This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot f2941b2e8e61 · verified 2026-06-10 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
The
Township of
Terrace Bay
Asset
Management
Plan
2021/2022
Final - June 2022
WSP Canada Inc.
TERRACE BAY
2021/2022 ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN
PHASE 2
TOWNSHIP OF TERRACE BAY
PROJECT NO.: 211-02822-00
DATE: JUNE 20, 2022
WSP
185 EAST STREET
SAULT STE. MARIE, ON
CANADA P6A 3C8
T: +1 705 942-2070
F: +1 705 942-3532
WSP.COM
WSP Canada Inc.
185 EAST STREET
SAULT STE. MARIE, ON
CANADA P6A 3C8
T: +1 705 942-2070
F: +1 705 942-3532
wsp.com
June 20, 2022
TOWNSHIP OF TERRACE BAY
P.O. Box 40, 1 Selkirk Avenue,
Terrace Bay, ON P0T 2W0
Attention: Dan Mulligan, Treasurer / Deputy Clerk
Dear Mr. Mulligan,
Subject:
Terrace Bay 2021/2022 Asset Management Plan
We respectfully submit the Final Revision of the 2021/2022 Asset Management Plan for the
Township of Terrace Bay for your records.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Joshua DiCerbo, EIT
Project Manager
WSP ref.: 211-02822-00
TERRACE BAY 2021/2022 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project No. 211-02822-00
TOWNSHIP OF TERRACE BAY
WSP
June 2022
Page ii
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................. 1
2
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 2
2.1
Project Overview ........................................................... 2
2.2
Purpose and Methodology ........................................... 3
2.3
Ontario Regulation 588/17 ............................................ 3
2.3.1
O.Reg. 588/17 Compliance Review ....................................................... 4
3
STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE ........ 6
3.1
General ........................................................................... 6
3.2
Inventory of Assets ....................................................... 6
3.2.1
Water system ........................................................................................... 6
3.2.2
Wastewater System .............................................................................. 10
3.2.3
Stormwater System ............................................................................... 13
3.2.4
Road Network ........................................................................................ 16
3.2.5
Bridges & Culverts................................................................................. 18
3.2.6
Buildings ................................................................................................ 18
3.2.7
Other Municipal Assets ......................................................................... 21
3.3
Asset's Current Year Value ........................................ 23
3.4
Replacement Costs ..................................................... 23
3.4.1
Water System ........................................................................................ 23
3.4.2
Wastewater System .............................................................................. 25
3.4.3
Stormwater System ............................................................................... 26
3.4.4
Roads ..................................................................................................... 27
3.4.5
Buildings ................................................................................................ 28
3.4.6
Other Municipal Assets ......................................................................... 29
3.4.7
Summary of Replacement Costs .......................................................... 29
3.5
Asset Conditions ......................................................... 29
3.5.1
Age Condition Index .............................................................................. 30
3.5.2
Facility Condition Index ......................................................................... 30
3.5.3
Pavement Condition Index .................................................................... 31
3.6
Service Life .................................................................. 32
3.6.1
Water System ........................................................................................ 32
Page iii
3.6.2
Wastewater System .............................................................................. 34
3.6.3
Stormwater System ............................................................................... 35
3.6.4
Roads ..................................................................................................... 36
3.6.5
Buildings ................................................................................................ 37
3.6.6
Other Assets .......................................................................................... 40
4
DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 41
5
ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............ 42
5.1
Non-Infrastructure Solutions ..................................... 42
5.2
Maintenance Activities ................................................ 42
5.2.1
Water Distribution .................................................................................. 42
5.2.2
Sewers ................................................................................................... 42
5.2.3
Roads ..................................................................................................... 43
5.2.4
Buildings ................................................................................................ 43
5.2.5
Other Assets .......................................................................................... 43
5.3
Rehabilitation / Replacement Activities .................... 44
5.3.1
General .................................................................................................. 44
5.3.2
Water System ........................................................................................ 50
5.3.3
Wastewater System .............................................................................. 51
5.3.4
Stormwater System ............................................................................... 52
5.3.5
Roads ..................................................................................................... 53
5.3.6
Buildings ................................................................................................ 54
5.3.7
Other Assets .......................................................................................... 55
5.3.8
Summary ............................................................................................... 56
5.4
Disposal Activities ...................................................... 56
5.5
Overview of Risks ....................................................... 57
6
FINANCING STRATEGY .............................. 58
6.1
Capital Plans ................................................................ 58
6.1.1
General .................................................................................................. 58
6.1.2
Underground Works .............................................................................. 58
6.1.3
Above Ground Works ............................................................................ 59
6.2
5-Year Capital Plan ...................................................... 60
6.3
25-Year Capital Plan .................................................... 61
Page iv
7
ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEEDBACK .......... 63
7.1
Performance Measures ............................................... 63
7.2
Plan Updates ................................................................ 63
8
LIMITATIONS ................................................ 64
9
CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 65
Page v
TABLES
TABLE 1 - O.REG. 588/17 COMPLIANCE REVIEW ...... 5
TABLE 2 - REPLACEMENT COSTS OF WATER
SYSTEM COMPONENTS ................... 7
TABLE 3 - WATER MAIN SIZES .................................... 7
TABLE 4 - WATER MAIN MATERIALS .......................... 8
TABLE 5 - WATER MAIN AGES ..................................... 8
TABLE 6 - WATER SYSTEM COMMUNITY LEVELS
OF SERVICE ....................................... 9
TABLE 7 - WATER SYSTEM TECHNICAL LEVELS OF
SERVICE ............................................. 9
TABLE 8 - REPLACEMENT COSTS OF
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
COMPONENTS ................................. 10
TABLE 9 - SANITARY SEWER SIZES ......................... 10
TABLE 10 - SANITARY SEWER MATERIALS ............. 11
TABLE 11 - SANITARY SEWER AGES ....................... 11
TABLE 12 - WASTEWATER COMMUNITY LEVELS OF
SERVICE ........................................... 12
TABLE 13 - WASTEWATER TECHNICAL LEVELS OF
SERVICE ........................................... 13
TABLE 14 - REPLACEMENT COSTS OF
STORMWATER SYSTEM
COMPONENTS ................................. 13
TABLE 15 - STORM SEWER SIZES ............................ 14
TABLE 16 - STORM SEWER MATERIALS .................. 15
TABLE 17 - STORM SEWER AGES ............................ 15
TABLE 18 - STORM SYSTEM COMMUNITY LEVELS
OF SERVICE ..................................... 16
TABLE 19 - STORM SYSTEM TECHNICAL LEVELS OF
SERVICE ........................................... 16
TABLE 20 - REPLACEMENT COSTS OF ROAD
NETWORK COMPONENTS ............. 17
TABLE 21 - ROAD NETWORK COMMUNITY LEVELS
OF SERVICE ..................................... 17
TABLE 22 - ROAD NETWORK TECHNICAL LEVELS
OF SERVICE ..................................... 18
TABLE 23 - REPLACEMENT COST OF BUILDINGS .. 19
TABLE 24 - BUILDINGS COMMUNITY LEVELS OF
SERVICE ........................................... 20
TABLE 25 - BUILDINGS TECHNICAL LEVELS OF
SERVICE ........................................... 20
TABLE 26 - REPLACEMENT COST OF OTHER
MUNICIPAL ASSETS ........................ 21
TABLE 27 - OTHER MUNICIPAL ASSETS
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
........................................................... 22
TABLE 28 - OTHER MUNICIPAL ASSETS TECHNICAL
LEVELS OF SERVICE ...................... 22
Page vi
TABLE 29 - CONDITION INDEX .................................. 30
TABLE 30 - ASTM D6433 DISTRESS TYPES FOR
ASPHALT SURFACE ROADS .......... 31
TABLE 31 - SERVICE LIFE FOR WATER SYSTEM
COMPONENTS .................................. 32
TABLE 32 - HISTORICAL GROWTH OF WATER
SYSTEM ............................................ 34
TABLE 33 - SERVICE LIFE FOR WASTEWATER
SYSTEM COMPONENTS ................. 34
TABLE 34 - HISTORICAL GROWTH OF
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ................. 35
TABLE 35 - SERVICE LIFE FOR STORMWATER
SYSTEM COMPONENTS .................. 35
TABLE 36 - HISTORICAL GROWTH OF
STORMWATER SYSTEM ................. 36
TABLE 37 - SERVICE LIFE FOR ROAD NETWORK
COMPONENTS .................................. 36
TABLE 38 - HISTORICAL GROWTH OF ROAD
NETWORK ........................................ 37
TABLE 39 - SERVICE LIFE FOR BUILDING
COMPONENTS .................................. 37
TABLE 40 - HISTORICAL GROWTH & REMAINING
SERVICE LIFE OF MUNICIPAL
BUILDINGS ........................................ 38
TABLE 41 - HISTORICAL GROWTH & REMAINING
SERVICE LIFE OTHER MUNICIPAL
ASSETS ............................................. 40
TABLE 42 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR WATER SYSTEM ..................... 45
TABLE 43 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM ........ 45
TABLE 44 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR STORMWATER SYSTEM ........ 46
TABLE 45 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR ROAD NETWORK .................... 46
TABLE 46 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR BUILDINGS (EXCLUDING
WATER COMPONENTS) .................. 47
TABLE 47 - AVERAGE ANNUAL RENEWAL COST
FOR OTHER ASSETS ...................... 49
TABLE 48 - OVERVIEW OF RISKS ............................. 57
TABLE 49 - ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE .. 59
TABLE 50 - AVERAGE ANNUAL INVESTMENT OF
ABOVEGROUND WORKS ................ 59
TABLE 51 - 5 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (2022 - 2026) ..... 61
TABLE 52 - 25 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (2022 - 2046) ... 62
Page vii
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - TERRACE BAY (ARIAL VIEW) ................... 2
FIGURE 2 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR WATER
SYSTEM ............................................ 24
FIGURE 3 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ................. 25
FIGURE 4 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR
STORMWATER SYSTEM ................. 26
FIGURE 5 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR ROAD
NETWORK ........................................ 27
FIGURE 6 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR BUILDINGS
........................................................... 28
FIGURE 7 - REPLACEMENT COST FOR OTHER
ASSETS ............................................. 29
FIGURE 8 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR WATER
SYSTEM ............................................ 50
FIGURE 9 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ................. 51
FIGURE 10 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR
STORMWATER SYSTEM ................. 52
FIGURE 11 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR ROAD
NETWORK ........................................ 53
FIGURE 12 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR
BUILDINGS ....................................... 54
FIGURE 13 - PROJECT RENEWAL COST FOR OTHER
ASSETS ............................................. 55
APPENDICES
A
ASSET INVENTORIES AND ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS
B
DRAWINGS
C
CCTV PHOTOS
D
INSPECTION SHEETS
E
LEVEL OF SERVICE EXAMPLES
F
ROAD INSPECTION PHOTOS
G
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LOGS
H
ASTM D6433
Page 1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WSP Canada Inc. has updated the Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay's Asset Management Plan to bring it
in compliance with Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure. The Asset
Management Plan is to be used to assist with the maintaining, renewing, replacing, and funding of the Township's
assets. The assets include the water treatment plant, water distribution system, raw water pumping station,
wastewater lagoon and collection system, stormwater collection system, municipally owned buildings located
throughout the municipality, and other municipally owned assets. The municipal infrastructure has been inspected
where possible and the results have been provided for input into CityWide Software Solutions database. The
Condition Indices have been calculated with input from CityWide which uses an aged based method and adjusted as
necessary based on field inspections.
The asset management plan provides an evaluation of the current performance and characteristics of the local
infrastructure and highlights which assets are not providing the expected levels of service. The plan then provides a
basic financial strategy based on this information and is broken down into work to be done within the next five (5)
years and the next twenty-five (25) years.
A representative sample of the sewers and manholes were inspected, and conditions confirmed however the water
distribution system was rated solely on an age-based method. The next inspection for buried infrastructure should be
done in approximately ten (10) years. In addition, the municipality should become as familiar as possible with
CityWide Software Solutions and update the asset's information regularly to discover its full potential. This will
assist with managing the assets and predicting the financial state of the Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay.
This report quantifies the full life cycle costs of sustaining the Town of Terrace Bay water, wastewater and
stormwater drainage systems in perpetuity. The projected costs for replacement of the various components in the
systems over the next 100 years were evaluated to provide a sense of current funding requirements. This study
focuses on the renewal of the existing systems and does not investigate the expansion of the systems to service
future growth in the Town.
The estimated replacement cost of the water, wastewater, stormwater systems are $34.2 million, $13.1 million and
$5.6 million, respectively, for a total of $62.73 million. Accounting for the road network, buildings, and other
municipally owned assets with replacement costs of approximately $33.9 million, $53.3 million, and $14.8 million,
respectively, for a grand total of $144.40 million. This translates into a total overall replacement cost of
approximately $38,940 per capita (water, wastewater and stormwater systems only) or $89,630 per capita (all
municipal assets).
Since detailed information on the condition of each component of the systems is not readily available, a theoretical
service life has been assumed for each of the components. The weighted average service life for the water,
wastewater and stormwater systems is 62, 73 and 72 years, respectively. In other words, to fully sustain these
systems, the Town should renew at least 1.4% of its water system, 1.4% of its wastewater system and 1.4% of its
stormwater system each year.
In order to ensure sustainable water, wastewater and stormwater services, the Town should invest $0.90 million per
annum in renewing their systems. This value does not include routine operating or maintenance costs, nor any road
reconstruction or other restoration costs necessitated by the replacement of underground components.
In addition to the municipal infrastructure, WSP also reviewed all municipal roads, buildings and other municipally
owned assets. Condition assessments were performed, and condition ratings were assigned to help determine the
renewal investment required to sustain these assets. In order to sustain the road network, building assets, and other
assets, the Town should invest $2.07 million per annum. This does not include maintenance.
Roads, buildings, and other municipally owned assets are presented separately from the water, wastewater and
stormwater system infrastructure in the financial strategy and analysis so the municipality can choose where they
want to focus their funds for renewal.
Page 2
2 INTRODUCTION
WSP Canada Inc. was retained by the Township Terrace Bay to update their existing asset management plan
(completed in 2014) for infrastructure that includes water distribution, sanitary, and storm systems in Terrace Bay as
well as municipally owned buildings. The Township can then utilize this as a tool to assist with decisions regarding
the operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing, disposing, and funding of their local asset needs.
The Town of Terrace Bay provides water, wastewater and storm drainage service to the urban area within the Town
as well as to the Pulp Mill (Figure 1). The 2016 population of the Town was approximately 1,611 (Statistics Canada;
2016).
Figure 1 - Terrace Bay (Arial View)
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This Asset Management Plan (AMP) will serve to update the Township's most current Asset Management Plan
which was developed in 2014. The AMP will include a detailed evaluation of the Township's water and sewer
(sanitary and storm) infrastructure, incorporating a condition assessment of representative assets and the preparation
of a replacement plan or capital plan to guide future infrastructure investments in compliance with O.Reg. 588/17.
The Township's core assets consist of a sanitary sewer system which includes two (2) infiltrative lagoons with four
(4) sedimentation tanks for pre-treatment, a storm sewer system, a water distribution system which includes a water
treatment plant and a raw water pumping station, and a road network. Municipal buildings which are included are
the water treatment plant, the raw water pumping station, the public works garage, the airport office, the airport
garage, the tourist information centre, the cultural centre, the pool building, the community centre, the fire hall
office, and the fire hall garage, lighthouse, and beach house. WSP completed an evaluation of these assets and
prepared this asset management plan. The investigation undertaken by WSP, with respect to this plan and any
conclusions or recommendations made in this plan, reflect WSP's professional opinion based on the conditions
observed at the time of the inspections, and on information available at the time of preparation of this plan.
Extrapolation of visual data was necessary where there was no access and condition ratings were based on material
and age where necessary.
The asset management plan is anticipated to be valid for 5 years with diminishing returns and should be updated
regularly. The plan should be evaluated and improved through updated information at every scheduled inspection.
Page 3
2.2 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the asset management plan is to attempt to establish a workable document that will assist with
decisions related to how the Township's infrastructure will be managed to ensure that it is capable of providing the
levels of service required to support the Township's goals. An asset management plan is a business strategy used to
effectively and efficiently allocate available funds amongst valid and competing asset needs. It links expectations for
asset conditions, performance, and availability with management and investment strategies. The asset management
plan identifies the overall system components and summarizes key asset and planning information to recommend
work for the assets to perform at their expected level of service at a single point and time.
This report is broken down into seven (7) elements as follows:
-- Executive Summary;
-- Introduction;
-- State of local infrastructure;
-- Desired levels of service;
-- Asset management strategy;
-- Financing strategy; and,
-- Accountability and feedback.
This report estimates the full (life cycle) cost to sustain the Town's water, wastewater and stormwater systems in
perpetuity. It is beyond the scope of this study to address the expansion of the existing systems to service future
development. Similarly, this report does not address the investment that might be required to comply with new
regulations related to municipal water, wastewater and stormwater.
This approach does not explicitly account for the projected growth within the Town or inflation. It has been
assumed that the water and wastewater user rates will be increased each year to offset inflation. Although the
Town's population increased between 2011 and 2016 from 1,471 to 1,611, it was the first and only period where the
Town's population did not decline over the last 15-year period in which census data was collected (2001 - 2016).
Between 2001 and 2016 the Town has experienced a decrease in population of approximately 1.2%. If this trend
continues, the Town could be faced with insufficient revenues unless the water and wastewater rates are increased
accordingly. To mitigate this risk, the Township has committed to undertaking a rate analysis on user rates moving
forward. It is worth noting, however, that the population of a small municipality such as Terrace Bay is very
dependent on local economic factors since a large industry coming to (or leaving) the area could have a significant
impact, and for this reason any population projections beyond a 5-10 year horizon would be very speculative.
As more detailed information becomes available on the condition and rate of deterioration of the water, wastewater
and stormwater systems and the effectiveness of various rehabilitation strategies, it will be possible to refine the
asset management plan and the life cycle costs. Nevertheless, this report attempts to quantify the magnitude of the
projected costs with the expectation that at some point in the future, the level of investment in renewal of these
systems will be significantly greater than at present. As a result, it would be prudent for the Town to develop a
strategy to sustain their water, wastewater and stormwater systems over the long term.
The cost of sustainable service should be updated every five years or so as more detailed information becomes
available on the condition of the water, wastewater and stormwater systems and to account for population changes,
the revenue base and inflation in the Town.
2.3 ONTARIO REGULATION 588/17
Since January 1, 2018, the Ontario Government has implemented Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O.Reg. 588/17):
Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure (effective as of January 1, 2018) in an effort to help
improve the way municipalities plan for their infrastructure. The regulation builds on the progress municipalities
have made while bringing consistency and standardization to asset management plans to help spread best
practices throughout the sector and enable the collection of comparable data.
Page 4
O.Reg. 588/17 outlines a phase-in schedule with respect to the required elements of an Asset Management Plan.
The schedule is outlined as follows:
Phase 1
July 1, 2019
Date for municipalities to have a finalized strategic asset management policy that
promotes best practices and links asset management planning with budgeting,
operations, maintenance and other municipal planning activities.
Phase 2
July 1, 2022
(revised from
July 1, 2021)
Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for core assets
(roads, bridges and culverts, water, wastewater and stormwater management
systems) that identifies current levels of service and the cost of maintaining those
levels of service.
Phase 3
July 1, 2024
(revised from
July 1, 2023)
Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all
municipal infrastructure assets that identifies current levels of service and the
cost of maintaining those levels of service. Other assets that are not classified as
core infrastructure assets include buildings, parks, recreational facilities, fire &
emergency service assets.
Phase 4
July 1, 2025
(revised from
July 1, 2024)
Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all
municipal infrastructure assets that builds upon the requirements set out in 2023.
This includes an identification of proposed levels of service, what activities will be
required to meet proposed levels of service, and a strategy to fund these activities.
It should be noted that the deadlines for phases 2 through 4 have been pushed by one (1) year due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
In the past, most Ontario municipalities focused their resources on expansion of their infrastructure to service
population growth. However, most municipalities are now beginning to expend more resources on renewal of their
infrastructure. Furthermore, the public are now demanding a higher level of service; gaining an increasing
awareness of environmental issues; and expecting a more transparent decision-making process. As a result of these
demands, historical levels of investment in water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure must be examined
relative to the cost of sustaining this infrastructure on a long-term basis.
2.3.1 O.REG. 588/17 COMPLIANCE REVIEW
The following table identifies the requirements outlined in Ontario Regulation 588/17 for municipalities to meet.
Next to each requirement a page or section reference is included in addition to any necessary commentary.
Page 5
Table 1 - O.Reg. 588/17 Compliance Review
REQUIREMENT
O. REG. SECTION
AMP SECTION
REFERENCE
STATUS
Summary of assets in each
category
S.5(2), 3(i)
3.2
Complete
Replacement cost of assets in
each category
S.5(2), 3(ii)
3.4
Complete
Average age of assets in each
category
S.5(2), 3(iii)
3.2
Complete
Condition of core assets in
each category
S.5(2), 3(iv)
3.6
Complete
Description of municipality's
approach to assessing the
condition of assets in each
category
S.5(2), 3(v)
5.2
Complete
Current levels of service in
each category
S.5(2), 1(i-ii)
3.2
Complete
Current performance measures
in each category
S.5(2), 2
4
Complete
Lifecycle activities needed to
maintain current levels of
service for 10 years
S.5(2), 4
5.3
Complete
Costs of providing lifecycle
activities for 10 years
S.5(2), 4
6
Complete
Growth assumptions
S.5(2), 5(i-ii)
S.5(2), 6(i-vi)
2.2
Complete
Page 6
3 STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 GENERAL
All assets have a natural service life span. In order to keep water supply, sewers, and buildings functioning in a safe
and usable condition, regular maintenance and inspections should be scheduled based on inspection results and
service conditions. It is recommended, when possible, for sewers to undergo an inspection every ten (10) years by a
trained inspector who is either a professional engineer or under their direction. The inspector should review and rate
each asset's condition. These ratings are used in determining the current condition and forecasting future
performance. This is done so that the township can be aware of changing conditions and can plan maintenance and
rehabilitation activities with confidence. Inspections should be carried out considering seasonal conditions such that
harsh weather does not interfere with inspections, causing delays, overlooked information, and unnecessary
expenses.
3.2 INVENTORY OF ASSETS
All assets' key inventory information, including their installation date, historical cost, and useful life are stored in
the CityWide Software Solutions database. The assets have already been segmented into groups through the
development of the 2014 AMP. The detailed inventory is listed in Appendix A of this plan.
The detailed inventory of the municipal water system, wastewater system, stormwater system, and building assets
was compiled through a thorough review of all available drawings, Certificates of Approval, and other municipal
records. Staff from the Town were interviewed to fill in gaps in the data, such as the approximate year of
construction, and material types. This inventory also includes a breakdown of the total length of water mains,
sanitary sewers and storm sewers by diameter, age and pipe material. Buildings are broken down by type, age, and
square footage.
Drawings contained in a pocket at the rear of this report, are general plans of the Town which show the municipal
Water System (Map 1), Wastewater System (Map 2), and Stormwater System (Map 3). Buildings are also labelled
on these drawings.
3.2.1 WATER SYSTEM
The Town of Terrace Bay owns one (1) water treatment plant and one (1) Raw Water Pumping Station. In
addition, the Town's water distribution system includes approximately 21 km of watermain; 114 hydrants and 866
water services. Table 2 summarizes the inventory of the Town's water system assets.
Page 7
Table 2 - Replacement Costs of Water System Components
ASSET
AREA (SQ.M)
HISTORICAL
COST (IF AVAIL.)
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
REPLACEMENT
COST 1 ($M)
Water Mains (km)
--
--
21.07
$520 / m
$10.956 M
Hydrants
--
--
114
$10,800 ea
$1.231 M
Water Services
--
--
866
$2,700 ea
$2.338 M
Water Treatment
Plant
1540
--
1
$12,860 / m2
$19.804 M
Pumping Station
69
$9,690,000
1
$9,690,000 ea
$9.690 M
Total
$44.019 M
1
A 3% inflation rate was used to convert all unit cost from 2013 dollars as provided in the original Asset Management Plan to 2021
dollars. Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events
(Force Majeure).
The water mains supplying the Town's customers range in size from 150 mm to 350 mm in diameter. There is also a
900 mm watermain which services the paper mill however is not owned by the Town. Any costs associated with the
900mm watermain have not been accounted for in this report as it is assumed the mill will pay for all costs in
maintaining and/or replacing this watermain. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the total pipe length by diameter.
Approximately 89% of watermains (by length) have a diameter in the range of 150 mm to 250 mm with 2% being
smaller than 150mm in diameter and 9% being greater than 250mm in diameter.
Table 3 - Water Main Sizes
DIAMETER
(mm)
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
150
12.93
61%
200
2.77
13%
250
3.18
15%
300
1.18
6%
350
1.01
5%
Total
21.07
100%
Table 4 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe material. Approximately 81% of mains (by length) are
cast iron and ductile iron. HDPE and PVC mains account for the remaining 19% of the total length.
Page 8
Table 4 - Water Main Materials
MATERIAL
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
PVC
0.42
2%
HDPE
3.45
16%
Cast
11.55
55%
Ductile
5.65
27%
Total
21.07
100%
Similarly, Table 5 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe age. It is apparent that only 25% of the water
mains (by length) were constructed since 1970. In other words, the water distribution system is relatively old,
having an average age of approximately 55 years.
Table 5 - Water Main Ages
DECADE
LENGTH
(KM)
% OF TOTAL
1950-1959
11.30
54%
1970-1979
4.23
20%
1980-1989
1.64
8%
2000-2009
3.22
15%
2010-2019
0.28
1%
2020-present
0.40
2%
Total
21.07
100%
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community levels of service provided by
Water System Network.
Page 9
Table 6 - Water System Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
Description, which may include maps, of the user
groups or areas of the municipality that are
connected to the municipal water system
See Appendix B
Description, which may include maps, of the user
groups or areas of the municipality that have fire
flow
See Appendix B
Reliability
Description of boil water advisories and service
interruptions
Maintenance and rehabilitation of the water systems
can lead to temporary disruptions. The length of the
interruption would depend on the nature of the
maintenance or rehabilitation. Water main breaks
may require several blocks to be turned off during the
time of repair, approximately 4-8 hours, and
sufficient notice is provided to all directly affected.
Water hydrant flushing will cause pressure drop in
areas and could lead to colour changes in the water.
Valve exercising program can lead to short events of
low flow or no flow lasting 1-3 minutes.
Performance
% of customers where service is interrupted
above target frequency
0%
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level of service provided by the
Water Network.
Table 7 - Water System Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
% of properties connected to the municipal water
system
100%
% of properties where fire flow is available
100%
Reliability
# 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
0
# of connection-days per year where water is not
available due to water main breaks compared to
the total number of properties connected to the
municipal water system
0.00231
(2 or 3 instances of low flow or no flow due to water
main breaks per year)
Page 10
3.2.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM
The Town's sewage collection system includes approximately 14.6 km of sanitary sewer; 202 sanitary manholes;
and 850 sanitary service connections. Table 8 summarizes the inventory of the Town's wastewater system.
Table 8 - Replacement Costs of Wastewater System Components
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
REPLACEMENT COST 1
($M)
Sanitary Sewers (km)
14.6
$420/m
$6.132 M
Sanitary Manholes
202
$12,300 ea
$2.423 M
Sanitary Services 2
850
$2,400 ea
$2.040 M
Sedimentation Tanks
4
$633,400 ea
$2.534 M
TOTAL
$13.129 M
1
A 3% inflation rate was used to convert all unit cost from 2013 dollars as provided in the original Asset Management Plan to 2021
dollars. Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events
(Force Majeure).
2
Replacement cost for sanitary services is representative of full replacement costs of the service, typically completed during full road
reconstruction. The replacement cost is not representative of repair costs for individual services.
The sanitary sewers range in size from 200 mm to 300 mm diameter. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the total pipe
length by diameter. Approximately 89% of sanitary sewers (by length) have a diameter of 200 mm or 250 mm.
Table 9 - Sanitary Sewer Sizes
DIAMETER
(mm)
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
200
10.65
73%
250
2.42
16%
300
1.55
11%
Total
14.62
100%
Table 10 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe material. Approximately 52% of sanitary sewers (by
length) are Clay (VCT) and 16% are PVC. Transite pipes account for the remaining 32% of the total length.
Page 11
Table 10 - Sanitary Sewer Materials
MATERIAL
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
Transite
4.73
32%
VCT
7.55
52%
PVC
2.34
16%
Total
14.62
100%
Similarly, Table 11 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe age. It is noted that approximately 55% of
sanitary sewers (by length) were constructed since 1970. In other words, nearly half of the Town's sanitary sewers
have been in service for over 60 years.
Table 11 - Sanitary Sewer Ages
DECADE
LENGTH
(KM)
% OF TOTAL
1950-1959
6.63
45%
1970-1979
3.94
27%
1980-1989
1.71
12%
2000-2009
1.43
10%
2010-2019
0.70
5%
2020-present
0.21
1%
Total
14.62
100%
The sanitary sewers discharge into sedimentation tanks prior to discharging to infiltrative lagoons. There are a total
of four (4) sedimentation tanks.
The infiltrative lagoons have been in operation since the development of the town in the early 1950s.
Page 12
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
he following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community levels of service provided by
Sanitary Sewer Network.
Table 12 - Wastewater Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
Description, which may include maps, of the user
groups or areas of the municipality that are
connected to the municipal wastewater system
See Appendix B
Reliability
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
No combined sewers
Description of the frequency and volume of
overflows in combined sewers in the municipal
wastewater system that occur in habitable areas or
beaches
No combined sewers
Description of how stormwater can get into
sanitary sewers in the municipal wastewater
system, causing sewage to overflow into streets or
backup into homes
Stormwater can enter into sanitary sewers due to
cracks in sanitary mains or through indirect
connections (e.g. weeping tiles). In the case of 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 overflow backup into homes.
The disconnection of weeping tiles from sanitary
mains and the use of sump pumps and pits directing
storm water to the storm drain system can help to
reduce the chance of this occurring.
Description of how sanitary sewers in the
municipal wastewater system are designed to be
resilient to stormwater infiltration
The municipality follows a series of design standards
that integrate servicing requirements and land use
considerations when constructing or replacing
sanitary sewers. These standards have been
determined with consideration of the minimization of
sewage overflows and backups.
Description of the effluent that is discharged from
sewage treatment plants in the municipal
wastewater system
Effluent refers to water pollution that is discharged
from a wastewater treatment lagoon, and may include
suspended solids, total phosphorous and biological
oxygen demand. The Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) identifies the effluent criteria for
municipal wastewater treatment lagoons.
Performance
# of customers that experience a service
interruption due to main blockages
0
Page 13
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level of service provided by the
Sanitary Sewer Network.
Table 13 - Wastewater Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
% of properties connected to the municipal
wastewater system
100%
Reliability
# 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
# of connection-days per year having wastewater
backups compared to the total number of properties
connected to the municipal wastewater system
0
# of effluent violations per year due to wastewater
discharge compared to the total number of
properties connected to the municipal wastewater
system
0
3.2.3 STORMWATER SYSTEM
The Town's storm sewer system includes approximately 8.0 km of storm sewers and culverts, 93 manholes, 174 catch
basins and 57 catch basin manholes. Table 14 summarizes the inventory of the Town's stormwater system.
Table 14 - Replacement Costs of Stormwater System Components
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
REPLACEMENT COST 1
($M)
Storm Sewers (km)
8.04
$380/m
$3.055M
Storm Manholes
93
$9,900 ea
$0.921 M
Catchbasins
174
$6,000 ea
$1.044 M
Catchbasin Manholes
57
$9,900 ea
$0.564 M
TOTAL
$5.584 M
1
A 3% inflation rate was used to convert all unit cost from 2013 dollars as provided in the original Asset Management Plan to 2021
dollars. Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events
(Force Majeure).
The storm sewers range in size from 150 mm to 1050 mm. Table 15 provides a breakdown of total pipe length by
diameter. Approximately 72% of storm sewers (by length) have a diameter of 150 mm to 300 mm.
Page 14
Table 15 - Storm Sewer Sizes
DIAMETER
(mm)
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
150
0.79
9.8%
200
2.26
28.1%
250
1.31
16.3%
300
1.39
17.3%
350
0.07
0.9%
375
0.29
3.6%
400
0.42
5.3%
450
0.54
6.8%
500
0.09
1.1%
525
0.09
1.1%
600
0.15
1.9%
750
0.32
4.0%
1050
0.30
3.8%
Total
8.04
100%
Table 16 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe material. Approximately 98% of storm sewers (by
length) are constructed of Clay (VCT) or Transite. The other 2% of storm sewers (by length) are constructed of
PVC (MacDonald Avenue).
Page 15
Table 16 - Storm Sewer Materials
MATERIAL
LENGTH
(km)
% OF TOTAL
Transite
3.37
41.9%
VCT
3.74
46.5%
PVC
0.93
11.6%
Total
8.04
100%
Similarly, Table 17 summarizes the breakdown of total length by pipe age. It is noted that 63% of storm sewers have
been constructed since 1970 and therefore 37% the storm sewers are approaching 60 years of age. Overall, the
average age of the storm sewers is approximately 45 years.
Table 17 - Storm Sewer Ages
DECADE
LENGTH
(KM)
% OF TOTAL
1950-1959
2.94
36.6%
1970-1979
1.50
18.7%
1980-1989
2.79
34.7%
2000-2009
0.00
0.0%
2010-2019
0.54
6.7%
2020-present
0.27
3.3%
Total
8.04
100%
Page 16
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community levels of service provided by
Storm Water Network.
Table 18 - Storm System Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
Description, which may include map, of the user groups
or areas of the municipality that are protected from
flooding, including the extent of protection provided by
the municipal stormwater system
See Appendix B
Performance
# of locations in the Township regularly experiencing
flooding during wet weather events
3
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level of service provided by the
Storm Water Network.
Table 19 - Storm System Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
% of properties in municipality resilient to a 100-year
storm
Unknown - insufficient data available
% of the municipal stormwater management system
resilient to a 5-year storm
100%
3.2.4 ROAD NETWORK
The Road Network is a critical component of the provision of safe and efficient transportation services. It includes
all municipally owned and maintained roadways in addition to supporting roadside infrastructure streetlights. The
Township's Road Network is maintained by the Public Works Department.
The Town's road network includes approximately 16.26 km of paved roadways, 3.83 km of gravel surface roadways, and
236 streetlights. Table 20 summarizes the inventory of the Town's road network. The replacement costs presented are
for surface rehabilitation only.
Page 17
Table 20 - Replacement Costs of Road Network Components
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
REPLACEMENT COST 1
($M)
Paved Roads (km)
15.51
$2,000/m
$31.020 M
Gravel Roads (km)
2.60
$850/m
$2.210 M
Streetlights 2
236
$2,750 ea
$0.649 M
TOTAL
$33.879 M
1
Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events (Force
Majeure).
2
Replacement cost for streetlights is representative of replacement costs of the streetlight, typically completed during full road
reconstruction. The replacement cost is not representative of repair costs for individual streetlights.
The Replacement Cost for roads is representative of full road restoration, i.e. road surface, granular base, and
granular subbase.
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community levels of service provided by
the Road Network.
Table 21 - Road Network Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
Description, which may include maps, of the road
network in the municipality and its level of
connectivity
See Appendix B
Quality
Description or images that illustrate the different levels
of road class pavement condition
A visual inspection of all roads was completed to
determine a Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI
is a 0-100 rating that ranges from 0 (Fail) to 100
(Good). Photos of existing road conditions are
appended to this plan.
Performance
Streetlight bulb outages left unreplaced for a period
exceeding seven (7) days *
2
*
One (1) bulb outage may exceed 7 days as the Township does not call for repairs for a single outage. However, if two (2) bulbs are out,
repairs are called in immediately.
Page 18
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level of service provided by the
Road Network.
Table 22 - Road Network Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Scope
Lane-km of arterial roads (MMS classes 1 and 2) per
land area (km/km2 )
0
Lane-km of collector roads (MMS classes 3 and 4) per
land area (km/km2 )
0
Lane-km of local roads (MMS classes 5 and 6) per land
area (km/km2 )
12.7
Quality
Average pavement condition index for paved roads in
the municipality
65 - Fair
Average surface condition for unpaved roads in the
municipality (e.g. excellent, good, fair, poor)
Good
Performance
# of complaints about road condition issues per year
12
3.2.5 BRIDGES & CULVERTS
Bridges and structural culverts are classified as structures having a span of 3m or greater. All bridge and structural
culverts subject to biennial inspections as per the Ontario Bridge Inspection Manual (OSIM).
The Township does not own any bridges or culverts.
3.2.6 BUILDINGS
The Town of Terrace Bay owns thirteen (13) properties throughout the municipality. Some of these properties
have more than a single building on the site and have been considered separately for condition assessments and
recommendations. Table 23 summarizes the inventory of the Town's building assets.
Replacement costs are based on recent construction projects in Northern Ontario. Building cost examples are
provided in Appendix E for reference.
The Water Treatment Plant and Raw Water Pumping Station buildings are not included under the "Buildings" assets
as the information relevant to managing those two assets are captured under "Water System" assets
Page 19
Table 23 - Replacement Cost of Buildings
AREA (SQ.M)
HISTORICAL COST
(IF AVAIL.)
UNIT REPLACEMENT
COST (PER SQ.M)
REPLACEMENT
COST 1 ($M)
Public Works Garage
520
--
$2,400
$1.248 M
Airport Office
90
--
$2,700
$0.243 M
Airport Garage
139
--
$2,400
$0.334 M
Tourist Information
Centre
150
--
$3,100
$0.465 M
Cultural Centre
2032
--
$3,400
$6.909 M
Pool Building
163
--
$3,400
$0.554 M
Community Centre
5110
--
$3,400
$17.374 M
Fire Hall Office
89
--
$2,700
$0.240 M
Fire Hall Garage
270
--
$2,400
$0.648 M
Sewage Treatment
Building + Tanks
(Decommissioned)
224
$445,000
--
$0.445 M
Lighthouse
28
$745,000
--
$0.745 M
Beach House
350
$2,300,000
--
$2.300 M
TOTAL
12,789
$34.255 M
1
A 3% inflation rate was used to convert all unit cost from 2013 dollars as provided in the original Asset Management Plan to 2021
dollars. Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events
(Force Majeure).
Page 20
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 24 - Buildings Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Safety
Number of incidents reported
0
% of buildings compliant to accessibility compliant*
92%
Number of complaints received regarding nefarious /
suspicious activities on building properties per year
To be recorded moving forward
Quality
% of buildings which have undergone significant
upgrades/repairs within the last 40 years (1980 or later) *
30% to 40%
* Excludes the decommissioned Sewage Treatment building.
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 25 - Buildings Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Safety
Number of complaints received regarding state of
buildings
To be recorded moving forward
Quality
Number of unplanned closures / use restrictions per year
To be recorded moving forward
Number of emergency repairs required on buildings per
year
To be recorded moving forward
Page 21
3.2.7 OTHER MUNICIPAL ASSETS
The Town of Terrace Bay owns other assets which they are responsible for the maintenance and usability
throughout the municipality. Table 26 summarizes the inventory of the Town's "other" assets.
Table 26 - Replacement Cost of Other Municipal Assets
SERVICE
AREA
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
HISTORICAL
COST (IF
AVAIL.)
UNIT
REPLACEMENT
COST
REPLACEMENT
COST 1 ($M)
Fleet Vehicles
Public Works Fleet
4 pickup trucks
11 heavy
trucks/machines
--
$55,000 ea (pickup
truck)
$250,000 ea (heavy
truck/machine)
$2.970 M
Fire Fleet
1 pickup truck
1 heavy pickup
truck
2 heavy trucks
1 snow mobile
1 ATV
--
$55,000 ea (pickup
truck)
$150,000 ea (heavy
pickup truck)
$600,000 ea (heavy
truck)
$20,000 (ATV / snow
mobile)
$1.445 M
Other Township
Vehicles
3 pickup trucks
1 snow mobile
--
$55,000 ea (pickup
truck)
$20,000 (snow mobile)
$0.185 M
Community
Recreation
Beach House
Boardwalk
310 m
--
$3,400 /m
$1.054 M
Docks
82 m
$90,000
--
$0.090 M
Aguasabon Gorge
Boardwalk & Stairs
108 m
$1,000,000
--
$1.000 M
Community
Parks/Playgrounds
4
--
$54,000 ea
$0.216 M
Waste
Management
Landfill 2
1
$10,561,000
$10.561 M
Other
Cemetery
1
$150,000
$0.150 M
TOTAL
$17.671 M
1
Replacement costs for Wastewater System Components do not consider spikes in costs as a consequence of unforeseen events (Force
Majeure).
Page 22
2
Landfill replacement cost is based on progressing the active current landfill. The current landfill has enough operational capacity to
sustain the Township for approximately the next 15 years. The landfill property has adequate space to provide waste management for an
additional 75 years, with necessary expansions occurring at 100,000 cubic meter increments (approximately every 10 years).
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 27 - Other Municipal Assets Community Levels of Service
SERVICE
AREA(S)
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Fleet
Services
Reliability
Description of vehicle safety inspections
As per vehicle/machine owner's manual
recommendations or every 6,000 km. See
Appendix F. All fleet asset inspections are
completed in compliance with all applicable
MTO requirements.
Community
Recreation
& Other
Quality
Description of vehicle safety inspections
Assets inspected on an annual basis (minimum).
See Appendix F.
% of customers who are unsatisfied with overall
experience
0
Waste
Management Sustainability
Description of site condition:
-
Waste segregation
-
Overall cleanliness
-
Controlled access to site
-
Site attendant present during hours of
operation
Excellent
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 28 - Other Municipal Assets Technical Levels of Service
SERVICE
AREA(S)
SERVICE
ATTRIBUTE
TECHNICAL METRIC
CURRENT LOS (2021)
Fleet
Services
Reliability
% of preventative maintenance inspections
completed
To be recorded moving forward
% of repair hours spent on unscheduled repairs
and service not PM related.
To be recorded moving forward
Community
Recreation
& Other
Quality
% of assets inspected at least annually
To be recorded moving forward
Waste
Management Sustainability % of facilities operating within ECA
requirements
100%
Page 23
3.3 ASSET'S CURRENT YEAR VALUE
According to the suppliers, water distribution infrastructure, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers typically have a 60-
to 80-year lifespan, depending on the type of material used during construction. The weighted average service life
for the water, wastewater and stormwater systems is 62, 73 and 72 years, respectively.
Buildings have various components with different expected service lives. Structures typically have a 50-year
lifespan where roof structures usually have a 15- to 20- year life expectancy. Mechanical equipment typically has a
20- to -30-year life expectancy. Through strategic forecasting, mechanical improvements, and good maintenance, a
building can expect to have an 80-year lifespan. The weighted average service life of these specific buildings should
be taken as 60 years.
The remaining useful life of each asset should also be taken as the ratio of their condition index. Again, for buried
infrastructure, the condition is extrapolated, and the remaining life is simply the design life minus the age of the
assets. Both the remaining useful life and current year value are listed in Appendix A of this plan.
3.4 REPLACEMENT COSTS
There are several ways to estimate the value of assets, including: original book value; depreciated book value; market
value; and replacement cost. For the purposes of quantifying life cycle costs, the replacement cost is deemed to be
the most appropriate.
The replacement costs for the water, wastewater, stormwater systems, and building components are based on cost
data compiled by WSP from several sources, including recent tenders, surveys, review of Township records and
other studies. These estimates do not include any road restoration costs necessitated by the replacement of
underground components.
The cost estimates presented in this report are deemed to be sufficiently accurate for the initial development of an
asset management plan. However, a more detailed analysis is required in order to estimate the replacement cost
for individual components. A detailed cost estimate should account for restoration requirements, staging of
construction, site constraints, and economic factors.
3.4.1 WATER SYSTEM
Figure 2 illustrates the replacement cost for each water system components based on the inventory and unit costs
summarized in Table 2. The estimated replacement cost of the water system is approximately $44.0 million. From
Figure 2, the replacement cost of water mains is approximately 25% of the total replacement cost of the water system.
Page 24
Figure 2 - Replacement Cost for Water System
Mains
25%
Hydrants
3%
Services
5%
Water Treatment
Plant
45%
Pumping Station
22%
FIGURE 3-1
REPLACEMENT COST FOR WATER SYSTEM
($44.0 million)
Page 25
3.4.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Figure 3 illustrates the replacement cost for each wastewater system component based on the inventory and unit costs
summarized in Table 8. The estimated replacement cost of the wastewater system is approximately $13.1 million.
It is apparent from Figure 3 that the replacement cost of sanitary sewers is 47% of the total replacement cost of the
wastewater system.
Figure 3 - Replacement Cost for Wastewater System
Sanitary Sewers
47%
Sanitary Manholes
18%
Sanitary Services
16%
Sedimentation Tanks
19%
REPLACEMENT COST FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM
($13.1 million)
Page 26
3.4.3 STORMWATER SYSTEM
Figure 4 illustrates the replacement cost for each stormwater system component based on the inventory and unit costs
summarized in Table 14. The estimated replacement cost of the stormwater system is approximately $5.6 million.
Figure 4 - Replacement Cost for Stormwater System
Storm Sewers
55%
Storm Manholes
16%
Catchbasins
19%
Catchbasin
Manholes
10%
REPLACEMENT COST FOR STORMWATER SYSTEM
($5.6 million)
Page 27
3.4.4 ROADS
A Figure 5 illustrates the replacement cost for each road network component based on the inventory and unit costs
summarized in Table 20. The estimated replacement cost of the road network is approximately $36.4 million, with
over 90% of the replacement costs stemming from paved roads.
Figure 5 - Replacement Cost for Road Network
Paved Roads
92%
Gravel Roads
6%
Streetlights
2%
REPLACEMENT COST FOR ROAD NETWORK
($33.9 million)
Page 28
3.4.5 BUILDINGS
Figure 6 illustrates the replacement cost for individual buildings based on the inventory and replacement costs
summarized in Table 23. The estimated replacement cost of all buildings is approximately $34.3 million. It is
apparent from Figure 6 that the replacement cost of Community Center accounts for approximately 51% of the total
replacement cost of the building assets.
Figure 6 - Replacement Cost for Buildings
Public Works Garage
3.6%
Airport Office
0.7%
Airport Garage
1.0%
Tourist Information
Centre
1.4%
Cultural Centre
20.2%
Pool Building
1.6%
Community Centre
50.7%
Fire Hall Office
0.7%
Fire Hall Garage
1.9%
Sewage Treatment
Building + Tanks
5.3%
Lighthouse
3.0%
Beach House
9.9%
REPLACEMENT COST FOR BUILDINGS
($34.3 million)
Page 29
3.4.6 OTHER MUNICIPAL ASSETS
Figure 7 illustrates the replacement cost for other individual municipally owned assets based on the inventory and
replacement costs summarized in Table 26. The estimated replacement cost of all other assets is approximately
$17.7 million. It is apparent from Figure 7 that the replacement cost of Landfill is approximately 60% of the total
replacement cost of the other assets.
Figure 7 - Replacement Cost for Other Assets
3.4.7 SUMMARY OF REPLACEMENT COSTS
The total replacement cost of the water, wastewater and stormwater systems is approximately $62.72 million.
Including the road network, buildings, and other municipally owned assets, the replacement cost would amount to
$148.52 million. Since the current population in the Town is approximately 1,611, the replacement cost of the water,
wastewater and stormwater systems is approximately $38,930 per capita or $92,195 per capita if the road network,
building, and other municipal assets are included.
3.5 ASSET CONDITIONS
The Condition Index (CI) is a planning tool which assists with the scheduling of maintenance and upkeep. A higher
number indicates a better overall condition. The CI is a basic economic indication of the current value as a
Public Works Fleet
16.8%
Fire Fleet
8.2%
Other Township
Vehicles
1.0%
Beach House
Boardwalk
6.0%
Docks
0.5%
Aguasabon Gorge
Boardwalk & Stairs
5.7%
Community
Parks/Playgrounds
1.2%
Landfill
59.8%
Cemetery
0.8%
REPLACEMENT COST FOR OTHER MUNICIPAL
ASSETS
($17.7 million)
Page 30
percentage of its replacement cost. The CI is a simple, convenient and inexpensive way to monitor the condition of
the assets, identify maintenance and rehabilitation needs, and to ensure that maintenance budgets are spent wisely.
Using the CI can help identify trigger points for preventive maintenance that can stop an asset from deteriorating to
the point that it needs expensive rehabilitation.
The condition indices are calculated values representative of the condition of an asset. The values in this plan vary
from 0-100 (indicating completely deteriorated to new condition). Buried assets use an age condition index
approach similar to the CityWide Software while buildings use a facility condition index. Typically, visual
inspections are carried out and details are entered into the database which in turn produces a calculated condition
index based on inspected elements. Where access is limited or not possible it is necessary to make assumptions
considering age, design life, and material. For example, roads are inspected, and parameters usually include severity
and frequency of items such as potholes, distortion, tire rutting, or washboard. These severities and frequencies can
then be entered into the asset management software and in turn produce a condition index. CityWide Software uses
a completely age-based condition rating system unless overridden. The assets' current conditions are presented in
Appendix A of this plan.
3.5.1 AGE CONDITION INDEX
The assets vary from critical to excellent age-based condition, and most are currently providing acceptable levels of
service. The rating system is as follows:
Table 29 - Condition Index
CONDITION INDEX
100 - 75
75 - 50
49 - 25
24 - 0
Rating
1 - Excellent
2 - Good
3 - Fair
4 - Poor
The infrastructures in the municipality were visually inspected where safe access could be gained to determine their
current condition and engineering characteristics. CCTV inspections were conducted and reviewed for
approximately 4% of the infrastructure assets. Extrapolation to remaining assets was necessary from the CCTV
videos.
Normally a Serviceability Condition Index (SCI) is used for applications like these however it is not recommended
with assets approaching the end of their useful lives. The SCI takes into account the condition, cost, and criticality
(consequence of failure). Because these services are vital and aged, most would produce an SCI of exactly 50.
The Age Condition Index (ACI) is the default condition rating system used by CityWide. Normally this rating
system is avoided because they lead to assets being replaced based on age rather than performance. For buried
infrastructure this method is recommended simply because access cannot be granted for detailed performance
evaluations. Although the CCTV videos are helpful, only select sewers with random distribution were chosen for
inspection.
It is recommended that CCTV inspections be conducted and reviewed for the entire storm and sanitary sewer
systems, particularly problematic areas, so actual condition rather than age-based condition indices can be
established and entered into CityWide. The CI for water distribution systems are purely age and material based
(ACI).
3.5.2 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX
The facility condition index (FCI) is the adopted method used to evaluate building conditions which indicate the
relative financial investment need of a facility or group of buildings independent of building type, construction type,
location or cost. The FCI is a ratio of the cost of remedying the requirements to the current replacement value.
The FCI is not strictly a measure of condition, as it is focused on current needs and not the overall condition. For
instance, a building which is generally in very good condition, but which requires some minor (but immediate)
needs, will have a lower FCI than a building in fair condition with no immediate needs.
Page 31
A low FCI would indicate a significant investment required to remedy the requirements relative to the cost of
replacing the facility. Good asset management would therefore place a greater level of attention on these assets to
determine whether replacement is a better solution to maintenance or rehabilitation.
The buildings throughout the municipality were visually inspected where safe access could be gained to determine
their current condition and engineering characteristics. A good representation of the facilities was achieved and
valuable information was collected.
3.5.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical rating of the pavement condition based on the type and severity
of distresses observed on the pavement surface. The PCI value of the pavement condition is represented by a
numerical index between 0 and 100, where 0 is the worst possible condition and 100 is the best possible condition,
broken down as follows:
-
0-10: Fail
-
11-25: Serious
-
26-40: Very Poor
-
41-55: Poor
-
56-70: Fair
-
71-85: Satisfactory
-
86-100: Good
PCI is calculated based on the distresses observed during condition surveys (inspections). This information is used
to determine the PCI values of pavement section. The methods of obtaining PCI values are as per ASTM D6433:
Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.
The PCI history of a pavement section can help establish its rate of deterioration and identify future major
rehabilitation needs. PCI values are also used in prioritizing, funding and executing Maintenance and Rehabilitation
(M&R) on the pavement section.
Inspections to obtain a PCI value for every municipal road within the Township was not feasible given the time and
cost that would be required to complete such an undertaking. Thus, for the purposes of this Asset Management Plan
all municipal roads where visually inspected for distress types described in ASTM D6433 and a PCI value was
assigned based on visual observations and road age. The assigned PCI value will provide the Township with a sense
of the road conditions, flagging any potential roads whose condition will require intervention in the near future, and
allow for the prioritization of road rehabilitations within the community. A copy of ASTM D6433 has been provided
in Appendix H.
For the purposes of this Asset Management Plan, the remaining useful life for paved roads within the municipality
was estimated by assigning an equivalent ACI value from the assigned PCI value, from which the remaining useful
life was calculated as outlined in Section 7.2.
Table 30 - ASTM D6433 Distress Types for Asphalt Surface Roads
DISTRESS TYPES
-
Alligator Cracking
-
Bleeding
-
Block Cracking
-
Bumps and Sags
-
Corrugation
-
Depression
-
Edge Cracking
-
Joint Reflection
Cracking
-
Lane / Shoulder
Dropoff
-
Longitudinal and
Transverse Cracking
-
Patching & Utility
Cut Patching
-
Polished Aggregate
-
Potholes
-
Railroad Crossings
-
Rutting
-
Shoving
-
Slippage Cracking
-
Swell
-
Weathering /
Raveling
Page 32
3.6 SERVICE LIFE
The service life of the water, wastewater, stormwater, road network, building components, and other municipal
assets are variable depending upon several factors, such as: construction materials; quality of construction;
environmental conditions; and maintenance. In simple terms, the service life of a component is defined as the time
period that the component provides an acceptable level of service prior to requiring repairs. The economic service
life is defined as the time period when the present worth of the maintenance cost is equal to the present worth of the
replacement cost.
The rate of deterioration of assets is also variable. Some components deteriorate in a linear manner, while in other
cases they deteriorate in an exponential manner. In a few cases, components will deteriorate rapidly right after
construction (typically due to poor construction) and then the rate of deterioration will decline over the balance of its
service life.
For the purposes of this study, a theoretical service life has been assumed for each of the Town's water, wastewater,
stormwater systems, road network, building components, and other municipal assets as indicated in Table 31, Table
33, Table 35, Table 37, Table 39, and Table 41, respectively. As a result, the remaining life of each system
component can be estimated by subtracting the age of the component from its service life.
3.6.1 WATER SYSTEM
Table 31 summarizes the service life assumed for the water system components. It is recognized that the mechanical
and electrical components of the water system's buildings (and all buildings) have a shorter life expectancy than the
structural components.
Table 31 - Service Life for Water System Components
COMPONENT
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
Raw Water Pumping Station:
-
Structural (70% of value)
50 Years
-
Mechanical & Electrical (30% of value)
30 Years
Water Treatment Plant
-
Structural (70% of value)
50 Years
-
Mechanical & Electrical (30% of value)
30 Years
Water Network Components
-
Hydrants, Valves & Services
80 Years
-
Cast Iron Pipe
80 Years
-
Ductile Pipe
100+ Years
-
HDPE Pipe
100+ Years
-
PVC Pipe
100+ Years
Page 33
Table 32 summarizes the decade of original construction for each of the Pumping Station, Water Treatment Plant, water
mains, hydrants and services. The year of construction for each of these facilities is included in Appendix A.
Page 34
Table 32 - Historical Growth of Water System
FACILITY
DECADE OF CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-09
2010-19
2020-
Present
Pumping
Station
1
1
Water
Treatment
Plant
1
1
Water Main
Length
(km)
11.4
4.2
1.6
3.2
0.3
0.4
21.1
Hydrants
104
2
8
114
Water
Services
786
52
28
866
No Service Life Remaining
0 - 5 Years Remaining
6 - 10 Years Remaining
Over 10 Years Remaining
Note: It is assumed that the hydrants and services are installed at the same rate as the water main installation
3.6.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Table 33 summarizes the service life assumed for the wastewater system components.
Table 33 - Service Life for Wastewater System Components
COMPONENT
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
Transite Sanitary Sewers
60 Years
Clay Sanitary Sewers
70 Years
PVC Sanitary Sewers
100+ Years
Manholes & Services
80 Years
Sedimentation Tank
80 Years
Page 35
Table 34 summarizes the decade of original construction for the Town's wastewater system inventory.
Table 34 - Historical Growth of Wastewater System
FACILITY
DECADE OF CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-09
2010-19
2020-
Present
Sanitary
Sewer Length
(km)
6.6
3.9
1.7
1.4
0.7
0.2
14.6
Manholes
93
61
26
15
8
203
Sanitary
Services
396
264
110
52
28
850
Sedimentation
Tanks
3
1
4
No Service Life Remaining
0 - 5 Years Remaining
6 - 10 Years Remaining
Over 10 Years Remaining
Note: It is assumed that the manholes and services were installed at the same rate as the sanitary sewer installation.
The Town's current inventory includes the decade of construction for sanitary sewers. However, the inventory does
not include the decade of construction for the sanitary manholes. Therefore, it has been assumed that the number of
sanitary manholes has increased in proportion to the length of sanitary sewers installed.
3.6.3 STORMWATER SYSTEM
Table 35 summarizes the service life assumed for the stormwater system components.
Table 35 - Service Life for Stormwater System Components
COMPONENT
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
Transite Storm Sewers
60 Years
Clay Storm Sewers
70 Years
PVC Storm Sewers
100+ Years
Manholes, Catchbasins Manholes, & Catchbasins
80 Years
Page 36
Table 36 summarizes the decade of original construction for the Town's current stormwater system inventory.
Table 36 - Historical Growth of Stormwater System
FACILITY
DECADE OF CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-09
2010-19
2020-
Present
Storm Sewer
Length (km)
2.9
1.5
2.8
0.5
0.3
8.0
Manholes
35
18
23
11
6
93
Catchbasins
61
38
48
18
9
174
Catchbasin
Manholes
17
16
21
1
2
57
No Service Life Remaining
0 - 5 Years Remaining
6 - 10 Years Remaining
Over 10 Years Remaining
3.6.4 ROADS
Table 37 summarizes the service life assumed for the road network components.
Table 37 - Service Life for Road Network Components
COMPONENT
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
Paved Roads
20 Years (Road Surface)
80 Years (Full Road Reconstruction)
Gravel Roads
50 Years
Streetlights
30 Years
Page 37
Table 38 summarizes the decade of original construction for the Town's current Road Network inventory.
Table 38 - Historical Growth of Road Network
FACILITY
DECADE OF CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-09
2010-19
2020-
Present
Paved Roads
(km)
8.5
3.4
2.9
0.5
0.2
15.5
Gravel Roads
(km)
2.6
2.6
Streetlights
236
236
No Service Life Remaining
0 - 5 Years Remaining
6 - 10 Years Remaining
Over 10 Years Remaining
Note: It was assumed that full road reconstructions for paved roads occurred within the Township occurred at the same rate as
watermain. sanitary sewer, and/or storm sewer installations.
According to CityWide records, streetlights underwent maintenance/replacement as needed on a 5-year basis from
since 1975. As of 2014, streetlights have been refurbished to LED.
3.6.5 BUILDINGS
Table 39 summarizes the service life assumed for the building components.
Table 39 - Service Life for Building Components
COMPONENT
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
Structure (70% of Value)
50 Years
Roof Structure (10% of Value)
20 Years
HVAC (5% of Value)
30 Years
Plumbing & Electrical (15% of Value)
30 Years
Page 38
Table 40 summarizes the year of original construction for the Town's building inventory.
Table 40 - Historical Growth & Remaining Service Life of Municipal Buildings
FACILTY
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
REMAINING SERVICE LIFE
Water Treatment Plant
2005
Structure: 35 Years
Roof: 5 Years
HVAC: 15 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 15 Years
Raw Water Pumping Station
2009
Structure: 40 Years
Roof: 10 Years
HVAC: 20 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 20 Years
Public Works Garage
1975 (1995 addition, 2020 roof repairs)
Structure: 5 - 25 Years
Roof: 20 Years
HVAC: 5 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 5 Years
Airport Office
1978
Structure: 10 Years
Roof: 0 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Airport Garage
1979
Structure: 10 Years
Roof: 0 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Tourist Information Centre
1991
Structure: 20 Years
Roof: 0 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Cultural Centre
1980 (2010 full repairs)
Structure: 40 Years
Roof: 10 Years
HVAC: 20 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 20 Years
Page 39
Pool Building
1962
Structure: 0 Years
Roof: 0 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Community Centre
1959 (1980 & 1998 additions)
Structure: 0 - 30 Years
Roof: 0 Years
HVAC: 0 - 10 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 - 10 Years
Fire Hall Office
1980 (2020 roof repairs)
Structure: 10 Years
Roof: 20 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Fire Hall Garage
1974 (2020 roof repairs)
Structure: 10 Years
Roof: 20 Years
HVAC: 0 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 0 Years
Sewage Treatment Building + Tanks
1978
N/A - Decommissioned
Lighthouse
2011
Structure: 40 Years
Roof: 10 Years
HVAC: N/A
Plumbing/Electrical: N/A
Beach House
2020
Structure: 50 Years
Roof: 20 Years
HVAC: 30 Years
Plumbing/Electrical: 30 Years
Page 40
3.6.6 OTHER ASSETS
Table 41 summarizes the in-service date and service life assumed for the various other assets owned by the Township.
Table 41 - Historical Growth & Remaining Service Life Other Municipal Assets
ASSET
IN-SERVICE DATE
EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE
REMAINING SERVICE
LIFE
Municipally Owned Vehicles
1999, 2011 (x2), 2013, 2015,
2016, 2018, 2019 (pickup
trucks)
2003 (heavy pickup truck)
2010, 2013, 2016 (ATVs /
snowmobiles)
1980, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997,
2005 (x2), 2009, 2011, 2012
(x2), 2014, 2017 (heavy trucks
/ machines)
10 Years
Ongoing maintenance as
required. Vehicles with
model years prior to 2010
should be considered for
replacement
Beach House Boardwalk
2020
40 Years
40 Years
Docks
2017
60 Years
50-60 Years
Aguasabon Gorge Boardwalk &
Stairs
1990 (2019 repainted)
40 Years
10 Years
Community Parks/Playgrounds
N/A (repainted as required)
10 Years
Ongoing maintenance as
required
Landfill
1978
60 Years
+/- 15 Years
Cemetery
1952 (expansions as required)
10 Years
Ongoing
maintenance/expansions
as required
Page 41
4 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE
The current Levels of Service metrics presented for each asset within their respective sections throughout Section
3.2, apart from the qualitative descriptions set out in Column 2 and the technical metrics set out in Column 3 of
Table 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of O.Reg. 588/17, were established through discussions held with the Township. At the time of
this Asset Management Plan update, the Township did not have any specific policies outlining desired Levels of
Service (LOS) for the municipally owned assets, however, are currently working on developing a LOS Policy.
Township staff strive to maintain the existing infrastructure so that interruptions are minimized. Interruptions may
be caused by unexpected or unplanned watermain breaks or beaks in the wastewater or stormwater collection
systems.
It is recommended that LOS policies be established in order to better serve the users of the water and wastewater,
and stormwater systems. A typical LOS policy would include metrics such as:
-- Acceptable number of breaks per 100km of pipe;
-- Response time to watermain / sewer breaks;
-- Acceptable duration of service interruption;
-- Number of customer complaints;
-- Colour/odour/taste of drinking water;
-- Water pressure (drinking water system);
-- Water temperature;
-- Minimum and maximum chlorine residual levels (drinking water system);
-- Minimum Fire Hydrant flows;
-- Catchbasin debris removal;
-- Sewer flow velocity;
-- Sewer odour control;
-- Percent blockage of sewers;
-- Percentage of roads inspected within the last five years;
-- Operating costs for paved roads per lane km;
-- Operating costs for gravel roads per lane km;
-- Number of customer requests received annually;
-- Percentage of customer requests with a 24-hour response rate;
-- Roof/surface drainage;
-- Energy efficiency;
-- Cleanliness;
-- Noise barriers; and
-- Barrier-free access.
Once the metrics are available to quantify the Level of Service currently available, the Township can then review the
costs associated with maintaining the existing water, wastewater, stormwater systems, and buildings at their current
LOS. An increased amount of money must be spent on these systems in order to maintain the current LOS. This is
due to the increasing age of the systems. In other words, as the systems get older, they require more money to keep
them performing at the same Level of Service they provide today. Some examples of expected levels of service are
included Appendix E.
Page 42
5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.1 NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS
Non-infrastructure solutions can produce lower, more sustainable costs in maintaining existing assets. Non-
infrastructure solutions are solutions that do not include the physical repairs of the assets. It is an organizational
approach that will aid in the future by lowering costs, having organized data, saving time, and therefore resulting in
better efficiency. Inspection reports should identify the maintenance work required within a timeframe for the work,
and an opinion of probable cost. To extend the service life of an asset, the Township should use the information
acquired from the inspections to update their financial plan accordingly and ensure that the plan is implemented.
Currently, the Township utilizes CityWide Software Solutions stores the asset's historical data and provides an
organized future path forward.
It is important to accurately keep any asset management software up to date; or the municipality increases the risk of
having inconsistent and inaccurate information produced. This would make the true value of assets incorrect and
future values very difficult to determine. It also compromises any other asset information such as construction costs,
replacement information, or useful life.
5.2 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Regular maintenance is essential to managing municipal assets. The expected level of service often relies on
maintenance activities. It is imperative that the municipality schedules regular inspections for their assets and
inspectors identify the needs for maintenance work as well as the required timeframe. They will also identify if
immediate action should be taken to address any safety concerns. Regular maintenance can add significant life to
assets and save the municipality money in the long term. Routine maintenance and minor repair work to an element
can normally be performed without professional engineering direction.
Buried infrastructure such as sewers and watermains should be inspected whenever there is a suspicion of a
malfunction or approximately every ten years. WSP recommends inspections be carried out in late spring to early
autumn for more detailed and accurate results. The information regarding the characteristics, value, and condition of
assets should be updated into CityWide after every inspection.
5.2.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION
The major objectives for maintaining water distribution systems are to provide safe and aesthetically pleasing water
to residents. While it is not practical to excavate watermains for inspection, new technologies such as in-service
CCTV watermain inspections are possible for critical watermains which cannot be taken out of service. It is
recommended to only to excavate for watermain replacement when a break is suspected. Some maintenance
activities for water distribution systems may include:
-- Flushing & swabbing;
-- Exercise mainline valves and hydrants; and
-- Strategic valve placement / replacement.
5.2.2 SEWERS
Preventative actions can have substantial impacts on the life and preservation of the assets. Sediments may build up
and cause blockages stopping the flow of material. This will cause it to back up into residential dwellings and could
lead to extensive property damage and contamination. Sewer maintenance may include:
-- Repairing damaged or deteriorated sections of sanitary sewers;
-- High pressure flushing to clear debris; and
Page 43
-- CCTV inspections.
5.2.3 ROADS
The Road Network is a critical component of the provision of safe and efficient transportation services. It includes
all municipally owned and maintained roadways in addition to supporting roadside infrastructure streetlights.
Preventative maintenance activities can be applied in order to obtain one year of added life, i.e., maintenance
activities must often be applied on a yearly basis in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. Of course,
preventative maintenance activities can only be applied to a road at a relatively early point in the life cycle. Road
network maintenance may include:
-- Gravel Roads:
-- Dust control (calcium chloride) in summer months / dry periods,
-- Magnesium crystal applied later in summer if necessary,
-- Grading as required.
-- Paved Roads:
-- Pothole repairs,
-- Crack sealing,
-- Cut-and-pave techniques (e.g. resurfacing).
The management of gravel roads is not through major rehabilitation and replacement, but rather through good
perpetual maintenance and some minor rehabilitation which depend on a few basic principles: proper techniques and
cycles for grading; the use and upkeep of good surface gravel; and, dust abatement and stabilization.
5.2.4 BUILDINGS
Building maintenance can have a significant impact on the success and service life of a building asset. Maintenance
on a building will help maintain the value of the asset by replacing failed mechanical equipment, preserving the
functionality of the facility. As previously discussed, various components of a building have different expected
service lives.
Aesthetically, maintenance helps keep a facility appearing professional and clean, and will contribute to the success
of a building asset, depending on its purpose. Although aesthetics are secondary to the functionality and structural
integrity to a building, they are valuable requirements. Building maintenance may include:
-- Removing rust and painting steel at initial signs of corrosion;
-- Replace ceiling tiles where stained and monitor;
-- Investigate roof leaking, caulk if necessary;
-- Replace weather stripping at all doors;
-- Keep snow away from doors and below window level; and
-- Concrete/grout patching in damaged areas.
5.2.5 OTHER ASSETS
Other municipal assets range in nature thus maintenance activities may vary amongst assets which fall under this
designation. However, general maintenance activities which aim to maintain asset value by replacing failed
mechanical equipment, preserving the functionality of the facility, and upkeep of aesthetic maintenance. At a high
level, general maintenance activities for "other" assets may include:
-- Removing rust and painting steel at initial signs of corrosion;
-- Concrete/grout patching in damaged areas;
-- Proper winterization and/or snow clearing; and,
-- Annual preventative care for mechanical components.
Page 44
5.3 REHABILITATION / REPLACEMENT ACTIVITIES
5.3.1 GENERAL
Rehabilitation/replacement of the assets is necessary when the levels of service do not conform to expectations or
any applicable standards. Significant repairs designed to extend the life of the asset are determined at every
inspection. It is essential to schedule regular inspections to monitor the asset's conditions.
Rehabilitation over replacement is advantageous when there are only few components that need repair.
Occasionally, the number of repairs is too extensive, and rehabilitation is deemed unfeasible or uneconomical.
Large cities that are unable to interrupt large volumes of traffic will rehabilitate their sewers by relining them which
will add structural integrity and seal them from leakage. This judgement is different for every case and sometimes
replacement is the more cost effective alternative when considering future repairs for smaller municipalities.
Replacement is considered when extensive damage or deterioration has occurred to the asset. Replacing assets is
sometimes costly and requires considerable additional review, such as detailed investigations. For buried
infrastructure, it is understandable that replacement activities are only done in cases of failure or when they are
excavated due to unrelated work (i.e. road work, gas lines, etc.) Taking advantage of replacing the buried
infrastructure that is beyond its design life while the road is removed will save significant funds in the future if a
break were to occur.
It is recommended that whenever an opportunity presents itself (unrelated excavation, breaks, roadwork, etc.), to
replace expired watermains/sewers, lead services, decayed valves, and install isolation valves throughout the
municipality to control the water flow during breaks or other activities that require water to be diverted.
The Township currently relies on infiltrative lagoons for the treatment and disposal of the sanitary sewage generated
by the Town of Terrace Bay. While the system appears to be operating with no apparent failures, the Ministry of
Environment may impose on the Township to phase out the use of the infiltrative lagoon and consider the
construction of a new Sewage Treatment Plant to treat the sewage using modern methods of sewage treatment. It is
recommended the Township prepare for this possible eventuality in future planning.
There are specific problem areas that were identified by the township and WSP recommends these issues be
resolved before extensive damage occurs to surrounding property. These problem areas can be found in Appendix
C. Issues include low spots in sewers, undersized sewers, frequent breakages, and lead water services.
Table 42, Table 43, Table 44, Table 45, Table 46, and Table 47 summarize the average annual investment required
for renewal of the Town's water, wastewater, stormwater systems, road network, buildings, and other assets,
respectively. The average annual investment is based on the replacement cost and the assumed service life for each
of the system components. The average annual investment in renewal should be at least $0.639 million for the water
supply system, $0.182 million for the wastewater system, $0.080 million for the stormwater system, and $0.454
million for the road network. The water treatment plant and pumping station are considered as part of the water
distribution system and financial analysis carries on with that assumption. These two facilities are excluded from
the buildings when considering renewal costs. The average annual investment for building renewal is approximately
$0.809 million, and $0.494 million for other upkeep/repairs on other municipal assets.
Page 45
Table 42 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Water System
REPLACEMENT
COST ($M)
SERVICE LIFE
(YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Watermains
$10.956 M
90
$0.122 M
Hydrants
$1.231 M
80
$0.015 M
Water Services
$2.338 M
80
$0.029 M
Water Treatment Plant
Structural (70%)
$13.863 M
50
$0.277 M
M & E (30%)
$5.941 M
30
$0.198 M
Pumping Station
Structural (70%)
$6.783 M
50
$0.136 M
M & E (30%)
$2.907 M
30
$0.097 M
Total
$44.019 M
$0.639M
Weighted Average
62
Table 43 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Wastewater System
REPLACEMENT COST
($M)
SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Sanitary Sewers
$6.132 M
65
$0.094 M
Sanitary Manholes
$2.423 M
80
$0.030 M
Sanitary Services
$2.040 M
80
$0.026 M
Sedimentation Tanks
$2.534 M
80
$0.032 M
Total
$13.129 M
$0.182 M
Weighted Average
73
Page 46
Table 44 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Stormwater System
REPLACEMENT COST
($M)
SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Storm Sewers
$3.116 M
65
$0.048 M
Storm Manholes
$0.921 M
80
$0.012 M
Catchbasins
$1.044 M
80
$0.013 M
Catchbasin Manholes
$0.564 M
80
$0.007 M
Total
$5.569 M
$0.080 M
Weighted Average
72
Table 45 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Road Network
REPLACEMENT COST
($M)
SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Paved Roads
$31.020 M
80
$0.388 M
Gravel Roads
$2.210 M
50
$0.044 M
Streetlights
$0.649 M
30
$0.022 M
Total
$36.365 M
$0.454 M
Weighted Average
59
Page 47
Table 46 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Buildings (Excluding water components)
REPLACEMENT
COST ($M)
SERVICE LIFE
(YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Public Works Garage
Structural (70%)
$0.874 M
50
$0.017 M
Roof (10%)
$0.125 M
10
$0.012 M
M & E (20%)
$0.250 M
30
$0.008 M
Airport Office
Structural (70%)
$0.170 M
50
$0.003 M
Roof (10%)
$0.024 M
10
$0.002 M
M & E (20%)
$0.049 M
30
$0.002 M
Airport Garage
Structural (70%)
$0.234 M
50
$0.005 M
Roof (10%)
$0.033 M
10
$0.003 M
M & E (20%)
$0.067 M
30
$0.003 M
Tourist Information
Centre
Structural (70%)
$0.326 M
50
$0.007 M
Roof (10%)
$0.047 M
10
$0.005 M
M & E (20%)
$0.093 M
30
$0.003 M
Cultural Centre
Structural (70%)
$4.836 M
50
$0.097 M
Roof (10%)
$0.691 M
10
$0.069 M
M & E (20%)
$1.382 M
30
$0.046 M
Pool Building
Structural (70%)
$0.388 M
50
$0.008 M
Roof (10%)
$0.055 M
10
$0.006 M
M & E (20%)
$0.111 M
30
$0.004 M
Community Centre
Structural (70%)
$12.162 M
50
$0.243 M
Roof (10%)
$1.737 M
10
$0.174 M
M & E (20%)
$3.475 M
30
$0.116 M
Page 48
REPLACEMENT
COST ($M)
SERVICE LIFE
(YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Fire Hall Office
Structural (70%)
$0.168 M
50
$0.003 M
Roof (10%)
$0.024 M
10
$0.002 M
M & E (20%)
$0.048 M
30
$0.002 M
Fire Hall Garage
Structural (70%)
$0.454 M
50
$0.009 M
Roof (10%)
$0.065 M
10
$0.006 M
M & E (20%)
$0.130 M
30
$0.004 M
Sewage Treatment
Building + Tanks
Structural (70%)
$0.312 M
50
$0.006 M
Roof (10%)
$0.045 M
10
$0.004 M
M & E (20%)
$0.089 M
30
$0.003 M
Lighthouse
Structural (80%)
$0.596 M
50
$0.012 M
Roof (20%)
$0.149 M
10
$0.015 M
M & E (0%)
$0.000 M
30
$0.000 M
Beach House
Structural (70%)
$1.610 M
50
$0.032 M
Roof (10%)
$0.230 M
10
$0.023 M
M & E (20%)
$0.460 M
30
$0.015 M
Total
$31.505 M
$0.970 M
Page 49
Table 47 - Average Annual Renewal Cost for Other Assets
REPLACEMENT COST
($M)
SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT ($M)
Municipally Owned Vehicles
$4.600 M
10 Years
$0.460 M
Beach House Boardwalk
$1.054 M
30 Years
$0.035 M
Docks
$0.090 M
60 Years
$0.002 M
Aguasabon Gorge Boardwalk
& Stairs
$1.000 M
30 Years
$0.033 M
Community
Parks/Playgrounds
$0.216 M
10 Years
$0.022 M
Landfill
$10.561 M
60 Years
$0.176 M
Cemetery
$0.150 M
10 Years
$0.015 M
Total
$17.671 M
$0.743 M
Based on Table 42, the weighted average service life for the water system is 62 years. In other words, the Town
should renew 1.9% of their water system each year in order to maintain it in perpetuity. Similarly, the weighted
average service lives for the wastewater and stormwater systems are 73 and 72 years, respectively. In this case, the
Town should renew at least 1.4% of their wastewater system, 1.4% of their stormwater system, and 1.4% of their
road network each year.
The projected replacement costs for each decade over the next 100 years are presented in the following sections.
Page 50
5.3.2 WATER SYSTEM
Figure 8 illustrates the projected replacement costs for the water system over the next 100 years based on the
replacement cost for the components (Table 2); the service life for the components (Table 31); and the age of the
components (Table 5).
Figure 8 - Project Renewal Cost for Water System
It is difficult to quantify the backlog in renewal without conducting a detailed condition assessment of the
infrastructure.
Figure 8 indicates that the next decade does not require any investment in the water system. The replacement costs
are expected to increase significantly over the next 70 years especially in 20, 40 and 90 years' time when the
watermains installed in the 1950's and the Water Treatment Plant and Raw Water Pumping Station components will
be at the end of their service lives.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Water System
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.64 million/year
Page 51
5.3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Figure 9 illustrates the replacement costs for the wastewater system over the next 100 years based on the
replacement cost for the components (Table 8); the service life for the components (Table 33); and the age of the
components (Table 11).
Figure 9 - Project Renewal Cost for Wastewater System
Figure 9 indicates that the next two decades will require investment in the wastewater system, with a significant
amount required in latter due to the backlog of clay and transite sewers that are going to be reaching the end of their
services lives. Furthermore, it is apparent from Figure 9 that replacement costs will decrease over the next 50 years
until the same sewers will require replacement once again.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Sanitary System
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.18 million/year
Page 52
5.3.4 STORMWATER SYSTEM
Figure 10 illustrates the projected costs for the stormwater system over the next 100 years based on the replacement
cost for the components (Table 14); the service life for the components (Table 35); and the age of the components
(Table 17).
Figure 10 - Project Renewal Cost for Stormwater System
Figure 10 indicates that the next two (2) decades as well as in 40 years' time, replacement costs will require
significant investment due to backlog of clay and transite sewers reaching the end of their services lives.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Storm System
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.08 million/year
Page 53
5.3.5 ROADS
Figure 11 illustrates the projected costs for the road network over the next 100 years based on the replacement cost
for the components (Table 20); and the age and service life for the components (Table 37).
Figure 11 - Project Renewal Cost for Road Network
Figure 11 indicates that in 20-years time a significant investment in the road network will be required next decade.
This is because the majority of the paved roadways were built in during the 1950's and will reach the end of their
useful lives causing major deterioration of the road structure. As the expected service life of a paved roadway is
approximately 80 years, this spike in investment is expected again in the decade of 2110. A lesser, but still
significant investment in the road network is expected in 40-years as a portion of paved and gravel roads will be due
for renewal. It should be noted that continual (annual) maintenance to gravel roads will greatly increase their service
life and may possibly never require full reconstruction.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Road Network
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.45 million/year
Page 54
5.3.6 BUILDINGS
Figure 12 illustrates the projected costs for the municipally owned buildings over the next 100 years based on the
replacement cost for the components (Table 23); and the age and service life for the components (Table 40).
Figure 12 - Project Renewal Cost for Buildings
Figure 12 indicates that the next decade requires a significant investment in buildings. This is because the
community centre is at the end of its theoretical life and is due for renewal. The community centre also has many
improvements done recently. The next spike in figure 5-4 is again when the community centre will be due for
renewal.
Table 40 summarizes the remaining life for building assets and when they are up for renewal. This indicates when
the municipality should disburse the recommended annual investments set aside. The assets will be due for renewal,
but good maintenance may significantly extend the useful life. Therefore, these remaining lives are based on the
buildings reaching the end of their service life if no investments are made in the meantime.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Buildings
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.97 million/year
Page 55
5.3.7 OTHER ASSETS
Figure 13 illustrates the projected costs for the other municipally assets over the next 100 years based on the
replacement cost for the components (Table 26); and the age and service life for the components (Table 41).
Figure 13 - Project Renewal Cost for Other Assets
Figure 13 indicates that investment in the other municipally owned assets is required every decade. A significant
portion of the investment is due to the expansion of the landfill estimated to occur every decade. The replacement
costs are expected to increase in the decades of the 2030's and the 2090's when the current landfill and the expanded
landfill property is anticipated to reach the end of its operational capacity, respectively, and will require
closure/decommissioning of the landfilled area.
Table 41 summarizes the remaining life for other assets and when they are up for renewal. This indicates when the
municipality should disburse the recommended annual investments set aside. The assets will be due for renewal, but
good maintenance may significantly extend the useful life. Therefore, these remaining lives are based on the other
assets reaching the end of their service life if no investments are made in the meantime.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
2020-2029
2030-2039
2040-2049
2050-2059
2060-2069
2070-2079
2080-2089
2090-2099
2100-2109
2110-2119
2120-2129
Replacement Cost per Decade ($ Million)
Decade
Project Renewal Cost for Other Assets
Avg. Annual Renewal Cost -
$0.74 million/year
Page 56
5.3.8 SUMMARY
The Town should prepare a long-term financial plan for their water, wastewater and stormwater systems and the
road network to ensure the sufficient resources are available to sustain these systems and to ensure that the money
that is invested is spent efficiently. Ideally, the revenues generated from water and sewer rates should be sufficient
to cover the full costs of the systems. If the Town's revenue base continues to decline, the water and sewer rates
will have to be further increased to generate sufficient revenues.
The recommended annual investment into buildings and other assets is kept separate so the municipality can choose
where to allocate their funds strategically. The majority of the renewal costs for buildings and other assets are not
critical to the functionality of the facilities but rather aesthetic recommendations.
5.4 DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
There is no disposal activity anticipated until an asset fails or an opportunity for replacement occurs (i.e., road
replacement). The assets currently generally meet the level of service expected based on asset ages.
The level of service defines the current and future operating conditions of assets using qualitative measures. The
operating conditions and level of service are normally defined by the municipality, and the characteristics generally
include pressure, temperature, and appearance for water distribution. For sewers, characteristics usually include
flow velocity, percent blockage, deterioration, and odour control. Buildings expected level of service may include
proper surface drainage, energy efficiency, noise barriers, vapour barriers, or barrier-free access.
The level of service also describes what the governing body, 'customer', or community wants, how much it will cost
to achieve, and whether it is affordable. Therefore, the levels of service should be specific and measurable, and
linked to the strategic objectives and outcomes of the township. Until the assets no longer meet any of the expected
levels of service, disposals are not anticipated.
Page 57
5.5 OVERVIEW OF RISKS
Understanding risks is important to the safety and functionality of the community as it relates to its infrastructure.
Having assets perform at the expected level of service is important for the Township. If the assets have to shut
down or are compromised, it becomes inconvenient for all. Below are some noted risks gathered during inspections.
Table 48 - Overview of Risks
KEY INDICATOR
ISSUE
POTENTIAL IMPACT
CURRENT CONTROLS
ACTION PLAN
Sewer System
Condition Index
ACI 0
Potential of sewer
failure due to age
Sewage will
contaminate the groundwater
None
Replace when
possible
CCTV Video
Potential for sewer
blockage
May backup sewage into
surrounding buildings and
will cause property damage
Some backflow
preventers installed at
lateral inlets
Flush the sewer
systems
Water System
Condition Index
ACI 0
Potential for
watermain failure
Water supply will be
interrupted
None
Replace when
possible.
Exercise valves
Township Staff
Lead services in water
distribution system
Long-term health effects
from high lead
concentrations.
Corrosion Control
Plan in place
Replace
Road Network
Visual Inspection
Surface Distress
May increase vehicular
accidents
Impede property access
Spot repairs (Pothole
filling, crack sealing)
Spot repairs when
appropriate
Road resurfacing
Road
reconstruction /
rehabilitation
Buildings &
Other Assets
Ice build-up from
roof
Blocked surface
drainage/eaves
Damage to building or roof
structure potentially creating
leaks
None
Clear roof drains,
remove ice
buildup, keep snow
clear from
downspouts
Page 58
6 FINANCING STRATEGY
A management strategy of planned actions will enable the assets to provide the desired levels of service and extend
their useful lives. The values from past years were found in the CityWide Software Solutions inventory and the
"Valuation Report of Tangible Capital Asset" spreadsheet created by Suncorp Valuations Ltd. provided by the
Township of Terrace Bay. This forecast will help the Township prepare for expenses associated with maintenance
and replacement costs. Below are Capital Plans for short-term and long-term forecasting. Some projects require
immediate attention while others should be invested in annually. These annual investments were concluded from
the costs of maintaining sustainable services and are independent of the townships actual budget. Also included in
the Capital Plans are alternative priority projects so the municipality can choose to invest elsewhere, if desired,
while still adding value to the assets.
6.1 CAPITAL PLANS
6.1.1 GENERAL
Based on the age and condition assessment of the municipal infrastructure assets, Capital Plans were developed to
guide the Township's future infrastructure renewal efforts over a 5-year period and over a 25-year period. These
Capital Plans establish the Township's priorities for renewal of the infrastructure systems and show the specific
projects that are proposed, how much they will cost, and the timeframe for construction.
The Capital Plans were developed on the basis of the Town providing a minimum investment into infrastructure
renewal efforts consistent with the levels established in this report. In other words, it is expected that the Town will
set aside funds at least equal to those recommended each year for infrastructure renewal efforts. All of those funds
may not necessarily be assigned to capital works in that given year but should remain in a reserve account to fund
future renewal efforts as they become necessary. Therefore, the Capital Plans have been developed such that the
amount of funds spent on renewal in any given 5-year period does not significantly exceed that recommended for
that period. However, in many cases, the amount spent on capital improvements is less than that recommended with
the expectation that the funds not expended will remain in a reserve account to finance future renewal efforts that
will be required beyond the 25-year Capital Plan.
In developing the Capital Plans, a distinction was made between underground works and aboveground works. There
are significant additional costs associated with the renewal of underground systems. In particular, in order to
reconstruct sanitary sewers and appurtenances, watermains and appurtenances, and storm sewers and appurtenances,
significant additional costs will be realized for reconstructing the roadway. These additional road reconstruction
costs are included in the Capital Plans and they are over and above the minimum amount required in maintaining
just the services (pipes).
The buildings and other municipal assets are incorporated into the capital plans but as alternative projects. The
majority of improvement recommendations are cosmetic and do not require immediate attention from a technical
perspective. Maintenance items are not considered as projects for capital planning.
6.1.2 UNDERGROUND WORKS
In developing the Capital Plans for the underground components of municipal infrastructure systems, the costs were
quantified that will be necessary to support these efforts - namely road reconstruction costs. In doing so, we have
assumed that the Township will elect for complete road reconstruction when replacing sewers and watermains, and
other amenities. It has been assumed that roads will be constructed with complete curb and gutter systems,
sidewalks on one side, and streetlight systems. This takes advantage of cost efficiencies associated with
reconstructing all of the roadway components at the same time.
Also, the life expectancy of roadway components, and in particular, asphalt paving, is typically significantly less
than sanitary sewers and watermains and most of these roads are in need of reconstruction when the underground
works are replaced.
Page 59
Based on typical construction costs in Northern Ontario, a generic road reconstruction estimate was prepared to
assist in the preparation of Capital Plans. The infrastructure assets for which renewal is required, namely water
distribution components, stormwater system components, and wastewater system components, were assessed
separately from the road reconstruction costs in order to isolate expenditures related to renewal efforts for the water
distribution systems and wastewater collection systems.
For budgeting purposes, road reconstruction costs (in 2021 dollars) in the Township of Terrace Bay are estimated as
follows:
Table 49 - Road Reconstruction Estimate
ROADWAY COMPONENT
APPROXIMATE COST PER
METRE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
Wastewater System, including sewers,
manholes, and services
$825 / m
16%
Water distribution system, including
watermains, valves, hydrants & services
$995 / m
18%
Stormwater system, including storm
sewers, catchbasins and manholes
$875 / m
17%
Basic Road components, including
excavation and removals, granulars, curb
& gutter & asphalt
$1,335 / m
25%
Additional roadway components,
including sidewalk, driveway
reconstruction, sod in boulevards, and
streetlight system.
$1,255 / m
24%
Total
$5,285 / m
100%
The above costs represent complete reconstruction costs, including appropriate allowances for engineering and
contingencies.
As can be seen in the above table, the cost for the water distribution system and wastewater collection system
components (storm and sanitary) represents approximately 51% of the total road reconstruction costs. A total annual
investment in road reconstruction costs of approximately $0.78 million is necessary for an annual renewal
investment of approximately $0.40 million in underground water and wastewater systems. This matches the
investment required for renewal as previously discussed. Considered another way, the combined cost of buried
infrastructure system components is approximately $2,695 / metre. For an average annual investment for renewal of
$0.40 million, this represents renewal of approximately 150 lineal metres of these systems, on average, each year at
a total cost of approximately $0.78 million. Over a 5-year period, this represents, on average, reconstruction of
approximately 750 lineal metres of roadway.
6.1.3 ABOVE GROUND WORKS
The Capital Plan requirements for aboveground works are more straight-forward than underground works. The
replacement costs provided in this report are complete and there are no additional restoration costs involved. The
average annual investment required for renewal of aboveground infrastructure components is as follows:
Table 50 - Average Annual Investment of Aboveground Works
INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM
AVERAGE ANNUAL INVESTMENT
Page 60
Water System - Aboveground components
$0.473 Million
Wastewater System - Aboveground components
$0.032 Million
Total
$0.505 Million
Over a 25-year period, this corresponds to investments in the aboveground components of the water system of
approximately $11.825 million, and the aboveground components of the wastewater system of approximately $0.8
million, for a total of $12.625 million. This amount should be either spent on capital works renewal or committed to
reserve accounts for future renewal efforts beyond the 25-year period.
The development of Capital Plans for aboveground works was based on the age of the components, estimated
service life, visual inspections of the components, and our knowledge of the infrastructure systems. Portions of the
aboveground assets may require replacement before other parts of the facility. For example, it is generally assumed
that mechanical and electrical components of such things as pumping stations and treatment plants have a limited
service life of approximately 30 years, while structural components such as buildings and structural tanks have a
greater service life of approximately 50 years. Therefore, renewal requirements for such facilities are separated into
mechanical and electrical upgrades and structural upgrades. For the purposes of budgeting, it has been assumed that
mechanical/electrical components make up approximately 20% of the total replacement cost of such facilities, while
structural elements make up 80% of the total replacement cost (10% allocated to roofs if asset is roofed with a
service life of approximately 20 years).
Buildings require a significant investment of $0.809 million annually. This is based on the 20% mechanical, 10%
roofing, and 70% structural split of replacement costs of each facility. It is understandable some buildings take
priority over others (such as the arena compared to the airport office) even though they equally require the same
level of attention. It is up to the municipality to choose which recommendations are priorities.
The alternative projects outlined in the capital plans follow the total recommended investment of annual renewal
budget but exclude road reconstruction costs since these should be done when an opportunity is presented (i.e. if a
watermain breaks, during the emergency repair, replace accessible lead services, valves, or install isolation valves).
6.2 5-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN
The 5-year Capital Plan is presented below. The total expenditure required in renewing underground components of
the Capital Plan over the 5-year period is approximately $8.6 million. This represents a total investment of
approximately $4.3 million in the renewal of the underground water and wastewater infrastructure. The renewal
investment during this five-year period of approximately $1.72 million annually is more than that required in an
average five-year period. There are still several areas in township built in the late 1950's that will require renewal
sooner than other areas (entire central and southwest portion of town). Most of these areas will require
reconstruction in the next 5 to 10 years and will require a considerable investment in the underground infrastructure.
However, the investment requirement beyond the 10-year period in underground works should lessen until
approximately 2045 and beyond. At that time, much of the underground infrastructure constructed in the 1970's and
1980's will be due for renewal. During the intervening years, funds set aside for underground renewal efforts
should be utilized to pay off any debt acquired to finance the works in the first 10 years and once that is done, held
in a reserve fund for future requirements.
The 5-year Capital Plan must be flexible and should be reviewed and updated annually. If outside funding is
available, it is recommended that the town accelerate renewal efforts in the first 5 years to address known problem
areas.
Page 61
Table 51 - 5 Year Capital Plan (2022 - 2026)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Underground/Road Works
1
Hudson Drive - Radisson to Hwy 17
(922m - Type 2)
$4,872,770.00
2
Lakeview Drive - Elizabeth to 700m
Westerly (700m - Type 2)
$3,699,500.00
Alternative Projects (applies to 25yr plan also)
1
Sedimentary Tanks Replacement (4)
$2,000,000.00
2
Community Center Repairs
$5,000,000.00
3
Valve Replacements (when opportunity
present @ $3,000 ea.)
4
Isolation Valves (when opportunity present
@ $3,000 ea.)
5
CCTV Inspections (entire system ~ 21.4 km
@ $20 per m)
$428,000.00
Totals
$4,872,770.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,699,500.00
$0.00
All costs are in "2021" Dollars
Type 1 - No underground services
Type 2 - Full underground services (water, sanitary, storm)
Type 3 - Partial underground services (water, sanitary)
Type 4 - Partial underground services (water only)
Alternative Projects not included in totals.
6.3 25-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN
The 25-year Capital Plan is also presented below. The total expenditure required in renewing underground
components of the Capital Plan over the 25-year period is approximately $21.8 million. This represents a total
investment of $11.1 million in the renewal of the underground water and wastewater infrastructure (sanitary and
storm).
The 25-year Capital Plan should be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years.
Page 62
Table 52 - 25 Year Capital Plan (2022 - 2046)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2022 - 2026
2027 - 2031
2032 - 2036
2037 - 2041
2042 - 2046
Underground/Road Works
1
Hudson Drive - Radisson to Hwy
17 (922m - Type 2)
$4,872,770.00
2
Lakeview Drive - Elizabeth to
700m Westerly (700m - Type 2)
$3,699,500.00
3
Princess - Superior to Fort Garry
(261m - Type 3)
$1,151,010.00
4
Fort Garry - Superior to Hwy 17
(293m - Type 2)
$1,548,505.00
5
Elizabeth - Fort Garry to
Lakeview (338m - Type 3)
$1,490,580.00
6
Superior Avenue - Princess to
Outfall (494m - Type 2)
$2,610,790.00
7
Kenogami Road - Outfall to Beach
Road (275m - Type 3)
$1,212,750.00
8
Selkirk Avenue - Hudson to Hwy
17 (350m - Type 2)
$1,849,750.00
9
Selkirk Avenue - Hudson to
Hudson (300m - Type 2)
$1,585,500.00
10 Laurier Avenue - Selkirk to
Selkirk (330m - Type 2)
$1,744,050.00
11 Alternative projects - See 5yr
plan
Totals
$8,572,270.00
$2,699,515.00
$4,101,370.00
$4,648,000.00
$1,744,050.00
All costs are in "2021" Dollars
Type 1 - No underground services
Type 2 - Full underground services (water, sanitary, storm)
Type 3 - Partial underground services (water, sanitary)
Type 4 - Partial underground services (water only)
Alternative Projects not included in totals.
Page 63
7 ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEEDBACK
7.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
WSP recommends that the Township receives condition index values at every detailed inspection based on physical
characteristics and performance. This will be an excellent and easy way to monitor the conditions of the assets over
the years and forecast replacement when necessary.
It is also recommended that inspections include recommended work; categorized by 1 year, 1 - 5 years, and within
25 years. If the available funds are not sufficient, then strategic decisions must be made in an effort to maintain the
required level of service within the municipality. The work must be prioritized by considering the Township's goals
and level of service expectations.
7.2 PLAN UPDATES
This plan will cover the period from 2021 to 2026 with diminishing returns. The financial needs should be updated
when regular inspections are completed and when conditions are re-assessed. It is highly recommended to perform
inspections during the spring and summer months for a better representation of the actual conditions.
It is recommended that every asset be inspected either when exposed or by CCTV. Then true representations of the
underground assets physical condition can be used in the index methodology rather than an age-based approach with
assumptions.
It is also recommended that the Township complete, or retain the necessary services to complete, an in-depth
inventory of their road network condition to obtain accurate PCI values. The methods of obtaining PCI values are as
per ASTM D6433: Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys (Appendix H).
When a better condition rating system becomes applicable, it is recommended that the condition indices (whichever
method is chosen) be entered into this plan and CityWide which will take the place of the ACI. Also, this will affect
the current value and remaining useful life of the assets which should be updated. The condition index of a new
perfect asset is 100. The methodologies used for condition indices, current values, and remaining useful lives are:
𝐴𝐶𝐼= 1 −
𝐴𝑔𝑒
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝐹𝐶𝐼= 1 −𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒= 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡−[𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛∗(𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟−𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑)]
𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒= 𝐴𝐶𝐼
100 × 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
Page 64
8 LIMITATIONS
The information contained in this report represents the professional opinion of WSP Canada Inc. (the Consultant)
and their best judgment under the natural limitations imposed by the Scope of Work.
This report is intended solely for the Client named as an indication of the physical condition of the building
components addressed in the report. The material in this report reflects the Consultant's best judgment in light of
the information available to it at the time of preparation.
Any use a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. The Consultant accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any
third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
This report is limited in scope to only those components that are specifically referenced in this investigation. There
may be existing deficiencies in this building that we did not record in this report. Such deficiencies were not
apparent to us due to the limitations imposed by the scope of work. We can, therefore, accept no liability for any
costs incurred by the Client for subsequent discovery, manifestation or rectification of such deficiencies.
Any costs for repair in this report are the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs and quantities. These
estimates do not include any unforeseen conditions that may require repair at the time the repair work is being
completed. Any cost estimates provided are subject to confirmation or adjustment at the time competitive bids are
obtained from contractors who specialize in the various items of repair work required. The Consultant makes no
representation or warranty expressed or implied as to the reliability of these cost estimates.
Do not use any part of this report as a separate entity. The report has been written to be read in its entirety and for
the exclusive use of the Client named.
All files, notes, source data, test results and master files are retained in the offices of WSP Canada Inc. and remain
the property of the Consultant.
Page 65
9 CONCLUSIONS
Asset management is one of the most cost-effective ways to balance the preservation, upgrade, renewal, and
replacement of assets. The implementation of the plan will provide guidance for the Corporation of the Township of
Terrace Bay to meet the assets' expected level of service and renew the infrastructure over time.
WSP encourages the Corporation of the Township of Terrace to continue using asset management software for long-
term infrastructure planning, capital program development, and performance accountability. Being aware of the
conditions and the total costs will improve the Township's ability to select options for operations, maintenance,
renewal and replacement of municipally owned assets.
The investigation undertaken by WSP with respect to this plan and any recommendations made in this plan reflect
WSP's professional opinion based on the sites' conditions observed at the time of the inspections and on information
available at the time of preparation of this plan. Extrapolation of visual detail data was necessary where there was
no access.
APPENDIX
A ASSET
INVENTORIES
AND ANALYSIS
SPREADSHEETS
APPENDIX
B DRAWINGS
APPENDIX
C CCTV PHOTOS
APPENDIX
D INSPECTION
SHEETS
APPENDIX
E LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXAMPLES
1
Township of Terrace Bay
Levels of Service Framework
Including Core and Non-Core Assets
3 June 2025
Annex to the Asset Management Plan
2
Notice
This report has been prepared by KPMG LLP ("KPMG") for the internal use of the Township of
Terrace Bay pursuant to the terms of our engagement agreement with the Municipal Finance Officers'
Association (MFOA) ("Client") dated June 14, 2022 (the "Engagement Agreement"). This report is
being provided to Client on a confidential basis and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity
without the express written consent of KPMG and Client. KPMG neither warrants nor represents that
the information contained in this report is accurate, complete, sufficient or appropriate for use by any
person or entity other than Client or for any purpose other than set out in the Engagement Agreement.
This document may not be relied upon by any person or entity other than Client, and KPMG hereby
expressly disclaims any and all responsibility or liability to any person or entity other than Client in
connection with their use of this report. Furthermore, the analysis contained in this report relies on
information provided by Client without audit, validation or other verification on KPMG's part. As such
readers are cautioned that this analysis should not be relied upon for any other purposes other than
those contemplated in the Engagement Agreement.
The procedures performed do not constitute an audit, examination or review in accordance with
standards established by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, and we have not
otherwise verified the information we obtained or presented in this document. We express no opinion
or any form of assurance on the information presented in this document and make no representations
concerning its accuracy or completeness.
KPMG's scope was limited to review, analysis and observations only, and the procedures performed
were limited in nature and extent. Our procedures consisted of inquiry, observation, comparison, and
analysis of Client-provided information available as of the date of this document. KPMG has relied on
the Client for the completeness, accuracy, appropriateness, and reliability of the information provided.
The Client is responsible for the use of this information and decisions to implement any options or
observations and for considering their impact.
3
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
Document Overview............................................................................................................ 4
Section 1: Overview of 2025 O-Reg Requirements ........................................................... 5
Table 1: 2025 O-Reg 288/17 Requirements ...................................................................... 5
Section 2: Proposed LOS where proposed LOS differ from Current LOS .............................. 7
Table 2: Proposed LOS and associated lifecycle activities and costing ............................. 8
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 12
Core Asset LOS ..................................................................................................................... 13
Table A1: Water Assets .................................................................................................... 13
Table A2: Wastewater Assets .......................................................................................... 13
Table A3: Stormwater Assets ........................................................................................... 15
Table A4: Road Assets ...................................................................................................... 16
Non-Core Asset LOS ............................................................................................................. 18
Table A5: Buildings ........................................................................................................... 18
Table A6: Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 19
Table A7: Community Recreation and Other ................................................................... 19
Table A8: Solid Waste and Landfill ................................................................................... 19
4
Introduction
A Levels of Service (LOS) Framework is a critical input into any Municipal Asset Management Plan. It
is a structured approach that helps a municipality define, measure, and manage the quality of
services they provide to their community. The framework is designed to help align service offerings
with the community's needs, expectations, and willingness to pay.
The LOS Framework supports key objectives, which can be adopted progressively over time. The
goal is to provide a view into the current service levels offered by the municipality's capital assets.
This includes attributes such as the quality, capacity, reliability, and responsiveness of the services
these assets support. The LOS Framework serves as a tool and key input for to inform decisions
within the AMP. It helps to prioritize resources and investments, to manage risks, and to support the
sustainability of their services. By aligning the services with the community's needs and expectations,
the LOS Framework also contributes to improving the quality of life in the community.
From a regulatory perspective, O-Reg 588/17 stipulates that:
-
Before July 1, 2025, Terrace Bay has the option to propose LOS that are different than current.
Note that for compliance with 2025 requirements, if the municipality proposes different LOS before
July 2025, it must then also identify the activities required and funding strategy to bridge
disparities between the current and proposed LOS.
-
Terrace Bay must also explain why proposed LOS are appropriate for the municipality. This
includes addressing their achievability, affordability, the options for the proposed LOS and risks
associated with those options, and how the proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
-
If the municipality determines that its proposed LOS are the same as current LOS, this must be
clearly indicated in the AMP (for example, through the addition of a new column in the LOS tables
indicating the proposed LOS is the same as current LOS). The municipality must still explain why
these LOS are appropriate.
Document Overview
This document was developed to support municipalities in the following to support alignment with O-
Reg 588/17:
-
Section 1: Provides an overview of the 2025 O-Reg Requirements and associated
references for where the information can be found in this document.
-
Section 2: Provides a framework to identify the gaps between the current and proposed
(desired) levels of service, and supporting strategies (i.e., lifecycle activities and costs) to
address these gaps. This informs decisions about investments, operations, maintenance, and
renewal of municipal assets in the AMP.
-
Appendix: Provides a fulsome listing of all LOS, indicating where proposed LOS are the
same as current.
5
Section 1: Overview of 2025 O-Reg Requirements
The table below identifies the requirements under Section 6 of O-Reg 588/17, "Asset management plans, proposed levels of
service" to be met by July 1, 2025 in the lefthand-side column. Next to each requirement is the section reference and/or any
necessary commentary.
Table 1: 2025 O-Reg 288/17 Requirements
O-Reg 588/17 Requirements from Section 6
Reference and Commentary
1. For each asset category, the levels of service that the
municipality proposes to provide for each of the 10 years
following the year in which all information required under
section 5 and this section is included in the asset
management plan, determined in accordance with the
following qualitative descriptions and technical metrics:
i.
With respect to core municipal infrastructure assets,
the qualitative descriptions set out in Column 2 and
the technical metrics set out in Column 3 of Table 1,
2, 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be.
ii.
With respect to all other municipal infrastructure
assets, the qualitative descriptions and technical
metrics established by the municipality.
See Appendix for a fulsome listing of all community (qualitative) and technical
(quantitative) LOS for all core and non-core assets.
It is assumed that the levels of service that the municipality proposes to provide going
forward will be the same for each of the 10 years following 2025.
2. An explanation of why the proposed levels of service under
paragraph 1 are appropriate for the municipality, based on an
assessment of the following:
i. The options for the proposed levels of service and the
risks associated with those options to the long term
sustainability of the municipality.
ii. How the proposed levels of service differ from the
current levels of service set out under paragraph 1 of
subsection 5 (2).
iii. Whether the proposed levels of service are
achievable.
i.
In identifying proposed LOS different from current LOS, Terrace Bay has
taken a risk-oriented approach, focusing on LOS that have been identified
to require improvements due to less than desired performance. Having
identified the LOS that required changes relative to the current LOS,
Terrace Bay took a risk-based approach, proposing LOS that balanced the
long-term financial sustainability of the municipality with the service levels
required to meet community needs. Lifecycle activities for proposed LOS
were also considered in tandem to form a full picture of risk associated with
the proposed level of service.
ii.
See Appendix for a fulsome listing of LOS, including whether the proposed
LOS differ from current.
6
iv. The municipality's ability to afford the proposed
levels of service.
iii.
As noted in (i), Terrace Bay has taken a risk-based approach to identify
proposed levels of service that are achievable from financial and practical
standpoints and which meet the needs of the community. These are largely
risk-based and do not constitute large increases in service levels, but rather
focus on maintaining the status quo or reducing the number of adverse
incidents (e.g., boil water advisories). Overall, given that Terrace Bay
maintained their LOS from their 2021 AMP to current and the changes
proposed are incremental, the collective LOS targets are achievable.
iv.
Due to the aforementioned risk-based approach, Terrace Bay only
identified proposed levels of service where service improvements are
required to meet community needs. These improvements have already
been incorporated into municipal budgets and are underway.
3. The proposed performance of each asset category for each
year of the 10-year period referred to in paragraph 1,
determined in accordance with the performance measures
established by the municipality, such as those that would
measure energy usage and operating efficiency.
See column "Target Performance" in Section 2 and/or the Appendix.
4. A lifecycle management and financial strategy that sets out
the following information with respect to the assets in each asset
category for the 10-year period referred to in paragraph 1:
i. An identification of the lifecycle activities that would
need to be undertaken to provide the proposed levels of
service described in paragraph 1, based on an
assessment of the following:
A. The full lifecycle of the assets.
B. The options for which lifecycle activities could
potentially be undertaken to achieve the proposed levels
of service.
C. The risks associated with the options referred to in
sub-subparagraph B.
D. The lifecycle activities referred to in sub-
subparagraph B that can be undertaken for the lowest
cost to achieve the proposed levels of service.
ii. An estimate of the annual costs for each of the 10
years of undertaking the lifecycle activities identified in
subparagraph i, separated into capital expenditures and
significant operating costs.
i.
See column "Lifecycle Activity" in the tables below for a description of the
identified lifecycle activities required to reach proposed LOS from current
LOS. While the selected lifecycle activities are summarized, a thorough
assessment was conducted by the municipality to gather options for
lifecycle activities and identify the one that best balanced the assets' ability
to provide consistent service quality and the required level over the long-
term with the costs and practical requirements associated with each option.
ii.
The cost estimates associated with the lifecycle activities identified is noted
in Column "Costing" in the table below. Note that these are the costs are
primarily capital costs for the entire project over the 10 years and the
municipality has already determined how to allocate these costs over time
in its financial planning. Significant operational costs once these lifecycle
activities are at a steady-state will be determined and updated. Additionally,
note that these are cost estimates and are the best available knowledge the
municipality currently has.
iii.
These costs were determined by the municipality to be required and
therefore have already been incorporated in its municipal planning.
7
iii. An identification of the annual funding projected to
be available to undertake lifecycle activities and an
explanation of the options examined by the municipality
to maximize the funding projected to be available.
iv. If, based on the funding projected to be available,
the municipality identifies a funding shortfall for the
lifecycle activities identified in subparagraph i,
A. an identification of the lifecycle activities,
whether set out in subparagraph i or otherwise,
that the municipality will undertake, and
B. if applicable, an explanation of how the
municipality will manage the risks associated
with not undertaking any of the lifecycle
activities identified in subparagraph i.
Between the municipal budget and the grants the municipality has
accessed, no shortfalls are expected.
iv.
See (iii) above.
5. For municipalities with a population of less than 25,000, as
reported by Statistics Canada in the most recent official census,
a discussion of how the assumptions regarding future changes
in population and economic activity, set out in subparagraph 5 i
of subsection 5 (2), informed the preparation of the lifecycle
management and financial strategy referred to in paragraph 4 of
this subsection.
Population growth in Terrace Bay from 2016 to 2021 was about 5%, from 1,523 to
1,606. This translates to an average annual population increase of 1%. Given the
relatively limited population changes expected, the municipality is operating with the
objective of maintaining service levels and has not factored in large population growth
into its asset management planning.
Section 2: Proposed LOS where proposed LOS differ from Current LOS
As per 6(2)ii above, for some LOS Terrace Bay is opting to propose new levels of service that differ from their current levels of
service. These proposed levels of service are noted in Table 2 below. For each proposed level of service, the following data points
are provided:
- Asset class: Identification of whether the asset is core or non-core, as well as the asset class (e.g., water assets, road
assets, etc.)
- Service Attribute: Identification of service attribute (as provided by O-Reg 588/17). These typically include scope and
performance but can include other attributes as well.
- Type of LOS: Identification of whether the LOS is a community (qualitative) LOS or a technical (quantitative) LOS. If that
specific LOS is required by O-Reg 588/17, it is indicated as such with an asterisk.
8
- LOS: LOS as noted in the 2021 AMP.
- 2021 AMP Performance: The performance of the municipality against the LOS as noted in its 2021 AMP.
- Current Performance: The performance of that municipality against the LOS as of June 2025.
- Target Performance: The proposed LOS identified by the municipality in 2025.
- Lifecycle Activity: The lifecycle activities the municipality has so far identified as required to reach the proposed LOS.
- Costing: The total cost of the lifecycle activities the municipality has so far identified. Note that these are the total costs of
the project and are not split out into an annual basis.
Table 2: Proposed LOS and associated lifecycle activities and costing
Asset Class
Service
Attribute
Type of
LOS
LOS
2021 AMP
Performance
Current
Performance
Target
Performance
Lifecycle
Activity
Costing
Core Asset -
Water Assets
Reliability
Qualitative*
Description of
boil water
advisories and
service
interruptions.
Maintenance and
rehabilitation of the
water systems can
lead to temporary
disruptions. The length
of the interruption
would depend on the
nature of the
maintenance or
rehabilitation. Water
main breaks may
require several blocks
to be turned off during
the time of repair,
approximately 4-8
hours, and sufficient
notice is provided to all
directly affected. Water
hydrant flushing will
cause pressure drop in
areas and could lead
to colour changes in
the water. Valve
exercising program
can lead to short
Approximately
2 boil water
advisories per
year, system-
wide, due to
electrical
issues at the
water
treatment
plant.
Limiting to 1
boil water
advisory per
year.
Repairs
completed to
reach the
target
included new
electrical
equipment to
improve
reliability.
$300,000
(total for 10
years)
9
events of low flow or
no flow lasting 1-3
minutes.
Core Asset -
Water Assets
Reliability
Quantitative* 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.
0
0.01
Two boil
water
advisories at
4 days each,
system-wide
(resulting in 8
connection-
days). The
number of
homes
connected to
the municipal
water system
is 786.
0.05
Limiting to 1
boil water
advisory per
year
(assumed to
be four days
in duration).
Repairs have
been
completed to
reach this
target.
Repairs
completed to
reach the
target
included new
electrical
equipment to
improve
reliability.
$300,000
(same as
$300,000
above)
Non-core
assets -
Buildings
Quality
Quantitative
% of buildings
which have
undergone
significant
upgrades/repairs
within the last 40
years (1980 or
later).
30%- 40%
40-50%
50-60%, new
cultural
centre and
tourist
information
centre roofs
to be
replaced,
tender
awarded.
Roof
replacement
$1,100,000
(total for 1
year)
Non-core
assets -
Buildings
Safety
Quantitative
Number of
inspections
performed by
provincial
authorities
where issues
have arisen.
To be recorded going
forward.
1
0
Increased
guarding
requested and
has been
rectified.
Immaterial
cost;
completed by
municipality.
10
Non-core
assets -
Buildings
Emergency
Response
Qualitative
A statement on
the buildings
and locations
which support
emergency
services or are
available to
perform
emergency
functions.
To be recorded going
forward.
WTP has
emergency
power
system,
cultural centre
has
emergency
generator
purchased
and in the
process of
having
installed.
Complete
installation of
CC
emergency
generator
and list it as
emergency
operations
centre.
Installation of
emergency
generator.
$100,000
(total for 2
years)
Non-core
assets -
Buildings
Emergency
Response
Quantitative
Number of
emergency
repairs required
on buildings per
year.
To be recorded moving
forward.
1
0
Undergoing
building
condition
report to
identify at or
near failure
items, roof
report
received and
issues are
being
addressed
Review and
reporting of
required
improvements.
$36,000
(total for (1
year)
Solid Waste
and
Landfill/Waste
Management
Capacity
Quantitative
Estimated
remaining
capacity in
landfill cells.
Not reported.
Estimated 12
years
remaining in
2024.
Estimated 50
years
remaining.
Conducting an
expansion
study
including an
environmental
assessment,
design,
permitting,
and
construction.
$1,500,000-
$3,000,000
(development
phase with
duration
2years)
11
Note that the
expansion's
expected
completion is
2032.
12
APPENDIX
As per 6(1) above, Terrace Bay has set LOS across its asset classes, including both those required by O-Reg 588/17 and its own.
These LOS are not expected to change (i.e., the target performance is the same as current performance). They are provided for
reference only.
For each proposed level of service, the following data points provided:
- Service Attribute: Identification of service attribute (as provided by O-Reg 588/17). These typically include scope and
performance but can include other attributes as well.
- Type of LOS: Identification of whether the LOS is a community (qualitative) LOS or a technical (quantitative) LOS. If that
specific LOS is required by O-Reg 588/17, it is indicated as such with an asterisk. Note that the O-Reg 588/17 only has
required LOS for core assets - all LOS for non-core assets were determined by the municipality.
- LOS: LOS as noted in the 2021 AMP.
- 2021 AMP Performance: The performance of the municipality against the LOS as noted in its 2021 AMP.
- Current performance: The performance of that municipality against the LOS as of June 2025. Note that in some instances,
current performance differs from 2021 AMP performance. In these instances, while performance has changed, the
municipality has opted not to change its target performance level.
Notes
- There is no column for Target Performance. This is because the municipality has determined that the current performance is
satisfactory and has not proposed changes. For LOS where the municipality has proposed LOS that differ from current LOS,
there is a placeholder indicating as such and noting that these are described in Table 2.
- LOS are separated into core assets and non-core assets, and then further split out into asset classes. Each asset class has
its own table.
- This municipality does not have any bridge or culvert assets, hence associated LOS are not provided.
13
Core Asset LOS
Table A1: Water Assets
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Scope
Qualitative*
Description of the user groups or areas
of the municipality that are connected to
the municipal water system.
Provided in Appendix B of
2021 AMP Report.
No change since 2021.
Description of the user groups or areas
of the municipality that have fire flow.
Provided in Appendix B of
2021 AMP Report.
No change since 2021.
Quantitative*
Percentage of properties connected to
the municipal water system.
100%
All properties in Hydro Bay have their
own water system. Estimate 99%
connected.
Percentage of properties where fire flow
is available.
100%
Fire flow covers the entire community
except Hydro Bay. Estimate 99%
coverage.
Reliability
Those related to boil water advisories are noted on Table 2 as proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
Quantitative*
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.
0.00231
(2 or 3 instances of low flow or
no flow due to water main
breaks per year)
0.0014
1-2 instances due to water main
breaks.
Performance
Quantitative
% of customers where service is
interrupted above target frequency
0%
No change since 2021.
Table A2: Wastewater Assets
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Scope
Qualitative*
Description, which may include maps, of
the user groups or areas of the
municipality that are connected to the
municipal wastewater system.
Provided in Appendix B of
2021 AMP Report.
No change since 2021.
Quantitative*
Percentage of properties connected to
the municipal wastewater system.
100%
Estimate 93%. Hydro Bay and
industrial area properties have on-site
treatment.
Reliability
Qualitative*
Description of how combined sewers in
the municipal wastewater system are
No combined sewers.
No change since 2021.
14
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.
No combined sewers.
No change since 2021.
Description of how stormwater can get
into sanitary sewers in the municipal
wastewater system, causing sewage to
overflow into streets or backup into
homes.
Stormwater can enter sanitary
sewers due to cracks in
sanitary mains or through
indirect connections (e.g.
weeping tiles). In the case of
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 overflow backup
into homes. The
disconnection of weeping tiles
from sanitary mains and the
use of sump pumps and pits
directing storm water to the
storm drain system can help
to reduce the chance of this
occurring.
No backflow issues due to storm
overflow.
Description of how sanitary sewers in
the municipal wastewater system are
designed to be resilient to avoid events
described in paragraph 3.
The municipality follows a
series of design standards
that integrate servicing
requirements and land use
considerations when
constructing or replacing
sanitary sewers. These
standards have been
determined with consideration
of the minimization of sewage
overflows and backups.
No change since 2021.
15
Qualitative*
Description of the effluent that is
discharged from sewage treatment
plants in the municipal wastewater
system.
Effluent refers to water
pollution that is discharged
from a wastewater treatment
lagoon, and may include
suspended solids, total
phosphorous and biological
oxygen demand. The
Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) identifies the
effluent criteria for municipal
wastewater treatment
lagoons.
No change since 2021.
Quantitative*
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
No change since 2021.
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
No change since 2021.
The number of effluent violations per
year due to wastewater discharge
compared to the total number of
properties connected to the municipal
wastewater system.
0
No change since 2021.
Performance
Quantitative
The number of customers that
experience a service interruption due to
main blockages.
0
No change since 2021.
Table A3: Stormwater Assets
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Scope
Qualitative*
Description, which may include maps, of
the user groups or areas of the
municipality that are protected from
Provided in Appendix B of
2021 AMP Report.
No change since 2021.
16
flooding, including the extent of the
protection provided by the municipal
stormwater management system.
Quantitative*
Percentage of properties in municipality
resilient to a 100-year storm.
Unknown - insufficient data
available.
No change since 2021.
Percentage of the municipal stormwater
management system resilient to a 5-year
storm.
100%
No change since 2021..
Performance
Quantitative
The number of locations in the Township
regularly experiencing flooding during
wet weather events.
3
No change since 2021.
Table A4: Road Assets
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Scope
Qualitative*
Description, which may include maps, of
the road network in the municipality and
its level of connectivity.
Provided in Appendix B of
2021 AMP Report.
No change since 2021.
Quantitative*
Number of lane-kilometres of each of
arterial roads, collector roads and local
roads as a proportion of square
kilometres of land area of the
municipality.
Arterial Roads (MMS classes
1 and 2) - 0
Collector Roads (MMS
classes 3 and 4) - 0
Local Roads (MMS classes 5
and 6) - 12.7
No change since 2021.
Quality
Qualitative*
Description or images that illustrate the
different levels of road class pavement
condition.
A visual inspection of all roads
was completed to determine a
Pavement Condition Index
(PCI). The PCI is a 0-100
rating that ranges from 0 (Fail)
to 100 (Good). Photos of
existing road conditions are
appended to this plan.
No change since 2021.
Quantitative*
For paved roads in the municipality, the
average pavement condition index
value.
65 - Fair
No change since 2021.
17
For unpaved roads in the municipality,
the average surface condition (e.g.
excellent, good, fair or poor).
Good
No change since 2021.
Performance
Quantitative
Streetlight bulb outages left unreplaced
for a period exceeding seven (7) days*.
2
No change since 2021.
The number of complaints about road
condition issues per year.
12
No change since 2021.
18
Non-Core Asset LOS
Table A5: Buildings
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Safety
Qualitative
Description of building/facility inspection
processes.
Health and safety inspections
monthly, emergency lighting
and fire suppression system
yearly.
Health and safety inspections monthly,
emergency lighting and fire
suppression system yearly.
Quantitative
Number of incidents reported.
0
10
% of buildings compliant to accessibility
compliant1.
92%
100% compliance, new doors have
been installed
Number of complaints received
regarding state of buildings.
Not assessed in 2021.
0
Number of service requests to manage
unsafe building conditions per year.
Not assessed in 2021.
0
Those related to provincial inspections are noted on Table 2 as proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
Quality
Those related to upgrades are noted on Table 2 as proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
Quantitative
Number of unplanned closures / use
restrictions per year.
Not assessed in 2021.
0
Accessibility
Qualitative
Description of accessibility measures in
place.
Not assessed in 2021.
Ramped doorways and door
operators.
Quantitative
Number and % of public buildings that
are AODA complaint. List of recent or
planned projects to improve
accessibility.
Not assessed in 2021.
100%
Sustainability
Qualitative
Description of implemented sustainability
measures (i.e., energy efficiency and
emission reduction measures).
Not assessed in 2021.
GHG reduction study underway.
Emergency
Response
Those related to emergency response are noted on Table 2 as proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
1 Excludes the decommissioned Sewage Treatment building.
19
Table A6: Vehicles
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Reliability
Qualitative
Description of vehicle safety inspections.
As per vehicle/machine
owner's manual
recommendations or every
6,000 km. See Appendix F of
the 2021 AMP Report. All fleet
asset inspections are
completed in compliance with
all applicable MTO
requirements.
Maintenance is completed as planned
for all vehicles in the fleet.
Quantitative
% of preventative maintenance
inspections completed.
Not assessed in 2021.
Estimate 100% based on regular
services.
Sustainability
Qualitative
Description of implemented sustainability
measures (i.e., emission reduction
measures, alternative fuels, etc.).
None in 2012.
Recently purchased new hybrid
community transport vehicle and
awaiting delivery on electric ice re-
surfacer.
Table A7: Community Recreation and Other
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Quality
Quantitative
% of customers who are unsatisfied with
overall experience.
0
No change since 2021.
Quantitative
% of assets inspected at least annually.
Not assessed in 2021.
50%
Table A8: Solid Waste and Landfill
Service
Attribute
Type of LOS
LOS
2021 AMP Performance
Current Performance
Condition
Qualitative
Description of site condition:
- Waste segregation
- Overall cleanliness
- Controlled access to site
- Site attendant present during hours of
operation
Excellent
No change since 2021.
20
Scope
Qualitative
Description of solid waste management
services.
Not assessed in 2021.
Weekly curbside, depot deposit 5 days
per week in Summer, 4 days per week
winter.
Quantitative
Frequency of waste collection.
Weekly, plus monthly
recycling collection.
No change since 2021.
Capacity
Qualitative
Description of landfill opening hours.
5 days per week in Summer, 4
days per week winter, 4 hours
per day.
No change since 2021.
Those related to increasing the capacity are noted on Table 2 as proposed LOS differ from current LOS.
Safety
Quantitative
Number of reported safety incidents.
0
No change since 2021.
Sustainability
Quantitative
% of facilities operating within ECA
requirements.
100%
No change since 2021.
APPENDIX
F ROAD
INSPECTION
PHOTOS
APPENDIX
G PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE
LOGS
APPENDIX
H ASTM D6433