HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-47-99
\ I.. "
~ ..'
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Meeting:
REPORT
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File # /()..5~
Date:
DECEMBER 6, 1999
Res. #r;'I!#- 5/7--11
Report No.: WD-47-99
Our File: R.50.19
By-Law #
Subject:
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
REVIEW OF "NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ON COST IMPACT OF
ADDITIONAL ROAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS"
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-47-99 be received; and
2. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Regional Governance Committee
FORTHWITH.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No.1: Copy of ''Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road Management
Systems"
No.2: Chart of Local Municipalities - Historical Road Maintenance Costs per Kilometre
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 At a meeting held on October 12, 1999, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington
considered correspondence D-14 from Debi A. Bentley, Deputy Clerk, Region of Durham,
advising that Regional Council passed a resolution on September 21, 1999, as follows:
"a) THAT the Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road
Management Systems dated September 7, 1999 be received for information;
and
11 49
. ' .. I
. .
.
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 2
b) THAT the Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road
Management Systems dated September 7, 1999 be forwarded to the local
area municipalities for review and consultation with Works Department
personnel; and
c) THAT the local area municipalities be requested to report back to the
Governance Committee by November 30, 1999."
At that time, Clarington Council passed Resolutions #C-632-99 and C-633-99:
"THAT Correspondence Item D-14 be referred to the Director of Public
Works; and
THAT an information report on this matter be forwarded to the General
Purpose and Administration Committee."
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
3.1 As requested, Public Works has completed a review of the Discussion Paper prepared by
Armstrong/Kitchen on Cost Impact of Additional Road Management Systems. This paper
was also discussed as an agenda item at the Area Public Works Directors "Who Does What"
meeting held on September 9, 1999. Clarington Public Works' views will be augmented by
comments offered by other Directors at the September 9th meeting.
3.2 Although the Consultant may have been in conversation with staff at the Region, our
greatest concern is that once we provided the Consultant with background information, we
were not contacted at any time to verify numbers, calculations or assumptions. As a result,
the Consultant appears to have either asked the wrong questions or somehow utilized the
information incorrectly, as Clarington's background numbers utilized in the Discussion
Paper are grossly inaccurate.
1150
> i
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 3
3.3 The cost analysis of a proposed one-tier road management system is based on flawed cost
tables and, therefore, the results do not reflect the true cost savings that may result. The
Consultant will still be determining whether a one-tier or two-tier road management system
will be the most cost effective manner to provide the service at existing levels; however, the
discussion notes and tables in the ArmstronglKitchen proposal will have to be reworked
based on more accurate information.
3.4 Based on our knowledge of other local servIces, augmented by discussion with our
neighbouring municipalities, we also suggest that the assumptions made for some of the
other municipalities' staff and equipment is also seriously flawed.
3.5 Although detailed comments are outlined on the following pages, Clarington's number of
lane kilometres of roadway is actually 1770 kilometres, not 840. As well, the Consultant's
Paper includes our staff and equipment utilized for parks operations. These two major
discrepancies in data change Clarington's figures to reflect a leader in Operations, rather
than a roads provider that appears inefficient in comparison to the Region.
3.6 Consistent with the opinions of other area Directors at our meeting of September 9, 1999,
our concerns are that the ArmstronglKitchen findings are at odds with preliminary findings
reached by the Durham Region Public Works "Who Does What Committee". Further, it is
feared that the Consultant's assumptions related to infrastructure consolidations and costs,
on which their recommendations are based, are highly suspect.
3.7 The Directors of Public Works of the Area Municipalities and the Commissioner of Works
for the Region of Durham have had on-going meetings over the last several years to discuss
the elimination of duplication in a variety of areas, including 'roads'. Considerable dialogue
took place over a number of meetings, addressing various different areas, including but not
limited to:
. the design and construction of the major arterial road system
. local road reconstruction projects
. maintenance of major bridge and grade separation structures
1 1 5 1
" ,
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 4
The ArmstronglKitchen Discussion Paper hasn't recognized or expanded on any of the
previous work done by the Directors' Committee.
3.8 Winter maintenance responsibility was also discussed in detail. Based on an analysis of the
relative historical costs per kilometre between area municipalities and the Region
(Attachment No.2), it was apparent that there was room for improvements in winter service
delivery at both the regional and local levels. Although numerous agreements already exist
between the Region and area municipalities, covering the sharing or trading of maintenance
duties, the "Directors" Committee was discussing the extensive transfer of winter
maintenance responsibilities between the Region and the area municipalities.
3,9 Initially, Clarington had hoped to see these winter maintenance transfers take place for this
1999/2000 season. The ongoing Governance Committee discussion on roads seems to have
precluded any further discussions between Clarington and the Region at this time.
3.10 This Discussion Paper appears to overlook the possibility of co-operative service delivery
between local municipalities. This alternative should be investigated. As well, efforts are
always being made to maximize the efficiency and minimize the cost of service provision by
working with adjacent municipalities. Clarington combines some of their purchasing needs
and trades off numerous road functions with the Region and neighbouring municipalities.
Other similar arrangements can continue to be made and explored by the Consultant which
do not require the involvement of the Region or a single tier municipality.
DETAILED COMMENTS
3.11 Page 2 (Table 1) - Relevant road information should be corrected, as follows:
Lane Kilometres:
Earth Graded 100 not 51
Gravel 220 not 108
Low Class Bituminous 850 not 417
Hot Mix 600 not 264
-
TOTAL 1770 not 840
11 52
. .
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99 PAGE 5
Equipment:
Pickup Trucks 14 not 27
Dump Trucks & Tandems 22
Graders 2
LoaderslBackhoes 5 not 10
Other (tractors etc.) 6 not 2
Number of Workers:
Outside Workers 22 not 38
Management/Clerical 6 not 7
3.12 The discrepancies in lane kilometres could have been picked up if further discussion had
taken place between Clarington Public Works and the Consultant. It is our opinion that the
error in numbers for equipment and workers, relating to Parks, resulted from asking the
wrong questions and could also have been picked up through verification. In the case of
Clarington, the Consultant inquired how many Public Works outside employees existed in
Clarington and innocently did not realize that the number requested included Parks and
Cemetery Staff.
3.13 Page 4 (Table 2) - Since Table 2 is based on background information from Table 1, Table 2
is inaccurate. Existing Service Standards for Clarington, as compared to the Region, should
be corrected as follows:
Standards per 100 lane kilometres
Region Clarington
Outside Workers 2.29 1.24 not 4.52
Management, Clerical support 0.68 0.33 not 0.83
Pickup trucks 0.58 0.79 not 3.21
Dump TrucksITandems 1.17 1.00 not 2.62
Graders 0.19 0.11 not 0.24
LoaderslBackhoes 0.24 0.28 not 1.19
Other 0.78 0.33 not 0.24
11 53
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 6
3.14 As can be seen from the changes required above, Clarington goes from one of the worst, to
being the leader in many categories of the service standard. As well, Table 2 doesn't take
into consideration to what extent contractors or contracting out of road maintenance
operations exists in the various municipalities, which would have a considerable impact on
the results projected. Clarington doesn't contract out; rather, we do almost all of our
operations ourselves. One further consideration, most Regional roads don't have curbs or
gutters. Snow clearing operations proceed considerably slower on urbanized roads with
curb and gutter.
3.15 Once the right data is used for Tables 1 and 2, the numbers become more consistent with
previous work done by the Public Works Committee. These previous calculations showed
that Clarington delivers a high service standard among the Lakeshore Municipalities, with
Oshawa and Whitby having rates roughly comparable to the Region.
3.16 Page 6 (Table 3) - Half of the information on Table 3 is also wrong, i.e.:
Graders Cost
Gradalls Cost
$250,000
$340,000
not $100,000
not mentioned except for
Backhoe at $80,000
not $80,000
Loaders Cost
$180,000
To be fair, once these errors are corrected in the Consultant's assumptions, this may change
in favour of either the Region or Clarington.
3.17 Page 8 (Table 4) - This Table is based on inaccurate information contained in Tables 1,2
and 3, making it wrong as well. Although we were unable to perform all the detailed
calculations done by the Consultant, we have applied the percentage error contained in the
Consultant's Paper to determine that a transfer of responsibility for Regional Roads to
Clarington will result in a saving of approximately $550,000, rather than a loss of $599,070,
as predicted by the Consultant through inaccurate information.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 are for Sunderland, Ajax and Oshawa and are not applicable to Clarington.
1 1 54
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 7
3.18 Page 18 (Table 9) - Similar to Table 4, Table 9 is based on inaccurate information contained
in Tables 1,2 and 3. The Consultant's calculations assume the Region's Service Standard is
twice as good as Clarington's, but this is actually the other way around. We were unable to
duplicate the Consultant's calculations regarding equipment, but even excluding equipment,
the cost impact changes dramatically. The cost impact of the Region taking over for
Clarington changes from a predicted saving of $1,911,717 to a loss of approximately
$925,000, excluding equipment.
Table 10- Scugog - not applicable to Clarington.
3.19 Page 22 (Table 11) - Discussions with neighbouring municipalities have provided us with
the benefit of a comparison between Durham and three regional jurisdictions referenced in
the Consultant's Paper. Analysis of basic data sheds a great deal of doubt on the
comparisons to savings achieved in other Regional realignments.
Hastings County (population 108,000), prior to amalgamation consisted of 29 lower tier
municipalities, and had a total, excluding the County staff, of 28 separate independent roads
superintendents. This amounts to a separate roads department for every 3,900 in population.
Simcoe County (population 304,000), prior to amalgamation, consisted of 18 lower tier
municipalities, and had a total, excluding the County staff, of 18 separate independent roads
superintendents. This amounts to a roads department for every 16,800 in population.
Chatham Kent (population 102,000), prior to amalgamation, consisted of 22 lower tier
municipalities, and had a total, excluding the County staff, of 19 separate independent roads
superintendents. This amounted to a roads department for every 5,400 population.
Durham Region (population 480,000), currently consists of eight (8) lower tier
municipalities, and has a total, excluding Region staff, of eight (8) roads superintendents.
This amounts to a road department for every 60,000 in population.
The ArmstronglKitchen report concludes that the amalgamation of the larger eight (8)
relatively efficient Durham area municipal roads programs into one controlled at the
11 55
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99
PAGE 8
Regional level will produce relative savings ranging from 300% to 600% more than the
amalgamations of the 65 independent roads operations realized in the three counties
examined. It is suggested that this analysis is illogical and warrants further examination.
In addition, we feel that comparison of Durham's potential for cost savings to
predominantly rural municipalities does not lend support to the conclusions. It is hard to
consider how results in Chatham-Kent, Simcoe County and Hastings County can be
comparable to the Durham situation.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 After reviewing the assumptions, level of detail and conclusions contained in the
ArmstronglKitchen Discussion Paper, it is our recommendation that the Area Directors'
Committee reconvene as soon as possible and enlist the assistance of a professional
facilitator. Similar to the process completed by the Area Planning Directors, the Directors
of Public Works of the Area Municipalities and the Commission of Works for the Region of
Durham would be in a position to carry on and complete their review of roads
responsibilities and present these findings to the Governance Committee.
4.2 Once the Directors' Committee has reconvened, it is recommended that the Committee, in
co-operation with ArmstronglKitchen, revisit the cost tables to more accurately reflect the
actual costs, as applicable. A properly researched report should be compiled, circulated to
all parties involved, and when the accuracy of such report is confirmed, it should be
presented to the Governance Committee for further deliberation and/or their consideration
and possible implementation.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
~v~
Stephen A. Vokes, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works
o~~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
SA V*ce
11 56
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's Department
605 Rossland Rd, East
PO. Box 623
Whitby. Ontario
Canada L 1 N 6A3
(90S} 668-7711
Fax: (905) 668-9963
P,M. Madill, A.M.C,T.
Regional Clerk
COUNCIL DIRECTION
D-14
September 23. 1999
c.elebrate the T\.It\.ire I
~.
. .\~~~:. <::>< "-:-:;.,' ~
............ .... ........'.....-.-..
.... . ".'>>: .;.:.;;:.;::-:."
DURHAM
~FP 27 I 11 PH '99
E ; ',l ~; "
Mrs. P.L. Barrie
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
BowmanvilJe, Ontario
L 1 C 3A6
I 974 ~
I 9 9 9
Draft Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road
ManaGement SYstems- Our File: 009-00
Mrs. Barrie, on behalf of COl!ncillor J. McMaster, Chair of the Governance
Committee, please be advised that at the Governance Committee held on
September 21, 1999, the following resolution was passed:
"a) THAT the Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road
Management Systems dated September 7, 1999 be received for
information; and,
b) THAT the Notes for Discussion on Cost Impact of Additional Road
Management Systems dated September 7, '1999 be forwarded to
the local area municipalities for review and consultation with Works
Department personnel; and,
c) THAT the local area municipalities be requested to report back to
the Governance Committee by November 3D, 1999."
Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned at 668-7711, Ext. 4231. _ _ _..__._._
r',.,,;,:,~;..;~-..-_..... -nON i
, .- ~/ I
:_':"~"~.:-2~
~c, !J~L~.., -. ./ ;
- t ~ ..
I I
1___ . v-- "._~V._'-'.' -- ..~---:
i I I
~Ch~~\i
Debi A. Bentley, A.M.C.T. .
Deputy Clerk
DAB/db
Enc!.
t---..-.-.... .. .... -....
.---..
. I
"'._',
L. ... ..~_.. _. ",
I
IH..... ,.'H
.
t-.....
~....
,
@
ATTACHMENT NO.: 1
. i C-\Ci'tEPO~T NO.: WD-47-99
1 1 57
llXl'1lt Poel Consumer
DRAFT
NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ON
COST IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL ROAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
SEPTEMBER 7,1999
Region of Durham
Governance Committee
September 21,1999
1 j 58
. ill] 00 fJJ fftr-j
~'---"_-~...--..._--
Notesfor Discussion on
Cost Impact of Additional Road Management Systems
September 7, 1999
For: Governance Committee
Region of Durham
Whitby, Ontario
By: W. Douglas Annstrong &
Harry Kitchen
Project Facilitators
1 1 59
I [IDOO&~1Y
ClUe ImptX' 01 AJJltionaJ RtHId MtlltGlmf'''' SWI.",J
"'nII8"""wKllI:he"
(
PotDttilll Cost [m}Hld of AdtlitiOlltJ/J ROIUI MtIIIGfflllll!llt ~~yltemJ
At the Governance Committee meeting of June 29, 1999, it was suggested that funher estimates
of the cost impact of a one-tier road management system should be completed based on ~isting
service standards used by the area municipalities and the Region. While the discussion that
prompted this additional work offered different views on what this further analysis should entail
or the geographical boundaries that should be included in these additional options, the analysis in
this presentation is bued on road ~cin8 boundaries thact currently exist. For the area
municipalities, this includes their geographical boundaries; for the Region, it includes service area
that transcend the political boundaries oCthe area municipalities.
The following describes the numbers and caJcuJations for the cost impact of a one-tier road
management system.
Table 1 reproduces an amended (to reflect more current numbers) Appendix Table from the June (
29, 1999 report. The data in this Table were provided by each of the area D1UDicipalities, except
for Oshawa where it had to be estimated based on the best available information, and t"e Region.
These data ret1ect current practices - number of employees, pieces of equipmen~ kilometres of
roads, and so on for each of the road systems.
This is in addition to the estimate provided in '~otes fOt' Discussion on Service
Delivery for Planning, Fire and Roads: Principles and Issues to be Considered". a
paper prepared for discussion by the Governance Committee of the R.egion of
Durham, June 29, 1999, pages 13-20.
Scpll".IMr 1. /999
J
c
1 1 60
(-.... _. _.~
fIDOO~[f1r
. - .~_.._) ....
E
~
0- M....,.,-o f"'lg\C ,.....,
g N - M - o N .., - J
.,., ~c::i"': .jj
! 0 -M....
N ...
Ol"o\OeOOO- - l"o2-"''' 00 N"" ,... V'\ g'~
Of"'l~c::igOr-: ~ ~~~ M 1 0
f 000 l"o ,...Q\\O g~
- V'\ l"o - ---
'"
i~
0-
~ q-o.0. o."l0.0. \0 fO'IMN~e ..,-- .... V'\
- Ia O-ON\OeO 0' - ~~~ -M ! 6
. .... 'C!- - ,... ,...,....
00
~ =! N .... -0 N --.... !1
...
.... A
8 ~ 11
'.::1
:.::l
.3- -oooeONOO 0- \OM..,..,,. Mro-lt'I .,., ".,
- M8~oO~ .~ f"'l - \0 - . -,.; Col
. .N
.; I 0 -0,... ....
N- .... N -- 1,...
...
:.! ~f'"l
! II
eo e"O-QOOON 00 f"'lONNf'"l - - GO f'"l- ; G
1 o"':"':"':c-io:j 0\ - ~~o. M ~1 .
1 f"'l"'O- ,... ~~~
.... ,...c-.I .... N ~,...
...
! ~li
; e..,oooo-o.o "'! ~ 8t~ ..,00- ~1t~
c::i-DoO-o"':oi,-i ~ ~""l~ .l]!
0 a -o-M;; s: M ~2:t:
.1 ...
~ D~
~ } oooeooo 0 ""~NeM ....N~ 00 ,... 1%8
.EI "':.or-:c::i~~i on M - "'!~ . f'"l
",,0- \0 00 !::~~ HI
I _.., N M
...
! u
~ ~.~
oonooeMMo N -OIlOMc-.le -,... r0- M- ~ IJ
O"';"':QMQM f'i ,... .., N -
.j ,.,.., 0-0- e on.o.n t ;.;
.,., - \C c-.I ---
.lII tit I~t
.j ~
CQ
\.U
! 0-0""'-0-<:1" 00 200-MO M fO'I r- ,... .... ~ .-
c::i-oonNgc::i"': ~ 00- - . ;. N
a -- N c::io.o . jn
.8 ~ - c-.I - NN-
...
j <' i;j
~
J i ji J.&
11 6 I
~ . ..~ 1 ltt
'I 11 ~~Q
l l ~ji ai !~ i ~.I
~ !l AJ 8 l.r.
.... . -; ~ ~ '1 ~ 1 hdh ii & .
JI ~!~~~~~] e.lll~J "0.::1
.D ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
. ~ z,. :z:~
roo a.. . . .
0-
~
...
,,'
l;
oQ
~
~
t:
g
..
!
"ll:
i
..!
..
~
6 1
[IDOO&lfTf
COI,I..pac::r oJ AdtlUiorttll ROtItl MtlIUI'.",.", $}lI1ftI,
A""~Iro1IILKildw1l
Table 2 calculates existing standards per 100 lane kilometres of roads in each of the area
munici~ties and the Region. These standards are calculated by dividing the number of
employees or pieces of equipment by lane kilometret in hundreds; for example. the Region' s
standard for outside workers is ca1Q11ated by dividing the number of outside re,;onal workers (47
employees - from Table 1) by the number of regional lane kilometrel in hundreds (20.S29 - from
Table 1). This equals 2.29 outside workers per 100 lane kilometreS of regional roads. Similarly.
the standard for pickup tNcks is calculated by dividing the number of pickups (12) by the number
ofregiooallane 1ci1ometreS in hundreds (20.529). This equals 0.58 pickup trUCks per 100 lane
kilometres of regional roads. The remaining standard. are calculated in the same way.
s.".,h.,. 7. /999
11 62
(
(
J
l
ill) 00 [AUF 17
.._._.~-----------.._---.-..- .
I:
"
.:::
.~
>. l' ~ (;) a- M - -
.c ~ a- ~ - '" '"
- 0 ci ci 0 0
~ ..... - 0- E 0
o.o~
~ <t: .S
~~
U M - a- re- M C\ 0 ... H ..0
QQ - "I:f 'l:f a- M 'l:f d ~- ~]
~ 0 0 0 0
'C N - fn - B
-e ~ ~ 0
::> re- a
~ 'l:f fI)
.c --0
CIO N 0'1 M '" N N ~ .S b ~
~ 00 00 In ~ ~ ~
Ie ~ a
M 0 - M - - .- u ....
:s .e01;;
fIl u
~ C'n ~ ~ b
u ~1..s
e
0 o 0
~ .f 10 \0 00 C\ N N 00 4) 'if ~
01. N r-. '" '" '" l' j ....
] "" d 0 N 0 ci 0 0
..:.t >--a .
u .D .ilS =
8 A; as,,!!
- e~~
.... . 0
0 - N M - - N o.O~
0. ~ 00 M 00 ~ M N r-- .~] g
'" .a ~ 0 ci - (;) 0 0
l
0 '-~cb
o I
3 CIS C\
H.8N
~ c:: N M - ~ ~ 0\ "I:r - '"
, 0 '" 00 ~ - M .- CIO d
i 0 C"i 0 0 o.SN
fl 'l:f M - .... -
.~ :3 i]!
~
Q. U
.0 ~~=
.c ..w 00 'l:f r-. lI'I M ~ 0 Q."S.a
= u 00 - 00 - 'l:f 0 5 ~.S
~ 0 0 0 0 0
... - -
! = <<0]8
.... B li
-0 l!/~
i ~ 00 V \0 t"- '" v 0 '":32
tit '" f"1 "II' lI'I "II' M 0 4) u 0
= <' r..: ~ ~ c;) - .c..w 5
0 - - 4,)
- ....
'Q ~ CIOg-
~ f-o ~4,)1
.... .5 'S: ~ 0
cS c: a- 00 00 t"- 01. ~ 00 ~.g.t
en ! N 10 '" - - l' .,
C"i d <:::> ci d 0 -
-0 - ., >-0'"'
:; -0 .0....'-
e 0
] ~&a....
~ ~-O1
rn "B
.f ~ III 1l!!
1: j ~ ~
.r8. -8 ]
";C Q ~i ~ "iI ~..t12 >.
UJ ~ .s ~ (.J tI2 c: ..0 ~
N 0 I~ '" ~ 1.~~ ;
:2 Q. Co] b ...
u .g ~
~ :I .a -0 at:.!!1
'5 e u .. ~~E!
c5 u t55 0 .3 0
f-o U c: Cf)
~.
0.
-
,,'
~
5
;.
~
.,.
s::
g
..
e
"II;
I:S
j
l
"Q
a
'::I
~
~
Cl
~
.!
...
..
~
63
\ (IDOO&~1f 1
. ~ ....-----. -.-.....----
C OJII,"pdCt of AdtllllOlUJI RoGtl MGltG~"'UI' S)/IItI'II
Ar.8~rdNrt
Table 3 records the annual costs for employees and pieces of equipment used in the road cost
impact analysis provided in subsequent tables. These numbers were obtained from engineering
records and best practices in the area and elsewhere.
For each piece of equipment, the toW acquisition cost is provided along with the life expectancy
(number of years ofuscful ute) of the equipment. The annual acquisition cost is then obtained by
dividing the total acquisition COlt by the nurnbel' of years to get the annual acquisition cost.
Finally, the anaual mainteDaneeloperating cost of each piece of equipment is provided.
While the annual overhead (maintenance/operating) cost of each works depot varies. current
practice and best practices elsewhere suggest an annual average cost of $100,000.
s.platHr 1. 1999
1 1 64
(
(
J
~,
.-'
i[IDOO~~1f
CO~llmPQcrofAGd'do"aIRooJ^,anG~~m~",S~I~1
AmurnmtVKIIdt~"
Table 3:
Annual costs used in estimates (obtained from engineering records and best
practices elsewhere):
2.
1.
Annual Employee Salary (including employee benefits):
$50.000
3.
Pickup Truck:
- Acquisition
- Life expectancy
- Annual acquisition cost
- Annual maintenance/operating costs
Dumptruckltandem (average cost):
- Acquisition
- Life expectancy
- Annual acquisition cost
- Annual maintenance/operating costs
SI00.ooo
7 years
S14,286
S8.ooo
S2S.ooo
7 years
S3.571
54 ,000
4.
. Grader:
- Acquisition
- Life expectancy
- Annual acquisition cost
- Annual maintenance/operating costs
SI00,ooo
10 years
S10,ooo
$8,000
s.
Loaderlbackhoe:
- Acquisition
- Life expectancy
- Annual acquisition cost
- Annual maintenance/operating costs
$80.000
10 years
$8,000
S8,Ooo
6.
Other:
- Acquisition
- Life expectancy
- Annual acquisition cost
- Annual maintenance/operating costs
$25,000
7 years
S3,S71
$4,000
7.
Works depots
costs or revenues from acquiring new facilities or disposing of
old facilities are Dot included.
annual maintenance/operating costs of each facility
Sloo,ooo
\
S.pk",IH" 7. /999
6
1 1 6 5
lID 00& [f1l
COIll",1UICI of AdJitlolfGI ROGJ MtlltGlltllfttl' S",,,,,,J
A"".tronll!K*hm (
Table 4 provides an annual cost impact estimate of transferring responsibility for all regional
roads to the area municipalities using standards employed by area municipalities (a positive
number indicates an increase; a negative number indicates a decrease). Calculations are based on
the standards currently used in each area municipality and the region - these are reported in Table
2.
The calculations were completed in the followins way.
Step 1 - The standard in each area municipality for each employee or piece of equipment
(reponed in Table 2) is subtracted trom the regional standard for a similar employee or
piece of equipment (reported in Table 2) to establish the differential in standards.
Step 2 - The differential trom step 1 is multiplied by the number of rlgionDl lane kilometres in
hundreds (from Table 1) and this, in turn, is multiplied by the annual cost per employee or
piece of equipment as reported in Table 3. This produces an annual net cost impact for all
employees and pieces of equipment from transferring all regional road responsibilities to
each of the area municipalities and maintaining them at the same standards as currently (
used by the area municipalities.
Step 3 - Annual overhead costs were estimated separately. Since the Region would continue to
operate the regional water and sewer system, the Region would continue to require all five .
of their works depots. Hence, there would be no savings in overhead costs for works
depots if the area municipalities were to take over responsibility for all roads.
When the cost impact is completed in this manner, it shows that. one-tier road man&sement
system operated by the area municipalities, at standards currently used by the area municipalities,
would result in increased costs of more than $2.35 million annually (bottom row oCTable 4) over
the entire region. All area municipalities, except for Brock, would experience cost increases with
the size of the increase varyina dramatically.
SqHurHf' 7, J 999
1 .
l
1 1 66
i [IDOOill~v
'-- ...--..., .,.-..
6
~
~
g
.,
!
'll:
. 1 ... QD It'\ !. ~- ~It'\ ;s -- <:) '0 .!1
~ ~ ~ Nl"l t"'lM N
.. ..,. 00 "l. ro. 0. 0. ""0 1:;3.
i- on. ,.; ....- g':i M ~ ~.~ -
..,. .. 'Ol'"' .. .... on 4
.B- ro. - N- M ..
, M ~ .S r 11
.~ -
1 l' j
~ 1]:
~ f .,,!! ~ - ro !.~. - on NN 0 ~ ;
:d. ~. CIllO ~~
QD f"'?-:" 0 1 ='OJ
W'\ "of NN MN -- ~..,. 0 =
>.. '"' , I on oS Ji _ ~
J:J - - .~
1- = ~H
~ ~
Q. f (,IIt~ ~ 0. r- '" - ..,.N ~~ <:) ~ .j
~ :8 on I"- - .... j -Wi
M ro. "\ -0. 0\- on on
1 N l"- I ...: -I"- "" ,."," on", 'li llii
N M I M- -a 1
::;) I I ~
u .8 1 j
In ~ 1
.it f ~ '"' 0- !:::= ~~ ....0- M '"' = ro
~ ~ NJ'Ol NN ~ .II .5 r .S
~ .n ~I"-. ~. ~"\ "':.r-:. f'"l. LilH
- ..01"- .. Q \0"'" NN f"l
on N on .... -- -- M
.8 - M
1-
II .9 j ~ Ii
.; I ... l'"\ 00 00 00 - on M~ ~~ 0 M
M on 0- M \000 - - 1 r 1.-; .ll
.. I"- ~f'i I"-.r- ~f"\ '0
~ ..-i 00. -N -0"': 0\ r-" \D\D ..c
.Ii - It'\ ", '"' I"- lLj'e~~
j ", I 11'\
A.
!~-~~~J
oS I ... ..,. N M on EI 0- ", ii = 00 HI' fG
s to- M - '"' -"'" on 11'.Jl I:
i" ..,. 00 on 0- 0- 0- ..
~. or; ,.;,.; ~..: ....-i , I C"'I ti~~ ~ 1
= r;- on
C"'I N
]1 : iJli~!<
j (,lit ,.. 11'\ on M ~~ ~~ on on = = i~~sil'
.... 00 a~ QO I"- ~ ~_.
'" 0- f'i,~ "1.f'i, "l'"'!. Q e li"l!.:;:' '1
~J ~ ,.; 0."; ~s:; -- .... ..,. ~.
N f'"l f"l NN
~i "'" '" ~.sz~ 8.....
~ 1.; i.8 ~ i 's
~l
1 .. - ~ ~~ 00.... ....N ii <:) 'lIP .S 11 "8 ~ ';- e
].i on r-N ~= '" ls~I:i!..J
~ on 0.., '" "" -
cc - ~ N.N- . . ..... f"i' N
.,. on 00
I . H~I~H
'f~
~ ... - .... S~ CIO . "",.o ~~ 0 ~ I'; t l U
11 M ,... -f"\ Non P {.S >>j
<' ~ - I"-QD QD It'\ ....ID "i N.
t.R 00 N r:~ ~~ ,.;..; -- :! ~ e 1 :
M .... -- --
M on ~'~fUl1
~ s
a~ . 8 ~ .8 l] ~
.I] .
~. I I 1 J r ~ ~l
]J "i r'!li
Ij 0
~ ~ ! r~t ~t. j
. .~ I' . e
.. .~ J I ~
.. .e.:: ! Cl - N
Ji ..
-it i- uze- e-
o . - -
i-~ i- ..en en
~
...
too:
~
Ii
~
~
ClO
j
l
Q
Q::
l
~
~
a
'ij
.!
...
~
11 67
5
~
I:
g
ot
!
~
u
.~
1
'3 ... ~ :!
o on 1IO
i- _fit r-.
..,.~
~f'P\
f"l
.
.
--
.
c:I
,~
~
.1J
o
U
-!
..
a
u
...~ N\O
~~ ~~
~~ ~~
-;--;- ~c-:'
~: ~~
"i 0:" ~ r-;
.
i~ ~~
":N 0\0'
'9":'
~~
,.,;.
--
I .
ill) 00 ill IF 11 .
I"-f"'l
~a"
I"- Q
1IO l"-
I ,
~~ ~" ~
-- ~ t"1.
.. . ~
: 1~
~ '""'~ ~
I ~: It
'" '" ..,.] j! l~
~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ i j1 ! j
~ 1:1 8 8 ;:; H ~IS ih
~ ~ ;J a ~ ~ .1 ~ ~ i i
,. . ~ ~j '0 ~ ~
'" .. ui]]:;; l~
cs '4) N ~ ~ s~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~!~l~ ~1
'SUg! H
li~idiJ
I"- ~~i-B!-.r~
i ~ 1.U~1~1.r
· 'i> f go ~] ls.r ~ ~
~ : ~:sfli~~
S IIHg.a~
· thltt1j
.S H~;.si I
l!ata~sf
~~ ~~ ~ f~!t.a~1~~
00 ~ r-.... ~ ~ lot., ~ ~ R .!1
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ fll!
1. h ... 'il'iil J
~aUH~'s
l~l~j]l' ]
~ ~ u
-.~ .8
!! ~ 11
l ~ : I
S\~ Mr"l
..,.Q ~~
.no\ N..Q
0'" ""'"
...... "
.
--
--
"lWl
..,. ..,.
N t'I
. ,
~~ ;:;;; i =
1'-:.-" ~"~ ,.: ~
N Q ae ae __ _.
-;' -;' -l -r ~ os
,
0\- == '4)-
~;:; ;:;~ ~~
ofof of"; =of
'" .....
f"'l f"'l
""' ""'
NN"
~~
00 M
rt~
g~ ~~ ~~ ~
..,. s: ~" fj ..," f"i 8
~: "i''i>_
. .
....0-
.... "'"
-Q
,.:.;
. .
i~ ~:8
0\. -:. 'oCt ~
-- \DP'\
--
. .
NN
.... ....
I"- l"-
NN
. .
~ ~
~ ~
.
i5
...: ."..
C?'i
O\~
~=
vS~
17"
>- "'CiI'N
~ ~:;
~ "
GO '"
>- 11'I-
A ~
1i
l'
! i ...!~
J ~ u
II)
.r E'" 5. ~
:;) ~ 8-
8 <<";'"
.~
~
,9-
Q 110 ...r--N
I ! ~~
.S
g ; ........""
.& .a ~ 8..
~ 0 ~i
oJ r;--
i- j Mn
d (J ,
f i 1 M ~~
H ~~
ill M~~
t:8
o .
H
11
V\Jf
!i
~.~ ~s
~ f":' 0Ji M-
17.,.
I :
I I' I
bQ ~
~I j~J ~J ~.[ ~'f !
J f'~~!'~~!'~. _ .t, j
11 68
o
...
~
0.
...
"
.:
I
~
\ l!1J 00 & [f 1Y
~.-.--
Ca.JIIIIIP4CI 0/ Addino",,1 Rood MtIIItJ~cnt S~t~m.r
A",mrrmJr/KiM:Jt.n
Table 6 provides an annual cost impact estimate trom a one-tier road m&nasement system at the
regional level for the Sunderland Depot usinS regional standards for all roads that could be
serviced in that service area (I positive number indicates an increase~ a negative number indicates
a decrease). Currently. the regional depot services 345 lane kilometres of regional roads (Brock
and part of Uxbridge)
The following steps were used in the calculation.
1. Column 2 lists the number of regional employees and pieces of equipment at the
Sunderland depot.
2. Column 3 calculates the regional standard for each type of employee or piece of
equipment by dividing the number of employees or pieces of equipment at the Sunderland
depot by 3.4S (existing regional1ane kilometres in hundreds).
3. Colunm 4 records the number of employees and pieces of equipment in Brock plus 1/3 of
all employees and equipment in Uxbridge (taken from Table 1) because about 1/3 of all
Uxbridgc roads would be serviced from this depot. the remaining 213 would be serviced
from the 5cugog depot. (
4. Column S calculates the standards per 100 lane kilometres in Brock and 1/3 ofUxbridge
that could be serviced from the regional depot in Sunderland. This amounts to aD
additional 896 lane kilometres - 693 kilometres of roads in Brock and 1/3 of all roads in
Uxbridge which equals 203 kilometres.
S. Column 6 provides numbers which represent the net change in number of employees and
pieces of equipment if the. region were to service the additional 896 lane Ian. ofloca1 roads
at the regional standards per 100 lane kilo metres u recorded in colunm 3.
6. Column 7 lists the annual change in costs. This is obtained by multiplying the numbers in
column 6 by the annual cost per unit from Table 3.
7. Works depot savings'reflect the elimination of one depot in Brock ($100,000) and the
prorated ponion ofeliminadng one depot in ScugoS and Uxbridge (1/6 of$1oo,000-
$16,667)
Conclusion: Costs for this service area would rise by $214.000.
&plnlber " 1999
JJ
l
1 1 6 8 ~ 1
\ (IDOO &IF V
ecul1m <<10 Adtltrtonal Road Mtllta
-... .---------..--.--...-.-.---
Arm"O'On ;tdtCft
Table 5 provides and annual cost impact estimate of transferring responsibility for all roads in the
area municipalities to the Region using standards employed by the Region (a positive number
indicates an increase; a negative number indicates a decrease). Calculations are bued on the
standards currently used in each area municipality and the region. reported in Table 2.
The calculatioDS were completed in the following way:
Step 1 _ The standard in the Region for each employee or piece of equipment (reported in Table
2) is subtraCted from the standard for a similar employee or piece of equipment in each
area municipality (reported in Table 2) to establish the differential in swulards.
Step 2 _ The differential calculated in step 1 is multiplied by the number of ar~a municipality lane
kilometr'cs in hundreds (fi'om Table 1) and this. in turn, is multiplied by the amual cost per
employee or piece of equipment IS reported in Table 3. This produces an lftIlUal net cost
impact for all employees and pieces of equipment from transferring all road responsibilities
in the area municipalities to the Region aDd maintaining them at the same standards IS
currently used by the Region. .
Step 3 - Annual overhead costs were estimated separately. Regional responsibility for aD roads
could lead to the elimination of at least S works depots at an annual average overhead cost
savings ofS100.OO per depot - one depot could be eliminated in Brock; one in Clarington;
one between Ajax and Pickering; one between Osbawa and Whitby; one between Scugog
and Uxbridge. Where the savings is shared between two municipalities. the umual savings
is spUt between them.
When the cost impact is completed in this maumer, it shows that a one-tier road management
system operated by the R.egion, at standards currendy used by the Region, would result in annual
cost savings of'about S5.26 million. All area municipaliticsa except for Brock. would experience
cost savings with the magnitude of the savings varying dramatically.
~pllMlHr 7. /999
1 1 670 1
(
(
9
l
:: .
i [IDOO~[flr
, . I
...... .,., '-..rl..'~.' '. .______._ ::
I:
"
~
~
e;;j.s ~8 ~ N l"'l g 0 .... e!
on !. N :g.
~-a "1. "l "" C'1
u .. l"'l N r: ~. IQ ... t ~ ~
1 1 i.. .... .... - N - - -
- - , . - M oa QIO ~
, l ~
1.1 ~ ~
,g ~€ -
.. ..c ....,
..., JiJ g, ..
j
il j ~ J ]
)1/
~ ~ .1 :;:)
oS 1 ~1
i ... s .. 0- ~ 0- ~ ~ .... I .SIr
... ~ N j s ~l
0-1 ,..j ,..j - c:) q q ~ i
I
lIte l J.!
~ .~ i ..i~l
I
:!~ J! ti
!~I
lIIIl
.1 ;:: ~ .s. I l'
::;l :z:i ~~]l~. gJ
!
8 · ~ 0 00 1- - fO'l I ~ifll{ f~
N ~ f""! 1- l"'l I
] -Ii};. - c:) c - c:i c:)
l ~
j ~ r- ~ .i~ ! l1 8 t
Ijj: ~
~ en j a Hhtli!l
-
~ .S '"'. C"\ lIC! C. C. ... 0 1
11 ., 8 r-: - .... N t-i t-i IbJiUi!
:1 J " ~ - -
~ !- hlh-ll !~.
..J
lj lj N 00 00 on 0 0 . la Hi! (! a ~ 41 ~
C"\ "'I llr'\ "": f"\ f"\ I J..t1jlii
1)10 N e c:i - ci ci
o o'a. 1 Jf'"
.~~ ~ 8 ! .3 s .1 - a.8.
- Iffet1lii
I- c:l
~l .liN 00 t"'I N on - - I
,
J!' .S... I ~
!! ~ - ~ :ll!rt -80
:z
}'. ~ hlj!rl.iL
~!
] J ~ }p~~~1 t,ll!
1 · c
3~ - ~ g } ~ IIUj~~h
-
- ih ! 0
u I a ) j 2.d U.f l
~j . ! j ~
f ~ i
-S 9 0 ~..~.. J~j~:,~
,... CI ~ I-
~
..
'"
o4ll
I
~
~
e
~
j
l
~
"a
~
~
:'l:
o
..
~
0-
-
.!
..
a
u
. 1 1 69
rnOO&(FlY
...#.-.- ~.
COJllmpocI oj Additional ROGJ MtllltI~m#!nl SY!'~'"!
,
A"""IrDrtWKJrdlel (
Table 7 provides an annual cost impact estimate trom a one-tier road management system at the
regional level for the Ajax Depot using regional standards for all roads that could be serviced in
that service area (a positive number indicates an increase~ a negative number indicates a decrease).
Currently. the regional depot semccs 384.S lane kilo metres of regional roads (Ajax and 90
percent of Pickering).
The following steps were used in the calculation.
1. Colunm 2 lists the number of regional employees and pieces of equipment at the Ajax
depot.
2. Column 3 calculates the regional standard for each type of employee or piece of
equipment by dividing the number of employees or pieces of equipment at the Ajax depot
by 3.845 (existing regional lane kilometres in hundreds).
3. Column 4 records the number of employees and pieces of equipment in Ajax plus 900A of
all employees and equipment in Pickering (taken from Table 1) because about,900A of all
Pickering roads would be serviced iTom this depot ..the remaining l00Awould be services
&om the SwgGS depot. (
4. Column S calculates the standards per 100 lane kilometres in Ajax and 9()OA ofPiclcering
that could be serviced from tbe regional depot in Ajax plus one other depot. nus amounts
to an additional S72lane kilometres - 224.4 kilometres of row in Ajax plus 347.6
kilometres in Pickering (9()IA of 386.2 in Pickering).
5. Column 6 provides numbers which represent the net change in number of employees and
pieces of equipment if the region were to service the additional 572 laDe km. of local roads
at the regional standards per 100 lane kilometres u recorded in column 3.
6. Column 7 lists the annual change in costs. This is obtained by multiplying the numbers in
col\DM 6 by the annual cost per unit from Table 3.
7. Works depot saYings reflect the elimination orone depot in either Ajax or Pickering. The
savinp would amount to $95.000 per year - S50.ooo applied to Ajax and 145.000 appHed
to Pickeriq (9()OA ofS50,Ooo).
Conclusion: CostS for this service area would fall by SI.S' million.
Sqte..bn- 1. J 999
/J
(
1 1 70
,0 .
rnJOO&(f'iJ i
_ "----: ....
-
~3 ~ ~ ~
~ ] ~~. l"'i
.~ ~ II ~ '7
1 ,9 1:1 ~ € ...
~ liJ
~ ~j
~
;::; i sas:! ;::;
ClIO 0 ....~ ....
!:! r--. .-i 1I'I.:i ] S N
~ '"1 ":''': 2 ;.l! 2 ~ J
. 11 h~ ~
J f .~ ~ .j ]
0: != c:: ~ e-
. ~ loi OR ~ ~
j~ ~~H .: !
1J ~ ~. J .~
GO .a li.J j .~
:1 ~ .;::; ~ Ii ~
;;-i <~~ ! ]
~ !- .s...., J 1 ~
M J II. D ~
~...., ];'.
-t., ]:s ~ j ~
. ~ ~Il 8 ~.
~ .s Jj ~ 1 .1 ~
.11 ]:c g . [ i
;-., & ~ .t B ~ .~
I ~ .8 11 D' ~ .S :I
1.t i l.i~ ~ j ~
j'.t ~<~J a .1
!:! ~l . ~r '1s9i4iil
.. .R.J .S n f-8
Q Q ~ I ~ ~.... & a.b ~ -;
IH fJo Ji!n
lI'l . _I ]:B! g. J1I.o;g
Wl I J ~ .~ og ~ 11] ~ !
i~]~ i~tlel1i
j' lt~lj' ij~
i ; t.f J ~ 8 .S .8
0..
! ~ IIP~1!UI~ ~
H ~ ~Ud~ffijMH t
~ ~~l ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~!
j J 'ft€ ""
g I Ih
~ .r ;l r i
..
~
! ~ i~ ~ ~ ::J ~ ~ ~ i
~ 109 'r-
<' ]..f ~
~ ] 9 a
] ~.!I
1-. rn.. ~ ~ ;j ~ ~ :!
~ti ~g;!"'"
i~ z<
fllH€ ~ a ~ ~
Ji~ 18
I-:' 9 -
Q a
~o - c c-l C"f
H'i JRN'-
.aGO ]__
~ ! z
.s'.
~I J
~! = s'u 1
~] -- J} !
~ H J If jJ
1 1 7 1
[IDOO&~1r
CO$I/mp<u:1 of AddtlJonal Rood MQ1Ia1tfm~ltt S)ml!m.r
-....---.-- .....-...
A",utro"1V'KJldtm
(
Table 8 provides an annual cost impact estimate from a one-tier road management system at the
regional level for the Oshawa Depot using regional standards for all roads that could be serviced '
in that service area (a positive number indicates an increase; & negative number indicates a
decrease). Currently, the regional depot services 574.6 lane kilometres ofregionaJ roads - 384.5
kilometres in Oshawa and 190. I in Whitby.
The following steps were used in the calculation.
1. Column 2listS the number of regional employees and pieces of equipment at the Oshawa
depot.
2. Column 3 calculates the regional standard for each type of employee or piece of
equipment by dividing the number of employees or pieces of equipment at the Oshawa
depot by 5.746 (existing regional lane kilometres in hundreds).
3. Column 4 records the number of employees and pieces of equipment in Oshawa plus 900A.
of all employees and equipment in Whitby (taken from Table 1) because about 9O'A. of all
Whitby roads would be serviced from this depot - the remaining lOOAt would be services
from the Scu80g depot.. (
4. Column S calculates the standards per 100 lane kilometres in Osbawa and 900A. of Whitby
that could be serviced from the regional depot in Oshawa plus one other depot in either
Oshawa or Whitby. This amounts to an additional 1.672.4 lane kilometres - 973
kilometres of roads in Oshawa plus 699.4 kilometres in Whitby (9()OA ofn7.1 in Whitby).
S. Column 6 provides numbers which represent the net change in number of employees and
pieces of equipment if the region were to service the additionall ,672.4 lane lan. of local
roads at the regional standards per 100 lane kilometres as recorded in column 3.
6, Column 7 lists tbe annual change in costs. This is obtained by multiplying the numbers in
columD 6 by the annual cost per unit from Table 3.
7. Works depot savings reflec:t the elimination of one depot in either Oshawa or Whitby. The
savings would amount to $95,000 per year - S50,000 applied to Oshawa and $45,000
applied to Whitby (90-", ot S50,000).
Conclusion: Costs for this service area would taU by $1.11 rmlUon.
Jj
(
~p"H' " /999
11 72
t' .
=as 8 ~ S ~ ~
ill-} ~ ~ ~i ~ ~.
.S ~ ~
r-
a 0 .....
~i~
~1
i [illOO&~1r i
. 1
.....#. -~..._~~...._~-_...._- '0
-
o
:l!
[
.
'-'
i
o
a::
~
~
1 '-S:A ~ a $ s;; ~ ~ i
. l III ~""i ~ of <i
! 1 'i~l~
g a! .s l.~
~ ~ ~ii
! QI ~ ~
; ~rr~ M c:i
.a is'r-
eS j!: ~
J! I
] moSs
II In € 2 ~
ji l~ ! ~
i 1] j c
.11 J & Is
~ ~ -
j t.i '~lB ~ .,
-< 11! ~z
J J"
1 ~.I
~ Ii
-J
~ ~ ~
d !-C1
!.~ ~ '"' 51 ~
:f~ ~ ill i ~ f
I II ~ ~~ s
IIi ~~i ]
I;~ . ~~ ~
~ ~ loi .~ M ~.
.10 .s~i ~ ~
l~ i ~ i j ~
.J n.J 'g ~
>-:1 ~ J ~ .M I. s
~~"i d-~ ~ ;I
G~!- gl- ~
~il }~.J 1 ~
~ ~ a a Ill! lii ii
~f- J!i I ::i
~d ]~ i1 i
~ ~ ~ 'Cl: ~ ~ '1 i .[.2 R JI .~
:t .. M ." 1h uHj j
N" ~ I I!! ~~Hhl
~ ; ~,; ~i'a i~ii!~l
ul :1) i~tl ~
~-i Ui.htlu:
'Cl ~d ! I t e ~ ,I 'II
I jlhdliU]
i; UjJjt'~lll
\ ~ fnti~nfiU !
! u .t 1 i.a i] I CI g ".f" ..
jj ~ ?~~lh?~HH 1
~ ...
1 .a
:- &0 ~
- 1.1 I
ill f J j
, 1 1 73
COJ.IIIg<<I of AddtrtOlltll Road Mtlltdll""~tlt S~IIIII.r
! rIDOO&[flr!
, ;
Ann.r~"~;tdr.,,
Table 9 provides an annual cost impact estimate tram a one-tier road management system at the
regionalleveJ for the Orono Depot using regional standards for all roads that could be serviced in
that service area (a positive number indicates an increase~ a nesative number indicates a decrease),
Currently, the regional depot services 38S lane kilometres of regional roads.
The following steps were used in the calculation.
1. Column 2 lists the number of regional employees and pieces of equipment at the Orono
depot.
2. Column 3 calculates the resional standard for each type of employee or piece of
equipment by dMdinS the number of employees or pieces of equipment at the Orono
depot by 3.85 (existing reaional1ane kilometres in huadteds).
3. Column 4 records the number of employees and pieces of equipment in ctarington plus
25% orall anployees and equipment in ScugoS (taken from Table J) because about 25%
. of all Scugog roads would be serviced from this depot - the remaining 75% of SCUBas
roads would be serviced from the Scugog depot.
4. Column S calculates the standards per 100 lane Jcilometres in ClariagtOD and 25% of
Scu80S that could be serviced from the regional depot in Orono. This amounts to an
additioDl1938.21ane kiIometres - 840 kilometres of road. in Clarington plus 98.2
kilometres in Scugog (25% of392.8 in Scugog).
S. Colunm 6 provides numbers which represent the net change in number of employees and
piecaofequipment if the region were to service the additiona1938.2lane km. of local
roads at the regional standards per 100 lane kilo metres u recorded in column 3.
6. Column 7 lists the anaual change in costs. This is obtained by multiplyins the lUJlllben in
column 6 by the IIIIIUal COlt per unit &om Table 3.
7. Works depot savings reflect the elimination of one depot in ClaringtoD ($100,000) and the
prorated portion of eliminating one depot in Scugog and Uxbridge (1/8 of
Sloo,OOO-SI2,5oo).
Conclusion: ColtS for this service area would fall by St. 91 million.
$qfatw 1. J999
1 1 7 4
(
(
J7
\.
" .
u ~i ~ ~- ~ ~ ! ;- 5 ~.
.~ i 1 ~l - "7 -;- ~ I "7 -;' ~
1 .9 ~ ~ € ::; ~
i ti~
~ :!l
~
& i ] .il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ '" .! rj~
1 Q4t-
g ~ ll.~
~ .8 ! r i
~
! 8 B" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !:
a 1J! ~_ ~ M N 0 -
~ Hf
oS
J-j .lj~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j
~ ~I;S'-'
· z<
H In e ~ ~ ~ :! ~ ~ !
.g~ ~8
f- -0 -
. d
~.~ .a-j GO N M '0 - - !
~ J i 'iF
-< is · ~ :z:
J fl
1 ~!
~ 'I 51
~jj 5
.! i j
a !- -I
c.J
[IDOOlA\rF1!
,-. .'. U..' . __' _ ..__
lID
-
fl : ~ ~
ill ~! f
Jf ~jJ 1
i III ~ f
j ~ .s ~ ~ ;: .S
1J i ~ i J 1
't =- -! ~.I 'g I
.l.\l i~~ li
:i ~ii H
I If i'i{ ii
1l'9 ~~l 8}
'ts'9- J:j 00 1 .1
If lil.H
51 BO-Is-
.al~ ~J~:lj~
~~i S(,JJ~;~
II :;a .j .So J! a e
l~'"S 1 a~.J 1
U~jl~JojIH
~;i.U eJUl
J ~ j 1.1 d I] I
!~ JJU1"lj~
~ Jn~i~'.jl~g ~
} ~ hlHihl~i. i
j ~ ~~~Jl.l~j~~~ j
J i
&0 !-
JI !
JII I J ! ~
- 1175
[IDOO~~F !
C0411",pact of At/dilialtal Road MtIIf42,,,,nu Syst,,,,~
A""~lrtmIflXIldw1r
Table 1 0 provides an annual cost impact estimate from a one-tier road management system at the
regional level for the Scugog Depot using resionaJ standards for aD roads that could be serviced
in that SeMce area (a positive number indicates an increase; a negarive number indicates a
decrease). Currently, the regional depot services 363.8 Jane kilometres ofregionaJ roads.
The fonowing steps were used in the calculation.
I. Column 2 lists the number of regional employees and pieces of equipment at the Scugog
depot.
2. Column 3 calculates the regional standard for each type of employee or piece of
equipment by cfividinS the number of employees or pieces of equipment at the ScugoS
depot by 3.638 (existing regional lane kilometres in hundreds).
3, Column 4 records the number of employees and pieces of equipment u follows: 75% from
ScugoS (remaining 25% serviced from Orono depot); 6"'~ &om Uxbridge (remaining
33% serviced from Scugog depot) loeA from Pickering (remaining 90'.4 serviced from
Ajax depot); and IOtA from Whitby (remaining 9()11,4 serviced ftom Oshawa depot). These
percentages represent the ponion of each of these area municipalities that could be
serviced by the Scugog depot plus one other depot. (
4, Column 5 calculates the standards per 100 lane kUometres in area municipalities that could
be serviced &om the regional depot in Scugog plus one other depot This amounts ,to an
additional 819.6 lane kiJometres - 408."7 kilometres of roads in Uxbridge (6,." oflocaJ
roads) plus 294.6Icilometres of roads in SCUSOS (75% oflocaJ roads) plus 38.6 kilometres
orrow in Pickering (1()O~ oflocal roads) plus 77.71cilometres ofroads in Whitby (J()O~
oflocal roads).
S. Column 6 provides numbers which represent the net change in number of employees and
pieces of equipment if the region WeR to service the additional 819.6 lane kin. of local
roads at the regional standards per 100 lane Idlometres u recorded in column 3.
6. ColUllUl 7 listS the annual change in costs. This is obtained by multiplying the numbers in
column 6 by the annual cost per unit trom Table 3.
7. Works clepo( saviDss reflect the prorated portion ofeliminatins one depot in Seusog and
SqlatlHr 1, 1999
/9
(
1 1 76
.. .
rID 00 uHF II
._. -- ......--........ -.,-.- -....- ~..
C oS( 1m OCI 0 'Add/lioftal Road M.
A"...IlJo'O" ilelrm
Uxbridge - savings ofS33.333 applied to Uxbridge plus $37,500 applied to Sculog plus
$5.000 applied to Whitby plus $S,ooo applied to Pickering
Conclusion: Costs for this service area would fall by about $929,000,
&PIPIM, 7, 1999
20
1 1 77
! [IDOO&~1r i
, j
...~_.. -......-,. ---........." ,-' ...-.-.......--
~ s ~_ ~ 3 ~ ! ~~ ~ ~ g ~ s
:{ Il:L ~ 'I 'I 'I " "1, ~ ] J S!;; i
~ lhe II I~ l ~
~ !t J~ ~f^~ J
1~ 0 00 - ~ to - 00' ai b,stl~,I
E .. ill ;) ~ ; ~ ~ :;' U 11 ~ ~ i j ~
~ 1. .i 'r 1- 2:at b! I ~_.I '11
i I ti~$ HiHfI l:=
! :f ~ll ~Ud:s "'. H
! >.~ }.f J 1. ~
~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~I! n f"a ~ H
~ ].d:i€ }ud1 sf
] )l a ,f~lh 1 1:0
] 'Q.:J)' ~ ---IJ.J 1
Ii In.. ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 utllfir, ill
:!j . ~!- ii~fIJ~)lj I's~
I.- .. ~ "" "" C roo roo I . 'a j -I"",ls"fJ
j ]l.! .. ad: a a' 'c5 i ~ 4 ! i .. i! I'~
j .~ i J].I € J a J ;,:rt i ~! I f.j i
...J Is ,;~ i I'" .1""
. - "" S i >.J M
fl" Z i j]lll J"aJfilti
'1 J ~ ! I. ~! J :i 1'~" ~
h s j I i. ~ U1 h~=:i]141
~i =-} ! ~ " 't]l~iiia'llltt
~!t J I i J j 1! ~ ~nlhI~J~~J
u
. 1 1 78
(
\
....
"4
(
.
....
.....
~ '
I ,~
c'J
~ .
(IDOOm[F/]
- -,~-- _...-....._....~... ~- ---..... ...... ~
A""$11TJn 'KJtdtm
ComPWOII willi OtIto Cost JlltptJct StMdi~ of O,,~-1i~r Road MalltJg~"'Dlt SystDII.f
The estimates from above may be compared with other one-tier studies to gain some sense of
where these results fall. These are reponed in Table 11. In every instance, upper tier
responsibility for all roads is estimated to save more money than either the status quo or lower tier
responsibility for all roads. In fact, the savings may be quite significant.
Table 11: Estimated Ten Year Cost Savings for Different Municipalities
Region of
Hastings Simcoe Chatham- Ottawa- Durham
Options County. County. Kent-- Carleton." Region.....
Status Quo Nn.. NIL NIL NU.. NU.
savings of S8.S
IniDiOD to an
Lower Tier increue of S24
Responsibility $6,239,063 $8,237,000 --- - million
savings of S45 savings of$23.6
Upper Tier million to $97 million to S52.6
Responsibility $8,244,087 $13,937,000 $23,700,000 million million
Sources:
. From McConnick Ran1cin, "Alternative Road Management System Options", Feb. 1997.
.. From presentation by Hugh Thomas.
... From KPMG study for Ottawa-Carleton, August 29, 1999.
.... First number is taken from June 29, 1999 repon to the Region's Governance committee
and the second number is taken from Tables 4 and 5 in this report.
SepkWIlHr 7, /999
11
1 1 79
, .
.
~
I-
""
~
0
...
;;2 ... ""
Cl: 0 ~
Cl:
"" I- .~
=-
'IJ 'IJ Z
~ I- 0 8
'IJ U
~ 0 Cl: ~
u i:
=- "" z '"
0 u ~ "
~ 0
.. Cl
Z
;:; Z Cl: ~
... "" 0
c. I- ...
~ Z I- "el
~ ""
u " ,g
0 Q u
... ~ ;:; "
.!::l
= Cl
0 .... -B
Cl: g:
- 0
~ :::
u .~
ill :E
::s
0 "'"
I- ~
'IJ ~
53 <(
"
..s
>,
~
""
U
.c
'"
00
.13
"
~
.c
00
::s
~
""
~
.~
0
u
c
.9
~ ~
.,g
"'" .S
~ c
0
"'" ""
> ~
0 ~
...:.- al
80
ATTACHMENT NO.: 2
REPORT NO.: WD-47-99