Township of Strong Asset Management Plan (2021)
Strong, Ontario
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot 1aeb85023d35 · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
November 11, 2021
[email protected]
Asset Management Plan
Township of Strong
FINAL
________________________
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
© 2021, The Corporation of the Township of Strong. All Rights Reserved.
The preparation of this project was carried out with assistance from the Government of
Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support,
the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for
them.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table of Contents
Page
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Legislative Context for the Asset Management Plan .............................. 1-2
1.3
Asset Management Plan Development ................................................... 1-3
1.4
Maintaining and Integrating the Asset Management Plan ....................... 1-4
2.
State of Local Infrastructure and Levels of Service ..................................... 2-2
2.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.2
Transportation ......................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.1
State of Local Infrastructure ....................................................... 2-3
2.2.2
Condition .................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-16
2.3
Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-20
2.3.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-20
2.3.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-20
2.3.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-23
2.4
Fleet ...................................................................................................... 2-24
2.4.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-24
2.4.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-24
2.4.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-27
2.5
Equipment and Land Improvements ..................................................... 2-28
2.5.1
State of Local Infrastructure ..................................................... 2-28
2.5.2
Condition .................................................................................. 2-29
2.5.3
Current and Proposed Levels of Service ................................. 2-30
2.6
Population and Employment Growth .................................................... 2-31
3.
Lifecycle Management Strategy ..................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Transportation ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1
Decision Making Process - Transportation ................................ 3-2
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
Page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
3.2.2
Estimating Long-run Needs for Transportation Assets ............... 3-3
3.2.3
Average Annual Lifecycle Costs and Long-run Forecast ........... 3-8
3.3
Facilities .................................................................................................. 3-9
3.3.1
Decision Making Process - Facilities ......................................... 3-9
3.3.2
Estimating Long-run Needs for Facilities ................................. 3-10
3.4
Other Assets ......................................................................................... 3-11
3.4.1
Decision-making Process - Fleet, Equipment, and Land
Improvements .......................................................................... 3-11
3.4.2
Estimating Long-run Needs for Fleet, Equipment, and Land
Improvements .......................................................................... 3-11
4.
Financing Strategy .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
Annual Contribution and Lifecycle Funding Target ................................. 4-3
4.3
Annual Costs .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.4
Funding ................................................................................................... 4-5
4.5
Tax Levy Impact ..................................................................................... 4-5
Appendix A Financing Strategy Tables .................................................................. A-1
Appendix B Road Condition Maps .......................................................................... B-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
CL
Centreline
BCI
Bridge Condition Index
CSP
Corrugated Steel Pipe
GPS
Global Positioning System
G/S
Gravel
HCB
High-Class Bituminous
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IJPA
Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act
LCB
Low-Class Bituminous
MMS
Minimum Maintenance Standards
OCIF
Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund
OSIM
Ontario Structure Inspection Manual
PCI
Pavement Condition Index
PSAB
Public Sector Accounting Board
UL%
Percentage of Useful Life
Report
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Chapter 1
Introduction
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-1
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
The main objective of an asset management plan is to use a municipality's best
available information to develop a comprehensive long-term plan for capital assets. In
addition, the plan should provide a sufficiently documented framework that will enable
continuous improvement and updates of the plan, to ensure its relevancy over the long
term.
The Township of Strong (Township) retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
(Watson) to prepare a comprehensive asset management plan. One of the objectives
of this plan is to move the Township's asset management practices into compliance with
Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 588/17. It is intended to be a tool for municipal staff and
Council to use during various decision-making processes, including the annual
budgeting process and future capital grant application processes.
This is a comprehensive asset management plan covering all capital assets the
Township has asset management responsibilities for. These assets and their
replacement costs are shown in Table 1-1. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of
replacement cost by asset class. Roads accounts for more than half the replacement
cost (58%), followed by facilities (26%), bridges and structural culverts (11%), fleet (4%)
and equipment and land improvements (1%)
Table 1-1: Asset Classes and Replacement Cost
Asset Class
Replacement
Cost
Roads
$34,410,000
Bridges and Structural Culverts
$6,190,000
Facilities - Arena
$11,380,000
Facilities - All other
$4,020,000
Fleet
$2,600,000
Equipment and Land Improvements
$600,000
Total
$59,190,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 1-1: Distribution of Replacement Cost by Asset Class
The Township's goals and objectives with respect to asset management are identified in
the Township's Strategic Asset Management Policy. A major theme within that policy is
for the Township's physical assets to be managed in a manner that will support the
sustainable provision of municipal services to residents. Through the implementation of
the asset management plan, the Township's practice should evolve to provide services
at levels proposed within this document. Moreover, infrastructure and other capital
assets should be maintained at condition levels that provide a safe and functional
environment for the Township's residents. Therefore, the asset management plan and
the progress with respect to its implementation will be evaluated based on the
Township's ability to meet these goals and objectives.
1.2 Legislative Context for the Asset Management Plan
Asset management planning in Ontario has evolved significantly over the past decade.
Before 2009, capital assets were recorded by municipalities as expenditures in the year
of acquisition or construction. The long-term issue with this approach was the lack of a
capital asset inventory, both in the municipality's accounting system and financial
statements. As a result of revisions to section 3150 of the Public Sector Accounting
Roads
58%
Bridges and
Structural
Culverts
11%
Facilities -
Arena
19%
Facilities -
All other
7%
Fleet
4%
Equipment
and Land
Improvements
1%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Board (PSAB) handbook, effective for the 2009 fiscal year, municipalities were required
to capitalize tangible capital assets, thus creating an inventory of assets.
In 2012, the Province launched the municipal Infrastructure Strategy. As part of that
initiative, municipalities and local service boards seeking provincial funding were
required to demonstrate how any proposed project fits within a detailed asset
management plan. In addition, asset management plans encompassing all municipal
assets needed to be prepared by the end of 2016 to meet Federal Gas Tax agreement
requirements. To help define the components of an asset management plan, the
Province produced a document entitled Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset
Management Plans. This guide documented the components, information, and analysis
that were required to be included in municipal asset management plans under this
initiative.
The Province's Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 (IJPA) was proclaimed
on May 1, 2016. This legislation detailed principles for evidence-based and sustainable
long-term infrastructure planning. IJPA also gave the Province the authority to guide
municipal asset management planning by way of regulation. In late 2017, the Province
introduced O. Reg. 588/17 under IJPA. The intent of O. Reg. 588/17 is to establish
standard content for municipal asset management plans. Specifically, the regulations
require that asset management plans be developed that define the current and
proposed levels of service, identify the lifecycle activities that would be undertaken to
achieve these levels of service, and provide a financial strategy to support the levels of
service and lifecycle activities.
This plan has been developed to fully address the requirements of O. Reg. 588/17. It
utilizes the best information available to the Township at this time.
1.3 Asset Management Plan Development
This asset management plan was developed using an approach that leverages the
Township's asset management principles as identified within its strategic asset
management policy, capital asset database information, and staff input.
The development of the Township's asset management plan is based on the steps
summarized below:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-4
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
1. Compile available information pertaining to the Township's capital assets to be
included in the plan, including attributes such as size, material type, useful life,
age, accounting valuation and current valuation. Update the current valuation,
where required, using benchmark costing data or applicable inflationary indices.
2. Define and assess current asset conditions, based on a combination of field work
performed by WalterFedy, municipal staff input, existing asset reports, and an
asset age-based condition analysis.
3. Define and document current levels of service based on analysis of available
data and consideration of various background reports.
4. Set proposed levels of service that the Township believes are achievable and
affordable based on current information.
5. Develop lifecycle management strategies that identify the activities required to
sustain the levels of service discussed above. The outputs of these strategies
are summarized in the forecast of annual capital and operating expenditures
required to achieve these level of service outcomes.
6. Develop a financing strategy to support the lifecycle management strategy. The
financing plan informs how the capital and operating expenses arising from the
asset management strategy will be funded over the forecast period.
7. Document the comprehensive asset management plan in a formal report to
inform future decision-making and to communicate planning to municipal
stakeholders.
1.4 Maintaining and Integrating the Asset Management Plan
The asset management plan should be updated as the strategic priorities and capital
needs of the Township change. This can be accomplished in conjunction with specific
legislative requirements (i.e., five-year review of the asset management plan under
IJPA), as well as the Township's annual budget process. Further integration into other
municipal financial and planning documents would assist in ensuring the ongoing
accuracy of the asset management plan, as well as the integrated financial and
planning documents. The asset management plan has been developed to allow
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 1-5
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
linkages to several strategic documents, as identified in the Township's Strategic Asset
Management Policy.
When updating the asset management plan, it should be noted that the state of local
infrastructure, lifecycle management strategy and financing strategy are integrated and
impact each other. For example, the financing strategy outlines how the lifecycle
management strategy will be funded. The lifecycle management strategy identifies the
lifecycle activities that need to be planned for in order to enable the Township to
maintain or achieve proposed levels of service, and the associated costs.
The asset management plan is a snapshot in time and is based on a number of
assumptions regarding expected lifecycles and future performance of assets, lifecycle
intervention costs, among others. The Township will need to establish processes for
reviewing and updating these assumptions on a regular basis to keep the plan relevant.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Chapter 2
State of Local Infrastructure
and Levels of Service
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
2. State of Local Infrastructure and Levels of
Service
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an analysis of the Township's assets and the current service
levels provided by those assets.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires that for each asset category included in the asset management
plan, the following information must be identified:
- Summary of the assets;
- Replacement cost of the assets;
- Average age of the assets (it is noted that the regulation specifically requires
average age to be determined by assessing the age of asset components);
- Information available on condition of assets; and
- Approach to condition assessments (based on recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices where appropriate).
Asset management plans must identify the current levels of service being provided for
each asset category. For core municipal infrastructure assets, both the qualitative
descriptions pertaining to community levels of service and metrics pertaining to
technical levels of service are prescribed by O. Reg. 588/17. For all other infrastructure
assets, each municipality needs to establish its own measures for levels of service.
Asset management plans must also include proposed levels of service for each asset
class. The proposed levels of service will be defined using the qualitative descriptions
and technical metrics that the municipality uses to define current levels of service.
The rest of this chapter addresses the requirements identified above, with each section
focusing on an individual asset category.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
2.2 Transportation
2.2.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The assets that support the Township's transportation services are comprised of roads,
bridges, and structural culverts. Other transportation assets such as signs and
streetlights are not included in this plan because their repair and replacement are
treated as operating expenses.
The road network consists of roads with various surface types, including high-class
bituminous (HCB), low-class bituminous (LCB), and gravel (G/S). The estimated
replacement cost of roads is $34.4 million. The average age of the road surfaces is 7.8
years for paved roads and 3.6 years for gravel roads. Table 2-1 provides a breakdown
of the road network by surface type, while Figure 2-1 illustrates the breakdown as a
proportion of the total.
More than two thirds of the network is gravel - 71%. The next most common surface
type is LCB - 27% of the total road network length. Roads with HCB surface represent
2% of the total road network length. Map 2-1 provides a spatial illustration of the
Township's road network and its extent.
Table 2-1: Road Network - Surface Type
Surface
Type
Centreline
Kilometres
Replacement
Cost
HCB
3.7
$2,280,000
LCB
38.2
$13,000,000
Gravel
100.7
$19,130,000
Total
142.7
$34,410,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-4
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-1: Road Network Distribution -
Surface Type Based on Centreline-Kilometres
HCB
2%
LCB
27%
Gravel
71%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-5
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map 2-1: Roads by Surface Type
The Township has eight bridges and three structural culverts. The estimated
replacement cost of the bridges and structural culverts is $6.19 million. The average
age is 30 years for bridges and 28 years for structural culverts. Table 2-1 provides
counts and replacement costs for bridges and structural culverts. Map 2-2 provides a
spatial illustration of the Township's bridges and structural culverts.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-6
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-2: Bridges and Structural Culverts
Surface
Type
Count
Replacement
Cost
Bridges
8
$5,170,000
Structural Culverts
3
$1,010,000
Total
11
$6,190,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-7
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map 2-2: Bridges and Structural Culverts
2.2.2 Condition
The Township assessed the condition of its paved roads in 2020 using TotalPave and
assessed the condition of gravel roads in 2021 as a desktop exercise. Paved roads
were assessed using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI is measured on a
scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being an asset in as-new condition and 0 being a failed
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-8
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
asset. Gravel roads were assessed on a subjective three-point scale: Good (3), Fair
(2), and Poor (1).
Going forward, it will be important for the Township to keep the condition data up to date
so that it can be used to accurately plan asset interventions. To this end, the Township
plans to formally re-assess the condition of its roads every five years using external
consultants that can provide a consistent, objective assessment of condition. The PCI
will be assessed using the methodology in the Ontario Ministry of Transportation's
Manual for Condition Rating of Flexible Pavements MTO SP024. The timing of the
condition assessments will be aligned with the timing of the update to the asset
management plan required every five years by O. Reg. 588/17. Annual adjustments to
the PCI will be done as a desktop exercise between the condition assessments. The
annual adjustments will account for improvements done in the year and expected
annual decreases in PCI due to typical use of the roads. The condition of gravel roads
will be reviewed and updated periodically by staff.
To better communicate the condition of the road network, the numeric condition ratings
for roads have been segmented into qualitative condition states. Moreover, descriptions
of these condition states are provided to better communicate the condition to the reader.
Table 2-3 summarizes the various physical condition ratings and the condition state
they represent for paved roads. Table 2-4 summarizes the condition states for gravel
roads.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-9
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-3: Road Condition States Defined with Respect to Pavement Condition Index
Pavement
Condition
Index (PCI)
Range1
Condition
State
Description
85 < PCI ≤
100
Excellent
A very smooth ride. Pavement is in excellent condition with few cracks.
70 < PCI ≤ 85
Good
A smooth ride with just a few bumps or depressions. The pavement is in
good condition with frequent very slight or slight cracking.
55 < PCI ≤ 70
Fair
A comfortable ride with intermittent bumps or depressions. The pavement
is in fair condition with intermittent moderate and frequent slight cracking,
and with intermittent slight or moderate alligatoring and distortion.
40 < PCI ≤ 55
Poor
An uncomfortable ride with frequent to extensive bumps or depressions.
Cannot maintain the posted speed at lower end of the scale. The
pavement is in poor to fair condition with frequent moderate cracking and
distortion, and intermittent moderate alligatoring.
25 < PCI ≤ 40
Very Poor
A very uncomfortable ride with constant jarring bumps and depressions.
Cannot maintain the posted speed and must steer constantly to avoid
bumps and depressions. The pavement is in poor condition with moderate
alligatoring and extensive severe cracking and distortion.
10 ≤ PCI ≤ 25
Serious
The pavement is in poor to very poor condition with extensive severe
cracking, alligatoring and distortion.
0 ≤ PCI ≤ 10
Failed
[1] The mapping of PCI values to Condition States (PCI Labels) is based on the intervals
used in TotalPave.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-10
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-4: Road Condition States Defined - Gravel Roads
Condition
State
Description[1]
Good
Roadway surface well shaped with shoulder between roundings. Some
distress manifestations in slight to moderate class such as loose gravel,
dust, potholes, etc. There may be a few soft spots of frost heaving when
evaluation is made in late spring. Good drainage for surface run-off on
roadway and shoulder.
Fair
Mixture of properly shaped roadway surface and improperly shaped areas.
Shoulder distress manifestations such as ponding and overgrowth evident
between roundings in slight to moderate class. Various surface distress
manifestations present such as washboarding, potholes, etc., in slight to
moderate class. Localized breakup may be present.
Poor
Majority of roadway surface improperly shaped. Shoulder distress
manifestations in moderate to severe class. Various roadway surface
distress manifestations making travel unpleasant because of
washboarding, dust, potholes, distortions, etc. Localized breakup areas.
[1] Descriptions are from the Ministry of Transportation "SP-025 Manual for Condition
Rating of Gravel Surface Roads."
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-11
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-5 shows the average condition of the road network by surface type, which is
weighted based on centreline-kilometres. On average, HCB roads are in the Excellent
condition state, LCB roads are in the Good condition state, and gravel roads are in the
Fair condition state. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the distribution of road condition
for paved and gravel roads in the Township. It is important to note that, in contrast to
paved roads, the condition of gravel roads can change significantly in a short period.
Wet or cold weather events can cause the condition of gravel roads to rapidly
deteriorate, while routine maintenance activities such as grading can significantly
improve their condition. The result is that the condition of gravel roads can vary
significantly over the course of a single year, both up and down. Therefore, the average
condition of gravel roads presented in Table 2-5 is only accurate within a short
timeframe of the assessment. Map 2-3 provides a spatial illustration of the condition of
the Township's roads. For greater clarity, maps showing the condition of paved and
gravel roads separately are included in Appendix B.
Table 2-5: Road Condition Analysis
Road Surface
Centreline
Kilometres
Condition
(Weighted
Average)
Average
Condition State
HCB
3.7
87
Excellent
LCB
38.2
75
Good
Gravel
100.7
1.7
Fair
Total
142.7
Not applicable[1]
Not applicable
[1] The condition measures for paved and gravel roads are on different scales and
cannot be averaged together in a meaningful way.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-12
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-2: Distribution of Paved Road Centreline Length by Condition State
Figure 2-3: Distribution of Gravel Road Centreline Length by Condition State
Excellent
36%
Good
29%
Fair
17%
Poor
7%
Very Poor
7%
Serious
4%
Good
16%
Fair
32%
Poor
52%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-13
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map 2-3: Roads by Condition
Similar to road assets, to better communicate the condition of the bridge and culvert
inventory, the numeric condition ratings have been segmented into qualitative condition
states. Photographs and descriptions of these condition states (and the corresponding
range of BCI values) are provided in Table 2-6.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-14
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-6: Examples and Descriptions of Bridge and Culvert Condition States
BCI Range
Condition
State
Bridge Photos
Culvert Photos
Description[1]
70 < BCI ≤
100
Good
Maintenance is not usually
required within the next five
years
60 < BCI ≤ 70
Fair
No Examples
Maintenance work is usually
scheduled within the next five
years. This is the ideal time
to schedule major bridge
repairs to get the most out of
bridge spending.
0 < BCI ≤ 60
Poor
No Examples
Maintenance work is usually
scheduled within one year.
Structure may be at
increased risk of requiring a
loading restriction to be
posted.
[1] Descriptions are based on descriptions in the Ministry of Transportation's "Ontario Structure Inspection Manual - 2008."
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-15
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-7 shows the average BCI for bridges and structural culverts. On average, the
Township's bridges and structural culverts are in the Good condition state. Figure 2-4
shows the overall distribution of condition for the Township. provides a spatial
illustration of the condition of the Township's bridges and structural culverts.
Table 2-7: Bridges and Structural Culverts Condition Analysis
Road Surface
Count
Condition
(Weighted
Average)
Average
Condition State
Bridges
8
74
Good
Structural Culverts
3
72
Good
Total
11
74
Good
Figure 2-4: Distribution of Bridges and Structural Culverts by Condition State
Good
82%
Fair
18%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-16
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map 2-4: Bridges and Structural Culverts by Condition
2.2.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This section provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
transportation services.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-17
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 1: Community Levels of Service - Roads and Bridges
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Scope
The Township's transportation assets enable the movement of people
and goods within the Township and provide connectivity to regional
roads. The Township's transportation assets also provide tourists
with access to camping areas and resorts. In addition to passenger
vehicles, the Township's transportation assets support commercial
and forestry truck traffic, and provide reliable emergency vehicle
access to all areas of the Township. The Township's transportation
network also supports various recreational activities, including the use
of recreational vehicles, such as ATVs and snowmobiles, walking,
cycling, and horseback riding.
The scope of the Township's transportation assets is illustrated in
Map 2-1 and Map 2-2. The maps show the geographical distribution
of transportation assets and identify locations of the Township's
bridges and structural culverts.
Quality
The Township strives to maintain road and bridge surfaces to a level
that supports a comfortable travel experience for road users.
Descriptions of roads, bridges and structural culverts in different
condition states are shown in Table 2-3, Table 2-4, and Table 2-6.
Cost
The Township strives to deliver transportation services efficiently and
at a cost that is affordable to Township taxpayers.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-18
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 4: Technical Levels of Service - Roads and Bridges
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2020 Performance
Proposed
Performance
Scope
Number of lane-kilometres of arterial roads as a proportion of square kilometres of
land area of the Township
Not Applicable
Number of lane-kilometres of collector roads as a proportion of square kilometres
of land area of the Township
Not Applicable
Number of lane-kilometres of local roads as a proportion of square kilometres of
land area of the Township
1.8 km/km²
Percentage of bridges in the Township with loading or dimensional restrictions
63%[1]
[1] Single-lane bridges were considered to have a dimensional restriction. Five of the Township's eight bridges are single-
lane bridges. Two of the single-lane bridges also have loading restrictions.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-19
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2020 Performance
Proposed
Performance
Quality
For paved roads in the municipality, the average pavement condition index value
76
Lane-kilometres of paved roads in a condition state of poor or worse (Percentage
of total lane-kilometres)
15.7 km (18%)
For unpaved roads in the municipality, the average surface condition (Good = 3;
Fair = 2; Poor = 1)
1.64 (Fair)
Lane-kilometres of high-volume gravel roads in a condition state of Fair or Poor
(Percentage of total lane-kilometres)
106.8 km (81%)
Lane-kilometres of Low-volume gravel roads in a condition state of poor
(Percentage of total lane-kilometres)
33.3 km (48%)
Percentage of minimum maintenance standard deficiencies remedied within
prescribed timeframe
Not currently available
For bridges in the municipality, the average BCI value
74
Number of bridges in the Poor condition state
0
For structural culverts in the municipality, the average BCI value
72
Number of structural Culverts in the Poor condition state
0
Average condition of non-structural culverts
Not currently available
Number of non-structural culverts in the poor condition state
Not currently available
Cost
Annual road maintenance costs as a percentage of reconstruction cost for paved
roads
0.34%
Annual road maintenance costs as a percentage of reconstruction cost for gravel
roads
1.31%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-20
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
2.3 Facilities
2.3.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township is responsible for eleven facilities. Table 2-8 lists all of the Township's
facilities.
Table 2-8: Listing of Facilities and Replacement Costs
Facility
Replacement
Cost
B01 - Municipal Office
$1,461,000
B02 - Public Works Office
$802,000
B03 - Cold Storage Depot
$244,000
B04 - Sand Dome
$290,100
B05 - Quonset Hut
$474,800
B06 - Storage Building - Landfill No. 1
$138,700
B07 - Recycling Building - Landfill No. 1
$48,200
B08 - Storage Building - Landfill No. 2
$7,500
B09 - Former Church
$503,000
B10 - Cemetery Vault Building
$48,700
B11 - SSJ Arena
$11,375,000
Total
$15,393,000
2.3.2 Condition
All facilities except for the SSJ Arena were assigned a facility-level condition rating by
Township staff using the scale shown in Table 2-9. The Township hired WalterFedy to
do a component-level condition assessment of the SSJ Arena in 2021. WalterFedy
used the four-point component rating scale shown in Table 2-10.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-21
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-9: Facility-level Rating Scale
Condition
Description
Very Good
No concerns.
Good
Deterioration causes minimal influence on use of facility.
Occasional concerns raised by users.
Fair
Some deterioration beginning to be reflected in minor restrictions
on operational uses. Concerns from users.
Poor
Regular complaints from users.
Very Poor
Generally not suitable for use.
Table 2-10: Facilities Condition Assessment Component Rating Scale
Condition
Description
Excellent (4)
Element(s) collectively are in a condition indistinguishable from new.
Good (3)
Element(s) are in a condition to have a collective remaining life span
in excess of five years.
Fair (2)
Element(s) collectively require some level of immediate attention
within the short term (less than five years) of either repair,
replacement, or upgrade. Individual life spans may vary.
Poor (1)
Element(s) collectively require some level of immediate action of
either repair, replacement, or upgrade. Individual life spans may vary.
To integrate the SSJ Arena into the facility level condition assessment done for the
other facilities, it has been assigned a condition rating of Good based on the average
component condition rating, weighted by replacement cost of the component. Figure
2-5 shows the distribution of component replacement cost at the SSJ Arena by
condition rating.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-22
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-5: Distribution of Replacement Cost of Assessed Components by Condition
Rating - SSJ Arena
Table 2-11 lists facilities by condition. Figure 2-6 shows that facilities in good condition
represent approximately 85% of the replacement cost of all facilities. The replacement
cost of those in Fair condition is 12% of the total. Facilities in Poor condition have a
replacement cost that is 3% of the total.
Table 2-11: Listing of Facility by Condition
Facility
Condition
B01 - Municipal Office
Good
B06 - Storage Building - Landfill No. 1
Good
B07 - Recycling Building - Landfill No. 1
Good
B08 - Storage Building - Landfill No. 2
Good
B11 - Arena
Good
B02 - Public Works Office
Fair
B03 - Cold Storage Depot
Fair
B04 - Sand Dome
Fair
B05 - Quonset Hut
Fair
B10 - Cemetery Vault Building
Fair
B09 - Former Church
Poor
Good
71%
Fair
22%
Poor
7%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-23
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-6: Distribution of Facility Replacement Cost by Condition Rating
2.3.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This section provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
Facilities.
Table 5: Community Levels of Service - Facilities
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Quality
The Township maintains facilities at a level that provides a
reasonable user experience.
Accessibility
The Township strives to make facilities accessible where possible.
Table 6: Technical Levels of Service - Facilities
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2020
Performance
Proposed
Performance
Target
Quality
Average condition of facilities
Good
Accessibility
Number of facilities with
accessibility concerns
1
0
Good
85%
Fair
12%
Poor
3%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-24
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
2.4 Fleet
2.4.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township currently maintains a fleet of 19 vehicles with 18 supporting assets such
as attachments and trailers. The total replacement cost of the Township's fleet assets
is $2,603,000. The vehicles are divided between five departments, Public Works,
Landfill, Arena, Joint Building Committee (JBC), and Bylaw. Table 2-12 shows the
number of vehicles and supporting assets and the replacement costs broken down by
department.
Table 2-12: Number of Fleet Assets and Replacement Costs by Department
Department
Number
of
Vehicles
Number of
Supporting
Assets
Replacement
Cost
Public
Works
11
12
$2,013,000
Landfill
4
1
$404,000
Arena
2
5
$146,000
JBC
1
0
$34,000
Bylaw
1
0
$6,000
Total
19
18
$2,603,000
2.4.2 Condition
The condition of fleet assets is evaluated based on age relative to the expected useful
life (i.e., based on the percentage of useful life (UL%) consumed). A brand-new asset
would have a UL% of 0%, indicating that zero percent of the asset's life expectancy has
been utilized. On the other hand, an asset that has reached its life expectancy would
have a UL% of 100%. It is possible for assets to have a UL% greater than 100%, which
occurs if an asset has exceeded its typical life expectancy but continues to be in
service. This is not necessarily a cause for concern; however, it must be recognized
that assets that are near or beyond their typical life expectancy are expected to require
replacement or rehabilitation in the near term. For fleet assets, the age-based
conditions were reviewed (and adjusted where needed), by the Township's staff to
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-25
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
ensure that they are reflective of the physical condition and remaining service life of the
assets.
To better communicate the condition of fleet assets, the UL% ratings have been
segmented into qualitative condition states as summarized in Table 2-13. The scale is
set to show that if assets are replaced around the expected useful life, they would have
a rating of Fair. The rating of Fair extends to 140% of expected useful life. Beyond
140% of useful life, the probability of failure is assumed to have increased to a point
where performance would be characterized as Poor or Very Poor.
Table 2-13: Condition States Defined with Respect to UL%
UL%
Condition State
0% ≤ UL% ≤ 45%
Very Good
45% < UL% ≤ 90%
Good
90% < UL% ≤ 140%
Fair
140% < UL% ≤ 200%
Poor
200% < UL%
Very Poor
Figure 2-7 shows the distribution of replacement cost by condition state for fleet assets.
While most fleet assets (85%) are in a condition state of Very Good or Good, there are
also some older assets. Fifteen percent of the fleet assets are in a Fair condition state,
four vehicles and two supporting assets. These assets may need replacing over the
next few years. The replacements have been included in the 10-year capital plan.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-26
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-7: Fleet Asset Condition State Distribution
Closely related to condition is reliability. Township staff subjectively rated reliability on
the three-point scale shown in Table 2-14. As shown in Figure 2-8, almost three-
quarters of fleet assets (74%) were given a reliability rating of Good. A further 25%
were given a reliability rating of Fair. Only 1% of fleet assets, corresponding to one
piece of equipment, was given a reliability rating of Poor. The replacement of the asset
in Poor condition has been included in the 10-year capital plan.
Table 2-14: Asset Condition States
Description
Reliability
Issues and breakdowns are not expected
Good
Minor issues can be expected and there is a risk of
breakdowns
Fair
Breakdowns and failures are common
Poor
Very Good
46%
Good
39%
Fair
15%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-27
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-8: Distribution of Replacement Cost by Reliability
2.4.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This section provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for fleet.
Table 2-15: Community Levels of Service - Fleet
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Reliability
The Township maintains vehicles so that they can be relied upon to
perform as intended.
Efficiency
The Township strives to operate and maintain its fleet at the lowest
cost while still ensuring reliability performance targets are met.
Good
74%
Fair
25%
Poor
1%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-28
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-16: Technical Levels of Service - Fleet
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2020
Performance
Target
Reliability
Average reliability of vehicles as
rated by staff (Good = 3; Fair = 2;
Poor = 1)
2.74 (Good)
Count of vehicles with condition
rating of Poor
0
Efficiency
Litres of diesel per 100 km for
vehicles with odometers
Not currently
available
Litres of gasoline per 100 km for
vehicles with odometers
Not currently
available
Litres of gasoline used for
vehicles and equipment without
odometers
Not currently
available
2.5 Equipment and Land Improvements
2.5.1 State of Local Infrastructure
The Township has 35 equipment and land improvement assets. The total replacement
cost of these assets is $595,000.
Figure 2-9 shows how the replacement cost of these assets is distributed across
departments. The Recycling department has the highest share (29%), followed by
Parks (26%), Landfill (17%), Administration (12%), Public works (11%), Arena (4%), and
the Cemetery with 1%.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-29
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-9: Distribution of Equipment and Land Improvement Replacement Costs by
Department
2.5.2 Condition
The condition of equipment and land improvements is evaluated based on age in the
same way fleet assets are, utilizing the condition states as summarized in Table 2-13 in
the fleet section. The average UL% is 59.7%, which is categorized as Good. Figure
2-10 shows the distribution of replacement cost by condition state. Most assets, 89%,
are in a Very Good or Good condition state according to this age-based analysis.
Further, 9% of assets are in a Fair condition state indicating that they are likely to
require replacement in the near future, and 2% of assets are in a Poor condition state,
indicating that they are well past their expected useful life and replacement is likely
imminent. Replacements of assets in Fair and Poor condition states have been
included in the 10-year capital plan.
Recycling
29%
Parks
26%
Landfill
17%
Admin
12%
Public
works
11%
Arena
4%
Cemetery
1%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-30
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Figure 2-10: Equipment Asset Condition Distribution
2.5.3 Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This section provides an overview of the Township's level of service framework for
equipment and land improvements.
Table 2-17: Community Levels of Service - Equipment and Land Improvements
Service
Attribute
Community Levels of Service
Reliability
The Township maintains equipment and land improvements so that
they can be relied upon to perform as intended.
Very Good
23%
Good
66%
Fair
9%
Poor
2%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 2-31
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 2-18: Technical Levels of Service - Equipment and Land Improvements
Service
Attribute
Performance Measure
2020
Performance
Target
Reliability
Number of equipment items with
condition rating of Poor or worse
2
Number of land improvement
assets with condition rating of
Poor or worse
0
2.6 Population and Employment Growth
As of the 2016 Census, the Township had a population of approximately 1,439.
Between 2011 and 2016, the Township population grew from 1,341 to 1,439, an annual
growth rate of 1.4% per year.
Continued population growth may result in incremental service demands that would
impact levels of service. If needed, the Township would address these pressures
through established planning processes such as development of master plans for
specific services. If future master planning studies identify the need for new
infrastructure and/or upgrades of existing infrastructure to accommodate future
population growth, the Township should consider the option of imposing development
charges. Utilizing development charges would ensure that the effects of future
population growth do not increase the cost of maintaining levels of service for existing
taxpayers.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Chapter 3
Lifecycle Management
Strategy
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-1
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
3. Lifecycle Management Strategy
3.1 Introduction
This chapter details the lifecycle management strategies required to achieve the
proposed levels of service presented in Chapter 2. A lifecycle management strategy
identifies the recommended lifecycle activities required to achieve the levels of service
discussed Chapter 2. Within the context of this asset management plan, lifecycle
activities are the specified actions that can be performed on an asset in order to ensure
it is performing at an appropriate level, and/or to extend its service life.[1] These actions
can be carried out on a planned schedule in a prescriptive manner, or through a
dynamic approach where the lifecycle activities are only carried out when specified
conditions are met.
O. Reg. 588/17 requires that all potential lifecycle activity options be presented, with the
aim of analyzing these options in search of identifying the set of lifecycle activities that
can be undertaken at the lowest cost to maintain current levels of service or to provide
proposed levels of service. Asset management plans must include a ten-year capital
plan that forecasts the lifecycle activities resulting from the lifecycle management
strategy.
While human resources fall outside the scope of this asset management plan, it is
important recognize that they are critical assets in themselves and are vital to the
implementation of this plan. In order for the Township to successfully manage its
infrastructure, it will be imperative to maintain appropriate staffing levels to plan,
procure, supervise, and in some cases directly perform the lifecycle activities identified
in the lifecycle management strategies contained herein.
What follows are the lifecycle management strategies for all assets contained within this
asset management plan, with each section focusing on an individual asset class. Each
section has two parts. The first part, Decision Making Process, discusses how projects
are selected and prioritized for implementation. The second part, Estimating Long-run
[1] The full lifecycle of an asset includes activities such as initial planning and
maintenance which are typically addressed through master planning studies and
maintenance management, respectively.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Needs, presents a generalized lifecycle model for how assets typically are expected to
perform, average annual lifecycle costs, and a long-range forecast of investment needs.
3.2 Transportation
3.2.1 Decision Making Process - Transportation
3.2.1.1 HCB roads
Lifecycle activities for HCB roads will be done on an as-needed basis as identified by
Township staff. If significant work needs to be done, the option of changing surface
type to LCB should be considered because of the lower lifecycle cost and the efficiency
of integrating management of the segment into the management process for the much
larger LCB road inventory.
3.2.1.2 LCB roads
The decision to do resurfacing work on LCB roads is made by staff based on
observations of distresses such as extensive patching and alligator cracking. If an
overlay is being considered, a microseal is used unless there are indications of surface
breakup that would cause a microseal to fail early. In this case, a single surface
treatment overlay is used. If re-grading is needed to address issues that are identified,
the surface is pulverized and a double surface treatment is applied.
3.2.1.3 Gravel roads
Gravel roads are assessed by Township staff. In general, the roads in the worst
condition are re-gravelled first. Factors such as the volume and type of traffic can result
in roads in relatively good condition being re-gravelled. The intent is to have all high-
volume gravel roads kept in Good condition, low-volume gravel roads kept in Fair or
Good condition.
3.2.1.4 Bridges and Structural Culverts
The biennial OSIM reports required by O. Reg. 104/97 form a starting point for short-
and medium-term planning. They include recommendations for lifecycle activities that
should be done over a ten-year timeframe. These recommendations are reviewed by
Township staff to ensure they are affordable and that potential lower cost alternatives
have been explored.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
3.2.2 Estimating Long-run Needs for Transportation Assets
To estimate long-run needs, the Township's roads have been broken down into five
categories based on surface type and traffic volume as shown in Table 3-1. The
categorization of the LCB and gravel roads into high-volume and low-volume traffic
roads was done by Township staff based on their experience managing the roads. If
formal traffic counts are done in the future, a data driven definition could be used.
Table 3-1: Categorization of Roads for Lifecycle Management Strategies
Lifecycle Management
Strategy Category
Description
Quantity
(Centreline-
kilometres)
Replacement
Cost
HCB
All asphalt roads
3.7
$2,280,000
LCB - High-Volume
Surface treated roads with
high traffic volume
31.4
$10,680,000
LCB - Low-Volume
Surface treated roads with
low traffic volume
6.8
$2,320,000
Gravel - High-Volume
Gravel roads with high
traffic volume
65.7
$12,480,000
Gravel - Low-Volume
Gravel roads with low
traffic volume
35.0
$6,650,000
Total
142.7
$34,410,000
Bridges and structural culverts are broken down into three categories as shown in Table
3-2. The generalized lifecycle models have lifecycle activity costing represented as
percentages of replacement costs. Short- and medium-term funding requirements are
identified in the biennial OSIM reports required by O. Reg. 104/97.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-4
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-2: Categorization of Bridges and Structural Culverts for Lifecycle Management
Strategies
Lifecycle Management
Strategy Category
Quantity
Replacement
Cost
Bridge
8
$5,172,000
Concrete Culvert
2
$739,000
Steel Culvert
1
$275,000
Total
11
$6,187,000
3.2.2.1 HCB Road Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-3 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for HCB roads.
Average annual lifecycle capital costs are $14,760 per centreline-kilometre. With 3.7
centreline-kilometres of roads in this category, the total average annual lifecycle capital
cost is $55,100
Table 3-3: Generalized Lifecycle Model for HCB Roads: Capital
Activity Description
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Microseal
$35,000
$1,400
15
PCI ~ 55
Pulverize and repave
$334,000
$13,360
25
PCI ~ 55
Total
$369,000
$14,760
3.2.2.2 LCB - High-Volume Road Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-4 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for LCB - High-
Volume roads. Average annual lifecycle capital costs are $11,170 per centreline-
kilometre. With 31.4 centreline-kilometres of roads in this category, the total average
annual lifecycle capital cost is $350,800
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-5
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-4: Generalized Lifecycle Model for LCB High-Volume Roads: Capital
Activity Description
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Single surface treatment
$28,000
$1,870
3
Microseal
$35,000
$2,330
7
PCI ~ 55
Replace culverts
$4,790
$320
14
Ditching
$14,000
$930
14
Brushing
$17,500
$1,170
14
Pulverize surface and
double surface treatment
$68,250
$4,550
15
PCI ~ 55
Total
$167,540
$11,170
3.2.2.3 LCB - Low-Volume Road Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-5 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for LCB Low-Volume
roads. Average annual lifecycle capital costs are $8,380 per centreline-kilometre. With
6.8 centreline-kilometres of roads in this category, the total average annual lifecycle
capital cost is $57,100
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-6
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-5: Generalized Lifecycle Model for LCB - Low-Volume Roads: Capital
Activity Description
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Single surface treatment
$28,000
$1,400
5
Microseal
$35,000
$1,750
10
PCI ~ 55
Replace culverts
$4,790
$240
19
Ditching
$14,000
$700
19
Brushing
$17,500
$875
19
Pulverize surface and
double surface treatment
$68,250
$3,410
20
PCI ~ 55
Total
$167,540
$8,380
3.2.2.4 Gravel - High-Volume Road Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-6 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for Gravel - High-
Volume roads. Average annual lifecycle capital costs are $1,670 per centreline-
kilometre. With 65.7 centreline-kilometres of roads in this category, the total average
annual lifecycle capital cost is $109,700
Table 3-6: Generalized Lifecycle Model for Gravel - High-Volume Roads: Capital
Activity Description
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Regravelling
$8,350
$1,670
5
Total
$8,350
$1,670
3.2.2.5 Gravel - Low-Volume Road Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-7 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for Gravel - Low-
Volume roads. Average annual lifecycle capital costs are $1,040 per centreline-
kilometre. With 35.0 centreline-kilometres of roads in this category, the total average
annual lifecycle capital cost is $36,500
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-7
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-7: Generalized Lifecycle Model for Gravel - Low-Volume Roads: Capital
Activity Description
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Regravelling
$8,350
$1,040
8
Total
$8,350
$1,040
3.2.2.6 Bridges Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-8 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for bridges. Average
annual lifecycle capital costs are 2% of replacement cost. With a total replacement cost
of $5,172,000 for eight bridges, the total average annual lifecycle capital cost is
$103,400.
Table 3-8: Generalized Lifecycle Model for Bridges: Capital
Activity Description
Percentage of
Replacement
Cost
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Minor Rehabilitation
15%
0.20%
25
Major Rehabilitation
35%
0.47%
50
Replacement1
100%
1.33%
75
Total
150%
2%
3.2.2.7 Concrete Culverts Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-9 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for concrete culverts.
Average annual lifecycle capital costs are 1.8% of replacement cost. With a total
replacement cost of $739,000 for two concrete culverts, the total average annual
lifecycle capital cost is $13,300.
1 It is assumed that bridges will be replaced with like-for-like. The 2020 OSIM report
suggests that some narrow bridges should be replaced with 10 metre wide bridges to
meet current standards. The increased cost of the larger bridges is not incorporated
into the generalized lifecycle model.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-8
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-9: Generalized Lifecycle Model for Concrete Culverts: Capital
Activity Description
Percentage of
Replacement
Cost
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Major Rehabilitation
35%
0.47%
40
Replacement
100%
1.33%
75
Total
135%
1.8%
3.2.2.8 Steel Culverts Generalized Lifecycle Model
Table 3-10 shows the parameters of the generalized lifecycle model for steel culverts.
Average annual lifecycle capital costs are 2% of replacement cost. With a total
replacement cost of $275,000 for one steel culvert, the total average annual lifecycle
capital cost is $5,500.
Table 3-10: Generalized Lifecycle Model for Steel Culverts: Capital
Activity Description
Percentage of
Replacement
Cost
Average Annual
Cost per
Centreline-
kilometre
Age
Condition /
Performance
Replacement
100%
2%
50
Total
100%
2%
3.2.3 Average Annual Lifecycle Costs and Long-run Forecast
The generalized lifecycle models were used to estimate average annual lifecycle costs
and to develop a high level 100-year forecast by decade. Table 3-11 shows that the
total average annual lifecycle capital cost for transportation assets is $731,500. This is
comprised of $609,300 for roads and $122,300 for bridges and structural culverts.
Figure 3-1 shows average annual funding requirements by decade. Funding
requirements for the next 40 years are below average. The following two decades are
above average with years 51-60 being 33% above the long-run average. To smooth
this peak, either some projects should be done early, or a reserve should be built up to
fund the peaks.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-9
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-11: Average Annual Lifecycle Costs - Transportation Assets
Asset Class
Average Annual
Lifecycle Cost
(Capital)
Roads
$609,300
Bridges and
Structural
Culverts
$122,300
Total
$731,500
Figure 3-1: Transportation Assets Lifecycle Management Strategy - Average Annual
Funding Requirements by Decade
3.3 Facilities
3.3.1 Decision Making Process - Facilities
Facilities are composite assets with individual components being replaced at the end of
their useful life. For example, over time the shingles on a roof deteriorate. At some
point, all the shingles are removed and replaced with new ones. The timing of this
replacement is independent of the state of other facility components. All of the
Township's facilities are evaluated by Township staff to identify components that need
repair or replacement. For all facilities except for the SSJ Arena, staff inspections are
sufficient to identify components that need to be repaired or replaced. The SSJ Arena
is a larger facility and periodically requires structural inspections to ensure the
000
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
$ (Thousands)
Time interval (years)
Roads - Capital
Bridges & culverts - Capital
Long-run average annual lifecycle expenditure
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-10
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
soundness of the substructure and superstructure. Components that are identified as
needing replacement are prioritized by staff and addressed when funding is available.
3.3.2 Estimating Long-run Needs for Facilities
Township staff produced a 10-year capital plan for all of the facilities except the SSJ
Arena. For the arena, the Township hired WalterFedy to do a formal facility condition
assessment. Figure 3-2 shows the total funding need identified for facilities. The large
value in 2026 is due mainly to some large projects identified at the SSJ Arena. The
average over the 10-year period is $160,400.
Figure 3-2: Facilities - 10-year Capital Forecast
Longer term funding requirements were identified at a high level by breaking down the
list of facilities into simple facilities and more complex facilities. Simple facilities consist
mainly of a shell. For example, a shed would be considered a simple facility. More
complex facilities have services such as water, wastewater, electricity, and HVAC. Four
of the Township's facilities were identified as being more complex: B01 - Municipal
Office, B02 - Public Works Office, B09 - Former Church, and B011 Arena. The more
complex facilities account for 92% of the total replacement cost of facilities.
To estimate the long run lifecycle cost for more complex facilities, guidance in the 2016
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card was used. This report recommends lifecycle
funding between 1.7% and 2.5% of replacement cost. The Township chose the lower
end of this range because its facilities are not as complex as facilities in larger
municipalities. The replacement cost of the four more complex facilities is $14.1 million.
The long-run funding requirement for these facilities is 1.7% of this amount, $240,400.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Dollars (Thousands)
Year
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-11
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
For the simple facilities, it was felt that the funding needs identified over the next 10
years are representative of longer-term needs. The average of the 10-year forecast for
these facilities is $13,100. This represents 1.0% of replacement cost.
Combining the amounts for simple and more complex facilities, total long-run funding
needed for facilities is $253,400
3.4 Other Assets
The remainder of the Township's assets do not currently have an assessed condition,
and as such will all be subject to an age-based lifecycle management strategy. The
following subsections apply to Fleet, Equipment and Land Improvements.
At present, the Township only performs replacement lifecycle activities in the
management of its age-based assets. The costs to perform a replacement is therefore
simply the current replacement cost, as of 2021. These costs were estimated by
inflating historical costs and were reviewed by the Township's staff for reasonableness.
Similarly, the assumptions on expected useful lives were based on accounting useful
life data and reviewed by the Township's staff.
3.4.1 Decision-making Process - Fleet, Equipment, and Land
Improvements
Township staff identify the need to replace vehicles, equipment, and land improvements
though ongoing observation of the assets during routine use. Needs are prioritized and
addressed when funding is available.
3.4.2 Estimating Long-run Needs for Fleet, Equipment, and Land
Improvements
The long-run average annual lifecycle cost of fleet, equipment, and land improvements
is estimated by dividing the replacement cost of each asset by its expected useful life.
Table 3-12 shows that the total average annual lifecycle cost for these assets is
$219,300.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 3-12
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 3-12: Long-run Average Annual Lifecycle Needs - Fleet, Equipment, and Land
Improvements
Asset Class
Average Annual
Lifecycle Cost
Fleet
$190,300
Equipment and Land
Improvements
$29,000
Total
$219,300
Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show that there is some lumpiness in the average annual
funding needs in the long run. As with roads and bridges, to smooth the funding needs,
either some projects should be done early, or a reserve should be built up to fund the
peaks.
Figure 3-3: Fleet Lifecycle Management Strategy - Average Annual Funding
Requirements by Decade
Figure 3-4: Equipment and Land Improvements Lifecycle Management Strategy -
Average Annual Funding Requirements by Decade
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
$ (Thousands)
Time interval (years)
Average annual lifecycle expenditure (decade)
Long-run average annual lifecycle expenditure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
$ (Thousands)
Time interval (years)
Average annual lifecycle expenditure (decade)
Long-run average annual lifecycle expenditure
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Chapter 4
Financing Strategy
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-1
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
4. Financing Strategy
4.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the financing strategy that would sustainably fund the lifecycle
management strategies presented in Chapter 3. This financing strategy focuses on
examining how the Township can fund the lifecycle activities required to maintain its
assets at the proposed levels of service, as identified in Chapter 2. The strategy
presented is a suggested approach which should be examined and re-evaluated during
the annual budgeting processes to ensure the sustainability of the Township's financial
position as it relates to its assets.
The state of local infrastructure and levels of service sections reported on all assets the
Township has full or partial responsibility for. The financial analysis includes the full
amount of capital expenditures and, where applicable, shows the funding contributions
that will be made by other municipalities. Table 4-1 identifies the assets with shared
responsibility along with their replacement and average annual lifecycle costs, and
shows which municipalities contribute funding towards their renewal and replacement
needs and their respective funding shares. It is assumed that the contributing
municipalities will be able to continue funding their share of capital projects when
required.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table 4-1: Assets with Shared Responsibility
Asset
Municipalities and Funding
Shares
Total
Replacement
Cost
Average Annual
Lifecycle Cost
(Total)
Sundridge Strong
Joly Arena Facility
Strong - 50%
Sundridge - 40%
Joly - 10%
$11,375,000
$193,400
Sundridge Strong
Joly Arena - Fleet
and Equipment
Strong - 50%
Sundridge - 40%
Joly - 10%
$170,900
$8,600
Joint Building
Committee - Fleet
Burk's Falls, Joly, Machar,
Ryerson, South River,
Strong, and Sundridge
All 14%
$33,600
$3,000
Chapman Strong
Road from
Broomfield Road
to south end
Strong - 50%
Magnetawan - 50%
$591,200
$3,200
Boundary Bridge
No. 5
Strong - 50%
Armour - 50%
$500,300
$10,000
Total
$12,671,000
$218,200
O. Reg. 588/17 requires at minimum a ten-year capital plan that forecasts the costs of
implementing the lifecycle management strategy and the lifecycle activities required
therein. The financing strategy in this asset management plan has been developed for
a 10-year forecast period in order to be in compliance with this requirement.
Various financing options, including reserve funds, debt, and grants were considered
during the process of developing the financing strategy and are described in more detail
in section 4.4 below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
4.2 Annual Contribution and Lifecycle Funding Target
An annual lifecycle funding target describes the amount of funding that would be
required annually to fully finance a lifecycle management strategy over the long term.
By planning to achieve this annual funding level, the Township would theoretically be
able to fully fund capital works as they arise. In practice, capital expenditures often
fluctuate year-to-year based on the asset replacement and renewal/rehabilitation
projects being undertaken in a particular year. By planning to achieve the lifecycle
funding target over the long term, however, the periods of relatively low capital needs
would allow for the building up of lifecycle reserve funds that could be drawn upon in
times of relatively high capital needs.
Table 4-2 presents the Township's current annual contributions towards capital-related
needs - as detailed in the Township's 2021 Operating Budget - as well as the annual
lifecycle funding target based on the lifecycle management strategies presented in
Chapter 3 and the portion of the lifecycle funding target that the Township is responsible
for.
Table 4-2: Contribution Towards Capital-related Needs and Lifecycle Target (2021$)
Asset Class
2021 Annual
Contribution
Annual Lifecycle
Funding Target
Township's Share
of Annual
Lifecycle Funding
Target
Roads
$609,300
$607,600
Bridges and Culverts
$122,300
$117,300
Facilities
$253,400
$156,800
Fleet
$171,300
$165,000
Equipment and Land
Improvements
$29,000
$28,000
Grand Total
$541,900
$1,185,300
$1,074,700
The Township's share of the annual lifecycle funding target has been estimated to total
$1,074,700, and this is the amount that has been built into the financial strategy outlined
below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-4
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
In comparison, the Township budgeted to contribute approximately $541,900 from the
tax levy and other current revenue sources towards capital-related needs in 2021.
Included in this are budgeted contributions to capital-related reserve funds, debt
servicing costs, and reliable and long-term federal and provincial grants (i.e., Gas Tax
and OCIF). The sum of these components is the amount of funding the Township
contributed in 2021 to the provision of capital-related needs. It is noted that other
capital funding sources, such as prior year surpluses and external debt financing used
in 2021, are not captured in the Current Annual Contribution since they are a product of
previous budgets and specific-purpose funding that cannot be relied on consistently in
future years, respectively.
The difference between the annual lifecycle funding target and current annual
contribution is referred to as the lifecycle funding gap. The existing gap indicates that
the Township is currently underfunding the annual lifecycle funding target by
approximately $532,800 annually.
4.3 Annual Costs
The annual capital expenditures for the Township's assets from 2021 to 2031 are
presented in Table A-1 in Appendix A and are summarized in Figure 4-1 below. This
expenditure forecast is based on the Township's 2021 capital budget and the lifecycle
activities identified in preceding sections of this plan for 2022 and onwards.
Figure 4-1: Annual Capital Expenditures - Inflated $, in Thousands
The expenditure forecast includes a capital inflation factor of 3.5% annually, which
aligns closely with the historical 20-year annual average rate of inflation as witnessed in
Statistics Canada's Building Construction Price Index.
000
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
$ (Thousands)
Roads
Bridges and Culverts
Facilities
Fleet, Equipment and Land Improvements
Sundridge Strong Joly Arena
Joint Building Committee
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-5
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
4.4 Funding
Table A-4 in Appendix A summarizes the recommended strategy to finance the asset
lifecycle costs identified in Table A-1. This funding forecast was based on the funding
sources identified in the Township's 2021 budget.
The lifecycle costs required to sustain established level of service targets are being
recovered through several methods:
- Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) formula-based funding is
identified for years in which the funding amount is known (2021). The 2021 level
of OCIF funding is then maintained for the remaining years of the forecast,
recognizing the OCIF as a stable and long-term funding source for capital
projects.
- Gas Tax funding has been shown as a stable and long-term funding source for
eligible capital projects. Annual funding estimates are based on the Township's
2021 funding level.
- Debt financing is shown as required in years where significant capital needs are
identified. Specifically, the forecast includes total debt financing of $3,887,000
over the forecast period.
This financing strategy has been developed to be fully funded, and therefore no funding
shortfall has been identified. This means, however, that if identified grants are not
received at expected amounts then shortfalls may present themselves. In such an
event, the difference could be made up through increases to the tax levy/user rates
over-and-above those presented hereafter.
It is noted that this fully funded financing strategy phases in annual contributions
towards capital such that the Township reaches full lifecycle funding levels by 2031.
4.5 Tax Levy Impact
As discussed in section 4.2, while the annual funding requirement may fluctuate, it is
important for the Township to implement a consistent, yet increasing, annual investment
in capital so that the excess annual funds can accrue in capital reserve funds. Table A-
4 in Appendix A presents a summary of the impacts on the tax levy as a result of this
financing strategy.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE 4-6
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
In order to fund the recommended asset lifecycle activities over the forecast period
using the Township's own available funding sources (i.e., using taxation, Gas Tax
funding, OCIF funding, and debentures), an increase in the Township's taxation levy of
4.9% annually would be required from 2022 to 2031.
Consideration for cash flow and positive reserve fund balances has been included in
setting the capital reserve transfer amounts. A detailed continuity schedule of all
capital-related reserves/reserve funds can be viewed in Table A-3 in Appendix A.
Layering on assessment increases resulting from new assessment growth, assumed to
be 0.50% annually, the impacts on individual property tax bills resultant from the
financial strategy are estimated to be increases of 4.3% annually from 2022 to 2031.
The taxation impacts identified above include inflationary adjustments to the Township's
operating costs and revenues as identified in its 2021 budget (i.e., general operating
inflation of 2% annually). If, however, other funding sources become available (as
mentioned above), or if maintenance practices allow for the deferral of capital works,
then the impact on the Township's taxation levy would potentially decrease.
Further detail on the Financing Strategy is presented in Appendix A.
Appendices
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-1
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Appendix A
Financing Strategy Tables
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table A-1 Capital Budget Forecast (Inflated $)
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Capital Expenditures
Roads
688,400
Resurfacing
403,220
571,337
156,809
446,373
304,757
908,769
203,254
544,029
409,604
306,093
Reconstruction
736,498
394,181
193,935
85,125
84,168
131,362
126,261
1,507,091
184,828
222,617
Bridges and Culverts
143,000
136,620
113,550
58,762
20,655
-
49,170
-
-
-
-
Facilities
17,743
-
18,197
28,039
28,569
5,962
-
891
75,730
5,369
Fleet, Equipment and Land Improvements
545,500
299,943
39,957
70,071
292,045
605,720
45,728
73,156
20,147
1,023,672
26,519
Sundridge Strong Joly Arena
22,000
139,168
185,485
7,662
132,170
760,798
275,645
118,900
120,321
34,509
115,176
Joint Building Committee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45,793
-
Total Expenditures
1,398,900
1,733,192
1,304,509
505,437
1,004,406
1,784,012
1,416,637
521,572
2,192,479
1,774,136
675,775
Capital Funding
Debenture Issuance
400,000
206,629
685,932
-
239,023
617,860
433,399
-
709,217
595,012
-
Transfer from Operating
198,935
Transfer from Capital R.F.s
788,965
1,449,217
525,835
501,606
694,144
775,658
820,830
462,122
1,423,102
1,122,618
618,187
Contribution from Other Municipalities
11,000
77,347
92,742
3,831
71,239
390,495
162,408
59,450
60,161
56,506
57,588
Total Funding
1,398,900
1,733,192
1,304,509
505,437
1,004,406
1,784,012
1,416,637
521,572
2,192,479
1,774,136
675,775
Description
Table A-2 Schedule of Debenture Repayments
Year of Issuance
Principal
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2021
400,000
34,500
82,927
82,927
82,927
82,927
48,427
-
-
-
-
-
2022
206,629
-
-
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
24,223
2023
685,932
-
-
-
80,412
80,412
80,412
80,412
80,412
80,412
80,412
80,412
2024
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2025
239,023
-
-
-
-
-
28,021
28,021
28,021
28,021
28,021
28,021
2026
617,860
-
-
-
-
-
-
72,432
72,432
72,432
72,432
72,432
2027
433,399
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50,808
50,808
50,808
50,808
2028
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2029
709,217
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
83,142
83,142
2030
595,012
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69,754
2031
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
3,887,072
34,500
82,927
107,150
187,563
187,563
181,083
205,088
255,896
255,896
339,038
408,791
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table A-3 Continuity of Capital Reserve Funds1
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Opening Balance
1,376,162
953,226
-
-
37,275
-
-
-
424,675
-
-
Transfer from Gas Tax
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
179,023
Transfer from OCIF
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
78,626
Proceeds of Disposal (Vehicles)
48,143
28,763
-
4,701
29,204
41,569
4,573
3,982
-
80,166
1,862
Transfer from Operating
50,800
209,579
268,186
276,162
370,016
476,440
558,609
620,960
740,778
784,804
850,078
Transfer to Capital
788,965
1,449,217
525,835
501,606
694,144
775,658
820,830
462,122
1,423,102
1,122,618
618,187
Closing Balance
943,788
-
-
36,906
-
-
-
420,470
-
-
491,402
Interest
9,438
-
-
369
-
-
-
4,205
-
-
4,914
1 Includes Gas Tax and OCIF Reserve Funds
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE A-4
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Table A-4 Operating Budget Forecast (Inflated $)
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Council
92,900
94,800
96,700
98,600
100,600
102,600
104,600
106,700
108,800
111,000
113,200
Environmental Services
280,557
286,200
291,900
297,700
303,700
309,800
316,000
322,300
328,700
335,300
342,000
General Government
755,976
730,300
744,900
759,800
775,000
790,500
806,300
822,400
838,900
855,700
872,800
Health services
240,343
245,100
250,100
255,100
260,200
265,400
270,700
276,100
281,600
287,200
293,000
Planning and development
12,802
13,100
13,300
13,600
13,900
14,100
14,400
14,700
15,000
15,300
15,600
Protection
543,447
554,300
565,400
576,700
588,200
600,000
612,000
624,200
636,700
649,500
662,500
Recreation
306,529
210,700
214,900
219,200
223,600
228,000
232,600
237,200
242,000
246,800
251,800
Social and family services
225,777
230,300
234,900
239,600
244,400
249,300
254,300
259,300
264,500
269,800
275,200
Transportation
966,551
985,900
1,005,600
1,025,700
1,046,200
1,067,200
1,088,500
1,110,300
1,132,500
1,155,100
1,178,200
Capital-related Expenditures
Transfers to Capital
198,935
Transfers to Capital Res./R.F.s
50,800
209,579
268,186
276,162
370,016
476,440
558,609
620,960
740,778
784,804
850,078
New Debenture Repayments
34,500
82,927
107,150
187,563
187,563
181,083
205,088
255,896
255,896
339,038
408,791
Total Expenditures
3,709,116
3,643,206
3,793,036
3,949,724
4,113,379
4,284,423
4,463,097
4,650,056
4,845,374
5,049,541
5,263,169
Operating Revenues
Department Revenue
Federal Grants - Conditional
47,600
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial Grants - Conditional
5,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
291,808
297,600
303,600
309,700
315,900
322,200
328,600
335,200
341,900
348,700
355,700
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous: One-Time Grants
156,734
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Miscellaneous: OMPF
517,600
528,000
538,500
549,300
560,300
571,500
582,900
594,600
606,500
618,600
631,000
Miscellaneous: Other
118,836
121,200
123,600
126,100
128,600
131,200
133,800
136,500
139,200
142,000
144,900
Total Operating Revenues
1,137,578
946,800
965,700
985,100
1,004,800
1,024,900
1,045,300
1,066,300
1,087,600
1,109,300
1,131,600
Tax Levy
Tax Revenues Required
2,571,539
2,696,406
2,827,336
2,964,624
3,108,579
3,259,523
3,417,797
3,583,756
3,757,774
3,940,241
4,131,569
Prior Year Tax Levy
2,571,539
2,696,406
2,827,336
2,964,624
3,108,579
3,259,523
3,417,797
3,583,756
3,757,774
3,940,241
Add: Tax Revenues from Incremental Assessment
12,858
13,482
14,137
14,823
15,543
16,298
17,089
17,919
18,789
19,701
Tax Revenues at 0% Tax Rate Increase
2,584,397
2,709,888
2,841,473
2,979,448
3,124,122
3,275,821
3,434,886
3,601,675
3,776,563
3,959,942
Additional Increase in Tax Levy
112,009
117,448
123,151
129,131
135,401
141,976
148,870
156,099
163,679
171,626
Total Tax Revenues
2,571,539
2,696,406
2,827,336
2,964,624
3,108,579
3,259,523
3,417,797
3,583,756
3,757,774
3,940,241
4,131,569
Estimated Impact on Tax Bills
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE B-1
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Appendix B
Road Condition Maps
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE B-2
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map B-1: Paved Roads by Condition
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
PAGE B-3
H:\Strong\2021 AMP\Report\Strong AMP - Final.docx
Map B-2: Gravel Roads by Condition