♦ The AMP will integrate the Trail Management Plan update (2026-
2027) and 2025 User Survey results to align financial forecasts
with projected growth to 90 km of network length.
These efforts will transition trail maintenance from reactive to proactive
management, ensuring long-term sustainability and improved safety and
user experience.
3. Fairmount Home
Fairmount Home continues to provide adequate service levels despite aging
infrastructure and operational pressures. To sustain service levels and
manage risk, the County will focus on targeted maintenance and phased
capital renewal:
-
Phased Infrastructure Renewal
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
32 | P a g e
♦ The County will implement a staged replacement plan for
plumbing, roofing, and structural systems, prioritizing high-risk
components such as corroded piping and deteriorating roof
sections.
-
Critical System Redundancy
♦ Backup plans for essential systems, including the generator and
wells, will be developed to ensure operational continuity during
emergencies.
-
Cost Management
♦ Short-term cost-saving measures (extending the life of existing
systems, using PEX instead of copper piping, and targeted roof
repairs) will allow reallocation of funds to higher-priority
replacements.
-
Performance Monitoring
♦ Annual assessments of facility condition and risk will inform
ongoing updates to the capital forecast, ensuring the facility
remains safe and compliant.
-
Water and Plumbing Systems
♦ A 10-year phased replacement plan will address corrosion issues
caused by hard water, with short-term toilet replacements and
long-term piping upgrades.
-
Lifecycle Tracking
♦ Regular inspections and capital planning updates will support
more predictable long-term funding requirements.
This approach will help maintain resident care quality while addressing
critical infrastructure needs in a financially responsible manner
Across all service areas, the County's maintenance and lifecycle planning
approach emphasizes proactive management, data-driven forecasting, and
strategic investment. The goal is to sustain service levels through smarter
asset utilization, timely interventions, and closer alignment between
operational and financial priorities. By integrating lifecycle strategies into
annual budgeting, the County aims to strengthen infrastructure resilience,
reduce long-term costs, and ensure that incremental funding delivers
measurable results.
While committed to this approach, the County recognizes the need for
flexibility to address emerging priorities. Capital funding increases will be
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
33 | P a g e
assessed on a case-by-case basis where feasible and justified. The County
will continue to balance infrastructure needs with affordability while pursuing
external funding opportunities.
The Strategic Funding Scenario provides a balanced, forward-looking
framework that supports the County's asset management goals, addresses
key infrastructure challenges, and reinforces long-term financial
sustainability.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
34 | P a g e
Financial Strategy
Financial Strategy Overview
Each year, the County of Frontenac makes important investments in its
infrastructure's maintenance, renewal, rehabilitation, and replacement to
ensure assets remain in a state of good repair. However, spending needs
typically exceed fiscal capacity. In fact, most municipalities continue to
struggle with annual infrastructure deficits. Achieving the proposed levels of
service for infrastructure programs will take many years and should be
phased-in gradually to reduce burden on the community.
This plan identifies the financial requirements necessary to meet the
identified proposed levels of service. These requirements are based on the
financial requirements for existing assets as of December 31, 2023.
However, the required funding is based on meeting the proposed levels of
service, with consideration for any additional financial impacts from
economic and population growth. The financial plan considers and accounts
for traditional and non-traditional sources of municipal funding.
The annual funding typically available is determined by averaging historical
capital expenditures on infrastructure, inclusive of any allocations to
reserves for capital purposes. For Frontenac County, 2023 reserve
allocations were used to project available funding.
Only reliable and predictable sources of capital funding are used to
benchmark funds that may be available on any given year. The funding
sources include:
- Revenue from taxation allocated to capital reserves.
- Revenue from the City of Kingston allocated to capital reserves.
- The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF)
The County of Frontenac also receives funding from the Canada Community
Building Fund (CCBF), while considered sustainable, it is generally
transferred to the Townships within the County. Although provincial and
federal infrastructure programs can change with evolving policy, OCIF is
considered permanent and predictable.
Annual Capital Requirements
The annual requirements represent the amount the County should allocate
annually to each asset category to meet replacement needs as they arise,
prevent infrastructure backlogs, and achieve long-term sustainability. For
most asset categories the annual requirement has been calculated based on
a "replacement only" scenario, in which capital costs are only incurred at the
construction and replacement of each asset.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
35 | P a g e
Table 9 outlines the total average annual capital requirements for existing
assets in each asset category. With a total replacement value of $129.7
million, the estimated annual investment needed to maintain current service
levels under a full funding scenario is approximately $4.9 million. Under the
proposed levels of service, this requirement is reduced to $3.5 million.
The table also illustrates the system-generated, equivalent full funding
('target') reinvestment rate (TRR) of each category, calculated by dividing
the annual capital requirements by the total replacement cost. The
cumulative full funding reinvestment for these categories is estimated at
3.78%.
Table 9 Average Annual Capital Requirements
Asset
Category
Replacement Cost
Annual Capital
Requirements (Full
Funding)
Full Funding
Reinvestment Rate
Buildings
$112,165,106
$3,408,535
3.04%
Trails
$12,671,033
$761,465
6.01%
Vehicles
$4,830,298
$733,924
15.19%
Total
$129,666,437
$4,903,925
3.78%
Although there is no industry standard guide on target annual investment in
infrastructure, the TRRs above provide a useful benchmark for organizations.
In 2016, the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (CIRC) produced an
assessment of the health of municipal infrastructure as reported by cities
and communities across Canada. The CIRC remains a joint project produced
by several organizations, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM), the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers (CSCE), the Canadian
Network of Asset Managers (CNAM), and the Canadian Public Works
Association (CPWA).
The 2016 version of the report card also contained recommended
reinvestment rates that can also serve as benchmarks for municipalities. The
CIRC suggest that, if increased, these reinvestment rates can "stop the
deterioration of municipal infrastructure." The report card contains both a
range for reinvestment rates that outlines the lower and upper
recommended levels, as well as current municipal averages.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
36 | P a g e
Current Funding Levels
The average annual investment requirement for the proposed levels of service is $3,455,147. Annual
revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $2,661,466, leaving an annual deficit of
$793,681. Put differently, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at 77% of their long-term
requirements.
Table 10: Current Funding Position vs Required Funding
1 The City of Kingston contributes approximately 68% of the funding (revenue) for Fairmount assets. The City's contributions to Paramedic
Services are based on weighted assessment, representing about 79% as of 2023. The remaining share is funded through the County's tax
revenue.
Frontenac County
Summary of Infrastructure Requirements & Current Funding Available
Annual
Deficit
Asset Category
Average
Annual
Investment
Required
(Scenario 3)
Annual Funding Available
City Contribution +
County Tax
Revenue1
OCIF
Total
Tax funded:
Ambulance Bases
$390,384
$336,381
$336,381
$54,003
County Administration
$762,367
$656,907
$656,907
$105,461
Fairmount Home
$912,009
$785,848
$785,848
$126,161
Trails (All Segments)
$116,054
-
$100,000
$100,000
$16,054
Ambulances
$1,087,652
$667,724
$667,724
$419,928
Non-ambulance
$186,681
$114,606
$114,606
$72,075
Total
$3,455,147
$2,561,466
$2,661,466
$793,681
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
37 | P a g e
Closing the Gap
Eliminating annual infrastructure funding shortfalls is a difficult and long-term endeavor for municipalities.
Achieving recommended funding levels to support the proposed levels of service, while maintaining
affordability for residents, will require time and deliberate financial planning.
This section outlines how Frontenac County can gradually work toward closing the annual capital funding
shortfall using its own-source revenues, such as property taxes. This approach avoids the use of additional
debt for existing assets and supports the County's goal of sustainably increasing investment to maintain
service delivery at the chosen targets. By phasing in additional funding as financial capacity allows,
Frontenac County can begin to align infrastructure spending with service level expectations and the
priorities identified through community and stakeholder engagement.
Table 11: Current Funding Allocation by Asset Category and Source
As shown in the above chart, the County and City share funding responsibilities for several service areas,
including Paramedic Services (Ambulance Bases and Ambulances) and Fairmount Home, while the County
independently funds areas such as Administration, Trails, and Non-Ambulance assets. This collaborative
approach ensures that each partner contributes proportionally to sustaining service levels and addressing
long-term capital needs.
Asset Category
Current Available
Funding
City Share
County Share
Ambulance Bases
$336,381
$265,741
$70,640
County Administration
$656,907
-
$656,907
Fairmount Home
$785,848
$534,377
$251,471
Trails (All Segments)
$100,000
-
$100,000
Ambulances
$667,724
$527,502
$140,222
Non-ambulance
$114,606
-
$114,606
Total
$2,661,466
$1,327,620
$1,333,846
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
38 | P a g e
The following chart illustrates the average annual investment required under Scenario 3, which represents
the preferred funding approach to achieving the proposed levels of service. This scenario identifies the
total investment needed across all relevant asset categories, as well as the proportional funding
responsibilities of the City of Kingston, Frontenac County, and anticipated grant contributions.
Table 12: Average Annual Investment by Asset Category and Funding Source
Under this scenario, the combined average annual investment required is $3.46 million, with the City
contributing approximately $1.79 million, the County contributing $1.67 million, and $0.10 million
expected from external grants.
Based on Scenario 3, the total average annual investment required to meet the County's proposed levels
of service is $3.45 million, compared to $2.7 million currently available, resulting in an annual shortfall of
approximately $793,681.
Asset Category
Average Annual
Investment
Required
(Scenario 3)
City of
Kingston
Grants
Frontenac
County
Ambulance Bases
$390,384
$308,403
$81,981
County Administration
$762,367
-
$762,367
Fairmount Home
$912,009
$620,166
$291,843
Trails (All Segments)
$116,054
-
$100,000
$116,054
Ambulances
$1,087,652
$859,245
$228,407
Non-ambulance
$186,681
-
$186,681
Total
$3,455,147
$1,787,814
$100,000
$1,667,333
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
39 | P a g e
Table 13: Net New Funding Required Under Scenario 3 by Funding Source
Of this, the County's share of the shortfall is approximately $333,487, while
the City of Kingston's share is approximately $460,195. Thus, the County
will need to increase tax revenues over time by 333,487 in order to close the
annual infrastructure deficit.
Funding Requirements Tax Revenues
In 2024, Frontenac County had annual tax revenues of $12,828,356. As
illustrated in the following table, without consideration of any other sources
of revenue or cost containment strategies, achieving the target levels of
service would require a 2.6% tax change over time.
To achieve this increase, several scenarios have been developed using
phase-in periods ranging from five to twenty years. Shorter phase-in periods
may place too high a burden on taxpayers, whereas a phase-in period
beyond 20 years may see a continued deterioration of infrastructure, leading
to larger backlogs.
Table 14 Phasing in Annual Tax Increases
Phase-in Period (Frontenac County)
5 Years
10 Years
15 Years
20 Years
Infrastructure Deficit:
$333,487
$333,487
$333,487
$333,487
Tax Increase Required
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
Annually:
0.6%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
To address its own portion of the deficit, the County would need to
implement a 0.3% annual property tax increase over the next 10 years to
fund the proposed levels of service. Similarly, the City's contribution would
need to rise by an average of $46,020 per year (approximately 3.5%
annually) over the same period to meet the required funding level for shared
services (Paramedic and Fairmount Home).
Funding Requirements
Total
City Share
County Share
Scenario 3 Required Funding
Current Available Funding
$3,455,147
$2,661,466
$1,787,814
$1,327,620
$1,667,333
$1,333,846
Difference (Net New
Funding Required)
$793,681
$460,195
$333,487
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
40 | P a g e
Financial Strategy Recommendations
Considering all the above information, we recommend the 10-year option to
achieve the proposed levels of service:
a) Increasing tax revenues by 0.3% each year for the next 10 years to
gradually implement the funding strategy outlined in the selected
scenario for the service areas covered in this section of the AMP.
b) Increasing the City of Kingston's contribution by $46,020 per year
(approximately 3.5% annually) and ensuring funds are collected over
the next 10 years to meet the required funding level for shared
services (Paramedics and Fairmount Home).
c) Allocating the current OCIF revenue as outlined previously.
d) Increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable
inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in.
e) Leveraging additional, non-sustainable revenue sources such as one-
time grants, surpluses, and reserves, as supplementary funding to
advance asset management goals.
Notes:
1. As in the past, periodic senior government infrastructure funding will
most likely be available during the phase-in period. By Provincial AMP
rules, this periodic funding cannot be incorporated into an AMP unless
there are firm commitments in place. We have included OCIF formula-
based funding, if applicable, since this funding is a multi-year
commitment2.
2. We realize that raising tax revenues by the amounts recommended
above for infrastructure purposes will be very difficult to do. However,
considering a longer phase-in window may have even greater
consequences in terms of infrastructure failure.
Although this option achieves the proposed levels of service, the
recommendations do require prioritizing capital projects to fit the resulting
annual funding available. Current data shows a pent-up investment demand
of $6.1m for Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements and $1.1m for
Vehicles.
2 The County should take advantage of all available grant funding programs and transfers from other
levels of government. While OCIF has historically been considered a sustainable source of funding, the
program is currently undergoing review by the provincial government. Depending on the outcome of
this review, there may be changes that impact its availability.
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
41 | P a g e
Recommendations and Key
Considerations
Financial Strategies
Review the feasibility of adopting the funding required to meet the proposed
levels of service for the asset categories analyzed. This involves:
- implementing a 0.3% annual tax increase over a 10-year phase-in
period and allocating the full increase in revenue towards capital
funding
- increasing the City of Kingston's contribution by $46,020 per year
(approximately 3.5% annually) and ensuring funds are collected over
the next 10 years to meet the required funding level for shared
services.
- using risk frameworks and staff judgement to prioritize projects,
particularly to aid in elimination of existing infrastructure backlogs
- increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable
inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in.
- Continue to apply for project specific grant funding to supplement
sustainable funding sources.
NOTE: Although difficult to capture inflation costs, supply chain issues, and
fluctuations in commodity prices will also influence capital expenditures.
Asset Data
1. Continuously review, refine, and calibrate lifecycle and risk profiles to
better reflect actual practices and improve capital projections. In
particular:
-
the timing of various lifecycle events, the triggers for treatment,
anticipated impacts of each treatment, and costs.
-
the various attributes used to estimate the likelihood and
consequence of asset failures, and their respective weightings.
2. Asset management planning is highly sensitive to replacement costs.
Periodically update replacement costs based on recent projects, invoices,
or estimates, as well as condition assessments, or any other technical
reports and studies. Material and labour costs can fluctuate due to local,
regional, and broader market trends, and substantially so during major
world events. Accurately estimating the replacement cost of like-for-like
assets can be challenging. Ideally, several recent projects over multiple
years should be used for this estimate. Staff judgement and historical
Frontenac County
2025 Asset Management Plan
42 | P a g e
data can help attenuate extreme and temporary fluctuations in cost
estimates and keep them realistic.
3. Like replacement costs, an asset's established serviceable life can have
dramatic impacts on all projections and analyses, including long-range
forecasting and financial recommendations. Periodically reviewing and
updating these values to better reflect in-field performance and staff
judgement is recommended.
Risk and Levels of Service
1. Risk models and matrices can play an important role in identifying high-
value assets, and developing an action plan which may include repair,
rehabilitation, replacement, or further evaluation through updated
condition assessments. As a result, project selection and the
development of multi-year capital plans can become more strategic and
objective. Initial models have been built into Citywide for all asset
groups. As the data evolves and new attribute information is obtained,
these models should also be refined and updated.
2. Available data on current performance should be centralized and tracked
to support any calibration of service levels for long-term tracking of O.
Reg. 588's requirements on proposed levels of service.
3. Staff should monitor evolving local, regional, and environmental trends
to identify factors that may shape the demand and delivery of
infrastructure programs. These can include population growth, and the
nature of population growth; climate change and extreme weather
events; and economic conditions and the local tax base. This data can
also be used to revise service level targets.
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
43 | P a g e
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and
Land Improvements
State of the Infrastructure
Frontenac County owns and maintains buildings, equipment and land
improvements that provide key services to the community. These include:
- Long-term care, Fairmount Home (FMT)
- Paramedic services, Ambulance Bases (FP)
- County administration (Admin)
The following summarizes the state of the infrastructure for Buildings,
Equipment and Land Improvements:
Table 15 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements State of Infrastructure Summary
Replacement
Cost
Condition
Financial Capacity
$112.2 million
Fair (52%)
Annual Requirement:
$3,408,535
Funding Available:
$1,779,136
Annual Deficit:
$1,629,399
Inventory & Valuation
The graph below displays the total replacement cost of each asset segment
in Frontenac County's buildings, equipment and land improvements
inventory. As the County has had a complete componentization of their
buildings inventory Frontenac County is able to track the
replacement/lifecycle needs more accurately.
Figure 11 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Replacement Cost
$7.1m
$16.2m
$88.9m
$20m
$40m
$60m
$80m
$100m
County Administration
Ambulance Bases
Fairmount Home
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
44 | P a g e
Each asset's replacement cost should be reviewed periodically to determine
whether adjustments are needed to represent capital requirements more
accurately.
Asset Condition & Age
The graph below identifies the average age, and the estimated useful life for
each asset segment. The values are weighted based on replacement cost.
Figure 12 Buildings, Equipment, and Land Improvements Average Age vs Average EUL
These assets are componentized which helps to add accuracy to the
projections. The graph below visually illustrates the average condition for
each asset segment from very good to very poor.
Figure 13 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Condition Breakdown
To ensure that the municipal buildings, equipment and land improvements
continue to provide an acceptable level of service, the County should
monitor the average condition of all assets. If the average condition
21.6
21.1
40
42.8
39.4
60.3
0
20
40
60
80
Ambulance Bases
County Administration
Fairmount Home
Number of Years
Weighted Average Age
Weighted Average EUL
$3.5m
$2.6m
$15.8m
$2.0m
$4.1m
$58.6m
$3.6m
$3.9m
$6.0m
$394k
$2.4m
$5.1m
$1.1m
$3.1m
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fairmount
Home
County
Administration
Ambulance
Bases
Value and Percentage of Asset Segments by Replacement Cost
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
45 | P a g e
declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and
replacement activities is required to increase the overall condition of the
buildings.
Each asset's estimated useful life should also be reviewed to determine
whether adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed
service life. It is important to note that a complete interior renovation of the
Administration Building was completed in 2024; however, the inventory and
condition data used for this analysis are from 2023, so the improvements
from that renovation are not reflected in the current condition charts.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allow staff to determine the remaining
service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing them. Currently, the County performs assessments on a five-year
cycle. The last assessment was completed in 2023 for all Fairmount home
buildings, and some ambulance bases were assessed in 2024. The
assessments used a 1-5 rating scale, from very poor to very good, and
following the Uniformat II industry standard. Buildings are repaired as
needed based on deficiencies identified by outside experts, staff, or
residents.
Lifecycle Management Strategy
To ensure that municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting
the needs of customers, it is important to establish a lifecycle management
strategy to proactively manage asset deterioration. The following table
outlines the County's current lifecycle management strategy.
Figure 14 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Current Lifecycle Strategy
-Maintenance of buildings is outlined as activities from the BCI
assessment and assigned to each asset in the inventory
-Other maintenance actions are triggered by inspections identifying
safety, or structural issues
-Typical rehabilitation strategies of buildings include roof, HVAC, window
and door replacements.
-Full replacements is considered generally when the asset has
deteriorated significantly, and maintenance and rehabilitation is no
longer cost-effective.
-Full replacement is also considered when the service level required
exceeds what is possible from the physical asset.
Maintenance / Rehabilitation / Replacement
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
46 | P a g e
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The annual capital requirement represents the average amount per year
that Frontenac County should allocate towards funding rehabilitation and
replacement needs. The following graph identifies capital requirements over
the next 70 years. This projection is used as it ensures that every asset has
gone through one full iteration of replacement. The forecasted requirements
are aggregated into 5-year bins, and the trend line represents the average
annual capital requirements at $3.4 million.
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
47 | P a g e
Figure 15 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements
Table 16 below summarizes the projected cost of lifecycle activities (capital activities only) that may need
to be undertaken over the next 10 years to support current levels of service.
Table 16 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements System-Generated 10-Year Capital Costs
Segment
Backlog
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Ambulance Bases
$2.6m
$445k $229k $272k
$197k
$310k
$351k $1.7m $1.1m $373k $667k
County Administration
$1.0m
$29k
$27k
$70k
$42k
-
$839k $322k
$70k
-
$19k
Fairmount Home
$2.4m
$2.6m $3.0m $547k
$899k
$1.2m
$1.2m $1.1m $208k $1.8m $3.2m
These projections are generated in Citywide and rely on the data available in the asset register, which was
limited to asset age, replacement cost, and useful life. Note that the Administration Building underwent a
complete interior renovation in 2024; some of the lifecycle activities shown in the chart for this building
may have already been addressed through that renovation and are therefore not required.
$3.4m
$6.1m
$9.8m$12.9m
$11.3m
$13.6m
$31.0m
$13.2m
$12.0m
$49.7m
$15.6m
$11.8m
$18.0m
$11.7m
$17.3m
$11.1m
$0
$10.0m
$20.0m
$30.0m
$40.0m
$50.0m
Forecasted Capital Requirements
Ambulance Bases
County Administration
Fairmount Home
Annual Requirement
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
48 | P a g e
Risk & Criticality
The risk matrix provides a visual representation of the relationship between
the probability of failure and the consequence of failure for the assets within
this asset category based on available inventory data. See Appendix E: Risk
Rating Criteria for the criteria used to determine the risk rating for all asset
categories.
This is a high-level model that has been developed based on information
currently available and should be reviewed and adjusted to reflect an
evolving understanding of both the probability and consequences of asset
failure.
The identification of critical assets allows the County to determine risk
mitigation strategies and treatment options. Risk mitigation may include
asset-specific lifecycle strategies, condition assessment strategies, or simply
the need to collect better asset data.
Figure 16 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Risk Matrix
1 - 4
5 - 7
8 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 25
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
$11,393,843
$10,750,191
$17,749,448
$60,697,238
$11,574,385
(10%)
(10%)
(16%)
(54%)
(10%)
Levels of Service
The framework created by the County for levels of service is a valuable tool
for assessing and managing the performance of their assets and/or services
provided by their assets. Proposed levels of service for the County have
been developed through engagement with County staff.
Current Levels of Service
The following tables outline the County's metrics for assessing the current
level of service for the buildings, equipment and land improvements. These
reflect the County's broader, strategic service goals and provide a way to
track how cost, performance (average condition), and risk are trending year-
over-year.
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
49 | P a g e
Figure 17 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Strategic Levels of Service
Full Funding vs Actual
Reinvestment Rate
Performance (Average Condition)
Risk Breakdown
1.59%
3.04%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Actual
Reinvestment
Rate
Full Funding
Reinvestment
Rate
5%
20%
59%
8%
8%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
10%
10%
16%
54%
10%
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
50 | P a g e
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the
community levels of service provided by buildings, equipment and land
improvements.
Table 17 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Community Levels
of Service
Service
Attribute
Qualitative
Description
Current LOS
Accessible
& Reliable
Description of
monthly and
annual facilities
inspection process
FMT: Annual inspection of Sprinkler System,
Extinguishers, Bed Entrapment, Ceiling Lift
Track Load Bearing, Septic System, FIT
Testing Machines; semi-annual testing of the
Fire Suppression system; bi-annual load
testing of generators.
Safe &
Regulatory
Description of the
current condition of
municipal facilities
and the plans that
are in place to
maintain or
improve the
provided level of
service
A Building Condition Assessment (BCA) was
received in 2024. This report outlines
repairs, maintenance and capital works
forecast yearly to 2048 based on the current
condition of the County-owned buildings
assessed. On average, the assets are in fair
condition. However, some assets are in very
poor condition such as the Parham EMS base.
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the
technical level of service provided by County buildings, equipment and land
improvements.
Table 18 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Technical Levels
of Service
Service Attribute
Technical Metric
Current LOS
Accessible & Reliable
# of annual work orders issued
through Ameresco Asset Work Order
System
683
Affordable
O&M Annual Maintenance Costs
Admin
$10,278
FMT
$321,369
FP
$207,450
Annual capital reinvestment rate
1.6%
Safe & Regulatory
% of facilities that are in fair or better
condition
84
% of facilities that are in poor or very
poor condition
16
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
51 | P a g e
Proposed Levels of Service
The scenarios that were used to analyse the County's inventory are based on the data available in the
asset management system which outlines estimated useful life and condition as well as replacement costs
which all the results are based on.
Scenario 1: Current Capital Reinvestment Rate - this scenario utilizes the current capital reinvestment
within each asset category. The current annual investment was held, and the condition was determined.
Scenario 2: Full Funding - this scenario assumes unlimited capital reinvestment within each asset category.
Asset condition is modeled without any constraints on the annual capital funding available.
Scenario 3: Strategic Funding - this scenario utilizes modest funding increases across asset categories,
with a 1.5% annual increase applied to the K&P Trail, Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration
budgets, and a 5% annual increase applied to the Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets. The
resulting infrastructure condition was determined based on these adjusted annual funding levels.
The table below outlines the results for each scenario for Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements:
Scenarios
Replacement Cost Average
ondition
Annual Capital
Reinvestment
Scenario 1 - Current Capital
einvestment
$112,165,106
Poor (34%)
$1,779,136
Scenario 2 - Full Funding
$112,165,106
Poor (38%)
$3,408,535
Scenario 3 - Strategic Funding
$112,165,106
Poor (35%)
$2,064,760
The following figure illustrates the projected condition of each asset segment under each of the three
investment level scenarios:
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
52 | P a g e
Figure 18 Scenario Comparison: Ambulance Base Conditions
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
53 | P a g e
Figure 19 Scenario Comparison: County Admin Conditions
Appendix A: Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
54 | P a g e
Figure 20 Scenario Comparison: Fairmount Home Conditions
Appendix B: Vehicles
55 | P a g e
Appendix B: Vehicles
State of the Infrastructure
Vehicles allow staff to efficiently deliver municipal services and personnel.
County vehicles are used to support several service areas, including:
-
Paramedic services, Ambulances
-
County administration
-
Non-ambulance paramedic services
The following summarizes the state of the infrastructure for Vehicles:
Table 19 Vehicles State of Infrastructure Summary
Replacement Cost
Condition
Financial Capacity
$4.83 million
Fair (42%)
Annual Requirement:
$733,924
Funding Available:
$782,330
Annual Surplus:
($48,406)
Inventory & Valuation
The graph below displays the total replacement cost of each asset segment
in the vehicle inventory.
Figure 21 Vehicle Replacement Costs
$243k
$992k
$3.6m
$1m
$2m
$3m
$4m
County
Administration
Paramedic (Non-
Ambulance)
Ambulances
Appendix B: Vehicles
56 | P a g e
Each asset's replacement cost should be reviewed periodically to determine
whether adjustments are needed to represent capital requirements more
accurately.
Asset Condition & Age
The graph below identifies the average age and the estimated useful life for
each asset segment. The values are weighted based on replacement cost.
Figure 22 Vehicles Average Age vs Average EUL
Each asset's estimated useful life should also be reviewed periodically to
determine whether adjustments need to be made to better align with the
observed length of service life for each asset type.
The graph below visually illustrates the average condition for each asset
segment on a very good to very poor scale.
Figure 23 Vehicles Condition Breakdown
4.8
13.2
6.6
6
12
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Ambulances
County Administration
Paramedic (Non-
Ambulance)
Number of Years
Weighted Average Age
Weighted Average EUL
$98k
$756k
$211k
$200k
$33k
$35k
$880k
$263k
$42k
$440k
$386k
$166k
$1.3m
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Paramedic (Non-
Ambulance)
County
Administration
Ambulances
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Appendix B: Vehicles
57 | P a g e
To ensure that the County's vehicles continue to provide an acceptable level
of service, the County should monitor the average condition of all assets. If
the average condition declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle
management strategy to determine what combination of maintenance,
rehabilitation and replacement activities is required to increase the overall
condition of the vehicles.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to determine the remaining
service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. An example of the County's current approach is staff
complete regular visual inspections of vehicles to ensure they are in state of
adequate repair prior to operation.
Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of assets will deteriorate over time. To ensure
vehicles are performing as expected, it is important to establish a lifecycle
management strategy to proactively manage asset deterioration.
Figure 24 Vehicles Current Lifecycle Strategy
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The annual capital requirement represents the average amount per year
that the County should allocate towards funding rehabilitation and
replacement needs. The following graph identifies capital requirements over
the next 15 years. This projection is used as it ensures that every asset has
gone through one full iteration of replacement. The forecasted requirements
are aggregated into 5-year bins, and the trend line represents the average
annual capital requirements at $734 thousand.
-Oil change, tire replacement/rotation, transmission fluid, brakes,
minor as-needed repairs
-Maintenance plan is every 10,000 km and is based on the
manufacturer maintenance plan and report to Ministry of Health.
-Replacement considered when no longer cost-effective to maintain,
or when asset can no longer be relied upon to be available when
required.
Maintenance / Rehabilitation / Replacement
Appendix B: Vehicles
58 | P a g e
Figure 25 Vehicle Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements
Table 20 below summarizes the projected cost of lifecycle activities (capital replacement only) that may
need to be undertaken over the next 10 years to support current levels of service. These projections are
generated in Citywide and rely on the data available in the asset register.
Table 20 Vehicles System-Generated 10-Year Capital Costs
Segment
Backlog 2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Ambulances
$880k
$360k $360k $620k $220k $842k $440k $1.2m $220k $440k $833k
County Administration
$166k
-
-
$42k
$35k
-
-
-
-
-
-
Paramedic (non-ambulance)
$84k
$302k $263k
$33k
-
$211k
-
$98k
-
$386k $263k
As no assessed condition data was available for the vehicles, only age was used to determine forthcoming
replacement needs. These projections can be different from actual capital forecasts. Consistent data
updates, especially condition, will improve the alignment between the system-generated expenditure
requirements, and the County's capital expenditure forecasts.
$734k
$1.1m
$3.3m
$3.8m
$3.1m
$0
$500k
$1m
$2m
$2m
$3m
$3m
$4m
$4m
$5m
Backlog
2025 - 2029
2030 - 2034
2035 - 2039
Forecasted Capital
Requirements
Ambulances
County Administration
Paramedic (Non-Ambulance)
Annual Requirement
Appendix B: Vehicles
59 | P a g e
Risk & Criticality
The risk matrix provides a visual representation of the relationship between
the probability of failure and the consequence of failure for the assets within
this asset category based on available inventory data. See Appendix E: Risk
Rating Criteria for the criteria used to determine the risk rating for all asset
categories.
This is a high-level model that has been developed based on information
currently available and should be reviewed and adjusted to reflect an
evolving understanding of both the probability and consequences of asset
failure.
The identification of critical assets allows the County to determine
appropriate risk mitigation strategies and treatment options. Risk mitigation
may include asset-specific lifecycle strategies, condition assessment
strategies, or simply the need to collect better asset data.
Figure 26 Vehicles Risk Matrix
1 - 4
5 - 7
8 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 25
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
$1,375,544
$126,000
$1,462,831
$985,923
$880,000
(28%)
(3%)
(30%)
(20%)
(18%)
Levels of Service
The framework created by the County for levels of service is a valuable tool
for assessing and managing the performance of their assets and/or services
provided by their assets. Proposed levels of service for the County have
been developed through engagement with County staff.
Current Levels of Service
The following tables outline the County's metrics for assessing the current
level of service for vehicles. These reflect the County's broader, strategic
service goals and provide a way to track how cost, performance (average
condition), and risk are trending year-over-year.
Appendix B: Vehicles
60 | P a g e
Figure 27 Vehicles Strategic Levels of Service
Full Funding vs Actual
Reinvestment Rate
Performance (Average Condition)
Risk Breakdown
16.20%
15.19%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Actual
Reinvestment
Rate
Full Funding
Reinvestment
Rate
18%
9%
20%
15%
39%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
28%
3%
30%
20%
18%
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Appendix B: Vehicles
61 | P a g e
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the
community levels of service provided by vehicles.
Table 21 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Vehicles Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Qualitative Description
Current LOS
Accessible
& Reliable
Description of the Fleet
Management and Safety
Program
There is a Frontenac Paramedics policy
as well as MOH requirements (a policy
must be in place for maintenance)
Safe &
Regulatory
Description of the current
condition of municipal
vehicles and the plans
that are in place to
maintain or improve the
provided level of service
Currently ambulances are remounted
after 6 years, with the remounts being
in service for another 5 years;
Emergency Response Vehicles are 6
years other paramedic vehicles 5-10 6
years depending on its purpose,
County admin vehicles are replaced
every 10 years as required. Future
plans will be assisted by the AMP
analysis. E.g. minimize downtimes by
monitoring idle time & the impact on
vehicle replacement schedules.
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the
technical level of service provided by County vehicles.
Table 22 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Vehicles Technical Levels of Service
Service Attribute
Technical Metric
Current LOS
Accessible & Reliable
% of vehicles that meet maintenance
and inspection requirements
100%
Average Annual KM Driven by
Paramedic Ambulances
24,574
# of motor vehicle at-fault accidents
involving municipal vehicles
6
Affordable
Annual capital reinvestment rate
16.2%
Safe & Regulatory
% of vehicles that are in fair or better
condition
46%
% of vehicles that are in poor or very
poor condition
54%
Appendix B: Vehicles
62 | P a g e
Proposed Levels of Service
The scenarios that were used to analyse the County's inventory are based on the data available in the
asset management system which outlines estimated useful life and condition as well as replacement costs
which all the results are based on.
Scenario 1: Current Capital Reinvestment Rate - this scenario utilizes the current capital reinvestment
within each asset category. The current annual investment was held, and the condition was determined.
Scenario 2: Full Funding - this scenario assumes unlimited capital reinvestment within each asset category.
Asset condition is modeled without any constraints on the annual capital funding available.
Scenario 3: Strategic Funding - this scenario utilizes modest funding increases across asset categories,
with a 1.5% annual increase applied to the K&P Trail, Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration
budgets, and a 5% annual increase applied to the Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets. The
resulting infrastructure condition was determined based on these adjusted annual funding levels.
The table below outlines the results for each scenario for Vehicles:
Scenarios
Replacement Cost Average
ondition
Annual Capital
Reinvestment
Scenario 1 - Current Capital
einvestment
$4,830,298
Fair (49%)
$782,330
Scenario 2 - Full Funding
$4,830,298
Fair (56%)
$733,924
Scenario 3 - Strategic Funding
$4,830,298
Fair (53%)
$1,274,333
The following figure illustrates the projected condition of each asset segment under each of the three
investment level scenarios:
Appendix B: Vehicles
63 | P a g e
Figure 28 Scenario Comparison: Ambulances Conditions
Appendix B: Vehicles
64 | P a g e
Figure 29 Scenario Comparison: Paramedic (Non-Ambulance) Conditions
Appendix C: Trail Network
65 | P a g e
Appendix C: Trail Network
State of the Infrastructure
Frontenac County owns several asset types that compliment the K&P Trail
network. These include:
- The trail itself
- Bridges and culverts
- Equipment and signage
- Parking areas
The following summarizes the state of the infrastructure for K&P Trail:
Table 23 K&P Trails State of Infrastructure Summary
Replacement Cost
Condition
Financial Capacity
$12.67 million
Good (73%)
Annual Requirement:
$761,465
Funding Available:
$100,000
Annual Deficit:
$661,465
Inventory & Valuation
K&P Trail asset category has a replacement value of $12.67 million.
Figure 30 K&P Trails Replacement Costs
Each asset's replacement cost should be reviewed periodically to determine
whether adjustments are needed to represent capital requirements more
accurately.
$216k
$568k
$752k
$5.1m
$6.0m
$2m
$4m
$6m
Trail Equipment
Trail Parking Lots
Trail Culverts
Trail
Trail Bridges
Appendix C: Trail Network
66 | P a g e
Asset Condition & Age
The graph below identifies the average age, and the estimated useful life for
each asset segment. The values are weighted based on replacement cost.
Figure 31 K&P Trail Average Age vs Average EUL
Each asset's estimated useful life should also be reviewed periodically to
determine whether adjustments need to be made to better align with the
observed length of service life for each asset type.
The graph below visually illustrates the average condition for each asset
segment on a very good to very poor scale.
Figure 32 K&P Trail Condition Breakdown
To ensure that the County's K&P trail continues to provide an acceptable
level of service, Frontenac County should monitor the average condition of
all assets. Staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
8.9
45
39.5
3.5
5.7
15
75
60
10
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Trail
Trail Bridges Trail Culverts
Trail
Equipment
Trail Parking
Lots
Number of Years
Weighted Average Age
Weighted Average EUL
$452k
$267k
$145k
$141k
$1.6m
$195k
$302k
$29k
$27k
$4.4m
$1.2m
$42k
$133k
$1.3m
$2.4m
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Trail Parking
Lots
Trail
Equipment
Trail Culverts
Trail Bridges
Trail
Value and Percentage of Asset Segments by Replacement Cost
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Appendix C: Trail Network
67 | P a g e
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and
replacement activities is required to maintain or increase asset service
longevity.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data enable staff to determine the remaining
service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective management
strategies. The current approach is like that used for buildings, where many
trail assets are assessed on a five-year cycle. However, structural bridges
and culverts are inspected every two years in accordance with OSIM
(Ontario Structure Inspection Manual) requirements. Each asset is assigned
a condition rating on a scale from 1 to 5, ranging from unacceptable to
good. Most assessments are conducted by external contractors.
Lifecycle Management Strategy
To ensure that municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting
the needs of residents, it is important to establish a lifecycle management
strategy to proactively manage asset deterioration. The following figure
outlines the current lifecycle management strategy.
Figure 33 K&P Trail Current Lifecycle Strategy
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The annual capital requirement represents the average amount per year
that should be allocate towards funding rehabilitation and replacement
needs. The following graph identifies capital requirements over the next 65
years. This projection is used as it ensures that every asset has gone
through one full iteration of replacement. The forecasted requirements are
aggregated into 5-year bins, and the trend line represents the average
annual capital requirements at $761 thousand.
- Routine maintenance of trail assets includes grading, shaping, and
packing the surface, controlling dust through Calcium or Magnesium
Chloride application, brushing and mowing, granular replacement,
and trail inspection, including ditches and culverts, spot repairs.
- Maintenance actions are typically triggered by inspections and
scheduled
-Patching repairs on laneways/parking lots
-Replacement is considered when an asset's condition has
deteriorated significantly. In the case of trail assets, when
rehabilitation is no longer cost-effective and the asset is near
failure.
Maintenance / Rehabilitation / Replacement
Appendix C: Trail Network
68 | P a g e
Figure 34 K&P Trail Network Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements
Table 24 below summarizes the projected cost of lifecycle activities (capital replacement only) that may
need to be undertaken over the next 10 years to support current levels of service. These projections are
generated in Citywide and rely on the data available in the asset register.
$761k
$0
$6.5m
$4.1m
$1.8m
$4.1m
$2.0m
$4.2m
$2.0m
$4.3m
$4.9m
$2.3m
$7.0m
$3.7m
$4.7m
$0
$1m
$2m
$3m
$4m
$5m
$6m
$7m
Forecasted Capital Requirements
Trail
Trail Bridges
Trail Culverts
Trail Equipment
Trail Parking Lots
Annual Requirement
Appendix C: Trail Network
69 | P a g e
Table 24 K&P Trail Network System-Generated 10-Year Capital Costs
Segment
Backlog 2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Trail
$0
$3.4m
$126k
$203k
$343k
$872k
$195k
-
$25k
$2.4m
$988k
Trail Bridges
$0
-
-
$1.1m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trail Culverts
$0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trail Equipment
$0
-
$42k
$29k
$145k
-
-
-
$42k
$29k
$145k
Trail Parking Lots
$0
-
-
-
-
$302k
-
-
-
$13k
$253k
A staff assessment from 2020 for culverts and 2022 for bridges on the trail were used to determine
forthcoming replacement needs. These projections can be different from actual capital forecasts.
Consistent data updates, especially condition, will improve the alignment between the system-generated
expenditure requirements, and the County's capital expenditure forecasts
Appendix C: Trail Network
70 | P a g e
Risk & Criticality
The risk matrix provides a visual representation of the relationship between
the probability of failure and the consequence of failure for the assets within
this asset category based on available inventory data. See Appendix E: Risk
Rating Criteria for the criteria used to determine the risk rating for all asset
categories.
Figure 35 K&P Trail Network Risk Matrix
1 - 4
5 - 7
8 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 25
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
$4,796,249
$2,608,017
$1,922,768
$3,344,000
-
(38%)
(21%)
(15%)
(26%)
(0%)
This is a high-level model that has been developed based on information
currently available and should be reviewed and adjusted to reflect an
evolving understanding of both the probability and consequences of asset
failure.
The identification of critical assets allows the County to determine risk
mitigation strategies and treatment options. Risk mitigation may include
asset-specific lifecycle strategies, condition assessment strategies, or simply
the need to collect better asset data.
Levels of Service
The framework created by the County for levels of service is a valuable tool
for assessing and managing the performance of their assets and/or services
provided by their assets. Proposed levels of service for the County have
been developed through engagement with County staff.
Current Levels of Service
The following tables outline the County's metrics for assessing the current
level of service for the trail network. These reflect the County's broader,
strategic service goals and provide a way to track how cost, performance
(average condition), and risk are trending year-over-year.
Appendix C: Trail Network
71 | P a g e
Figure 36 K&P Trail Network Strategic Levels of Service
Full Funding vs Actual
Reinvestment Rate
Performance (Average Condition)
Risk Breakdown
0.79%
6.01%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Actual
Reinvestment
Rate
Full Funding
Reinvestment
Rate
4%
18%
47%
12%
19%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
38%
21%
15%
26%
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Appendix C: Trail Network
72 | P a g e
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the
community levels of service provided by the K&P Trail network.
Table 25 Ontario Regulation 588/17 K&P Trail Network Community Levels of Service
Service
Attribute
Qualitative
Description
Current LOS
Accessible
& Reliable
Description, which
may include maps, of
trails and the
proximity to the
surrounding
community
As illustrated in Figure 37, the trail runs from
the County's south boundary with the City of
Kingston, through South, Central, and North
Frontenac Townships. While still under
development, it will eventually reach 90
kilometres in length to meet the boundary
with the County of Lanark to the north.
Safe &
Regulatory
Description of the
trails inspection
process and
timelines for
inspections
Monthly inspections of the trail network,
including legislated OSIM bridge inspections
every two years; proactive planned annual
maintenance for the entire length of the trail.
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the
technical level of service provided by the K&P Trail network.
Table 26 Ontario Regulation 588/17 K&P Trail Network Technical Levels of Service
Service Attribute
Technical Metric
Current LOS
Sustainable
Annual use tracked through trail counters
144,384
Km of trail network
73
Accessible & Reliable
Trail Network Inspection Target (1x per
month)
12
Number of Hazards Reported during
inspections
32
Affordable
O&M cost for the trail network per km
$2,200
Annual capital reinvestment rate
0.8%
Safe & Regulatory
% of trail assets that are in good or very
good condition
69%
% of trail assets that are in poor or very
poor condition
31%
Appendix C: Trail Network
73 | P a g e
Figure 37 K&P Trail Map
Appendix C: Trail Network
74 | P a g e
Proposed Levels of Service
The scenarios that were used to analyse the County's inventory are based on the data available in the
asset management system which outlines estimated useful life and condition as well as replacement costs
which all the results are based on.
Scenario 1: Current Capital Reinvestment Rate - this scenario utilizes the current capital reinvestment
within each asset category. The current annual investment was held, and the condition was determined.
Scenario 2: Full Funding - this scenario assumes unlimited capital reinvestment within each asset
category. Asset condition is modeled without any constraints on the annual capital funding available.
Scenario 3: Strategic Funding - this scenario utilizes modest funding increases across asset categories,
with a 1.5% annual increase applied to the K&P Trail, Fairmount Home, Paramedic, and Administration
budgets, and a 5% annual increase applied to the Ambulance and Non-Ambulance Vehicle budgets. The
resulting infrastructure condition was determined based on these adjusted annual funding levels.
The table below outlines the results for each scenario for Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements:
Scenarios
Replacement Cost Average
ondition
Annual Capital
Reinvestment
Scenario 1 - Current Capital
einvestment
$12,671,033
Poor (32%)
$100,000
Scenario 2 - Full Funding
$12,671,033
Fair (53%)
$761,465
Scenario 3 - Strategic Funding
$12,671,033
Poor (33%)
$116,054
The following figure illustrates the projected condition of each asset segment under each of the three
investment level scenarios:
Appendix C: Trail Network
75 | P a g e
Figure 38 Scenario Comparison: K&P Trail Conditions
Appendix D: Proposed LOS 10-Year Capital Requirements
76 | P a g e
Appendix D: Proposed LOS 10-Year Capital Requirements
The table below outlines the capital cost requirements for recommended lifecycle activities, as determined
through the County's asset management software. These projections are based on annual budgets
starting at current funding levels, with a gradual increase over a 10-year period to achieve the
recommended funding for all assets. This strategy follows Scenario 3 and includes a rollover budget to
carry forward unspent funds for future use. For further details, please refer to the Financial Strategy.
Table 27 System-Generated 10-Year Capital Requirements - All Asset Categories
Asset
Category
Asset
Segment
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Building
s
Ambulance
Bases
$335k $335k
$72k
$280k $209k $863k $275k $467k $164k $265k
County
Administration $647k $398k
$70k
$42k
-
$467k $693k
$70k
-
$19k
Fairmount
Home
$786k $797k $807k $822k $835k $847k $860k $872k $882k $898k
Trail
Network
All Segments
$70k
$95k
$102k $119k
$84k
$145k
$61k
$67k
$209k $118k
Vehicles
Ambulances
$440k $440k $880k $440k
$1.4
m
-
$440k $440k $880k $421k
County
Administration $104k
$62k
-
$42k
-
-
$35k
-
-
-
Appendix D: Proposed LOS 10-Year Capital Requirements
77 | P a g e
Paramedic
(Non-
Ambulance)
-
$42k
$148k
$87k
$120k $159k $102k $147k $187k
$42k
TOTAL
$2.4
m
$2.2
m
$2.1
m
$1.8
m
$2.6
m
$2.5
m
$2.5
m
$2.1
m
$2.3
m
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
Risk Definitions
Risk
Integrating a risk management framework into your asset management program
requires the translation of risk potential into a quantifiable format. This will allow
you to compare and analyze individual assets across your entire asset portfolio.
Asset risk is typically defined using the following formula:
Risk = Probability of Failure (POF) x Consequence of Failure (COF)
Probability of
Failure (POF)
The probability of failure relates to the likelihood that an asset will fail at a given
time. The current physical condition and service life remaining are two commonly
used risk parameters in determining this likelihood.
POF - Structural
The likelihood of asset failure due to aspects of an asset such as load carrying
capacity, condition, or breaks
POF - Functional
The likelihood of asset failure due to its performance
POF - Range
1 - Rare 2 - Unlikely 3 - Possible 4 - Likely 5 - Almost Certain
Consequences of
Failure (COF)
The consequence of failure describes the overall effect that an asset's failure will
have on an organization's asset management goals. Consequences of failure can
range from non-eventful to impactful: a small diameter water main break in a
subdivision may cause several rate payers to be without water service for a short
time. However, a larger trunk water main may break outside a hospital, leading
to significantly higher consequences.
COF - Economic
The monetary consequences of asset failure for the organization and its
customers
COF - Social
The consequences of asset failure on the social dimensions of the community
COF -
Environmental
The consequence of asset failure on an asset's surrounding environment
COF - Operational
The consequence of asset failure on the Town's day-to-day operations
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
79 | P a g e
COF - Health &
safety
The consequence of asset failure on the health and well-being of the community
COF - Strategic
The consequence of asset failure on strategic planning
COF - Range
1 - Insignificant 2 - Minor 3 - Moderate 4 - Major 5 - Severe
Risk Frameworks
Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements
Table 28 Buildings, Equipment and Land Improvements Risk Frameworks
Asset
Category
Asset
Segment
Risk
Criteria Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Sub-Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Value/Range
Score
Buildings
COF
Economic
100%
Replacement
Cost
100%
$0 - $50k
$50k - $100k
$100k - $500k
$500k - $1.5m
>$1.5m
1 - Insignificant
2 - Minor
3 - Moderate
4 - Major
5 - Severe
POF
Performance
100%
Assessed
Condition
99%
>4.1
3.1 - 4.1
2.1 - 3.1
1.1 - 2.1
0 - 1.1
1 - Rare
2 - Unlikely
3 - Possible
4 - Likely
5 - Almost Certain
Performance
Service Life
Remaining
(years)
1%
>20
15 - 20
10 - 15
5 - 10
0 - 5
1 - Rare
2 - Unlikely
3 - Possible
4 - Likely
5 - Almost Certain
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
80 | P a g e
Bridges
Table 29 Bridges Risk Frameworks
Asset
Category
Asset
Segment
Risk
Criteria Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Sub-Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Value/Range
Score
Bridges
COF
Economic
100%
Replacement
Cost
100%
$0 - $50k
$50k - $100k
$100k - $500k
$500k - $1.5m
>$1.5m
1 - Insignificant
2 - Minor
3 - Moderate
4 - Major
5 - Severe
POF
Condition
100%
Assessed
Condition
100%
>90
75 - 90
55 - 75
40 - 55
0 - 40
1 - Rare
2 - Unlikely
3 - Possible
4 - Likely
5 - Almost Certain
Appendix E: Risk Rating Criteria
81 | P a g e
Culverts
Table 30: Culverts Risk Frameworks
Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment
Table 31 Machinery & Equipment, Trails, and Vehicles Risk Frameworks
Asset
Category
Asset
Segment
Risk
Criteria Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Sub-Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Value/Range
Score
Culverts
COF
Economic
100%
Replacement
Cost
100%
$0 - $50k
$50k - $100k
$100k - $500k
$500k - $1.5m
>$1.5m
1 - Insignificant
2 - Minor
3 - Moderate
4 - Major
5 - Severe
POF
Condition
100%
Assessed
Condition
100%
>4
3 - 4
2 - 3
1 - 2
0 - 1
1 - Rare
2 - Unlikely
3 - Possible
4 - Likely
5 - Almost Certain
Asset
Category
Asset
Segment
Risk
Criteria Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Sub-Criteria
Weighting
(%)
Value/Range
Score
Machinery & Equipment,
Vehicles, Trails
COF
Economic 100%
Replacement
Cost
100%
$0 - $50k
$50k - $100k
$100k - $250k
$250k - $500k
>$500k
1 - Insignificant
2 - Minor
3 - Moderate
4 - Major
5 - Severe
POF
Condition 100%
Assessed &
Age Based
Condition
100%
>80
60 - 80
40 - 60
20 - 40
0 - 20
1 - Rare
2 - Unlikely
3 - Possible
4 - Likely
5 - Almost Certain
Appendix F: Condition Assessment Guidelines
82 | P a g e
Appendix F: Condition Assessment
Guidelines
The foundation of good asset management practice is accurate and reliable
data on the current condition of infrastructure. Assessing the condition of an
asset at a single point in time allows staff to have a better understanding of
the probability of asset failure due to deteriorating condition.
Condition data is vital to the development of data-driven asset management
strategies. Without accurate and reliable asset data, there may be little
confidence in asset management decision-making which can lead to
premature asset failure, service disruption and suboptimal investment
strategies. To prevent these outcomes, the County's condition assessment
strategy should outline several key considerations, including:
-
The role of asset condition data in decision-making
-
Guidelines for the collection of asset condition data
-
A schedule for how regularly asset condition data should be collected
Role of Asset Condition Data
The goal of collecting asset condition data is to ensure that data is available
to inform maintenance and renewal programs required to meet the desired
level of service. Accurate and reliable condition data allows municipal staff to
determine the remaining service life of assets, and identify the most cost-
effective approach to deterioration, whether it involves extending the life of
the asset through remedial efforts or determining that replacement is
required to avoid asset failure.
In addition to the optimization of lifecycle management strategies, asset
condition data also impacts the County's risk management and financial
strategies. Assessed condition is a key variable in the determination of an
asset's probability of failure. With a strong understanding of the probability
of failure across the entire asset portfolio, the County can develop strategies
to mitigate both the probability and consequences of asset failure and
service disruption. Furthermore, with condition-based determinations of
future capital expenditures, the County can develop long-term financial
strategies with higher accuracy and reliability.
Guidelines for Condition Assessment
Whether completed by external consultants or internal staff, condition
assessments should be completed in a structured and repeatable fashion,
according to consistent and objective assessment criteria. Without proper
guidelines for the completion of condition assessments there can be little
Appendix F: Condition Assessment Guidelines
83 | P a g e
confidence in the validity of condition data and asset management strategies
based on this data.
Condition assessments must include a quantitative or qualitative assessment
of the current condition of the asset, collected according to specified
condition rating criteria, in a format that can be used for asset management
decision-making. As a result, it is important that staff adequately define the
condition rating criteria that should be used and the assets that require a
discrete condition rating. When engaging with external consultants to
complete condition assessments, it is critical that these details are
communicated as part of the contractual terms of the project.
There are many options available to the County to complete condition
assessments. In some cases, external consultants may need to be engaged
to complete detailed technical assessments of infrastructure. In other cases,
internal staff may have sufficient expertise or training to complete condition
assessments.
Developing a Condition Assessment Schedule
Condition assessments and general data collection can be both time-
consuming and resource intensive. It is not necessarily an effective strategy
to collect assessed condition data across the entire asset inventory. Instead,
the County should prioritize the collection of assessed condition data based
on the anticipated value of this data in decision-making. The International
Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) identifies four key criteria to
consider when making this determination:
-
Relevance: every data item must have a direct influence on the output
that is required
-
Appropriateness: the volume of data and the frequency of updating
should align with the stage in the assets life and the service being
provided
-
Reliability: the data should be sufficiently accurate, have sufficient
spatial coverage and be appropriately complete and current
-
Affordability: the data should be affordable to collect and maintain