Town of LaSalle 2025 Asset Management Plan — full text

This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document. Snapshot 5ac2d961b2fa · verified 2026-06-09 · original document · archived snapshot · unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.

Town of LaSalle | Asset Management Plan 2025 ....................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................... Contents Executive Summary 7 About this document 10 Ontario Regulation 588/17 10 Scope 10 Key Technical Concepts in Asset Management 11 Lifecycle Management Strategies 11 Risk and Criticality 13 Asset Condition Rating Scale 15 Source of Asset Condition 16 Limitations and Constraints 18 Key Updates From 2024 19 State of the Infrastructure 20 Portfolio Overview 21 Condition Data 22 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 24 Road Network 26 Inventory and Valuation 26 Asset Condition 27 Age Profile 29 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 31 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 32 Risk Analysis 34 Bridges and Culverts 37 Inventory and Valuation 37 Asset Condition 38 Age Profile 39 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 40 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 41 Risk Analysis 43 Stormwater Network 46 Inventory and Valuation 46 Asset Condition 47 Age Profile 49 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 50 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 51 Risk Analysis 53 Water Network 56 2 . ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... Inventory and Valuation 56 Asset Condition 57 Age Profile 58 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 59 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 60 Risk Analysis 62 Sanitary Network 65 Inventory and Valuation 65 Asset Condition 66 Age Profile 68 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 69 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 70 Risk Analysis 72 Facilities 75 Inventory and Valuation 75 Asset Condition 76 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 80 Age Profile 78 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 79 Risk Analysis 82 Fleet 85 Inventory and Valuation 85 Asset Condition 86 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 90 Age Profile 88 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 89 Risk Analysis 92 Machinery & Equipment 95 Inventory and Valuation 95 Asset Condition 96 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 100 Age Profile 98 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 99 Risk Analysis 102 Information Technology 105 Inventory and Valuation 105 Asset Condition 106 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 110 Age Profile 108 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 109 Risk Analysis 112 Land Improvements 115 ...................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 ............................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ Inventory and Valuation 115 Asset Condition 116 Age Profile 118 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management 119 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs 120 Risk Analysis 122 Levels of Service 125 Community Levels of Service 125 Technical Levels of Service 125 Current and Proposed Levels of Service 126 Road Network and Bridges & Culverts 127 Stormwater Network 131 Water Networks 132 Sanitary Networks 134 Recreational Services Assets 137 Corporate and Operational Support Assets 138 Service Levels and Community Growth 139 Growth 140 Impact of Growth on Infrastructure 140 Financial Strategy 142 Annual Capital Requirements 143 Current Infrastructure Funding Framework 144 Current Funding Levels and Infrastructure Deficits 145 Closing Funding Gaps 146 Tax-Funded Assets 146 Rate-Funded Assets 147 Reserve Levels 150 Recommendations 152 Financial Strategies 152 Continuous Improvement, Monitoring, and Compliance 152 ....................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................ ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................... 4 .............................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ........................................................................................... .................................................................................... ............................................... ......................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................... .................................................................................. ......................................................................... .................................. ............................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................. ........................................................................ ................................... ................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................... ................................................................................. ............................................ ........................................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................. ...................................................................................... ............................................................................. ........................................ ..................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ...................................................... .................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ........................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... ........................................................................... .................................................................. ........................... ....................................................................................................... ................................................................................................. .......................................................................... ................................................................. ............................ ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................... ................................................................................ ....................................................................... .................................. ............................................................................................................. List of Figures Figure 1 Current Replacement Cost by Asset Category 21 Figure 2 Asset Condition - Portfolio Overview 22 Figure 3 Asset Condition - By Asset Category 23 Figure 4 Risk Matrix - All Asset Categories 24 Figure 5 Capital Replacement Needs - 2025-2074 25 Figure 6 Asset Condition - Road Network: Overall 27 Figure 7 Asset Condition - Road Network: By Asset Type 28 Figure 8 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Road Network 30 Figure 9 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Road Network: 2025-2074 32 Figure 10 Risk Matrix - Road Network 35 Figure 11 Asset Condition - Bridges and Culverts: Overall 38 Figure 12 Asset Condition - Bridges and Culverts: By Segment 38 Figure 13 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Brides and Culverts 39 Figure 14 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Bridges and Culverts: 2025-2071 41 Figure 15 Risk Matrix - Bridges and Culverts 44 Figure 16 Asset Condition - Stormwater Network 47 Figure 17 Asset Condition - Stormwater Network - By Segment 48 Figure 18 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Stormwater Network 49 Figure 19 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Stormwater Network: 2025-2074 51 Figure 20 Risk Matrix - Stormwater Network 54 Figure 21 Asset Condition - Water Network 57 Figure 22 Asset Condition - Water Network - By Segment 57 Figure 23 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Water Network 58 Figure 24 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Water Network: 2025-2074 60 Figure 25 Risk Matrix - Water Network 63 Figure 26 Asset Condition - Sanitary Network 66 Figure 27 Asset Condition - Sanitary Network - By Segment 67 Figure 28 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Sanitary Network 68 Figure 29 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Sanitary Network: 2025-2074 70 Figure 30 Risk Matrix - Sanitary Network 73 Figure 31 Asset Condition - Facilities 76 Figure 32 Asset Condition - Facilities - By Segment 77 Figure 33 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Facilities 78 Figure 34 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Facilities: 2025-2074 80 Figure 35 Risk Matrix - Facilities 83 Figure 36 Asset Condition - Fleet 86 Figure 37 Asset Condition - Fleet - By Segment 87 Figure 38 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Fleet 88 Figure 39 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Fleet: 2025-2074 90 Figure 40 Risk Matrix - Fleet 93 Figure 41 Asset Condition - Machinery & Equipment 96 Figure 42 Asset Condition - Machinery & Equipment - By Segment 97 Figure 43 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Machinery & Equipment 98 Figure 44 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Machinery & Equipment: 2025-2074 100 Figure 45 Risk Matrix - Machinery & Equipment: 103 Figure 46 Asset Condition - Information Technology 106 Figure 47 Asset Condition - Information Technology - By Segment 107 Figure 48 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Information Technology 108 Figure 49 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Information Technology: 2025-2074 110 Figure 50 Risk Matrix - Information Technology: 113 Figure 51 Asset Condition - Land Improvements 116 Figure 52 Asset Condition - Land Improvements - By Segment 117 Figure 53 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Land Improvements 118 Figure 54 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Land Improvements: 2025-2074 120 Figure 55 Risk Matrix - Land Improvements: 123 Figure 56 Road Network Map 129 Figure 57 Current Infrastructure Backlog by Asset Category 149 .................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................... 5 ............................................................... ................................................................................... .......................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................... ................................ ............................................................................................. ....................... ............................................................................................ .................................... ..................................................................................................... ............................. ................................................................................................. ......................... .............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................... ...................................... .................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................................ ...................................................................................... ................................................................................................... ............ ..................................................................................... .................................................................................................. ............. ........................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ................... ........................................................................................... .............................................................................................. .................................................................................... ................................................................................... .................................................................................. ..................................................................................... ........................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ....................................................................................... .......................................................................................... .................................................................................... ................................................................. .... ....................................................................................................... .................................................... .......................................................................................... .............................. ............................................................................................................................ ............ List of Tables Table 1 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements and Reporting Deadlines 10 Table 2 Lifecycle Management: Typical Lifecycle Interventions 12 Table 3 Risk Analysis: Types of Consequences of Failure 14 Table 4 Standard Condition Rating Scale 15 Table 5 Source of Condition Data 16 Table 6 Detailed Asset Inventory - Road Network 26 Table 7 Current Lifecycle Management Strategies 31 Table 8 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Road Network 33 Table 9 Detailed Asset Inventory - Bridges and Culverts 37 Table 10 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Bridges & Culverts 42 Table 11 Detailed Asset Inventory - Stormwater Network 46 Table 12 Planned Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures - Stormwater Network 52 Table 13 Detailed Asset Inventory - Water Network 56 Table 14 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Water Network 61 Table 15 Detailed Asset Inventory - Sanitary Network 65 Table 16 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Sanitary Network 71 Table 17 Detailed Asset Inventory - Facilities 75 Table 18 Facilities Lifecycle Strategy 79 Table 19 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Facilities 81 Table 20 Detailed Asset Inventory - Fleet 85 Table 21 Fleet Lifecycle Strategy 89 Table 22 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Fleet 91 Table 23 Detailed Asset Inventory - Machinery & Equipment 95 Table 24 Machinery & Equipment Lifecycle Strategy 99 Table 25 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Machinery & Equipment 101 Table 26 Detailed Asset Inventory - Information Technology 105 Table 27 Information Technology Lifecycle Strategy 109 Table 28 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Information Technology 111 Table 29 Detailed Asset Inventory - Land Improvements 115 Table 30 Land Improvements Lifecycle Strategy 119 Table 31 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Land Improvements 121 Table 32 Community Levels of Service - Road Network 128 Table 33 Technical Levels of Service - Road Network 128 Table 34 Community Levels of Service - Bridges & Culverts 130 Table 35 Technical Levels of Service - Bridges and Culverts 130 Table 36 Community Levels of Service - Stormwater Network 131 Table 37 Technical Levels of Service - Stormwater Network 131 Table 38 Community Levels of Service - Water Network 133 Table 39 Technical Levels of Service - Water Network 133 Table 40 Community Levels of Service - Sanitary Network 135 Table 41 Technical Levels of Service - Sanitary Network 136 Table 42 Levels of Service - Parks and Land Improvements 137 Table 43 Levels of Service - Corporate and Operational Support Assets 138 Table 44 Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Costs as a Percentage of Current Replacement Cost 141 Table 45 Average Annual Capital Requirements 143 Table 46 Allocation of Average Annual Infrastructure Funding by Asset Category 144 Table 47 Current Funding Position vs. Required Funding 145 Table 48 Increase Needed in Property Taxation Revenue to Meet Annual Infrastructure Needs 146 Table 49 Phasing in Tax Increases 146 Table 50 Increase Needed in Water and Wastewater Rate Revenues to Meet Annual Infrastructure Needs 147 Table 51 Phasing in Rate Increases 147 Table 52 Infrastructure Reserve Levels: Non-growth 150 Table 53 Growth-related Future Capital Projects 151 .......................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary This 2025 asset management plan (AMP) for the Town of LaSalle was developed as an update to the 2024 AMP, in continued compliance with Ontario Regulation 588/17 ("O. Reg"). It incorporates key elements of an industry-standard AMP, and provides a comprehensive overview of the Town's core and non-core infrastructure. Together, the 10 asset categories analyzed in this plan have a total current replacement cost of $1.2 billion, based on the Town's asset portfolio as of 2024. This estimate was calculated using a combination of user-defined costing and inflation-adjusted historical costs. At 26% of the total asset portfolio, with a replacement cost of over $300 million, LaSalle's road network is the largest asset category. It includes local, collector, and arterial roadways, sidewalks, pathways, and trails, as well as roadside appurtenances such as signals, signs, and streetlights. Based on both in-field condition data and age-based analysis, nearly 90% of the Town's infrastructure portfolio is in fair or better condition. Approximately 10% of assets, with a current replacement cost of $109.5 million, were estimated to be in poor or very poor condition. Overall, condition assessment data was available for 52% of the Town's assets. For all remaining asset categories, age was used to estimate condition. Typically, assets in poor or worse condition may require replacement or major rehabilitation in the immediate or short-term. Targeted condition assessments may help further refine the list of assets that may be candidates of immediate intervention. Keeping assets in fair or better condition is typically more cost-effective than addressing assets needs when they enter the latter stages of their lifecycle or a drop to a lower condition rating, e.g., poor or worse. Due to the scale and cost of infrastructure renewal, many municipalities--including LaSalle-- face annual funding gaps between what is currently allocated to reserves and what should be set aside to support future asset replacement needs. These shortfalls can lead to the deferral of necessary capital projects, which in turn may compromise service levels or increase the risk of service disruptions. They can also place additional pressure on future tax rates. Achieving full funding for infrastructure programs remains a significant challenge for municipalities across Canada. Addressing these gaps takes time, careful planning, and sustained effort to align long-term financial capacity with service level expectations. On average, the Town requires $31.4 million per year to keep pace with capital rehabilitation and replacement needs across its asset portfolio. This is split between $24.8 for tax-funded assets, $2.8 million for the water network, and $3.8 million for LaSalle's sanitary assets. Meeting these target helps ensure the continued delivery of affordable and reliable service levels to the community. Put differently, this equates to an overall, annual reinvestment of 2.7% of the current replacement cost of the Town's infrastructure. 7 Under the Town's current fiscal framework, approximately $20.4 million in average annual funding is available for tax- and rate-supported assets. This addresses 65% of LaSalle's annual capital needs--a level of reinvestment that places the Town among higher-performing municipalities. Continued progress toward full funding will help ensure long-term service reliability and infrastructure sustainability. The unfunded 35%, totaling $11.2 million, presents a gap that may challenge the Town's capacity to sustain service levels and respond to future infrastructure needs. Tax-funded assets account for approximately $10 million of this gap. Addressing it would require a one-time property tax increase of 19.9% to fully fund annual capital needs. However, a more sustainable approach is to gradually phase in additional revenues. Several phase-in scenarios have been considered, ranging from five to 20 years, allowing the Town to balance service level objectives with affordability for taxpayers. For example, implementing a 10-year phase-in with annual increases of approximately 1.8% may strike an effective balance between maintaining critical infrastructure services and ensuring that the financial burden is shared fairly across current and future taxpayers. Extending this phase-in timeline over would reduce annual increases to 1.2% over 15 years, or to 0.9% over 20 years. Similarly, to address the annual funding gap of $1.3 million for sanitary assets, rate revenues would need to increase by approximately 20.2% to fully fund lifecycle requirements. To mitigate the impact on ratepayers, the Town could implement a gradual phase-in strategy. For example, a 10-year phase-in period would require average annual rate increases of 1.9%, while extending the phase-in to 15 or 20 years would reduce the average annual impact to approximately 1.2% and 0.9%, respectively. While the Town's water assets currently appear to be in a surplus funding position, it's important to recognize that this does not necessarily indicate excess funds that can be reallocated or that rates can be reduced. Instead, this surplus reflects the prudent, long-term financial planning necessary to maintain the water system's reliability and service levels, particularly given the substantial lifecycle costs and potential future needs for renewal and upgrades. Maintaining current funding levels ensures that the Town can continue to responsibly invest in its water infrastructure, safeguarding both its financial sustainability and the quality of service for residents. Balancing funding levels and the length of the phase-in period is a complex process. Shorter timelines require higher annual investments, straining taxpayers and other priorities, while longer timelines ease immediate pressures but risk compounding infrastructure needs and service disruptions. Ongoing evaluation is needed to keep funding strategies aligned with changing conditions and service level expectations. The Town of LaSalle uses both O. Reg. 588/17 KPIs and internally developed performance measures to effectively monitor infrastructure performance and plan for sustainable service delivery. While levels of service (LOS) for both core- and non-core assets are largely expected to remain consistent, future updates to master plans may identify adjustments to align with community growth and evolving needs. 8 The Town's approach provides a reliable baseline for planning, even as new assets from growth developments are added to the network. This ensures that the Town is well positioned to keep pace with growth while responsibly managing the financial demands of maintaining and improving infrastructure over the long term. 9 About this document This asset management plan (AMP) for the Town of LaSalle was developed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 588/17 ("O. Reg 588/17"). It contains a comprehensive analysis of LaSalle's infrastructure portfolio. The AMP is a living document that should be updated regularly as additional asset and financial data becomes available. Ontario Regulation 588/17 As part of the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, the Ontario government introduced Regulation 588/17 - Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure. Along with creating better performing organizations, more livable and sustainable communities, the regulation is a key, mandated driver of asset management planning and reporting. It places substantial emphasis on current and proposed levels of service and the lifecycle costs incurred in delivering them. Table 1 Ontario Regulation 588/17 Requirements and Reporting Deadlines Requirement 2019 2022 2024 2025 Asset Management Policy Asset Management Plans State of infrastructure for core assets State of infrastructure for all assets Current levels of service for core assets Current levels of service for all assets Proposed levels of service for all assets Lifecycle costs associated with current levels of service Lifecycle costs associated with proposed levels of service Growth impacts Financial strategy gray dot gray dot gray dot gray dot red dot gray dot gray dot red dot gray dot gray dot red dot gray dot gray dot red dot gray dot gray dot red dot red dot Scope The scope of this AMP includes all requirements for the 2025 reporting deadline, covering the Town's core and non-core asset categories. This year marks the end of the first full regulatory cycle under O. Reg 588/17, by which time municipalities must have developed comprehensive asset management plans covering all municipal infrastructure and addressing current and proposed levels of service. Going forward, municipalities are required to complete annual progress updates and full AMP updates every five years. This 2025 AMP for the Town of LaSalle reflects the culmination of this initial cycle and positions the Town for continued alignment with provincial asset management requirements and best practices. 10 Key Technical Concepts in Asset Management Effective asset management integrates several key components, including lifecycle management, risk management, and levels of service. These concepts are applied throughout this asset management plan and are described below in greater detail. Lifecycle Management Strategies The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is affected by a range of factors including an asset's characteristics, location, utilization, maintenance history and environment. Asset deterioration has a negative effect on the ability of an asset to fulfill its intended function, and may be characterized by increased cost, risk and even service disruption. To ensure that municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting the needs of customers, it is important to establish a lifecycle management strategy to proactively manage asset deterioration. There are several field intervention activities that are available to extend the life of an asset. These activities can be generally placed into one of three categories: maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. Table 2 table provides a description of each type of activity, the general difference in cost, and typical risks associated with each. Depending on initial lifecycle management strategies, asset performance can be sustained through a combination of maintenance and rehabilitation, but at some point, replacement is required. Understanding what effect these activities will have on the lifecycle of an asset, and their cost, will enable staff to make better recommendations. The Town's approach to lifecycle management is described within each asset category outlined in this AMP. Developing and implementing a proactive lifecycle strategy will help staff to determine which activities to perform on an asset and when they should be performed to maximize useful life at the lowest total cost of ownership. 11 Table 2 Lifecycle Management: Typical Lifecycle Interventions Lifecycle Activity Description Cost Typical Associated Risks Maintenance - Balancing limited resources between planned maintenance and reactive, emergency repairs and interventions; Activities that prevent defects or deteriorations from occurring - Diminishing returns associated with excessive maintenance activities, despite added costs; $ - Intervention selected may not be optimal and may not extend the useful life as expected, leading to lower payoff and potential premature asset failure; Rehabilitation/ Renewal Activities that rectify defects or deficiencies that are already present and may be affecting asset performance - Useful life may not be extended as expected; - May be costlier in the long run when assessed against full reconstruction or replacement; $$$$ - Loss or disruption of service, particularly for underground assets; Replacement/ Reconstruction - Incorrect or unsafe disposal of existing asset; Asset end-of-life activities that often involve the complete replacement of assets - Costs associated with asset retirement obligations; $$$$$$ - Substantial exposure to high inflation and cost overruns; - Replacements may not meet capacity needs for a larger population; - Loss or disruption of service, particularly for underground assets; 12 Risk and Criticality Asset risk and criticality are essential building blocks of asset management, integral in prioritizing projects and distributing funds where they are needed most based on a variety of factors. Assets in disrepair may fail to perform their intended function, pose substantial risk to the community, lead to unplanned expenditures, and create liability for the municipality. In addition, some assets are simply more important to the community than others, based on their financial significance, their role in delivering essential services, the impact of their failure on public health and safety, and the extent to which they support a high quality of life for community stakeholders. Risk is a product of two variables: the probability that an asset will fail, and the resulting consequences of that failure event. It can be a qualitative measurement, (low, medium, high) or quantitative measurement (1-5), that can be used to rank assets and projects, identify appropriate lifecycle strategies, optimize short- and long-term budgets, minimize service disruptions, and maintain public health and safety. The approach used in this AMP relies on a quantitative measurement of risk associated with each asset. The probability and consequence of failure are each scored from 1 to 5, producing a minimum risk index of 1 for the lowest risk assets, and a maximum risk index of 25 for the highest risk assets. Probability of Failure Several factors can help decision-makers estimate the probability or likelihood of an asset's failure, including its condition, age, previous performance history, and exposure to extreme weather events, such as flooding and ice jams--both a growing concern for municipalities in Canada. Consequence of Failure Estimating criticality also requires identifying the types of consequences that the organization and community may face from an asset's failure, and the magnitude of those consequences. Consequences of asset failure will vary across the infrastructure portfolio; the failure of some assets may result primarily in high direct financial cost but may pose limited risk to the community. Other assets may have a relatively minor financial value, but any downtime may pose significant health and safety hazards to residents. Table 3 illustrates the various types of consequences that can be integrated in developing risk and criticality models for each asset category and segments within. We note that these consequences are common, but not exhaustive. 13 Table 3 Risk Analysis: Types of Consequences of Failure Type of Consequence Description Direct Financial Direct financial consequences are typically measured as the replacement costs of the asset(s) affected by the failure event, including interdependent infrastructure. Economic Economic impacts of asset failure may include disruption to local economic activity and commerce, business closures, service disruptions, etc. Whereas direct financial impacts can be seen immediately or estimated within hours or days, economic impacts can take weeks, months and years to emerge, and may persist for even longer. Socio -political Socio-political impacts are more difficult to quantify and may include inconvenience to the public and key community stakeholders, adverse media coverage, and reputational damage to the community and the Town. Environmental Environmental consequences can include pollution, erosion, sedimentation, habitat damage, etc. Public Health and Safety Adverse health and safety impacts may include injury or death, or impeded access to critical services. Strategic These include the effects of an asset's failure on the community's long-term strategic objectives, including economic development, business attraction, etc. This AMP includes an evaluation of asset risk and criticality. Each asset has been assigned a probability of failure score and consequence of failure score based on available asset attribute data. These risk scores can be used to prioritize maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement strategies for critical assets. 14 Condition Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Pipe Rating Bridge Condition Index (BCI) Age -based (Service Life Remaining%) Broad Criteria Very Good Asset Condition Rating Scale An incomplete or limited understanding of asset condition can mislead long-term planning and decision-making. Accurate and reliable condition data helps to prevent premature and costly rehabilitation or replacement and ensures that lifecycle activities occur at the right time to maximize asset value and useful life. A condition assessment rating system provides a standardized descriptive framework that allows comparative benchmarking across the Town's asset portfolio. The table below outlines the condition rating system used in this AMP to determine asset condition. This rating system is aligned with the Canadian Core Public Infrastructure Survey which is used to develop the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card. When assessed condition data is not available, service life remaining is used to approximate asset condition. Table 4 Standard Condition Rating Scale 91-100 0-1 80-100 Fit for the future Well maintained, good condition, new or recently rehabilitated; no defects or minor defects 76-90 2 70-100 60-80 Adequate for now Acceptable, signs of minor to defects and deterioration Good Requires attention Signs of moderate deterioration and defects, some elements exhibit significant deficiencies Fair 66-75 3 60-70 40-60 Poor Increasing potential of affecting service 40-65 4 <60 20-40 Approaching end of service life, condition below standard, large portion of system exhibits significant deterioration; significant defects overall Unfit for sustained service 0-39 5 0-20 Near or beyond expected service life, widespread signs of advanced deterioration, some assets may be unusable Very Poor 15 Source of Asset Condition The analysis in this AMP is based on assessed condition data when available. Based on replacement costs, in-field condition data was available for 52% of the Town's asset portfolio. For some assets, while routine inspections are conducted to determine asset needs, and ensure safe and effective operations, condition assessment may not be collected in a standardized format that can be applied to individual assets. In the absence of standardized, assessed condition data, asset age is used as a proxy to determine asset condition. Table 5 provides the source of condition assessment data, if available, for each asset category. For assets not identified in the table, only age data was used to approximate their condition. Table 5 Source of Condition Data Asset Category Segment/Asset Type % of Assets with Assessed Condition Road Network Local Roads 100% Collector Roads 100% Arterial Roads 100% Sidewalks 0% Trails 0% Streetlights 0% Traffic Signals 0% Pathways 0% Signs 0% Bus Stop Pads 0% Bridges 100% Structural Culverts 99% Storm Mains 86% Catch Basins 65% Storm Manholes 65% Ponds 0% Storm Pump Stations 0% Watermains 79% Hydrants 0% Sanitary Mains 0% Sanitary Manholes 0% Sanitary Pump Stations 0% Parks & Recreation Services 84% Public Works 68% Protective Services 44% General Government 0% Environmental Services 0% Protective Services 50% Transportation Services 88% Bridges & Culverts Stormwater Network Water Sanitary Facilities Fleet 16 % of Assets with Assessed Asset Category Segment/Asset Type Condition Parks & Recreation Services 78% Environmental Services 83% General Government 79% Machinery & Equipment Parks & Recreation Services 15% Transportation Services 84% Environmental Services 14% Protective Services 32% General Government 5% General Government 64% Parks & Recreation Services 55% Environmental Services 93% Protective Services 52% Transportation Services 0% Parks & Recreation Services 0% Transportation Services 0% General Government 0% Environmental Services 0% Protective Services 0% Information Technology Land Improvements Total 52% 17 Total 52% I Limitations and Constraints This AMP is grounded in the best-available data as of 2024. Like many AMPs, it was developed under a set of broad limitations, constraints, and assumptions that inform its findings and highlight opportunities for future refinement. The analysis is highly influenced by several critical data fields--such as estimated useful life, replacement costs, quantities, and in-service dates--underscoring the importance of robust asset data for reliable analysis. Where precise replacement cost data was not available, staff used historical costs adjusted to current values. While a practical approach, this method highlights opportunities to improve data collection and validation in the future. In cases where detailed condition assessments were unavailable, asset age was used as a proxy for condition ratings. This approach can lead to differences in estimated needs, illustrating the importance of investing in regular condition assessments as the asset management program evolves. Risk models employed in this AMP support objective project prioritization and selection; however, the effectiveness of these models is closely linked to the availability of comprehensive asset attribute data. Enhancing these data inputs will improve the accuracy and reliability of risk assessments over time. Overall, these considerations influence the AMP's outputs, including condition summaries, age profiles, replacement forecasts, and financial requirements. These challenges are common in municipal asset management and present opportunities for ongoing improvements as the Town invests in data, staff capacity, and program development. As LaSalle's asset management program matures, future AMPs will continue to build on this foundation, providing increasingly detailed and reliable guidance for sustainable infrastructure management. 18 I Key Updates From 2024 1. Bridge Inspections (OSIM 2023): Bridge condition indices (BCI) were updated for all bridges and structural culverts in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) in 2023. A new OSIM study is expected in 2025. 2. Replacement Cost Refinements: The Town updated replacement costs for major infrastructure, including roads and underground assets, to better reflect its portfolio and ensure financial planning and budgeting reflect asset needs. 3. Pavement Inspections: The Town carried out a pavement inspection study of its local, collector, and arterial road surfaces. This assessment aimed to evaluate their current condition, identify any maintenance or rehabilitation needs, and guide both short- and long-term planning. The results will support informed decision-making and help prioritize road repairs and budgeting. 19 I State of the Infrastructure The state of the infrastructure (SOTI) summarizes the inventory, condition, age profiles, and other key performance indicators for the Town's infrastructure portfolio. These details are presented for all asset categories at the segment level. 20 $100m $200m $300m Replacement Cost Portfolio Overview The 10 core and non-core asset categories analyzed in this asset management plan have a total current replacement cost of $1.2 billion. This estimate was calculated using cost per unit and user-defined costing, as well as inflation of historical or original costs to current date. Figure 1 illustrates the replacement cost of each asset category. With a current replacement cost of $300.1 million, the Town's road network makes up the largest portion of its asset portfolio, accounting for 26% of the total. The next largest asset group is the stormwater network, which represents 22% of the portfolio. Figure 1 Current Replacement Cost by Asset Category 26%, $300.1m 22%, $254.5m 16%, $189.9m 14%, $167.6m 12%, $138.8m 6%, $66.6m 2%, $27.5m 1%, $16.2m <1%, $10.5m <1%, $4.6m $1.2 billion Total replacement cost Road Network Stormwater Network Sanitary Network Facilities Water Network Bridges & Culverts Land Improvements Machinery & Equipment Fleet Information Technology 21 Condition Data Based on a combination of assessed condition and age-based analysis, nearly 90% of the Town's infrastructure portfolio is in fair or better condition. The remaining 10%--with a replacement value of $109.5 million--was identified as being in poor or worse condition. For certain major asset classes, such as sidewalks and sanitary infrastructure, no recent condition data was available, and age was used as a proxy. It is important to note that age-only assessments tend to understate true condition, particularly for underground infrastructure. Road base assets, with a replacement cost of $130.9 million, were excluded from this analysis. This is common practice, as road base condition is not typically observable through surface- level inspections and requires intrusive testing. Assets rated in poor or worse condition may require significant rehabilitation or replacement in the short term. Targeted field condition assessments can help validate which assets warrant immediate intervention. Maintaining infrastructure in fair or better condition is generally more cost-effective than deferring action until assets fall into lower condition states. Figure 2 Asset Condition - Portfolio Overview Very Poor, $56.6m, 6% Poor, $52.9m, 5% Fair, $175.7m, 17% Good, $369.6m, 35% Very Good, $390.5m, 37% As further illustrated in Figure 3, 90% of LaSalle's major core infrastructure assets and the facilities portfolio are estimated to be in fair or better condition based on current replacement costs. This indicates a generally well-maintained asset portfolio, likely benefiting from ongoing investments and maintenance practices. 22 Figure 3 Asset Condition - By Asset Category Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Road Network Bridges & Culverts Stormwater Network Water Network Sanitary Network Facilities Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvements $74.2 m (45%) $120.7 m (47%) $72.3 m (52%) $58.9 m (30%) $51.6 m (31%) $2.6 m (24%) $4.9 m (30%) $526 k (12%) $4.7 m (17%) $48.1 m (28%) $59.3 (88%) $72.5 m (28%) $41.3 m (30%) $69.6 m (37%) $73.8 m (44%) $2.0 m (19%) $1.2 m (8%) $987 k (21%) $961 k (4%)$1.8 m (6%) $29.5 m (17%) $3.7 m (6%) $46.5 m (19%) $17.9 m (13%) $44.5 m (23%) $25.7 m (15%) $682 k (7%) $4.7 m (29%) $682 k (15%) $8.8 m (5%)$8.6 m (5%) $3.6 m (6%) $6.4 m (2%) $4.1 m (3%)$3.2 m (2%) $10.4 m (6%)$6.4 m (4%) $7.3 m (4%)$9.2 m (6%) $4.5 m (42%) $1.8 m (11%) $2.3 m (50%) $3.6 m (13%) $8.4 m (4%) $780 k (8%) $3.5 m (22%) $64 k (2%) $16.4 m (60%) Although fleet, machinery and equipment, information technology, and land improvements represent a smaller share of the Town's total asset base by value, they exhibit a disproportionately high percentage of assets in fair, poor, or very poor condition--most of which is based on age-based analysis rather than field inspections. This suggests potentially aging inventories and deferred reinvestment across several support functions. While these assets are less critical, they are essential to the Town's internal operations and service delivery, and continued degradation may impact operational efficiency, safety, and maintenance costs. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 23 Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q "1 Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 60 Assets (good) 361 Assets (poor) 170 Assets (very poor) 86 Assets (very poor) 9 Assets (very poor) 5 $30,564,230.51 $131,799,624.54 $35,020,570.25 $16,858,777.48 $7,360,587.00 350 Assets (very good) 388 Assets (fair) 191 Assets (poor) 202 Assets (very poor) 77 Assets (very poor) 4 $61,239,839.51 $85,720,328.34 $30,028,003.52 $28,635,946.94 $28,877,828.18 e 1,891 Assets (very good) 1,400 Assets (good) 1,061 Assets (fair) 709 Assets (poor) 264 Assets (very poor) 3 $123,786,023.99 $75,682,437.48 $55,135,666.52 $39,536,480.60 $7,732,787.42 3,027 Assets (very good) 2,137 Assets (very good) 1,699 Assets (good) 2,579 Assets (fair) 568 Assets (poor) 2 $11 6,176,794.27 $53,034,258.11 $26,979,994.28 $58,798,364.88 $6,143,658.54 1,343 Assets (very good) 2,270 Assets (very good) 1,925 Assets (very good) 1,374 Assets (very good) 656 Assets (good) $9,007,050.00 $49,796,604.73 $40,485,839.26 $37,192,855.57 $4,370,952.19 2 3 4 5 Probability Risk The graph below illustrates the Town's assets plotted on a risk matrix, based on an assessment of each asset's probability and consequence of failure. This approach helps identify assets that pose the greatest risk to service delivery and supports the prioritization of capital investments and maintenance activities. Figure 4 Risk Matrix - All Asset Categories 1 1 24 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Aging infrastructure requires ongoing reinvestment through maintenance, rehabilitation, and eventual replacement. Figure 5 illustrates the cyclical nature of these needs across all asset categories over a 50-year forecast horizon, highlighting short-, medium-, and long-term replacement timelines based on asset age, available condition data, and lifecycle modeling. On average, approximately $31.4 million per year is needed to keep pace with capital replacement demands--offering a baseline target for annual spending or reserve contributions. While actual expenditures will vary year to year, this average provides a useful benchmark to avoid the buildup of deferred projects. The chart also illustrates a backlog of $116.2 million, comprising assets that remain in service beyond their estimated useful life. While this may signal elevated reinvestment needs, it does not necessarily mean all such assets are in poor condition or require immediate replacement. Many may still be performing adequately, particularly if they have benefitted from ongoing maintenance. Nonetheless, their age introduces uncertainty, making routine condition assessments essential. Integrating these assessments with risk-based prioritization and defined service level targets allows the Town to refine backlog estimates, sequence investments, and apply appropriate lifecycle strategies--such as rehabilitation or replacement--at the right time and for the right assets. Figure 5 Capital Replacement Needs - 2025-2074 - - - - - $350m $313.3m $322.6m eeds $284.9m $280.9m $300m $270.3m N $250m al t api $200m ed C $150m $116.2m - t as $100m ec or F $50m $31.4m - Backlog - 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Decade Road Network Bridges & Culverts Sanitary Network Facilities -- Stormwater Network - Water Network Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvments Annual Requirements 25 Road Network The Town of LaSalle's Road Network comprises the largest share of its infrastructure portfolio, with a current replacement cost of $300.1 million, distributed primarily between arterial, collector, and local roadways. The Town also owns and manages other supporting and related infrastructure and capital assets, including asphalt and concrete sidewalks, pathways, trails, and streetlights. Inventory and Valuation Table 6 summarizes the quantity and current replacement cost of the Town's various road network assets as available in its primary asset management register, Citywide. The replacement cost of all arterial, collector, and local roads includes the road base, which has a combined replacement cost of $130.9 million. Table 6 Detailed Asset Inventory - Road Network Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total Local Roads Meters Cost per unit $152,545,530 51% Collector Roads 54,343 Meters Cost per unit $61,968,646 21% 16,978 Meters Cost per unit $29,600,384 10% 113,099 Meters Cost per unit $29,048,833 10% 38,777 Meters Cost per unit $10,472,935 3% 6,125 Assets CPI $10,337,691 3% 38 Assets CPI $3,421,844 1% 4,877 Meters Cost per unit $2,292,551 <1% 17 Assets CPI $228,080 <1% 4 Assets CPI $161,514 <1% Arterial Roads Sidewalks Trails Streetlights Traffic Signals Pathways Signs 138,407 Bus Stop Pads Total $300,078,007 100% 26 Figure 6 Asset Conditionthe replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's road network. Condition assessments show that 90% of assets are in fair or better condition, while the remaining 10% are in poor or very poor condition. Assets in the latter category may require near-term replacement or substantial rehabilitation, depending on their criticality and risk profile. Fair-rated assets should be closely monitored, as they are nearing the threshold where more significant interventions may be needed in the medium term to avoid accelerated deterioration and higher lifecycle costs. Figure 6 shows the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's road network. Condition assessments show that 90% of assets are in fair or better condition, while the remaining 10% are in poor or very poor condition. Assets in the latter category may require near-term replacement or substantial rehabilitation, depending on their criticality and risk profile. Fair-rated assets should be closely monitored, as they are nearing the threshold where more significant interventions may be needed in the medium term to avoid accelerated deterioration and higher lifecycle costs. Very Poor, $8.6m, 5% Fair, $29.5m, 18% Good, $48.1m, 28% Very Good, $74.2m, 44% Poor, $8.8m, 5% Figure 6 Asset Condition - Road Network: Overall As further illustrated in Figure 7, based on condition assessments and 2025 pavement condition index (PCI) values, the vast majority of the Town's arterial, collector, and local roadways are in fair or better condition. Appurtenances such as traffic signals and streetlights appear to suggest elevated deterioration; however, this data is age-based and may not accurately reflect current performance or safety. Sidewalks, pathways, trails, and bus stop pads are generally in acceptable condition, with some localized areas approaching reinvestment need. We note gain that no condition data was available for sidewalks, requiring the use of age to approximate in-field asset state. 27 Figure 7 Asset Condition - Road Network: By Asset Type Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Arterial Roads Collector Roads Local Roads Traffic Signals Streetlights$95 k (1%) Signs Sidewalks Pathways Trails Bus Stop Pads $8.2 m (57%) $11.3 m (37%) $27.1 m (39%) $130 k (4%) $21.5 m (74%) $1.4 m (60%) $4.5 m (43%) $162 k (100%) $4.3 m (30%) $9.5 m (31%) $20.0 m (29%) $40 k (1%) $4.6 m (44%) $228 k (100%) $6.7 m (22%) $789 k (35%) $1.9 m (18%) $1.7 m (13%) $6.8 m (23%) $16.8 m (25%) $312 k (10%) $2.4 m (23%) $411 k (1.8%) $86 k (4%) $1.0 m (10%) $2.5 m (9%) $4.9 m (6.8%) $230 k (6%) $474 k (4%) $51 k (0.2%) $636 k (6%) $35 k (0.2%) $2.7 m (79%) $2.9 m (28%) $444 k (2%) $37 k (2%) $2.5 m (23%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 28 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential long-term replacement spikes. Figure 8 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Most assets are still well within their expected service life. Some asset types, such as arterial surface, exhibit relatively low weighted ages compared to their EUL, while others, including sidewalks and pathways, approach the upper half of their lifespan, indicating a need for ongoing monitoring and potential medium-term renewal planning. Local road surfaces, on average, have reached the end of their design life. However, the Town's ongoing maintenance activities help to ensure that these assets remain drivable and safe. Based on LaSalle's existing lifecycle strategy for roads, the 'effective lifespan' for road surfaces exceeds 75 years. Continuous monitoring is recommended to manage emerging needs and support effective lifecycle management. 29 - ,_ ,_ - - 3 ,_ - - - - 60 30 0 Figure 8 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Road Network Years Weighted Age Weighted EUL Local - Surface Local - Base Collector - Surface Collector - Base Arterial - Surface Arterial - Base Sidewalks Trails Streetlights Traffic Signals Pathways Signs Bus Stop Pads 20 25 20 29 10 22 18 14 21 16 16 7 7 20 50 50 50 20 20 48 20 33 13 39 20 48 30 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management This section describes LaSalle's current approach to managing its roadways. Data was gathered through staff discussions, and lifecycle models were developed in Citywide for each surface type and road class. These models provide a useful reference for ongoing asset management planning and should be updated regularly as new data becomes available. Roadway management is informed by roads needs studies (RNS). The latest RNS, conducted by Streetscan in 2025, produced PCI values for all pavement sections across collector, local, and arterial roads. Due to budget constraints, staff must apply professional judgment when finalizing projects. Planned developments and opportunities to coordinate with utility work also influence the scheduling of major road works. Rehabilitation efforts are prioritized for arterial roadways. Pavement Management Table 7 summarizes the various lifecycle events or interventions for the Town's roadways, along with the trigger for the application, the expected impact on condition and/or asset life, and the cost per unit. The lifecycle activity selected varies by road classification (and other variables). The condition thresholds for arterial roadways are higher than collector and local. For example, a mill and pave treatment for arterial roadways is triggered at a condition rating of 70, whereas for collector, the event is triggered at a condition rating of 60, followed by 55 for local roadways Table 7 Current Lifecycle Management Strategies Event Name Event Class Event Range / Trigger Impact on Asset Condition Impact on Serviceable Life Cost Per Unit Crack Sealing Preventative Maintenance Condition returns to 95 Every 3-5 years +3 years $5/sm Surface mill and pave Minor- Rehabilitation 10-15 years from new construction /PCI score and road classification Condition returns to 90 +10 years $25/sm Major - Rehabilitation 15-25 years from new construction /PCI score and road classification Condition returns to 90 +15 years $50/sm Full depth mill and pave Recycle (CIREAM, hot -in - place, etc.) 15-25 years from new construction /PCI score and roa d classification / road design Major - Rehabilitation Condition returns to 95 $80/sm - $700/m +15 years Reconstruction 25+ years from new construction / PCI score and road classification Reconstruction Condition returns to 100 +25 years $200/sm - $1600/m 31 $120m $118.7m $99.7m eeds $94.9m N $90m $80.7m al t api ed C $57.0m t $60m as ec or F $30m ~----- $9.3m - Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Decade Local Roads Collector Roads Arterial Roads Sidewalks Trails - Streetlights - Traffic Signals s Signs Bus Stop Pads Annual R quirements - Pathway e 32 - - - - - - Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 9 illustrates the cyclical short-, medium-, and long-term capital replacement requirements for the Town's road network, covering the period from 2025 to 2074. This analysis provides a multi-decade perspective to help the Town anticipate and plan for major fluctuations in capital investment needs. LaSalle's average annual requirement is approximately $9.3 million across all road network assets. While actual spending may vary year to year, this benchmark offers a useful target for annual capital expenditure or reserve contributions to ensure timely replacements and avoid deferred maintenance. In the current decade, projected requirements total $57.0 million, driven largely by local and collector roads, including road bases. From 2035 to 2054, requirements increase substantially--peaking at $118.7 million--reflecting the cumulative impact of aging infrastructure across all road classes, especially local roads. However, these needs may change over time as new information becomes available. Regular condition assessments coupled with risk-based analysis will help the Town refine and prioritize investments, potentially extending asset life and reducing actual capital requirements. Figure 9 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Road Network: 2025-2074 Operating & Maintenance Planned Capital, and Significant Operating and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the forecasted capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Data beyond 2030 is further projected for the purpose of this AMP using average annual growth rates. Table 8 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Road Network Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Wages and Benefits $960.0k $998.1k $1.04m $1.08m $1.12m $1.28m $1.30m $1.33m $1.35m $1.38m $51.0k $52.0k $53.0k $54.1k $55.2k $56.3k $57.4k $58.6k $59.7k $60.9k $779.8k $834.8k $875.9k $893.4k $911.1k $929.3k $947.9k $966.8k $986.2k $1.01m $315.0k $324.9k $335.2k $345.9k $356.9k $368.4k $375.8k $383.3k $390.9k $398.8k $200.0k $204.0k $208.1k $212.3k $216.5k $22.8k $200.0k $200.0k $200.0k $200.0k $2.3m $2.4m $2.5m $2.6m $2.7m $2.7m $2.9m $2.9m $3.0m $3.0m Vehicle/Equipment Program Services Streetlighting Winter Control Sub-total Capital $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $7.7m $10.0m $10.1m $10.2m $10.3m $10.3m $10.3m $10.6m $10.6m $10.7m $10.7m Sub-total Total Program services for roads include crack sealing, asphalt repair, catch basin cleaning, railway crossing maintenance, and other day- to-day activities to keep roadways in a state of good repair and support safe and efficient movement flow of traffic. 33 Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as condition, service life remaining, replacement costs, traffic data, road class, and asset type. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only condition, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Assets (good) 50 Assets (poor) 4 Assets (very poor) 38 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 5 $3,411,758.13 $1 2,100,564.18 $368,544.35 $7,990,504.33 $0.00 104 Assets (very good) 53 Assets (fair) 10 Assets (poor) 10 Assets (very poor) 15 Assets (very poor) 4 $24,259,676.89 $11,185,551.58 $1,896,737.70 $2,166,544.29 $5,706,222.18 e 557 Assets (very good) 210 Assets (good) 120 Assets (fair) 103 Assets (poor) 10 Assets (very poor) 3 $43,051,587.85 $21,301 ,270.58 $19,136,511.1 2 $1,971 ,801 .42 $17,301 ,925.33 320 Assets (very good) 76 Assets (very good) 17 Assets (good) 38 Assets (fair) 1 Asset (poor) 2 $9,108,538.71 $2,007,854.83 $471,637.45 $1,331,517.72 $17,287.81 102 Assets (very good) 463 Assets (very good) 347 Assets (very good) 338 Assets (very good) 25 Assets (good) $2,157,648.95 $43,734,000.99 $34,822,283.41 $32,624,543.11 $1,953,494.79 2 3 4 5 Probability Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 10 Risk Matrix - Road Network 1 1 35 In addition to asset-level risk, the Town's road network is vulnerable to risks arising from deferring or missing key lifecycle activities such as timely repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement. These risks can manifest in several ways: - Missed opportunities to apply cost-effective interventions--such as crack sealing, surface treatments, or targeted rehabilitation--that could extend the life of road surfaces and underlying structures, resulting in higher long-term costs; - Inefficient allocation of funds, where lower-risk segments (e.g., low-traffic local roads) might receive investments at the expense of higher-priority collector or arterial routes that support essential mobility and connectivity; - Delays in critical projects, especially those involving road surfaces and sidewalks that directly impact public safety and accessibility, leading to potential increases in borrowing costs or financial strain; - Accelerated deterioration of road bases, curb and gutter structures, sidewalks, streetlights, and other appurtenances, which could compromise not only driving conditions but also pedestrian safety, street lighting, and signage reliability--elements that collectively define the quality and usability of the road network; - Diminished public confidence in the Town's road network, potentially eroding satisfaction with overall mobility, walkability, and the perceived quality of life in the community, while increasing vulnerability to reputational damage; A risk-based, condition-driven approach helps ensure that critical assets within the road network--particularly high-volume or high-criticality segments--are prioritized for maintenance and renewal, thereby maintaining safety, reliability, and service continuity for residents and businesses alike. 36 Bridges and Culverts The Town of LaSalle's transportation network also includes bridges and structural culverts, with a current replacement cost of $66.6 million. Inventory and Valuation Table 9 summarizes the quantity and current replacement cost of bridges and culverts. The Town owns and manages 10 bridges and 13 structural culverts, including three pedestrian crossings. Table 9 Detailed Asset Inventory - Bridges and Culverts Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total Bridges 10 Assets User defined $47,691,391 72% Culverts 13 Assets User defined $18,899,121 28% Total 23 $66,590,512 100% 37 I I I I I I I I Figure 11 Asset Condition summarizes the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's bridges and culverts. Based on the Town's 2023 Ontario Structures Inspection Manual (OSIM) assessments, 95% of bridges and structural culverts are in fair or better condition. Elements or components in fair condition may require rehabilitation or replacement in the medium term and should be monitored for further degradation in condition. Figure 11 Asset Condition - Bridges and Culverts: Overall Poor, $3.6m, 5% Fair, $3.7m, 6% Good, $59.3m, 89% Figure 12 provides further condition details for both structure types. Figure 12 Asset Condition - Bridges and Culverts: By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Bridges Structural Culverts $41.7m $17.6m $3.2m $427k $2.7m $916k 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 38 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 13 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 13 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Brides and Culverts Age analysis reveals that on average, bridges have consumed more than 50% of their estimated useful life, with an average age of 57 years against an average EUL of 75 years. On average, culverts are also in the latter stages of their lifecycle, with an average age of 39 years, against an average EUL of 75 years. OSIM assessments should continue to be used in conjunction with age and asset criticality to prioritize capital and maintenance expenditures. Weighted Age Weighted EUL 80 75 75 57 39 Bridges Structural Culverts Years 40 0 39 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management Annual lifecycle activities for the Town's 23 structures are informed by biennial structural inspections conducted in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). The most recent inspection occurred in 2023, with updated data anticipated in 2025. These forthcoming OSIM results will guide maintenance and rehabilitation priorities across the structure portfolio. 40 r --------------------------------------· ------ I ______________ ----------------------------- r------------- I---- - - Forecasted Capital Replacements $50m $40m $30m $20m $10m $0 $45.5m $7.2m $912k $5.3m $5.0m Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Bridges Structural Culverts Annual Requirements 41 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 14 illustrates the projected short-, medium-, and long-term rehabilitation and replacement needs for the Town's bridges and culverts, extending through 2074 to capture long-range trends and major renewal cycles. On average, LaSalle requires $912k annually to meet capital needs in this asset class. While actual expenditures may vary year to year, this value serves as a planning benchmark for annual capital allocations or reserve contributions to mitigate the risk of deferrals. No significant reinvestment peaks are expected until the 2045-2054 period, during which assets valued at $45.5 million are projected to reach the end of their service life. These projections are informed by replacement cost data, age profiles, and condition assessments. They are intended to support long-term, portfolio-level capital planning. Ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation guided by OSIM inspections, supported by a structured risk framework, will help ensure timely intervention for critical structural components. Figure 14 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Bridges and Culverts: 2025-2071 42 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures Sub-total Bridges and culverts are managed as part of the Town's road network. Table 10 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Bridges & Culverts Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Capital Maintained as part of the Road Network. Total Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as condition, service life remaining, replacement costs, traffic data, and road type/class. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only condition, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 43 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 Assets (good) 3 Assets (poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 5 $0.00 $44,535,167.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 Assets (very good) 4 Assets (fair) 2 Assets (poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 4 $0.00 $11,408,564.00 $2,708,306.00 $0.00 $0.00 e 3 Assets (very good) 5 Assets (good) 2 Assets (fair) 0 Assets (poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 3 $2,833,401.00 $3,488,102.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1 ,1 61,41 1.00 2 Assets (very good) 1 Asset (very good) 0 Assets (good) 0 Assets (fair) 0 Assets (poor) 2 $178,902.00 $266,731.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 Asset (very good) 0 Assets (very good) 0 Assets (very good) 0 Assets (very good) 0 Assets (good) $9,928.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 4 5 Probability Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 15 Risk Matrix - Bridges and Culverts 1 1 44 In addition to asset-level risk, the Town's bridge and structural culvert network is especially sensitive to risks associated with deferring or missing key lifecycle activities such as timely inspections, repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement. These risks can present in several ways: - Missed opportunities to undertake preventive maintenance--such as deck sealing, joint repairs, or corrosion protection--that can significantly extend the service life of bridges and culverts, leading instead to higher lifecycle costs and the need for more expensive interventions later; - Delays in executing major rehabilitations or replacements, particularly for bridges or culverts with high risk or low redundancy, could result in load restrictions, closures, or service disruptions with significant social and economic impacts. - Accelerated structural deterioration that compromises load-carrying capacity, increases vulnerability to environmental factors (e.g., flooding or freeze-thaw cycles), and raises the risk of sudden failures that pose immediate safety hazards; - A decline in public confidence in the safety and reliability of the Town's bridge and culvert infrastructure, potentially undermining trust in the Town's overall asset management practices and its commitment to ensuring safe travel and emergency response capabilities; A condition-driven, risk-based approach ensures that high-priority structures--especially those with high traffic volumes or serving critical routes--are identified for timely interventions. This approach helps preserve essential connections, maintain safety, and optimize long-term investment in the Town's bridge and culvert network. 45 Stormwater Network LaSalle's Stormwater Network consists of an extensive system of storm sewer mains and a range of critical supporting infrastructure, with a total current replacement cost of $254.5 million. The network includes approximately 168 kilometres of storm mains. In addition to these linear assets, the Town is also responsible for key supporting components such as stormwater pump stations, stormwater management ponds, and other related structures that contribute to overall system performance, environmental protection, and regulatory compliance. Inventory and Valuation Table 11 summarizes the quantity and current replacement cost of all stormwater management assets available in the Town's asset register. Table 11 Detailed Asset Inventory - Stormwater Network Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total Storm Mains 168,135 Meters Cost per unit $212,945,418 84% Catch Basins 7,852 Assets Cost per unit $20,087,504 8% 1,758 Assets User-defined $15,458,915 6% 6 Assets User-defined $2,780,976 1% 7 Assets User-defined $3,239,679 1% Storm Manholes Storm Pump Stations Ponds Total $254,512,492 100% 46 Fair, $46.5m, 18% Good, $72.5m, 29% Very Good, $120.7m, 47% Asset Condition Figure 16 presents the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's stormwater management assets. Drawing on condition assessments and age data, 94% of assets are currently in fair or better condition, while the remaining 6% are classified as poor or worse. Assets in poor condition may require short-term replacement, while those rated as fair should be closely monitored to determine when medium-term rehabilitation or replacement might be necessary. Figure 16 Asset Condition - Stormwater Network Very Poor, $8.4m, 3% Poor, $6.5m, 3% Figure 17 summarizes the condition of individual stormwater asset types. The analysis illustrates that based primarily on condition assessment data, the majority of stormwater mains, catch basins, and manholes are in fair or better condition. No assessment condition data was available for ponds or storm pump stations. 47 Figure 17 Asset Condition - Stormwater Network - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Storm Mains Catch Basins Storm Pump Stations Ponds Storm Manholes $105.4 m ($50%) $8.4 m (42%) $1.9 m (67%) $5.0 m (33%) $60.6 m (28%) $5.9 m (30%) $920 k (33%) $706 k (22%) $4.4 m (28%) $37.3 m (17%) $2.0 m (10%) $2.5 m (78%) $4.6 m (30%) $3.5 m (2%) $1.7 m (8%) $1.2 m (8%)$209 k (1%) $6. 2 m (3%) $2.0 m (10%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 48 0 30 60 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 18 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 18 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Stormwater Network 23 28 8 23 20 47 49 20 20 48 Years Weighted Age Weighted EUL Storm Mains Catch Basins Storm Pump Stations Ponds Storm Manholes The data reveals that on average, storm sewer mains will enter the latter stages of their expected design life in the coming years, with an average age of 23 years against an EUL of 47 years. Although stormwater management ponds do not have a fixed end-of-life like traditional infrastructure, many in LaSalle have exceeded their estimated useful life based on age data. While this does not imply imminent failure, it highlights the need for ongoing sediment removal, structural repairs, and potential retrofits to maintain performance and meet evolving design standards. Age profiles and future CCTV inspections will help to identify mains in need of replacements and/or upgrades. Extensions to EULs for mains may also be considered based on performance history to date. 49 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management CCTV inspections for storm pipes were last conducted in 2019. Pipes were rated based on NAASCO PACP condition grading system. Storm assets have become a higher priority recently, and dedicated funding is set aside each year to meet anticipated replacement needs, particularly storm pipes located along arterial roads. Major work is coordinated with other projects, including roadwork, and water or sanitary replacements. For linear underground infrastructure, pipe material can help identify assets that may be candidates for more proactive rehabilitation and replacement strategies. Some municipalities have proactive pipe replacement programs, e.g., replacing cast iron or ductile iron mains with PVC pipes. Trenchless relining of mains is also cost effective and extends the life of a structurally sound pipe by many decades. 50 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 19 illustrates the projected short-, medium-, and long-term replacement needs for LaSalle's stormwater network through 2074, offering a multi-decade view of capital investment requirements. Average annual needs are estimated at $5.1 million, serving as a planning benchmark for reserve contributions and long-term financial stability. A capital investment peak is anticipated in the current decade as many storm mains reach or exceed their expected service life; however, age alone does not predict actual condition, and many older assets may remain functional. The analysis also shows a backlog of $25.1 million, which includes assets that may warrant further inspection or renewal planning. These estimates are based on replacement costs, asset age, and available condition data, and are intended to guide long-term, system-wide capital planning. Figure 19 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Stormwater Network: 2025-2074 Replacement needs often exceed what municipalities can afford, and storm mains reaching the end of their useful life may not require immediate replacement. CCTV inspections, coordination with other roadwork, and a robust risk framework help identify true priorities and ensure timely intervention for critical assets. 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Storm Mains Catch Basins Storm Pump Stations Ponds Storm Manholes Annual Requirements $5.1m $13.4m $16.5m 51 cements Needs $80m $77.7m $54.9m $66.9m Forecasted Repla $40m $25.1m $0 Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 52 Planned Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Data beyond 2027 is further projected for the purpose of this AMP using average annual growth rates. Table 12 Planned Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures - Stormwater Network Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $125.1k $130.0k $135.1k $140.3k $145.8k $151.4k $154.4k $157.5k $160.7k $163.9k $50.0k $51.0k $52.0k $53.0k $54.1k $55.2k $56.3k $57.4k $58.6k $59.8k $175.1k $181.0k $187.1k $193.3k $199.9k $206.6k $210.7k $214.9k $219.2k $223.6k Program Services Sub-total Capital $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.3m $2.4m $2.4m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m Sub-total Total Program services for storm sewers include annual storm sewer maintenance. Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, asset type, and pipe diameter. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 20 Risk Matrix - Stormwater Network 26 Assets (good) 197 Assets (poor) 122 Assets (very poor) 14 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 5 $5,278,506.90 $17,293,615.10 $14,602,440.85 $1,767,583.35 $0.00 111 Assets (very good) 128 Assets (fair) 113 Assets (poor) 55 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 4 $14,620,811.10 $11,315,360.76 $9,142,460.11 $6,263,333.05 $0.00 e 478 Assets (very good) 481 Assets (good) 371 Assets (fair) 149 Assets (poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 3 $28,436,414.25 $25,632,432.21 $21,101,951.58 $7,652,731.48 $0.00 1,002 Assets (very good) 765 Assets (very good) 846 Assets (good) 390 Assets (fair) 25 Assets (poor) 2 $35,687,693.59 $13,782,522.53 $11,286,809.42 $7,936,797.07 $201,250.00 930 Assets (very good) 1,766 Assets (very good) 1,556 Assets (very good) 1,017 Assets (very good) 573 Assets (good) $4,968,605.93 $5,837,600.81 $5,328,530.44 $4,398,191.76 $1,976,850.00 2 3 4 5 Probability 1 1 54 In addition to asset level risk, the Town may also face risk associated with not executing key lifecycle activities, including repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of critical assets. These include: - Missed opportunities to apply cost-effective preventive maintenance (e.g., clearing debris from storm mains or maintaining pond outlets), leading to higher lifecycle costs and potential system failures during heavy rain events; - Deferral of critical stormwater projects--such as pump station upgrades or large- diameter main replacements--that can result in increased financial strain or the need for borrowing, especially if failures occur during extreme weather events; - Accelerated deterioration of stormwater infrastructure, including mains, ponds, and outfalls, leading to premature failures that can compromise public health and safety, disrupt drainage services, and contribute to localized flooding; - A decline in public satisfaction with the Town's flood management and drainage services, potentially eroding trust in the Town's ability to manage stormwater risks and protect residents and businesses. - Failures in stormwater management assets can be particularly severe, leading to extensive flooding, erosion, sewer backups, road and bridge closures, environmental contamination, and substantial property damage. These failures also risk compromising water quality, exacerbating public health and safety concerns. - Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events make communities even more vulnerable to flooding. Such events can also create legal liabilities for the Town if asset failures result in property damage or injury. A condition-driven, risk-based approach ensures that high-priority stormwater assets-- especially those vital for managing peak flows, environmental protection, and regulatory compliance--are identified and addressed promptly. This proactive strategy helps maintain system capacity and resilience, supporting reliable service delivery and protecting both residents and the natural environment from flood-related risks. 55 Water Network LaSalle's Water Network comprises water distribution mains and hydrants, with a current replacement cost of $138.8 million. The Town is responsible for approximately 227 kilometres of mains. Inventory and Valuation Table 13 summarizes the quantity and current replacement cost of all water distribution assets available in the Town's asset register. Table 13 Detailed Asset Inventory - Water Network Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total Mains 226,687 Meters Cost per unit $128,664,222 93% Hydrants 1342 Assets Cost per unit $10,171,738 7% Total $138,835,960 100% 56 Asset Condition The figure below summarizes the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's water distribution assets. Based on a combination of condition assessment and age data, approximately 93% of assets are in fair or better condition; the remaining 7% are in poor to very poor condition. These assets may be candidates for replacement in the short term; similarly, assets in fair condition may require rehabilitation or replacement in the medium term and should be monitored for further degradation in condition. Figure 21 Asset Condition - Water Network Very Poor, $3.2m, 2% Poor, $4.1m, 3% Fair, $17.9m, 13% Good, $41.3m, 30% Very Good, $72.3m, 52% Figure 22 provides the condition overview of the Town's water assets. Watermains with a combined replacement cost of $4.2 million are currently rated in poor or very poor condition. Hydrants, valued at $3.2 million, also fall into this category, based on original installation dates. Watermain condition estimates reflect both asset age and historical break data. Figure 22 Asset Condition - Water Network - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Watermains Hydrants $70.4 m (55%) $1.9 m (19%) $39.1 m (30%) $2.1 m (21%) $14.9 m (13%) $3.0 m (29%) $2.1 m (1%)$2.1 m (1%) $2.0 m (20%) $1.1 m (11%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 57 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 23 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 23 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Water Network On average, the Town's watermains are at the mid-to-late stage of their estimated useful life, with an average age of 30 years relative to an EUL of 50 years. Hydrants follow a similar trend, averaging 26 years in age. A notable portion of the network was installed before 1970, with the oldest distribution mains dating back to 1925. While these assets have exceeded their estimated useful life, many continue to function in service. Weighted Age Weighted EUL 60 50 50 30 0 Years 30 26 Watermains Hydrants 58 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management The Town currently does not have a programmatic approach to assessing its water infrastructure. Safety issues and watermain breaks within a system drive rehabilitation or replacement activities. No relining program is in place, and cathodic protection is being reviewed to protect ductile and cast iron pipes from corrosion. Cathodic protection reduces main breaks, reduces repairs, and extends the life of older distribution mains, thereby lowering the total lifecycle costs. Main replacements are completed based on pipe age and opportunity to bundle projects with roadwork. 59 $59.2m $60m $30m $0 Watermains Hydrants Annual Requirements Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 60 Forecasted Replacements Needs Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 24 offers a 50-year outlook on the Town's water distribution infrastructure needs, capturing cyclical reinvestment requirements across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. It estimates average annual capital needs of $2.8 million, which can serve as a practical benchmark when setting annual capital budgets or reserve contributions. While actual project timing may shift, maintaining funding at or near this level can help ensure timely replacement and prevent the accumulation of infrastructure deficits. The current estimated reinvestment backlog is $59.2 million, the majority of which is associated with watermains installed prior to 1970 that have exceeded their estimated service life. However, these assets may still be functioning adequately, as age-based analysis does not account for localized performance or condition data. Approximately $44.1 million in renewal needs are projected within the current decade. Figure 24 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Water Network: 2025-2074 $2.8m $44.1m $2.8m $2.7m $5.7m $24.4m $2.8m $59.2m $44.1m $2.8m $2.7m $5.7m $24.4m $0 $30m $60m Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Forecasted Replacements Needs Watermains Hydrants Annual Requirements Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Data beyond 2027 is further projected for the purpose of this AMP using average annual growth rates. Table 14 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Water Network Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $998k $1.0m $1.1m $1.1m $1.2m $1.2m $1.2m $1.3m $1.3m $1.3m $20k $20k $21k $21k $22k $22k $22k $23k $23k $24k $4.2m $4.3m $4.3m $4.4m $4.5m $4.6m $4.7m $4.8m $4.9m $5.0m $5.2m $5.3m $5.4m $5.6m $5.7m $5.8m $6.0m $6.1m $6.2m $6.3m Vehicle/Equipment Program Services Sub-total Capital $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $3.1m $8.3m $8.4m $8.5m $8.7m $8.8m $8.9m $9.0m $9.2m $9.3m $9.4m Sub-total Total Program services for water include the annual purchase of water supply from the City of Windsor ($2 million), meter maintenance, water testing, overhead allocation, and other expenses incurred to support delivery of clean and safe drinking water to residents. 61 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Assets (good) 57 Assets (poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 27 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 5 $1 ,966,154.48 $5,784,054.46 $0.00 $3,085,018.80 $0.00 42 Assets (very good) 29 Assets (fair) 0 Assets (poor) 99 Assets (very poor) 0 Assets (very poor) 4 $3,088,056.40 $1,607,520.60 $0.00 $5,741,333.60 $0.00 ce 269 Assets (very good) 459 Assets (good) 420 Assets (fair) 410 Assets (poor) 151 Assets (very poor) 3 $5,323,302.34 $12,274,829.75 $4,594,542.25 $8,977,243.00 $1,128,725.00 432 Assets (very good) 689 Assets (very good) 159 Assets (good) 1,407 Assets (fair) 63 Assets (poor) 2 $17,563,338.34 $20,557,913.92 $4,090,468.34 $42,062,689.09 $383,715.73 192 Assets (very good) 25 Assets (very good) 1 Asset (very good) 2 Assets (very good) 1 Asset (good) $478,903.91 $112,151.73 $4,413.41 $4,206.70 $7,378.40 2 3 4 5 Probability Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, asset type, and pipe diameter. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 1 1 62 Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 25 Risk Matrix - Water Network 63 In addition to asset level risk, the Town may also face risk associated with not executing key lifecycle activities, including repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of critical assets. These include: - Failures in water distribution systems, including water mains and hydrants, can disrupt essential services, leading to water advisories, loss of water supply, and impacts on fire protection. - Unplanned breaks and leaks can drive up maintenance and repair costs, eroding financial efficiency and increasing overall lifecycle costs. - Delays in renewing aging water infrastructure can require emergency repairs, strain the budget, or force additional borrowing. - Early deterioration of critical water assets can pose risks to public health, impact fire safety, and affect the Town's residents and businesses. - Poor asset management in water services can lead to decreased public trust, dissatisfaction with water quality and reliability, and damage the Town's reputation. An asset's criticality rating, determined by the nature and magnitude of the consequences of its potential failure should be used to prioritize projects, particularly lifecycle management strategies. 64 Sanitary Network LaSalle's Sanitary Network comprises wastewater collection mains, manholes, and pump stations, with a current replacement cost of $189.9 million. The Town is responsible for 168 kilometres of mains and 19 sanitary pump stations. Inventory and Valuation Table 13 summarizes the quantity and current replacement cost of all sanitary infrastructure assets available in the Town's asset register. Table 15 Detailed Asset Inventory - Sanitary Network Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total Sanitary Mains 168,635 Meters Cost per unit $140,331,310 74% Sanitary Pump Stations 19 Assets User-defined $31,119,000 16% Sanitary Manholes 1,892 Assets Cost per unit $18,422,746 10% Total $189,873,056 100% 65 Asset Condition Figure 26 the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's sanitary distribution assets. Based on age data, 91% of the assets are in fair or better condition, while the remaining 9% are in poor or very poor condition. Assets in poor condition may require short-term replacement, while those rated as fair should be monitored for further deterioration and potential medium-term rehabilitation or replacement. Figure 26 Asset Condition - Sanitary Network Fair, $44.5m, 23% Good, $69.6m, 37% Very Good, $58.9m, 31% Poor, $10.4m, 6% Very Poor, $6.4m, 3% Figure 27 summarizes the age-based condition of sanitary assets. The analysis illustrates that pump station assets with a current replacement cost of $7.7 million are in poor or worse condition, having exceeded their expected design life. Based on age, all sanitary mains are in fair or better condition. 66 Figure 27 Asset Condition - Sanitary Network - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Sanitary Mains Sanitary Manholes Sanitary Pump Stations $53.8 m (38%) $1.9 m (10%) $3.2 m (10%) $47.2 (34%) $3.3 m (18%) $19.1 m (62%) $39.3 m (28%) $4.1 m (22%) $1.1 m (3%) $6.2 m (34%) $4.2 m (14%) $3.0 m (16%) $3.4 m (11%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 67 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 28 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 28 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Sanitary Network Weighted Age Weighted EUL 50 50 50 Years The analysis indicates that, on average, sanitary mains and manholes are in the later stages of their lifecycle, with average ages of 31 and 28 years, respectively, relative to an estimated useful life of 50 years. This suggests that a growing portion of the network may require increased monitoring or reinvestment planning in the coming decade. Pump station assets, by contrast, have used less than half of their expected service life. However, due to their mechanical complexity, a component-level assessment would be necessary to develop more accurate and actionable insights into long-term renewal needs. 31 28 21 Sanitary Mains Sanitary Manholes Sanitary Pump Stations 60 30 0 68 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management Regular flushing and manhole inspection is conducted. Sewer pump stations undergo structural reviews and repairs or replacements each year (growth driven). 69 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 29 outlines the long-term replacement needs for the Town's sanitary infrastructure through 2074, highlighting expected reinvestment cycles across short-, medium-, and long-term periods. Average annual requirements are estimated at $3.8 million, which can serve as a guiding benchmark for capital budgeting and reserve planning to reduce the risk of deferral. Replacement needs are projected to rise over the next two decades, beginning with $46.6 million in the current decade and reaching a peak of $64 million between the mid-2030s and 2040s. These estimates, based on asset age and replacement cost, provide a portfolio-level view of long-range capital pressures to support improved financial planning. Figure 29 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Sanitary Network: 2025-2074 $80m $64.0m Forecasted Replacements Needs $46.6m $36.6m $40m $25.7m $17.0m $3.8m $0 Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Sanitary Mains Sanitary Manholes Sanitary Pump Stations Annual Requirements 70 Planned Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Table 16 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Sanitary Network Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $261k $271k $281k $292k $304k $315k $322k $328k $335k $341k $412k $412k $412k $412k $412k $412k $0 $0 $0 $0 $8k $8k $8k $9k $9k $9k $9k $9k $10k $10k $3.2m $2.6m $2.7m $2.8m $2.9m $3.0m $3.0m $3.1m $3.1m $3.2m $3.9m $3.3m $3.4m $3.5m $3.6m $3.7m $3.3m $3.4m $3.5m $3.6m Long-term Debt Repayment Vehicle/Equipment Program Services Sub-total Capital $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $2.5m $6.4m $5.8m $5.9m $6.0m $6.1m $6.2m $5.9m $5.9m $6.0m $6.1m Sub-total Total Program services for sanitary infrastructure include ongoing maintenance of sanitary assets including sewer lines, pump stations, SCADA as well as operating expenses incurred for the safe collection and treatment of wastewater. 71 Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, asset type, and pipe diameter. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 72 Q Q 0 ~ Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 30 Risk Matrix - Sanitary Network 0 Assets (good) $0.00 18 Assets (poor) $2,677,052.80 31 Assets (very poor) $6,684,981.05 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 5 35 Assets (very good) $6,833,216.12 98 Assets (fair) $32,839,943.40 33 Assets (poor) $5,000,078.71 14 Assets (very poor) $4,531 ,000.00 10 Assets (very poor) $3,128,000.00 4 e 473 Assets (very good) $33,532,037.55 82 Assets (good) $6,407,948.94 45 Assets (fair) $3,845,717.36 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 3 1,187 Assets (very good) $51 ,807,843.63 424 Assets (very good) $14,163,622.83 470 Assets (good) $8,514,538.07 654 Assets (fair) $6,171,130.00 372 Assets (poor) $3,029,560.00 2 95 Assets (very good) $655,362.21 8 Assets (very good) $51,023.20 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 0 Assets (good) $0.00 2 3 4 5 Probability 1 1 73 In addition to asset level risk, the Town may also face risk associated with not executing key lifecycle activities, including repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of critical assets. These include: - Missed opportunities to apply cost-effective maintenance strategies (e.g., sewer cleaning, pipe relining), resulting in higher lifecycle costs and increased risk of unexpected failures; - Erosion of public confidence in the Town's ability to manage its sanitary system, potentially damaging the Town's reputation and perceived service quality; - Failures in wastewater collection assets can result in sewage backups, service outages, environmental contamination, and damage to other municipal assets, such as roadways and storm infrastructure. An asset's criticality rating, determined by the nature and magnitude of the consequences of its potential failure should be used to prioritize projects, particularly lifecycle management strategies. 74 Facilities LaSalle's facilities portfolio includes a diverse mix of buildings that support parks and recreation, public works, emergency services, general government, and environmental services. The current replacement value of the Town's facility assets is approximately $167.6 million. The majority of facility replacement value is concentrated in parks and recreation buildings, which account for 59% of the total, followed by public works (20%) and protective services (12%). Inventory and Valuation Table 17 provides a detailed breakdown of the quantity and current replacement cost of facility assets in the Town's asset register. It offers a comprehensive view of each facility type by department. Table 17 Detailed Asset Inventory - Facilities Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost Segment Quantity % of Total Parks & Recreation Services 6 Facilities User defined and CPI $99,623,516 59% 1 Facilities User defined and CPI $32,684,191 20% 3 Facilities User defined and CPI $20,228,058 12% 1 Facilities User defined and CPI $15,038,796 9% Public Works Protective Services General Government Total $167,574,560 100% 75 Asset Condition Figure 31 summarizes the replacement cost-weighted condition of the Town's facility assets. Based on the data, 90% of facility assets are in fair or better condition, with the majority rated as good (44%) or very good (31%). The remaining 10% are in poor or very poor condition, representing a relatively small share of the overall portfolio. These assets may warrant more detailed review to confirm if replacement or rehabilitation is necessary in the short term. Assets in fair condition (15%) should be monitored, as they may require intervention in the medium term depending on performance and risk exposure. Figure 31 Asset Condition - Facilities Very Poor, $8.9m, 5% Poor, $7.6m, 5% Fair, $25.7m, 15% Good, $73.8m, 44% Very Good, $51.6m, 31% Figure 32 presents facility asset condition by service area. Most facilities in parks, public works, and protective services are in good or very good condition, with smaller portions requiring attention due to fair or poor ratings. In contrast, general government and environmental service buildings show a higher proportion of assets in poor to very poor condition. These variations reflect differing investment needs across service areas. To support informed decision-making, the Town recently completed condition assessments for several key facilities, including the Vollmer Complex, Fire Station 2, and LaSalle Landing. 76 - - - - - Figure 32 Asset Condition - Facilities - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Parks & Recreation Services Public Works Protective Services General Government $31.2 m (32%) $48.9 m (48%) $11.7 m (12%) $6.1 m (6%)$1.8 m (2%) $10.9 m (33%) $14.4 m (44%) $5.6 m (18%) $709 k (2%) $1.0 m (3%) $8.8 m (44%) $4.4 m (21%) $4.3 m (21%) $2.8 m (14%) $712 k (5%) $6.1 m (40%) $4.1 m (28%) $825 k (5%) $3.3 m (22%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 77 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 33 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 33 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Facilities 14 11 6 11 45 45 37 31 Years Weighted Age Weighted EUL Parks & Recreation Services Public Works Protective Services General Government The analysis shows that facilities assets in all categories are generally in the earlier stages of their lifecycle, with weighted ages well below their expected service life. Parks and recreation buildings have the highest average age at 14 years, but still represent less than one-third of their 45-year estimated useful life. Similarly, protective services and general government facilities have average ages of just 6 and 11 years, respectively. However, given the variation in asset types and mechanical complexity, particularly in specialized buildings, more detailed or component-level assessments may be warranted to support future renewal planning. 0 25 50 78 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management The Town takes a proactive approach to facility management through a combination of regular maintenance and targeted assessments. In 2024, detailed Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) were completed by ABSI for several key facilities, including the Vollmer Complex, Fire Station 2, and LaSalle Landing. These BCAs typically include evaluations of structural elements, roofing systems, HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems, building envelopes, and accessibility compliance. The findings support long-term capital planning and help identify priority repairs, system upgrades, or lifecycle renewals. In addition to these assessments, Town carry out more routine building system inspections, preventative maintenance, and walkthroughs to ensure that facilities remain safe, operational, and in a state of good repair. Table 18 Facilities Lifecycle Strategy Activity Type Description of Current Strategy Maintenance & Inspection Inspections and servicing are completed as per a pre-determined timetable which meets or exceeds minimum maintenance standards depending on a variety of factors. The municipality works with their service contractors to establish the schedule to minimize unscheduled repairs and maximize life expectancy. Examples include HVAC inspections conducted quarterly or in some cases bi- monthly; generator checks conducted monthly and more detailed testing bi- annually, elevators conducted monthly, etc. Servicing reports are reviewed by management staff and typically most if not, all recommendations are accepted and followed. Building Condition Assessments (BCA) are completed on all facility assets periodically. The data collected through these assessments identifies recommended repairs and replacement schedules. This information is central to the selection of long-term capital projections. In some cases, the BCA recommends more detailed studies to better understand the existing state, functionality, and risks. This can assist with developing infrastructure management solutions accordingly. Rehabilitation & Replacement Historically many asset replacements have been reactive based on asset component failure. As BCA are completed the Town intends to become more proactive in their asset lifecycle activities. Currently, capital projects are forecasted based on a 10-year planning horizon. Generally, clarity of projects is highest in the first 1-4 years of the plan with projects planned in years 5 and beyond more likely to change over time. 79 - - - ------------ ------ ·----------- i----------------------- ------· r·----------- r , _______ -------------- ----- - - - Forecasted Replacements Needs $80m $40m $0 Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Parks & Recreation Services Public Works Protective Services General Government Annual Requirements $7.9m $4.9m $23.9m $34.6m $35.4m $80.3m $59.8m 80 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 34 outlines the long-term replacement needs for the Town's facilities portfolio through 2074, highlighting expected reinvestment cycles across short-, medium-, and long-term periods. Average annual requirements are estimated at $4.9 million, which can serve as a guiding benchmark for capital budgeting and reserve planning to reduce the risk of deferral. Replacement needs are projected to rise over the next two decades, beginning with $24.2 million in the current decade and reaching a peak of $80.7 million in the mid- to late-2050s. Given the long service lives of facility assets and the complex systems they house-- such as HVAC, electrical, and roofing--effective long-term planning will benefit from integrating component-level renewal strategies, not just full-structure replacements. These findings reinforce the importance of ongoing condition assessments, like those completed in 2024, to refine timing and scope of interventions, ensure buildings remain functional, and optimize use of limited capital funds. Figure 34 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Facilities: 2025-2074 81 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Table 19 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Facilities Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $1.8m $2.0m $2.1m $2.2m $2.3m $2.3m $2.4m $2.4m $2.5m $2.5m $2.8m $2.9m $2.9m $299k $3.0m $3.1m $3.2m $3.2m $3.3m $3.4m $326k $332k $339k $346k $353k $360k $367k $374k $382k $389k $5.0m $5.1m $5.3m $2.8m $5.7m $5.8m $5.9m $6.1m $6.2m $6.3m Facility Expenses Vehicle/Equipment Sub-total Capital $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $999k $6.0m $6.1m $6.3m $3.8m $6.7m $6.8m $6.9m $7.1m $7.2m $7.3m Sub-total Total Facilities expenses include maintenance of utility systems (e.g., electrical, plumbing, and natural gas) as well as repairs to doors, flooring, roofing, and both interior and exterior walls (including painting). This ongoing maintenance, combined with regular cleaning, ensures that facilities remain in good repair. Equipment varies widely across facilities such as arenas, aquatics centers, and fitness spaces. It includes essential components like HVAC systems, lighting, arena refrigeration, and sound systems, among others. Some maintenance activities are required by regulation, while others follow or exceed manufacturers' recommendations. Equipment expenses often increase as assets age and parts become more difficult to source. Additionally, some equipment is highly specialized and requires servicing and training beyond the scope of in-house staff. Maintaining safe and properly functioning equipment helps minimize service disruptions and supports reliable operations. Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, and asset type. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Assets (good) $19,335,155.00 35 Assets (poor) $49,205,862.00 12 Assets (very poor) $10,533,700.00 7 Assets (very poor) $4,015,671.00 4 Assets (very poor) $3,965,91 1.00 5 27 Assets (very good) $7,281,863.00 53 Assets (fair) $17,651,587.00 28 Assets (poor) $10,077,436.00 9 Assets (very poor) $2,547,083.00 4 Assets (very poor) $3,583,307.00 4 e 41 Assets (very good) $8,948,750.00 104 Assets (good) $5,695,280.00 76 Assets (fair) $3,671,596.00 22 Assets (poor) $1 ,233,777.00 5 Assets (very poor) $316,908.00 3 42 Assets (very good) $389,706.00 140 Assets (very good) $1,156,558.00 175 Assets (good) $1,399,884.00 58 Assets (fair) $389,898.00 21 Assets (poor) $255,329.00 2 1 Asset (very good) $1 ,415.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 6 Assets (very good) $14,593.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 9 Assets (good) $12,301 .00 2 3 4 5 Probability Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 35 Risk Matrix - Facilities 1 1 83 In addition to asset level risk, the Town may also face risk associated with not executing key lifecycle activities, including repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of critical assets. These include: - Missed opportunities to achieve cost savings and avoid higher lifecycle costs by addressing maintenance needs proactively; - Deferral of critical facility projects, which may increase financial pressures or require additional borrowing to address urgent needs later; - Accelerated deterioration of building systems (e.g., HVAC, electrical, roofing) and interior/exterior finishes, potentially leading to premature failures that impact occupant safety and service delivery; - A decline in public confidence in the Town's facilities, including perceptions of safety, cleanliness, and functionality, potentially harming the Town's reputation and service standards; - Failures of critical building systems (e.g., heating, cooling, electrical) can result in service interruptions, closures, and damage to other municipal infrastructure and assets; 84 Fleet LaSalle's fleet portfolio supports a wide range of municipal services, including protective services, transportation, parks and recreation, environmental services, and general government operations. The current replacement value of the Town's fleet assets is approximately $10.5 million. Protective services account for the largest share of this value at 53%, followed by transportation services at 31%. Inventory and Valuation Table 20 provides a detailed breakdown of fleet assets by service area, including the replacement cost and valuation methodology applied. Table 20 Detailed Asset Inventory - Fleet Primary Replacement Cost Method Unit of Measure Replacement Cost Segment Quantity % of Total Protective Services 28 Assets User defined and CPI $5,538,951 53% 23 Assets CPI $3,204,905 31% 18 Assets CPI $944,357 9% 8 Assets CPI $489,506 5% 9 Assets CPI $281,138 3% Transportation Services Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services General Government Total 86 $10,458,857 100% 85 Asset Condition Figure 36 shows that a significant portion of LaSalle's fleet assets--around 50%--are in poor or very poor condition. While a quarter are rated as very good and others remain in fair or good condition, the distribution suggests that many vehicles may be approaching the end of their service life and could require renewal in the near term. Figure 36 Asset Condition - Fleet Very Poor, $780k, 7% Poor, $4.5m, 43% Fair, $682k, 6% Good, $2.0m, 19% Very Good, $2.6m, 25% The condition of fleet assets varies by department. Protective services and transportation services have the largest share of vehicles in poor or very poor condition, indicating a higher likelihood of near-term replacement needs. In contrast, most fleet assets in general government and environmental services are in very good condition, suggesting limited short-term pressures. Parks and recreation services show a mixed profile, with a blend of assets across all condition categories. 86 87 Figure 37 Asset Condition - Fleet - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Protective Services Transportation Services Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services General Government $187 k (3%) $1.7 m (30%) $3.3 m (61%) $334 k (6%) $1.4 m (43%) $49 k (1%) $638 k (20%) $826 k (26%) $322 k (10%) $494 k (53%) $161 k (17%) $44 k (5%) $122 k (12%) $124 k (13%) $272 k (55%) $87 k (19%) $130 k (26%) $243 k (87%) $37 k (13%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% D 16 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 38 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 38 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Fleet Weighted Age Weighted EUL 15 Years Age analysis indicates that most fleet assets are in the latter half of their expected service life, particularly in protective and transportation services, where average ages are nearing their estimated limits. While immediate replacements may not be required across all segments, continued monitoring and phased reinvestment will be important over the next few years. 13 9 6 6 5 9 8 8 7 Protective Services Transportation Services Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services General Government 0 8 88 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management LaSalle staff manage fleet assets by tracking their age, condition, and usage to ensure vehicles remain safe, reliable, and cost-effective. Regular maintenance and planned replacements help reduce breakdowns and keep services running smoothly. Table 21 Fleet Lifecycle Strategy Activity Type Description of Current Strategy Maintenance & Inspection Light duty vehicles (ex Pickup Trucks) are inspected three times per year. Heavy duty vehicles (ex Plow Trucks) are inspected two times per year. Additional fleet inspections occur from time to time when issues with each specific unit come up. These are typically also completed by on-staff mechanics. Rehabilitation & Replacement Light duty vehicles - 10 years Heavy duty vehicles - 10 years Fleet replacement decisions consider asset downtime, maintenance costs, and value on-trade in against the total cost of ownership and the asset's existing utility. A well performing fleet asset will continue to be utilized beyond its expected useful life; in contrast a poor performing asset may be replaced in advance of its expected useful life. 89 I I I ---- , -------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- -------- 1 -------------- ----- - - - - Forecasted Replacements Needs $10m $5m $0 $1.6m $994k $9.9m $8.8m $10.2m $9.8m $10.3m Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Protective Services Transportation Services Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services General Government Annual Requirements 90 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 39 illustrates forecasted capital replacement needs for fleet assets from 2025 to 2074. Replacement requirements are expected to rise sharply in the near term, with a backlog of approximately $2.6 million and a peak in the 2025-2034 period at $9.9 million. While total needs dip slightly in the following decades, they remain stable through the entire planning horizon, averaging close to $9 million per decade. On average, $1.6 million is required annually to keep current with replacement needs. Protective and transportation services account for the majority of projected reinvestment. Meeting these needs will require consistent annual funding to avoid further backlog accumulation and ensure reliable service delivery across all departments. Figure 39 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Fleet: 2025-2074 91 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Table 22 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Fleet Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $243.8k $253.1k $262.8k $273.0k $283.5k $294.3k $300.2k $306.2k $312.3k $318.6k $607.8k $622.4k $637.3k $652.6k $668.3k $684.6k $698.3k $712.3k $726.5k $741.0k $851.6k $875.5k $900.1k $925.6k $951.8k $978.9k $998.5k $1.02m $1.04m $1.06m Equipment Expenses Sub-total Capital $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $434k $1.3m $1.3m $1.3m $1.4m $1.4m $1.4m $1.4m $1.5m $1.5m $1.5m Sub-total Total Fleet expenses include fuel, fuels systems, maintenance, mechanic supplies and small capital equipment. The equipment covers a wide range of unique pieces such as light duty, medium duty and specialized vehicles. Of these vehicles many are outfitted with additional equipment. Equipment (maintenance) expenses rise as equipment becomes dated and parts become more difficult to find. In addition, some of our equipment is very complicated and/or requires specialized servicing and training that is beyond our staff expertise. Ensuring safe and properly operating equipment contributes to fewer disruptions in service. $1.06m Sub-total Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, and condition. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 92 Q Q Q ~ ~ Q Q Q Q ca Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 40 Risk Matrix - Fleet 0 Assets (good) $0.00 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 2 Assets (very poor) $2,499,859.00 5 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 2 Assets (fair) $1,073,843.00 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 3 Assets (very poor) $1,376,826.00 2 Assets (very poor) $496,1 32.00 4 C onsequenc e 9 Assets (very good) $965,757.00 13 Assets (good) $1,097,738.00 2 Assets (fair) $128,250.00 2 Assets (poor) $110,739.00 8 Assets (very poor) $380,505.00 3 8 Assets (very good) $525,463.00 6 Assets (very good) $300,839.00 3 Assets (good) $210,232.00 5 Assets (fair) $232,569.00 8 Assets (poor) $636,134.00 2 3 Assets (very good) $1 23,170.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 1 Asset (very good) $44,060.00 5 Assets (good) $146,143.00 2 3 4 5 Probability 1 1 93 The Town's fleet assets are essential to delivering core municipal services, from road maintenance to emergency response. Risks emerge when key lifecycle activities--such as routine maintenance and timely replacements--are deferred or overlooked. - Delayed maintenance or replacements can result in increased breakdowns and costly repairs, impacting fleet reliability and service delivery. - Older vehicles may become difficult to repair, with parts that are harder to source and more expensive, further driving up maintenance costs. - A less reliable fleet can hinder essential services such as snow removal and emergency response, potentially compromising public safety. - Frequent breakdowns and service disruptions can erode public confidence in the Town's ability to maintain essential services. - Staff productivity may decline as a result of unreliable vehicles, leading to higher operational costs and potential service delays. Investing in proactive maintenance and timely replacements ensures that fleet assets remain reliable, cost-effective, and ready to meet the Town's operational needs. 94 95 Machinery & Equipment LaSalle's Machinery & Equipment portfolio supports a wide range of municipal services, including protective services, transportation, parks and recreation, environmental services, and general government operations. The current replacement value of these assets is $16.2 million. Parks and recreation account for the largest share of this value at 37%, followed by transportation services at 30%. Inventory and Valuation Table 23 provides a detailed breakdown of machinery and equipment assets by service area, including the replacement cost and valuation methodology applied. For simplicity, smaller assets may be pooled. Table 23 Detailed Asset Inventory - Machinery & Equipment Unit of Measure Replacement Cost Segment Quantity % of Total Primary Replacement Cost Method Parks & Recreation Services 196 Assets User defined and CPI $5,936,946 37% 82 Assets CPI $4,904,630 30% 19 Assets CPI $3,735,969 23% 55 Assets User defined and CPI $1,304,813 8% 8 Assets CPI $291,463 2% Transportation Services Environmental Services Protective Services General Government Total 360 $16,173,821 100% Figure 41 Asset Condition shows that 67% of the Town's machinery and equipment assets are in fair to very good condition, suggesting that most assets are currently serviceable with appropriate maintenance. However, 33% of assets fall into poor or very poor condition, indicating a significant portion of the portfolio may require near-term attention or replacement to avoid service disruptions and escalating maintenance costs. Figure 41 Asset Condition - Machinery & Equipment Very Poor, $3.5m, 22% Poor, $1.8m, 11% Fair, $4.7m, 29% Good, $1.2m, 8% Very Good, $4.9m, 30% Across service areas, as illustrated in Figure 42, parks and recreation and transportation services have the largest value of assets in poor or very poor condition, highlighting areas that may need priority attention. General government assets, while smaller in value, include a notable portion in poor condition. 96 97 Figure 42 Asset Condition - Machinery & Equipment - By Segment Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services Environmental Services Protective Services General Government $1.6 m (28%) $327 k (5%) $725 k (12%) $498 k (9%) $2.7 m (46%) $2.0 m (41%) $372 k (8%) $1.1 m (22%) $1.1 m (22%) $295 k (7%) $531 k (15%) $124 k (3%) $2.9 m (76%) $172 k (5%) $30 k (1%) $623 k (48%) $375 k (29%) $37 k (2%) $270 k (21%) $102 k (35%) $6 k (2%) $9 k (3%) $15 k (5%) $160 k (55%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 43 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 43 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Machinery & Equipment Years 19 11 13 9 10 14 15 17 15 14 Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services Environmental Services Protective Services General Government Weighted Age Weighted EUL Age analysis indicates that most machinery and equipment assets are well into the latter half of their expected service life, particularly in protective and transportation services, where average ages are nearing their estimated limits. While immediate replacements may not be required across all areas, continued monitoring and phased reinvestment will be important over the next few years. 20 10 0 98 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management LaSalle staff manage Machinery & Equipment assets by tracking their age, condition, and usage to ensure vehicles remain safe, reliable, and cost-effective. Regular maintenance and planned replacements help reduce breakdowns and keep services running smoothly. Table 24 Machinery & Equipment Lifecycle Strategy Activity Type Description of Current Strategy Maintenance & Inspection Machinery and equipment assets used in the summertime (i.e., mowers) are inspected each spring. All identified repairs are completed in house. Staff are required to complete pre-use inspections of all commercial machinery and equipment assets. Any identified issues are escalated to supervisory review and if needed to the mechanic for inspection and safety determination. All staff are trained in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for each equipment. Upon use, staff are expected to complete a visual inspection of the assets based on the SOP. Rehabilitation & Replacement Where an asset is in otherwise good repair, failing components may be rehabilitated or replaced. To ensure there are equipment back-ups on hand, the Town's replacement schedule seeks where possible to have two assets of the same type with one older and other newer. This reduces the chances of both assets failing simultaneously and mitigates resultant operational impacts. Replacement decisions consider the assets age, condition, and performance. 99 - - - - - --------------1----------------------- - - - - Figure 44 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs illustrates the Town's forecasted capital replacement needs for machinery and equipment from 2025 to 2074. Average annual requirement is approximately $1.1 million. The analysis highlights a current backlog of $2.9 million, with needs rising to $6.7 million in the current decade and peaking at $13 million in 2035-2044. Requirements then stabilize while remaining high, between $8.6 million and $10.2 million in the later decades. Parks, recreation, and transportation services make up the largest share of these needs. Not all forecasted needs will require full replacement; condition assessments and risk-based analysis will help refine actual requirements, while regular maintenance in line with the Town's lifecycle strategy will help extend lifespans. Figure 44 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Machinery & Equipment: 2025-2074 Forecasted Replacements Needs $15m $13.0m $11.9m $10.2m $10m $6.7m $5m $2.9m $0 $1.1m $8.6m Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services Environmental Services Protective Services General Government Annual Requirements 100 101 Wages and Benefits Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Table 25 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Machinery & Equipment Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $617k $632k $648k $664k $680k $697k $711k $725k $740k $754k $617k $632k $648k $664k $680k $697k $711k $725k $740k $754k Vehicle/Equipment Sub-total Capital $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $109k $726k $741k $757k $773k $789k $806k $819k $834k $848k $863k Sub-total Total Machinery & Equipment expenses include fuel, fuels systems, maintenance, mechanic supplies and small capital equipment. The equipment covers a wide range of unique pieces such as light duty, medium duty and specialized vehicles. Of these vehicles many are outfitted with additional equipment. Equipment (maintenance) expenses rise as equipment becomes dated and parts become more difficult to find. In addition, some of our equipment is very complicated and/or requires specialized servicing and training that is beyond our staff expertise. Ensuring safe and properly operating equipment contributes to fewer disruptions in service. Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, and condition. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 102 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 45 Risk Matrix - Machinery & Equipment: 2 Assets (good) $232,865.00 1 Asset (poor) $203,309.00 1 Asset (very poor) $2,830,904.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 1 Asset (very poor) $171,944.00 5 17 Assets (very good) $1 ,289,847.00 17 Assets (fair) $673,406.00 4 Assets (poor) $200,272.00 2 Assets (very poor) $181,49 1.00 7 Assets (very poor) $255,225.00 4 Co nse quenc e 31 Assets (very good) $1,415,976.00 28 Assets (good) $646,905.00 10 Assets (fair) $546,857.00 5 Assets (poor) $559,918.00 32 Assets (very poor) $1 ,928,679.00 3 25 Assets (very good) $603,467.00 10 Assets (very good) $522,286.00 9 Assets (good) $502,183.00 17 Assets (fair) $605,222.00 62 Assets (poor) $1,300,800.00 2 13 Assets (very good) $571,484.00 2 Assets (very good) $35,538.00 4 Assets (very good) $286,41 8.00 12 Assets (very good) $114,025.00 36 Assets (good) $258,158.00 2 3 4 5 Probability 1 1 103 For the Town's fleet-type machinery and equipment, deferring key maintenance, repairs, or replacements can have adverse consequences and pose substantial risk to the Town. Neglecting these lifecycle activities may lead to higher operating and repair costs as small issues compound into larger problems, especially for equipment that operates intensively year- round in parks, transportation, and protective services. This can also result in accelerated wear and premature failures that disrupt critical services, such as snow clearing, parks maintenance, and fire response, potentially compromising safety and delaying response times. As equipment ages, parts may become harder to source or more expensive, making timely interventions even more important. Without a consistent focus on lifecycle management, the Town risks undermining public confidence in its ability to deliver essential services and maintain reliable operations. Assessing the criticality of each asset--based on its role in delivering essential services and the consequences of its failure--can help prioritize where and when to invest in repairs and replacements. 104 Information Technology LaSalle's Information Technology portfolio support services across all municipal areas-- including general government, parks and recreation, environmental services, protective services, and transportation services. These IT assets may include servers, computers, networking equipment, and other technology systems essential for municipal operations and service delivery. The total replacement cost of these assets was estimated at $4.6 million, with most concentrated within general government services. Inventory and Valuation Table 26 provides a detailed breakdown of Information Technology assets by service area, including the replacement cost and valuation methodology applied. For simplicity, smaller IT assets may be pooled together. Table 26 Detailed Asset Inventory - Information Technology Segment Quantity Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost % of Total General Government 86 Assets CPI $2,258,215 49% 24 Assets CPI $795,415 17% 9 Assets CPI and User defined $771,702 17% 43 Assets CPI $764,106 17% 1 Asset CPI $1,701 <1% Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services Protective Services Transportation Services Total 163 $4,591,139 100% 105 Asset Condition Figure 46 shows that just over half of the Town's IT assets are in poor to very poor condition (52%), with the remainder rated as fair or better. While some of these assets are important for service delivery, most are relatively easy to replace and are not considered critical. Figure 46 Asset Condition - Information Technology Very Poor, $64k, 1% Poor, $2.3m, 51% Fair, $682k, 15% Good, $987k, 22% Very Good, $526k, 11% Figure 47 provides further details of IT asset condition at the service area level. The bar chart reveals that most service areas show noticeable portions of assets in poor condition. However, these are not typically expensive assets, and they do not necessarily require detailed condition assessments. Instead, they can be replaced as part of a broader IT upgrade strategy or on an as-needed basis. This approach ensures that the Town can maintain service delivery without major risk or disruption. 106 Figure 47 Asset Condition - Information Technology - By Segment General Government Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services Protective Services Transportation Services Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor $98 k (5%) $637 k (27%) $458 k (21%) $1.0 m (45%) $53 k (2%) $136 k (17%) $217 k (27%) $224 k (28%) $209 k (27%) $9 k (1%) $57 k (8%) $715 k (92%) $235 k (30%) $133 k (18%) $397 k (52%) $2 k (100%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 107 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 48 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 48 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Information Technology Weighted Age Weighted EUL 7 6 13 7 4 5 7 10 6 4 Years General Government Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services Protective Services Transportation Services Age analysis indicates that most Information Technology assets are in the latter half of their expected service life, or have fully consumed it. Given that these are relatively simple and easily replaceable assets--such as computers, desktops, and printers--they can often be upgraded or replaced as part of a broader IT strategy rather than requiring urgent attention. 0 7 14 108 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management LaSalle staff manage Information Technology assets by tracking their age, condition, and usage to ensure vehicles remain safe, reliable, and cost-effective. Regular maintenance and planned replacements help reduce breakdowns and keep services running smoothly. Table 27 Information Technology Lifecycle Strategy Activity Type Description of Current Strategy Maintenance & Inspection Information Technology equipment inspections and maintenance are scheduled as well as performed on an ongoing basis to promote safe, secure and the required performance capability that meets the needs of the municipality. Rehabilitation & Replacement Assets are replaced on an as needed basis or as part of a larger replacement program. Replacement is generally based on the asset's age relative to its expected useful life or in the event of asset failure. Other considerations also include the user's needs and whether existing assets can meet that need. 109 $9.4m $10m $8.7m $8.6m $8.0m $8.0m $5m $818k $868k $0 Figure 49 Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs shows the Town's forecasted capital replacement needs for information technology assets from 2025 to 2074. The analysis highlights annual needs of $868k, a modest backlog of approximately $818k, and needs increasing to $8.6 million in the first decade and peaking at $9.4 million in 2045-2054. Projected requirements then stabilize between $8.0 million and $8.7 million in the later decades. Overall, these replacement needs primarily cover readily replaceable assets--such as computers, desktops, and related IT equipment--that can be phased in through regular refresh cycles or as part of broader IT strategy updates rather than requiring immediate replacements. Figure 49 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Information Technology: 2025-2074 Forecasted Replacements Needs Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 General Government Parks & Recreation Services Environmental Services Protective Services Transportation Services Annual Requirements 110 111 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, significant operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025- 2030 Capital Plan. Table 28 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Information Technology Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $813k $835k $858k $881k $906k $930k $949k $968k $987k $1.0m $860k $923k $934k $946k $958k $970k $989k $1.0m $1.0m $1.0m $1.7m $1.8m $1.8m $1.8m $1.9m $1.9m $1.9m $2.0m $2.0m $2.1m Communication, Licensing, Equipment, and IT Expenses Sub-total Capital $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $253k $1.9m $2.0m $2.0m $2.1m $2.1m $2.2m $2.2m $2.2m $2.3m $2.3m Sub-total Total Information technology communication expenses include multiple forms of communication with respect to operating activities including corporate land and mobile phone services. Licensing expenses covers the wide range of software licensing used in municipal operations, including financial, administrative, and operational software used in providing environmental, recreation and protective services. In addition, the equipment and information services continue to increase in complexity and requires specialized servicing and training. Ensuring safe, secure, and properly operating information technology equipment contributes to the Town's service levels. Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, and condition. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 1 Asset (good) $123,754.00 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 2 Assets (very poor) $722,873.00 5 5 Assets (very good) $108,020.00 2 Assets (fair) $41,157.00 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 14 Assets (very poor) $842,285.00 4 ce 9 Assets (very good) $120,015.00 13 Assets (good) $287,355.00 7 Assets (fair) $528,767.00 4 Assets (poor) $212,690.00 14 Assets (very poor) $492,699.00 3 7 Assets (very good) $140,317.00 17 Assets (very good) $297,801.00 19 Assets (good) $237,51 1.00 9 Assets (fair) $64,541.00 13 Assets (poor) $303,500.00 2 3 Assets (very good) $7,908.00 2 Assets (very good) $5,889.00 11 Assets (very good) $29,601.00 4 Assets (very good) $7,829.00 7 Assets (good) $1 6,627.00 2 3 4 5 Probability 1 1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 112 Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. Figure 50 Risk Matrix - Information Technology: 113 While the Town's information technology assets--such as computers, desktops, printers, and some servers--play an important role in supporting services, they are generally easy to replace and not considered critical to core operations. Risks associated with delaying maintenance or replacements include: - Potential increases in lifecycle costs as outdated technology becomes more expensive to maintain and support; - Deferred upgrades or replacements that can limit staff productivity or efficiency, especially when equipment does not meet modern software or security requirements; - Accelerated deterioration of IT equipment that can lead to temporary service slowdowns or minor disruptions; - Lower public confidence if IT-related issues (e.g., slow systems, outdated interfaces) are perceived as affecting the quality of service delivery; Given the nature of these assets, a phased, planned upgrade approach--aligned with overall IT strategy--can manage these risks effectively without major impact on core municipal services. 114 115 Land Improvements LaSalle's Land Improvement assets encompass a variety of assets that enhance the Town's parks, recreation areas, and community spaces. These assets include fencing, signs, landscaping, parks, sports courts and fields, playgrounds, and gardens--elements that contribute to both aesthetics and community well-being. The total replacement cost for these assets is estimated at $27.5 million. Inventory and Valuation Table 29 provides a detailed breakdown of Land Improvements assets by service area. Table 29 Detailed Asset Inventory - Land Improvements Unit of Measure Primary Replacement Cost Method Replacement Cost Segment Quantity % of Total Parks & Recreation Services 134 Assets CPI $24,083,443 88% 18 Assets CPI $1,094,490 4% 6 Assets CPI $1,069,452 4% 2 Assets CPI $915,202 3% 5 Assets CPI $352,742 1% Transportation Services General Government Environmental Services Protective Services Total 165 $27,515,329 100% Asset Condition Figure 51 shows that the majority of Land Improvement assets are in poor to very poor condition, based only on age data. Many of these assets may still be functional and safe, but their age-based ratings indicate they could benefit from further review and a planned approach to renewals, replacements, and improvements as needed. Figure 51 Asset Condition - Land Improvements Good, $961k, 3% Fair, $1.8m, 7% Very Poor, $16.4m, 60% Poor, $3.6m, 13% Very Good, $4.7m, 17% Figure 52 provides further details of land improvement assets across different service areas. 116 - - - - - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 117 Figure 52 Asset Condition - Land Improvements - By Segment Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services General Government Environmental Services Protective Services Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor $4.7 m (19%) $961 k (5%)$1.7 m (7%)$775 k (4%) $15.9 m (65%) $59 k (5%) $44 k (4%) $966 k (91%) $31 k (9%) $322 k (91%) $637 k (58%) $457 k (42%) $915 k (100%) 0 10 Age Profile An asset's age profile comprises two key values: estimated useful life (EUL), or design life; and the percentage of EUL consumed. The EUL is the serviceable lifespan of an asset during which it can continue to fulfil its intended purpose and provide value to users, safely and efficiently. As assets age, their performance diminishes, often more rapidly as they approach the end of their design life. In conjunction with condition data, an asset's age profile provides a more complete summary of the state of infrastructure. It can help identify assets that may be candidates for further review through condition assessment programs; inform the selection of optimal lifecycle strategies; and improve planning for potential replacement spikes. Figure 53 illustrates the average current age of each asset type and its estimated useful life. Both values are weighted by the replacement cost of individual assets. Figure 53 Estimated Useful Life vs. Asset Age - Land Improvements 17 23 18 14 15 10 15 11 15 11 Years Weighted Age Weighted EUL Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services General Government Environmental Services Protective Services Age analysis indicates that most Land Improvements assets are in the latter half of their expected service life. However, the overwhelming majority of these assets are non-critical, and may continue to function effectively despite fully consuming their service life. Routine inspections, particularly for playground equipment, can help detect assets that require repairs or replacements. 20 118 Current Approach to Lifecycle Management LaSalle staff manage Land Improvements assets by tracking their age, condition, and usage to ensure vehicles remain safe, reliable, and cost-effective. Regular maintenance and planned replacements help reduce breakdowns and keep services running smoothly. Table 30 Land Improvements Lifecycle Strategy Activity Type Description of Current Strategy Maintenance & Inspection On a weekly basis, grass is cut at Town parks. During this time, a walk-through inspection of land improvement assets is conducted, and work orders issued for identified deficiencies. The grass is cut on a 5-day rotation during rapid growth season, and a 7-day rotation during slower growth months. Courts are inspected regularly, and deficiencies repaired as necessary. Residents can submit concerns to the Town regarding the state of land improvement assets such as parks, courts fields etc. Concerns are reviewed, triaged and responded to accordingly. Rehabilitation & Replacement The Town of LaSalle has published and is in the process of developing a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The purpose of doing so is to better understand current and projected future needs. The Town of LaSalle continues to advance replacement and rehabilitation projects. 119 $30m eeds $25.4m N s $20.3m ent em ac $15.6m epl ted R $15m $11.5m $10.4m $10.4m as ec or F $0 Backlog 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 Parks & Recreation Services Transportation Services General Government Environmental Services Protective Services Annual Requirements Forecasted Long-term Replacement Needs Figure 54 shows the Town's forecasted capital replacement requirements for land improvements from 2025 to 2074. The analysis highlights annual needs of $1.7 million, a backlog of $10.4 million, followed by needs ranging from $10.4 million to $25.4 million in the forecasted decades. The largest replacement needs are projected in 2065-2074, totaling $25.4 million. Parks & Recreation Services account for the majority of replacement costs across all time periods, reflecting the high value and volume of outdoor infrastructure like fencing, playgrounds, sports fields and courts, and landscaping. Smaller contributions from other services--such as Environmental Services and Protective Services--are also included but are comparatively minor. Figure 54 Forecasted Capital Replacement Requirements - Land Improvements: 2025-2074 ------------------- ----------------------- --------7-------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------- ----· - - - - $1.7m 120 121 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures The table below summarizes the planned capital, operating, and maintenance expenditures as outlined in LaSalle's 2025-2030 Capital Plan. Table 31 Planned Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Expenditures- Land Improvements Expenditure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits $1.2m $1.3m $1.3m $1.3m $1.4m $1.4m $1.4m $1.5m $1.5m $1.5m $417k $427k $438k $448k $459k $470k $479k $489k $499k $509k $203k $208k $213k $218k $224k $230k $235k $239k $244k $249k $1.8m $1.9m $2.0m $2.0m $2.1m $2.1m $2.1m $2.2m $2.2m $2.3m Parks Maintenance Expenses Vollmer Complex Expenses Sub-total Capital $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $297k $2.1m $2.2m $2.2m $2.3m $2.4m $2.4m $2.4m $2.5m $2.5m $2.6m Sub-total Total Parks Maintenance expenses include park grass mowing, parks tree maintenance, inspections services, equipment rental, Town flowers, and other day-to-day activities to keep parks at current service levels. Vollmer Complex expenses include field fertilizer, seed, paint and other miscellaneous expenses related to the day to day activities of the Vollmer soccer and baseball fields. Operating & Maintenance Wages and Benefits Parks Maintenance Expenses Vollmer Complex Expenses Sub-total Capital Sub-total Total Risk Analysis The risk matrix below is generated using available asset data, such as service life remaining, replacement costs, and condition. The risk ratings for assets without useful attribute data were calculated using only age, service life remaining, and their replacement costs. The matrix classifies assets based on their individual probability and likelihood of failure, each scored from 1 to 5. Their product generates a risk index ranging from 1-25. Assets with the highest criticality and likelihood of failure receive a risk rating of 25; those with lowest probability of failure and lowest criticality carry a risk rating of 1. As new data and information is gathered, the Town may consider integrating relevant information that improves confidence in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality. These risk models have been built into the Town's Asset Management Database (CityWide Asset Manager). See 122 Q Q Q ~ ~ Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Risk and Criticality section for further details on approach used to determine asset risk ratings and classifications. 1 Asset (good) $216,037.00 0 Assets (poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 0 Assets (very poor) $0.00 5 9 Assets (very good) $3,758,349.00 4 Assets (fair) $1 ,111,635.00 1 Asset (poor) $522,779.00 8 Assets (very poor) $3,120,030.00 25 Assets (very poor) $14,866,657.00 4 e 23 Assets (very good) $760,008.00 8 Assets (good) $557,092.00 6 Assets (fair) $259,633.00 12 Assets (poor) $491,460.00 44 Assets (very poor) $1,513,470.00 3 2 Assets (very good) $36,007.00 10 Assets (very good) $244,860.00 0 Assets (good) $0.00 1 Asset (fair) $4,001 .00 3 Assets (poor) $16,082.00 2 2 Assets (very good) $16,828.00 4 Assets (very good) $20,401.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 0 Assets (very good) $0.00 0 Assets (good) $0.00 2 3 4 5 Probability Figure 55 Risk Matrix - Land Improvements: 1 1 123 While the Town's land improvement assets contribute to community well-being, they are generally not considered critical to core services. Risks associated with delaying maintenance or replacements include: - Increased maintenance costs and lifecycle expenses due to progressive wear and tear, especially for assets like sports fields, courts, and play structures; - Deferral of renewals that could lead to visible deterioration, impacting the aesthetics and usability of parks and public spaces; - Safety risks if neglected assets (e.g., damaged fencing, worn playground surfaces) create hazards for users; - Declining public satisfaction if parks and community areas appear neglected, which could erode trust in the Town's ability to maintain public spaces; Given that these assets are typically straightforward to replace or renew, a phased, planned approach--aligned with the Town's parks and recreation strategy--can effectively manage these risks and support a safe, attractive, and enjoyable community environment. 124 Levels of Service Levels of service (LOS) measure the quality and quantity of service provided, and offer direction for infrastructure investments. They are necessary for performance tracking and reporting. Many agencies attempt to deliver levels of service that cannot be sustainably funded by the existing tax base. This can lead to an eventual drop in quality of service, or increases to tax and utility rates to fund higher service levels. LOS should be affordable and aligned with the community's long-term vision for itself, and the service attributes it most values for different infrastructure programs. Community Levels of Service Community levels of service are a simple, plain language description or measure of the service that the community receives. For core asset categories (Roads, Bridges & Culverts, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater) the Province, through O. Reg. 588/17, has provided qualitative descriptions that are required to be included in this AMP. Technical Levels of Service Technical levels of service are a measure of key technical attributes of the service being provided to the community. These include mostly quantitative measures and tend to reflect the impact of the Town's asset management strategies on the physical condition of assets or the quality/capacity of the services they provide. For core asset categories (Roads, Bridges & Culverts, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater) the province, through O. Reg. 588/17, has also provided technical metrics that are required to be included in this AMP. 125 Current and Proposed Levels of Service This AMP includes both the current and proposed levels of service metrics for all assets. Through a series of detailed staff discussions, known as discovery sessions, the Town examined current performance, operational pressures, service gaps, and future planning considerations. These discussions revealed that, overall, the existing service levels meet community and operational expectations, and therefore, the LOS targets are largely set to maintain current levels. This balanced approach reflects a commitment to affordability, operational capacity, and community needs. This section summarizes the outcomes of these discovery sessions, and provides a summary of current and anticipated levels of service. In addition to the metrics required under O. Reg. 588/17, the Town has developed its own performance measures to provide a more comprehensive performance tracking framework. For each asset category, both the current and proposed Capital Reinvestment Rates are identified. The financial strategy--prepared for Council's consideration--is intended to gradually align LaSalle's financial capacity with this critical performance benchmark. 126 Road Network and Bridges & Culverts Current Performance and Service Level Commitment The Town maintains a relatively stable road network with a current pavement condition index (PCI) of 70, weighted by replacement cost. No broad changes in service levels are planned, either for the Town's road network nor its bridges and structures portfolio. OSIM inspections are used to ensure all structures are maintained in a safe condition and state-of-good repair to support pedestrian and commercial traffic. Planned growth areas may lead to moderate lane-kilometre increases in collector and local road classes (C3-C6), with Sandwich West Parkway expansion contributing to future changes. No new bridges are planned for construction; however, an additional laneway is planned for one structure. A new OSIM is expected in 2025 and will inform future bridge work. Current Pressures and Emerging Trends Some road segments no longer meet current design standards because they lack features like curbs and gutters. Rather than continuing repairs that are becoming less effective, it would be better to fully replace the pavement structure and upgrade the underlying infrastructure to align with new standards. Although these segments represent a small portion of the overall network, the cost to bring them up to standard would be significant--around 4-5 times higher than a simple mill and pave. Continuing with mill and pave alone is becoming less effective, which could also lead to a decline in the average PCI. 127 Table 32 Community Levels of Service - Road Network Scope Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Description, which may include maps, of the road network in the Town and its level of connectivity. See Figure 56 Quality Description or images that illustrate the different levels of road class pavement condition. Table 33 Technical Levels of Service - Road Network Roads in very good condition exhibit smooth surfaces with minimal cracking or defects, while segments rated as good may have some visible wear but remain structurally sound. Fair condition indicates moderate cracking, patching, or minor surface distortions that affect ride quality but are still serviceable. Poor condition features more extensive cracking, potholes, or surface distress requiring significant repairs. A minimal portion of the Town's roads falls into the very poor category, which may show widespread deterioration and requiring immediate attention. Service Attribute Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Metric .845 Lane-km of arterial roads (MMS classes 1 and 2) per land area (km/km2) Scope 52.4 lane-km per 62km2 Maintain Lane-km of collector roads (MMS classes 3 and 4) per land area (km/km2) 1.371 Scope Maintain1 85 lane-km per 62km2 291.6 Lane-km of local roads (MMS classes 5 and 6) per land area (km/km2) Scope 4.703 lane-km per 62km2 Maintain1 Average pavement condition for paved roads in the Town Quality 70 Maintain Average surface condition for unpaved roads in the Town (e.g., excellent, good, fair, poor) Quality NA Maintain Percentage of local roads in fair or better condition Quality 97% Maintain Percentage of collector roads in fair or better condition Quality 96% Maintain Percentage of arterial roads in fair or better condition Quality 100% Maintain Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate (inc. Bridges & Culverts) 2.9% Maintain 1While the Town does not currently plan to significantly expand its collector or local road network, this is expected to change as new subdivisions are completed and development progresses. 128 129 _____----. ., .. - r Figure 56 Road Network Map 9 Table 34 Community Levels of Service - Bridges & Culverts Scope Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Description of the traffic that is supported by municipal bridges (e.g., heavy transport vehicles, motor vehicles, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists). Bridges support all traffic types, including vehicular and pedestrian. 1. Description or images of the condition of bridges and how this would affect use of the bridges. All Town structures are rated as fair or better, supporting safe and effective use for pedestrian and commercial traffic. 2. Description or images of the condition of culverts and how this would affect use of the culverts. Quality Table 35 Technical Levels of Service - Bridges and Culverts Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Scope Percentage of bridges in the Town with loading or dimensional restrictions. 26% 6 of 23 structures Maintain 1. For bridges in the Town, the average bridge condition index value. 2. For structural culverts in the Town, the average bridge condition index value. Percentage of bridges and culverts in fair or better condition 71 67 95% Maintain Maintain Maintain Quality Quality Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate (inc. Road Networks) 2.9% Maintain 130 Stormwater Network Current Performance and Service Level Commitment Service levels are expected to remain stable, with new developments driving upgrades , including the transition from gravity-fed to pressure systems and the construction of two additional pump stations. Current Pressures and Emerging Trends Population growth and new developments place additional demands on stormwater infrastructure, often requiring system expansions or upgrades to manage increased runoff and more impervious surfaces. These developments can also affect the type and complexity of stormwater systems needed, such as shifting from traditional gravity-fed sewers to engineered solutions like pressure sewers and additional pump stations. Table 36 Community Levels of Service - Stormwater Network Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Scope Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the Town that are protected from flooding, including the extent of the protection provided by the municipal stormwater management system. The majority of Town's municipal stormwater system is designed to provide protection from 5-year storm flows which is the standard for local storm sewer design guidelines. In addition, the Town operates stormwater management ponds, stormwater sewers, drains and catch basins to store, direct and control stormwater runoff. Service Attribute Metric Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Table 37 Technical Levels of Service - Stormwater Network Scope Percentage of properties in municipality resilient to a 100- year storm. This information is being determined. The majority of Town's municipal stormwater system is designed to provide protection from 5-year storm flows which is the standard for local storm sewer design guidelines. Percentage of the municipal stormwater management system resilient to a 5-year storm. Maintain Quality Percentage of stormwater mains in fair or better condition 95% Maintain Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate 0.9% 2.0% 131 Water Networks Current Performance and Service Level Commitment Water system performance remains strong, with near-universal service coverage and no reported boil water advisories or significant connection interruptions. No large-scale, programmatic changes to service levels are planned at this time. As new developments are completed, the Town will assume ownership of the associated infrastructure and incorporate them into its lifecycle management practices. Watermain breaks are declining year over year, indicating ongoing system reliability. The water system is operating at a high standard, with targeted upgrades supporting continued reliability. Ongoing capital investments will ensure the Town keeps pace with growth and aging infrastructure. Current Pressures and Emerging Trends Watermain replacement programs are focusing on converting older metallic mains to PVC and upsizing from 6" to 8" diameter. These efforts are modernizing the network and supporting long- term resilience. While the system is performing well, upgrades and replacements contribute to an increase in annual lifecycle requirements. The expanding service base and system enhancements are long-term drivers of reinvestment needs. LaSalle's planned conversion from 6" to 8" diameter watermains may generally result in higher annual replacement requirements due to increased material costs, larger pipe volume, and related installation expenses. However, the larger diameter may also provide operational benefits, such as increased flow capacity and improved fire protection, potentially reducing the frequency of repairs or the need for certain maintenance activities. Further, the simultaneous conversion to PVC from metallic may reduce annual requirements. These trade-offs should be considered when updating long-term capital forecasts and asset management plans. 132 Table 38 Community Levels of Service - Water Network Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Scope 1. Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that are connected to the municipal water system. 2. Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that ha ve fire flow. More than 99% of all properties, ex cluding vacant land, within LaSalle are c o nn ected to the municipal water system and h ave fire flow . Reliability The Town experienced 16 water main breaks in 2023. No boil water advisories have been issued in the last two years. Description of boil water advisories and service interruptions. Table 39 Technical Levels of Service - Water Network Service Attribute Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Qualitative Description Scope Percentage of properties connected to the municipal water system. Maintain >99% Scope Percentage of properties where fire flow is available. The number of connection-days per year where a boil water advisory notice is in place compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal water system. >99% 0.0 Maintain Maintain The number of connection-days per year due to water main breaks compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal water system. Percentage of watermains, by length, that are metallic, e.g., ductile iron or cast iron Percentage of pipes, by length, with a diameter of 200mm <0.0002 19% (43.6km of 226.7km) 43% Decrease1 Decrease Increase Reliability Reliability Reliability Capacity Quality Percentage of watermains in fair or better condition, by replacement cost 97% Maintain 1Watermain breaks are decreasing year over year, attributed partially to conversion of metallic watermains to PVC pipes. 133 Sanitary Networks Current Performance and Service Level Commitment LaSalle's sanitary system is relatively modern, with most mains installed in the 1980s-1990s. No large-scale relining or major rehabilitation programs are currently underway due to the network's age and performance. Pump station replacements are progressing, with upgrades partially funded by new development. These upgrades reflect a growth-aligned approach to maintaining service capacity and overall service levels. The sanitary network remains functional and efficient. Growth-related upgrades are shaping investment patterns. Current Pressures and Emerging Trends While the system does not yet require widespread renewal, a 15-year horizon has been identified for potential relining programs. Coordination with development timelines will be essential to optimize reinvestment. 134 Table 40 Community Levels of Service - Sanitary Network Service Attribute Qualitative Description Current Level of Service Scope Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that are connected to the municipal wastewater system. Approximately 90% of the Town's properties are connected to the municipal wastewater collection system. The Town has no combined sewers. Overflow structures for the sanitary sewers are in place should the sanitary system operate at a level over capacity. There is no guaranteed protection to prevent backups into homes; however, these do mitigate that risk. Emergency wastewater overflows are channeled into drains, not into habitable areas. Stormwater can enter the sanitary sewer system in many ways. The two most common forms of inflow and infiltration are cracks and joint misalignments within the sanitary sewers and storm connections improperly connected into sanitary sewer system. An example of improper connections would include sump pumps, weeping tiles, or downspouts that are connected into the sanitary sewer and not the storm. With heavy rainfall events, sanitary sewers may experience a volume of water and sewage that exceeds its designed capacity. In some cases, this can cause water and/or sewage to backup into homes. The Town of Lasalle has engineering, construction, and material standards for new sanitary infrastructure and the Town design manual is constantly under review to ensure it is always up to date. The Town does not have a sewage treatment plant. All sewage is pumped to the City of Windsor Lou Romano Treatment Plant. Description of how combined sewers in the municipal wastewater system are designed with overflow structures in place which allow overflow during storm events to prevent backups into homes. Description of the frequency and volume of overflows in combined sewers in the municipal wastewater system that occur in habitable areas or beaches Description of how stormwater can get into sanitary sewers in the municipal wastewater system, causing sewage to overflow into streets or backup into homes. Description of how sanitary sewers in the municipal wastewater system are designed to be resilient to avoid events described in paragraph Description of the effluent that is discharged from sewage treatment plants in the municipal wastewater system. 135 Table 41 Technical Levels of Service - Sanitary Network Service Attribute Metric Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Scope Percentage of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system. 90% Growth-based Reliability 1. The number of events per year where combined sewer flow in the municipal wastewater system exceeds system capacity compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system. 0 Maintain 2. The number of connection-days per year due to wastewater backups compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system. 0 Maintain 3. The number of effluent violations per year due to wastewater discharge compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system. Percentage of sanitary mains in fair or better condition Percentage of sanitary pump stations in fair or better condition Capital Reinvestment Rate 0 100% 75% 1.3% Maintain Maintain1 Maintain1 2.0% Reliability Reliability Quality Quality Financial Sustainability 1The Town aims to maintain sanitary mains and pump stations in at least fair condition to help ensure minimal service disruptions. While this target is based on asset age and may not capture all operational factors, ongoing inspections will help identify emerging issues. Future work will continue to coordinate repairs and upgrades with other capital programs where feasible. 136 Recreational Services Assets Parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities are key components of LaSalle's community infrastructure, providing essential spaces for leisure, wellness, and social connection. Recreation facilities, such as the Vollmer Complex, form the largest share of the Town's facilities portfolio. These assets directly serve the public and play an important role in enhancing quality of life, promoting physical activity, and supporting community engagement. Levels of service for these assets are generally aligned with maintaining safe and accessible spaces, routine inspections, and condition-based maintenance to ensure continued enjoyment and functionality for residents of all ages. As the Town grows, recreational services assets will increasingly contribute to community well-being and social cohesion. Current Performance and Service Level Commitment The Town maintains park assets to a condition target of roughly "Good" (B rating). Routine inspections support this standard, including monthly inspections for playgrounds and daily checks for splash pads. No large-scale or programmatic changes to service levels are planned at this time. Emerging Trends and Future Considerations A Parks Master Plan is currently in development and is expected to influence future service levels. Demand for higher service levels in sports fields and trail expansion are emerging considerations. As LaSalle continues to grow, the demand for parks and recreation amenities is expected to rise. While the Town's current service levels generally aim to maintain park assets in "Good" or better condition, increased use and population growth may place additional pressure on maintenance schedules and facility capacity. Ensuring that new developments include appropriate park space and coordinating lifecycle investments with growth will be key to sustaining community access and service quality. Table 42 Levels of Service - Parks and Land Improvements Service Attribute Metric Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Quality Percentage of parks and recreational facilities in fair or better condition Maintain/Condition- responsive 92% Quality Percentage of land improvement assets in fair or better condition 27% Condition- responsive1 Inspection frequency for splash pads Daily Maintain Inspection frequency for playgrounds Monthly Maintain Quality Quality Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate - Land Improvements 1.1% 6.0% Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate - Facilities (All) 0.6% 2.9% 1Although these condition ratings are age -based and no target is established, staff conduct inspections of essential assets such as playgrounds and splashpads to ensure they are in good condition and safe for use by the LaSalle community. 137 Corporate and Operational Support Assets This group includes a variety of infrastructure and other capital assets that supports internal service delivery across the Town's operations--such as IT systems, vehicles, equipment, and facilities used by staff. These assets enable day-to-day municipal functions, from administrative services and public works, to emergency response. With the exception of Protective Services, the majority of these assets support internal processes rather than direct public-facing services. As a result, levels of service tracking is generally focused on operational efficiency, reliability, and safety rather than external performance measures. As LaSalle grows, protective services--including police and fire--face increasing demands on response times, community safety, and coverage. Population growth and new development require investments in stations, vehicles, and equipment to maintain readiness and service quality. The recent addition of Fire Station 2 in 2025 demonstrates the Town's commitment to aligning protective services with growth and ensuring reliable emergency response. For facilities and supporting assets--including vehicles--the Town does not rely solely on standardized condition rating targets. Instead, the Town uses regular condition studies and routine vehicle inspections to identify defects and guide investments. This approach ensures that assets remain in good working order, even in the absence of formal condition ratings, and supports reliable service delivery. Table 43 Levels of Service - Corporate and Operational Support Assets Service Attribute Metric Current Level of Service Proposed Levels of Service Quality Percentage of Fleet assets in fair or better condition Percentage of Machinery & Equipment assets in fair or better condition Percentage of Information Technology assets in fair or better condition 50% 67% 48% Maintain Maintain Maintain Percentage of Public Works facilities in fair or better condition 96% Maintain Percentage of Protective Services facilities in fair or better condition Percentage of General Government facilities in fair or better condition 86% 73% Maintain Maintain Quality Quality Quality Quality Quality Quality Inspection frequency for heavy duty Machinery & Equipment assets 3x per year Maintain Quality Inspection frequency for heavy duty Fleet and Machinery & Equipment assets 2x per year Maintain Quality Inspection frequency for light duty Fleet and Machinery & Equipment assets 3x per year Maintain Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate - Fleet 4.1% 9.5% Financial Sustainability Financial Sustainability Capital Reinvestment Rate - Machinery & Equipment 0.7% 6.6% Capital Reinvestment Rate - Information Technology 5.5% 18.9% 138 Service Levels and Community Growth LaSalle's asset management approach reflects a commitment to sustaining reliable service delivery in the face of ongoing growth and evolving community expectations. Across core areas--such as roads, bridges, water, wastewater, stormwater--service levels are being maintained through targeted upgrades and a focus on integrating new infrastructure from developments. While specific condition targets may not apply uniformly to every asset class, the Town's emphasis on regular assessments and maintenance ensures that service quality remains high. This integrated approach positions LaSalle to respond effectively to community needs, balancing growth with fiscal responsibility and long-term infrastructure performance. 139 Growth The Town of LaSalle is a growing community, with a 2021 population of 33,800, as indicated in the County of Essex's 2024 Official Plan. The plan also estimates that, under a high growth scenario, LaSalle's population will grow by 20,100 residents and reach 53,900. Similarly, under a high growth scenario, employment is expected to increase by 6,100. Impact of Growth on Infrastructure As the Town of LaSalle continues to grow, the need for new and expanded infrastructure will increase annual operating, maintenance, and capital reinvestment costs across all asset categories. Table 44 on the next page summarizes LaSalle's annual operating and maintenance (O&M) expenditures, expressed both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the assets' current replacement cost. For the assets included in this asset management pan, annual O&M costs are estimated at approximately $21.5 million, equivalent to 1.8% of the Town's estimated $1.2 billion in total replacement cost. This metric, alongside the Town's capital reinvestment needs, provides a valuable baseline for assessing the ongoing financial demands of maintaining LaSalle's existing infrastructure portfolio, helping staff and Council understand the scale of resources required each year to sustain service levels. It also enables the Town to anticipate the additional O&M costs that will arise as new infrastructure is added through growth, recognizing that developers often fund the initial construction but not long-term maintenance and replacements. By expressing O&M and capital needs as a percentage of replacement cost, the Town gains a flexible tool to estimate the future financial impacts of growth, thereby supporting prudent fiscal planning and sustainable service delivery. It is important to note that for some asset categories--such as Information Technology-- operating costs are comparatively high. This reflects the nature of IT, which typically incurs substantial ongoing expenses for communications, licensing, equipment, and support services. These costs are an integral part of maintaining modern technology systems and ensuring service delivery. 140 Table 44 Capital, Significant Operating, and Maintenance Costs as a Percentage of Current Replacement Cost Asset Category Annual O&M expenditures O&M expenditures as a % of replacement cost Annual capital expenditures Capital Reinvestment Rate Total capital and O&M costs as a % of replacement cost Road Network and Bridges & Culverts $2.3m 0.6% $10.5m 2.9% 3.5% $175k 0.1% $2.3m 0.9% 1.0% $5.0m 3.0% $999k 0.6% 3.6% $852k 8.1% $434k 4.1% 12.3% $617k 3.8% $109k 0.7% 4.5% $1.7m 36.4% $253k 5.5% 41.9% $1.8m 6.6% $297k 1.1% 7.7% $5.2m 3.7% $3.1m 2.2% 6.0% $3.9m 2.1% $2.5m 1.3% 3.4% $21.5m 1.8% $20.4m 1.7% 3.6% Stormwater Network Facilities Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvements Water Network Sanitary Network Total The capital reinvestment rates presented in the table are designed to serve as informative benchmarks that help the Town estimate the potential financial impact of new infrastructure. However, they are not intended to provide exact predictions of how costs will scale with every new asset added through growth. Actual costs can vary depending on factors such as asset type, location, service standards, and changes in technology or regulations. As such, these benchmarks should be applied as guidance rather than definitive forecasts, supporting the Town's planning efforts in a balanced and prudent way. Town staff remain committed to managing these financial needs effectively. They actively seek to maximize the use of all available funding streams, including own-source revenues, senior government grants and programs, and they continually identify opportunities to improve efficiency. This integrated approach ensures that the Town can sustainably manage both existing and new infrastructure assets over their full 141 I Financial Strategy LaSalle is one of Ontario's most vibrant and steadily growing communities, attracting new residents, businesses, and developments every year. To support this growth, the Town continues to invest in its infrastructure to ensure that assets remain safe, reliable, and capable of meeting evolving service demands. Given the scale of infrastructure needs, it is not uncommon for municipalities--including LaSalle--to experience annual funding shortfalls relative to what should ideally be allocated for future asset replacement. These gaps can lead to deferred capital projects or increased pressure on future tax rates. Over time, annual funding deficits can accumulate, making it challenging to address asset needs efficiently. Achieving full funding for infrastructure renewal is a substantial challenge for municipalities across Canada and typically requires a sustained, multi-year effort. This financial strategy provides an updated, comprehensive analysis of LaSalle's 10 core and non-core asset groups. It reflects revised replacement costs since the 2022 and 2024 iterations of the Town's asset management plans, and is designed to guide the implementation of this AMP while progressively closing the Town's annual funding gap. 142 Annual Capital Requirements Table 45 outlines the total average annual capital requirements for the Town's asset in each asset category. Based on a replacement cost of $1.2 billion, annual average requirements (AAR) total $31.4 million for the 10 asset categories analyzed in this document. The table also illustrates the equivalent target reinvestment rate (TRR), calculated by dividing the system- generated annual capital requirements by the total replacement cost of each asset category. The cumulative target reinvestment for these five categories is estimated at 2.7%. Table 45 Average Annual Capital Requirements Asset Category Replacement Cost Annual Capital Requirements Equivalent Target Reinvestment Rate Road Network and Bridges & Culverts $366,668,519 $10,211,141 2.8% Stormwater Network $254,512,492 $5,090,249 2.0% Facilities $167,574,560 $4,919,879 2.9% $10,458,857 $993,507 9.5% $16,173,821 $1,061,510 6.6% $4,591,139 $867,573 18.9% $27,515,329 $1,659,716 6.0% $138,835,960 $2,776,719 2.0% $189,873,056 $3,797,461 2.0% $1,176,203,733 $31,377,755 2.7% Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvements Water Network Sanitary Network Total The purpose of the financial strategy is to position the Town of LaSalle to fully fund the above annual requirements, and continue to deliver affordable service levels to the community. This is done by examining the Town's current funding framework, quantifying annual funding deficits, and identifying a roadmap to close any identified funding gaps. To ensure fiscal prudence, only those funding sources considered sustainable are integrated with the strategy. 143 Current Infrastructure Funding Framework Table 46 details the total average annual funding available in LaSalle for infrastructure purposes. In addition to own-source revenue streams, namely property taxation and water and wastewater rates, the table also includes the Canada Community Benefits Fund (CCBF) and the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) as these are considered stable revenue sources. We use this total funding, inclusive of OCIF and CCBF, as a baseline and to determine funding deficits. LaSalle allocates an average of $20.4 million annually toward infrastructure funding across all asset categories. Approximately $17.6 million is allocated to property-tax-funded assets, which include roads, bridges, stormwater, facilities, fleet, IT, and other services. Water and sanitary networks are funded through their own dedicated rates--approximately $3.1 million and $2.5 million annually, respectively--ensuring that each service area is financially supported through appropriate funding mechanisms. Table 46 Allocation of Average Annual Infrastructure Funding by Asset Category Asset Category Primary Own- source Funding Stream Allocated to Infrastructure OCIF CCBF Average Annual Funding Available Road Network and Bridges & Culverts Property Taxation $7,687,400 $1,119,000 $1,682,000 $10,488,400 Property Taxation $2,268,400 $0 $0 $2,268,400 Property Taxation $999,200 $0 $0 $999,200 Property Taxation $434,000 $0 $0 $434,000 Property Taxation $108,500 $0 $0 $108,500 Property Taxation $252,700 $0 $0 $252,700 Property Taxation $296,600 $0 $0 $296,600 Water Rates $3,092,200 $0 $0 $3,092,200 Sanitary Rates $2,506,100 $0 $0 $2,506,100 Stormwater Network Facilities Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvements Water Network Sanitary Network $17,645,100 $1,119,000 $1,682,000 $20,446,100 144 Current Funding Levels and Infrastructure Deficits Table 47 compares the Town's current funding levels with the annual requirements for both tax- funded and rate-funded asset categories. LaSalle currently allocates $14.8 million annually toward its tax-funded assets, which amounts to 60% of the annual requirement of $24.8 million, leaving a deficit of $10 million. The analysis also indicates that while water assets are fully funded through their respective rates, sanitary assets face an annual shortfall of approximately $1.3 million. Overall, the Town is funding 65% of the total annual needs for its asset portfolio. Table 47 Current Funding Position vs. Required Funding Asset Category Average Annual Requirements Average Annual Funding Available Annual Infrastructure Deficit Funding Level Tax -funded Assets $24,803,575 $14,847,800 $9,955,775 60% Water Network $2,776,719 $3,092,200 $0 Fully-funded $3,797,461 $2,506,100 $1,291,361 66% $31,377,755 $20,446,100 $11,247,136 65% Sanitary Network Total 145 Closing Funding Gaps Closing annual infrastructure funding gaps is a complex and long-term process for municipalities, often taking many years to achieve full funding for existing assets. This section describes how the Town of LaSalle can address its annual funding deficits by relying on own- source revenue streams--namely, property taxation and utility rates--without incurring additional debt for existing assets. Separate analyses are presented for tax-funded and rate- funded assets. Tax-Funded Assets For 2025, the Town of LaSalle's projected property tax revenue is $50 million. To close the $10 million annual shortfall, property taxation revenues will need to increase by 19.9%. This increase would allow the Town to fully fund the average annual requirements for its tax-funded asset categories. Table 48 Increase Needed in Property Taxation Revenue to Meet Annual Infrastructure Needs 2025 Property Taxation Revenue Additional Revenue Needed for Infrastructure % Increase Needed $50,003,300 $9,955,775 19.9% To achieve this increase, several scenarios have been developed using phase-in periods ranging from five to 20 years. Shorter phase-in periods may place too high a burden on taxpayers, whereas a phase-in period beyond 20 years may see a continued deterioration of infrastructure, leading to larger backlogs. Table 49 Phasing in Tax Increases Total % Increase Needed in Annual Property Taxation Revenues Phase in Period 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 19.9% 3.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.9% Funding 100% of annual capital requirements ensures that major capital events, including replacements, are completed as required. Under this scenario, projects are unlikely to be deferred to future years. This delivers the highest asset performance and customer levels of service. 146 Rate-Funded Assets Since the Town's water infrastructure is currently fully funded through its existing rate structure, no changes to the rate framework are recommended at this time. The current rates are sufficient to sustain service levels, cover lifecycle costs, and support necessary reinvestments in the water network. This stability helps ensure ongoing reliability and resilience within the water system Given the identified funding deficit of $1.3 million within the Town's sanitary asset category, a similar approach to that used for tax-funded assets is recommended to address the shortfall. This approach involves gradually increasing rate revenues by 20.2% over time to close the annual deficit, ensuring that sanitary infrastructure remains in good condition and capable of supporting the Town's current and future service demands. Table 50 Increase Needed in Water and Wastewater Rate Revenues to Meet Annual Infrastructure Needs Category 2025 Rate Revenues Additional Revenue Needed for Infrastructure % Increase Needed Water Network $6,261,300 $0 0% Sanitary Network $6,402,200 $1,291,361 20.2% To achieve this increase for sanitary assets, several scenarios have been developed using phase-in periods ranging from five to 20 years. As with tax-funded assets, short phase-in periods may require excessive rate increases, whereas more protracted timeframes may lead to larger backlogs and more unpredictable spending on emergency repairs and replacements. Table 51 Phasing in Rate Increases Category Total % Increase Required in Rate Revenues Phase in Period 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years Water Network 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sanitary Network 20.2% 3.7% 1.9% 1.2% 0.9% 147 Lowering Target Funding Levels The above scenarios assume that the Town should target full funding for its asset classes. That is, it should strive to meet 100% of its average annual requirements of $31.4 million and achieve proposed capital reinvestment rates. If this target funding level is reduced, the total tax revenue and rate increases required would also decrease. However, this approach is not desirable as it reduces the municipality's financial capacity to maintain its infrastructure in a state of good repair, yielding the following potential consequences: - lower levels of service, including reduced asset performance and increased rate of asset failures; - with a longer replacement cycle, assets may remain in service beyond their useful life; - continuation of the 'worst-first' or reactive approach to infrastructure management and project selection; - reduced customer service levels and increases in citizen complaints; - potential reputational damage; - increased risk to public health and safety; - project deferrals or cancellations, leading to further accumulation of existing infrastructure backlogs; 148 $30m $60m Infrastructure Backlogs The annual tax and rate increases proposed are designed to eliminate annual infrastructure deficits. However, they do not address existing backlogs. Figure 57 shows that the current infrastructure backlog totals approximately $116.2 million across all assets in this AMP. This backlog is based on a combination of age-based and condition-based data. Incorporating risk and criticality assessments could further refine this estimate by prioritizing assets that have the greatest impact on service delivery and the quality of life for residents. Not all assets contribute equally to residents' day-to-day experience or service level objectives, and considering their importance can help the Town determine where to allocate resources most effectively and which parts of the backlog to address first. Figure 57 Current Infrastructure Backlog by Asset Category Backlog $8.1m $209k $25.1m $7.9m $1.6m $2.9m $818k $10.4m $59.2m Road Network Bridges & Culverts Stormwater Network Water Network Sanitary Network Facilities Fleet Machinery & Equipment Information Technology Land Improvements 149 Reserve Levels As of December 31, 2024, the Town of LaSalle's non-growth infrastructure reserves are projected to total approximately $100.9 million. This balance is distributed across various categories, including significant reserves for the road network ($38.5 million), drains and stormwater management ($14.1 million), and other critical asset groups such as water projects ($11.8 million), sewer projects ($10.9 million), and asset repair/replacement ($7.4 million). These reserves provide essential funding to sustain and renew infrastructure assets as the Town grows and service demands increase.. Table 52 Infrastructure Reserve Levels: Non-growth Reserve Closing Balance at December 31, 2024 Facility Capital $4,700,000 Information Technology $90,000 Fire - - Equipment $170,000 Police - Equipment ($356,000) Fleet $1,300,000 Asset Replace/Repair (IRR) $7,400,000 Road Network $38,500,000 Drains & Stormwater Management $14,100,000 Sidewalks, Trails, and Streetlights $420,000 Transit $350,000 Parks $1,821,000 Vollmer Complex $890,000 Sewer Projects $10,900,000 Water Projects $11,800,000 Water Emergency $1,500,000 CCBF $4,500,000 OCIF Formula Based $2,800,000 Total $100,885,000 150 In addition to non-growth reserves, the Town holds approximately $10.2 million in Development Charge (DC) reserves. These funds are dedicated to supporting infrastructure expansion needed to accommodate population and employment growth, such as new roads, parks, water, and wastewater systems. Table 53 shows a select portion of the Town's capital program, highlighting projects that can be partially or fully-funded through DCs. This includes $16.2 million in previously approved projects and $11.5 million between 2026-2029. Funding for these particular projects is sourced from development charges (both growth and non-growth components), senior government program (e.g., Drainage Act), debt financing, and other municipal reserves. This diversified funding approach reflects the Town's commitment to balancing the financial impact of growth-related capital investments across various revenue streams, reducing the reliance on property tax funding. Table 53 Growth-related Future Capital Projects Future Capital Projects 2026- 2029 Previously Approved Funding Sources Asset Category Project DC/Non Growth DC Road Network Malden Road - Phase #1 $1,200,000 $2,300,000 Huron Church/Sandwich West Parkway Signals Road Network $500,000 - DC Howard Bouffard Drainage Detailed Design Stormwater $500,000 - DC/Drainage Act Wastewater Network DC/Non Growth DC Pumping Station #14/#16 Upgrade $1,200,000 $2,300,000 Wastewater Network Town Centre Wastewater Upgrades (Phase 1) $1,500,000 $1,800,000 DC Parks and Recreation LaSalle Landing Phase 2b (balance of current plan) - $5,000,000 DC/Debt Protective Services DC/Fire Reserves Fire Vehicle/Equipment Replacement - $2,372,000 Total $16,200,000 $11,472,000 As LaSalle continues to grow, the Town's DC reserves will play a vital role in funding new infrastructure and supporting service levels for both current and future residents. This approach aligns with the Town's commitment to managing growth responsibly and sustainably. 151 Recommendations Financial Strategies - Consider feasibility of implementing a 1.8% property tax increase, purely for the purpose of closing annual infrastructure deficits identified for the Town's tax-funded asset base. - Similarly, consider feasibility of implementing a 1.9% increase in sanitary rate revenues to close annual funding shortfalls identified for wastewater assets. - Continue to allocate OCIF and CCB funding as previously outlined. The above recommendations do not factor in potential cost increases related to inflation, supply chain disruptions, and fluctuations in commodity prices. Continuous Improvement, Monitoring, and Compliance Continuous improvement and monitoring are essential components of effective asset management. This asset management plan ensures the Town is in full compliance with the 2025 requirements of O. Reg 588/17. Key next steps and strategic considerations include: - Ongoing enhancement of the Town's infrastructure datasets, which underpin all financial analysis and capital planning; - Regular refinement of risk models as new data becomes available, supporting more strategic project prioritization and alignment with corporate objectives; - Periodic review of service level goals to ensure they remain achievable within the Town's financial capacity and evolving infrastructure conditions; - Continued exploration of diverse and sustainable funding sources--including grants, partnerships, and revenue reinvestment strategies--to strengthen long-term capital planning; The Town of LaSalle's 2025 asset management plan reaffirms the Town's dedication to responsible management of its infrastructure in alignment with Ontario Regulation 588/17. By incorporating updated replacement costs, condition data, and a detailed analysis of levels of service commitments and capabilities, the AMP ensures that LaSalle's asset management program meets regulatory requirements while supporting sustainable service delivery. As the Town moves forward, ongoing adherence to O. Reg. 588/17, coupled with proactive data collection, financial planning, and stakeholder engagements will be essential to achieving its long-term asset management objectives. 152