The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/25/2011 Special Budget Agenda clarington i Leading the Way SPECIAL GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: Friday, November 25, 2011 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: Courtice Community Complex 2950 Courtice Rd. N., Courtice 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. FINANCE DEPARTMENT Verbal Report of the Director of Finance/Treasurer— 2012 Municipal Budget 4. ADJOURNMENT CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 C 2012 BUDGET EDUCATION SESSION Friday, November 251h, 2011 Agenda x Fiscal/Economic Update x Financial Indicators- BMA Statistics x Historical Trends x Development Charges Update x Tangible Capital Assets x Long-term Debt Update x Reserve and Reserve Fund Update x Education Retained Issues x Operations Department Issues x Engineering Department Issues x Preliminary Capital Budget x Staffing Update x Proposed Draft Operating Budget and Overall Impact x Next Steps x 2013 Considerations Fiscal/ Economic Update Consumer Price Index at 2.9% for October Development Charges increase for 2012 at 4. 3% based on Construction Price Index Financial Indicators - BMA Statistics Clarington participates in annual study performed by BMA Management Consulting Inc. Includes 84 municipalities representing 84% of the population of Ontario Provides a valuable tool for comparing to other municipalities as well as assessing affordability from a local perspective Study is in draft form as it has just been released this week. Average Household Income------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Municipality 1 - • Average • EL Household Income Newmarket $111 ,630 HIGH Milton $111 , 187 HIGH Pickering $106,981 HIGH Whitby $106,288 HIGH Ajax $101 ,867 HIGH Clarington $96,994 HIGH Oshawa $80,476 MID Niagara Falls $67,760 LOW GTA Average $114,362 HIGH Survey Average $87,280 MID Land Area and Density Affects the cost of municipal goods and services. Compact boundaries and high population densities make the provision of public services, such as road maintenance and fire protection typically less costly per household Clarington is 12t" largest land area out of 84 in study at 611 square km's. Our population density is 140 per square km compared to a survey average of 626 population density per square km . The GTA average is 1 ,089. Net Municipal Levy per capita Calculated using 2010 Stats Canada estimated populations and 2011 municipal levies May vary as a result of: Different service levels Variations in types of service Different methods of providing services Varying demand for services Locational factors Urban/rural composition Net Municipal Levy per capita selected municipalities Relative 2011 Levy Municipality per Capita Rating Survey per Capita Upper and Lower Lower Only Milton $ 965 low 6 390 Clarington $ 1,220 mid 34 442 Ajax $ 1,377 high 66 468 Pickering $ 1,415 high 74 472 Newmarket $ 1,082 Low 17 511 Whitby $ 1,385 high 67 512 Oshawa $ 1,392 high 70 684 Niagara Falls $ 1,583 High 77 791 GTAAverage $ 1,248 Survey Average $ 1,283 Net Municipal Levy per capita Clarington trends mm AM Average • Combined GTA Average Study 2004 799 955 2005 836 1 ,003 2006 930 1 ,025 1 ,025 2007 384 1 ,067 17143 17121 2008 401 17094 17202 17163 2009 404 17134 17185 17167 2010 420 17145 17208 17228 2011 442 17220 17248 17283 Assessment per capita Provide an indication of the "richness" of the assessment base Assessment is important due to reliance of municipalities on the property tax base Generally GTA municipalities have high assessment per capita as well as cottage country due to high lakefront and low year round populations Municipalities with higher assessments per capita tend to have properties valued higher than other jurisdictions which gives them the ability to have a lower tax rate to raise the same amount of money than one with lower assessments per Capita. Assessment per Capita Relative Municipality Unweighted Position CVA/Capita Oshawa $86,364 low Niagara Falls $96,321 mid Clarington $101,182 mid Whitby $111,068 mid Ajax $113,256 mid Pickering $115,834 mid Newmarket $119,833 mid Milton $143,085 High GTAAverage $139,697 Survey Average $121,960 2011 Assessment composition 0.50% Split 2.50% 3.90% 0.20% 0.7'0% 6.80% m Residential Multi-Residential Commercial Industrial 85.40% 0 Pipelines m Farmlands Forests Property Taxes as a percentage of income 2011 AVERAGE Residential of • • • Municipality • • • • Milton $ 3,208 2.9% Low Newmarket $3,940 3.5% Low Clarington $ 3,708 3.8% Low Whitby $ 4,286 4.0% Mid Ajax $ 4,224 4.1% Mid Niagara Falls $2,834 4.2% Mid Pickering $ 4,454 4.2% Mid Oshawa $ 3,819 4.7% High $4,189 Survey.Average $ 3,433 4.1% Comparison of Relative taxes "Like" property comparisons Provides overall trends, not exact differences Differences in relative tax burdens caused by: Values of like properties vary significantly Affected by tax ratios Non-uniform education rates Level of service choices User fee structure Other revenue types ie. casino Property Tax Comparisons - Detached bungalow - 2011 Municipality . . -rty Taxes Relative Tax Burden A06 MILTON $2,761 LOW NIAGARA FALLS $2,819 MID CLARINGTON $3,000 MID NEWMARKET $3,235 HIGH WHITBY $3,627 HIGH AJAX $3,683 HIGH OSHAWA $3,857 HIGH PICKERING $4,073 HIGH AVERAGE- OVERALL $2,972 AVERAGE- POPULATION $3,045 50,000-99,999 GTAAVERAGE $3,442 Detached bungalow relative taxes Clarington 5 year trends ---------------------------- Relativ mm Taxesil Population GTA Average Study • • • - . • - 2007 $2,787 $2,773 $3,131 $2,750 2008 $2,891 $2,854 $3,255 $2,819 2009 $2,902 $2,898 $3,326 $2,880 2010 $2,930 $2,972 $3,380 $2,915 2011 $3,000 $3,045 $3,442 $2,942 CUMULATIVE INCREASE 8% 10% 10% 7% AVG ANNUAL INCREASE 1.5% 2.0% 2% 1.4% Property Tax Comparisons- Senior executive home - 2011 Municipality . . -rty Taxes Relative Tax Burden .006 MILTON $4,151 LOW CLARINGTON $4,799 LOW NIAGARA FALLS $5,302 MID NEWMARKET $5,313 MID WHITBY $5,603 MID AJAX $5,676 HIGH OSHAWA $5,802 HIGH PICKERING $5,957 HIGH AVERAGE- OVERALL $5,558 AVERAGE- POPULATION $5,118 50,000-99,999 GTAAVERAGE $5,758 Senior executive relative taxes Clarington 5 year trends mi Relative MA ------------------------------------------- Population GTA Average Study Taxes • • • A'mm& Average kmL 2007 $4,388 $4,656 $5,255 $5,038 2008 $4,552 $4,805 $5,426 $5,184 2009 $4,649 $4,929 $5,600 $5,343 2010 $4,697 $5,026 $5,675 $5,438 2011 $4,799 $5,118 $5,758 $5,558 CUMULATIVE INCREASE 9/ 10% 10% 10% AVG ANNUAL INCREASE 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% Summary Comparison of Relative Taxes Average .............. Property Type Clarington Survey Avg with GTA Population • Range 503000-9%999 Detached $3,000 mid $2,942 $3,045 $3,442 Bungalow Senior Executive $4,799 low $5,558 $5, 118 $5,758 Neighbourhood $4.63/sq ft high $3.44/sq ft $3.88/sq ft $3.85/sq ft Shopping Industrial $2. 19/sq ft high $1 .72/sq ft $1 .83/sq ft $2.20/sq ft Large Industrial $0.50/sq ft low $1 .31 /sq ft $1 .28/sq ft $1 .53/sq ft 2011 BMA study- conclusions on taxation Average household income high in Clarington Clarington's tax burden is in low to mid range overall and low in comparison to GTA group and population group Property taxes as a percentage of income rated low in Clarington Clarington ranks 34th in the net levy per capita out of the 84 participants (other Durham lakeshores are 66t" to 70th) Challenges- land area is high with low density and assessment per capita is mid (lower than GTA and ------survey averages)------- 110. BMA Study- Financial condition indicators Evaluation of municipal financial condition is complex due to: The state of the economy Varying service levels and standards Population and geographic size Composition of the community (urban/rural, demographics) Local business climate and proximity to major centres Internal finances of the municipality Costs being postponed into the future (ie asset deterioration) Financial position per capita Total fund balances (including equity in Veridian) less amounts to be recovered in future years (long term debt, post employment benefits) Reflects future financial capacity and amount of current obligations not funded Does not reflect capital deterioration factors Trend for Clarington : 2008-$422 , 2009-$384, 2010- $398 2010 Net Financial position Municipality . . Positon Per Capita Toronto �I $(1 ,612) Oshawa $(615) Newmarket $392 Clarington $398 Niagara Falls $549 Ajax $799 Milton $837 Whitby $841 Pickering $888 Preliminary Survey Average $198 Operating Surplus Ratio Arises when revenue exceeds expenses including amortization Surplus means that funds are available for capital expenditures over and above funding amortization from tax base Long-term objective Ratio is operating surplus divided by own source revenues Negative ratio is percentage increase that would be required to achieve a financial breakeven result Measure generally detrimental to high growth municipalities due to newer assets with higher amortization 2010 Operating Surplus Ratios--- . . . � - . D - Clarington -$(7,402,983) -12.7% Milton -$(8,023,935) -11 .4% Toronto -$(651 ,425,404) -9. 1 % Newmarket -$(5, 149,070) -8.9% Pickering -$(3,520,773) -5. 1 % Niagara Falls 272477953 2.6% Oshawa 378047714 2.7% Whitby 370767291 3. 1 % Ajax 371697199 4.4% Survey Average -$(1570187273) -5.9% Asset consumption ratio "used up" percentage of capital assets Highlights aged condition of assets and potential asset replacement needs 20 10 Asset Consumption ratio Municipality ............................ • • • • Ajax 26.4% Whitby 29.6% Milton 31 .6% Newmarket 32.2% Clarington 34. 1 % Oshawa 35.7% Niagara Falls 36.9% Pickering 49.2% Preliminary Average 35.9% Reserves and Reserve Funds Critical component of long-term financing plan Provides stability to tax rates in the face of variable economic factors Provides financing for one-time requirements without impacting tax rates Makes provision for asset replacement of infrastructure currently depreciating Avoid spikes in capital budget requirements and reduce reliance on long-term debt Source of internal financing Provide flexibility to manage debt levels and protect the municipality's financial position Provide for liabilities incurred in current year but paid for in the future Reserve and reserve fund measures RESERVES AND RESERVE FUNDS 160.0% 140.0% 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% m 201 Reserves as a % of Own Source Revenue 60.0% 2010 Reserves as a % of Taxation 40.0% 20.0% - 0.0% Pia+ � � a\� `� F �`� MUNICIPALITY Debt per capita Municipality 2010 Outstanding Debt 2010 Debt Per Capita Whitby $ 10,327,084 $ 84.54 Ajax $ 16, 162,500 $ 163 .45 Pickering $ 16,582,742 $ 170.41 Clarington $ 29,539,932 $ 345 .87 Milton $ 31,017,878 $ 366.40 Niagara Falls $ 42,665,832 $ 500.97 Oshawa $ 89,373,954 $ 565 .74 Newmarket $ 51,074,996 $ 592.44 Debt Measures Municipality Debt/$1 00,000 Debt Interest/Own Unweighted Source AL Assessment J 11�� Whitby $76 0.5% Clarington $342 0.8% Pickering $147 1 .0% Ajax $144 1 .0% Milton $256 1 .6% Niagara Falls $520 1 .7% Newmarket $494 3.5% Oshawa $655 3.6% Preliminary Average $571 1 .6% Various municipal debt levels 2010 Debt Outstanding Peterborough Guelph Newmarket Kitchener St. Catharines Clarington Niagara Falls Burlington Oakville 0 50 000 100,000 1507000 Thousands Conclusions on Financial Status Financial position/capita well above survey average and in positive territory (does not factor capital deterioration) Operating surplus ratio in negative territory as we have newer assets being high growth and therefore higher annual depreciation . Long-term goal . Asset consumption ratio is around average Reserves and reserve funds are stable and better than study average Debt/capita is mid range and declining Historical Trends Assessment Growth History ---------------------------------------------------------- ko Assessment Growth 2001 2.6% 2002 3.47% 2003 2.09% 2004 2.94% 2005 3.06% 2006 3.64% 2007 2.12% 2008 2.8% 2009 3.0% 2010 1 .92% 2011 2.2% 2012 2.0% Clarington 's Budget Increase History Local Mm • • 2001 3.5% 2002 2.86% 2003 3.5% 2004 8.3% 2005 4.7% 2006 4.08% 2007 8.25% 2008 4.44% 2009 2.35% 2010 2.97% 2011 3.80% 11 year average 4.43% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are development charges? Fees levied against new development to pay for capital costs of servicing new development "growth pays for growth" The financial burden of servicing new development is not borne by existing taxpayers Very widely used in Ontario New Study and By-law required every five years Current By-law expires July 1 , 2015 Development Charges Current background study and By-law approved by Council on May 31 , 2010, effective July 1 , 2010 Residential charge for a single family dwelling will be $ 15,244 per unit starting January 1 , 2012 Industrial Charge will be $31 . 79 per square metre of gross floor area Other non-residential charge will be $55. 64 per square metre of gross floor area Development Charges (continued) Current by-law is under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by developer group Appeal is methodology based If developer appeal is successful, charge would be reduced and differential value would have to be refunded back to July 1St, 2010 If Clarington successfully defends, charge stays as status quo By-law in place for 5 years with annual indexing unless Municipality determines need to update sooner How do you calculate development charges? Prepare a growth forecast Calculate historic service levels Prepare growth-related capital programs Calculate rates Review by-law policies and exemptions Hold statutory public meeting Development charges- Items to remember/ consider Amendments to the By-law require the same steps as preparing the original by-law. ie. Statutory notices, public meetings, updated background study information , etc. DC's only cover growth related components of the capital costs, not replacement shares Legislation excludes some categories, ie. museums, administration , computers Mandatory 10% reduction on "soft" services Cannot exceed 10 year historic service level , ie can't improve services through development charges Development charges- Items to remember/ consider DC debt is funded by collections, not tax levy so inherent cash flow risks in economic downturns Timing of major capital facilities DC funds can only be spent on growth related projects Residential DC's as a percentage of new home costs has been relatively stable General concern over quantum of non-residential charges and impact upon development in economic downturns Development Charges Reserve Funds Library and indoor recreation have had cash flow issues around supporting the cost of debt Library projected to not generate any further shortfalls in 2011 or 2012 and has the potential to commence some repayment of interim borrowing from prior years of approximately $200,000 and begin to address repayment of balloon payment for main library in 2012, subject to outcome of OMB appeal Impacts upon timing of future facilities Development Charges Reserve Funds Indoor recreation development charges reserve fund projected to be short at end of 2011 by $675,000. The projection is that this shortfall will not increase throughout 2012 (assumes approx. $3.0 million in collections in 2012 or 540 units so any fluctuations affects this number) Need a plan to repay borrowings back to other reserve funds for indoor recreation of an estimated $1 .2 million . This includes an allowance for any loss on the OMB appeal which is still to be determined . Development- Charges Reserve Funds ----------- Capital 2011 2012 q1 Balancel.,—"I Balance Operating Contributions 2012 Ending$249,097 0 -$195,300 0 $53,797 GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LIBRARY -$166,052 -$77,143 -$219,428 0 -$462,623 EMERGENCY $1,391,154 -$106,200 0 0 $1,284,954 SERVICES INDOOR -$1,866,884 0 -$3,026,456 0 -$4,893,340 RECREATION PARK $1,113,799 -$662,400 -$13,500 0 $437,899 DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS $1,579,799 -$520,438 -$18,000 0 $1,041,361 ROADSAND $3,417,723 -$496,133 -$475,000 0 $2,446,590 RELATED PARKING $158,555 0 0 0 $158,555 Tangible Capital Assets AssetType Historical Acc'm Net B • • Cost Depreciation D - jj IN MMMOMIL 1 1 Land 48,143,207 0 48,143,207 Land Improvements 19,542,807 (6,791 ,743) 12,751 ,064 Buildings 90,328,402 (29,439,729) 60,888,673 Vehicles 6,845,795 (3,566,408) 3,279,387 Equipment 11 ,059,648 (6,455,490) 4,604,158 Roads-Land 3,042,887 0 3,042,887 Roads- Infrastructure 319,233,528 (129,773,807) 189,459,722 Storm Sewer-Infrastructure 59,308,554 (11 ,564,107) 47,744,447 Roads- Buildings 2,389,283 (1 ,320,372) 1 ,068,911 Roads- Vehicles 8,875,601 (4,803,869) 4,071 ,732 Roads- Equipment 53,856 (23,255) 30,601 Assets under Construction 11 ,238,371 0 11 ,238,371 TOTAL 580,061 ,939 (193,738,780) 386,323,159 Overall Expired Capital Assets AssetType Net Book Value @ Dec % Depreciated A 1 312010 Land 48,143,207 0% Land Improvements 12,751 ,064 34.75% Buildings 60,888,673 32.59% Vehicles 3,279,387 52. 10% Equipment 4,604,158 58.37% Roads-Land 3,042,887 0% Roads- Infrastructure 189,459,722 40.65% Storm Sewer-Infrastructure 47,744,447 19.50% Roads- Buildings 1 ,068,911 55.26% Roads- Vehicles 4,071 ,732 54. 12% Roads- Equipment 30,601 43. 18% Assets under Construction 11 ,238,371 0% TOTAL 386,323,159 33.40% Annual Depreciation vs . Annual Capital Funding ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • _ Annual Annual Annual R&M Depreciation Levy Funding • to Funding W for Land Improvements 567,386 0 0 0 Buildings 2,608,804 67,000 460,860 555,000 Vehicles 586,205 0 59,500 305,000 Equipment 1,072,088 262,786 353,850 201,000 Roads- Infrastructure 8,860,860 2,105,780 2,409,000 235,000 Storm Sewer- 785,389 106,560 0 0 Infrastructure Roads- Buildings 52,861 0 0 0 Roads-Vehicles 710,180 0 609,908 125,000 Roads- Equipment 3,212 0 80,100 0 TOTAL 15,246,985 2,542,126 3,973,218 1,421,000 Debt and Repayments Debenture Repayment Schedule As of January 1, 2012 Year South Courtice Indoor Soccer/ RRC Newcastle Mill St Newcastle Total Arena Lacrosse CCD Space Library Estimated Aquatic 2012 1,201,432.00 334,977.00 107,074.68 103,304.98 200,000.00 1,778,322.50 3,725,111.16 2013 1,348,835.30 335,427.00 107,074.68 104,042.98 400,000.00 1,781,367.25 4,076,747.21 2014 1,348,835.30 1,761,015.00 107,074.68 103,480.98 400,000.00 1,783,101.25 5,503,507.21 2015 1,348,835.30 107,074.68 103,677.48 400,000.00 1,784,674.00 3,744,261.46 2016 1,348,835.30 107,074.68 103,575.48 400,000.00 1,785,231.50 3,744,716.96 2017 1,348,835.30 107,074.68 104,194.48 400,000.00 1,785,285.25 3,745,389.71 2018 107,074.68 556,507.98 400,000.00 1,784,635.50 2,848,218.16 2019 107,074.68 400,000.00 1,784,054.75 2,291,129.43 2020 107,074.68 400,000.00 1,629,375.00 2,136,449.68 2021+ 53,537.34 2,600,000.00 2,094,750.00 4,748,287.34 7,945,608.52 2,431,419.00 1,017,209.46 1,178,784.36 6,000,000.00 17,990,797.00 36,563,818.34 Principal at Jan 1/ 2012 5,972,000.00 2,122,000.00 829,891.51 919,000.00 4,000,000.00 14,358,000.00 28,200,891.51 Principal at Jan 1/2013 1 5,105,000.00 1,902,000.00 764,480.59 861,000.00 3,900,000.00 13,207,000.00 25,739,480.59 Status of Reserves Reserve Name 201 ILBalance 2012 Balance Self Insured Losses 503, 179 528, 179 Municipal Acquisition 680,587 663,587 Of Property Tax Write-off 206,045 231 ,045 General Capital 133,474 113,474 Legal 150,757 200,757 Consult/Prof fees 3, 172 3, 172 Records Maintenance 35,615 45,615 Election Expenses 85,686 160,686 Fire Prevention 777132 677132 Status of Reserves (Continued) Reserve Name 2011 Balance 2012 Balance Pits and Quarries 483,722 353,722 Waterfront Trail 20,585 20,585 Burketon Park 7,569 7,569 Samuel Wilmot Nature 523 523 TOTAL 2,388,046 2,396,046 Status of Reserve Funds --------------------- 2011 2012 2012 Tax Levy 2012 : . . - Capital Balance Operating Contributions --d INDUSTRIAL/ $350,253 -$50,000 -$12,500 $100,000 $387,753 ECONOMIC DEV. MUNICIPAL CAPITAL $4,367,763 -$145,265 -$5,200 $235,000 $4,452,298 WORKS DEBENTURE $208,812 0 -$32,964 0 $175,848 RETIREMENT IMPACT/ESCROW $1,095,243 0 -$40,000 0 $1,055,243 GENERAL MUNICIPAL $1,544,530 0 -$250,000 $49,200 $1,343,730 RATE STABILIZATION $4,119,352 0 -$801,000 0 $3,318,352 COMPUTER $778,913 -$285,000 0 $100,000 $593,913 EQUIPMENT CLAR. STATION A $674,243 0 0 0 $674,243 PARKING LOT $356,508 0 -$181,190 0 $175,318 Status of Reserve Funds (continued) Capital------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2011 2012=ME Balance Operating ANIMAL $107,786 -$3,000 0 $7,000 $111,786 SERVICES CLERK'S FLEET 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 FIRE EQUIPMENT $1,352,801 -$105,000 -$10,000 $300,000 $1,537,801 ROADS CAPITAL $370,856 -$350,000 0 0 $20,856 ENG. & $2,243,810 0 -$305,000 0 $1,938,810 INSPECTION ROADS $1,586,506 -$550,000 0 0 $1,036,506 CONTRIBUTION PARKS CAPITAL $1,083,090 -$151,100 0 0 $931,990 CEMETERIES $8,441 -$22,000 0 $15,000 $1,441 FED GAS TAX $241,123 -$2,626,866 0 $2,393,743 $8,000 BUILDING DIV. $203,206 0 0 $200,000 $403,206 Status of Reserve Funds (continued) Capital 2011 2012 2012 Contributions 2012 Balance Operating Balance ENG. FLEET $98,092 0 0 $5,000 $103,092 FACILITY/PARKS $562,158 -$160,000 -$105,000 $275,000 $572,158 MAINT. OPERATIONS $1,115,630 -$838,800 0 $120,000 $396,830 EQUIPMENT CSD BUILDING $180,453 0 0 $79,000 $259,453 REFURBISH COMM SERV CAP $665,267 -$27,000 -$151,700 $250,000 $736,567 PARKLAND CASH- 0 0 0 0 0 IN-LIEU COMMUNITY $66,840 0 -$15,000 $25,000 $76,840 IMPROVEMENT LIBRARY CAPITAL $663,401 0 0 $30,000 $693,401 LIBRARY COMP. $52,214 0 0 $527214 EQUIPMENT Mmmok Status of Reserve Funds (continued) 2011 2012 Capital 2012 Operating Contributionsj, 1 2012 Balance Balance OLDER ADULTS $71,831 0 -$10,000 $3,000 $64,831 OPERATING MUSEUM R/F'S $124,639 0 0 $6,000 $130,639 BOW BIA $16,670 0 0 0 $16,670 NEWCASTLE BIA $75,110 0 0 0 $75,110 ORONO BIA $43,336 0 0 0 $43,336 HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF RESERVE FUND BUDGET BALANCES (EXCLUDES DEVELOPMENT CHARGES) 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Reserve Funds highlights Non-DC related has been generally consistent Strong reliance for capital purposes Minor improvements to funding of reserve funds have been recommended in 2012 Education Retained Issues and Provincial Budget Impact Provincial budget in 2007 announced changes to education rates for non- residential classes. They have been uniform across the province for residential since 1998, but non-residential was based on historical ratios. This created huge disparities and competitive issues amongst municipalities that was entirely beyond their control. Province responded to aggressive lobbying in 2007 budget by announcing a seven year phasing to bring all non-residential education rates to 1 .6 %. In the Region of Durham, the commercial education rates were below the threshold so are not affected but the industrial and large industrial were in excess of 1 .6% and therefore are subject to the mandatory reduction. This may be good for overall competitiveness from an economic development perspective. This is a problem for Clarington and Pickering because we are permitted to keep the education portion of payment in lieu properties. This was approximately $1 .8 million for 2011 . This means that the revenue for Clarington is being reduced over the next 3 years as a result of provincial policy. For 2011 , approximately $95,000 in revenue was lost. Approximately $80,000 is estimated to be lost in 2012. The difference between the 2008 revenue and the 2012 estimated revenue is a loss of almost $300,000. This will be treated as a tax policy change once information is available before the tax rates are set for 2012. The 1 .6% was adjusted by the province to 1 .33% due to reassessment in 2011 and will be adjusted again for 2012. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations Department Engineering Department 2012 Capital Budget Total proposed capital budget = $ 11 .5 million 33% funded from tax levy 84% relates to operations and engineering (principally roads and parks) 1 .67% tax levy increase to support capital the bulk of which is an optional request for road support based on priority need Proposed Capital Projects - . . IM ? Corporate Services Computer Hardware 211,400 49,400 Computer Software 234,400 114,400 Emergency Services Car 4 and Car 15 105,000 0 Expansion to HQ- interior work 100,000 0 Bunker Gear 57,350 51,150 Engineering Services Hancock Neighbourhood Park 566,000 0 Roswell Park Parking Lot 120,000 0 Proposed Capital Projects (continued) r - . . Engineering Services Pavement Rehabilitation Program 1,563,866 80,000 Structures Rehabilitation 990,000 500,000 Duke Street Road Reconstruction 750,000 250,000 Flett Street Road Reconstruction 350,000 250,000 West Scugog Lane Surface 175,000 0 Ashphalt Roadside Protection Program 150,000 0 Given Road Reconstruction 160,000 60,000 Pebblestone Road Rehabilitation 525,000 175,000 Sidewalk Replacement 200,000 200,000 (unspecified locations) Soper Creek Erosion 200,000 0 Nash Road Ditching 180,000 180,000 Proposed Capital Projects (continued) Department Operations Rural Road Resurfacing 1,360,000 860,000 Various Parks, Cemetery, Signage 180,000 18,000 Various Building Works 190,500 50,500 Fleet Replacements— Roads and 821,000 0 Parks New Fleet— Roads 526,065 0 Community Services Department RRC Roof Replacement 162,000 0 Various Recreational Facilities 68,000 10,000 Replacements and Improvements Planning Services Land Acquisition 740,000 683,000 Clarington Library Board Library Technology 85,000 85,000 Library Collection 110,000 24,286 2012 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS 2012 Staffing Requirements 2011 APPROVED BUDGET Five Year Staffing Plan Future Staffing increase cost not to exceed assessment growth value 2012 Staffing Requirements MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED Overall growth Delay in Newcastle Fire Hall Council's decision to defer hiring of Manager of Corporate Initiatives Operation Department organizational review and restructure 2012 Staffing Requirements ADDITIONAL STAFF RESOURCES FOR 2012 Manager of Corporate Initiatives I .T. Network Analyst Buyer Accounting/Revenue Clerk Building Maintenance Supervisor Building Inspector Programmer Fire Training Officer Crossing Guards Clerical needs in Fire and Clerks Departments 2012 Staffing Requirements COST vs ASSESSMENT GROWTH Total cost of new staff - $651 ,000. Preliminary Assessment growth 2 .0% ; Value @ $750,000. 2012 Budget Impact Summary - Base Items -------------------------------------------------------------- RevtjjUp Increases: Growth (751,303) Livestock admin fee (4,200) Dog/Cat Licences (20,000) Building Permit Revenue (50,000) Planning Revenues ( 13,475) 2012 Budget Impact Summary- Base Items -------------------------------------- - ff Reduction in Tax Levy Support to debt (603,045) Legal reduction in prof fees (18,700) Phone reduction (30,000) WSIB Surcharge reduction (70,000) Street lights hydro (40,000) 2012 Budget Impact Summary- Base Items -------------------------------------- - Contribution from Rate Stabilization R/F Contribution from Veridian Interest - 2012 Budget Impact Summary- Base Items ----------------------------------- ------------------- Expense Increases: e I Salary and wages increase 5951662 Approved Staffing Program 6511000 OMERS 2831777 Tax Levy Contribution to capital 2271210 2nd half of 2011 new positions 2141448 Reserve Fund contribution increases 1251000 EHT/CPP/EI/WSIB/EXT HEALTH 971843 Insurance 951000 Pay Equity 901575 Fire Union wage increase 871952 Board of Trade Contract 611000 Bunker Gear Maint/SCBA 581000 Post-employment benefits 501000 2012 Budget Impact Summary- Base Items _____________________________________________________________a. Exvense Increases: Tax Write-off 251000 Hwy #2 Medians 251000 Senior's Snow Clearing Subsidy 251000 Various minor adjustments 211526 software maintenance contracts 201000 Cemetery Expansion Study 201000 Metcalf Rail Crossing 201000 Traffic Signals-maint and hydro 161400 Bank Service Charges 151000 Animal Feed/vet/cleaning/janitorial 111800 Summer Camp Accommodation 111000 Reserves contribution increases 101000 H/R Consulting 101000 2012 Budget Impact Summary- Base Items _____________________________ ________________________a. Expense Increases: Catch Basin Contract 101000 EMS -Driver Training 71500 Finance -Legal 51000 Cul-de-sac Maintenance 51000 Columbarium Plaques 51000 Railway corridor fencing 51000 Health and Safety 31000 Council 21000 Clarington Older Adult Centre 91725 Clarington Public Library 531578 Clarington Museums 81332 Visual Arts Centre 71182 GRAND TOTAL 113881%8/ BASE PERCENTAGE INCREASE 3.67% 2012 Budget - Additional Items For Consideration ---------------------------- Description or Tax Levy Contribution to capital 4001000 Reserve Fund contribution increases 651500 CSD non-TCA improvements 281500 Students (2 in 2012) 281000 Reserves contribution increases 271500 EAP program 261000 GPS for Operations Fleet (phase-in) 251800 Post-employment benefits 251000 Tax Write-off 251000 CI P- Bowma nvi I le 251000 Rural Road Tree Removal 211000 Physician Recruitment 201000 Channel 12 Tourism Advertising 181000 2012 Budget - Additional Items For Consideration------------------------------ Desq!jptlion ESD Uniforms for Part-time over 15 yea rs 181000 Mayor's office 171578 EMSAdmin- HQupgrades inAdmin and Kitchen 101000 EMS- Training Props 101000 NCH-Newcastle Horticultural Society Park Improv. 101000 Volunteer Program 81000 Council 61000 Finance -Legal 51000 Cul-de-sac Maintenance 51000 Emergency Cleanup Contingency 51000 CIP- Newcastle 51000 2012 Budget - Additional Items For -Consideration- - ----- -- --- - -------------------- Description H/R Membership-Labour Costs Review-E.S. 21500 Health and Safety 21500 Banner Program 21500 Community Care 892 Clarington Public Library 51000 Firehouse Youth 71500 Next Steps ► Budget Binder and report to be circulated approximately January 11t", 2012 ► Special Budget GPA Friday January 20t", 2012 • Council Ratification Monday January 30t", 2012 Looking Forward- To--2-0 1-3------------- ---------------- Potential consideration of reduction in rate stabilization reserve fund reliance $300,000 and Veridian Interest Additional firefighters to address Newcastle Increased tax support to capital — Infrastructure Deficit Wage Settlements and benefits Address contributions to reserve funds Staffing pressures Aging facilities Implications on tax levy of new facilities Continued monitoring of cash flow on indoor recreation DC debt x T a j g. i - r x i� mg I I j' OPERA,TIIONfS;':5' DEr-'TPAR�TMIENT 2012 Budget 1 . Columbarium and Cemetery Expansion 2 . Galbraith Storm Water Management Pond 3 . Newtonville Hall 4 . Roof Audit 5 . Roads - High Float and Patching Columbarium and Cemetery Expansion Since installation of the columbarium in 2010 , there are 8 niches left unsold . The total revenue expected if all 80 of the proposed new columbarium niches were sold at 2012 rates is $81 , 760 . t _.r 2010 2011 Columbarium and Cemetery Expansion Bowmanville Cemetery has 400 graves available. Based on sales of the last 3 years, it is expected that Bowmanville Cemetery will be at full capacity by 2014. The Municipality must apply to the Registrar for approval and licensing to increase the capacity of the cemetery. We are looking at expansion of 2,000 plots, as well as areas for niche walls and scattering grounds. r Galbraith Storm Water Management Pond The effective operation of storm water management ponds has a twofold approach; annual monitoring and regular cleaning and maintenance of the ponds. Galbraith Pond is a continuation of the Shickendanz Pond located in Bowmanville bounded by Concession Street, Mearns Avenue, King Street East and Galbraith Court. The pond has silted up and silt is being introduced to the water shed. e' Newtonville Hall l 1 ,4, "�s Newtonville Hall • The building was constructed in 1854. It is a single storey timber framed building with load bearing exterior wood stud walls and timber roof trusses. The framing at the south-east corner of the building has settled significantly. The timber sill is severely deteriorated and repairs are required due to this settlement. Roof Assessment Audit In 119 Trow prepared • • assessment • on • Municipal buildings. Their recommendations and estimate of probable cost to repair or replace roofs between 1 1 and 2015 was • - r $3 million dollars. Clarington Beech 132 Church Street, rN i centre EB:).>-r 4.o T .^;ems•- 'ft b. -*i ' - i • 11 Roads - High Float Factors contributing to the deterioration of our high float road network: Ever increasing traffic volumes - Our rural roads were originally designed for a rural farming community with low traffic volumes. They now service multiple residents residing in estate subdivisions and single houses on one acre lots. Increased demand for higher winter maintenance service - The minimum maintenance standards ensure winter maintenance vehicles travel the rural road network on a regular basis (sometimes twice a day) as dictated by the weather conditions. These large heavy combination plow/ wing/ sander units contribute additional stress and wear on the infrastructure especially when the roads are not in a frozen state. Roads - High Float Factors contributing to the deterioration of our high float road Network cont'd: Larger farm vehicles and heavier loading —These types of operations utilize massive, heavy equipment to work the land , plant and harvest their crops. In the process they journey across Clarington's road network from farm to farm causing premature weakening of the road surface. Substantial cost increases — Road contract costs are highly influenced by the price of a barrel of oil . The costs of the oil used in the high floating process and diesel fuel burned in trucks have risen substantially over the last 10 years. Roads - Drainage Poor drainage on our rural roads is one of the major factors on the deterioration of the road surface. p Roads - High Float Our suggested targets for the next 4 years : • 2012 - 20 km • 2013 - 24 km • 2014 - 28 km • 2015 - 32 km Roads -Patching Minimum Maintenance Standard states: If a pothole exceeds both the surface area and depth set out in Table 1 , as the case may be, the minimum standard is to repair the pothole within the time set out in Table 1 , as appropriate, after becoming aware of the fact. O. Reg . 239/02, s. 6 (1 ). TABLE 1 POTHOLES ON PAVED SURFACE OF ROADWAY Class of Surface Area Depth Time Highway 1 600 cm2 8 cm 4 days 2 800 cm2 8 cm 4 days 3 1000 cm2 8 cm 7 days 4 1000 cm2 8 cm 14 days 5 1000 cm2 8 cm 30 days Roads -Patching 5% — 10% of our rural roads are deteriorating annually. This leads to excessive patching . There are stretches of surface treated road that do not have enough structure remaining to hold a pothole patch . 'TQ k 1 Roads -Patching Man hours spent patching roads has increased dramatically and patching has become our #1 activity after winter maintenance. Hours Per Activity 12000 10000 8000 Patching s000 Brushing a000 Traffic 2000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ol .r^ f TZt . r rM1 � r t i ' g Services 2012 Capital Budget f$.1y1, v d ti s O� W CYCLE Project Selection ( N I o AT CO Key Drivers �ON q 5 PJ f CFrT 6MIdL mmm I Road Network Health CAPITAL DATA PROGRAMMING WAREHOUSING Municipal Structures ENGINEERING SERVICES Municipal Servicing INFRASTRUCTURE � � �� - -^-_ p iL LIFE CYCLE =' 9 Park Development Coordination with Major Initiatives and Infrastructure Pro' ects ANALYSIS DESIGN BASED ON EVALUATION OF ANALYSIS (NETWORK BASED) 2 to Excellent Proactive Treatment 90 Preventative Maintenance 1994 Road Network Pci = 75.50 Very Goods 40% drop in quality O Good 1 75% of life 40% drop in quality Unsati 12% of life oad Network Health ement Life Cycle Bridge Inspections Every 2 Years Last Inspection 2011 249 Bridges and Culverts Top Priority Costs $4,300,000 . � Transportation Works Regional Services .r Residential, Commercial & A n. x Industrial Development Top Priority — Safety & Benefit to the Public -, lelopment Parkland Reserves Maintaining Current Service Levels Addressing Diverse and Changing Needs of the Public Co a Pd 6 PURRY TR Kilt$LFln. :Ya L.. – �� Taun7on RLTad MITCHELL CaRNERg - Ta�lNhtUn Road 3 e Cc ys e E ¢ v r - ¢ _ E $ prenwe Soh C € a i ORONO Ra sl'andR Ll 4DT-a@T oad PebDIeSIBneFnad EASTDLIRHANILINK Gn�svnnRd•1 O � CVnCFlislCn d5 J�l cl fl trE 4 ; # 4nCESSIan Rd COURTICE REGKMIALCENTRE ?dash Road TRAM NT YILLA6sE $ Con o3sl _ II R 7 4 ThL4PLE O rc q Y BOWMANLIILLE WEST' TOWN CENTRE looir Street GJn:FB Slrcti 7 tr t ~ �- FUTURE GO TRANSIT ? q �+ CLARINGTdNOLOGYE ' [] t '(�. ANLJ TECHNOLOGY .: iiAIL.ExTEwslau e 65 � _ L'f � BI19WE83 PARK 0 E U r 4 PLANNED G8 iRA NSIT C NTRE -� PLANNED GDTRANSIT GENTRf ONTARIO POWER = PLRNNEI]CG TRANSIT- - O GENERATION T fy. CENTRE �1 QFME BUILDING yid �LS LG+T r - ■71 ►" Y C *. I ti I P[}TE4YASTE FAC2LffY RON CLAFMNGTOR ENERGY 1 BUSINESS PARK - DARLINGTON NUCLEAR Nnlezu GENE RATING STATION 9trmvt EXPANSION LEGEND 'ft, pital Projects Highlights Desi Green Road Grade Separation Wilmot Street Sur Asphalt West Scugog Lane Pa nt Rehabilitation Various Locations Str re Rehabilitation Various Locations Si alks Replacement & New S t Lighting Various Locations (infills) P Development Hancock Neighbourhood Hampton Skate Park Bowmanville Creek Valley oad Reconstruction Duke Street Flett Street Given Road ESTIONS ? "tal P ♦�♦j '�'� � � III �'� �,� -��I�II �• iii '�� r �tllll L11►� ♦mI IIII G� .111111 � � �5, 1! 'I IIIIIIIIIII11111111� � .. . � � - � ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII s� � l: • � �� ■ 111111 � � -� , � �� ■ II ; Q JIMA � Capital PH ii � - ; III ■ ,', � 11 �♦ �� .� � � � ��, �= 1111111111111111 �1 �� ` ♦ �Ii� 1111111111111111 � ♦ � .� 1 �� ♦ r �i111111111111111111111. %�� *� �� • r�� ' . r�� ~III!!!!ll! 11 -I�� - °-= Illllllllr� �, � . u�� • �r� ♦ t�I � � � _ �r 1111111111. - ., ��If11111 �� =X11111 1■°1111 ,. -� 1 �Illllw I`!I i =` mil ■�■11■�� 111111111►\ ■1111�1�1■111■ p �` 1111111 � • � 1 • • �� ■�i1�11■1�1�1■ � IIIIIIIII „ IMME ■t1 �1��IIIIIIII�I1 --� �� 1■1111�� Capital __I Capital . .'�II�,• -- 1 -.■ MM - ■■ �■1111■' J. I l � •f�j'�`a r+j� �+�� :IIIIIIIIIi11111111 111�1■ ��=� �IIIIIIIIIIIIf111��► I �J 11111 11r! W��,♦r �� ; llllllllll llil �IIIIIIII�� 1�� ! �n � I •�1■�� 111111111►� ��r►�` �•;.�,��i� - �;�= III ■■ - C %A11��►�� WA1111=1I�fllf rIs ��. , � ■l�11 . C�1■I� 111111111►'�, �/.�` f1' . 1 Capital - - - - - - - - WWI g� ��i�i�►� - r ;�� III, Lei ME _ Illlllllllf Kim _ _: �� .► j 1110 it lll IIIIIIIIIIII � =f�► INN 2 milli �� IIIIIIIIII :: Cii►! � � ■ NEWCASTLE NIEMEN - --- - Capital NEWCASTLE all 111, — rll 1111 Ilf ��ii�'1 �■ a L ■■ 1!_ 11 I �� ■III � . . 1111111 . Capital . EMS � ■tom I Capital r 111�IIIIII� � ■ � �� ■■ ,...�.c�@1�� a�»111111111111 ap tal Projects Capital MRS' MM L King�Si 1E WN , ■ 11/I � =nc m � �= IIIIIIIIIIIIfIII,I► �i� ♦'�►+,� ' .�=l� 1.�� ■iI111111�1.11.1111�i Ir �1 i/,, will 111��111111111� �'+�► �►.�� ♦ , ,i� 111111%I` _ 1111111111 *�9 �,.`�; 1111111111111 �11111111IM 1 � mr 01 m 1 111 y�,► �P ;�► tll �� /i��►� �`��,� �l�11 . C�i�I� 111111111►\ �� f ' . Capital Ell PEBBLESTONE ROAD ■ I,� Capital iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- �IMff�ffflfff�ff�lrl�ll IIIIIIIIIIIIIItllllllllll =lllllllillllllf 11111,�� - IIIIIIIIIf1/ �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIflfl1111111 _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH/,� 1lfllllllfffll � /IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllll�lfffrl►u�r�� - =■ItIIIN►�� Illlllllllllllltllllllt11t1 _ i11111111i111t1/fir IIIIIIIIIIIIIID � � Itlllllllitl Ilttltlltltlr ;��` 111111111111111111 P Illlllllltl� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111_ illlllllllllllllllllll _ _ 11111111111-' 11111111111111111 111111111111111111 111111111 =- 111111111• =m-m ■ 1t11111�� _= ■ � 11111. _ liiltl� ■ �_ apital P ��►�� _� ' =/11111111111111 � =IIIIII� =�I ��■ ��,► ; 111. � ■ milll'�� •��1��II �, �� 11 '1�■� IIIIC� .,1�� . 1�1 -■� ��111111� ��• �I'�liilllll 11 ►1�' �r�,, •, 1�� .IIIERB� 111 moll � �� C 111111 -� �■ ��►t��1,� 1111■1■ � 111111�= ■� �� ' 111■I= _�. . � , �� ` SEW Capital III Il CONCESSION w �� IIIIf �- 11111111 ^ � - �_ _ 11' 11111111 c !v i► �`�� 111111111tH 11111 Illllllillll 111111111111111 ■ '� .1,��1� IIII� 1111 -' - �_ :. �i � 11„`��'► �� *�� t�lllllllllll lllllllll' 111111►� Capital IllflllllllllllllM EMOI � �� 111111111111_ � _��►� 11 IIIIIIIIIIINIIIIh o /� x1111111111111111 = 111111111 ', �I� Illlllllllllllllllo �IIIIIIIIII� IIII ,Mv IIII/ = �� ♦ � �', 1111111 �� _ =11►��► �r��♦' � } `�t�, IIII -� ° ! _� ►�� INNER_ -�� IIIII P_ �rr�rl►�/ll � �I\� __ Ilnullll -.gyp III , apital P ..1.0...1111. A .� _. Ililllll��il 1111111 11111111111111 E� ��I fl##��II 11�I1�I#�fl#1###1 _I _ ' f� 111N��'��r��'`�� '�,,►►�111i ' �� 11111►\! � ' � Capital Projects East Beac Capital ALLENSLA NEWCASTL KING AVENUE WEST gill — ■� 1�1■ 11111 �'�•1pllhlllll 11 11111111 HIM 11►��, �' a �, ■ 1�11E _ f M�' If 1 C�'� '� 1 X11111111 r Network Health vement Life Cycle [3ETER1t3RATIQN �IJRVES FAR SIJRFA�E TREATED READS SURFACE TREATMENT - ..---� -- --'-�,- a--+---�---- ---�---¢---+ -- 5- - D DRAINAGE EC ►TISF=Y=-0-3p026247i`+p-p93b774x 4, 9877 +0,4319829253x+20 i i + POOR DRAINAGE EQUATION:y=-CI.OQ0738 87 +O.Wt 675&481s� 0-012153425)000-0,266/19 4$x�+0 1 V>3459744x+20 , , . ,,,.,,q q......y p_..y...�.,..F._..y,....y.....4.,...tr....,}.°....g,,...r,,....�....y..,,�.....,K.....4.....g.,...,�.....,�..,..y,.;....q.......�....p.-.,�.-w""-�"--"' , .•,..a,.,,,.r..,.rt.._.e..,..a..,•�.,..�_..,.p._.F.......y.....y �.d.. .p ....._�".."`�`-"'-i--�-"-�-"-}"--"{--""'r - "-�-":=--"`- "--�' ---,i--„'r»--. ..-i......:......e,,, ..,,�...,..•�-.._,;. Lil J 14 ”_�____�__�____i—__-0--�—�--h---F �-----I f_.,.f,,:ti.,F„_,p.,..y,..,.p.,.. .} {. 4 y..°..}._..{...,..y.,...4....,,Y..+...p+....p.••,.3�-_`+•___...F_--0”'-_f•_ _ i,_°,�_"'�"— — __+____p^__`f— _ _ I i � .....�.. ,�. .;°.....}..•..w.,°y-.-•.i•• w`--`i _—�-rr_�—_;— — f°--�..,,�} f„.,..,Y„.,� .F.....�..._#,....J_...#... } .a�....F. .� .i. �}..._d.._.+M_..6......}.....0....�.....�._..w...•}..�p....•�...•�t......; h ...j...,_.p.-.... _. °'""1`"-'""- —"`"- ................... ] .......�..,..j.,.....q._.j.,�...+r•-.W.'.,•�"°••.4'.°....p.°._�"._.y__-v-"_`%-__�____=�__ __ — �,..�i. _.r.,-„e..,,...,a..,-.� ..�....,p ..i.,....y,....p....5}_..p... } �_...j....,�._..�.....,p..,�......q.....{,.....p.°...p,.._.j....ap..°..ji....y.......�......q.....p.°....j , I i , -F---�'-.�[,---�,_.,,;--r�-,�,..,-r m-,..-I-...,yo-_,..-{...•).....�..a-....a.,...r..,..J.....i.....�-4..•w.....o-...w....{...._Y _ "-"$ - — __ — _ - - ___ -_ _ _ • : : ' i i is 3 ii c i `ir a , . I 1 3 e "rte Lo y� yy ii .Ifs y, [S irCi PAVEMENT AGE ?JDTE:A-SE SCALE 13 EXAGERATEi)UY2x RHF Rcs RCS RHF RGS RCS FtHF COM PARE DTOPLpTS FOR H 07 MIX ASPHALT iYPIC AL OES1 RED MAINTENACE CYCLE FOR SURFACE TREATED ROADS r Network Health avement Life Cycle URBAN HOT MIX ASPHALT - - --- - - - - - - - LJRVF_ 00024 -0.087e70i *0_1864ss +19_ 57'9897143 i . - - - - - -- -- . - - � I d , , .E,.,. } ,b..,,..W,.,•$..,.,1 �.='-_ -� f___?___.-'Y--_� _1_--_"-__-[__-•—. .... ..,4.,,.,1, ..,}.,..,{... h ..rt..,..}.....4+..W ...k._..� }.,,,,{.,_..........• } Y =.REi{A,LrtAT ON TREATI;ENSS ,a - : ....... ---. . _ o , o C PAVEMENT AGE r _ _ MUNICIPALITY OFCLARINGTON ."",n.w„.Ali.rwmrw,m:wwm,PO.n•urrrex..,e+rw°=m PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONDITION BASED TREATN7ENT TRIGGERS "��nawmm�aru°..n,nm"m,"u°rnn�.r.rwue.a FAday.August 10.2007 rwln..nA COND1740N BASER TRIGGERS FOR URBAN HOT MIX ROAD SECTIONS I I UREC MURH GRUO UDL NOOONDITION TRIGGERED TREATMENTS � I GRUo DREG MURK NOCONDITIONTRIOGEREOTREATMENTS /_-_. UCL y / CONDITION BASED.TRIGGERS FORSEMI-URBAN NOT MIX ROAD SECTIONS SUPG ORSO NO CONDIT40N TFZ=ERED TREATMENTS Y F - 6R3o NO CONDITION TRIGGERED TREATMENTS iz 1D 18 - 2R CONDITION BASED TRIGGERS FOR RURAL HOT MI%ROAD SECTION yU RREC RUFG ROL NU UGNUITIONTRIUOEREU TREATMENTS Ew RREC RUFG ROL NO CONDRION iR16GEREU TREATMENTS I ( � R<i�—- ► 10 -- ib - - YD Page 1 D Network Health 1 • ,avement Life Cycle 100 Deterioration and Rehabilitation of an Urban Road Section 06 > Rehab 06 > Rehab x Strati y S'trat�gy (1) 00 9 0O 0 I I Benefit �o. U 50 nOthin9 E Salvage Analysis Period 0 0 0 0 0 cN CO LO Time D _ _ O�7timiied Pmg rams m � � Yeiggerie,9 SCra�,ies GostlBenefi; OptimieafiQrt Analy�i5 4 3 2 ' Budget Scenario-9 Cvn�iGvn Projectiorxst Budget 5aensriu 2 Budget Scenarirr 3 AL 1007 Deterioration and Rehabilitation of an Urban Rued Section x e9y Z pal c Benefit Salvage '.4 Analysis Pericci T Toros Parklreevelopment ■■ ■■■ Nl- ��1 Al- u � r II � 11 _ 5 = ■■■ p �_. - ---- e.- ■■■ U , A, PORT DARLINGTON WATERFRONT PARK ON .,-d LI PERSPECTIVE SKETCH 1 Glx d•a: ry o-mn� err+-a:�o- iake 4C6-P90:l6{ MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTair9 N3lEA F-H A�� I� vll prt�,c.:i m.T��wn I�JJ ■■■ ONE F- k Development W I a G ER 8 9 H I P 4. . E R S W A T E R P 0 L L U T 1 0 N 0 P4 T R 0 L P L A N T 1�------------- R T r A T M r N T -� A J :f • MARSH AREA —J, Lu Y o Lu T7F.j J, D L AK E 0 N T ARIA L A K E 0 NT A R 1 0 irillm,VIA on PORT DARLINGTON WATERFRONT PARK No vV"` CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON F.111 N4 low own 'S I s r revelopment F e e r 4 LJ I I I I I I � I I I I I `'� •� el � � �� — I� •5• . 14c � e g erar e s LM� e L yy a 1.. tis 1 i i � ' Ir�z.■ FY Lgm-FQ v•ii•eM I e ark Development 0 do 4P A[e i■ 1 �it' , iYja y�1 � Nt1. 1w nm '1W �ehiii ��>•�� l�� 191 .�� '1,■ a �a7 � � .w �� '1 '.t. _ A. �. _, - f��i,a ��i,� Ilia � s ■ �r d 1k: I � D lopment ��15►}`11111111111°�f�. _5i `�� `�ii" f�i �rr1111111111y555�55 � �� _ i �i�� 11►1 OM Ire twork Health Pavement Life Cycle Management of Mu—nicipal Infrastructure Assets 39 elopt Charges Preparation .........................,... ..1 -I� ` ENGINEERING SERVICES-2010 BOWMANVILLE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE 1= PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS INCLUDED IN FUTURE COMMUNITY FACILITIES, DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION PARKS AND SCHOOLS • o. r �g`h, I o IN7ERSECI ION IMPROVEMENTS - DISTRICT PARK BRIDGE SPANNING WATERCOURSE 0 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK GRADE SEPARATION j ELEMENTARY SCHOOL r1BA A-M F:i A-1 Be =13 Ed15 �� 4918 WjI oNIYE / RECONSTRUCT EXIST.GRADE SEPARATION S CO DARY SCHOOL 4 tr E N Rl E Nws A ��£mE CP'' .� LEVEL R.R.CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS FIRE HALL aR PYE -- a C L NEW CULVERT # COMMUNITY PARK °"�r= ❑ CULVERT EXTENSION LOCATION AND TIMING OF - a laiLON °N,R ❑ 1 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH z \j �' ?�z `"P v► �vuR N' d.YL ■ CULVERT OVERSIZING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT „�:� _ P ❑ 2c ROAD CONSTRUCTION a ✓-• ' 4U��cP ��I ❑r, -- SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 10 YEAR HORIZON PERIOD ■ PN � T .sLUC rxuBw ��' El E °w. a;o • v -- r PPt NR C •••••• STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION V ,° 12 10 TO 25 YEAR HORIZON PERIOD C} " 80LEVPRP e 9 s N11 REn STREETSCAPE _ _ °(- EP°P'NYIEW FOURn. VFN3TONE Cf d �' N P -e � sl MMER E sP sE, W TRAIL CONSTRUCTION NON-DEVELOPABLE ❑ CT 51KEE1LPN i s "� 1—sT L REGIONAL ROADS EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL OR L,,,r—T I Yfl PN . I � ,y g N PS s° MINCED USE DEVELOPMENT ° PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS r FREEERIGK PY 0.Y w RO °SALLPV 5EC Nd T !Q� �❑ -r■ur-nURBAN BOUNDARY NON-RESIDENTIAL OR olt W R CTINf1 g BIER gUILTBOUNDARY MIXED USE BUILD{�UT ..--. N it r; NN: A 1 � ° d�PKERE h , ® DEFERRED AREA 1Q sTN K g1 _ = s DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PROJECT No. (AS PER OFFICIAL PLAN) II Flu o.-I NxE F� ?096 ❑ NPN "sr'N"" F = cry CONSTRUCTION YEAR IF G9NGE3310N5 W -t.�— _❑ awe Date.April 26,2010 40