This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot 2928a283d42a · verified 2026-06-09 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY HEMSON FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF HARLEY
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
September 5th, 2025
1000 - 30 St. Patrick Street, Toronto ON M5T 3A3
416 593 5090 | [email protected] | www.hemson.com
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
4
A.
Purpose of the Asset Management Plan
4
B.
Regulatory Context
5
C.
Asset Management Plan Structure
7
2.
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
8
A.
Replacement Cost of Infrastucture
8
B.
Remaining Useful Life of the Infrastructure
9
C.
Condition of the Infrastructure
10
3.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
15
A.
The Township's Level of Service Goals
15
B.
Community Levels of Service (CLOS)
15
C.
Technical Levels of Service (TLOS)
16
D.
Overview of the Township's Level of Service
16
4.
ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
24
A.
Overview of Full LifeCycle Cost Model
24
B.
Risk Analysis
29
C.
Managing Risk
31
D.
Future Demand
32
E.
Climate Change Integration
33
5.
FINANCING STRATEGY
36
A.
Analysis of Available Revenues
36
B.
Benchmark Infrastructure Funding Gap
38
C.
Proposed Level of Service Infrastructure Funding Gap
39
D.
The Relationship to the Proposed Level of Service
41
6.
MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN
43
A.
Asset Management Maturity Assessment
43
B.
Improvement Plan
45
APPENDIX A
47
APPENDIX B
55
Executive Summary | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Asset Management Plan (2025 Plan) has been developed to be consistent with the
requirements of Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O Reg. 588/17) and meet the 2025 proposed level of service requirements.
This 2025 Plan includes current level of service measures for all core and non-core
infrastructure assets and defines proposed levels of service over a ten-year period in
compliance with the regulation. A summary of the key results of the 2025 Asset
Management Plan is noted below along with relevant reporting outputs provided in the
summary dashboard. Note that all figures are in constant 2024 dollars.
-
The Township's infrastructure has an estimated replacement value of $95.7 million. The
largest share is roads and accounts for about $72.5 million (76%). The next highest
share is bridges at $15.0 million (16%) and is followed by buildings at $4.0 million (4%).
Vehicles in the Township represent 2% of overall assets, valued at $1.9 million. The
Township's culverts represent $1.1 million (1%). The remaining replacement value is
made up of machinery and equipment at $820,000 (less than 1%) and $477,000 (less
than 1%) for land improvements.
-
Municipal assets are determined to be in Good condition overall. About $76.2 million
(79%) of the assets are in Good to Very Good condition while $6.6 million (7%) of the
assets are Fair condition. The remaining $13.0 million (14%) are in Poor to Very Poor
condition.
-
The proposed level of service is generally set to maintain the current level of service
over the planning period (2024-2033):
-
While no PCI information is available for paved or unpaved roads, their condition
has been assigned a condition based on the useful life of each road surface and the
age of the last known works, combined with staff assessments. Paved and unpaved
roads were deemed to be in Good condition overall. Given the "Good" condition of
the road network and the Township's funding constraints, the proposed level of
service is to maintain the current condition of roads, which is consistent with the
Township's existing practices.
-
Township bridges are on average in Very Good condition (95 BCI), no structures
currently having loading or dimensional restrictions.
Executive Summary | 2
-
The 2024 Building Condition Assessments place 42% of the replacement value of
buildings in Good condition, with almost all remaining buildings being classified as
Fair condition. This reflects the reflecting the fact that 16% of the Township's
buildings have overrun their useful life.
-
Culverts are in Poor condition overall, with very few assets being overdue for
replacement. This indicates that many assets are approaching the end of their
useful lives. The condition of these assets should be closely monitored as many
assets may become due for replacement in a short time-period.
-
Vehicles are, on average, in Fair condition despite only 2% of assets having overrun
their useful lives. Machinery and Equipment is in Very Poor condition overall, with
67% of the asset value being overdue for replacement. Despite the overall age of
the assets bringing the reported condition down, they continue to be in useable
order and are replaced as needed.
-
The total 10-year lifecycle costs to meet proposed levels of service amount to $11.1
million (an average of about $1.1 million per year) if Peddie Bridge is to be replaced, or
$8.5 million if the bridge is to be decommissioned. Assuming this bridge will be
replaced, to meet proposed levels of service an average increase to contributions to
capital and/or capital reserves of approximately $113,000 per year would be required
which is equivalent to a 13.6% annual increase to the tax levy in 2025 ($2024). If staff
decide that this bridge will be decommissioned, meeting proposed levels of service
would require increased contributions to capital and/or capital reserves of
approximately $54,200 per year would be required which is equivalent to a 6.5% annual
increase to the tax levy in 2025 ($2024). Going forward, this amount would need to be
adjusted by inflation on an annual basis to ensure the Township's funding levels are
sufficient to meet general market price increases.
Summary of 2025 Asset Management Plan
Land Improvements, $0.48
Buildings,
$4.00
Machinery and
Equipment,
$0.82
Vehicles,
$1.93
Culverts, $1.08
Roads, $72.49
Bridges,
$14.96
Summary of Total Replacement Value ($M)
$95.7
Million
Very Good,
$19.7 , 20%
Good, $56.5 ,
59%
Fair, $6.6 ,
7%
Poor, $0.9 ,
1%
Very Poor,
$12.0 , 13%
Summary of Asset Condition ($M)
Overall
Condition
GOOD
$11.13 M
Million
Total Need to Meet PLOS
2025-2034
Maturity
Assessment
Township of
Harley
0
50
100
Current Score
Target Score
Executive Summary | 3
Introduction | 4
1. INTRODUCTION
The Township of Harley 2025 Asset Management Plan (2025 AMP) provides the Township
with a tool to assist in asset management financing decisions. The AMP covers all
Township-owned and operated assets and follows the format set out by the Ministry of
Infrastructure through the Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans,
the requirements of Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O. Reg. 588/17) and the Township's Strategic Asset Management Policy.
An Excel based asset management financial model has been developed as part of the 2025
AMP. The model contains the Township's detailed asset inventory and financing strategy
used to develop this AMP. The model is provided to municipal staff and is intended to be
updated on a regular basis to inform future capital investment decisions.
A.
PURPOSE OF THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
The main purpose of the 2025 AMP is to advance the Township's asset management
practices by developing a set of asset management strategies to the specific needs of each
service area. At the same time, these strategies align with the objectives of the requirements
of Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O. Reg. 588/17). This plan is focused on achieving several key
objectives:
-
Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability - management of the Township's assets is a long-
term commitment that must be sustainable to ensure effective service delivery for future
generations.
-
Lowest Cost of Ownership - long-term sustainability is only possible by ensuring costs
are minimized through efficient management of assets by developing service area and
asset specific objectives.
-
Minimizing Risk - risk is minimized through the assessment, management and long-
term planning of assets at more focused levels and through consultation with service
area staff.
-
Enhancing Service Delivery - the Township strives for continual improvement in its
asset management strategies as outlined in the Strategic Asset Management Policy and
therefore tailored approaches to assessing long-term needs unique to each asset
category is captured through this AMP.
Introduction | 5
-
Supporting Informed Decision-Making - development of a set of asset management
tools that help the decision-making process make evidence-based decisions. The Excel
based financial model can be used to continually keep asset information up to date.
By following the key objectives above, the AMP establishes a "clear line of sight" from the
service being provided to residents and businesses in the Township. Any investment
requirements included in the AMP are clearly linked to a well-defined need. These needs
over the 10-year period are set to meet the proposed level of service, which in the case of
Harley, is largely related to maintaining levels of service. Furthermore, the needs should be
aligned with strategic objectives through capital and operating decisions made in the budget
process.
B.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
In 2015, the Province of Ontario established the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act.
The purpose of this Act is to establish mechanisms to encourage principled, evidence-based
and strategic long-term infrastructure planning that supports job creation and training
opportunities, economic growth, protection of the environment, and incorporate design
excellence into infrastructure planning.
In December 2017, Ontario Regulation 588/17 Asset Management Planning for Municipal
Infrastructure (O. Reg 588/17) was passed under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity
Act. The regulation requires municipalities to develop a Strategic Asset Management Policy,
which will help municipalities document the relationship between their Asset Management
Plan and existing policies and practices as well as provide guidance for future capital
investment decisions. The regulation also contains specific requirements on the type of
analysis municipal asset management plans should contain, including policies, levels of
service, lifecycle management and financing strategies. The aim is to provide guidance to
municipalities so that asset management plans are more consistent across the Province.
Furthermore, in March 2021 the Province amended the regulation to extend the regulatory
timelines by one year. A summary timeline of the requirements of the regulation are outlined
in Figure 1.
Introduction | 6
Figure 1 - Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements
A high-level summary of the technical requirements to be addressed for July 1, 2025,
include1:
-
An AMP for all municipal infrastructure assets that builds upon the previous
requirements for all asset categories (core and non-core).
-
Identification of the proposed levels of service for each of the next 10-years (core
and non-core).
-
The lifecycle activities required to meet proposed levels of service.
-
The risks associated with the lifecycle activities to meet proposed levels of service
and their associated costs.
The 2025 AMP meets the requirements of the regulation as it includes the proposed levels of
service requirement to meet the 2025 deadline for all assets considered in this AMP. The
2025 AMP builds on the work completed in the Township's 2016 Asset Management Plan
which included all asset categories (core and non-core) and reported on the current level of
service. Through this update, the Township has updated the current level of service utilizing
more recent engineering reports, updated inventories and datasets compiled through
consultation with Township staff.
1 There are additional requirements of the regulation not explicitly stated here, however, this AMP meets all
requirements needed. Only the most relevant reporting requirements are listed for simplicity. See
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r17588#BK7.
Introduction | 7
C.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE
The 2025 AMP is developed to be consistent with the structure recommended through the
2013 Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. At the same time, it
has been developed to meet the requirements of O Reg. 588/17. Table 1 provides a guide to
the sections of the 2025 AMP.
Table 1 - AMP Report Structure
Section
Requirement
Main Body
Section 2 - State of Local
Infrastructure
Summarizes the state of the Township's infrastructure with reference
to infrastructure quantity and quality. Additional details are provided in
Appendix A.
Section 3 - Level of Service A summary of the current and proposed levels of service summarized
for each asset category. This section is consistent with the reporting
requirements of O. Reg. 588/17.
Section 4 - Asset
Management Strategy
Sets out several strategies and lifecycle costs that will assist the
Township in maintaining assets so that proposed levels of service can
be met. This section also includes a risk analysis of Township assets.
Section 5 - Financing
Strategy
Establishes how asset management can be delivered in a financially
sustainable way for all services. Outlines the lifecycle costs and
funding strategy to meet proposed levels of service. Additional detailed
calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Section 6 - Monitoring and
Improvement Plan
Provides key recommendations on how to improve the asset
management plan and related practices over the long-term.
Appendices
Appendix A - State of Local
Infrastructure Report Cards
Detailed reports on the state of local infrastructure by asset category
including the asset portfolio, replacement values, age and condition.
Appendix B - Detailed
Financing Strategy Tables
Additional detailed tables related to the lifecycle cost and financing
strategy.
State of Local Infrastructure | 8
2. STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides a summary of the Township's assets with reference to asset quantity
and quality. Some assets have condition assessments based on engineering inspections,
while some asset conditions are based on the useful life of the asset relative to its age, or a
high-level condition assessment developed in consultation with Township staff. Detailed
technical information on the asset inventory, remaining useful life and conditions for each
asset category is provided in Appendix A.
A.
REPLACEMENT COST OF INFRASTUCTURE
The replacement cost for all Township assets considered in the 2025 AMP is estimated at
$95.7 million (represented in constant 2024 dollars). The largest share is related to roads
and accounts for about $72.5 million (76%) of the total replacement value. The next highest
is bridges at $15.0 million (16%), followed by buildings at $4.0 million (4%). Township
vehicles total $1.9 million (2%) of overall assets, while Culverts have a current replacement
value of $1.1 million (1%). The remaining replacement value is made up of machinery and
equipment at $820,000 (less than 1%) and $477,000 (less than 1%) for land improvements.
Figure 2 - Summary of Assets by Total Replacement Value ($2024 millions)
Land
Improvements,
$477,146 , <1%
Buildings,
$4.00 M, 4%
Machinery and
Equipment,
$820,185 , <1%
Vehicles,
$1.93 M, 2%
Culverts,
$1.08 M, 1%
Roads,
$72.49 M, 76%
Bridges,
$14.96 M,
16%
State of Local Infrastructure | 9
Replacement values are used to estimate the cost of replacing an asset when it reaches the
end of its engineered design life. For this reason, the replacement values represent an
important input into the lifecycle cost analysis. The total replacement cost of assets of $95.7
million has been determined utilizing different methods that are appropriate for each asset
category and dependent on data available at the time of developing this AMP.
Table 2 - Methodology Used for Replacement Values
Asset Category
Methodology
Roads
-
Based on benchmark costs per kilometre in similar
municipalities for gravel, surface-treated, and paved
roads.
Bridges
-
Based on average replacement cost per square metre
of deck area.
Buildings
-
Based on replacement values identified in the 2024
Building Condition Assessments.
Culverts
-
Adjusted acquisition costs to 2024 dollars based on
average NRBCPI (3% annual)
Machinery & Equipment
Land Improvements
Vehicles
B.
REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 3 provides a summary of the assets by replacement value shown by their remaining
useful life (years). None of the Township's assets have greater than 50 years of remaining
useful life. About $3.9 million (47%) has between 10 and 49 years of remaining useful life
while about $2.9 million (36%) has 0 to 9 years of remaining useful life.
The remaining $1.4 million (17%) is considered overdue and past its design life. This is
largely related to machinery, equipment, and vehicles, which routinely outlive their expected
useful life as a result of the maintenance and renewal activities undertaken by the
Township. Although these assets are considered past their design life, they continue to be
maintained and are in good working order.
State of Local Infrastructure | 10
Figure 3 - Summary of Assets by Remaining Useful Life ($2024) - excluding Roads and Bridges
Note: The summary shows infrastructure totalling about $8.3 million of the total Township replacement value of
$95.7 million as roads have been excluded from the summary. Roads are excluded as no acquisition date or useful
life information is available as the Township maintains the roads based on their condition, rather than age.
C.
CONDITION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Consistent with the Canadian National Infrastructure Report Card, as well as other major
organization and institution reporting formats, a five-point rating scale was used to assign a
condition to all assets. This methodology provides a standard and easy to understand way of
reporting on the condition of assets. Table 3 summarizes the assumed parameters.
Table 3 - Condition Assessment Parameters
Condition Rating
Definition
Very Good
-
Well maintained, good condition, new or recently rehabilitated
asset.
Good
-
Good condition, few elements exhibit existing deficiencies.
Fair
-
Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies. Asset requires
attention.
Poor
-
A large portion of the system exhibits significant deficiencies.
Asset mostly below standard and approaching end of service life.
Very Poor
-
Widespread signs of deterioration, some assets may be unusable.
Service is affected.
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
$0.00 M
Overdue
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50+
Millions
Land Improvements
Buildings
Machinery and Equipment
Vehicles
Culverts
State of Local Infrastructure | 11
Assets were categorized in the 5-tier rating system on an asset-by-asset basis. Three
approaches have been utilized for the assets considered in this AMP. The approaches for
each of these methods is outlined.
1.
Assessed Conditions
The Township aims to continually update the asset inventory to reflect changes in conditions
or when assets are replaced. The conditions reported reflect the best understanding of the
condition of the Township's assets at the end of 2024.
-
Condition assessments for the culverts are based on the engineered assessments
developed through the Township's OSIM Report (Ontario Structure Inspection Manual).
The OSIM report rates the culverts utilizing a 100-point Bridge Condition Index scale
(BCI). The condition of the culverts has been translated to the 5-point scale based on
the scale in Table 4 below.
Table 4 - Bridges and Culverts Condition Parameters
Condition Rating
BCI Range
Very Good
90 - 100
Good
70 - 90
Fair
60 - 70
Poor
50 - 60
Very Poor
Less than 50
-
Condition for building structures and components have been determined as part of the
2024 Facility Condition Assessments. The assessment rating was based on a 1-5 Scale
that has been translated into the reported conditions using the parameters in Table 5
(below). The Township continues to maintain its buildings to ensure they are available
for service. Generally, buildings are long-lived assets and can continue to be used well
past their design life with proper ongoing maintenance.
Table 5 - Buildings Condition Parameters
Condition Rating
Condition Rating
Very Good
4.8 - 5.0
Good
4.0 - 4.7
Fair
3.0 - 3.9
Poor
2.0 - 2.9
Very Poor
1.0 - 1.9
State of Local Infrastructure | 12
-
Roads - While no PCI information is available for paved or unpaved roads, their condition
has been assigned a condition based on the useful life of each road surface and the age
of the last known works. Staff then assessed these age-based conditions and corrected
the listing where they saw variance.
2.
Age Based Approach
For asset types where the Township was not able to provide a condition assessment based
on existing knowledge or inspection, the condition is estimated based on age and the
remaining useful life of the asset. It is the intention that the Township move towards a
condition assessment methodology using approach 1 wherever possible. The age-based
condition methodology is more appropriate for lower valued assets that have a shorter useful
life. Table 6 shows the methodology where the condition is assigned based on the remaining
useful life of the assets.
Table 6 - Age Based Condition Parameters
Condition Rating
Percentage of Remaining
Useful
Very Good
80% - 100%
Good
60% - 80%
Fair
40% - 60%
Poor
20% - 40%
Very Poor
Less than 20%
Summary of the Condition of Assets
Figure 4 summarizes the condition of Township assets. On average, these are determined to
be in Good condition. Overall, about $76.2 million (79%) of the assets are in Good to Very
Good condition while $6.6 million (7%) of the assets are Fair condition. The remaining $13.0
million (14%) are in Poor to Very Poor condition.
State of Local Infrastructure | 13
Figure 4 - Summary of Asset Condition ($2024 - in millions)
Figure 5 shows the condition of assets delineated by each asset category:
-
The Township's largest component in the asset portfolio is roads. Making up 76% of the
total replacement value of all assets, they are the main driver of the Township's overall
asset condition. About $61.8 million (85%) of the roads are in Good to Very Good
condition as these assets were assessed by staff. The remaining $10.7 million (15%) of
roads were assessed to be in Poor and Very Poor condition.
-
The conditions of bridges were assessed through the Township's OSIM Reports. The
BCI's placed $11.7 million (78%) in Good and Very Good condition. An additional $3.3
million (22%) was placed in Fair condition.
-
All Buildings were assigned a condition rating as part of the 2024 Building Condition
Assessments, which resulted in buildings being split between Good, Fair, and Poor
condition. $1.7 million (42%) was rated in Good condition, and $2.3 million (57%) being
rated in Fair condition. An additional $55,000 (1%) was rated in Poor condition.
-
The condition of vehicles were evaluated based on the age and useful life of each asset.
Approximately $0.8 million (40%) of the Township's vehicles are in Good or Very Good
Condition. An additional $0.3 million (14%) was rated as Fair condition. The remaining
$12.02 M, 13%
$0.94 M, 1%
$6.62 M, 7%
$56.51 M, 59%
$19.65 M, 20%
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Overall
GOOD
Condition
State of Local Infrastructure | 14
$0.9 million (46%) are either approaching or have overrun their useful lives, placing them
in Very Poor condition.
-
Culverts were evaluated based on the age and useful life of each asset. The results
show most culverts, approximately $1.0 million (94%) are in Very Poor, Poor, or Fair
condition. A smaller share of approximately $60,000 (6%) are in Good and Very Good
condition.
-
Machinery and equipment and land improvements were evaluated based on age. It is
important to note that while many of the assets in these categories are in Poor and Very
Poor condition, due to the nature of these assets having a shorter useful life, the assets
that have either overrun or are approaching the end of their useful life may still be fully
functional and pose little risk of failure.
Figure 5 - Summary of Asset Condition by Asset Category ($2025 - in millions)
Note: The percentages above the bars represent the shares of replacement value relative to the total replacement
value of Township assets at $95.7 million.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Roads
Bridges
Buildings
Vehicles
Culverts
Machinery
and
Equipment
Land
Improvements
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
76%
16%
4%
2%
1%
<1%
<1%
Level of Service | 15
3. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Levels of service (LOS) describe the outputs or objectives the Township intends to deliver to
its residents, which includes measures from a customer, technical and community
perspective. LOS provide a description of a particular activity or asset metric where
performance may be measured to benchmark the current state and set targets to ensure
resident's needs are met.
Levels of service measure how well the Township is meeting business needs, and this
information can be utilized as key drivers to inform future investment decisions. Having well-
defined service levels will allow the Township to be transparent with its stakeholders to find
the appropriate balance between affordability and service expectations.
A.
THE TOWNSHIP'S LEVEL OF SERVICE GOALS
The LOS Framework helps support and achieve key asset management goals:
-
Develop and continuously improve asset management related documentation to provide
evidence-based level of service linkages between the customer and technical levels with
integration directly into service-based activities as it relates to both the operational and
capital expenditures. This objective is achieved through development of the AMP
financial model, and the Township expects to continue to make improvements to its
available asset data over the longer-term.
-
Develop a clear relationship between the level of service and the costs associated to
meeting level of service objectives by integrating the AMP LOS framework into the
budget process. This integration is expected to be achieved over the longer-term
however, the financing strategy makes recommendations on the financial needs to meet
the proposed level of service which can be utilized to help inform the budget process.
-
Meet the requirements of O. Reg. 588/17 for 2025 to define the proposed level of
service, identify costs to meet the proposed level of service and identify any risks of not
meeting these targets.
B.
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE (CLOS)
Customer Levels of Service are specific parameters that describe the extent and quality of
services that the Township provides to residents from the resident's perspective. CLOS is
comprised of qualitative measures such as the description of assets or the related service
Level of Service | 16
provided. CLOS can be evaluated through an understanding of the wants and needs of
residents while understanding the assets the Township owns and operates. The CLOS are
documented as high-level qualitative statements that capture these characteristics. For the
purposes of meeting O. Reg. 588/17 requirements, the Community Levels of Service
(outlined in the regulation) are also included under the CLOS.
C.
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE (TLOS)
Technical Levels of Service are specific parameters that measure asset performance. TLOS
is comprised of quantitative measures such as asset age/condition or service performance.
Part of the TLOS is to consider both the individual asset capability and how the assets are
scheduled to be utilized as part of a system of service delivery. These measures are
developed through a review of the Township's asset data, engineering reports and in
consultation with staff.
The technical levels of service have been defined to meet the following criteria:
-
TLOS measures are relevant to the operation of municipal services;
-
TLOS are feasible to track and the data to inform the technical measures are readily
available or will be tracked for future iterations of the AMP; and
-
TLOS are developed recognizing the public as the main driver of service, they are
designed to track internal asset specific performance, but the resulting quality of service
will continue to be based on public input.
TLOS measures are crucial for tracking levels of service as they provide quantifiable
measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. By systematically
monitoring these measures, the Township can assess whether service standards are being
met, identify areas for improvement, and allocate resources effectively. An iterative
consultation process with staff helped in developing an internal tracking tool to capture the
necessary data for calculating the current and proposed levels of service and monitoring the
trends moving forward.
D.
OVERVIEW OF THE TOWNSHIP'S LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Township defined its current levels of service in accordance with qualitative and
technical metrics that have been established through the regulation and in consultation with
staff. In general, the measures were derived from data collected in 2024 and the process
Level of Service | 17
ensured that the current level of service accurately reflected the performance and condition
of infrastructure assets given the available data of the day.
Current Level of Service
For the purposes of this 2025 Asset Management Plan, the Current Level of Service is based
on figures provided by staff to year-end 2024. For many asset categories, the levels of
service chosen were selected as they show both age and condition indicators for each
category, since condition and age of assets was determined to be the main indicator of
service level for most Township services. In other instances, metrics have been added to
help capture the progress of initiatives already underway by staff and council, such as the
additional metrics included under Roads. Furthermore, improvements have been made to
streamline the measures to focus in areas that are relevant and useful for service level
monitoring and meeting the regulatory reporting requirements.
Proposed Level of Service
O. Reg 588/17 requires municipalities to define its proposed levels of service by July 1st,
2025. These proposed levels of service (PLOS) are intended to provide the Township with a
measurable future target state for the services it provides. The proposed level of service
focuses on asset specific measures that capture the performance of infrastructure which
forms part of the services provided by the Township. Best efforts have been made to
maintain the focus of the proposed level of service to infrastructure assets that support the
service rather than the overall services provided by any specific service area. However, it is
noted that in general the proposed level of service outlined in this AMP are required to
continue to provide the overall level of service objectives of the Township.
For every level of service that the Township measures, a corresponding set of PLOS
measures have been developed. Consultation with Township staff was conducted to develop
the proposed levels of service based on the needs of the community, existing data and
assessing their appropriateness for the Township. Overall, the proposed levels of service
outlined in this report have been carefully evaluated based on the following criteria:
-
Options & Associated Risk - Staff assess various options for the proposed levels of
service and analyze the risks associated with each option to the long-term sustainability
of the Township. This assessment considers factors such as service quality, operational
efficiency, and financial sustainability.
-
Differences from Current Levels of Service - The analysis looks at a comparison of the
proposed levels of service with the current levels to identify areas where adjustments or
enhancements are necessary. While some proposed levels of service may mirror the
Level of Service | 18
current levels outlined in this AMP, adjustments or enhancements to the current
procedures may still be necessary to ensure alignment with longer-term goals.
-
Achievability - The feasibility of achieving the proposed levels of service considering
factors such as available resources, technological capabilities, and operational
constraints have been evaluated. Efforts have been made to ensure that the proposed
targets are realistic and attainable within the Township's operational capacity.
Notwithstanding the Township's intended ability to achieve the targets, it is expected
that the proposed levels of service continue to be reviewed and monitored - further
adjustments may be warranted moving forward.
-
Affordability - The affordability of the proposed levels of service is conducted in
conjunction with the budget process, ensuring alignment with the financial resources
and fiscal capacity available. This process inherently involves approval by Council and
the organization, with affordability considerations integrated into budgetary decisions.
Summary of the Level of Service
Table 7 summarizes the customer levels of service while Table 8 shows the technical levels
of service. To summarize, the Township aims to generally maintain the current level of
service for all the asset categories considered under the AMP. The details in Table 8 show:
-
While no PCI information is available for paved or unpaved roads, their condition has
been assigned a condition based on the useful life of each road surface and the age of
the last known works, combined with staff assessments. Paved and unpaved roads were
deemed to be in Good condition overall. Given the "Good" condition of the road network
and the Township's funding constraints, the proposed level of service is to maintain the
current condition of roads, which is consistent with the Township's existing practices.
The cost implications of achieving this target are included in the financing strategy
section of this report. The Technical Metric "Road lane-km as a proportion of the total
land area in the Municipality" is required by O.Reg 588/17. The proposed level of service
is to maintain the current level of service as the Township does not expect to undertake
major works that would result in the reclassification of any roads to another category or
expansion of the road network.
-
Township bridges are on average in Very Good condition (95 BCI), no structures
currently having loading or dimensional restrictions. The Township completes all
regulated safety inspections, as required. Staff have identified the goal of maintaining
these service levels.
Level of Service | 19
-
The 2024 Building Condition Assessments place 42% of the replacement value of
buildings in Good condition, with almost all remaining buildings being classified as Fair
condition. This reflects the reflecting the fact that 16% the Township's buildings have
overrun their useful life.
-
Culverts are in Poor condition overall, with very few assets being overdue for
replacement. This indicates that many assets are approaching the end of their useful
lives. The condition of these assets should be closely monitored as many assets may
become due for replacement in a short time-period.
-
Vehicles are, on average, in Fair condition despite only 2% of assets having overrun their
useful lives. Machinery and Equipment is in Very Poor condition overall, with 67% of the
asset value being overdue for replacement. Despite the overall age of the assets bringing
the reported condition down, they continue to be in useable order and are replaced as
needed.
Level of Service | 20
Table 7 - Community Levels of Service
Asset
Category
Customer LOS
Community Level of Service
Roads
Maintain safe and reliable roads
and to meet reporting
requirements of (O. Reg.
588/17)
Description, which may include maps,
of the road network in the Township
and its level of connectivity.
The Township maintains 75 km of Unpaved Roads, and
nearly 10 km of Surface Treated and Paved Roads. 79 km of
the road network are classified as Local roads, while the
remaining 6 km are classified as Collector roads.
Description or images that illustrate the
different levels of road class pavement
condition.
A gravel road in Good condition is indicated by a firm,
crowned driving surface that drains water away from the
roadway.
Roads in Poor condition would be indicated by deficiencies
that make them more difficult for motorists to navigate. For
example, a loose gravel driving surface that contains ruts
and potholes. Another indicator is pooling water, washouts,
and poor drainage.
Bridges
Maintain safe and reliable
culverts and to meet reporting
requirements of (O. Reg.
588/17)
Description of the traffic that is
supported by municipal bridges (e.g.,
heavy transport vehicles, motor
vehicles, emergency vehicles,
pedestrians, cyclists).
No bridges included in the Township's OSIM Report have
load restrictions. The average bridge condition index (BCI) is
95 (out of 100).
Description or images of the condition
of bridges and how this would affect
use of the culverts.
Photos of the Township's bridges can be found in the 2023
Structure Inspection Appraisal Report.
Level of Service | 21
Asset
Category
Customer LOS
Community Level of Service
Culverts
Maintain reliable system of
culverts to keep roads in good
condition and ensure that
vehicle water-crossings are
safe for motorists.
The Township maintains a large network of culverts to keep roads in good condition by draining water
away from the driving surface. Being a rural Township, Harley has many roads that require minor water
crossings for motorists to safely navigate.
Buildings
Maintain safe and functional
buildings with sufficient
capacity for residents and staff.
The Township owns and operates a Community Hall, a Township Garage, a sand shed, a Fire Hall, and
a "Snack Shack". The current facilities continue to have sufficient capacity for Township services.
Vehicles
Maintain safe and functional
motor vehicles available to
respond to service needs when
required.
The Township currently owns and maintains 16 different fleet assets; 12 licensed vehicles and 4
unlicensed (off-road) vehicles. These include fire tankers, pumpers, and rescue trucks. Roads vehicles
like pickup trucks, a plow trucks, a loader, a grader, a steamer, and a lawn mower.
Machinery
and
Equipment
Maintain safe and functional
machinery and equipment
available to respond to service
needs when required.
The Township maintains and operates many pieces of machinery and equipment that are critical to the
operations of their administration, recreation, parks, fire, roads, and environmental services.
Level of Service | 22
Table 8 - Technical Levels of Service
Asset
Category
Technical Level of Service
Source
Current LOS
Proposed LOS
Roads
Number of lane-kilometres of each of arterial roads, collector roads and
local roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of the
Township (O. Reg. 588/17)
Township Staff
Arterial: 0%
Collector: 7%
Local: 85%
Maintain CLOS
Paved roads average pavement condition index value (O. Reg. 588/17)
AMP Model and
Township Staff
Good
Good
Unpaved roads average surface condition (O. Reg. 588/17)
AMP Model and
Township Staff
Good
Good
Linear KM of Summer Maintenance done Annually (such as grading,
ditching, roadside maintenance)
Township Staff
144 km
144 km
Linear KM of Winter Maintenance done Annually (such as snowplowing,
scarifying, sanding)
Township Staff
144 km
144 km
Linear KM of Gravel Resurfacing done Annually
Township Staff
13 km
13 km
Linear KM of Dust Suppressant applied Annually
Township Staff
60 km
60 km
Linear KM of Roads meeting MMS
Township Staff
100%
100%
Bridges
Percentage of bridges in the Township with loading or dimensional
restrictions (O. Reg. 588/17)
OSIM Report
0%
0%
Bridges average bridge condition index value (O. Reg. 588/17)
OSIM Report
95
95
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very good")
OSIM Report
Very Good
Very Good
% of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
OSIM Report
78%
78%
% of assets beyond their useful life
OSIM Report
0%
0%
Level of Service | 23
Asset
Category
Technical Level of Service
Source
Current LOS
Proposed LOS
% of bridges receiving regulated inspections
OSIM Report
100%
100%
Culverts
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very Good")
AMP Model
Poor
Poor
% of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
AMP Model
6%
6%
% of assets beyond their useful life
AMP Model
5%
5%
Buildings
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very good")
AMP Model
Fair
Fair
% of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
AMP Model
42%
42%
% of assets beyond their useful life
AMP Model
16%
16%
Vehicles
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very Good")
AMP Model
Fair
Fair
Percentage of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
AMP Model
40%
40%
Percentage of Assets Beyond their Useful Life
AMP Model
2%
2%
Machinery
and
Equipment
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very Good")
AMP Model
Very Poor
Very Poor
Percentage of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
AMP Model
6%
6%
Percentage of Assets Beyond their Useful Life
AMP Model
67%
67%
Land
Improvements
Average weighted condition assessment ("Very Poor" to "Very Good")
AMP Model
Poor
Poor
Percentage of assets at or above "Good" or "Very Good" condition
AMP Model
24%
24%
Percentage of Assets Beyond their Useful Life
AMP Model
29%
29%
Asset Management Strategy | 24
4. ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This section sets out an action plan that will assist the Township in maintaining assets to
meet proposed level of service objectives. The asset management strategy includes current
practices and potential future practices related to non-infrastructure solutions, maintenance
activities, renewal/rehabilitation, disposal, and expansion activities. It outlines the lifecycle
costs needed to meet proposed levels of service over the next 10-years for each lifecycle
activity and the methodology used to develop the costs. The final component of this section
includes a risk analysis, which outlines a summary of assets that can be prioritized for
repair/replacement if needed.
A.
OVERVIEW OF FULL LIFECYCLE COST MODEL
As part of the Asset Management Plan, the Township, along with Hemson, have identified
the total full lifecycle costs that corresponds to the requirements of the regulation. This
would entail a cost estimation throughout the asset's life including planning, design,
construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, renewal (and disposal).
A "lifecycle management approach" in asset management planning not only includes
estimating future lifecycle costs based on a set of lifecycle activities. These lifecycle
activities can be segmented into five (5) categories: non-infrastructure solutions,
operations/maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement, and disposal activities. Table
9 provides a description of each lifecycle category. The Township undertakes all the
activities described in Table 9, however, the Township's budget generally accounts for these
expenditures in different categories.
Table 9 - Overview of the Full Life Cycle Activities
Category
Description
Non-
Infrastructure
Solutions
Actions or policies that can lower costs or extend asset life (e.g., better
integrated infrastructure planning and land use planning, demand
management, insurance, process optimization, etc.). Associated to work
needed to manage assets but not necessarily direct work on those
assets.
Maintenance
Activities
Servicing assets on a regular basis to fully realize the original service
potential. Maintenance will not extend the life of an asset or add to its
value. Not performing regular maintenance may reduce an asset's useful
life.
Asset Management Strategy | 25
Category
Description
Renewal/
Rehabilitation
Activities
Mostly associated to significant repairs designed to extend the useful life
of an asset. These types of activities are typically done at key points in
the lifecycle of an asset to ensure the asset reaches it designed useful
life.
Replacement
Activities
Activities that are expected to occur once an asset has reached the end
of its useful life and renewal/ rehabilitation is no longer an option.
Disposal
Activities
The activities associated with disposing of an asset once it has reached
the end of its useful life or is otherwise no longer needed.
As the Township's infrastructure assets are long-lived, the starting point for the lifecycle
costs analysis covers a 40-year planning period. However, consistent with O. Reg. 588/17,
the planning period focuses on the first 10-years to meet proposed levels of service. In this
period, various methodologies have been utilized to determine the long-term lifecycle costs
to maintain, repair and replace assets under an "ideal" investment scenario.
This means that all assets are planned for replacement at the end of their useful life. No
adjustments were made in consideration for existing municipal asset practices or
relationship to the target level of service set. These costs are referred to as the "benchmark"
lifecycle costs.
Table 11 outlines the methodologies and costs from 2024-2033 to meet this ideal scenario.
Over the planning period, the total costs needed to undertake the lifecycle activities is
estimated at $17.8 million (an average of about $1.8 million per year).
Of the total lifecycle costs, most costs can be attributed to saving for the renewal,
rehabilitation or replacement of infrastructure, making up about 94% of the total lifecycle
costs. The average annual need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation or replacement of
infrastructure is about $1.7 million per year (see Table 10). The difference between the total
need, and the need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation or replacement is an average of
$117,500 per year, which represents the average annual operating, maintenance, and non-
infrastructure solutions costs. The tax supported average annual capital investment
requirements to replace the assets are outlined in Table 11 below.
Asset Management Strategy | 26
Table 10 - Average Annual Renewal/Rehabilitation/Replacement Need by Asset Category for
Tax-Funded Assets
Asset Category *
Benchmark
Average Annual
Requirement
PLOS Annual
Requirement
(With Bridge
Replacement)
PLOS Annual
Requirement
(No Bridge
Replacement)
Roads
$926,500
$463,200
$463,200
Bridges
$402,400
$337,800
$73,200
Buildings
$162,400
$81,200
$81,200
Vehicles
$85,300
$68,300
$68,300
Machinery & Equip.
$37,500
$18,800
$18,800
Culverts
$33,900
$16,900
$16,900
Land Improvements
$18,600
$9,300
$9,300
Total *
$1,666,600
$995,500
$730,900
* Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
To determine the total lifecycle costs to meet proposed levels of service over the 2024-2033
period, consultations with Township staff were undertaken to determine the best approach.
Table 11 outlines the lifecycle costs needed to meet the proposed level of service. Over the
2024-2033 period, a total lifecycle need of about $7.6 million is identified (an average of
about $763,700 per year). The average annual need specifically for renewal, rehabilitation or
replacement of infrastructure accounts for 87% of the total need (see Table 10).
Asset Management Strategy | 27
Table 11 - Overview of the Full Life Cycle Activities and AMP Approach for Tax Supported Assets
Category
Lifecycle Cost Approach to Meet PLOS
2024-2033
Cumulative
Benchmark
Lifecycle Costs
2024-2033
Cumulative
Lifecycle Costs
to Meet PLOS
Non-Infrastructure
Solutions
-
Provision of $7,500 per year to undertake activities to manage assets.
$75,000
$75,000
Operations and
Maintenance
Activities
-
Based on a review of recent budgets by service area. Includes costs that can be reasonably
attributed to asset specific maintenance - estimated at $110,000 per annum (based on 2024
budget).
-
In most instances, does not include general operating costs associated to staffing, with the
exception of staff and contracted services that carry out specific lifecycle activities.
$1.1 million
$1.1 million
Replacement
Activities
-
Benchmark lifecycle costs were determined using risk-based replacement schedule for the
following asset categories: Buildings, Culverts, Vehicles, Machinery and Equipment, and
Land Improvements.
-
Adjustments made to determine the lifecycle needs to meet PLOS are listed below:
-
For buildings, the strategy of replacement of each building at the end of its useful life
has been shifted to a renewal-focused lifecycle management strategy. This has been
estimated to double the effective useful life of each building, effectively reducing the
annual provision by 50% of the benchmark lifecycle costs.
-
The PLOS need for land improvements, culverts, machinery, and equipment was
calculated as 50% of the total benchmark lifecycle costs. The PLOS need for vehicles
was calculated as 80% of the total benchmark lifecycle costs.
$3.4 million
$1.9 million
Asset Management Strategy | 28
Category
Lifecycle Cost Approach to Meet PLOS
2024-2033
Cumulative
Benchmark
Lifecycle Costs
2024-2033
Cumulative
Lifecycle Costs
to Meet PLOS
Renewal Activities
(Roads and
Bridges)
-
Benchmark renewal expenditures for roads and bridges are calculated based on an annual
provision for full asset replacement. This has been calculated by dividing the total
replacement cost of assets by the average useful life of each asset.
-
The benchmark lifecycle cost for bridges was determined by calculating the ideal annual
provision needed to replace each bridge structure at the end of it's useful life. Through
discussion with staff, the need for the full recommended OSIM program was identified
as a need to achieve the PLOS. The OSIM details total required works over the 10-year
period from 2024-2033 to be $3.4 million. An alternative financing strategy has been
developed which does not provision for the replacement, but rather plans for the
decommissioning of Peddie Bridge.
-
Through discussions with staff, the need for roads was determined to be significantly
less than the provision calculated based on age and useful life of each surface type.
Given the extensive amounts of road improvements done through the operating budget,
only 50% of the calculated provision has been applied as a need to achieve the PLOS.
Based on this, an annual provisional need of $267,400 has been determined to be the
calculated need to achieve PLOS for roads.
$13.3 million
$8.0 million
Disposal
Activities
-
No disposal activities have been explicitly identified, but costs for disposal have been
assumed to be included in renewal/rehabilitation/replacement activities
$ -
$ -
Cumulative Total
$17.8 million
$11.1 million
Average per Year (Total)
$1.8 million
$1.1 million
Average per Year (for Renewal and Replacement Activities)
$1.7 million
$1.0 million
Note: All costs expressed in constant 2024 dollars.
Asset Management Strategy | 29
B.
RISK ANALYSIS
It is important to assess the risk associated with each asset and the likelihood of asset
failure. Asset failure can occur as the asset reaches its limits and can affect the level of
service. In addition, certain assets have a greater consequence of failure than others. A risk
matrix can help prioritize which assets should be repaired/replaced, even those which the
Township has already identified to be in Poor or Very Poor condition. The evaluation rating is
then linked to the condition assessment parameter discussed in Section 2. The formula to
determine asset risk is as follows:
(Likelihood of Failure) X (Consequence of Failure) = (Risk Rating)
Each of the components of the Risk Rating methodology is defined as follows:
Likelihood of Failure: is directly linked to the condition of an asset. For example, an asset in
Very Poor condition would have a high probability of asset failure in the short-term. This
type of asset would be assumed to have deteriorated significantly or may be near the end of
its useful life. Conversely, it would be considered rare for an asset to fail in the short-term if
it is in Good or Very Good condition. Table 12 outlines the definition of likelihood of failure
used for the Township's assets.
Table 12 - Probability of Failure
Condition
Probability of
Failure
Description
Very Good
1
Rare
Good
2
Unlikely
Fair
3
Possible
Poor
4
Likely
Very Poor
5
Almost Certain
Note: Definitions are based on the MFOA Asset Management Framework.
Consequence of Failure: refers to the impact on the Township if an asset were to fail to
provide the desired level of service. The consequence of failure has been determined
separately for each asset category, as the impact to the Township differs greatly by asset
type. For example, if a fire emergency vehicle was not available for service, the potential
impact could be more severe compared to a vehicle used for administrative purposes. For
the purposes of this analysis, assets were assigned a consequence of failure based on a
review of the assets and the service area they are attributed to. Table 13 below outlines the
definition of consequence of failure used for the Township's assets. The consequence of
failure, rated on a 1-5 scale, was weighted relative to each category in Table 13 depending
on how impactful the consequence may be to the Township.
Asset Management Strategy | 30
Table 13 - Consequence of Failure
Consequence
of Failure
Description
1 - Insignificant
No impact to operations.
2 - Minor
Minor impact to operations, all major operations can continue to function.
3 - Moderate
Moderate impact to operations, some operations may stop temporarily.
4 - Major
Major operations seize and some damage control necessary.
5 - Significant
All operations seize to function and major damage control is necessary.
Risk Rating: categorizes assets based on the level of risk to the Township. The risk rating
provides a guide to prioritize assets by determining which assets require attention first and
which capital works can be deferred. Higher risk assets should be prioritized for attention in
the short term by determining which of the lifecycle actions is required to be performed on
the asset. Table 14 below provides a summary of the risk matrix.
Table 14 - Risk Matrix
Evaluation Rating
Consequence of failure
Color Code
1
2
3
4
5
Likelihood of
Failure
1
1
2
3
4
5
Very Low Risk
2
2
4
6
8
10
Low Risk
3
3
6
9
12
15
Moderate Risk
4
4
8
12
16
20
High Risk
5
5
10
15
20
25
Very High Risk
Table 15 presents the findings of the risk analysis and illustrates the Township's asset risk
rating. Most of the Township's assets continue to have relatively low risk, an indication of
good maintenance practices overall.
The risk of each asset and asset category has been determined with reference to the parameters
outlined in Table 14. It is important to note, that the Township will need to continue regular
maintenance activities and capital works to ensure that the proposed level of service can be met,
or otherwise additional risk can be expected. Please note that roads and bridges have been
excluded from the risk analysis in Table 15 as the infrastructure needs and timing of repair and
replacement has been informed based on staff expertise for roads, and engineered assessments
of Township bridges as outlined in the most recent OSIM Reports.
Asset Management Strategy | 31
Table 15 - Summary Risk Assessment
Asset Type
Replacement Cost
($2024)
Risk
(Weighted Average)
Buildings
$4.00 M
Very Low
Vehicles
$1.93 M
Low
Culverts
$1.08 M
Moderate
Machinery and Equipment
$0.82 M
Low
Land Improvements
$0.48 M
Very Low
Total
$8.30 M
Low
Note: Roads and Bridges are excluded from the risk analysis as risk factors and prioritization have been addressed
through the Annual Budget Process and OSIM Reports.
Further to Table 15, this 2025 AMP includes an estimate of the timing for replacement of all
assets. Using the risk assessment, a schedule for the replacement of assets has been
developed on an asset-by-asset basis. Assets with a higher risk rating are prioritized earlier
in the schedule to reflect a higher priority, while assets with lower risk ratings are moved
further out into the future forecast to reflect a more "smoothed" expenditure outlook. The
timing is based on a percentage of the useful life of the asset. Table 16 below provides a
summary of the risk thresholds used to calculate timing of replacement needs. Section 5
discusses the results of the lifecycle cost analysis and financing strategy.
Table 16 - Risk Threshold for Asset Life Extension
Percentage of Useful Life Added
Color Code
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Very Low Risk
80%
65%
50%
30%
16%
Low Risk
60%
50%
35%
25%
10%
Moderate Risk
40%
30%
25%
15%
2%
High Risk
20%
16%
10%
2%
0%
Very High Risk
C.
MANAGING RISK
It is important to recognize the risk associated with the Township's ability to deliver the plan
while recognizing that any deviation may affect the overall ability to deliver service. Table 17
below provides a summary of the identified risks, potential impacts and mitigating actions
associated with the asset management program. Table 17 is intended to provide the
Township with a framework that can be continually updated to track potential asset related
risks and document mitigation actions so that they can be implemented into the Township's
asset management practices.
Asset Management Strategy | 32
Table 17 -Risk Associated to the Plan
Risk Associated to the Plan
Identified Risk
Potential Impact
Mitigating Action
Failed Infrastructure
-
Delivery of service
-
Asset and equipment
damage
-
Repair and rehabilitate as
necessary
-
Increase investment
Inadequate Funding
-
Delivery of service
-
Increased risk of failure
-
Shorten asset life
-
Defer funding to future
generations
-
Reductions of service by
reviewing the current level
of service
-
Find additional revenue
sources
Regulatory
Requirements
-
Non-compliance
-
Mandatory investments
-
Increased costs
-
Find additional revenue
sources
-
Lobby actions
Plan is not followed or
not undertaking
required lifecycle
activities
-
Shorten asset life
-
Inefficient investments
-
Prioritization process failure
-
Failure to deliver service
-
Monitor and review levels of
service
-
Implement process to
implement AMP
-
Investigate alternative
lifecycle management
options
D.
FUTURE DEMAND
This 2025 Plan reflects the assets that the Township currently owns and operates. According
to Statistics Canada census, over 5 years (2016-2021) the Township's population has
decreased by 27 people from 551 in 2016 to 524 people in 2021, a 4.9% decrease (or about
1.0% per year).
The change that is expected to occur by 2033 includes little to no growth and is therefore
expected to have very little impact on future demand and service levels.
Asset Management Strategy | 33
E.
CLIMATE CHANGE INTEGRATION
The management of a municipal assets plays a fundamental role in the delivery of services,
which depends on the infrastructure available to deliver the service. Corporate asset
management in municipalities largely relates to the management of existing assets to keep
them in a state of good repair while planning for future repair and/or replacement of their
assets across all service areas. Impacts of climate change are already being experienced
around the world, including Canada. It is important for municipalities to begin considering
and planning for future climates to ensure the delivery of services, especially as it pertains to
the maintenance of key municipal infrastructure. As per Ontario Regulation 588/17 s3(5),
municipalities must include a commitment in their asset management planning to address
the vulnerabilities of climate change with respect to operations, levels of service and
lifecycle management. There must also be consideration for anticipated costs, mitigation
and adaptation approaches and disaster planning to meet all regulatory requirements in
Ontario municipal asset management. In response to the regulatory requirements, the
Township adopted its first Strategic Asset Management Policy in 2019 and committed to
integrating climate change as part of its asset management planning.
Expected climate change impacts include hotter, drier summers, warmer winters with
increased precipitation, increased frequency and intensity of storms and increased intensity
of extreme winds. These changes in climate will likely lead to increased risks associated
with flooding, heatwaves, risk of infrastructure damage, health and safety of residents, the
alteration or loss of habitats, etc.
Many of these risks are associated with municipal assets and may impact the levels of
service. Climate change mitigation and adaptation planning is an important step for
municipalities to take to begin managing risks associated with climate change. Therefore,
the Township is taking steps towards the integration of climate change considerations into
their asset management planning framework moving forward.
The table below considers municipal owned and operated assets, although, regional critical
infrastructure related to roads or public health may also be impacted by the noted hazards.
Table 18 provides a risk summary at this time for information purposes to help further propel
climate change integration with asset management, although, recognizing the full utilization
would still need to be applied and understood at the staff level. In asset management terms,
this table shows the big picture effects that climate change hazards may have on the level of
service for various service areas. The specific climate change impacts on levels of service
could vary considerably and will need to be monitored over a longer time period.
Asset Management Strategy | 34
Through further understanding of the anticipated extent of climate change events, climate
change adaptation projects at the Township will provide additional parameters as to the
likelihood and severity of events. At its most simplistic form, the table below provides a
range from a "rare" occurrence to "almost certain." A rare occurrence could be correlated to
falling into the tenth percentile of probability, with an almost certain occurrence falling into
the ninetieth percentile of probability.
Table 18 - Framework for Climate Change Integration with Risk
Hazards/Risks
Likelihood
Consequence
Asset Category
Possible Service Impacts
Freezing Rain / Ice
Storm
Rare to almost
certain
-
Roads
-
Bridges and Culverts
-
Buildings
-
Reduced road and culvert
conditions, potential for closures
-
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
Extreme
Temperatures -
Cold Wave
Rare to almost
certain
-
Roads
-
Bridges and Culverts
-
Buildings
-
Land Improvements
-
Closures of outdoor amenities
due to extreme weather
conditions
-
Increased strain on indoor
heating systems leading to
reduced service life and
functionality of components and
systems
Tornado
Rare to almost
certain
-
All Services
-
Potential damage to various
municipal assets due to high
winds
Intense Rain
Rare to almost
certain
-
Roads
-
Bridges and Culverts
-
Buildings
-
Flooding of bridges and
roadways leading to closures
-
Disruptions to service due to
flooding of roads, leading to
decreased levels of service
-
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
Asset Management Strategy | 35
Hazards/Risks
Likelihood
Consequence
Asset Category
Possible Service Impacts
Flood - Urban
Rare to almost
certain
-
Roads
-
Bridges and Culverts
-
Buildings
-
Land Improvements
-
Flooding of culverts and
roadways leading to closures
-
Disruptions to service due to
flooding of roads, leading to
decreased levels of service
-
Potential impact to access to
facilities or closures
-
Flooding of parks leading to
closures and reduced levels of
service
Extreme
Temperatures -
Heat Wave
Rare to almost
certain
-
Buildings
-
Land Improvements
-
Potential closure/reduce used of
outdoor amenities due to high
temperatures (reduced levels of
service).
-
Lost habitats leading to reduced
environmental diversity.
-
Increased strain on indoor
cooling systems leading to
reduced service life and
functionality of components and
systems
Windstorm
Rare to almost
certain
-
Buildings
-
Land Improvements
-
Closure of outdoor assets due to
potential hazards for residents
-
Increased strain on facility
assets leading to potential
damages and reduced service
life and functionality of
components and systems
Source: https://www.assetmanagementbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Climate-Change-and-Asset-Management.pdf
Financing Strategy | 36
5. FINANCING STRATEGY
The Township has continually undertaken both operating and capital expenditures
necessary for to maintain tax funded services, however, the investments made fall short of
the required need to meet the proposed levels of services. The Township will need to
monitor funding levels over the next few years in relationship to the levels of service. This
section of the Plan is intended to help the Township build on the existing asset management
practices already in place. The financing strategies presented provide the Township with
feasible options to increase capital funding in a sustainable manner to meet proposed levels
of service. It is noted that all values are presented in constant 2024 dollars.
A.
ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE REVENUES
The municipal revenue sources available to address the identified full lifecycle cost
requirements outlined in Section 4 are limited. Generally, the type of capital project aligns to
its funding source. In this regard, growth-related projects receive most of their funding
through development charges in communities that impose DCs; replacement projects are
predominantly funded through tax-based contributions for tax supported assets and water
and wastewater rates for rate-based services.
When assets require rehabilitation or are due for replacement, the source of funds are
essentially limited to reserves or contributions from the operating budget regardless of how
the initial first round capital asset was funded. The table below provides a summary of the
revenues assumed in this analysis for tax supported assets.
Financing Strategy | 37
Table 19 - Financing Strategy Key Revenue Assumptions for Tax Supported Assets
Category
Assumptions
10-Year Revenue
for Tax-Funded
Assets
Operations and
Maintenance from
Taxation
-
The Township prioritizes operating costs associated to
providing services and it has been assumed that
revenue from taxation will fully fund operating needs
as they arise.
$1,099,500
Capital from
Taxation/Rates
To reserve
-
This includes all capital contributions from taxation.
Existing 2024 tax supported capital contributions to
reserve of about $17,710 is assumed to be the starting
point and base case for increasing annual capital
contributions.
$177,100
Federal and
Provincial Grants
-
Grant funding for 2024 includes all grants expected to
be received during the year, plus any grant reserves
that will be drawn upon to fund capital in 2024. This
total is estimated at approximately $364,000 for 2024.
-
The CCBF revenue to 2028 are based on those
identified from AMO. The CCBF revenue from 2028-
2033 is assumed to remain at 2028 levels
(approximately $35,700).
-
OCIF grants $100,000 per year are assumed in the
analysis over the ten-year period.
$1,582,400
Capital from
Operating
-
Specific lines in the Township's 2024 Operating
Budget have been identified as capital spending.
These capital lifecycle activities that are funded
through operating are assumed to continue to 2033.
$2,077,100
Existing Reserves
-
Existing asset management related reserves of about
$1.1 million have been accounted for and are applied
against the lifecycle cost expenditures over a 10-year
period for the purposes of the analysis.
-
The reserves included for in the analysis only captures
funds available for capital repair and replacement.
$1,108,800
Total
$6,044,900
Financing Strategy | 38
B.
BENCHMARK INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING GAP
To implement sustainable asset management practices the Township needs to understand
the current "benchmark infrastructure funding gap" that would arise should the required full
lifecycle costs related to capital be delayed. The funding gap shown in Figure 6 represents
the difference between the benchmark lifecycle costs and the funding available for tax
supported assets over the 10-year period from 2024 to 2033. The benchmark funding gap
represents a measure of the "ideal" spending that would need to be undertaken if all assets
were repaired or replaced as outlined in the engineered reports or on their design life
schedule as shown in Section 4 versus the case if funding levels were maintained at current
levels. Figure 6 indicates that existing funding levels are insufficient to cover projected costs
over the ten-year planning period, as a result, a notional gap of $11.8 million exists over the
same period.
Figure 6 - 10-Year Need vs Funding (Benchmark Funding Gap)
If the Township were to implement a funding strategy to eliminate the benchmark funding
gap, the Township would be required to increase capital contributions by approximately
$262,100 per year (31.5% of 2024 tax levy) in each of the next 10 years. The increases would
be in addition to the funding sources already identified in Table 19.
10-Year Total Need,
$17.8 M
10-Year Funding,
$6.0 M
Funding Gap,
$11.8 M
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
10-Year Total Need
10-Year Funding
Millions
10-Year Need vs. Current Funding
Financing Strategy | 39
It is unrealistic to expect the Township to address the total benchmark funding gap in the
short-term. Eliminating the gap by 2033 is an aggressive objective for the following reasons:
-
The required capital contributions (to eliminate the gap) will necessitate an increase to
property taxes beyond a reasonable measure;
-
The Township would need to decrease or limit funding of other key services or initiatives
in lieu of capital repair and replacement activity;
-
Importantly, closing the benchmark funding gap would ultimately result in a service level
increase beyond those targeted in this report over the long-term;
-
Assets can remain in-use past their engineered design life and can perform to meet the
Township's level of service under these circumstances. Therefore, in such instances, the
asset does not necessarily need to be replaced by virtue of exceeding their design life;
and
-
Prudent asset management strategies, which are currently employed by the Township
can often extend the requirement of major repair or replacement of capital assets and
may prolong the life of the asset.
Therefore, a long-term lifecycle cost and funding strategy that reflects the proposed level of
service shown in Section 4 would need to be developed.
C.
PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
GAP
This 2025 AMP combines the analysis on proposed levels of service developed in Section 3
with the corresponding lifecycle costs in Section 4 to develop a 10-year adjusted funding gap
analysis that considers a more manageable set of costs to meet proposed levels of service
(PLOS funding gap). The funding gap shown in Figure 7 represents the difference between
the lifecycle costs needed to meet proposed levels of service and the funding available for
tax supported assets over the planning period from 2024 to 2033.
The PLOS funding gap represents a measure of the spending that would need to be
undertaken to meet proposed levels of service as shown in Section 4 versus the case if
funding levels were maintained at current levels. Figure 7 still indicates that existing funding
levels are insufficient to cover projected costs over the planning period, as a result, a
funding gap of $5.1 million exists over the same period. Notably, the funding gap under the
Financing Strategy | 40
proposed level of service target is significantly reduced from the benchmark gap of $11.8
million over the planning period.
Figure 7 - 10-Year Need vs Funding (Proposed Level of Service Funding Gap)
If the Township were to implement a funding strategy to eliminate the PLOS funding gap
over the 2024-2033 planning period, the Township would be required to increase capital
contributions by approximately $113,000 per year (13.6% of 2024 tax levy) in each of the next
10 years, plus inflation. The increases would be in addition to the funding sources already
identified in Table 19.
Staff have identified the consideration of a service level impact that would have significant
impact to this funding gap calculation: whether or not they intend to replace Peddie Bridge.
This carries with it significant impact on the 10-year forecast period since the replacement
cost of this bridge is $3.25 million ($2024), and the OSIM suggests replacement of the
structure in the next 6 to 10 years. If this bridge was to be decommissioned, rather than
replaced, it would reduce both the immediate savings for the replacement of the structure,
as well as any provision for future works that this bridge would require. As such, we have
developed an alternative PLOS Funding Gap that does not provision for the replacement of
this asset.
Figure 8 still indicates that existing funding levels are insufficient to cover projected costs
over the planning period, as a result, a funding gap of $2.4 million exists over the same
10-Year Total
Need, $11.1 M
10-Year Funding,
$6.0 M
Funding Gap,
$5.1 M
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
10-Year Total Need
10-Year Funding
Millions
Financing Strategy | 41
period. Notably, the funding gap under the alternative proposed level of service target is
further reduced from the PLOS gap of $5.1 million shown in Figure 7.
Figure 8 - 10 Year Need vs Funding (Alternative Proposed Level of Service Funding Gap)
If the Township were to implement a funding strategy to eliminate this revised PLOS funding
gap over the 2024-2033 planning period, the Township would be required to increase capital
contributions by approximately $54,200 per year (6.5% of 2024 tax levy) in each of the next
10 years, plus inflation. The increases would be in addition to the funding sources already
identified in Table 19.
D.
THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The information illustrated emphasizes the need for the Township to continue the utilization
of these funding programs to meet service levels over the long-term. However, as the
Township's asset management program further advances, it can be expected that the costs
analysis be improved to better reflect asset risks, levels of service and a better
understanding of the condition of the infrastructure.
Overall, the infrastructure gap depicted in Figure 7 is required to ensure the Township
delivers the proposed levels of service identified in Section 3 of the AMP, which represents
10-Year Total
Need, $8.5 M
10-Year Funding,
$6.0 M
Funding Gap,
$2.4 M
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
10-Year Total Need
10-Year Funding
Millions
Financing Strategy | 42
the lifecycle activities outlined in Section 4. Given the adoption of this strategy, which does
not align with the funding needed to meet the proposed level of services, other qualitative
improvements and other financial solutions need to be explored. Table 20 outlines several
approaches to closing the revised funding gap.
Table 20 - Approaches to Closing the Funding Gap
Category
Description
Improved Data
Quality
As the Township matures its asset management practices,
improving data quality across service areas will help to achieve
a proper assessment of the condition of assets. Improved
lifecycle cost data will facilitate evidence-based decision
making and support in achieving lowest lifecycle costing
through prioritization of repair and replacement activities.
Levels of Service
Measures
As part of the 2025 AMP, levels of services measures by asset
category have been established. Tracking LOS measures may
identify areas where funding needs could be recalibrated based
on performance.
Assessing Risk
Tolerance
Further detailed risk analysis including defining risk tolerance
level for individual asset classes will help to further refine
prioritization of the investment needs and levels of service.
Although not always desirable, it may be possible to accept a
higher degree of asset risk to help lower ongoing asset costs.
Seek Funding
Support from Upper
Levels of
Government
The Township continues to demonstrate a significant
commitment to asset management and developing a set of
renewal practices to ensure that services are delivered in the
most cost-efficient manner.
Despite the efforts, upper level of government support is
required to supplement the Township's practices to balance
affordability. For long-term financial planning and accurately
assessing the infrastructure gap, it is equally important that
upper-level government funding is stable and predictable.
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 43
6. MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The major premise of a comprehensive asset management plan is that a Township will
seldom have perfect processes and data to manage the asset portfolio. Instead, the
underlying culture of continuous improvement and reliability is its key to success. The
monitoring and improvement plan forms part of the Township's evolving asset management
planning moving forward. It has been developed using an asset management maturity scale
to assess areas for improvement.
A.
ASSET MANAGEMENT MATURITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of an asset management maturity assessment is to identify a Township's
current maturity and to establish a target maturity that can be reasonably achieved in the
near future. Using the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) tool,
information on asset maturity was assessed under three categories:
1. Understanding and Defining the Requirements
2. Development of Asset Management Lifecycle Strategies
3. Asset Management Enablers
The three maturity categories are broken down into 16 elements that are assessed in the
individual Asset Maturity Radar Graph in Figure 8. The elements in each maturity category
are outlined in Table 21.
Table 21 - Asset Management Maturity Assessment Elements
Category
AM Element
Understanding and
Defining the
Requirements
Analysing the Strategic Initiatives (AM Policy and Objectives)
Levels of Service Framework
Demand Forecasting and Management
Asset Condition and Performance
The Strategic Asset Management Plan
Developing Asset
Management
Lifecycle Strategies
Managing Risk and Resilience
Operational Planning
Capital Works Planning
Asset Financial Planning and Management
AM Plans (for the Asset Portfolio Assets)
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 44
Category
AM Element
Asset Management
Enablers
AM People and Leaders
Asset Data and Information
Asset Information Management Systems (AIMS)
AM Process Management
Outsourcing and Procurement
Continual Improvement
Each element is assessed independently and assigned a score based on criteria outlined in
Table 22 which scores each criterion between 0 and 100 for each element. In general, a
Township in the "Aware" category recognizes that there are regulatory or service
requirements that need to be met to maintain levels of service. However, no formal plans are
in place to meet these objectives and asset management planning may be done on an ad
hoc basis. A Township in the "Advanced" category has integrated the asset management
plan into its budget process and budget planning is well informed by the asset management
plan. In general, most municipalities would fall in the "Core" or better category, for this
reason the target score would be to achieve an "Intermediate" score over the longer-term.
Table 22 - Maturity Assessment Scoring Scale
Maturity Level
Score
Aware
0-20
Basic
21-40
Core
41-60
Intermediate
61-80
Advanced
81-100
Figure 9 outlines the results of the Asset Maturity Rating. The Current Score accounts for all
advancements in individual maturity as part of this 2025 AMP. Overall, the following were
achieved:
-
Understanding of levels of service focused on the condition of assets which is
appropriate for the size and services provided by the Township;
-
Enhancement in understanding the Township's asset management practices and general
alignment with other key planning documents. A formal Roads Needs Study could be
useful in better predicting the lifecycle needs of the Township's road network; and
-
General understanding of the Township's assets and the data available through
consolidation of various data sources into the AMP financial model.
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 45
Figure 9 - Asset Maturity Rating
B.
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Continuous improvement is a fundamental aspect of municipal asset management. This
process involves systematically identifying areas for enhancement, implementing changes,
monitoring outcomes, and adjusting strategies based on feedback and new insights. The
goal of the municipal asset management planning regulation (O. Reg. 588/17) is to promote
municipalities to take incremental steps to maximize benefits, manage risk and provide
satisfactory levels of service to the public in a cost-effective manner.
Improvement initiatives have been identified that will enhance the effectiveness of the
Township's asset management program. The following table provides recommended
improvement initiatives with associated priorities and timelines. While some areas for
improvement can be addressed more immediately, others could be undertaken over the
long-term.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Analysing the Strategic Direction
(AM Policy and Objectives)
Levels of Service Framework
Demand Forecasting and
Management
Resilience to Climate Change
Asset Condition and Performance
The Strategic Asset Management
Plan
Managing Risk and Resilience
Operational Planning
Capital Planning & Prioritization
Asset Financial Planning and
Management
Asset Specific Plans
AM People and Leaders
Asset Data and Information
Asset Information Management
Systems (AIMS)
AM Process Management
Outsourcing and Procurement
Continuous Improvement
Current Score
Target Score
Monitoring and Improvement Plan | 46
Table 23 - Improvement Plan Initiatives
Area of
Improveme
nt
Action
Outcome
Timeline
Priority
Comments
Levels of
Service
Align AMP with
budget process
Determine capital
contributions
Medium
Medium
Ensuring that the AMP
remains up today will
help guide tax funded
capital contributions
needs to meet long-term
asset management
needs
Climate
Change
Integration
Further development
of mitigation and
adaptation strategies
into asset
management
Further understanding of
climate change risks on
Township's delivery of
services and support
informed prioritization of
strategies.
Long
Medium
The Strategic Asset
Management Policy
requires a commitment
to integrate climate
change considerations
through capital planning.
Asset Data
Continually update
the asset inventory
More informed decision
making for capital budget
purposes
Medium
Medium
The AMP needs to be
updated every 5-years
as per regulation after
2025, this is an
opportunity to ensure
asset data including
conditions remains up to
date.
Financing
Strategy
Continue to monitor
infrastructure gap
Continue to monitor
funding needs to meet
proposed level of service
Medium
Medium
While infrastructure gap
has been monitored as
part of this plan, it will
need to be updated
along with regular
reviews of the AMP in
the future.
Seek funding
support from upper
levels of government
Continue bridging of
funding gap for improved
financial sustainability.
Long
High
The Township expects
to continue to rely on
grant funding for capital
projects.
Appendix A | 47
APPENDIX A
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Land Improvements
$113,970 ,
24%
$186,737 ,
39%
$176,439 ,
37%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current
Replacement Value
$477,000
Asset Inventory
12
Items
Average Remaining
Useful Life
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
Years
5
25-50
Appendix A | 48
Buildings
$1.67 M, 42%
$2.27 M,
57%
$0.06 M, 1%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current
Replacement Value
$4.0
Million
Asset Inventory
6
Facilities
Estimated
Useful Life
Years
Average Remaining
Useful Life
Years
5
50
Appendix A | 49
Culverts
$0.06 M, 6%
$0.54 M, 50%
$0.18 M, 17%
$0.30 M, 27%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current
Replacement Value
$1.1
Million
Asset Inventory
493
Culverts
Appendix A | 50
Vehicles
$567,972 ,
29%
$195,505 ,
10%
$280,350 ,
15%
$421,563 ,
22%
$464,274 ,
24%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
13
Years
Estimated
Useful Life
10-25
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$1.9
Million
Asset Inventory
16
Vehicles
Appendix A | 51
Machinery and Equipment
$12,365 , 2%
$35,090 , 4%
$93,039 , 11%
$70,907 , 9%
$608,784 ,
74%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Average Remaining
Useful Life
Overdue
Estimated
Useful Life
5-20
Years
Current
Replacement Value
$820,000
Asset Inventory
124
Pooled
Appendix A | 52
Roads
$7.36 M, 10%
$54.43 M, 75%
$0.21 M, 0%
$10.48 M, 15%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current
Replacement Value
$72.5
Million
Asset Inventory
85
KM
Appendix A | 53
Bridges
$11.71 M, 78%
$3.25 M,
22%
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Very Good
Overall
Condition
Data Confidence
& Reliability
Level 4 (Reliable)
Dataset is complete and
estimated to be accurate
+/- 10%
Current
Replacement Value
$15.0
Million
Asset Inventory
4
Bridges
Appendix A | 54
Appendix B | 55
APPENDIX B
DETAILED FINANCING STRATEGY TABLES
Non-
Infrastructure
Solutions
Operations and
Maintenance
Replacement
Renewal (Roads
and Bridges)
Total Lifecycle
Costs
O&M from Taxation
Capital from
Taxation
(Including
Transfers to
Reserves)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
($)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
(%)
Federal and
Provincial Grants
Capital from
Operating
Existing
Reserves
Total Funding
Annual Funding
Gap
Cumulative
Infrastructure
Deficit
2024
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
17,710
$
363,929
$
207,706
$
1,108,793
$
1,808,088
$
24,002
$
24,002
$
2025
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
279,843
$
262,133
$
1480%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
731,821
$
(1,052,265)
$
(1,028,263)
$
2026
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
541,975
$
262,133
$
94%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
993,953
$
(790,132)
$
(1,818,395)
$
2027
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
804,108
$
262,133
$
48%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,257,459
$
(526,627)
$
(2,345,022)
$
2028
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
1,066,240
$
262,133
$
33%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,519,591
$
(264,494)
$
(2,609,517)
$
2029
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
1,328,373
$
262,133
$
25%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,781,724
$
(2,362)
$
(2,611,879)
$
2030
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
1,590,506
$
262,133
$
20%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
2,043,857
$
259,771
$
(2,352,108)
$
2031
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
1,852,638
$
262,133
$
16%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
2,305,989
$
521,903
$
(1,830,205)
$
2032
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
2,114,771
$
262,133
$
14%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
2,568,122
$
784,036
$
(1,046,169)
$
2033
7,500
$
109,950
$
337,758
$
1,328,878
$
1,784,086
$
109,950
$
2,376,903
$
262,133
$
12%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
2,830,254
$
1,046,169
$
(0)
$
75,000
$
1,099,500
$
3,377,579
$
13,288,779
$
17,840,858
$
1,099,500
$
11,973,067
$
1,582,438
$
2,077,060
$
1,108,793
$
17,840,858
$
Township of Harley
2024 Asset Management Plan
Base Scenario: Close Cumulative Deficit by 2034
Year
Lifecycle Costs
Forecast of Revenues
Funding Gap Calculation
Appendix B | 56
Non-
Infrastructure
Solutions
Operations and
Maintenance
Replacement
Renewal (Roads)
Total Lifecycle
Costs
O&M from Taxation
Capital from
Taxation
(Including
Transfers to
Reserves)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
($)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
(%)
Federal and
Provincial Grants
Capital from
Operating
Existing
Reserves
Total Funding
Annual Funding
Gap
Cumulative
Infrastructure
Deficit
2024
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
17,710
$
363,929
$
207,706
$
1,108,793
$
1,808,088
$
695,124
$
695,124
$
2025
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
130,704
$
112,994
$
638%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
582,683
$
(530,282)
$
164,842
$
2026
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
243,699
$
112,994
$
86%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
695,677
$
(417,287)
$
(252,445)
$
2027
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
356,693
$
112,994
$
46%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
810,044
$
(302,920)
$
(555,365)
$
2028
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
469,688
$
112,994
$
32%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
923,039
$
(189,925)
$
(745,290)
$
2029
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
582,682
$
112,994
$
24%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,036,033
$
(76,931)
$
(822,221)
$
2030
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
695,677
$
112,994
$
19%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,149,028
$
36,064
$
(786,158)
$
2031
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
808,671
$
112,994
$
16%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,262,022
$
149,058
$
(637,100)
$
2032
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
921,666
$
112,994
$
14%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,375,017
$
262,053
$
(375,047)
$
2033
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
801,036
$
1,112,964
$
109,950
$
1,034,660
$
112,994
$
12%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
1,488,011
$
375,047
$
(0)
$
75,000
$
1,099,500
$
1,944,785
$
8,010,358
$
11,129,643
$
1,099,500
$
5,261,852
$
1,582,438
$
2,077,060
$
1,108,793
$
11,129,643
$
Township of Harley
2024 Asset Management Plan
PLOS Scenario 1: Close Cumulative Deficit by 2034
Replace Peddie Bridge
Year
Lifecycle Costs
Forecast of Revenues
Funding Gap Calculation
Appendix B | 57
Non-
Infrastructure
Solutions
Operations and
Maintenance
Replacement
Renewal (Roads)
Total Lifecycle
Costs
O&M from Taxation
Capital from
Taxation
(Including
Transfers to
Reserves)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
($)
Yearly Increase
in Tax Funding
(%)
Federal and
Provincial Grants
Capital from
Operating
Existing
Reserves
Total Funding
Annual Funding
Gap
Cumulative
Infrastructure
Deficit
2024
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
17,710
$
363,929
$
207,706
$
1,108,793
$
1,808,088
$
959,763
$
959,763
$
2025
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
71,896
$
54,186
$
306%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
523,874
$
(324,451)
$
635,311
$
2026
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
126,082
$
54,186
$
75%
134,322
$
207,706
$
-
$
578,060
$
(270,266)
$
365,046
$
2027
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
180,267
$
54,186
$
43%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
633,618
$
(214,707)
$
150,339
$
2028
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
234,453
$
54,186
$
30%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
687,804
$
(160,521)
$
(10,182)
$
2029
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
288,639
$
54,186
$
23%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
741,990
$
(106,335)
$
(116,517)
$
2030
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
342,825
$
54,186
$
19%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
796,176
$
(52,149)
$
(168,667)
$
2031
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
397,011
$
54,186
$
16%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
850,362
$
2,036
$
(166,630)
$
2032
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
451,196
$
54,186
$
14%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
904,547
$
56,222
$
(110,408)
$
2033
7,500
$
109,950
$
194,479
$
536,397
$
848,325
$
109,950
$
505,382
$
54,186
$
12%
135,695
$
207,706
$
-
$
958,733
$
110,408
$
(0)
$
75,000
$
1,099,500
$
1,944,785
$
5,363,967
$
8,483,253
$
1,099,500
$
2,615,461
$
1,582,438
$
2,077,060
$
1,108,793
$
8,483,253
$
Township of Harley
2024 Asset Management Plan
PLOS Scenario 2: Close Cumulative Deficit by 2034
Decommission Peddie Bridge
Year
Lifecycle Costs
Forecast of Revenues
Funding Gap Calculation
Appendix B | 58