HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-03
General Government Committee
Agenda
Date:June 3, 2024
Time:9:30 a.m.
Location:Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Inquiries and Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Turcotte, Committee
Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lturcotte@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of
General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General
Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording
public on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar
Noon Recess: Please be advised that, as per the Municipality of Clarington’s Procedural By-law,
this meeting will recess at 12:00 noon, for a one hour lunch break, unless otherwise determined by
the Committee.
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or
placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive
The Revised Agenda will be published on Friday after 3:30 p.m. Late items added or a change to
an item will appear with a * beside them.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement Statement
3.Declaration of Interest
4.Announcements
5.Presentations/Delegations
5.1 Presentation by Cynthia Davis, President and CEO, and Cordelia Clarke
Julien, Chair of the Board, Lakeridge Health, Regarding 2023/2024
Lakeridge Health Update
4
5.2 Presentation by Anthony Pezzetti, Deputy General Manager, Operations,
Durham Region Transit, Regarding Durham Region Transit Service
Update
6
5.3 Delegaton by Milton Dakin, President, Canadian Foresters Project
(Eastern) Group, Regarding a Request to Reduce Municipal Taxes
8
5.4 Delegation by Larry Dickinson, Chair, The Durham County Senior
Citizens Lodge, Regarding a Request to Reduce Municipal Taxes
10
6.Consent Agenda
6.1 PUB-010-24 - Rodenticide Use in Municipal Facilities - Update 12
6.2 LGS-021-24 - Appointment of a Closed Meeting Investigator 16
6.3 LGS-023-24 - Council-Staff Relations Policy – Update 22
6.4 LGS-026-24 - Delegation of Authority By-law 31
6.5 LGS-027-24 - Surplus Declaration of 238 King Street East, Bowmanville 87
6.6 FSD-026-24 - Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair 90
6.7 FSD-027-24 - Financial Policies Update 94
6.8 FSD-028-24 - Northglen East Park Siteworks 142
General Government Committee Agenda
June 3, 2024
Page 2
6.9 FSD-029-24 - Physician Recruitment 147
6.10 FSD-030-24 - 2024 Asset Management Plan Update 157
6.11 FSD-031-24 - Contract Administration and Construction Inspection
Services for the High Street and O'Dell Street Reconstruction
340
6.12 FSD-032-24 - Amendment to Purchasing Bylaw – Reporting Threshold
for Rosters
345
6.13 LGS-028-24 - Surplus Declaration of Unopened Road Allowance
between Lots 22 and 23, Concession 4, Former Township of Clarke
349
7.Items for Separate Discussion
7.1 LGS-025-24 - Appointment to Clarington Heritage Committee and
Newcastle Arena Board
352
(Attachment 1 Distributed Under Separate Cover)
8.Unfinished Business
9.New Business
10.Confidential Items
11.Adjournment
General Government Committee Agenda
June 3, 2024
Page 3
From:Turcotte, Lindsey
To:Turcotte, Lindsey
Subject:FW: New Delegation Request from Davis, Clarke Julien
Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:12:47 PM
Attachments:~WRD0567.jpg
From: no-reply@clarington.net <no-reply@clarington.net>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 1:21 PM
To: ClerksExternalEmail <clerks@clarington.net>
Subject: New Delegation Request from Davis, Clarke Julien
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
2023/24 Lakeridge Health Update to Council
Action requested of Council
N/A
Date of meeting
6/24/2024
Summarize your delegation
We wish to make our annual update on Lakeridge Health, highlighting
our achievements, milestones and growth opportunities with council.
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest?
No
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
1.Cynthia
2.Cordelia
Single/Last name
1.Davis
2.Clarke Julien
How to pronounce your name:
1.Sin-thee-ah Day-vis
Page 4
2. Cord-ee-lee-ah Clark Joo-lee-en
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
1. Lakeridge Health
2. Lakeridge Health
Job title (if applicable)
1. President and CEO, Lakeridge Health
2. Chair of the Board
Address
1.
2.
Town/Hamlet
1. Oshawa
2. Oshawa
Postal code
1.
2.
Email address:
1.
2.
Phone number
1.
2.
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
No
Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e.
PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the
Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to
the meeting date.
Yes
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits 10 minutes
for delegations.
Yes
[This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond]
Page 5
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Pezzetti
Date:Monday, April 29, 2024 2:20:40 PM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Durham Region Transit Presentation
Action requested of Council
For Information
Date of meeting
6/3/2024
Summarize your delegation
Service Updates
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest?
Yes
Name of the staff member or Councillor.
Granville Anderson
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Anthony
Single/Last name
Pezzetti
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Durham Region Transit
Job title (if applicable)
Deputy General Manager, Operations
Page 6
Address
Town/Hamlet
Whitby
Postal code
Email address:
Phone number
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
No
Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e.
PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to theMunicipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior tothe meeting date.
Yes
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits 10 minutes
for delegations.
Yes
[This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond]
Page 7
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Dakin
Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2024 11:05:38 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Municipal Taxes
Action requested of Council
Reduce Taxes
Date of meeting
6/3/2024
Summarize your delegation
We wish to speak at the Council meeting in hopes to find some
kind of help with municipal tax relief. The taxes go up every year, we do not even have garbage collection, which we pay $4000 per
month. The tax increase yearly does not reflect the amount we
can increase our rent to pay for it.
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest?
Yes
Name of the staff member or Councillor.
Willie Woo
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Milton
Single/Last name
Dakin
How to pronounce your name:
Canadian Foresters Project (Eastern) Group
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Canadian Foresters Project [Eastern] GroupPage 8
Job title (if applicable)
President
Address
Town/Hamlet
Bowmanville
Postal code
Email address:
Phone number
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
No
Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e.
PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to theMunicipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior tothe meeting date.
No
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits 10 minutes
for delegations.
Yes
[This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond]
Page 9
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Dickinson
Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2024 11:55:49 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Reduction Taxes for Non-profit Affordable Housing Provider
Action requested of Council
Reduction of Taxes
Date of meeting
6/3/2024
Summarize your delegation
Larry Dickinson, Milt Dakin - Representatives of Non-Profit Housing
Providers
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest? Yes
Name of the staff member or Councillor. Mayor Foster, Councillor Zwart
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person
First name: Larry
Single/Last name Dickinson
How to pronounce your name: Larry Dickinson
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Page 10
The Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge
Job title (if applicable)
Chair
Address
Town/Hamlet
Orono
Postal code
Email address:
Phone number
Alternate phone number
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
Yes
Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e.
PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to theMunicipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior tothe meeting date.
No
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits 10 minutes
for delegations.
Yes
[This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond]
Page 11
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: PUB-010-24
Authored by: George Acorn, Director Community Services
Submitted By: Lee-Ann Reck, Deputy CAO, Public Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Rodenticide Use in Municipal Facilities - Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report PUB-010-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Council endorse the expansion of the rodenticide-free program to all
municipally operated recreation facilities, effective July 1, 2024;
3. That the 2025 budget include the $3,600 increased pest control costs to maintain
this expanded program;
4. Staff will work collaboratively with other departments and stakeholders to expand the
rodenticide free program;
5. That Staff develop an administrative pest management directive with the objective to
reduce the use of anti-coagulant rodenticides on all municipal properties; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PUB-010-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 12
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PUB-010-24
Report Overview
This report provides an update on the rodenticide-free trial involving the removal of all
rodenticide traps at Courtice Community Complex (CCC). As a substitute method for pest
control, tin catch traps have been implemented. According to the bi-weekly assessments
conducted by our pest control service provider, no signs of rodent presence have been
detected within the premises.
Given the successful outcomes of this trial phase, staff suggest broadening the scope of the
program to encompass the rest of the municipally operated recreation facilities, starting from
July 1, 2024. This expansion would incorporate the Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre,
Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex, South Courtice Arena, Bowmanville Indoor
Soccer/Lacrosse Bowl, Darlington Sports Centre, and Diane Hamre Recreation Complex.
Staff also propose the creation of a pest control management directive. This administrative
document would establish protocols for efficient pest control management, aiming for a
responsible and effective extension of the rodenticide-free initiative to all municipally owned
buildings and properties.
1. Background
1.1 At the December 18, 2023, Council Meeting report CSD-003-23 was approved
authorizing staff to initiate a rodenticide free trial at Courtice Community Complex and to
report back on the results prior to summer recess.
1.2 Staff were also to continue investigating the feasibility of a future total ban on
rodenticide use for municipal properties and to communicate with other municipalities
regarding any actions to date or future plans regarding the use of rodenticides.
2. Trial Program at Courtice Community Complex
2.1 The trial program at CCC commenced January 2, 2024. Municipal staff undertook visual
inspections of the exterior of the building to identify potential points of entry. Staff made
improvements to exterior envelope to mitigate rodent entry to the building.
2.2 With no exterior rodenticide bait traps in use, staff directed our pest control contractor to
remove all interior rodenticide traps from the building. These were replaced with tin
catch traps. Since the trial began, the contractor has conducted bi-weekly inspections of
the property. To date, no visible rodent activity has been documented.
Page 13
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PUB-010-24
3. Rodenticide Free Program Expansion
3.1 Based on the results of the trial program at CCC, staff are recommending the expansion
of the rodenticide free program to include all remaining municipally operated recreation
facilities. Effective July 1, 2024, staff will direct the contractor to remove all interior
rodenticide bait traps at the six remaining recreation facilities. They will be replaced with
catch tin traps. There are currently no exterior rodenticide bait traps in place at these
facilities.
3.2 Data will continue to be collected and will help inform future expansion to remaining
municipally owned properties. The goal of this program is to eliminate anti-coagulant
rodenticide use responsibly and effectively at all municipal properties with the aim of
minimizing potential adverse impacts and public health risks.
3.3 In other municipalities where rodenticide bans are in place, controlled use of anti-
coagulant rodenticides or other regulated substances is permitted only under the
direction of senior staff as a last resort. This approach is included in pest management
policies, and similar guidance will be incorporated into our pest management directive.
4. Rodenticide Use in Other Municipalities
4.1 Following Council direction, Community Services staff have continued to communicate
with previously identified communities on their experience and current practices.
4.2 In December 2023, the City of Pickering adopted a pest management policy that bans
all non-essential rodenticide use on municipal properties. However, the policy allows for
the authorized use of anti-coagulant rodenticides or other regulated substances for
rodent pest management, only when expressly authorized as a last resort option by the
Director of Community Services. To date, the staff at the City of Pickering have not
identified any issues related to this approach.
4.3 Staff have recently been advised that the City of Toronto continues to investigate this
matter and have indicated work on this topic is planned to begin by end of 2024 and
continue into 2025.
4.4 Based on discussions with staff at the Township of Minden Hills it has been confirmed
that there has been no initiation of a ban on rodenticides.
4.5 Apart from the City of Pickering, staff are not aware of any initiatives being undertaken
on the ban of rodenticide use in the remaining lakeshore municipalities.
Page 14
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PUB-010-24
5. Financial Considerations
5.1 The additional cost to expand the rodenticide free program at the remaining municipally
operated recreation facilities for the remainder of 2024 is approximately $1,800. These
costs will be incorporated into the approved 2024 operating budget and no tax levy
impact is expected. The annualized cost of approximately $3,600 for this expansion will
be included in the 2025 Budget Update as a service level change.
5.2 The cost to further expand the program to other municipal buildings will also be included
in the 2025 Budget update to recognize the additional resources that will be required to
meet the new service delivery method. These costs are currently being determined.
6. Strategic Plan
6.1 Not applicable.
7. Concurrence
7.1 This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
who concurs with the recommendations.
8. Conclusion
8.1 It is respectfully recommended that Council approve this report and instruct staff to
finalize the expansion of the rodenticide-free program at municipally operated recreation
facilities, and to formulate an administrative pest management directive. The primary
goal of this directive will be to broaden the scope of the rodenticide-free program to
include all buildings and properties owned by the municipality.
Staff Contact: Rob Farquharson, Supervisor, Aquatic Operations 905-623-3379 ext. 2541 or
rfarquharson@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Not Applicable
Interested Parties:
Allison Hansen
Janice Freund
Page 15
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-021-24
Authored by: John Paul Newman, Deputy Clerk
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Appointment of a Closed Meeting Investigator
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-021-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the Ontario Ombudsman be appointed as Clarington’s Closed Meeting
Investigator, as of January 1, 2025;
3. That the Closed Meeting Investigator services with the Local Authority Services Ltd.
(LAS), be terminated as of December 31, 2024, and By-law 2007-231, appointing
LAS as Clarington’s Closed Meeting Investigator, be repealed; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-021-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 16
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-021-24
Report Overview
This report recommends appointing the Ontario Ombudsman as Clarington’s Closed
Meeting Investigator.
In November 2022, Council appointed the Ontario Ombudsman as Clarington’s
Ombudsman, to investigate complaints against the Municipality. The Ontario Ombudsman
also has the authority under the Ombudsman Act to perform the duties of a Closed Meeting
Investigator. Staff are recommending that Clarington stop using the services of LAS and
appoint the Ontario Ombudsman as Clarington’s Closed Meeting Investigator to provide
consistency, among other things, with these two accountability regimes.
1. Background
Authority to Appoint Closed Meeting Investigator
1.1 On January 1, 2008, subsection 239.1 of the Municipal Act came into effect which
permits any person to request an investigation be undertaken to determine whether a
municipality or local board (excluding a police service board or library board), or a
committee of either, has complied with the closed meeting rules contained within the
Municipal Act, or a procedure by-law under section 238(2) of the Municipal Act.
1.2 Subsection 239.2 of the Municipal Act authorizes a municipality to appoint an
investigator to conduct a review of any requests which may be made by the public and
to report on the investigation.
Current Appointment
1.3 In 2007, Council considered Report CLD-036-07, and subsequently, passed By-law
2007-231, appointing the LAS as Clarington’s Closed Meeting Investigator effective
January 1, 2008 coinciding with the enactment of the new legislation, in accordance with
the above noted sections of the Municipal Act.
1.4 The current agreement with LAS included a renewal section that stated that the
Agreement would automatically renew from year to year unless, and until, terminated by
either party upon 90 days prior written notice.
1.5 LAS outsources the closed meeting investigator service to Aird and Berlis LLP. If a
complaint was filed against Clarington, Aird and Berlis would appoint one of five
“Review Officers” and the fee ranges from $495 to $875 per hour as of 2024.
1.6 The 2024 retainer fee for LAS is $250 plus tax per year.
Page 17
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-021-24
1.7 Both fees above have increased from the 2023 fees which were $200 plus tax for the
retainer and from $395 to $825 per hour for an investigation by a “Review Officer” from
Aird and Berlis LLP. It is expected these fees will continue to rise each year.
2. Description
Ontario Ombudsman
2.1 Subsection 239.1(b) of the Municipal Act states that, if a municipality has not appointed
a closed meeting investigator under subsection 239.2(1), the Ombudsman appointed
under the Ombudsman Act is the investigator by default. If Council chooses to repeal
the appointment of LAS and terminate the agreement, and no other investigator is
appointed, the Ontario Ombudsman becomes the Closed Meeting Investigator for
Clarington.
2.2 According to the Ontario Ombudsman 2022-2023 Annual Report, the Ombudsman is
the Closed Meeting Investigator for 266 municipalities, as of March 31, 2023. There
were 95 complaints about closed meetings, and the Ombudsman reviewed 79 meetings
of 47 different municipalities and local boards and issued 17 reports and 22 letters on
their findings. All of these reports and letters can be found on the Ombudsman website
and in a searchable online database.
2.3 If appointed, the Ontario Ombudsman has the expertise and experience to handle any
closed meeting investigation requests, will provide consistency in decisions with other
Ontario Municipalities, and will be the single source for complaints against the
municipality, whether they be under the Ombudsman provisions or the closed meeting
provisions of the Municipal Act.
2.4 There is no fee to the municipality to use the services of the Ontario Ombudsman.
Therefore, the fees associated with using LAS would be a saving to the Municipality if
the Ontario Ombudsman is appointed.
Durham Region Review
2.5 The following is a table of who performs the duties of Closed Meeting Investigator in
Durham Region:
Ontario Ombudsman LAS
Ajax Region of Durham
Oshawa Brock
Pickering Uxbridge
Scugog Whitby
Page 18
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-021-24
Complaint Procedure
2.6 The current process for receiving complaints is for the complainant to submit their
complaint to the Clerk, who then creates a package of information for the external
Closed Meeting Investigator.
2.7 Although anyone can still reach out to the Clerk to get clarification on closed meetings,
the new process would be for the complainant to submit their complaint directly to the
Ontario Ombudsman, who has a form on their website.
2.8 Except in very limited circumstances the complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman shall be
made in writing.
2.9 The Ontario Ombudsman may investigate whether a municipality has complied with
section 239 of the Municipal Act or the municipality’s procedure by-law, relating to a
meeting or part of a meeting that was closed to the public.
2.10 There are also limited situations where the Ontario Ombudsman will not investigate or
may refuse to investigate further if the investigation has already begun. If this occurs,
the Ontario Ombudsman is required to notify the complainant in writing of that decision.
2.11 The delegation of the Head under the Ombudsman Act will be determined with the
Delegation of Authority review.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 There are no fees for a municipality to use the services of the Ontario Ombudsman.
Therefore, the municipality will save $250 plus tax per year and the current hourly rate
of $495-$875 if an investigation is conducted.
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 L.2: Finances and operations are efficiently and responsibly managed.
5. Concurrence
5.1 Not applicable.
6. Conclusion
6.1 It is respectfully recommended that the Ontario Ombudsman be appointed as
Clarington’s Closed Meeting Investigator, and that the agreement with LAS be
terminated.
Page 19
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report LGS-021-24
Staff Contact: John Paul Newman, Deputy Clerk, jnewman@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – By-law to repeal By-law 2007-231, appointing the Local Authority Services Ltd.
(LAS) as Clarington’s Closed Meeting Investigator
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Ontario Ombudsman
Local Authority Services Limited (LAS)
Page 20
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2024-XXX
Being a by-law to repeal By-law 2007-231, to appoint Local Authority Services Ltd. as
the investigator pursuant to sections 8, 9, 10 and 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended.
Passed in Open Council this 24th day of June, 2024.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Written approval of this by-law was given by Mayoral Decision MDE-2024-XXX dated
XXXX XX, 2024.
Page 21
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-023-24
Authored by: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Council-Staff Relations Policy – Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-023-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the updated Council-Staff Relations Policy, attached to Report LGS-023-24, as
Attachment 1, be approved;
3. That the Council-Staff Relations Policy be updated on Clarington’s Accountability
and Transparency webpage; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-023-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 22
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-023-24
Report Overview
This report responds to the Council direction to review the Council-Staff Relations Policy in
light of the passage of the Strong Mayors Act. In addition, Staff reviewed the policy with a
view to streamlining the content. This report provides the background, the review, and
explanations of the changes to the Policy.
1. Background
1.1 Arising out of the Strong Mayors Act, Staff brought Report LGS-024-23 to the General
Government Committee of September 11, 2023. The Committee passed the following
Resolution #GG-145-23 (excerpted):
That Staff bring forward updates to the Council-Staff Relations Policy E12, as it
relates to the strong mayors powers, during a fuller review of the policy.
2. Legislative Requirement
2.1 The Province’s passage of Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act,
2017, with latter proclamations in March 2019, prompted the Municipality to review
several accountability and transparency requirements. Subsection 270 (1) 2.1 of the Act
requires that “a municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the
relationship between members of council and the officers and employees of the
municipality.” Following consideration of Report CLD-004-19, Council approved the
current Council-Staff Relations Policy, Policy E12.
2.2 Since the Act states that it is the “Municipality” that must adopt the policy, this is a
Council Policy in the sense of the new approach to Clarington’s policy framework.
3. General Review of Council-Staff Relations Policy
3.1 When the Council-Staff Relations Policy was developed, it was acknowledged that it
was a consolidation of relevant sections of other accountability and transparency
policies which were already in place, including:
Council Code of Conduct
Employee Code of Ethics
Harassment Policy
Transparency and Accountability Policy
Procedural By-law
Page 23
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-023-24
3.2 However, there were some sections which were pulled out of other policies (i.e. the
Procedural By-law, the Transparency and Accountability Policy, and the Council Code
of Conduct) at the time.
3.3 In reviewing other municipalities’ approach to their policies, Staff recommend a more
streamlined approach (which is the same approach as Durham Region’s). As a result,
the attached draft policy (Attachment 1) has removed the excerpted sections from other
policies and simply referenced the policy document.
3.4 This review of other municipalities’ policies also revealed that Clarington’s should
include a reference to the Use of Corporate Resources for Elections Purposes Policy,
therefore Staff have added this to the attached.
4. Strong Mayors Act – Review and Implications
4.1 As noted in Report LGS-024-23, the requirement within the Council-Staff Relations
Policy that every Member of Council acknowledges that Staff operate in accordance
with the decisions of Council and not any individual Member, no longer applies to the
Mayor, who can now direct Staff.
4.2 Therefore, Staff are recommending that two sections be added to address this change.
5. Housekeeping of the Policy
5.1 Staff are recommending slight wording changes, including the definition of “Employee”
and “Member”.
5.2 In accordance with the new policy framework, this policy has been converted to the new
Council Policy template.
6. Financial Considerations
Not Applicable.
7. Strategic Plan
Not Applicable.
Page 24
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-023-24
8. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Leadership Team who concur with the
recommendations.
9. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the updated Council-Staff
Relations Policy (Attachment 1).
Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, jgallagher@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Updated Council-Staff Relations Policy
Interested Parties:
Principles Integrity (Clarington’s Integrity Commissioner)
Page 25
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Page 1 of 5
Number: CP-00#
Title: Council-Staff Relations Policy
Type: Political Governance
Sub-type: Accountability and Compliance
Owner: Legislative Services Department
Clerk’s Division
Approved By: Council
Approval Date: February 25, 2019
Effective Date: February 25, 2019
Revised Date: June 24, 2024
Applicable to: All Employees and All Members of Council
1. Legislative or Administrative Authority:
1.1. Subsection 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, requires every municipality to
adopt and maintain this policy.
2. Purpose:
2.1. This policy provides guidance on how the Municipality of Clarington will
promote a respectful, tolerant, and harassment-free relationship and workplace
between Members of Council and the officers and employees of the
Municipality of Clarington.
3. Scope:
3.1. This policy applies to all Clarington employees and all Members of Council.
4. Definitions:
4.1. “Employee” has the same meaning as provided in the Employment Standards
Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, and are those persons who are employed by the
Municipality of Clarington.
4.2. “Member” is a person elected, or appointed, to the Municipality of Clarington’s
Council.
Page 26
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Page 2 of 5
5. Policy Requirements:
General Guidance
5.1. The Municipality of Clarington promotes a respectful, tolerant, harassment-free
relationship and workplace for Members of Council and the officers and
employees of the Municipality of Clarington, guided by the Procedural By-law,
Council Code of Conduct, the Employee Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics
Policy, and the Harassment Policy. These policies collectively comprise the
Council and Staff Relations Policy.
Direction from Council to Staff
5.2. Members acknowledge that only Council, as a whole, has the capacity to direct
employees.
5.3. Notwithstanding the previous statement, the Mayor may, in accordance with
the Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, direct Staff in
certain circumstances.
Concerns from Council
5.4. Members will direct any concerns, respecting employees, through the Chief
Administrative Officer.
5.5. Notwithstanding the previous statement, the Mayor may, in accordance with
the Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, deal directly
with employees under their responsibility.
Relationship Guidance
5.6. The relationship between Members and the Employees is guided by the
following:
Code of Conduct for Members of Council
5.6.1. The Council Code of Conduct encourages high standards of conduct
among Members. Adherence to these standards protects and
maintains the reputation and integrity of the Members and the
Municipality.
Page 27
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Page 3 of 5
Employee Code of Ethics
5.6.2. The Employee Code of Ethics is founded on the notion of ensuring
integrity in public services through the recognition and promotion of the
fundamental principles of transparency, impartiality, respect, and
accountability, including interactions with Members of Council. As
such, these general principles are detailed in the prevailing Employee
Code of Ethics Policy.
Harassment Policy for Employees
5.6.3. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington is dedicated to
providing a healthy and safe work environment. Acts of workplace
harassment by staff, volunteers, visitors, contractors, or vendors will
not be tolerated. The Municipality of Clarington has a policy of zero
tolerance towards workplace harassment.
5.6.4. The Harassment Policy provides a standard of conduct for Employees
in the carrying out of their work assignments and their relationships
with the public, elected officials, and each other. Any complaints
related to Members or Employees must follow the process outlined in
the prevailing Harassment Policy, which indicates that the matter will
be addressed through the Council Code of Conduct, Complaint
Procedure, or by the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity
Commissioner will report to Council in accordance with the governing
protocol of that Office.
Transparency and Accountability Policy
5.6.5. The Transparency and Accountability Policy provides guiding
principles to ensure Clarington’s commitment to being accountable to
the public for its actions, through responsible and transparent
behaviour.
Procedural By-law
5.6.6. The Procedural By-law establishes the rules, procedures and conduct
applicable to Council and Committee meetings.
Page 28
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Page 4 of 5
Use of Corporate Resources for Election Purposes Policy
5.6.7. The Use of Corporate Resources for Election Purposes Policy provides
guidance on the appropriate use of corporate resources during
municipal, school board, provincial and federal election campaigns,
and campaigns on a question on the ballot to protect the interests of
both Members and the Corporation.
6. Roles and Responsibilities:
6.1. Council is responsible for:
6.1.1. Adhering to this policy and its governing provisions.
6.2. Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for:
6.2.1. Ensuring that all employees are aware of this policy and adhere to the policy
and its governing provisions.
6.3. All Staff are responsible for:
6.3.1. Adhering to this policy and its governing provisions.
7. Related Documents:
7.1. Procedural By-law
7.2. Council Code of Conduct
7.3. Employee Code of Conduct
7.4. Code of Ethics Policy
7.5. Harassment Policy
7.6. Use of Corporate Resources for Election Purposes Policy
Page 29
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Page 5 of 5
8. Inquiries:
8.1. Municipal Clerk
9. Revision History:
Date Description of Changes Approved By
2019-02-25 Arising out of Report CLD-004-19,
initial creation of Council-Staff
Relations Policy
Council
2024-06-24 Arising out of Report LGS-023-24,
additions to definitions; sections
regarding Strong Mayors and Use
of Corporate Resources for
Elections Purposes Policy.
Converted to new Council Policy
template.
Council
Page 30
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-026-24
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Delegation of Authority By-law
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-026-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the draft Delegation of Authority By-law, attached to Report LGS-026-24, as
Attachment 2, excluding the columns titled “Recommended Action” and “Notes”, be
approved; and
3. That the following be rescinded and replaced with the delegation of authority within
the draft by-law:
The Council approval of Resolution #GG-077-23 from March 20, 2023,
regarding the authority to enter into Defibrillator Program Agreements;
The Council approval of Resolution #GG-201-23, from December 4, 2023,
regarding the authority to execute any future amendments to the trail Licence
Agreement required to accommodate the operational needs of either Ontario
Power Generation or the Municipality;
The last paragraph of Resolution #C-190-15, from June 1, 2015, regarding
the authority to appoint private parking enforcement officers;
4. That the Flag Protocol Policy and Proclamation Policy be updated to refer to the
Delegation of Authority By-law;
5. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-026-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 31
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-026-24
Report Overview
This report provides an overview of the legislative framework and authority for delegation of
certain Council powers and duties to designated Staff. Additionally, this report provides
Staff’s recommended approach to consolidate, and update, Council’s delegation of authority
to Staff, to allow Council to decide on approving a Delegation of Authority by-law.
1. Background
Legislative Authority
1.1 Recognizing the challenges inherent in the municipal decision-making process, the
provincial government introduced amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, in 2006, to
allow Council to delegate certain routine powers and duties to designated staff. The
legislative amendments were also intended to help further the ability of municipalities to
exercise natural person powers and demonstrate maturation as a responsible,
accountable, and transparent order of government.
1.2 Subsection 23.1 of the Municipal Act authorizes:
“a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under this or any other Act to a
person or body subject to the restrictions set out in this Part.”
1.3 Subsection 270(1) 6 of the Municipal Act states that:
“a municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the delegation of
its powers and duties.”
1.4 There are some powers that Council cannot delegate (such as Section 34.1 of the
Planning Act related to requesting that the Minister make, or amend an order). See also
Attachment 1 for details, from the Municipal Act, on restrictions.
1.5 This discretionary authority to delegate enables a Council to delegate its various
legislative and quasi-judicial powers and duties "subject to any limits ... and to any
procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals, and appeals".
Page 32
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-026-24
1.6 Other legislation explicitly states that the Municipality/Council can delegate authority.
For instance, section 5 of the Planning Act states that:
“where the Minister has delegated any authority to a council under section 4,
such council may, in turn, by by-law, and subject to such conditions as may have
been imposed by the Minister, delegate any of such authority, other than the
authority to approve official plans or the authority to exempt from approval plans
as official plans or amendments to official plans, to a committee of council or
to an appointed officer identified in the by-law either by name or position
occupied and such committee or officer, as the case may be, has, in lieu of
the Minister, all the powers and rights of the Minister in respect of such delegated
authority and shall be responsible for all matters pertaining thereto including the
referral of any matter to the Tribunal.”
1.7 It is worth noting that any delegation by Council is non-exclusive (i.e. Council can still
exercise the power) and revocable at any time by resolution of Council.
1.8 Council may choose to delegate administrative powers and duties to:
Individuals (including Staff);
Committees of Council;
Local Boards;
Municipal Service Boards; or
Municipal Service Corporations (but not legislative or quasi-judicial powers).
1.9 Council may choose to delegate legislative and quasi-judicial powers and duties to:
One, or more Members of Council; or
A Council Committee;
A body, having at least two members, of which at least half are Council
members, Council appointees, or combination of Council Members or Council
appointees;
An individual who is an officer, employee, or agent of the Municipality (if the
power delegated is of a “minor nature” as it applies to legislative powers).
Purpose of a Delegation of Authority By-law
1.10 The purpose of the Act’s enabling provision is to permit Council to focus on larger
issues facing the municipality and permit routine matters to be delegated to achieve
efficiencies for Council and the general public.
Page 33
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-026-24
1.11 A delegation of authority by-law is used to:
provide clarity to Staff on who is responsible for decision-making and signing
authority;
help streamline Council's decision-making process and enable it to focus on
larger issues more strategically;
provide authority of Staff to deal with routine matters which are currently
being brought before Council to improve the efficiency of Council’s decision-
making processes;
provide a transparent outline of the duties being carried out by Staff on behalf
of Council;
future-proof against changes in governance and staff titles;
provide good governance and demonstrate accountability and transparency
for items that are operational; and
provide the public with a better understanding of the Municipality’s decision-
making and approval process.
1.12 Several factors affect the efficiency of Council's decision-making processes, including
the volume of the Municipality’s growth, planning, and infrastructure matters;
administrative efficiencies in the production and review of Council reports; changes to
the organization; legislative constraints in the authorities and responsibilities of Council
and Municipal Staff; the complexity of stakeholder input; and the organization,
preparation, scheduling, rules, and conduct of meetings.
Clarington’s Current Delegation of Authority
1.13 Over the years, Council has delegated certain functions to Staff via resolution, policy,
and by-laws.
1.14 Clarington has not had a fully consolidated “delegation of authority by-law”, but there
are many by-laws, resolutions, and policies that delegate authority to Staff that satisfies
the legislation.
2. Review of Delegation of Authority
Approach
2.1 When reviewing delegated items within the by-law, Staff took the approach that the
purpose of the by-law is to be a consolidated directory of delegated authority and, in the
absence of other direct delegations, to perform the direct delegation within this by-law.
Page 34
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report LGS-026-24
2.2 Unless required in the context of the delegation, appointments are excluded from the
delegation of authority by-law. However, the authority for Staff to make appointments is
included.
2.3 Finding a balance, while also providing consistency, effectiveness, and efficiency in the
decision-making in the approval process is critical and will always be based on a level of
transparency, trust, and accountability.
2.4 Staff gathered “existing delegation of authority” documents (by-laws, policies,
resolutions) and reviewed them with the following criteria in mind:
Is it an “authorized delegation of authority” (i.e. is it allowed by legislation)?
Is the current delegation made to the correct person?
Authority to bind the corporation = if the authority is directed by Council, then
the employee has the “authority to bind” for that matter.
Should the existing delegation stay in the current document OR be repealed
and placed in the new delegation of authority by-law? Examples of authorities
that will remain in their existing delegation document (to provide full context
within that document) are (although this may change as these by-laws are
updated):
o Permitting such as the Lotteries, Special Events By-law, Site Alteration
By-law, Sign Permit Policy and By-law, Parks By-law, and the Open Air
Burning By-law.
o Regulatory by-laws such as the building by-law, noise by-law,
fireworks, licensing by-laws, traffic, and site plan control.
o Financial authorities such as the “Bank Signing Authority Policy”, and
the “Governing the Sale of Land Policy” and “Capital Over Expenditure
Policy”, the “Investment Policy”, the “Donations Receipting Policy”, the
“Surplus and Deficit Allocation Policy”, and the “Commodity Hedging
Policy.”
o Guideline Documents such as the Architectural Guidelines Policy.
2.5 After gathering the information into a single table, other municipalities’ delegation of
authority by-laws were reviewed, to determine whether the table was missing any
delegations.
Page 35
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report LGS-026-24
2.6 The table was then forwarded to the Senior Leadership Team for review with the
following in mind:
Should the existing delegation remain?
Is the current delegation made to the correct person?
Are there any other delegations/routine powers that should be added to make
for a more efficient organization or management?
o Can any new delegations ensure appropriate accountability and
reporting (where applicable)?
o Is a new delegation minor in nature?
o Is a new delegation administrative in nature (i.e. not legislative)?
o Will the new delegation assist Council and Staff to improve the
efficiency of its decision-making processes?
Highlights of the new Delegation of Authority
2.7 Although it may look like a lengthy list – it is important to bear in mind that 36
delegations existed in other formats; and of the 90 new ones, most exist in other
municipalities.
2.8 The delegation of these powers and authorities is supported by professional and
accountable staff and each delegated authority is provided to specific positions within
the organization. These decisions and approvals are also supported by having strong
corporate and administrative policies and procedures in place and ties in with the recent
report on the “Clarington Policy System.”
2.9 Approvals provided by Staff, using delegated authorities, do not require staff reports to
be brought to Council, unless specified in the “Checks and Balances” column.
2.10 The two columns on the right (“Recommended Action” and “Notes”) of the table
attached to the proposed by-law are provided for Council’s information and will not form
part of the final by-law and will be removed for the approved by-law.
2.11 As part of the implementation of this delegation of authority by-law, it is necessary to
either repeal, or amend, existing by-laws, or rescind existing resolutions (to be replaced
with the authority within this delegation of authority by-law).
Page 36
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report LGS-026-24
General Schedule
2.12 The powers and authority under the “General” heading in the delegation of authority by-
law are proposed to allow delegates which are not specific to a Department. It allows
them to conduct tasks required for the day-to-day operations. These powers are for
matters that are administrative and have limited, to no, financial implications. General
authorities include:
Flags and proclamations
Minor agreements
Legislative comments/input
CAO
2.13 In February 2024, arising out of Report CAO-001-24, Council approved an updated By-
law to outline the duties and responsibilities of the CAO. This delegation of authority is
intended to complement the “CAO’s By-law.”
Finance Schedule
2.14 Section 286 of the Municipal Act states:
“(5) The municipality may delegate to any person all or any of the powers and
duties of the treasurer under this or any other Act with respect to the collection of
taxes.
(6) The treasurer may continue to exercise the delegated powers and duties,
despite the delegation.”
2.15 Subsection 386(2) of the Municipal Act states that “the Treasurer may, in writing,
delegate any power or duty granted to or vested in the treasurer under this Part to any
officer or employee of the municipality.”
2.16 Powers and authorities under the “Finance” section include delegations to allow Finance
staff to conduct tasks required to implement Council-approved budgets and address
administrative financial matters. Many of these are minor in nature but assist greatly in
providing enhanced service delivery. This includes the ability to address matters that
have small financial implications including the authority to extend payment terms on
outstanding accounts, collect on outstanding accounts, write off unpaid accounts for
amounts less than limits noted.
Page 37
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report LGS-026-24
2.17 Additionally, it provides for the authority to enter into a contract for the services of a
fiscal agent, legal services and clearing and depository services to handle the
Municipality’s debenture issues in accordance with very prescriptive required
processes.
Legislative Services Schedule
2.18 The following delegation of authority, of note, have been added for Legislative Services:
Several related to streamlining and clarifying the agreement and court
processes.
A couple related to Animal Sheltering.
The Municipal Clerk, in consultation with the Municipal Solicitor, be authorized
to repeal by-laws that have exhausted their authority or are otherwise of no
further force or effect and shall do so by by-law.
Housekeeping of authorities related to records management.
Planning and Infrastructure Schedule
2.19 The powers and authority under the “Planning and Infrastructure” section in the
Delegation of Authority By-law are to be delegated to the Deputy CAO of Planning and
Infrastructure to allow them to carry out tasks required to process and approve land use
planning applications made under the Planning Act and Condominium Act.
2.20 In the past, the Director of Planning and Infrastructure had been delegated powers,
through resolutions and by-laws, which are folded into this by-law, as well as some new
powers.
2.21 New ones in this section relate to streamlining the agreement and application
processes.
Public Services
2.22 The powers and authority under the “Public Services” section are delegated to allow
Staff to carry out tasks required to implement projects and programs encompassed in
Council-approved budgets and address routine matters at Municipal properties and for
Municipal infrastructure, Community Services, and Emergency and Fire Services.
Page 38
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report LGS-026-24
2.23 The by-law addresses authorities regarding Municipal roads, including temporarily
closing roads for social or community events, railway crossing improvements, and
safety reasons.
2.24 The following have been added:
to address minor matters affecting Municipal properties, such as agreements
for access or encroachment on Municipal lands, installation of utilities and
telecommunication infrastructure on Municipal lands, and installation of trees
on Municipal lands.
Emergency Service matters
Operational road-related matters
3. Future Updates to Delegation of Authority
3.1 As by-laws are written, or amended, authorization sections should be written/updated to
refer to the Delegation of Authority By-law.
3.2 It is recognized that there will be changes, additions, and deletions to the delegation of
authority by-law as Staff and Council explore other opportunities for delegated authority
and process/decision efficiency. Therefore, we would expect that updates will happen
periodically to improve the operation and effectiveness of the by-law.
4. Financial Considerations
Not Applicable.
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by all Deputy CAOs who concur with the
recommendations.
6. Strategic Plan
6.1 Strategic Priority L.1.3 “to empower staff to identify opportunities to improve efficiency
and effectiveness.”
6.2 The “Lead Pillar” which states that Clarington will be a leader in the delivery of efficient,
effective, and meaningful municipal services.
Page 39
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report LGS-026-24
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the Delegation of Authority By-law, delegating
authority of Council to specified Staff, be enacted.
Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, 905-623-3379 ext. 2102 or
clerks@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Excerpt from the Municipal Act – Restrictions on Delegation of Authority
Attachment 2 – Delegation of Authority By-law
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 40
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report LGS-026-24
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-026-24
Municipal Act Excerpt
Restrictions on Delegations
Subsection 23.1(2):
1. A delegation may be revoked at any time without notice unless the delegation by-law
specifically limits the municipality’s power to revoke the delegation.
2. A delegation shall not limit the right to revoke the delegation beyond the term of the
council which made the delegation.
3. A delegation may provide that only the delegate can exercise the delegated power or
that both the municipality and the delegate can exercise the power.
4. A delegation or deemed delegation under paragraph 6 of a duty results in the duty
being a joint duty of the municipality and the delegate.
5. A delegation may be made subject to such conditions and limits as the council of a
municipality considers appropriate.
6. Where a power is delegated, the power is deemed to be delegated subject to any
limits on the power and to any procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals
and appeals which apply to the power and any duties related to the power are deemed
to be delegated with the power.
Subsection 23.1(3):
The conditions and limits referred to in paragraph 5 of subsection (2) may include such
matters as the following:
1. A requirement that the delegate act by by-law, resolution or otherwise, despite
subsection 5 (3).
2. Procedures that the delegate is required to follow.
3. The accountability of the delegate and the transparency of the delegate’s
actions and decisions.
Page 41
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report LGS-026-24
Restriction re delegation of legislative and quasi-judicial powers
23.2 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to delegate legislative and
quasi-judicial powers under any Act except those listed in subsection (2) and the legislative
and quasi-judicial powers under the listed Acts may be delegated only to,
(a) one or more members of its council or a council committee;
(b) a body having at least two members of whom at least 50 per cent are,
(i) members of its council,
(ii) individuals appointed by its council,
(iii) a combination of individuals described in subclauses (i) and (ii); or
(c) an individual who is an officer, employee or agent of the municipality.
Restriction re applicable Acts
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the listed Acts are this Act, the Planning Act, a private
Act relating to the municipality and such other Acts as may be prescribed.
Restriction re officers, employees, etc.
(4) No delegation of a legislative power shall be made to an individual described in clause (1)
(c) unless, in the opinion of the council of the municipality, the power being delegated is of a
minor nature and, in determining whether or not a power is of a minor nature, the council, in
addition to any other factors it wishes to consider, shall have regard to the number of people,
the size of geographic area and the time period affected by an exercise of the power.
(5) Without limiting subsection (4), the following are examples of powers considered to be of a
minor nature:
1. The power to close a highway temporarily.
2. The power to issue and impose conditions on a licence.
3. The powers of the council of a municipality that are described in the following
provisions of the old Municipal Act, as those provisions read on December 31, 2002:
i. Paragraphs 107, 108, 109 and 110 of section 210. [related to acts after polling
day]
Page 42
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report LGS-026-24
ii. Paragraph 3 of section 308 [see below]:
For placing or permitting any person under such conditions as may be
agreed upon to place, construct, install, maintain and use objects in, on,
under or over sidewalks and highways under its jurisdiction, to permit any
person to make, maintain and use areas under and openings in the
highways and sidewalks, for prescribing the terms and conditions upon
which the same are to be placed, constructed, installed, maintained or
used.
iii. Subsection 312 (2) and clauses 312 (4) (a) and (b). 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s.
15. [related to trees]
Powers that cannot be delegated
23.3 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to delegate any of the following
powers and duties:
1. The power to appoint or remove from office an officer of the municipality whose
appointment is required by this Act.
2. The power to pass a by-law under section 400.1 and Parts VIII, IX, IX.1 and X.
3. The power to incorporate corporations in accordance with section 203.
4. The power to adopt an official plan or an amendment to an official plan under the
Planning Act.
5. The power to pass a zoning by-law under the Planning Act, except as provided
under section 39.2 of that Act.
6. The powers to pass a by-law under subsections 108 (1) and (2) and 110 (3), (6) and
(7).
7. The power to adopt a community improvement plan under section 28 of the Planning
Act, if the plan includes provisions that authorize the exercise of any power under
subsection 28 (6) or (7) of that Act or under section 365.1 of this Act.
8. The power to adopt or amend the budget of the municipality.
9. Any other power or duty that may be prescribed.
Delegation of administrative powers
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents a municipality from delegating its administrative powers.
Page 43
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report LGS-026-24
Delegation re hearings
23.5 (1) This section applies when a municipality is required by law to hold a hearing or
provide an opportunity to be heard before making a decision or taking a step, whether the
requirement arises from an Act or from any other source of law.
(2) Despite subsection 23.2 (1), sections 9, 10 and 11 authorize a municipality to delegate to a
person or body described in that subsection the power or duty to hold a hearing or provide an
opportunity to be heard before the decision is made or the step is taken.
(3) If a municipality delegates a power or duty as described in subsection (2) but does not
delegate the power to make the decision or take the step, the following rules apply:
1. If the person or body holds the hearing or provides the opportunity to be heard, the
municipality is not required to do so.
2. If the decision or step constitutes the exercise of a statutory power of decision to
which the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies, that Act, except sections 17, 17.1,
18 and 19, applies to the person or body and to the hearing conducted by the person or
body.
Page 44
Attachment 2 to Report LGS-26-24
Page 1 of 8
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2024-XXX
Being a By-law to provide delegations of authority from the Council of the Municipality of Clarington to Committees and Clarington Municipal Staff.
Whereas Subsection 23.1(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, authorizes a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under the Municipal Act or any other Act to a person or body, subject to the restrictions set out in the Municipal Act;
And whereas Subsection 270(1)6 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, states that a municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the delegation of its
powers and duties;
And whereas Subsection 275(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, states that nothing in this section prevents any person or body exercising any authority of a municipality that is delegated to the person or body prior to nomination day for the election of the new council;
And whereas the efficient management of the municipal corporation and the need to respond to issues in a timely manner require Council to entrust certain powers and duties to Committees and Staff while concurrently maintaining accountability, which can be effectively accomplished through the delegation of legislative and administrative functions;
And whereas, arising out of Report LGS-026-24, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington has deemed it desirable and efficient to delegate certain powers pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 to enhance the efficiency of its decision making and administrative processes;
Now, therefore, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
Short Title
1. The short title of this by-law is the “Delegation of Authority By-law.”
Page 45
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 1 of 8
Definitions
2. In this By-law:
(a) “Administrative Powers” includes all matters required for the management of the
Corporation which includes Staffing and the provision of services.
(b) “Agreement” means a contract, or other legally binding document.
(c) “By-law” means this By-law, as it may be amended from time to time, including schedules.
(d) “CAO” means the Municipality’s Chief Administrative Officer and the person who
holds that position, or another person designated by Council as described in Section 229 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
(e) “Chief Building Official” means the Municipality’s Chief Building Official or any acting or deputy Chief Building Official.
(f) “Council” means the Council of the Municipality of Clarington.
(g) “Deputy CAO/Planning & Infrastructure” means the Municipality’s Deputy CAO/Planning & Infrastructure, or any acting Deputy CAO/Planning & Infrastructure.
(h) “Deputy CAO/Public Services” means the Municipality’s Deputy CAO/Public
Services, or any acting Deputy CAO/Public Services.
(i) “Deputy CAO/Solicitor” means the Municipality’s Deputy CAO/Solicitor, or any acting Deputy CAO/Solicitor.
(j) “Deputy CAO/Treasurer” means the Municipality’s Deputy CAO/Treasurer, where “Treasurer” meets the definition of “Municipal Treasurer” as set out in Section
286 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Page 46
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 2 of 8
(k) “Deputy Treasurer” means one of the Municipality’s Deputy Treasurer or any acting Deputy Treasurer.
(l) “Designate” means any individual within the Municipality appointed from time to
time to act on behalf of the appointing person in respect of the exercise of their delegated authority.
(m)“Head of Department” means a person who is responsible for a Department, and their delegate(s) or, in the event of organizational changes, another person designated by Council or the CAO.
(n) “Lease” means a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term, for specified conditions and for a specified rent.
(o) “Legislative Powers” includes all matters where Council acts in a legislative and quasi-judicial function, including enacting by-laws, setting policies, and exercising adjudicative decision-making authority.
(p) “Licence” means an authorization by a regulatory authority.
(q) “Mayor” means the head of Council or, as applicable, the Acting Mayor.
(r) “Municipal Clerk” means the Municipality’s Municipal Clerk or any acting or Deputy Clerk, or their designate, appointed by Council to perform the duties of the Clerk described in Section 228 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
(s) “Municipality” means the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington.
(t) “OLT” means the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, or its successor organization.
General
3. For the purpose of subsection 270(1)6 of the Municipal Act, 2001, this By-law
shall satisfy the requirement to adopt and maintain a policy on the delegation of its powers and duties.
Page 47
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 3 of 8
4. Pursuant to subsection 23.2(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, any legislative powers delegated within this By-law are expressly of a minor nature having regard to the number of people, the size of geographic area, and the time period affected by
the exercise of each such power.
General Delegation
5. All delegations of Council powers, duties, and functions shall be listed in Schedule “A” of this By-law or otherwise affected by by-law or may be authorized
by resolution of Council.
6. Unless a power, duty, or function of Council has been expressly delegated by by-law or resolution, all the powers, duties and functions of Council remain with Council.
7. A delegation of power, duty, or function under any by-law or resolution to any
member of Staff shall include a delegation to the CAO and to any member of
Staff selected from time to time by the CAO, or delegate, to act in the capacity of the delegate in the delegate’s absence.
8. Staff with delegated signing power may use their signature in forms that may be written, printed, including by electronic means or measures, or otherwise
reproduced.
9. In exercising any delegated power, the delegate shall ensure the following:
(a) Any expenditure related to the matter shall have been provided for in the approved year’s budget or otherwise authorized by the Purchasing By-law or related policies).
(b) The scope of the delegated authority shall not be exceeded by the delegate.
(c) Compliance with all Corporate policies, including those related to insurance and risk management; and,
(d) The consistent and equitable application of Council policies and guidelines.
Page 48
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 4 of 8
Further Delegation
10. Within each row of a table in Schedule “A” to this By-law, the delegated authority
may be exercised by any such person(s) identified. However, the CAO is in effect
the head of all Departments and may intervene, sub-delegate, or exercise any authority delegated in this By-law, where legally permitted to do so, if done in writing.
11. Where authority is delegated to a specific Staff member in this By-law, the
authority may be further delegated by the authorized person to staff members
within the applicable department, or division, provided that such delegation is legally permissible, authorized in writing and does not exceed the authority delegated by this By-law to the authorized person.
Title Change and Conflicts
12. Where delegations of authority have been assigned to a Staff position, such authority includes the person temporarily acting in that position.
13. Where a delegation of power, duty or function is to a Staff position that no longer exists in title, those delegations shall be deemed transferred to the staff person is assuming the responsibilities of the obsolete position.
14. The CAO is hereby authorized to resolve any conflict, or ambiguity, regarding the individual, or individuals, of the Municipality authorized to exercise any delegation.
Emergency or Special Circumstances
15. In cases of emergency or special circumstances, as determined by the CAO
and/or Mayor, where it is necessary to act within the normal mandate of a department, but such action is not strictly within the terms of a delegated authority, a Deputy CAO, in respect of their specific department, may take such action as necessary to rectify the situation. Any such action shall be reported
immediately to the CAO, and to Council within a reasonable timeframe.
Page 49
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 5 of 8
Inconsistency
16. In the event of any contradiction between this By-law and any other Municipal by-
law, this By-law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
Validity of Actions Taken
17. Any variation or revocation of a delegated authority pursuant to this By-law shall have no effect on the validity of any action taken pursuant to a valid delegation of authority and occurring before the terms of such delegation were varied or
revoked.
Severability
18. If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any portion of this By-law to be illegal or unenforceable, that portion of this By-law shall be considered to be severed
from the balance of the By-law, which shall continue to operate in full force and
effect.
Amendment of Previous By-law
19. By-law 2014-059, the Traffic By-law, Subsection 18.1(1) is amended to delete the following wording:
“The Director may designate temporary permissive truck routes and temporary prohibitive no heavy truck routes and may erect official signs to those effects.”
And replace it with the following wording:
“The Delegation of Authority By-law indicates who may designate
temporary permissive truck routes and temporary prohibitive no heavy truck routes and may erect official signs to those effects.”
20. By-law 2023-033, the Procedural By-law is amended to delete subsections 7.20.5 and 7.20.6 regarding authority to make minor deletions, additions, or changes to by-laws.
Page 50
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 6 of 8
21. By-law 2010-139, regarding Site Plan Control Agreements, be amended as follows:
by replacing the words “to the Director of Planning and Development
Services of the Municipality of Clarington” with the words “as indicated in the Delegation of Authority By-law” in section 7.
by replacing the words “to the Manager of Development Review” with the words “as indicated in the Delegation of Authority By-law” in section 7.
Repeal of By-laws
22. The following by-laws are hereby repealed, effective the date of passing of this by-law:
• By-law 2021-005, delegating authority to exercise powers and functions of
Council regarding applications, to the Assessment Review Board.
• By-law 2003-031, delegating authority to make appeals to the Assessment Review Board.
• By-law 2016-087, delegating authority to make decisions and hold
meetings related taxes.
• By-law 2021-004, delegating authority to make negotiate and execute tax extensions.
• By-law 2005-225, appointing the former Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement.
• By-law 90-193, appointing the head for the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act.
• By-law 2020-045, delegating authority to establish retention periods.
• By-law 2004-253, and its amendments thereto, regarding the provision of
civil marriages.
Page 51
Delegation of Authority By-law 2024-xxx
Page 7 of 8
• By-law 2001-072, and its amendments thereto, regarding authority for “removal of holding” symbols, temporary use zoning by-law amendments,
and housekeeping by-laws related to the Zoning By-law.
• By-law 2011-119 delegating functions related to planning applications.
• By-law 92-43 delegating authority to execute agreements related to
conditions of Land Severances.
Effectivity
This by-law shall come into force and effect on the date of passing.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 52
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Schedule A (General) .................................................................................................... 1
Schedule B (CAO) .......................................................................................................... 4
Schedule C (PUB) .......................................................................................................... 7
Schedule D (FSD) ........................................................................................................ 10
Schedule E (LEG) ........................................................................................................ 15
Schedule F (PSD) ......................................................................................................... 23
Schedule A (General)
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements –
Acknowledgement
of Status or Term
Head of
Department or
designate
To issue an acknowledgment of the status or term of agreements
to which the Municipality is a party.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Confidentiality
Agreements
Head of
Department or
designate
To execute confidentiality agreements Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements – Data Head of
Department or
designate
To execute a data license or a data sharing agreement for the
provision of data of the Municipality to others or for the provision
of data from others to the Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Accompanied by a data
sharing agreement with
for and content
approved by the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor, and the
CAO
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Infrastructure to
Cross
Head of
Department or
designate
To execute agreement with the applicable authority to permit
Municipal infrastructure to cross a railway, provincial highway,
pipeline, hydro-electric power corridor, watercourse,
communication, transmission line or any other infrastructure as
may be required.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In a form approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Page 53
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 2 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements –
Federal and
Provincial –
Programs
Head of
Department or
designate
To execute an agreement with the Federal or Provincial
government, a municipality, agency, institution, utility or
community partner for a Municipal undertaking, program delivery
and administration.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Approval of the project
or program by Council
and/or monetary
obligation captured in
approved budget or in
accordance with the
Budget Policy.
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements – First
Nations, Metis and
Inuit, or other
interested parties
Head of
Department or
designate
To enter into any consultation agreements First Nations, Metis
and Inuit, or other interested parties with regard to any Municipal
undertaking.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In a form approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Fulfilled or
Released
Head of
Department or
designate
To deem agreements fulfilled, or release conditions within an
agreement where Municipal conditions have been fulfilled, or the
agreement is no longer required.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Supply of Service
or Program to
Municipality
Head of
Department or
designate
To execute an agreement (or subsequent related agreements
required to operationalize the master agreement) with a
government agency or a non-profit agency, for consideration, for
the supply of a service for an approved program of the
Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Approval of the project
or program by Council
and/or monetary
obligation captured in
approved budget or in
accordance with the
budget management
policy. Agreement
Reviewed by Risk
Management for
certificate of insurance
and recommended by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor.
NEW From the Region
Flags and banners Mayor or
Designate
To approve or deny a request and determine the timeframe a flag
may be displayed.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Update Policy to refer
to Delegation of
Authority by-law
Policy F105 – Flag Protocols
Page 54
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 3 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Proclamations Mayor’s Office Upon receipt of a request for a proclamation, the request shall be
forwarded to the Mayor’s Office for consideration.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Update Policy to refer
to Delegation of
Authority by-law
Policy F9 – Proclamations
Policy –
Occupational
Health and Safety
Mayor and
CAO
To sign the Occupational Health and Safety policy on behalf of the
Municipality.
Occupational Health
and Safety Act
(definition of owner)
NEW
Page 55
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 4 of 34
Schedule B (CAO)
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Administration –
Telecom Protocol
CAO and the
Deputy
CAO/Planning
& Infrastructure
That the Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems
Protocol be delegated to the CAO and the Deputy CAO/Planning
and Infrastructure Services.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.3(2)
(Administrative)
As per Resolution
GG-199-23 and
Report CAO-019-23.
Report CAO-019-23
Agreements –
Construction
CAO or
designate
To execute any development agreements with an area
municipality with respect to the construction of a Municipal
undertaking.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
and the Deputy
CAO/Planning and
Infrastructure.
NEW From the Region
Agreements – Cost
Sharing Agreement
CAO or
designate
To execute an agreement, including a cost sharing agreement with
an area municipality, other government agency, railway or public
utility regarding road construction and/or road maintenance
pursuant to a project or program approved by Council.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Approval of the project
or program by Council
and/or monetary
obligation captured in
approved budget.
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
and the Deputy
CAO/Planning and
Infrastructure.
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Obtain Funding –
Some Cost
CAO or
designate
To approve, amend, extend, and execute, contribution
agreements, grant agreements, and one time project-based
funding agreements where Clarington is the recipient, provided
that such agreements are consistent with the departmental
mandate and follow the restrictions stated in the “checks and
balances”.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
(a) in accordance with
applicable Municipal
policies;
(b) related to approved
departmental programs
and objectives;
(c) within approved
budget limits; and
(d) contain appropriate
insurance, termination,
workplace safety, and
indemnification
provisions satisfactory
to the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor.
NEW From Ottawa
Page 56
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 5 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreement –
Obtain Funding –
No Cost
CAO or
Designate
To approve, amend, extend, and execute agreements with the
Federal or Provincial government, a municipality, agency,
institution, utility, or community partner, provided that such
agreements are consistent with the departmental mandate and are
at no cost to the Municipality, with the exception of associated
operational and administrative costs that are within approved
budgets.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.3(2)
(Administrative)
Operational and
Administrative Costs
must be within
approved budgets.
NEW From Ottawa
Agreements –
Revenue
Generating
CAO or
Designate
To execute a revenue generating agreement or any agreement
where the Municipality is providing a service to others for a
charge. Special consideration for agreements covered under the
Naming Rights, Sponsorship and Advertising Policy.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor,
and provided that the
revenue being
generated or charged
by the Municipality does
not exceed $250,000
per annum or prevailing
budget policy limits.
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Temporary Sales
Centre and Model
Home Applications
and Agreements
CAO or
designate
To approve all Temporary Sales Centre and Model Homes
Applications and Agreements and further to this the Mayor and
Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement, prior to, concurrent
with and / or after the issuance of any full, partial, or conditional
Building Permit related to the temporary sales facility structure(s)
and/or Model Homes.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Agreement – In a form
approved by the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor and
Deputy CAO/Planning &
Infrastructure
Council will be advised
electronically, prior to
signing the Agreement.
The Deputy CAO, or
their designate, may
forward controversial or
significant applications
for Council’s
consideration and
approval at their
discretion.
NEW From Scugog
Page 57
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 6 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Budget - Transfers CAO or
Designate
To make budget transfers to effect changes resulting from new or
amended legislation or regulations, additional unforeseen
revenues, accounting standards or rules, program budgeting or to
increase transparency and accountability and to make any
necessary administrative budget re-allocation between program
areas or budget lines to accommodate corporate reorganization or
internal processes and procedures provided the re-allocation has
no net change to the tax rate.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.3(2)
(Administrative)
Anything over $200,000
shall be reported to the
appropriate Standing
Committee on at least a
quarterly basis.
NEW From Ottawa and Whitby
Provides flexibility to meet
administrative needs, subject
to budget policy and financial
management policy.
Claims – under
$250,000
CAO or
Designate
To abandon or write-off all or any portion of a claim or debt in
relation to any uninsured claim having a monetary value not
greater than $250,000 exclusive of interest, provided that any
action taken under this authority is subsequently reported to
Council.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To provide for orderly and
efficient resolution of legal
claims
Grants –Submit
Applications to
obtain funding
CAO, or
designate
To submit grant applications to provincial and federal
governments, agencies or funds and letters from Council or the
Mayor necessary to apply for grant funding. Includes submission
of reports after grants are received.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Related to approved
departmental programs
and objectives.
NEW From Scugog
Human Resources
– Union
negotiations
CAO Labour Negotiations Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog
Human Resources
– Mileage
Reimbursement
CAO, or
designate
To adjust the mileage reimbursement rate as required and in
accordance with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) rate.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog
Purchasing -
Vendor
Disqualification
CAO or
designate
To disqualify consultant, contractor or other supplier for a defined
period or for an event-based matter.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with the
Purchasing By-law
Subject to the application
of any predefined
Council approved criteria
and as Recommended
by the relevant Deputy
CAO.
NEW From the Region
Provides ability to disqualify on
a timely basis, subject to
legislated and by-law
requirements.
Page 58
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 7 of 34
Schedule C (PUB)
Public Services
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements -
Defibrillator
Program
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate of
Community
Services
To approve subsequent renewals of agreements with Lakeridge
Health that pertaining to the renewal of the Lakeridge Health
Public Access Defibrillator Program
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Rescind Resolution
#GG-077-23 (which
states CAO) and
replace with authority
in the Delegation of
Authority By-law
Report CSD-001-23 and
Resolution #GG-077-23
Agreements –
Adopt-A-Road
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To enter into agreements with volunteer citizen groups for “Adopt-
A-Road” litter removal programs.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Tiered Response
Director of
Emergency &
Fire Services
To determine the medical tiered response model that Clarington
Emergency and Fire Services will follow.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Fire Prevention and
Protection Act
NEW
Agreements -
Automatic Aid
Director of
Emergency &
Fire Services
To enter into automatic aid agreements to provide or receive initial
or supplemental response to fires, rescues, emergencies as per
the Fire Prevention Act, p.II.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog
Fire Protection
Services
Director of
Emergency &
Fire Services
To provide such fire protection services as it has been determined
in accordance with municipal needs and circumstances Fire
Prevention Act, p.II.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog
Property – Interest
and requests
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To advise of interest or non-interest in acquiring surplus land
notifications circulated to the Municipality, including authority to
request any partial transfers, easements, or permissions
necessary to maintain current or future Municipal infrastructure or
comments regarding proposed stop up and closure of local roads.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Reviewed by all Deputy
CAOs
NEW From the Region
Page 59
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 8 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Roads – Access
agreements
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To execute an agreement for access to and/or from a Municipal
road.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From the Region
Roads – Close -
Dangerous
Situation
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To temporarily close any highway or any portion of a highway for
any period due to a situation which would endanger traffic and/or
the public.
Municipal Act, s.
23.2(5)
NEW From Scugog
Roads – Close –
Construction
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To temporarily close any highway or portion thereof for any period
during the construction, repair or improvement initiated by the
Municipality or by a utility company with statutory rights permitting
occupancy on the highway;
Municipal Act, s.
23.2(5)
NEW From Scugog
Roads – Close -
Non-Critical
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To temporarily close a any highway or any portion of a highway for
a social, recreational, community, athletic, or cinematographic
purpose.
Municipal Act, s.
23.2(5)
Compliance with the
Special Events By-law,
including provision of
insurance coverage and
security deposit.
NEW From the Region and Whitby
Roads – Impose
Conditions
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To impose conditions on the use of highways. Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog
Roads – Reduced
Loads
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To establish reduced load periods on Municipal roads. Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Municipal Act, s. 23.1 the
Region
Roads - Speed
Limits –
Construction Zones
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To designate a highway, or a portion of a highway, under the
Municipality’s jurisdiction a construction zone and require that it be
marked with signs in accordance with regulations; and set a lower
rate of speed for motor vehicle driven in the designated
construction zone.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Scugog and Region
Traffic By-law –
Truck Routes
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To designate temporary permissive truck routes and temporary
prohibitive “no heavy truck routes” and may erect official signs to
those effects as per the Traffic By-law.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Amend By-law 2014-
059 to direct section
18.1(1) to the
Delegation of
Authority By-law
Traffic By-law 2014-059
Page 60
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 9 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Traffic By-law –
Permit for heavy
vehicles
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To issue a permit for the moving of heavy vehicles, loads, objects,
or structures in excess of the dimensional limits set out in Section
92 of the Highway Traffic Act, as may be amended from time to
time, or the weight limits set out in Part VII of the said Act, upon
any highway under the jurisdiction of the Corporation.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Traffic By-law 2014-059
From Whitby
Trees on Municipal
Property
Deputy CAO
Public Services
or designate
To arrange for, and permit the planting of, trees on Municipal
property, including Municipal rights of way and easements for
underground infrastructure.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Municipal Act, s.
23.2(5)3iii
Recommended by
Deputy CAO/Planning
and Infrastructure or
designate.
NEW From the Region
Page 61
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 10 of 34
Schedule D (FSD)
Financial Services
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Borrowing –
Between DC
Reserve Funds
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or Designate
To internally borrow, for cash flow purposes, between the
Municipality’s Development Charge Reserve Funds, as required,
to finance the Development Charge portion of Council-approved
growth projects
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Must be related to a
Council-approved growth
project.
NEW From Whitby
Provides flexibility to meet cash
flow needs from internal sources,
borrowing is legislated and
restricted.
Budget Policy
Authorities
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
Authorities as approved in Council adopted Budget Policy,
including such items as:
• Define current and capital projects and cost centres
• Coordinate and implement financial service level indicators
• Ensure necessary funding is available to finance the
expenditures within the parameters of Council approvals
• Monitor, and where necessary, report on material and non-
material leases and update the calculation of the Municipal debt
and financial obligation limit.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From the Region
Insurance
Contracts
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To place or renew contracts for insurance when such contracts
are outside of the general coverage as determined and provided
by the Board of the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool (DMIP) in
accordance with the Subscribers Agreement.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Whitby
Insurance
requirements’
exceptions
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To approve exceptions to Municipality’s minimum insurance
requirements as set out and included in by-laws and/or policies
enacted or approved by Council from time to time.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Whitby
Page 62
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 11 of 34
Loans under the
Tile Drainage Act
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To approve loans on behalf of the Municipality pursuant to
Section 3 of the Tile Drainage Act for the purpose of constructing
drainage works on the conditions set out in the “checks and
balances”
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
(a) the amount of
monies loaned shall be
in accordance with
Section 7 of the Tile
Drainage Act;
(b) approval of the loan
shall not result in an
expenditure of
Municipal funds;
(c) the amount of the
loan to each individual
owner of agricultural
land shall be in
accordance with
existing Provincial
policies and guidelines
and shall not exceed
$50,000.00 in any one
fiscal year or any other
amount as may be
determined by the
Province of Ontario
from time to time as the
maximum amount of
the loan available to an
individual in one fiscal
year;
(d) the approval of
loans shall be subject to
a sufficient unused
balance being available
under the by-law
authorizing the issuing
of debentures by the
Municipality pursuant to
the Tile Drainage Act;
and
(e) the approval of
loans shall be subject to
funds being made
available in the fiscal
year for the purpose of
the Tile Drainage Act.
NEW From Ottawa
The Municipality does not currently
have any tile drainage loans and
does not anticipate future loans.
Delegation would provide for
expeditious review and approval of
loan which would facilitate
economic development (farms) and
support agriculture in Clarington.
Page 63
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 12 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Reserves -
Consolidate
Discretionary
Reserves
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To consolidate discretionary reserves (i.e. for administrative
purposes).
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.3(2)
(Administrative)
NEW From Whitby
Financial Management Policy will
provide additional guidance, this
provides the ability to improve
financial flexibility for financial
planning purposes. There are
checks and balances and reporting
in place.
Taxes -
Assessment
Review – Appeals
Assessment
Review Board
To exercise certain powers and functions of Council pursuant to
Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act regarding every
application for cancellation, reduction, or refund of taxes due to
sickness or extreme poverty. Note: Subsections 357 (6), (7), (8),
(9) and (10) of said Act do not apply to such applications due to
the delegation of authority.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 and s. 357(11)
By-law 2021-005 to
be repealed and
replaced with direct
authority in the
Delegation of
Authority by-law.
By-law 2021-005 Delegated to ARB
to remove staff and council from
determining definition of “sickness”,
ultimately ARB is final decider.
Taxes -
Assessment – To
make appeals
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or designate
To appeal assessments to the Assessment Review Board on
behalf of the Municipality of Clarington.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
By-law 2003-031 to
be repealed and
replaced with direct
authority in the
Delegation of
Authority by-law.
By-law 2003-031
Appeals have a set timeframe to file
and this will expedite appeals on
municipally-owned property.
Page 64
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 13 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Taxes – Extension
Agreement
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or Designate
To negotiate and execute tax extension agreements on behalf of
the Municipality of Clarington, subject to limitations, as per
Section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & s. 386(5)
a. The tax extension
agreement must be
requested by and
entered into with
any owner of the
land, the spouse of
any owner of the
land, any
mortgagee, any
tenant in
occupation of the
land or any person
the Treasurer is
satisfied has an
interest in the land,
in accordance with
Section 378 of the
Municipal Act,
2001;
b. The tax extension
agreement must be
compliant with the
requirements of
Section 378 of the
Municipal Act,
2001;
c. The tax extension
agreement can only
be entered into
after a tax arrears
certificate has been
registered, and
before the expiry of
the one-year
period; and
d. Conforms to the
Collection Policy
guidelines
Repeal By-law 2021-
004 and replaced with
direct authority in the
Delegation of
Authority by-law.
By-law 2021-004
Provides efficient ability to approve
tax extensions for properties in the
tax sale process. The time limits for
approval are legislated, therefore
delegating the authority ensures
that agreements could be entered
into up until the legislated date
(benefits taxpayers).
Page 65
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 14 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Taxes – holding
meetings
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or designate
To make decisions and hold meetings under the following
subsections of the Municipal Act:
Subsections 356(1) & 356(4) = Division into parcels
Subsections 357(1) & 357(5) = Cancellation, reduction, refund of
taxes
Subsections 358(1) & 358(9) = Overcharges
Subsections 359(1) & 359(3) = Increase of taxes due to any
undercharge caused by an error.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & s. 386(5)
By-law 2016-087 to
be repealed and
replaced with direct
authority in the
Delegation of
Authority by-law.
By-law 2016-087
These are routine in nature and
provides for expeditious treatment
of the tax decision and ultimately
refund/collection of change in taxes.
Revenue – Collect
Accounts
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or designate
To extend payment terms on outstanding accounts or collect such
accounts, including referring accounts for collection by agencies
or use of legal proceedings, where it is deemed necessary.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with
Budget Policy and/or
Purchasing By-law as
applicable.
NEW From the Region
Provides for expeditious resolution
payment agreements and are
typically low-value amounts.
Revenue – Interest
on Temp Loans for
Capital
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To charge interest on temporary loans to external parties to finance
capital projects.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with
Budget Policy and/or
Purchasing By-law as
applicable.
NEW From the Region
Increase Project –
Additional Funds
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To make capital budget funding adjustments to refinance any capital
project or program to effect changes resulting from new funding
sources.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Ottawa
Court Matters –
Small Claims –
Write Off
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
or designate
To approve the cancellation of accounts and monies owed to the
Municipality for amounts up to the prevailing limit for Small Claims
Court actions.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with
Budget Policy and/or
Purchasing By-law as
applicable.
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Procurement
Delegates as
set out in
Purchasing By-
law
To enter into contracts and agreements procured under the
prevailing Purchasing By-Law.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with
Budget Policy and/or
Purchasing By-law as
applicable.
NEW From the Region
Letters of Credit –
Developer
Securities
Deputy
CAO/Treasurer
To approve, accept, and release, letters of credit as security for
performance and payments relating to development agreements.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
By written
recommendation from
Planning and
Infrastructure Staff.
CLARIFIED This was noted in Report FND-028-
20 but it is unclear where the
original authority resides.
The Region of Durham has the
Commissioner of Finance with this
authority.
Page 66
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 15 of 34
Schedule E (LEG)
Legislative Services
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements –
Confidentiality
Deputy CAO/
Solicitor
To execute confidentiality agreements. Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW For circumstances in which a non-
disclosure agreement may be
requested in connection with a
commercial agreement or to settle a
claim
Agreements –
Boundary Road
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To enter into Boundary Road Agreements provided there is
a proportional sharing of costs between adjacent
municipalities.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine agreements to provide
repairs and maintenance to roads
having shared jurisdiction
Agreements –
Lease
renewal/extensions
Deputy CAO/
Solicitor or
designate
To execute lease renewal/extension agreements for
community agencies that occupy space in a municipal
facility.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Subject to the
limitations in Budget
Policy and
recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Agreements –
Licensing of
Municipal Entities
Deputy CAO/
Solicitor or
designate
To take measures on behalf of the Municipal Corporation to
obtain or maintain copyright, trademark, patent, intellectual
property, and personal property rights or interests.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To prevent the unauthorized use of
the Municipality’s intellectual
property
Agreements – Trail
License
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To execute agreements with Ontario Power Generation
related to the use of public recreational trails.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Rescind Resolution
#GG-201-23
Report LGS-033-23
Agreements –
Parking on Private
Property
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To approve the execution of agreements for parking
enforcement on private property. The delegation also
applies equally to any amendment or termination of such
agreements.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In a form approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
NEW To facilitate parking enforcement
Agreements –
Exchange/Release
FOI information
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To execute an agreement for the exchange or release of
information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Recommended by the
Deputy CAO/Solicitor
NEW From the Region
Page 67
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 16 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Animals - Appoint –
Livestock Valuer
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To appoint or withdraw the appointment, as the case may
be, of municipal investigators (livestock valuers) for the
Municipality as may be required for the purposes of the
Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program as per the
Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act
Livestock, Poultry
and Honey Bee
Protection Act
NEW Report CLD-011-16
Animals - Appeals
– Order to Restrain
Hearings
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To adjudicate requests under section 105 of the Municipal
Act, 2001 related to muzzling a dog
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 and 23.5
(Delegations
regarding hearings)
In accordance with the
rules outlined in the
Municipal Act, s. 23.5
Clarification and
Repeal By-law 2005-
225.
This was noted in an appointment
by-law for the previous Manager of
MLE in By-law 2005-225, but was
not repealed when we appointed
Duncan Anderson.
Animals – Shelter
animals from other
jurisdictions
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To have the discretion to shelter animals from other
jurisdictions/organizations on an adhoc basis, or a longer
term basis, with an agreement.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To ensure emergency, or
cooperative, sheltering of animals,
where necessary and able.
Court Matters –
Commence,
Defend, Conduct
under instructions
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To commence, defend, or conduct any proceeding before
any court, administrative tribunal or other decision-making
or advisory body in accordance with instructions received
from Municipal Council or from officers or employees of the
Municipality having operational responsibility for the subject
matter of such proceeding.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Required to protect the legal
interests of the Municipality
Court Matters -
Commence,
Defend, Conduct
under own initiative
(Non-POA)
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To commence, defend, or conduct any proceeding before
any court, administrative tribunal or other decision-making
or advisory body on the Deputy CAO/Solicitor’s own
initiative where necessary to protect, preserve or assert the
best legal interests of the Municipal Corporation until such
time as the matter can be reported to the appropriate
instructing authority for consideration and direction.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Required to protect the legal
interests of the Municipality
Court Matters –
Appeals (Non-POA)
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To commence and conduct appeals of the decisions of
courts, administrative tribunals, or other decision-making or
advisory bodies; apply for standing; or make applications for
judicial review of decisions; provided that any such
measures undertaken shall be reported to Council as soon
as reasonably practicable.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To respond to time sensitive legal
proceedings
Page 68
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 17 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Court Matters –
Small Claims
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To commence, defend, conduct, or settle any uninsured
claim in the Ontario Small Claims Court on behalf of the
Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW For the efficient disposition of minor
legal claims
Court Matters -
Commence,
Defend, Conduct,
Appeal (POA)
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To commence, defend, conduct, or appeal any proceeding
originating in the Provincial Offences Court or an applicable
appellate court.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Required to prosecute Municipal
By-laws and other Provincial
offences
Court Matters -
Settlement of
Claims under
$250,000
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To settle uninsured claims (whether or not asserted in
litigation), and authorize payment or acceptance of payment
in settlement of such claims in an amount not to exceed
$250,000, exclusive of interest, provided that any action
taken under this authority is subsequently reported to
Council.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
With concurrence of
the CAO
NEW To facilitate efficient resolution of
legal claims
Court Matters -
Costs
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To authorize the payment of any expenses, disbursements
or costs reasonably incurred by or awarded against the
Municipality in the course of a legal proceeding.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To comply with Court ordered
payments, or reasonable legal
costs
Court Matters –
Debt Enforcement
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To take all steps reasonably necessary or desirable to
enforce orders, decisions, awards, and judgements made in
favour of the Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To recover costs
Election
Agreements
Municipal Clerk To execute agreements and contracts for the purposes of
securing equipment, facility rentals, purchasing of goods
and other services in order to conduct Municipal and School
Board Elections.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Purchasing By-law
From Whitby
Enforcement -
Appoint private
parking
enforcement
officers
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To appoint persons affiliated with private parking authorities,
as per Subsection 15(1) of the Policy Services Act, to
enforce the Clarington Traffic By-law.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Change from
“Municipal Clerk” to
“Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate” in the
Delegation of
Authority By-law and
rescind the last
paragraph of
Resolution #C-190-
15
Report CLD-006-15 – private
parking enforcement officers,
Resolution #C-190-15 from June 1,
2015 Council minutes
Employees:
Report CLD-023-18
By-law 2018-100
Page 69
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 18 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Governance –
Ombudsman
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
Designated as the head under the Ombudsman Act of
Ontario s. 1.1(1)(a) 1.1(2)(a).
Section 23.1 of the
Municipal Act
Ombudsman Act, s.
1.1(1)(a)
All reports from the
Ombudsman will be
presented to Council at
a General Governance
Committee meeting.
NEW To receive official notice from the
Ombudsman of their intention to
commence an investigation
Legal Affairs -
Reporting
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To report to Municipal Council for the provision of legal
advice and for obtaining instructions and direction touching
upon the legal affairs of the Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW This is part of the Municipal
Solicitor’s job description
Land – Agreement
for Appraisal
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To direct the preparation of appraisal reports for the
acquisition, or disposition, of land by either internal, or
external, resources as required and deemed appropriate.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
All appraisals to be
completed by
appraisers who hold
the Accredited
Appraiser Canadian
Institute (AACI) or
Certified Residential
Appraiser (CRA)
designations in good
standing with the
Appraisal Institute of
Canada.
NEW As needed to establish fair market
value
Land - Agreements
- Encroachment
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To approve and execute agreements for the encroachment
of existing buildings onto Municipal land, including land that
is a public highway or unopened road allowance.
And, to execute an agreement to permit the Municipality to
have access to, or to encroach on, land owned by others for
Municipal purposes.
And, to execute an agreement to permit access to, or an
encroachment on, Municipal lands including rights-of-way,
water and sanitary sewerage easements and facilities by
third parties and to release those agreements as required.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.2(5)
NEW To efficiently document minor
property boundary issues
Land – Agreements
for entry onto land
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To approve and execute agreements for temporary
permission to enter onto Municipal land for durations not to
exceed one year.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To facilitate temporary access to
property
Page 70
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 19 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Land –Agreements
for extensions
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To approve and execute agreements to extend the closing
date of purchase and sale transactions.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Land –Easement
Abandonment
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To execute releases or notices of abandonment of
easements owned by the Municipality over lands where
those easements are no longer required for municipal
purposes subject to the checks and balances stated in the
Delegation of Authority By-law.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Where the easement
was acquired by the
Municipality:
for no consideration,
through the
development process
or otherwise, there will
be no consideration
payable for the
release, with the
exception of fees
chargeable under by-
law for processing the
request.
for consideration, the
applicant seeking the
release will pay
whatever consideration
was paid by the
Municipality in
acquiring the
easement, together
with the fees
chargeable under by-
law for processing the
request.
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Land –Easements
to 3rd Parties
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To convey easements and licences to third parties over
Municipally-owned lands where the easement/licence rights
are minor in nature or are for the purposes of providing a
right of access for public utilities, telecommunications,
municipal services or natural heritage protection purposes
and the easement/licence will not substantially interfere with
municipal purposes.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
For the purposes of
this section, an
easement which is
minor in nature will
have an appraised
value of $5,000.00 or
less.
NEW To facilitate reasonable public use
of Municipal lands
Page 71
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 20 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Land - Agreements
for purchase, sale
or exchange
(Capital Projects)
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To approve and execute agreements of purchase and sale
and all transfers for the purchase, sale, or exchange of land,
including easements, for any approved capital project.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To facilitate the orderly completion
of capital projects
Land – Execute
documents
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To approve and execute undertakings, certificates,
declarations, and any other documents required for the
completion of any transaction involving the purchase, sale,
or exchange of any interest in land, including any
documents required to be delivered under the applicable
agreement of purchase and sale.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
The acquisition of land
or land interests are
included as part of a
project or program
approved by Council,
and/or the monetary
obligation captured in
approved budget. The
recording of any asset
changes and financing
confirmed by the
Treasurer.
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Land – Release
Option
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To release any option to repurchase, notice, agreement or
restrictive covenant in favour of the Municipality, where the
provision in favour of the Municipality has been satisfied,
expired or is no longer required.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Land –Sale of
interest Incidental
to subdivision or
condominium
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To execute documents related to the conveyance of any
interest in land incidental to a subdivision or condominium
referenced within the subdivision or condominium
agreements, and shall include, but not be limited to, the
conveyance of easements and reserves or the release of or
abandonment of easements.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing and land
development approval
Land –under
$25,000
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor or
designate
To approve and execute agreements for the purchase and
sale of land on behalf of the Municipality provided that the
total consideration or estimate of the purchase and sale
price is reasonable and does not exceed $25,000
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW To facilitate land transactions of low
monetary value
Land Titles –
Applications
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To submit applications under the Land Titles Act or Registry
Act in respect of lands owned by the Municipality.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Page 72
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 21 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Land Titles –
Municipal Interest
Deputy
CAO/Solicitor
To register any instrument on behalf of the Municipality
against the title to the lands in which the Municipality has an
interest.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW Routine requirement of
transactional real estate
conveyancing
Licensing – Public
Event Designation
Municipal Clerk To designate a “Public Event” pertaining to a Special
Occasion Permit issued (i.e. an event of municipal
significance) and authority to comment on a Liquor License
Application, as per Section 24(4) of the Regulation 389/91
Liquor License Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.2(5)2
Based on the following
guidelines adopted in
Report CLD-028-12:
• Historical Events (ie,
Orono Fair)
• Community Events
(ie, an event that will
promote neighbours
meeting neighbours)
• Economic Spinoffs
(ie, Boots & Hearts,
business grand
openings)
• Recognition Events.
(ie, Sports Hall of
Fame)
• Raising Funds for
Charity or Community
Works (ie, Mayor's
Golf Classic)"
Explicitly provide
delegation in the
Delegation of
Authority By-law
Report CLD-028-12 – outlines the
guidelines to be followed, but does
not explicitly state the authority.
Clerk’s Division Procedure P11-011
(Special Occasion Permits)
Licensing –
Commenting on
Tailgate Events
Municipal Clerk To determine whether it is appropriate to support a Tailgate
Event on Municipal Property.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In consultation with
applicable Deputy
CAOs.
Explicitly provide
delegation in the
Delegation of
Authority By-law
Report CLD-020-19 Tailgate Events
on Municipal Property”.
Marriages Municipal Clerk, or
designate
To provide civil marriages, for the Municipality of Clarington,
as per the Marriage Act, and Regulations, in the Clarington
Council Chambers, or otherwise, at the discretion of the
Municipal Clerk.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Repeal By-law 2004-
253, and
amendments, and
replace it with
Delegation of
Authority By-law.
By-law 2004-253
Page 73
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 22 of 34
Short
Description of
Matter
Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority
Council’s
Authority to
Delegate
Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Records
Management -
MFIPPA Head
Municipal Clerk To act as head of the municipality for the purposes of the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy
Act.
Subsection 3(3) of
MFFIPPA and
Subsection 23.1 of
the Municipal Act
Currently the Mayor;
change to the
Municipal Clerk and
Repeal By-law 90-
193
By-law 90-193
Records
Management - By-
laws – minor
corrections
Municipal Clerk To make minor deletions, additions, or other administrative
or typographical changes to any by-law to ensure that the
correct and complete implementation of the actions of
Council form the subject matter of the by-law.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 23.3(2)
(Administrative)
If there is a substantive
error in an approved
by-law, this is not a
reconsideration and
Staff shall bring it to
the attention of Council
at its earliest
convenience for
consideration.
Amend Procedural
By-law to move
wording to
Delegation of
Authority By-law
(subsection 7.20.5 &
7.20.6).
Procedural By-law
Records
Management - By-
laws – Exhausted
Authority
Municipal Clerk To repeal by-laws that are expired, have been replaced, or
have otherwise ceased in their purpose
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Consultation with the
Deputy CAO/Municipal
Solicitor and (for
planning-related by-
laws) Deputy
CAO/Planning and
Infrastucture.
NEW To eliminate obsolete by-laws.
Records
Management -
Retention Schedule
Municipal Clerk To establish or amend retention periods for all municipal
records in the Records Retention Schedule as per
Subsection 254(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (records),
Subsection 255(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (retention),
and Subsection 255(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001
(destruction).
Upon the Municipal Clerk being satisfied that the relevant
retention period established has expired, and that no reason
exists for further retention, the Municipal Clerk may order
the records to be destroyed, or to be set aside for
permanent retention in an archival facility designated by the
Municipal Clerk, as per Subsection 255(2) of the Municipal
Act, 2001 (destruction).
Municipal Act, s.
23.1 & 254(1) &
255(3) & 255(2)
Unless minor in nature,
proposed revisions to
records classifications
to be reviewed by
relevant department
Staff and/or Legal
Division prior to
approval by the
Municipal Clerk.
Repeal By-law 2020-
045 and replace with
Delegation of
Authority By-law.
By-law 2020-045
Page 74
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 23 of 34
Schedule F (PSD)
Planning and Infrastructure Services
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements –
Releases
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To release agreements where development has not proceeded o
if imposed or required in satisfaction of any condition of approval
under the Planning Act or Condominium Act, in connection with
the development of land.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Releases to be in a
form as approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor.
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Agreements –
Subdivisions,
Condos, Land
Division, Removal
of Part Lot Control,
Site Plans,
Rezoning
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To execute agreements imposed, or required, in satisfaction of
any condition of approval under the Planning Act in connection
with the development of land such as subdivisions, plans of
condominium, land divisions, removal of part lot control, site
plans and rezoning.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Agreements to be in a
form as approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor.
If second signature is
required – it would be
Legal Services.
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law.
Change from
Municipal Clerk
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
In the current by-law it is both the
“Director and the Municipal Clerk”.
Agreements -
Approve and
execute CIP
agreements
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve and execute agreements under the Community
Improvement Programs and Section 28 of the Planning Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Implements CIP
program requirements.
Annual reporting to
Council.
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Agreement - Land
Conveyance –
Parkland
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve, as a condition of development, the conveyance of
land, cash-in-lieu of conveyance of parkland, or combination
thereof for park or other recreational purposes whichever option,
in the opinion of the Deputy CAO, Planning & Infrastructure, is
appropriate and in compliance with the applicable Official Plan
policies and Municipal policies and by-laws.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
In accordance with the
Parkland and Open
Space Dedication By-
law.
NEW By-law 2022-043
From Ottawa
Agreement - Land
Conveyance –
Highway
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To request the conveyance of land for a highway widening
and/or for a reserve as a condition of development approval, as
per the Planning Act, subsections 41(7)(a)(1), 41(8)(a)(1) and
41(9)
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Record in asset
management system
even if transaction is
non-monetary and
consistent with
Planning Act,
subsections
41(7)(a)(1), 41(8)(a)(1)
and 41(9).
NEW From the Region of Durham
Page 75
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 24 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreement –
Extension of
Development
Agreements
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To execute extension of development agreements where the
agreement is not being altered in a significant way.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Agreements to be in a
form as approved by
the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor.
NEW From Whitby and Scugog
Agreements –
Minor Variance
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or designate
To execute on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington agreements required to implement the conditions of
approval imposed by the Committee of Adjustment under
Section 45 of the Planning Act.
Planning Act,
Sections 5 & 66
Repeal By-law 95-23
and replace with
Delegation of
Authority By-law
Change from “Mayor
and Clerk” to “Deputy
CAO, Planning &
Infrastructure or
designate”
By-law 95-23
Report PD-15-95
Agreements –
Release for non-
Site Plan Control
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
to approve the release of agreements, including maintenance
and liability agreements and encroachment agreements entered
into as a condition of subdivision, condominium, cash-in-lieu of
parking, demolition control, or zoning approvals, or heritage
agreements, as part of the compliance or enforcement process
subject to the following conditions:
an owner or authorized agent or bona fide purchaser or
authorized agent or mortgagee has requested the release in
writing;
the requirements of the agreement have been fulfilled;
all parties having jurisdiction over the terms or conditions of the
agreement have agreed to its release; and
the applicant for the release agrees to assume all costs
associated with the release of this agreement.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Ottawa
Agreement –
Sewage System
Management
Agreement with
Region
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To execute subsequent renewals of the Sewage System
Management Agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Durham.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Whitby
Page 76
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 25 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Agreements - Site
Plan Control
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To execute any agreement with the Municipality dealing with
ensuring the provision of any or all of the facilities, works or
matters referred to in Section 41(7)(a) and the maintenance
thereof referred to in Section 41(7)(b) or with the provision and
approval of the plans and drawings pursuant to Section 41(4) of
the Planning Act, as may be required to be made by the owner
of the land with the Municipality as a condition of the approval of
the plans and drawings referred to in Section 41(4) of the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Amend Section 7 of
By-law 2010-139 to
refer to Delegation of
Authority by-law
Report PSD-058-16
By-law 2010-139 as amended by
By-law 2016-080.
Agreement –
Utilities or
Telecommunicatio
ns for Municipal
Property
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To execute an agreement respecting utilities or
telecommunications required to service a Municipal property or
facility.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
For any agreement
outside of the online
application, such
additional agreement is
to be reviewed by the
Treasurer for billing
arrangements and
Recommended by
Legal Services.
NEW From the Region of Durham
Apartments-in-
House Official
Registrar
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or designate
To be the Official Registrar for Apartments-in-Houses Municipal Act, s.
23.1
CLARIFICATION Report PSD-058-16 notes that it
was delegated from the Director to
the Manager.
By-law 97-77 Consolidated. defines
the Registrar as the “Director of
Designate”
Page 77
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 26 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
By-laws – Minor
Nature Planning
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
Arising out of OPA 132, delegation of authority for the following
additional functions, under Section 34 of the Planning Act:
Removal of Holding “H” Symbols.
Temporary Use Zoning By-law Amendments; and
Housekeeping By-laws for the purposes of making clerical or
other changes to assist in the interpretation of a Zoning By-law.
Section 39.2 of the
Planning Act
The Planning Act
requires that the
Official Plan provide
policies to specify the
types of by-laws that
may be delegated. The
Planning Act also
provides that the
delegation may be
subject to conditions
set out by Council, and
that Council may
withdraw this authority
at any time through a
by-law, including in
anticipation of a by-law
for which a final
decision has not yet
been made.
The delegation does
not:
Alter any notice or
public meeting
requirements;
Limit appeal rights; or
Change the
requirement for
planning decisions to
be consistent with the
Provincial Policy
Statement and to
conform or not conflict
with provincial plans.
To repeal by-law
2001-072, and the
amendment, 2023-
014 + replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law.
Report PDS-008-23
By-law 2023-014 amends By-law
2001-072
Page 78
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 27 of 34
Heritage
Conservation
Districts
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
The following authority with respect to properties that are
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act:
to receive and issue notices of receipt for heritage permit
applications that are received by the Municipality pursuant to
Section 42 (3) of the Ontario Heritage Act;
to prescribe the required contents of an application under
Section 42(1), pursuant to Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario
Heritage Act;
to enter into agreements with property owners to waive or extend
the 90-day timeline prescribed in Section 42(4),for applications
made under Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act;
to approve heritage permit applications under Section 42(1) of
the Ontario Heritage Act that meet the definition of an
emergency application;
to approve heritage permit applications under Section 42(1) of
the Ontario Heritage Act which include the following classes of
alterations:
restoration or preservation projects including projects funded
through the Heritage Grant Program for Building Restoration,
alterations to accessory or outbuildings such as changes to
barns, garages, and sheds that meet the requirements of the
applicable heritage conservation district plan or guidelines,
landscape alterations including but not limited to tree removal,
new hard or soft landscaping and new driveways where the
proposed alterations meet the requirements of the applicable
heritage conservation district plan or guidelines,
alterations that do not adversely impact the heritage attributes of
the property or the heritage conservation district and that meet
the requirements of the applicable heritage conservation district
plan or guidelines;
additions that meet both of the following criteria:
1.the size is less than 30% of the gross floor area of the existing
building; and
2.the proposal meets the heritage conservation district
guidelines or heritage conservation district plan.
additions that do not exceed 50% of the existing gross floor area
that create new residential unit(s) and meet the policies and
guidelines of the applicable heritage conservation district plan;
Ontario Heritage
Act, s. 42(16)
The authority does not
include the authority to
approve applications
with conditions. The
authority does not
include the power to
refuse an application.
NEW From Ottawa
Page 79
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 28 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
construction of detached accessory structures that meet the
requirements of the applicable heritage conservation district plan
or guidelines;
demolition of detached accessory structures including barns,
outbuildings, and garages where the demolition does not impact
the cultural heritage value of the property or district and meets
the applicable heritage conservation district plan or guidelines;
demolition of additions where the demolition does not impact the
cultural heritage value of the property or heritage conservation
district and meets the applicable heritage conservation district
plan or guidelines; and
extension or re-issuance of heritage permits previously
considered by the Heritage Committee and issued by Council
where the proposal and the relevant policy framework are
substantially unchanged since the initial approval
Page 80
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 29 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Heritage
Properties –
Various actions
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
The following authority with respect to properties designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA):
(a) to issue notices of inclusion in the Register according to
Section 27(5) and (6) of the OHA;
(b) to process notices of objection under Section 27(8) of the
OHA;
(c) to receive notices of intention to demolish non-designated
buildings or structures listed on the Register pursuant to Section
27(9) of the OHA;
(d) to request plans and information pursuant to Section 27(11)
required as part of the 60 days’ notice required under Section
27(9) of the OHA;
(e) to enter into agreements with property owners to waive or
extend the 90-day timeline for issuance of a Notice of Intention
to Designate after the occurrence of a prescribed event, as
described in Ontario Regulation 385/21 –General - Section 1;
(f) to process Notices of Objection under Section 29(6) of the
OHA and ensure consideration by Council within statutory
timelines;
(g) to enter into agreements with property owners to waive or
extend the 120-day statutory timeline for the passage of a
designation by-law under Section 29(8) of the OHA, and as
described in Ontario Regulation385/21 – General - Section 2;
(h) to enter into agreements with property owners to waive or
extend the 90-day timeline prescribed under Sections33(6) and
34 (6), pursuant to Sections 33(7) and 34 (4.3), of the OHA;
(i) to prescribe additional materials and information required for
applications under Sections 33(1) and 34(1),pursuant to Section
33(3) and 34(3) of the OHA;
(j) to receive and issue notices of complete or incomplete
application for heritage permits pursuant to Section 33 and
Section 34 of the OHA;
(k) to approve heritage permit applications under Section 33 of
the OHA that meet the definition of an emergency application.
Ontario Heritage
Act, section 33(15)
Section 33(15) requires
consultation with the
Heritage Committee
prior to delegation:
The power to
consent to
alterations to
property under
this section may
be delegated by
by-law by the
council of a
municipality to
an employee or
official of the
municipality if
the council has
established a
municipal
heritage
committee and
has consulted
with the
committee prior
to delegating the
power.
NEW From Ottawa
Page 81
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 30 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Heritage – Minor
Alterations
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve heritage permit applications relating to minor
alterations which include the following classes of alterations:
(i) restoration or preservation projects including projects funded
through the Heritage Grant Program for Building Restoration;
(ii) changes or renovations to additions or outbuildings such as
changes to barns, garages, or modern additions not identified in
the Statement of Reason for Designation or the Statement of
Cultural Heritage Value;
(iii) landscape alterations including but not limited to tree
removal, new hard landscaping, new soft landscaping, and new
driveways where the proposal does not impact the heritage
attributes of the designated property;
(iv) alterations that do not adversely impact or remove the
heritage attributes of a property;
(v) additions that meet both of the following criteria:
1. the size is less than 30 per cent of the gross floor area of the
existing building and,
2. the proposal does not adversely impact the heritage attributes
of the property as defined in the Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value or Statement of Reason for Designation; (vi) additions that
do not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the existing building
that create new residential unit(s), as defined by the Zoning By-
law as amended, and do not adversely impact the cultural
heritage value or attributes of the property as defined in the
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value;
(vii) construction of detached accessory structures, which do not
impact the heritage attributes of the property;
(viii) demolition of detached accessory structures including
barns, outbuildings, and garages where the demolition does not
impact the cultural heritage value of the property;
(ix) demolition of additions not identified in the Statement of
Reason for Designation or the Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value; and
(x) extension or re-issuance of heritage permits previously
considered by the Heritage Committee and issued by Council
where the proposal and the relevant policy framework are
substantially unchanged since the initial approval
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
The authority does not
include the authority to
approve applications
with conditions. The
authority does not
include the power to
refuse an application.
NEW From Ottawa
Page 82
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 31 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Heritage - Approve
minor heritage
permits
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To issue minor Heritage Permits for alterations and additions, as
described in the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District
Plan.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Excludes construction
of new buildings,
additions to buildings,
demolition of all or a
portion of a building,
relocation of a building
on a property,
relocation of a building
outside of the district,
site and park functions
at Clarington Beech
Centre and streetscape
improvements.
Requires periodic
reporting to Council as
necessary.
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Permits - Tree Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To receive applications and the required fees, and to issue
permits and to attach conditions thereto in accordance with the
Tree By-law
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Amend to redirect to
Delegation of
authority By-law.
Section 4.7.5 of the Municipality of
Clarington Official Plan
Section 5.1.1 of the Woodlot
Preservation By-law (aka The Tree
By-law), By-law 97-35, as amended
Planning
Applications -
Complete
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To give notice of complete applications to the prescribed
persons and public bodies, in the prescribed manner and
accompanied by the prescribed information; and make the
prescribed information and material available to the public, as
per S. 22(6.4), 34(10.7) and 51(19.4) of the Planning Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Notice provided to
Members of Council
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Planning –
Applications
Approve -
Condominium
applications
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve descriptions under the Condominium Act:
1) To endorse public meeting notifications
2) To endorse the Notices of Decision of Council with
respect to draft approval of plans of subdivision / plans of
condominium and to endorse the draft approved plans, subject
to the conditions imposed by Council
3) To endorse the Notices of Decision of Council with
respect to all other Planning Act applications.
S.51,51.1 and 51.2
Planning Act Section
9 of the
Condominium Act
Section 9(10) of the
Condominium Act
and Reg. 544/06 of
the Planning Act
Consistent with
approved site plan and
Zoning By-law.
Periodic reporting to
Council
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Page 83
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 32 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Planning
Application - Fees
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To refund all, or part, of a planning application fee to facilitate the
withdrawal of a Municipal planning application where planning
merits cannot be adequately justified, or to correct an error in the
original fee calculation.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From the Region of Durham
Planning
Application –
Municipal
Applicant
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To prepare and file an application, submission, declaration,
representation and execute any agreement imposed or required
in the satisfaction of any condition of approval under the
Planning Act or the Building Code Act, 1992 in connection with
the development or redevelopment of Municipal property or
building, where the Municipality is the applicant.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Project has been
approved by Council.
NEW From the Region of Durham
Planning
Applications –
Notice
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To provide notice that the information and material required
under any application under the Planning Act has either been
provided or not provided and that the application is deemed to
be complete or incomplete, as the case may be, as per S. 22(6.1
), 34(10.4) and 51(19.1) of the Planning Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Planning -
Applications- Part
Lot Control –
Applications and
By-laws
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve applications, and by-laws, for the removal of part lot
control, as per S. 50 (7) of the Planning Act.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Removal of Part Lot
Control to be presented
to next Council meeting
for adoption.
Periodic reporting to
Council
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Report FND-028-20
Although the approval had been
previously given, the delegation for
passing the by-law had not.
Planning
Applications -
Refuse inactive
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or Designate
To refuse an application made under the Planning Act which is
inactive for over one year.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Applicant must be
notified and provided
60 days to respond
with no objection.
Requires periodic
reporting to Council.
Repeal by-law 2011-
119 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2011-119 arising out of
Report PSD-102-11.
Page 84
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 33 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Planning
Applications -
Subdivision
Applications -
Approve - Plan of
Subdivision
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or designate
To approve plans of subdivision under the Planning Act:
1) To endorse public meeting notifications
2) To endorse the Notices of Decision of Council with
respect to draft approval of plans of subdivision / plans of
condominium and to endorse the draft approved plans, subject
to the conditions imposed by Council.
3) To endorse the Notices of Decision of Council with
respect to all other Planning Act applications.
Sections 23.1 to
23.5 of the Municipal
Act
Section 51.2(1) of
the Planning Act
This authority extends
only in these matters in
respect of which
Council adopted
procedures.
To repeal by-law
2001-072, and the
amendment, 2023-
014 and replace with
the Delegation of
Authority By-law
By-law 2001-072
By-law 2023-014
Planning
Applications –
Withdrawals
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
or designate
To sign for development application withdrawals Municipal Act, s.
23.1
CLARIFIED This was noted in Report FND-028-
20 but it is unclear where the
original authority resides.
Site Plan Control -
Agreements –
Release for Site
Plan Control
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
To approve the release of agreements, including maintenance
and liability agreements and encroachment agreements entered
into as a condition of site plan control where:
an owner or authorized agent or bona fide purchaser or
authorized agent or mortgagee has requested the release in
writing;
the requirements of the agreement have been fulfilled;
all parties having jurisdiction over the terms or conditions of the
agreement have agreed to the release;
in the case of residential developments governed by site plan
control agreements, all financial securities have been released;
in the case of non-residential developments governed by site
plan control agreements, the release of the agreement is no
earlier than five (5) years following the release of all financial
securities; and
the costs associated with the registration of the release of the
agreement are incurred by the applicant.
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
NEW From Ottawa
Page 85
Delegation of Authority By-law
Table
Page 34 of 34
Short Description
of Matter Delegate Specific Delegation of Authority Council’s Authority
to Delegate Checks and Balances Recommended
Action Notes and Rationale
Site Plan Control
Area
Deputy CAO,
Planning &
Infrastructure
The powers and authority of Council under Section 41 of the
Planning Act, except the authority to define any class or classes
of development as mentioned in Section 41(13)(a)
Municipal Act, s.
23.1
Prior to stamping
drawings, written
concurrence will be
provided by the
Manager of
Development
Engineering. This will
be done in consultation
with the Director of
Public Works as
required.
Amend Section 6 of
By-law 2010-139 to
refer to Delegation of
Authority by-law
By-law 2010-139
As amended by By-law 2020-080
arising out of Report PSD-048-20
By-law 90-130
Page 86
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-027-24
Authored by: Colin Lyon, Associate Solicitor
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: RC.B.01.10.1
Report Subject: Surplus Declaration of 238 King Street East, Bowmanville
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-027-24 be received;
2. That the unopened road allowance at 238 King Street East described in Report
LGS-027-24 be declared surplus and conditionally approved for sale to the
Applicant;
3. That the Applicant shall pay the cost to prepare and register a reference plan for the
property to be conveyed;
4. That the Applicant shall pay the cost for the Municipality to obtain an appraisal of the
property to be conveyed;
5. That the Deputy CAO/Solicitor is authorized to enter into an agreement of purchase
and sale with the applicant with a purchase price consistent with the appraisal
obtained for the value of the property, and any other terms considered necessary by
the Deputy CAO/Solicitor;
6. That the Applicant shall pay the non-refundable processing fee;
7. That once all conditions have been fulfilled by the Applicant, the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor shall prepare the necessary by-law to give effect to the closure and
conveyance of the Road Allowance; and
8. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-027-24 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 87
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-027-24
Report Overview
This is a report that recommends the sale of a portion of an unopened municipal road
allowance located at 238 King Street East in Bowmanville to the Bowmanville Professional
Building Limited (the “Applicant”).
1. Background
1.1 The applicant has applied to purchase the unopened road allowance located at 238
King Street East in Bowmanville (the “Road Allowance”).
1.2 The dimensions of the Road Allowance are approximately 15.5 metres by 20.1 metres.
1.3 The Applicant’s objective is to allow for the reorientation of the one-way easterly
ingress to their parking lot to create a two-way ingress/egress.
2. Next Steps
2.1 The Applicant has submitted the required application together with the initial application
fee, and Staff have made a preliminary determination that the Road Allowance is
surplus to the needs of the Municipality and recommend that it be sold.
2.2 Upon successful fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the recommendations of this
Report, the by-law to permanently close the Road Allowance will be presented to
Council for enactment, and the sale will be finalized.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 If approved, the proceeds of the sale will be deposited to the appropriate account as
determined by the Finance and Technology Department.
4. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure who
concurs with the recommendations.
5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the sale of the above noted
property to the Applicant in accordance with the Council approved Road Closure and
Conveyance Policy CP-004.
Page 88
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-027-24
Staff Contact: Colin Lyon, Associate Solicitor, 905-623-3379 ext. 2027 or
clyon@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Bowmanville Professional Building Limited
Page 89
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-026-24
Authored by: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: CL2024-16
Report Subject: Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-026-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Defina Haulage Ltd. with a total estimated bid amount of $182,059 (Net HST
Rebate) for the initial one-year term and an estimated five-year contract value of
$800,265 (Net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms,
conditions and specifications of CL2024-16 be awarded the contract for
Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair;
3. That pending satisfactory performance and price, the Purchasing Manager, in
consultation with the Director of Public Works, be given the authority to extend the
contract for this service for up to four additional one-year terms;
4. That the total estimated funds required for this project for the first-year term in the
amount of $200,265 (Net HST Rebate) includes $182,059 (Net HST Rebate) for the
maintenance hole and catch basin repair and contingency in the amount of $18,206
be funded by the Municipality as provided. The estimated funds required for the
second, third, fourth and fifth-year terms are included in future budget accounts.
Description Account Number Amount
CATCH BASIN/SEWER MTNCE -
CONTRACT
100-36-380-10245-7163 $200,265
5. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-026-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 90
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-026-24
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award tender CL2024-16 for Maintenance Hole and
Catch Basin Repair.
1. Background
1.1 Tender specifications for Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair were prepared by
the Public Works Division and provided to the Purchasing Services Division.
1.2 Tender CL2024-16 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality’s website.
1.3 Eighteen plan takers downloaded the tender document.
2. Analysis
2.1 The tender closed on April 23, 2024.
2.2 Four bids were received in response to the tender call.
2.3 The bids were reviewed and tabulated by the Purchasing Services Division (see
Attachment 1) and deemed compliant. The results were forwarded to the Public Works
Division for their review and consideration.
2.4 After review and analysis by the Public Works Division and the Purchasing Services
Division, it was mutually agreed that the low-compliant bidder, Defina Haulage Ltd. be
recommended for award of tender CL2024-16.
2.5 Defina Haulage Ltd. has not worked for the Municipality in the past; however, references
were checked and came back satisfactory.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The annual funding required for the first-year term in the estimated amount of $200,265
(Net HST Rebate) will be funded by the Municipality as provided. Future budget
accounts include the funds required for the second, third, fourth, and fifth-year term
terms and requirements will be adjusted to stay within the approved annual budget of
$150,000.
Page 91
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-026-24
Description Account Number Amount
CATCH BASIN/SEWER
MTNCE - CONTRACT
100-36-380-10245-7163 $200,265
3.2 Pricing submitted for Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair is to remain firm for the
first year of the contract. For future contract years, the unit prices would be adjusted on
the anniversary date of the contract award by the annual percentage change in the most
recent issuance of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), All Items, Ontario, as published by
Statistics Canada and the pricing will remain firm for the contract year.
3.3 The total estimated contract value for one year plus four optional additional years is
approximately $800,265 (Net HST Rebate).
3.4 Queries with respect to the department’s needs should be referred to the Director of
Public Works.
4. Strategic Plan
Not Applicable.
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Public Services and the Director of
Public Works who concur with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Defina Haulage Ltd. being the lowest compliant
bidder, be awarded the contract for Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Tender CL2024-16.
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext. 2210 or
smckee@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Summary of Bid Results
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 92
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-026-24
Attachment 1 to Report FSD-026-24
Municipality of Clarington
Summary of Bid Results
Tender CL2024-16
Maintenance Hole and Catch Basin Repair
Bidder
One-Year
Total Bid
(Net HST Rebate)
Potential Five-Year
Total Bid
(Net HST Rebate)
Defina Haulage Ltd. $182,058.82 $800,264.70
Drocon Inc. 279,158.21 907,074.03
GIP Paving Inc. 323,357.66 955,693.43
Aqua Tech Solutions Inc. 433,752.00 1,077,127.20
Page 93
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-027-24
Authored by: Trevor Pinn
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Financial Policies Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-027-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the Draft “Financial Management Policy”, as Attachment 1, be approved;
3. That the Revised “Multi-Year Budget Policy” as Attachment 2, be approved;
4. That the Revised “Development Charges Interest Policy” (formerly G17) as
Attachment 3, be approved
5. That the Revised “Strategic Asset Management Policy”, as Attachment 4, be
approved;
6. That Council approved policies G5 “Capital Project Overexpenditure”, G15
“Surplus/Deficit Allocation Policy”, G16 “Bank Signing Authority”, “Debt Management
Policy” be rescinded;
7. That By-law 97-203 be repealed as it relates to TR-86-97 “Accounts Receivable
Collections Policy (Overdue Accounts); and
8. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-027-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 94
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-027-24
Report Overview
In 2023, the Municipality revised and modernized its policy governance structure. As a
result, several former policies will be changed to management directives as they were
operational in nature.
Staff took this opportunity to consolidate certain Council approved policies into a Financial
Management Policy which will be the core source of strategic direction for financial
management. Management directives will be created in the future to enhance and follow the
policy direction of the Financial Management Policy.
1. Background
1.1 In 2023, the Municipality adopted Policy CP-001 Clarington Policy System. This system
created Council Policies, Management Directives and Standard Operating Procedures.
1.2 Finance and Technology Staff have reviewed existing policies and are updating former
policies to meet the new guideline, or are recommending rescinding policies as they
meet the definition of management directives.
1.3 Management Directives will be created for the following areas as they are more
operational in nature and overall policy is covered in the proposed new “Financial
Management Policy”:
Former Policy
Number
Name How Dealt With
G1 Accounts Receivable Management Directive
G2 Refunds Management Directive
G3 Emergency Cash Disbursement Management Directive
G4 Capitalization Management Directive
G5 Capital Project Overexpenditure Financial Management Policy
and Management Directive
Page 95
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-027-24
Former Policy
Number
Name How Dealt With
G7 Tax Bill Insert Management Directive
G8 Administration of Contracts Management Directive
G10 Purchasing Card (“PCARD”)
Cardholder
Management Directive
G11 Donation Receipting Referenced in Financial
Management Policy, details
in Management Directive
G12 Petty Cash Management Directive
G14 Budget Policy Rescind as a separate Multi-
Year Budget Policy adopted,
applicable sections added to
Financial Management Policy
G15 Surplus/Deficit Allocation Policy Consolidated into Financial
Management Policy
G16 Bank Signing Authority Policy Consolidated into Financial
Management Policy with
management directives to be
created as necessary
FSD-042-21 Debt Policy Consolidated into Financial
Management Policy with
management directives to be
created as necessary
Page 96
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-027-24
2. Financial Management Policy
2.1 Staff looked at other municipalities, including the City of Toronto, for suggestions on a
consolidated financial management policy. It was felt that one source of financial
management policy would be more efficient for Council, the public and staff rather than
having to research multiple different policies.
2.2 Staff will prepare management directives from the overall Financial Management Policy
to provide administrative clarity as required. This will reduce some of the former policies
to more strategic council decisions rather than operational decisions.
2.3 The proposed policy has sections on the following areas, where there were previous
separate policies those policies were used to draft the applicable section of the
Financial Management Policy:
2.3.1. Budget (references the multi-year budget policy but also includes
requirements under legislation, and interim authorities from the former Budget
Policy)
2.3.2. Spending authority – Operating (from the former Budget Policy)
2.3.3. Spending authority- Capital (modified from Budget Policy and Capital
Overexpenditure. Authority for dealing with overexpenditures is simplified)
2.3.4. Contingency Funds (new)
2.3.5. Surplus/Deficit Allocation (from the former policy)
2.3.6. Reserve and Reserve Funds (new)
2.3.7. Investments (refers to legislated required policy)
2.3.8. Debt (from the former policy)
2.3.9. Financial Reporting (new)
2.3.10. Financial Administration (new)
2.3.11. Donations (new)
2.3.12. Bank Signing Authority (from former policy but reduced in scope)
2.4 The new section for reserve and reserve funds provides how reserve and reserve funds
will be prepared, requires the Deputy CAO/Treasurer to establish target ranges,
Page 97
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-027-24
requires that funds that were budgeted but not required be returned to the reserve fund,
and allows for interfund loans between reserve funds.
2.5 Staff are recommending removing the self-imposed annual debt limit, as a management
directive staff will establish controls for prioritizing and assessing the appropriate use of
debt. This is more of a financial planning strategy and will be presented to Council in
future AMPs and Long-Term Financial Plans.
2.6 A Financial Reporting section was added which requires the Deputy CAO/Treasurer to
prepare the financial report in accordance with GAAP. Management directives for
individual standards or processes will be established as required to document reporting
choices as required.
2.7 A Financial Administration section was included which states that the responsibility for
developing administrative directives and procedures to ensure prudent financial
management and internal controls rests with the Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
2.8 The above authority will be used to establish internal controls, or make administrative
accounting choices such as, for example, the estimated useful life of assets.
2.9 Donations is a new section and provides policy that the Municipality will accept
donations and that tax receipting shall be in accordance with the CRA requirements. An
existing administrative policy will be converted to a management directive, this is in
accordance with CRA guidelines.
2.10 Bank signing authority policy has been converted to a section which requires two
signatures for all external payments. Explicit positions have not been included as titles
could change. A management directive will be created to identify the required signors,
provided that at least two sign on external payments.
3. Multi-Year Budget Policy
3.1 Subsequent to the adoption of the Multi-Year Budget Policy, the Province of Ontario
provided Clarington with “Strong Mayor” powers. The revised policy as included in
Attachment #2, has been revised to reflect the change in responsibilities as a result of
the legislative change. There are also minor housekeeping changes to reflect changes
in titles as a result of recent organizational changes.
4. Development Charges Interest Policy
4.1 The Development Charges Interest Policy was introduced through Report FND-047-20
and was approved through Resolution #GG-452-20 on November 30, 2020 with an
effective date of January 1, 2021.
Page 98
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-027-24
4.2 The policy set an interest rate for deferred development charges resulting from changes
introduced through the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019. This act provided the
mandatory deferral of development charges for rental housing and institutional
development (six installments over five years) and non-profit housing developments (21
payments over 20 years).
4.3 The policy also set an interest rate for the period of time that DCs were “frozen” after the
application date for a maximum of two years (this is now proposed to be 18 months
through Bill 185).
4.4 Certain projects were approved by Council to be a 0% interest rate (non-profit housing
through the Region of Durham, hospices). Development charges was set based on the
Bank of Canada rate + 2 per cent.
4.5 Since the time of the passing of the policy, the Province has set a prescribed rate of
interest. The policy amendments propose added wording to set the rate at the
Province’s prescribed rate, and if there is no prescribed rate the existing rate structure is
maintained. The policy also clarifies a reference of when interest is charged to include
all of section 4, as was the intent. The policy amendment also follows the new policy
template and adds roles and responsibilities as a result. Types of development that
have since been made DC exempt have also been removed.
5. Strategic Asset Management Policy
5.1 The Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 includes the requirements for
municipalities in Ontario to meet certain asset management planning requirements.
Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure
outlines several requirements for municipalities in detail, one is the requirement for a
strategic asset management policy.
5.2 The Municipality approved their Strategic Asset Management Policy in 2019 and is
required to review it at least every five years. The attached revised policy meets this
requirement. The changes to the policy reflect the change in the policy format template
adopted in 2023, and title changes for applicable staff. There were no substantive
changes to the policy.
6. Management Directives
6.1 With the adoption of the new policy framework in 2023, there are several former council
policies and corporate policies which will be converted to management directives. These
were highlighted in the table above.
Page 99
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-027-24
6.2 Management directives will be written to comply with the Council adopted policies as
well as the Council adopted Long-term Financial Planning Framework. Management
directives are operational in nature and may include items such as estimated useful life
of assets, internal controls among other items. In some cases, the management
directive will be the former policy (either administrative or council approved) in the new
format.
7. Financial Considerations
7.1 Not Applicable.
8. Strategic Plan
8.1 Not applicable.
9. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
10. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the attached policies be approved and the former
policies be repealed/rescinded as necessary.
Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA Deputy CAO/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 x2602 or
tpinn@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft Financial Management Policy
Attachment 2 – Revised Multi-Year Budget Policy
Attachment 3 – Revised Development Charges Interest Policy
Attachment 4 – Revised Strategic Asset Management Policy
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 100
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 1 of 13
Number: CP-00#
Title: Financial Control
Type: Financial Management
Sub-type: Administrative
Owner: Finance and Technology Services
Finance
Approved By: Council
Approval Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Effective Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Revised Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Applicable to: All staff
1. Legislative or Administrative Authority:
1.1. The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) is committed to responsible
financial management of spending, revenue generation, and program delivery
in accordance with the Municipal Act.
1.2. The Municipal Act, 2001 regulates the activities and governance of
municipalities in Ontario. Financial management principles are identified
throughout the Act, overall, this policy is governed by legislation approved by
the Province.
2. Purpose:
2.1. This policy documents and establishes sound governance and strong internal
controls for financial management and ensures compliance with applicable
legislation.
3. Scope:
3.1. This applies to all departments, divisions, boards, agencies, and committees of
the Municipality forming the consolidated entity.
4. Definitions:
4.1. Annual Repayment Limit - The calculation provided annually to a municipality
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, or successor, that determines
Page 101
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 2 of 13
the maximum amount of additional debt servicing costs that a municipality can
undertake or guarantee without seeking approval of the Province of Ontario.
4.2. Asset Management Plan - A plan developed for the management of assets
that combines multi -disciplinary management techniques over the life cycle of
the asset in the most cost- effective manner to provide a specific level of
service.
4.3. Capital Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund – A reserve fund created to help
mitigate the infrastructure gap without impacting the tax levy. It is funded by
continual contributions from any annual surplus funds.
4.4. Capital Financing - A generic term for the financing of capital assets using
reserve and reserve funds
4.5. Debentures- A debt instrument issued by a municipal corporation and secured
by municipal general fund revenues. They are formal written obligations to
repay specific sums on certain dates. In our two-tiered Regional government,
the regional municipality issues debentures on behalf of the lower tier.
4.6. Debt - An obligation for the repayment of money. For Ontario municipalities,
long-term debt normally consists of debentures; short-term debt normally
consists of notes or loans from financial institutions. Inter-fund borrowing, and
debentures issued to Infrastructure Ontario are also considered to be debt.
4.7. Deficit – When, at year end, there is an excess of expenditures over revenues
in the Operating Budget.
4.8. Department Head – Department Heads are the following positions – Deputy
CAO, Legislative Services/Solicitor, Deputy CAO, Finance and
Technology/Treasurer, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure and Deputy
CAO, Public Services.
4.9. Deputy CAO/Treasurer – The full title of the position is Deputy CAO, Finance
and Technology Department/Treasurer. For brevity in the document, the title is
shown ass Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
4.10. Division Head – Division Heads refer to the Director, or equivalent, who is
responsible for the operations of a division within a department.
Page 102
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 3 of 13
4.11. Inter-fund Borrowing – under which financial resources are internally
transferred from one fund to another with the intent to repay the borrowed
funds plus applicable interest. If inter-fund borrowing is long-term in nature it
shall be reported to the Region of Durham.
4.12. Internal controls - are policies and procedures implemented by an
organization to ensure their financial reports are reliable, operations are
efficient, and activities are compliant with applicable laws and regulations.
4.13. Long-term debt- A term longer than one fiscal year. If the Municipality incurs
debt that will not be repaid within a fiscal year, this borrowing must go through
the Region of Durham.
4.14. Reserves - are an allocation of accumulated surpluses that make no reference
to any specific asset and does not require the physical segregation of money.
Reserves are part of the general fund and therefore do not earn interest like a
reserve fund
4.15. Reserve Funds - are segregated monies restricted to meet a specific purpose
and are established either through by-law of the Municipality, legislation or
agreement. Reserve funds are generally disbursed to fund long-term financial
strategies and capital projects. Reserve funds receive an annual interest
allocation based on the average annual balance. There are two types of
reserve funds, obligatory and discretionary.
4.16. Obligatory Reserve Funds are reserve funds established by legislation or
agreement for a unique purpose on behalf of the contributor. Examples are
Development Charges and Federal Gas Tax funds.
4.17. Discretionary Reserve Funds are reserve funds established for a specific
purpose by Council for future expenditures. Examples are Rate Stabilization
and Strategic Capital.
4.18. Surplus – When, at year-end, there is an excess of revenues over
expenditures in the Operating Budget.
4.19. Short-term debt- A term equal to or less than one fiscal year. This type of
borrowing does not require upper tier approval.
4.20. Sinking Fund – A segregated pool of funds managed by the Region of
Durham for which an estimated amount in each year, with interest
Page 103
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 4 of 13
compounded annually, will be sufficient to pay the principal of the related
Sinking Fund Debentures at maturity.
4.21. Retirement Fund – A segregated pool of funds managed by the Region of
Durham for a class of Debentures other than a sinking fund or term debenture.
In each year the fund must contain an amount equal to or greater than the
amount required for the repayment of the principal of specific Debentures in
that year if the principal had been payable in equal annual instalments and the
Debentures had been issued for the maximum period authorized by the
Municipality for the repayment of the Debt for which the Debentures were
issued.
5. Policy Requirements:
Budget
5.1. The Municipality will prepare a multi-year budget in accordance with CP-002
Multi-Year Budget Policy.
5.2. The Municipality will prepare and adopt, as required by the Municipal Act,
2001, a budget which is balanced and in accordance with O.Reg.284/09
Budget Matters-Expenses.
5.3. The following authority is provided, in adopting the total of all sums required
during the year for the operating purposes of the Municipality, shall, in
accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, determine the operating budget
required to provide for the sums required for every purpose and the sums
required for the various categories of purposes:
5.3.1. Prior to February 1, the authority for establishing the budget shall be with the
Mayor, or designate, in accordance with Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001
5.3.2. If the Mayor has not exercised their power in accordance with the above,
Council may present and adopt a budget.
5.4. Departments are authorized to expend funds at the previous years’ service
levels, unless otherwise by Council until the current operating budget has been
adopted. New programming or service enhancements are not to be initiated
prior to the operating budget adopted.
Page 104
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 5 of 13
5.5. When authority has not been granted through the Operating Budget for an
expenditure, a department shall not expend funds unless,
5.5.1. A report was prepared by the Director or Deputy CAO requiring the funds and
approve outside of the budget process by Council.
5.5.2. An emergency occurs requiring the immediate use of funds approved by the
CAO in accordance with the Municipality’s Purchasing By-Law.
5.6. The Mayor, or Council as appropriate, in adopting the capital budget, shall
determine the sums required for each capital project listed in the capital
budget, and each sum provided for a capital project shall be a capital account.
5.7. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer shall certify that funding for the capital projects in
the capital budget is within the Municipality’s updated debt and financial
obligation limit.
Spending Authority - Operating
5.8. No expenditure shall be made and no account shall be paid by or on behalf of
the Municipality, except with Council approval and in accordance with this
Policy.
5.9. No commitment shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of this
Policy and the provisions of the Purchasing Policy.
5.10. Each Department and Division are responsible for monitoring their budget for
both revenue and expenditures on a regular basis. Departments may not
knowingly exceed their budget allotment.
5.11. The Municipality no longer allows petty cash funds. The exception would be
those set up for corporate emergencies including the Emergency Operations
Centre.
5.12. Department Heads are authorized to adjust their budgets during the year as
follows:
5.12.1. Increases to any line items are to be offset by a corresponding decrease in
another item or through enhanced revenues that will be realized by the
additional expenditure.
Page 105
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 6 of 13
5.12.2. Accounts that are used to offset another account must be of a related service
either by division or at the discretion of the Treasurer.
5.12.3. Notwithstanding the source of funding, all expenditures shall be recorded in
their appropriate account for reporting purposes.
Spending Authority – Capital
5.13. The capital budget adopted by Council establishes the spending authority for a
capital project.
5.14. Division Heads shall ensure that expenditures do not exceed the approved
budget.
5.15. Department Heads shall report any anticipated over-expenditure to the Deputy
CAO/Treasurer as soon as the potential over-expenditure is known.
5.16. Over-expenditures on a capital project.
5.16.1. A Department Head is authorized to approve additional expenditures where
costs for a capital project increase to the extent that they exceed the original
funding approval for the capital project by the lesser of 10 per cent or
$250,000.
5.16.2. Such funding required shall be from another capital project within the
department, or from additional sources of funding (such as additional grants,
fundraising, etc).
5.16.3. Where any impacted project includes the use restricted funds, such as
development charges, the Department Head shall seek the concurrence of the
Treasurer.
Contingency Funds
5.17. Contingency Funds – A contingency fund is the money approved in the
operating budget to provide funding for one-time expenditures that were not
known or expected at the time the operating budget was adopted.
5.18. Contingency funds may only be used for:
Page 106
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 7 of 13
5.19. onetime non-recurring costs that were not identified at the time the operating
budget was adopted; and
5.20. unforeseen expenditures resulting from economic, climatic, in-year legislative
changes from senior levels of government and legal settlements.
5.21. The funds shall not be used for programs, and approval must be obtained by
Deputy CAO/Treasurer for any use of the contingency fund.
Surplus/Deficit Allocation
5.22. In the event of an annual operating budget surplus the Deputy CAO/Treasurer
is authorized to distribute the surplus to appropriate reserve and reserve funds
as follows:
5.22.1. Transfer any unspent winter control budget to the Winter Control Stabilization
Reserve Fund.
5.22.2. Transfer carry over amounts to be utilized in the following fiscal year to the
General Capital Reserve, this shall only be used for year-end timing purposes.
5.22.3. Transfer any restricted funds to the appropriate reserve or reserve fund, this
may include grants which have not fully been utilized or development charges
collected and not utilized during the year.
5.22.4. Transfer up to 30 per cent of the discretionary operating surplus to the Rate
Stabilization Reserve Fund.
5.22.5. Transfer up to 30 per cent of any discretionary operating surplus to the Capital
Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund.
5.22.6. Transfer up to 40 per cent of any discretionary operating surplus to any reserve
or reserve funds operating below their minimum target balances as outlined in
the Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy
5.22.7. If surplus funds remain after this prescribed distribution, the remaining amount
shall be added evenly to the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund and
Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund.
Page 107
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 8 of 13
5.23. In the event of an annual budget deficit the Deputy CAO/Treasurer is
authorized to use their discretion to manage the operating deficiency and to
fund the deficit in the same manner as identified in paragraph 5.22.
5.24. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer shall report to Council, the surplus or deficit
amount and the distribution of the funds as part of the annual financial
reporting process.
Reserves and Reserve Funds
5.25. The creation (or amendment) of a reserve or reserve fund will be through the
budget process, by Council resolution, as stipulated in agreements, or as
required by legislation.
5.26. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer shall establish target ranges for the prudent
financial management of reserve funds. The targets shall consider the purpose
of the fund, financial plans and forecasts and economic factors as appropriate.
5.27. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer will regularly monitor the reserve and reserve fund
balances to ensure the Municipality is positioned to meet its long-term financial
commitments and respond to financial opportunities that may arise.
5.28. Council will authorize all appropriations to reserves and reserve funds either
through a resolution or an adopted budget.
5.29. Any funds budgeted for a capital project or specific program that are
unexpended shall be automatically returned to the appropriate reserve fund in
accordance to the timelines established in this Policy.
5.30. Reserve funds relating to the Strategic Capital Reserve Fund (previously Host
Community Trust Funds) and funds from municipal utility investments will be a
separate Council approved policy.
5.31. Council may authorize lending between reserve funds in order to provide for
short-term deficits with interim financing. Lending between reserve funds
requires a strong business plan and the recommendation of the Deputy
CAO/Treasurer.
5.32. If the intention or objective for a discretionary reserve or reserve fund is fulfilled
and deemed no longer necessary then the Deputy CAO/Treasurer shall
prepare a report to Council. The report will detail the complete objectives
Page 108
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 9 of 13
fulfilled by the reserve or reserve fund, the dispersal of any remaining funds
and any by-laws required to amend or repeal to complete process.
5.33. Reserve Funds will be invested in accordance with the Municipality’s
Investment Policy, any interest earned shall be allocated proportionately.
5.34. Council shall receive estimated reserve and reserve fund balances, projected
contributions and planned expenditure withdrawals presented with the annual
budget update. Annually, the Treasurer will provide updated balances and
forecasts for the reserve funds and reserves based on completion of the
Municipality’s audited financial statements.
5.35. No expenditure shall be made and no account shall be paid by or on behalf of
the Municipality, except with Council approval and in accordance with this
Policy.
Investments
5.36. The Municipality shall invest under the Prudent Investor Standard in
accordance with the CP-003 Investment Policy (Legal List).
5.37. Funds deemed by the Treasurer to be required immediately shall be be
invested in accordance with the CP-003 Investment Policy- Eligible List.
Debt
5.38. Council may, where it is deemed in the best interest of taxpayers, approve the
issuance of debt for its own purposes.
5.39. Prior to the issuance of any new debentures or the incurrence of additional
debt, consideration will be given to its impact on future ratepayers in order to
achieve an appropriate balance between capital financing and other forms of
funding while ensuring that the taxpayer benefitting from the use of the asset is
the one paying for it (known as inter-generational equity).
5.40. The primary considerations for capital financing and debt program, in order of
importance, shall be to:
1) Adhere to statutory requirements;
2) Ensure long-term financial flexibility;
Page 109
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 10 of 13
3) Limit financial risk exposure; and
4) Minimize the cost of long-term financing
5.41. The Municipality will not exceed the legislated Annual Repayment Limit as
established by the Province of Ontario.
5.42. The term of temporary or short-term borrowing for operating purposes will not
exceed the current fiscal year.
5.43. The term of the capital financing will not exceed the lessor of 40 years, or the
useful life of the underlying asset being financed.
5.44. Long-term debt (borrowing) will only be issued for capital projects owned by
the Municipality of Clarington.
5.45. As part of the annual budget, a Long-term Debt Forecast and Financial
Obligation Management Plan that includes projections for each year over a
multi-year period of estimated long-term debt and financial obligation payments
compared to the annual debt repayment limit.
5.46. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer will present Council a statement indicating that the
debt management plan is in compliance with this policy.
Financial Reporting
5.47. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer is responsible for the preparation of annual
financial statements as required by the Municipal Act and in accordance with
established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Financial Administration
5.48. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer is responsible for, and shall be required to develop
the administrative directives and procedures to ensure prudent financial
management and internal control framework for the Municipality.
5.49. Management Directives for the purpose of responsible financial administration
and controls. This will include but is not limited to the following:
a) Cash handling
Page 110
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 11 of 13
b) Payments and purchasing cards
c) Invoicing and Accounts Receivable
d) Interest charges
e) Refunds
f) Taxation
g) Spending Approval limits
Donations
5.50. The Municipality may accept donations for its own purposes, including Boards
of Council. Such donations may be for the municipality's services, programs, or
capital projects but may not specifically benefit an identifiable individual.
5.51. The tax receipting for donations shall be in accordance with Canada Revenue
Agency (CRA) requirements and set out in a management directive to the
satisfaction of the Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
Bank Signing Authority
5.52. All external disbursements of the Municipality require two signatures or
electronic approvals from the appropriately designated persons.
5.53. The appointment of authorized signers shall be established through a
management directive to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
5.54. Each board, committee, agency within the reporting requirements of the
Municipality shall establish a procedure for the approval of disbursements
which shall include a minimum dual signature requirement for all
disbursements.
Review
5.55. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer shall undertake a comprehensive review of this
Policy at least once per term of Council.
Page 111
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 12 of 13
6. Roles and Responsibilities:
6.1. Council is responsible for:
6.1.1 Establishing the Municipality’s philosophy through the adaption of this policy.
6.2. Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for:
6.2.1. Approving management directives that establish the operation framework of
financial management.
6.3. Deputy CAO/Treasurer is responsible for:
6.3.1. Ensure the development of management directives in support of this policy.
6.3.2. Ensuring that this policy and associated management directives are adhered
to.
6.4. Deputy CAOs, Directors and Managers are responsible for the following
within their scope of authority:
6.4.1. Ensuring staff are trained on this policy.
6.5. All Staff are responsible for:
6.5.1. Ensuring compliance with the Finance Management Policy.
7. Related Documents:
7.1. CP-002 Multi-Year Budget Policy
7.2. CP-005 User Fee Revenue Policy
7.3. CP-003 Investment Policy (Legal List)
7.4. CP-TBD Investment Policy (Prudent Investor)
7.5. Long-term Financial Planning Strategy
7.6. Delegation of Authority By-law
Page 112
Attachment 1 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 13 of 13
8. Inquiries:
8.1. Deputy CAO/Treasurer
8.2. Manager, Accounting Services/Deputy Treasurer
8.3. Manager, Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
9. Revision History:
Date Description of Changes Approved By
Page 113
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 1 of 9
Number: CP-002#
Title: Multi Year Budget Policy
Type: Financial Management
Sub-type: Click or tap here to enter text.
Owner: Finance and Technology
Financial Planning
Approved By: Council
Approval Date: May 1, 2023
Effective Date: May 1, 2023
Revised Date: June 3, 2024
Applicable to: All Staff
1. Legislative or Administrative Authority:
This policy was developed in accordance with Section 291 of the Municipal Act, 2001,
which authorizes a municipality to prepare and adopt a budget covering a period of two
to five years in the first year to which the budget applies or in the year immediately
preceding the first year to which the budget applies.
2. Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to define the procedures for multiple-year budget
approvals. The policy defines the budget planning timeframe as a minimum four-year
outlook to support stable and efficient financial management and predictable taxation
and user rates for stakeholders.
3. Scope:
The scope of multi-year budgeting, including both operating and capital, extends to all
Municipality of Clarington departments and boards and applies to both tax-supported
as well as user fee-supported budgets.
4. Definitions:
4.1. Administrative Changes – Adjustments in future years of a Multi-year Budget
categorized as “housekeeping” items whereby budget funds can be reallocated
within Services to realign the existing Operating Budget and have a net zero
impact to the tax or user rates levied. Capital budget “housekeeping” items are
Page 114
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 2 of 9
defined as items less than $100,000 having a net zero impact, are similar
projects with similar funding and can be realigned with the approved Multi-year
Budget period.
4.2. Boards and Agencies – Groups outside the Corporation, typically (although
not always) funded by the property tax base, which provide specific and/or
specialized services to the community in Clarington.
4.3. Budget – An estimated financial plan of revenues and expenditures for a
defined period.
4.4. Budget Year – The period January 1 to December 31, as defined in the
Municipal Act, 2001.
4.5. Capital Budget – A budget that funds new infrastructure projects as well as
expands and maintains existing infrastructure.
4.6. Initial Budget – The first budget in the multi-year budget cycle.
4.7. Material Changes – An individual item or summation of Operating Budget
items that would have an annual impact of 0.50% to the property tax levy and
payment in lieu of taxes to be levied in a future years’ Budget. Material
changes may result in a change to the approved levy or user rates. A capital
project or summation of Capital Budget projects that would have an annual
impact greater than $500,000.
4.8. Multi-year Budget – Approval of a four-year operating and capital budget
4.9. Multi-year Budget Policy – Refers to this Policy.
4.10. Municipal Act – Refers to the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended.
4.11. Municipality of Clarington – The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
4.12. Net Budget – The net budget is the cost to deliver Clarington’s programs and
services, after accounting for all non-tax/non-rate revenues and subsidies
received. This is the portion of the budget paid for through property taxes.
4.13. Operating Budget – A budget that funds the day-to-day operations of the
Municipality.
Page 115
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 3 of 9
4.14. Reportable Changes – An individual Operating Budget item that would have
an annual impact between 0.05% and 0.49% to the property tax change and
payment in lieu of taxes to be levied in a future years’ Budget and is managed
within the existing approved budget, with no change to the approved levy
increase or user rate increase. A capital project adjustment with a net $0
impact and less than $500,000.
4.15. Senior Leadership Team – The senior management team of the Municipality
consisting of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the heads of the
Municipality’s departments.
4.16. Service – An organizational unit of the Municipality, possibly a department or
division, which is functionally unique its delivery of service.
4.17. Treasurer – The individual appointed by the Municipality as Treasurer in
accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001.
5. Policy Requirements:
General
5.1. A Multi-Year Budget is developed covering a four-year period beginning in the
second year of a new Council term.
5.2. Annual updates for years two and three will be brought forward for Council
consideration during the remaining Council term. The first year of a new
Council term will reconfirm the fourth year of the Multi-Year Budget.
5.3. In the first year of a new Council term, Council will develop its Strategic Plan.
Council will approve a four-year average annual tax levy adjustment from rates
that address municipal inflationary pressures and funding for additional
investments that are aligned with Council’s Strategic Plan.
5.4. After Council approves the Strategic Plan and the Multi-Year Budget, the
Senior Leadership Team will prepare corporate business plans that clearly
outline the current state and future direction of each service.
5.5. The business plans will identify the strategies and priorities that are driving the
strategic direction of the service. All strategies and priorities must be aligned
Page 116
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 4 of 9
with the Council’s Strategic Plan and the funding approved through the Multi-
Year Budget.
5.6. The Treasurer, or designate, may release budget funds prior to a new Multi-
Year Budget or annual budget update approval up to a prorated amount based
on the previous fiscal year’s approved budget. Such authorization will continue
for a reasonable period of time until budget approval of a new Multi-Year
Budget or Annual Budget Update.
Budget Adjustments
5.7. Throughout the Multi-Year Budget process, business plans will be modified for
material changes that result from any material amendments through annual
updates.
5.8. The Senior Leadership Team will present to Council a budget that is in
compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001. The budget will contain adjustments
to reflect inflationary pressures and additional investments or disinvestments
that would further adjust the budget requirement. Each additional investment or
disinvestment submitted for Council consideration shall be supported with a
comprehensive business case.
5.9. In the first year of a budget cycle, the Senior Leadership Team will be seeking
approval of a Multi-Year Budget for a four-year period. Commencing in the
second year and in each subsequent year of the multi-year budget, Council is
required by the Municipal Act, 2001 to review and readopt the budget for that
year. As part of the review process, Council is required to make changes that
are required for the purpose of making the budget compliant with the
provisions of the Act which include ensuring that the municipality has sufficient
funds to pay all debts, amounts required for sinking funds or retirement funds
and amounts required for boards, commissions or other bodies. As such,
Council will have the opportunity to make other amendments to the budget
annually.
5.10. In addition to the matters required to be addressed by the Municipal Act, 2001,
the scope of annual budget changes may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
5.10.1. New or Changed Regulation – A new or changed legislation or regulation with
a financial impact to the Municipality.
Page 117
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 5 of 9
5.10.2. New Council Direction – A new Council direction that has transpired after the
approval of the Multi-Year Budget.
5.10.3. Cost or Revenue Driver – A corporate or service area budget adjustment
because of changes in economic conditions.
5.11. Proposed changes to future years’ operating budgets should only be brought
forward and approved once per year. Adjustments are limited to one per year,
during the annual update period, to ensure that all requests are considered
together.
Administrative Change Process
5.12. There is an opportunity for Services to realign the budget, provided it has a net
zero impact and is administrative in nature.
5.13. It is not permissible to create new programs, or implement new fees, as by
definition, the changes must be administrative and have no impact to service
levels.
5.14. Any changes must be a reallocation of one expense to another expense, or
from one revenue source to another revenue source, thereby having no overall
financial impact.
5.15. Changes affecting both revenues and expenses with a net zero impact will be
approved by a member of the Senior Leadership Team and the Deputy
CAO/Treasurer.
5.16. Capital projects that are similar in nature and have a similar or interchangeable
funding source.
Reportable Change Process
5.17. There is an opportunity for Services to make budget adjustments providing the
net amount is between 0.05 per cent and 0.49 per cent of the property tax levy
or a capital project between $100,001 and $499,999.
5.18. Any changes will not have an impact on the property tax levy or the user fee
rates and charges or service levels.
Page 118
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 6 of 9
5.19. Any net increase, or decrease, in the budget will be managed through
efficiencies with offsetting expense reductions or through reserve transfers or
grant funding. All changes are accommodated within the approved budget.
5.20. Changes will be adopted through the annual budget update process.
Material Change Process
5.21. A material change crosses the threshold of 0.50 per cent of the property tax
levy or a capital project $500,000 or greater.
5.22. Budget requests and capital projects will be reviewed, and possible re-
prioritization may occur to accommodate the material change within the
existing approved budget.
5.23. Changes may have an impact on the property tax levy or the user fees, rates
and charges or service levels.
5.24. All material changes will be presented to Council through the annual budget
update process.
6. Roles and Responsibilities:
Roles and Responsibilities section should be organized by the position, department, or
committee that has certain required responsibilities in maintaining compliance and
implementing the policy.
6.1. The Mayor is responsible for:
6.1.1. Presenting a budget to Council by February 1 of each year.
6.1.2. If desired, providing direction to Staff on the preparation of the budget on the
Mayor’s behalf.
6.2. Council is responsible for:
6.2.1. Establishing priorities through the Strategic Plan.
6.2.2. Reviewing, and proposing amendments, if desired, to the Budget
6.2.3. Approving the rates required for taxation and user fees by by-law.
Page 119
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 7 of 9
6.2.4. Preparing and presenting a budget if the Mayor does not meet the legislated
timeline of February 1 of each year.
6.3. Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for:
6.3.1. Directing, in co-operation with the Treasurer and the Senior Leadership Team,
the preparation and presentation of the Budget.
6.3.2. Exercising financial control over all corporate operations in conjunction with the
Treasurer and the Senior Leadership Team to ensure compliance with the
Council-approved Budget.
6.4. Deputy CAO/Treasurer is responsible for:
6.4.1. Planning, leading, and coordinating the overall preparation, engagement,
communication, and administration of the Budget, both internally and externally
6.4.2. Ensuring adherence to budget policies and financial policies as approved by
Council.
6.4.3. Developing the funding strategies for the financing of the Budget.
6.4.4. Coordinating with Local Boards and Agencies to incorporate their budget
requirements into the Budget and forecasts.
6.5. Deputy CAOs and Directors are responsible for the following within their
scope of authority:
6.5.1. Reviewing and approving the annual budget strategy.
6.5.2. Reviewing and recommending a Departmental/Divisional Budget that is aligned
to the Strategic Plan to Council.
6.5.3. Each Deputy CAO or Director and the CAO are accountable for their individual
respective service area budgets.
6.5.4. Recognizing the priorities of the Municipality as a whole, separate from specific
departmental priorities, during the decision-making process.
Page 120
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 8 of 9
6.5.5. Maintaining a culture of data-driven decision-making that is a result of
appropriate internal collaboration, alignment to the Strategic Plan, business
case option assessment, and risk management.
6.5.6. Supporting transparent and open communication of budget performance and
financial risks to Council.
6.6. Managers are responsible for the following within their scope of
authority:
6.6.1. Developing and recommending, individually, an itemized multiple-year service
budget and forecast to the Senior Leadership Team in accordance with
established guidelines, timelines, and process.
6.6.2. Developing service business plans that identify operating and capital resource
requirements to address changing service delivery needs and implementation
of Strategic Plan initiatives.
6.6.3. Ensuring that the resources and assets under their authority are effectively
managed on an ongoing basis.
6.7. All Staff are responsible for:
6.7.1. Ensuring that resources are utilized within the parameters set by the Council-
approved budget.
7. Related Documents:
7.1. Not applicable
8. Inquiries:
8.1. Manager of Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
9. Revision History:
Date Description of Changes Approved By
June 3, 2024 Changes to reflect “Strong Mayor
Powers:” impact to budget
Page 121
Attachment 2 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 9 of 9
Page 122
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 1 of 7
Number: CP-00#
Title: Development Charges Interest Rate
Type: Financial Management
Sub-type: Click or tap here to enter text.
Owner: Financial and Technology
Financial Planning
Approved By: Council
Approval Date: January 1, 2021
Effective Date: January 1, 2021
Revised Date: June 17, 2024
Applicable to: All Departments
1. Legislative or Administrative Authority:
1.1. This policy was developed in accordance with Sections 26.1, 26.2, and 26.3 of
the Development Charges Act, 1997, which provides municipalities with the
ability to charge interest, at a prescribed maximum rate, on certain
development charge payments as permitted.
2. Purpose:
2.1. The purpose of this policy is to establish the rules and practices for charging
interest, as permitted under sections 26.1, 26.2, and 26.3 of the Development
Charges Act, 1997.
2.2. This policy will support the Municipality’s ability to build growth-related
infrastructure in a way that is financially sustainable and will help achieve the
following outcomes:
2.2.1. Good government providing reliable programs and services
2.2.2. Continued delivery of complete communities in a fiscally sustainable way
2.2.3. Fair and equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved in delivering housing
supply, including residents, businesses and developers.
Page 123
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 2 of 7
3. Scope:
3.1. This policy applies to the charging of interest, as permitted under sections
26.1, 26.2, and 26.3 of the Development Charges Act, 1997. This includes all
types of development in the Municipality of Clarington:
3.1.1. That are eligible for instalment payments under section 26.1 of the
Development Charges Act, 1997
3.1.2. Under section 26.2 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, where an
application for approval of development in a site plan control area under
subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act, 1990 has been made, or where an
application for an approval of a development in a site plan control area under
subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act has not been made, but where an
application has been made for an amendment to a bylaw passed under section
34 of the Planning Act, 1990.
4. Definitions:
4.1. Act – The Development Charges Act, 1997, as amended, revised, re-enacted,
or consolidated from time to time, and any successor statute.
4.2. Development – The construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings
or structures on land. This includes the making of an addition or alteration to a
building or structure that has the effect of increasing the size or changing the
use from non-residential to residential or from residential to non-residential and
includes redevelopment.
4.3. Development Charge(s) – The Municipality of Clarington’s development
charges.
4.4. Total Accrued Amount – Equal to the total of the development charges and
interest which has accrued.
Page 124
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 3 of 7
5. Policy Requirements:
Regulatory Framework
5.1. Under the Act, development charges shall be paid in equal annual installments,
beginning at the earlier of first occupancy or occupancy permit under the
Building Code, Act, 1992 for:
5.1.1. Rental housing development
5.1.2. Institutional development
5.2. Subsection 26.1 (7) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 allows a
municipality to charge interest on the instalments from the date of the
development charges would have been payable under section 26 of the Act, to
the date the instalment is paid, at a rate not to exceed a prescribed maximum
rate.
5.3. Subsection 26.2 (1) of the Act states that the total amount of a development
charge is determined on:
5.3.1. The day an application for an approval of development under subsection 41 (4)
of the Planning Act was made, or
5.3.2. If clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment to a
bylaw passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made.
5.4. Under subsection 26.2 (3) of the Act, a municipality may charge interest on the
development charge, at a rate not exceeding the prescribed maximum interest
rate, from the date of application referred to in paragraph 5.3 to the date the
development charge is payable.
5.5. The Act allows a municipality to charge interest on the development charge at
a rate not exceeding the prescribed maximum interest rate.
5.6. The rules for determining the maximum interest rate are prescribed under
section 26.3 of the Act. The maximum interest rate being the average prime
rate, as defined under the Act, plus 1%.
Page 125
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 4 of 7
General Policy
5.7. Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6, for hospices qualifying for the deferral
of development charges, the interest rate shall be 0%. Should a development
no longer qualify as a hospice during the deferral period, the development shall
be charged interest, in accordance with paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6, on any unpaid
development charges from the date that it no longer qualifies.
5.8. The interest rate that shall be used for the first installment payment is the
maximum interest rate permitted under section 26.3 of the Act, at the date the
development charges would have been payable (i.e., building permit issuance).
The interest rate that shall be used for each subsequent installment payment
shall be reset at the date of subsequent installment payments and capped at
the maximum interest rate permitted under section 26.3 of the Act at the date
the development charges were payable (i.e., building permit issuance).
5.9. Where the Province of Ontario has not set a prescribed rate the following
applies:
5.9.1. The interest rate shall be set annually on June 30, for the period July 1 to
December 31, and December 31 for the period January 1 to June 30 of the
following year based on the Bank of Canada’s daily bank rate + 2 per cent.
5.10. In the event the interest rate is amended or revised, the new interest rate shall
apply to the total accrued amount, prorated from the date of the interest rate
change to:
5.10.1. The date the total accrued amount is fully paid, or
5.10.2. The date of a subsequent change in the interest rate
5.11. All interest shall be compounded annually and shall accrue from the date of the
applicable application until the date the total accrued amount is fully paid. For
the purposes of proration, a calendar year is 365 days
5.12. If a subsequent application(s) is made for a development:
5.12.1. The date the subsequent application is made will become the new date under
which the total amount of the development charge is determined;
Page 126
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 5 of 7
5.12.2. All interest that had accrued prior to the subsequent application shall be
deemed to be $0;
5.12.3. Interest will be compounded annually and begin to accrue from the date the
subsequent application is made; and
5.12.4. The amount of the development charges will be calculated as of the date of the
subsequent application.
5.13. If a development was one of the eligible types of development for instalment
payments under section 26.1 of the Act, the total accrued amount shall
continue to accrue interest from the date of the issuance of a building permit.
Interest shall accrue on the outstanding balance until the total accrued amount
has been fully paid.
Effective Date and Transition
5.14. This policy shall take effect on the date it is approved by Council.
5.15. This policy may be repealed and/or modified by Council at any time
5.16. To allow for a transition period, this policy does not apply to any development
where:
5.16.1. An application under sections 34 or 41 (4) of the Planning Act is not required,
but:
a) Still qualifies for instalment payments under section 26.1 of the Act, and
b) Has been issued a building permit for development by the Municipality prior
to July 1, 2020
5.16.2. An application under subsection 41 (4) of the Planning Act is:
a) Made after January 1, 2020, and
b) Has been issued a building permit for development by the Municipality prior
to July 1, 2020
5.16.3. An application for an amendment to a bylaw passed under section 34 of the
Planning Act is:
Page 127
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 6 of 7
a) Made after January 1, 2020, and
b) Has been issued a building permit for development by the Municipality prior
to July 1, 2020
6. Roles and Responsibilities:
6.1. Council is responsible for:
6.1.1. Adopting, reviewing and amending this Policy as appropriate.
6.2. Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for:
6.2.1. Ensuring staff compliance with this Policy.
6.3. Deputy CAO/Treasurer, or delegate, is responsible for the following
within their scope of authority:
6.3.1. Updating this Policy for changes in legislation.
6.3.2. Providing the Chief Building Official the up to date interest rate to be charged
on application freezes and deferrals.
6.3.3. Ensuring that interest is properly charged on deferred amounts.
6.4. Chief Building Official, or delegate, is responsible for the following within
their scope of authority:
6.4.1. Ensuring that applicants are aware of the interest charges to be charged.
6.4.2. Confirm that a complete application was made for the purposes of determining
the total amount of the development charge.
6.4.3. Communicating with Financial Services to ensure that projects qualifying for
deferral are identified.
6.5. All Staff are responsible for:
6.5.1. Following this Policy.
Page 128
Attachment 3 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 7 of 7
7. Related Documents:
7.1. Development Charges By-law
8. Inquiries:
8.1. Manager, Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
8.2. Chief Building Official
9. Revision History:
Date Description of Changes Approved By
June 17, 2024 Update for change in
format.
Add Roles and
Responsibilities section as
this is new.
Update rate policy to reflect
Province of Ontario
Regulation which sets the
rate. If there is no
prescribed rate, the
previous methodology
remains in the Policy.
Removed affordable
housing and non-profit
housing references as
legislation now exempts
them from DCs.
Council
Page 129
Attachment 4 to FSD-027-24
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 1 of 12
Number: CP-00#
Title: Strategic Asset Management Policy
Type: Financial Management
Sub-type: Asset Management
Owner: Finance and Technology
Financial Planning
Approved By: Council
Approval Date: April 29, 2019
Effective Date: April 29, 2019
Revised Date: June 17, 2024
Applicable to: All Departments
1. Legislative or Administrative Authority:
1.1. This policy was developed in accordance with the Infrastructure for Jobs and
Prosperity Act, 2015, which gives the province the authority to guide municipal
asset management planning through regulation. This policy was also
developed in accordance with O. Reg 588/17: Asset Management Planning for
Municipal Infrastructure which requires municipalities to develop a Strategic
Asset Management Policy.
1.1.1. The following resolution was passed by Council regarding the Strategic Asset
Management Policy:
Resolution #GG-220-19 (April 15, 2019)
That Report FND-010-19 be received; and
That the Strategic Asset Management Policy attached to Report FND-010-19 be
approved.
Page 130
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 2 of 12
2. Purpose:
2.1. The Municipality of Clarington is required by O. Reg. 588/17: Asset
Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, under the Infrastructure for
Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, to publish a Strategic Asset Management
Policy.
3. Scope:
3.1. This policy applies to all assets owned by the Municipality of Clarington which
are currently supporting provision of services. Assets which have been
declared surplus and are actively being marketed are not included in the scope
of this policy.
4. Definitions:
4.1. Asset - means an infrastructure asset directly owned by the Municipality or
included on the Municipality’s consolidated financial statements.
4.2. Asset Management - means the coordinated set of activities required to
realize optimal value from municipal Assets. Involves balancing costs,
opportunities and risks against the desired performance of Assets to achieve
strategic objectives.
4.3. Asset Management Plan - means the documented information that specifies
the activities required for an individual Asset, or group of Assets, to achieve the
Municipality’s Asset Management objectives.
4.4. Capitalization Threshold – means the minimum cost an individual asset must
have before it is to be recorded as a capital asset for financial reporting
purposes. The thresholds are outlined in the Municipality’s Capitalization
Policy.
4.5. Lifecycle Activities – means activities undertaken, with respect to a municipal
asset over its service life, that would result in either a capital or significant
operating cost. This may include, but is not limited to, activities such as
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.
4.6. Lifecycle Costs – means the costs associated with Lifecycle Activities.
Page 131
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 3 of 12
4.7. Level of Service - means defined measure(s) that evaluate the effectiveness
of a particular activity as perceived by customers or in relation to a technical
standard or service.
5. Policy Requirements:
Strategic Alignment
5.1. The Municipality of Clarington envisions building a connected, dynamic and
welcoming community. This vision requires the alignment of many initiatives
and it is crucial that all existing and planned asset decisions support both the
recommended levels of service and the long term vision for the community.
5.2. These levels of service will be determined by comparing and developing
performance measures adopted during the preparation of the Asset
Management Plan. The Municipality will reference the metrics required for
departments to measure service levels and support recommendations with
financial sustainability. The Asset Management Plan should be a foundational
document when considering asset decisions, desired levels of service and
current and future budgets.
5.3. Asset management planning cannot occur independent of other municipal
plans and objectives. A holistic approach will be employed to develop a
practical asset management plan that coordinates the responsibilities and
ambitions of our community’s municipal plans. Council and senior
management will review this policy at least once every five years and adopt an
asset management planning approach that integrates:
5.3.1. Municipal Budget
5.3.2. Corporate Strategic Plan
5.3.3. Official Plan and Secondary Plans
5.3.4. Development Charge Studies
5.3.5. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Plans
5.3.6. Master Plans
Page 132
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 4 of 12
Guiding Principles
5.4. The Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 sets out principles to
guide asset management planning for municipalities in Ontario. The
Municipality of Clarington shall incorporate the following principles for asset
management priority setting, planning and investment:
5.4.1. Forward Looking: The Municipality shall take a long-term view while
considering demographic and economic trends in the Region of Durham.
5.4.2. Budgeting and Planning: The Municipality shall take into account any
applicable budgets or fiscal plans, such as fiscal plans released under the
Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004 and Budgets adopted under
Part VII of the Municipal Act, 2001.
5.4.3. Prioritizing: The Municipality shall clearly identify infrastructure priorities which
will drive investment decisions.
5.4.4. Economic Development: The Municipality shall promote economic
competitiveness, productivity, job creation and training opportunities.
5.4.5. Transparency: The Municipality shall be evidence-based and transparent.
Additionally, subject to any prohibition under an Act or otherwise by law on the
collection, use, or disclosure of information, the Municipality shall:
i. Make decisions with respect to infrastructure based on information that is
publicly available or made available to the public, and
ii. Share information with implications on infrastructure and investment
decisions with the Government and broader public sector entities.
5.4.6. Consistency: The Municipality shall ensure the continued provision of core
public services.
5.4.7. Environmental Conscious: The Municipality shall minimize the impact of
infrastructure on the environment by respecting and helping maintain ecological
and biological diversity, by augmenting resilience to effects of climate change
and by endeavoring to make use of acceptable recycled aggregates where
feasible.
Page 133
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 5 of 12
5.4.8. Health and Safety: The Municipality shall ensure that the health and safety of
workers involved in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure assets
is protected.
i. Innovation: The Municipality shall create opportunities to make use of
innovative technologies, services and practices, particularly where doing so
would utilize technology, techniques, and practices developed in Ontario.
ii. Integration: The Municipality shall, where relevant and appropriate, be
mindful and consider the principles and content of non-binding
provincial or municipal plans and strategies established under an Act
or otherwise, in planning and making decisions surrounding the
infrastructure that supports them.
iii. Community Focused: The Municipality shall promote community
benefits, being the supplementary social and economic benefits arising
from an infrastructure project that are intended to improve the well-being
of a community affected by the project, such as local job creation and
training opportunities, improvement of public spaces within the
community, and promoting accessibility for persons with disabilities.
iv. Customer Focused: The Municipality will have clearly defined levels of
service and apply asset management practices to maintain the
confidence of customers in how municipal assets are managed.
v. Service Focused: The Municipality will consider all the assets in a
service context and take into account their interrelationships as
opposed to optimizing individual assets in isolation.
vi. Risk Based: The Municipality will manage the asset risk associated with
attaining the recommended levels of service by focusing resources,
expenditures, and priorities based upon risk assessments and the
corresponding cost/benefit, recognizing that public safety is the priority.
vii. Value-based Affordable: The Municipality will choose practices,
interventions and operations that aim at reducing the lifecycle cost of
asset ownership, while satisfying recommended levels of service.
Decisions are based on balancing service levels, risks, and costs.
viii. Sustainable Development: The Municipality shall ensure that the future
development of Clarington is pursued in a manner that ensures that
current needs can be met without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Page 134
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 6 of 12
Capitalization Thresholds
5.5. The Strategic Asset Management Policy applies to all municipal assets actively
managed in their service delivery. Assets may also be subject to the
capitalization thresholds set out in the Capitalization Policy and recorded in the
Municipality’s financial statements. The service provided by an individual or
pooled asset will be the determining factor for inclusion in the asset
management plan; this may also result in the asset not being recorded as an
asset for financial reporting purposes.
Governance and Continuous Improvement
5.6. The Municipality requires the commitment of key stakeholders for the
organization to ensure that the policy creates appropriate practices in asset
management planning that can be implemented, reviewed and adapted.
5.7. Council are the stewards of all municipal assets and are responsible for their
oversight on behalf of citizens. By resolution, Council will approve an asset
management plan and its updates every five years as well as support the
ongoing efforts to continuously improve and implement this plan. Council
commits to an annual review of progress regarding implementation, obstacles,
consultation with department heads and strategies to address impediments.
The strategic asset management policy will also be reviewed by staff
periodically to ensure consistency with other municipal strategic documents.
5.8. The CAO is ultimately responsible for asset management planning for the
Municipality and will maintain compliance with the regulation. This role will be
directly supported by the Treasurer who will be responsible for the strategic
financial management of the asset management plan. Department Heads will
support their services areas and update long and short-term asset
requirements in coordination with the annual budget process.
5.9. Continuous improvement is the hallmark of asset management, and the
Municipality will employ a framework that will strategically focus on efficiencies
and effectiveness. The CAO will endorse, and Council shall approve by
resolution the asset management plan and annual update reports on the
following schedule:
5.9.1. Asset Management Plan: Phase 1 (Core Assets) to be issued on or before July
1, 2022.
Page 135
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 7 of 12
5.9.2. Asset Management Plan: Phase 2 (Non-core Assets) to be issued on or before
July 1, 2024.
5.9.3. Asset Management Plan: Phase 3 (Financing Strategy and Proposed Levels of
Service) to be issued on or before July 1, 2025.
5.9.4. Asset Management Plan: Reviews to be issued on a rolling five-year cycle,
beginning no later than July 1, 2027.
5.9.5. Subsequent asset management plans to be issued on a five-year cycle
commencing no later than July 1, 2027.
Budgeting
5.10. The asset management plans and the progress made will be considered
annually in the creation of the Municipality’s capital budgets, operating
budgets, and long-term financial plans. Plans will also be referenced by the
service area’s department head in their preparation of their budget submission
to assist in identifying all potential revenues and costs including operating,
maintenance, replacement, and decommission. Prospective earnings and
expenses associated with future infrastructure and asset decisions will be
evaluated on the validity and need of each new capital asset, including the
impact on future operating costs and will incorporate new revenue tools and
alternative funding strategies where possible.
5.11. Finance will be involved in asset management planning to facilitate and bridge
between the financial strategies developed in the asset management plan, the
budget submissions of each service area, the budgeting process as a whole
and the Municipality’s strategic documents.
Community Planning
5.12. Best practice in asset management planning is ensuring alignment with the
Municipality’s Official Plan. Partnering these documents will determine how the
community is projected to change and inform asset management decisions
regarding levels of service, location and affordability in development and
redevelopment areas. Clarington’s Official Plan recognizes three key principles
that provide direction in community planning; sustainable development, healthy
communities and growth management.
Page 136
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 8 of 12
Sustainable Development
5.13. Development in Clarington will be pursued in a manner that ensures current
needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. The Asset Management Plan will incorporate considerations
regarding climate change and sustainable resource management in an effort to
mitigate and adapt to our dynamic environment, protect the integrity and vitality
of natural systems and processes, and support the transition to a clean energy
economy.
Healthy Communities
5.14. Healthy communities will nurture the well-being of residents and endeavor to
provide the highest quality of life. The Asset Management Plan will pursue
excellence in urban design, public safety, economic vitality, diversity,
accessibility and active lifestyles through the integration of land uses and the
development of complete communities.
Growth Management
5.15. Growth management recognizes the importance of sustainable development
and healthy communities and applies those principles to the land development
process. The Asset Management Plan will utilize the most recent Development
Charges Background Study to forecast municipal expansion of assets for
urban growth and encourage balanced growth and compact urban form to align
with municipal financial resources. Growth management will extend assets in
an orderly, cost-effective manner through an understanding of current and
future needs.
Climate Change
5.16. Municipalities play an essential role in developing climate change solutions
locally and are often on the front lines of responding to climate change impacts.
The Municipality has made great strides to protect the environment and
develop sustainable communities addressing the complexity and realities of
climate change with coordinated, cross-corporate action. A key element in
advancing these efforts is the integration of climate change considerations into
asset management planning.
Page 137
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 9 of 12
5.17. The Municipality commits to the development of local actions that will support
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the adaptation of buildings and
infrastructure to be more resilient to the adverse impacts of climate change. In
applying a climate change lens to asset management planning, integrating the
levels of service and adhering to maintenance schedules the Municipality’s
disaster response plans and contingency funding will be enhanced, while
addressing the capital infrastructure deficit. Efforts will be made to reduce the
life cycle costs of new builds, with more importance being placed on methods
to improve the energy efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint of our existing
assets. The asset management plan will incorporate this sustainable approach
to climate change mitigation and strengthening resilience.
5.18. Understanding the potential risks that the Municipality could face in a changing
climate is an important component of the Municipality’s risk management
approach and asset management planning. Balancing the potential cost of
vulnerabilities, changing environmental conditions and asset planning will
contribute to mitigating climate change risks and associated costs.
Risk Management
5.19. The Municipality will work to develop risk management tools and frameworks
that assist with key asset management risk decisions. Instruments that will
enable the Municipality to evaluate risks and priorities consistently across the
entire asset portfolio by establishing context, assess & control, apply
treatments, monitor results and review assets and the potential risks.
5.20. Climate change research and analysis will concentrate on land usage, clean
and renewable energy, active transportation, energy use and building retrofits.
This approach will balance life cycle costing as we adapt to climate change
impacts on new and existing assets. Efforts will be made to reduce life cycle
costs of new builds and more importance will be placed on methods to improve
the energy efficiency of our existing assets.
Stakeholder Engagement
5.21. Creating the opportunity for residents, businesses, institutions and our
neighbours to engage the Municipality in asset management decisions and the
municipal services they need is invaluable. Stakeholders can help align
corporate strategies with operations through insights for asset management
coordination and planning when platforms are made readily available. The
Page 138
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 10 of 12
Municipality will foster informed dialogue with these parties and engage with
them by:
5.21.1. Providing information on our website for stakeholders served by the
municipality on appropriate asset management planning;
5.21.2. Coordinating asset management planning with other departments and strategic
documents;
5.21.3. Striving to develop a social media presence dedicated to updating
stakeholders on upcoming asset management developments.
5.21.4. Holding, when appropriate, public meetings to receive concerns, questions and
comments from stakeholders on specific asset management planning
decisions.
6. Roles and responsibilities
6.1. Council is responsible for:
6.1.1. Approving, by resolution, the Municipality’s Asset Management Plan and
updates every five years.
6.1.2. Approving, by resolution, any updates to the Strategic Asset Management
Policy resulting from the policy reviews conducted every five years.
6.1.3. Supporting the implementation of the Asset Management Plan and ongoing
efforts to improve the Plan and ensure it includes changes necessitated by the
updates to other strategic documents.
6.2. Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for:
6.2.1. Endorsing the Strategic Asset Management Policy and Municipal Asset
Management Plan.
6.2.2. Maintain compliance with the Strategic Asset Management Policy and O. Reg
588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, in
conjunction with the Deputy CAO/Treasurer, or delegate.
6.3. Deputy CAO/Treasurer, or delegate, is responsible for:
Page 139
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 11 of 12
6.3.1. Developing the Municipality’s Asset Management Plan and presenting to
Council for consideration and endorsement.
6.3.2. Completing periodic updates of the Municipality’s Asset Management Plan, in
accordance with O. Reg 588/17, and presenting the updates to Council for
endorsement.
6.3.3. Completing periodic reviews of the Municipality’s Strategic Asset Management
Policy, in accordance with O. Reg 588/17, and presenting any resulting
updates to Council for endorsement.
6.3.4. Collaborating with representatives from other divisions and departments to
ensure the data presented in the Asset Management Plan is reflective of
current assumptions.
6.4. Deputy CAOs, Directors and Managers are responsible for the following
within their scope of authority:
6.4.1. Designating staff resources to assist with the preparation of the Asset
Management Plan.
6.4.2. Reviewing and confirming the accuracy of the asset information included in the
Asset management Plan.
6.4.3. Ensuring the effective management of assets by developing service level plans
that address the needs outlined in the Asset Management Plan.
6.4.4. Ensuring that assets are being maintained in a manner that allows them to
perform up to their desired levels of service.
7. Related Documents:
7.1. Not Applicable
8. Inquiries:
Manager, Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
Page 140
Council Policy
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Page 12 of 12
9. Revision History:
Date Description of Changes Approved By
June 17, 2024 Update for change in format
Add roles and
responsibilities section
Update policy to reflect
legislation changes that
have occurred since the
previous policy.
Council
Page 141
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-028-24
Authored by: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: CL2024-17
Report Subject: Northglen East Park Siteworks
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-028-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Powcon Inc. with a total bid amount of $803,012.58 (Net HST Rebate) being
the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of
CL2024-17 be awarded the contract for the Northglen East Park Siteworks;
3. That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,131,977.73 (Net
HST Rebate) which includes construction costs of $803,012.58 (Net HST Rebate)
and other related costs such as Hydro servicing fees, playground and splash pad
equipment, design fee’s, construction monitoring and materials testing, and
contingencies of $328,965.15 (Net HST Rebate) be approved; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-028-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 142
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-028-24
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award tender CL2024-17 Northglen East Park
Siteworks to the lowest compliant bidder Powcon Inc.
1. Background
1.1 Tender specifications were prepared by Planning and Infrastructure Services for the
Northglen East Park siteworks, locates in Bowmanville at 3301 Middle Road and were
provided to the Purchasing Services Division.
1.2 The scope of work included the following:
Construction of baseball diamond complete with backstop, dug outs, player
benches, outfield fence, clay infield, and spectator seatings.
Construction of a splash pad, playground, and shade structure.
Site servicing, including water, electrical, and storm connections to support the
splash pad.
General siteworks and earthworks to support the park amenities including
concrete and asphalt walkways, soft landscaping, and tree planting.
1.3 The work for this project is located in Bowmanville at the following location:
Northglen East Park, 3301 Middle Road, Bowmanville.
1.4 Tender CL2024-17 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised on
the Municipality’s website. The tender closed on May 3, 2024.
2. Analysis
2.1 Thirty-seven plan takers downloaded the tender document. Nine submissions were
received in response to the call. The submissions were reviewed by the Purchasing
Services Division (see Attachment 1), and all submissions were deemed compliant. The
bid results were forwarded to the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department for
their review and consideration.
2.2 After review and analysis by the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department and the
Purchasing Services Division, it was mutually agreed that the low compliant bidder,
Powcon Inc. be recommended for the award of tender CL2024-17.
Page 143
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-028-24
2.3 Powcon Inc. has not worked with the Municipality in the past and as a result reference
checks were completed. References received for this company were satisfactory.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The value of the total project cost exceeds the allocated budget from the various funding
sources by $187,065.00. The additional funds required will be funded by as follows:
Parks and Recreation Development Charge Reserve Fund $187,065.00
3.2 The total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,137,065.73 (Net HST Rebate)
which includes construction costs of $803,012.58 (Net HST Rebate) and other related
costs such as Hydro servicing fees, playground and splash pad equipment, design fee’s,
construction monitoring and materials testing, communication allowances, and
contingencies of $334,053.15 (Net HST Rebate) will be funded from the following
accounts:
Description Account Number Amount
Northglen East Park 110-50-325-83708-7401 $950,000
Parks & Recreation Development
Charges – Additional Funds 110-50-325-83708-7401 187,065
3.3 Expenditures incurred to date and included in the total project amount include:
External Design Fee – $35,699.34 (Net HST Rebate)
External Design Fee for Visual Rendering – $1,920.34 (Net HST Rebate)
3.4 A $5,000 allowance has also been included for community events, engagement, and
communications. Planning and Infrastructure will coordinate with Communications at
various stages of the project to effectively promote the new park construction.
3.5 Queries with respect to the department’s needs, specifications, etc., should be referred to
the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 This project aligns with C.4 of the strategic plan and prioritizes recreation to cultivate a
strong, thriving, and connected community where everyone is welcome.
Page 144
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-028-24
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO / Director of Planning and
Infrastructure Services who concurs with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Powcon Inc., being the lowest compliant bidder
meeting specifications, be awarded the contract for tender CL2024-17 Northglen East
Park Siteworks.
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext 2210 or
smckee@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Bid Summary
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 145
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-028-24
Attachment 1 – Bid Summary
Municipality of Clarington
CL2024-17– Northglen East Park Siteworks
Bid Summary
Bidder Total Bid
(Including HST)
Total Bid
(Net HST Rebate)
Powcon Inc. $891,710.12 $803,012.58
Zilli Construction Ltd. 930,097.35 837,581.47
Envision Excavating Ltd. 1,052,284.25 947,614.56
Royalcrest Paving & Contracting Ltd. 1,069,273.80 962,914.18
Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd. 1,079,318.94 971,960.13
Quality Property Services 1,389,965.27 1,251,706.78
Lancoa Contracting Inc. 1,383,685.00 1,246,051.20
Shayk Construction Inc. 1,508,973.75 1,358,877.60
Strong Bros. General Contracting Ltd. 1,622,425.75 1,461,044.64
Page 146
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-029-24
Authored by: Trevor Pinn
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Physician Recruitment
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-029-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Staff be directed to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the
Region of Durham, to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO/Solicitor, substantially in
the form as attached in Attachment #1;
3. That the remaining funds from the approved $100,000 in the 2023 budget for
physician recruitment be used to meet the Municipality’s obligations to the Region of
Durham under the regional recruitment program;
4. That Staff be directed to create an incentive program which provides up to $25,000
per doctor, based on matching contributions from medical offices in a form similar to
the Pilot Program in the Town of Whitby;
5. That an additional $250,000 be approved to be drawn from the Economic
Development Reserve Fund to fund the incentive program for up to 10 doctors; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-029-24 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 147
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-029-24
Report Overview
This report is an update to Council on local physician recruitment attraction and incentive
programs under development in the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham is focusing
on attracting family physicians to locate within the Region in partnership with Lakeridge
Health and Queens University, this work is focused on bringing family doctors broadly to the
Region.
A separate initiative being proposed is a local incentive program to attract physicians locally
to Clarington medical clinics. There is a broad family physician shortage across the
Province, and it is key that the Municipality work to bring doctors to one of the fastest-
growing municipalities in the Province to ensure that we maintain the quality of life that
residents expect of a growing municipality.
1. Background
1.1 During the 2023 Budget deliberations, Council amended the proposed budget by adding
the following resolution:
That the 2023 Budget be amended to provide $100,000 for Physician Recruitment
funded by the Economic Development Reserve Fund; and
That Staff report to Council on the framework, goals, objectives and processes for this
recruitment prior to any funding being provided.
1.2 This report outlines two funding requests which meets the Strategic Priority of Council to
facilitate local physician recruitment, one on a regional basis and one more locally
focused.
2. Region of Durham Update
2.1 At its meeting of January 17, 2024, the Region of Durham Committee of the Whole
approved Report #2024-COW-3 Family Physician Recruitment Program. This report
recommended the creation of a Region of Durham wide program to attract and retain
family medicine trainees and physicians to the Region as well as the hiring of a full-time
recruiter.
2.2 This report recommended the creation of a Region of Durham-wide program to attract
and retain family medicine trainees and physicians to the Region, as well as the hiring of
a full-time recruiter.
2.3 Durham Region is facing a shortage of approximately 145 family physicians,
representing approximately 180,000 residents. It is anticipated that the new Queen' s-
Page 148
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-029-24
Lakeridge MD Family Medicine trainee program will bring 20 new trainees to the area
each year. During this time, the attraction program will work to ensure that these
trainees choose to stay in the Region after the completion of their training.
2.4 The proposed program is not an incentive program; it is geared more towards promoting
the Region as a place to work and live and assisting with programs such as school and
job information for doctors' families.
2.5 The Region of Durham has proposed a Memorandum of Understanding, see
Attachment #1, for cost sharing with the municipalities in the Region. The total program
cost would be $225,000, plus inflation, and would be shared on a population-based
allocation.
2.6 The Municipality of Clarington would provide $3,960 for the remainder of 2024 and
$16,200 in 2025. The 2026 and 2027 allocations would be subject to the inflationary
index of CPI+2%.
2.7 It is recommended that the Municipality participate in this program on a Regional basis,
as any doctors attracted to the area could provide capacity within the Region to assist
with the shortage of family physicians.
3. Local Proposal
3.1 Staff have been approached by The Clarington Board of Trade (Sheila Hall) and Dr.
Stone, who represent local physician recruitment priorities. They have proposed a
model similar to the physician recruitment strategy employed by the Town of Whitby and
the Oshawa Clinic (which is currently relocating its 117 King Street site to Whitby).
3.2 In 2023, Whitby Report CAO-20-23 recommended $300,000 be used from reserve
funds to pilot a Family Physician Recruitment Incentive Partnership Pilot Program. Of
this funding, $250,000 would be used to provide incentives to the physicians, and
$50,000 would be used for the operating costs of the program. This would provide
$500,000 to 10 physicians over a five-year term, equally shared between the Town and
the clinic. This would provide $500,000 to 10 physicians over a five-year term, equally
shared between the Town and the clinic.
3.3 The local proposal would see the municipality provide a $25,000/doctor incentive paid
upfront upon the successful recruitment of a family physician to the clinic located at 222
King Street in Bowmanville. The clinic would also provide $25,000/doctor, for a total
incentive of $50,000/doctor.
3.4 It is suggested that the incentive be provided upfront, as new doctors have set up costs
for new practices, and the first few months after school are financially the hardest. The
Page 149
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-029-24
agreement would require that the funds be paid back if the doctor leaves within five
years.
3.5 Each new doctor would be required to roster 1,000 patients to receive the grant. There
is no ability for the Municipality to require that these patients all be from Clarington;
however, given the location of the clinic a greater proportion of the patients are likely to
be local.
3.6 The recently announced Bill 185 includes proposed wording which would allow
municipalities to incent prescribed individuals and businesses in spite of the “bonusing
rules” in S.107 of the Municipal Act to meet Provincial priorities. It is anticipated that one
of the prescribed businesses will be family physicians/healthcare as this was used as an
example in Provincial releases. If this is the case, it would be suggested that the
agreement be between the Municipality and the clinic who would then be able to have
the employment agreement with the physicians. This would streamline funding as
agreements would not need to be entered into between the Municipality and each
doctor. An alternative would be similarly to provide the funding to CBOT, which
facilitates the funding to the doctors and clinics.
3.7 While the clinic at 222 King Street East has approached the Municipality, staff recognize
that several other medical clinics in Clarington serve residents. Staff would suggest that
any program contemplated be available to local clinics that meet the same requirements
(five years, 1,000 patients, equal funding by the clinic).
3.8 If the funding model is approved by Council, staff would draft the required agreements
to provide funding to participating clinics.
4. Financial Considerations
4.1 The Municipality has established a reserve fund that has been used in the past to
facilitate physician recruitment. As of December 31, 2023, the Economic Development
reserve fund had a balance of approximately $717,500. These funds, less amounts
already committed to Physician Recruitment through the 2023 budget process, would be
the source of funding for any approved program.
4.2 During the 2023 Budget process, Council approved $100,000 to be earmarked for
Physician Recruitment. To date, $20,000 has been spent.
4.3 The Municipality has established a reserve fund that has been used in the past to
facilitate physician recruitment. As of December 31, 2023, this reserve fund had a
balance of approximately $632,500. These funds would be the source of funding for any
approved program.
Page 150
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-029-24
5. Strategic Plan
5.1 This Report addresses priority C.2.1 of the 2024-27 Strategic Plan “Support efforts to
improve access to medical practitioners and health care services.
5.2 Specifically, it addresses the identified actions to “Partner with the Region of Durham to
create a Family Physician Recruitment Program” and “Connect with local health care
providers to advocate for increased access to services”.
6. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services and
Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services who concur with the
recommendations.
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the signing of the MOU with the
Region of Durham and provide direction for Staff to create a local incentive program for
Clarington-based clinics based on similar requirements to the Town of Whitby.
Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 x2602 or
tpinn@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -– Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of Durham
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Region of Durham
Dr. Stone
Clarington Board of Trade
Page 151
Attachment 1 to FSD-029-24
1
Family Physician Recruitment Program: Memorandum of Understanding
This purpose of this memorandum of understanding, dated 24 May 2024, is to guide
discussions to fund, create and deliver a family physician recruitment program in
Durham, with costs shared between the following municipalities:
The Regional Municipality of Durham (the “Region”);
The Corporation of the Town of Ajax (“Ajax”);
The Corporation of the Township of Brock (“Brock”);
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (“Clarington”);
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa (“Oshawa”);
The Corporation of the City of Pickering (“Pickering”);
The Corporation of the Township of Scugog (“Scugog”);
The Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge (“Uxbridge”); and
The Corporation of the Town of Whitby (“Whitby”).
At its meeting on 31 January 2024, Durham Regional Council endorsed the
recommendations in Report #2024-COW-3 to create a Region-wide Family Physician
Recruitment Program to attract and retain family medicine trainees and family
physicians to Durham and to fund the Durham Ontario Health Team to hire a full-time
permanent family physician recruiter (the “Program”),with core funding expenses
shared between the Region and local municipalities, and to report on that arrangement
to Durham Regional Council.
The proposed funding model for the Program between 1 July 2024 and 31 December
2027 provides for a maximum cost of $55,000 in 2024, increasing to $225,000 in 2025
and indexed to inflation plus 2 per cent in 2026 and 2027.
Each municipality recognizes that its council approval may be required to take part in
such a cost-sharing arrangement, and that any arrangement that results from these
discussions might take the form of a binding agreement between one or more parties
and the Durham Ontario Health Team.
1. The parties acknowledge that the discussions and their respective plans are
preliminary. Each party’s participation in this cost-sharing arrangement is
subject to the condition that that party receives its council’s approval or
delegated authority for
(a) this memorandum of understanding;
(b) a funding agreement with the Durham Ontario Health Team, and
(c) budget approval in each of 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027 for any funds disbursed
or scheduled to be disbursed.
2. The parties intend to fund the Program costs according to the table attached to
this memorandum of understanding (attachment 1). The Program cost on
which each party’s proportionate share is based will be adjusted as of 1 January
2026 and as of 1 January 2027, calculated according to this formula:
Page 152
Attachment 1 to FSD-029-24
2
N = (1+ (I + 2 %)) × 225,000
In this formula, the following applies:
N = the total Program cost, in dollars
I = the average year-over-year percentage growth in the all-items Consumer
Price Index for Ontario published by Statistics Canada for the then most recent
year
3. The parties intend to discuss, among other things, how that Program’s success
will be measured, the contents of a binding agreement with the Durham Ontario
Health Team, and oversight of that Program and that binding agreement.
4. The parties intend that any discussions will take place in good faith. Each party
shall make reasonable efforts to engage in the discussions competently and
promptly.
5. The parties are not prohibited from negotiating with from anyone else or from
engaging in their own family physician recruitment strategies, whether existing
or new.
6. The parties may share that a partnership is being explored related to the
Program as part of community engagement and public presentations.
7. Each party will be responsible for its own expenses related to this memorandum
of understanding.
8. No party will be liable to any other party for any loss that other party suffers
because of this memorandum of understanding or any failure to enter a binding
agreement with the Durham Ontario Health Team.
9. This memorandum of understanding will become effective for each party when
that party has signed it. Each party may sign this memorandum using an
electronic or handwritten signature, which are of equal effect. If the parties sign
this memorandum of understanding in several counterparts, each will be
deemed an original but all counterparts together will constitute one instrument.
10. If a party signs this memorandum of understanding but fails to date their
signature, the date the Region receives the signing party’s signature will be
deemed to be the date the signing party signed this memorandum of
understanding.
11. This memorandum of understanding will continue to apply to a party until the
earlier of (1) the date that party notifies the other parties that it no longer wishes
to proceed with the Program, (2) that party enters a binding agreement for the
Program, and (3) 31 December 2027.
Signature pages follow.
Page 153
Attachment 1 to FSD-029-24
3
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Nancy Taylor
Commissioner of Finance
Authorized by: #2024-COW-3
The Corporation of the Township of Ajax
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the Township of Brock
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
Page 154
Attachment 1 to FSD-029-24
4
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the Township of Scugog
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
The Corporation of the Town of Whitby
Date: ________________________, 2024 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Authorized by:
Page 155
Attachment 1 to FSD-029-24
5
Attachment 1: Proposed Funding Model
Proposed Funding Model
Municipality Population1
Pop.
%
Funding
% 2H 2024 ($) 2025 ($) 2026 ($) 2027 ($)
Total Program Cost $ 55,000 $ 225,000
225,000 × (CPI +
2%)
Prior Yr × (CPI +
2%)
Durham 748,495 100% 50.0% 27,500 112,500
Ajax 135,930 18% 9.1% 4,994 20,430
Brock 13,760 2% 0.9% 506 2,068
Clarington 107,770 14% 7.2% 3,960 16,198
Oshawa 187,080 25% 12.5% 6,873 28,118
Pickering 106,505 14% 7.1% 3,913 16,008
Scugog 22,505 3% 1.5% 827 3,383
Uxbridge 22,605 3% 1.5% 831 3,398
Whitby 152,340 20% 10.2% 5,597 22,897
1 Source: #2023-INFO-102, Monitoring of Growth Trends, File: D01-02-01, as of May 2023
Page 156
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-030-24
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored by: Paul Davidson, Manager of Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2024 Asset Management Plan Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-030-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the Municipality’s Draft 2024 Asset Management Plan, attached to Report FSD-
030-24, as attachment #1, be approved;
3. That the final 2024 Asset Management Plan be placed on the Municipal website, as
required by the legislation, and, if requested, a copy be forwarded to the Province of
Ontario; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-030-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 157
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-030-24
Report Overview
This report provides an overview of the Municipality’s 2024 Asset Management Plan (AMP),
as presented in Attachment #1, which has been prepared in accordance with O. Reg.
588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure. The attached plan includes
summary level information on all non-core municipal assets, such as age, condition, and
replacement cost, as well as an estimate of the annual capital lifecycle costs required to
maintain assets at their current level of service.
The Municipality’s core assets (as defined by O. Reg. 588/17) are not included in this plan
as they were the subject of the Municipality’s 2022 Asset Management Plan.
The regulation requires that the 2024 Asset Management Plan be approved by Council by
July 1, 2024.
1. Background
1.1 In 2016, the Provincial Government passed the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity
Act, which gave the province the authority to guide municipal asset management
planning through regulation. This was followed, in late 2017, by the introduction of O.
Reg. 588/17, which established the standard content to be included in all Asset
Management Plans in the Province of Ontario.
1.2 Although the introduction of O. Reg. 588/17 included all the various provincial asset
management requirements, the legislation's implementation has followed a phased
approach. The table below provides the various implementation dates and the
associated requirements of the legislation.
Table 1: Asset Management Requirements and Implementation Dates
Implementation
Date Requirement
July 1, 2019 Municipalities to adopt a Strategic Asset Management Policy.
July 1, 2022 Municipalities to complete AMP for core assets, as defined by the
Province.
July 1, 2024 Municipalities to complete AMP for remaining non-core assets.
July 1, 2025 Municipalities to develop a funding strategy and proposed service
levels for all assets.
Page 158
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-030-24
1.3 In 2019, Council approved the Municipality’s Strategic Asset Management Policy in
accordance with O. Reg 588/17. The policy outlines a set of guiding principles for asset
management priority setting, planning and investment. The policy has now been
updated to reflect minor legislation changes and to conform with the Municipality’s new
corporate policy template. The updated policy has been included in Report FSD-027-24.
1.4 In 2022, Council endorsed the Municipality’s first AMP under O. Reg 588/17. This AMP
focused exclusively on core assets, as defined by the legislation, which includes roads,
bridges, culverts, and stormwater infrastructure.
1.5 The AMP for the remaining non-core assets, provided in Attachment #1, is intended to
satisfy the provincial requirement for July 1, 2024. Staff are now planning for the
completion of the final iteration of the AMP, which includes proposed levels of service
and a financing strategy for all assets, for presentation to Council in June 2025.
2. 2024 Asset Management Plan
Overview
2.1 The purpose of the 2024 AMP is to provide summary-level data on the state of the
Municipality’s non-core infrastructure, including current replacement costing and current
condition ratings. The summary level data is then used to establish a current service
level threshold, for which a capital forecast must be prepared to estimate the annual
costs associated with maintaining that service level over the next ten years.
2.2 The plan does not provide any funding recommendations but rather is intended to
provide an estimate of the annual capital costs required to maintain the current level of
service for our assets. The next iteration of the AMP is when a financing strategy is
required. This financing strategy will pertain to both the core and non-core assets.
2.3 All non-core municipal assets have been grouped into different asset categories. The
asset categories were determined by grouping similar assets with similar levels of
service. The AMP includes both a summary chapter, which represents an aggregated
summary of all asset categories, and individual chapters pertaining to each specific
asset category. The chapters for each asset category provide a more granular view by
summarizing data down to the asset sub-type level.
2.4 It is important to note that the AMP represents a snapshot in time and is based on both
a series of assumptions and the best information available to staff at the time of
development. As these assumptions change over time, the underlying data will be
updated and refined to ensure the information remains relevant and accurate for future
capital budgeting and long-term financial planning purposes.
Page 159
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-030-24
2.5 The plan also includes service level metrics that quantify the current level of service
related to specific service level attributes.
Summary of Non-core Infrastructure
2.6 The table below provides summary level data for each asset category included in the
AMP. The summary level data includes average age, average condition, and total
replacement cost for all of the underlying assets within the various asset categories.
Table 2: Summary Level Data for All Non-core Asset Categories
Asset Category Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Replacement
Cost ($2024)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Corporate Facilities1 10 82.4 $122,579,000 0.88% Good
Corporate Fleet 209 9.0 44,316,000 84% Good
Emergency Services 779 6.2 2,578,000 57% Good
Information Technology 587 9.3 6,080,000 50% Good
Parking Infrastructure 236 21.7 27,875,000 82% Good
Parks 629 20.5 61,765,000 84% Good
Recreation, Community,
and Culture1
172 48.1 461,704,000 0.11% Good
Transportation
Infrastructure2
10,267 21.8 215,671,000 29% Very Good
Total3 12,889 41.8 $942,568,000 50% Good
1. Average condition for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture are based on a Facilities
Condition Index (FCI) as opposed to the Useful Life Consumption percentage (ULC%).
2. Quantity of Transportation Infrastructure also includes a combined 385.6 km’s of sidewalk and guiderails.
3. Total Average Condition of 50% excludes Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture as
these assets utilize the FCI condition methodology. These assets are assessed as “Good”, on average,
meaning the total average condition state would remain as “Good” if these assets were included.
2.7 The Municipality’s asset inventory includes over 12,000 individual non-core assets, with
an estimated total current replacement cost of over $942 million. Corporate Facilities
and Recreation, Community, and Culture represent over 60 per cent of the total
replacement cost. Transportation Infrastructure also represents a large portion of total
replacement costs as this asset category includes all sidewalks, streetlights, and
guiderails.
Page 160
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-030-24
2.8 The Corporate Facilities asset category includes only the facilities used for public
administration and service delivery, such as the Municipal Administration Centre, fire
stations, operations depots, and the Animal Services Building. The facilities used for
community programming, such as arenas, aquatic centres, and community halls, are
included in the Recreation, Community, and Culture asset category.
2.9 The total replacement cost for each asset category represents an aggregated estimate
of the cost to fully replace each asset within the specific category. Full replacement
costs include construction, acquisition, project management, contingencies, and, in
some cases, removal of the existing asset. Replacement costing is provided in current
(2024) dollars and has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders and staff
estimates.
Average Age and Condition
2.10 The average age and condition of each asset category represents a weighted average,
based on replacement cost, of the average age and condition of the various asset types
within each asset category. The total average age and condition represents a weighted
average of the various asset categories, based on replacement cost.
2.11 The condition for most assets is assessed using a Useful Life Consumption percentage
(ULC%). The ULC% is derived by dividing the assets age by its estimated useful life to
determine the percentage of its estimated useful life that has been consumed.
2.12 Facilities assets use the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) methodology, which represents
the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies as a percentage of the current
replacement value. The FCI condition assessments were determined through Building
Condition Assessments that were completed by an external engineering consultant in
late 2023 and early 2024.
2.13 The average condition for all asset categories is rated as “Good”, meaning, on average,
the Municipality’s assets are in a state of good repair. This condition rating is based on
the current condition rating methodology, which relies on age and visual inspections.
Currently, very few non-core assets (outside of Emergency Services) are subject to
routine physical condition inspections.
2.14 It is important to note that, although the average condition of each asset category is
rated as Good or Very Good, the average condition represents a weighted average of
the various underlying assets within the category. The actual condition rating for each
individual underlying asset ranges from Very Good to Very Poor. The figure below
provides the condition distribution for all underlying assets, based on the quantity of
assets within each asset category.
Page 161
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-030-24
Figure 1 – Asset Condition Distribution
Levels of Service Metrics
2.15 The 2024 AMP includes specific levels of service metrics, for each asset category, that
attempt to quantify current service levels and customer expectations. The metrics are
related to specific service level attributes that are important to the organization. The
metrics provide a baseline by quantifying the current service level standard.
2.16 These service level metrics will be reviewed as part of the next iteration of the AMP,
where proposed service level targets will need to be established. Staff will undertake a
review of industry best practice when setting proposed service level targets. This will
ensure service levels are set such that they are both financially sustainable and are
meeting the expectations of residents.
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
2.17 Lifecycle management strategies include the planned actions required to maintain
assets at their current level of service. These actions include inspection,
33%
70%
29%
35%
27%
27%
98%
100%
24%
23%
32%
36%
32%
40%
2%
5%
1%
5%
6%
6%
2%
11%
4%
13%
8%
11%
16%
27%
1%
21%
15%
23%
15%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
Information Technology
Parking
Parks
Recreation, Community,…
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Page 162
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-030-24
repair/maintenance, replacement, expansion, and disposal. The AMP includes only the
capital costs associated with these activities, as the operating costs are not required to
achieve compliance with the legislation.
2.18 Regarding lifecycle costing, the current level of service is defined as the capital costs
required to maintain the current overall asset condition distribution and maintain the
overall dollar value of the backlog at current levels.
2.19 The figure below provides the estimated annual capital costs required to maintain all
non-core assets, at the current level of service, over the next ten years. All costing in
future years (2025-2033) is provided in real, inflation adjusted dollars. This is to provide
as accurate an estimate as possible of the anticipated costs each year.
Figure 2 - Annual Lifecycle Costing ($,000’s) – All Non-core Asset Categories
2.20 The estimated cost of capital lifecycle activities over the 2024-2033 period is
approximately $150 million. The total estimated cost, including all the costs included in
the backlog, is approximately $183.7 million.
2.21 The backlog represents the total estimated replacement cost of assets that, according to
their age and estimated useful life, have surpassed their anticipated year of
replacement. It is important to note that items in the backlog may not necessarily require
immediate attention as they have likely been maintained through regular repair and
$33,824
$6,692
$18,818
$13,041
$13,976
$18,037
$8,602
$13,970 $16,060
$12,038
$28,631
$149,866
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Page 163
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-030-24
maintenance. The backlog in Figure 2 has been reduced to include only the assets with
a reasonable possibility of requiring replacement within the ten-year forecast period.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
2.22 The annual lifecycle costs, as presented in Figure 2, can vary significantly from year-to-
year. Figure 3 smooths out the variation by determining the average annual lifecycle
cost of maintaining the current level of service over the forecast period. The average
annual costs are spread over the 2025-2033 period and are presented in real, inflation-
adjusted dollars.
Figure 3 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
2.23 The average annual costs presented in Figure 3 represent the average annual costs of
maintaining the current level of service over the forecast period. That is, the average
annual costs to ensure the current overall asset condition distribution remains relatively
constant and that the overall dollar value of the backlog remains constant over the
forecast period.
2.24 The average annual costs are also net of any costs related to activities that have
already been budgeted. Some lifecycle activities have already been budgeted but have
$17,332
$8,217
$13,950
$17,977
$8,602
$13,970 $16,060
$12,038
$28,625 $13,004 $13,521 $14,060 $14,620 $15,202 $15,807 $16,437 $17,092 $17,774
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Page 164
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-030-24
not yet been performed; therefore, these items remain outstanding lifecycle activities in
the AMP.
2.25 The AMP also provides alternative lifecycle costing scenarios that involve a more
aggressive approach to addressing the backlog. Figure 4 compares the total cost of
these scenarios, over the 2025-2033 period, with the total cost to maintain the current
level of service.
2.26 One alternative scenario provides the average annual cost of reducing the overall size
of the backlog by 50 per cent over the forecast period. The other scenario provides the
average annual cost of eliminating the entire backlog over the forecast period. Both
scenarios would result in an increased level of service as the condition distribution of the
assets would significantly improve.
Figure 4 – Total Lifecycle Cost Comparison, 2025-2033 ($,000’s)
Future Asset Management Priorities
2.27 Upon approval of the 2024 AMP, staff will begin working towards completing the next
iteration of the plan for presentation to Council in June 2025. As previously mentioned,
this next iteration will include the proposed level of service targets and a financing
strategy that provides for both core and non-core assets.
$137,516
$155,399
$175,347
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Current Service Level Reduce Backlog Eliminate Backlog
Page 165
Municipality of Clarington Page
10
Report FSD-030-24
2.28 Staff will also begin developing an inventory of natural assets that can be included in
future AMPs. Currently, the Municipality only maintains an inventory of engineered
assets.
2.29 Once the remaining iterations have been completed by the legislative deadlines, staff
will undertake work to consolidate all plans into a single, comprehensive AMP, that
includes all assets owned and operated by the Municipality. The consolidated plan will
include updated asset inventory information for all assets, along with updated lifecycle
costing and a corresponding financing strategy.
Next Steps
2.30 Upon the draft's approval by Council, the Municipality is required to post the final
published version of the AMP on its public website and, if requested, provide a copy
directly to the Province of Ontario.
2.31 Prior to final publication, staff will complete any additional corporate branding and
accessibility changes required to the draft.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The costs included in the AMP represent an estimate of the annual costs required to
maintain the Municipality’s non-core assets at their current level of service in real,
inflation-adjusted dollars.
3.2 The AMP does not provide any funding recommendations based on the costs included
in the plan. The purpose is to simply identify the costs. Any funding decisions resulting
from this plan must be considered as part of the annual budget process.
3.3 The Municipality’s non-core assets have an estimated replacement cost of over $942
million, with an estimated average annual requirement of over $13 million ($2025) to
maintain the current level of service. The average condition for the Municipality’s assets
is rated as Good, which requires a significant investment to maintain. The next iteration
will provide Council with options to set the formal levels of service that assets will be
managed to, which will balance the financial resources required and expected level of
service for these assets.
4. Strategic Plan
The 2024 Asset Management Plan supports strategic plan priority L.2.5: Maintain,
protect and invest in Municipal infrastructure and assets.
Page 166
Municipality of Clarington Page
11
Report FSD-030-24
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
The Municipality’s 2024 Asset Management Plan, as presented in Attachment #1, has
been developed to meet the legislative requirements established in O. Reg. 588/17. The
document provides summary-level data on all non-core assets within the Municipality’s
asset inventory and estimates the capital costs of maintaining these assets, at their
current level of service, over the next ten years. As part of the legislation, Council must
approve the attached plan by July 1, 2024.
Staff Contact: Paul Davidson, Manager of Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer, 905-623-3379
ext. 2607 or PDavidson@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 2024 Asset Management Plan
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 167
Asset
Management
Plan 2024
Municipality of Clarington
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 168
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 2
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Summary of Non-core Infrastructure Assets
4. Corporate Facilities
5. Corporate Fleet
6. Emergency Services
7. Information Technology
8. Parking Infrastructure
9. Parks
10. Recreation, Community, and Culture
11. Transportation Infrastructure
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 169
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 3
Executive
Summary
01
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 170
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 4
Overview
The 2024 Asset Management Plan (AMP) has been completed in accordance with provincial regulation O. Reg. 588/17, which establishes the standard content that must be included in all Asset Management Plans in the Province of Ontario. This plan provides summary level data on all the non-core assets owned and operated by the Municipality. The Municipality’s core assets, as defined by O. Reg. 588/17, include roads, bridges, culverts, and
stormwater. All other assets are considered non-core for the purposes of asset management planning.
The purpose of the AMP is to identify the capital costs required to maintain current service levels over the next ten years. This AMP does not provide any funding recommendations as the legislation only requires that the annual lifecycle costs be identified for the next ten years. Funding recommendations will be provided in the next iteration of the AMP, which will include a financing strategy and proposed levels of service. This next iteration is required for
completion by July 1, 2025.
The AMP is divided into several chapters, each providing a specific set of information related to different aspects of the plan.
The Introduction chapter provides a contextual overview of asset management planning, including the purpose of the AMP and a brief summary of the provincial legislation. The introduction also provides the growth forecast, risk
assessment, and discussion of climate considerations as required under the legislation.
The Summary of Non-core Infrastructure Assets chapter summarizes the asset information for all asset categories to provide an aggregated summary of all non-core assets owned by the Municipality. This chapter also provides greater context on the various components of the AMP, including a discussion on the embedded assumptions and methodologies.
The AMP also includes individual chapters for each of the asset categories included in the plan. The individual
chapters include a greater level of detail by providing summary level information down to the asset sub-type level. These chapters also define some of the alternative assumptions and methodologies specific to the corresponding asset category. The Summary of Non-core Infrastructure Assets chapter is essentially an aggregated summary of the chapters related to the individual asset categories.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 171
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 5
Summary of Non-core Assets
The table below provides the summary level data for each non-core asset category included in the AMP. The summary level data includes average age, average condition, and total replacement cost for all the underlying assets within the various asset categories.
Asset Category Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Average
Condition (ULC%)
Average
Condition State
Corporate Facilities1 10 82.4 $122,579,000 0.88% Good
Corporate Fleet 209 9.0 44,316,000 84% Good
Emergency Services 779 6.2 2,578,000 57% Good
Information Technology 587 9.3 6,080,000 50% Good
Parking Infrastructure 236 21.7 27,875,000 82% Good
Parks 629 20.5 61,765,000 84% Good
Recreation, Community, and Culture1 172 48.1 461,704,000 0.11% Good
Transportation Infrastructure2 10,267 21.8 215,671,000 29% Very Good
Total3 12,889 41.8 $942,568,000 50% Good
1. Average condition for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture are based on a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as opposed to the Useful Life Consumption percentage (ULC%).
2. Quantity of Transportation Infrastructure also includes a combined 385.6 km’s of sidewalk and guiderails.
3. Total Average Condition of 50% excludes Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture as these assets utilize the FCI condition methodology. These assets are assessed as “Good”, on average, meaning the total average condition state would remain as “Good” if these assets were included.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 172
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 6
The average age and condition for each asset category represents a weighted average, based on replacement cost,
of the average age and condition of the various asset types within each asset category. The total average age and
condition for all non-core assets represents a weighted average of the various asset categories, based on replacement cost.
The total replacement cost for each asset category represents the sum of the replacement costs of all the underlying assets within the category. Replacement costing reflects an estimate of the full replacement of each
asset and was derived using a combination of recent tenders and staff estimates.
The condition assessments for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture were determined using a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) methodology. The FCI reflects the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies as a percentage of the current replacement value. The FCI condition assessments were determined through Building Condition Assessments that were completed by an external engineering consultant in late 2023 and early 2024.
The remaining assets use a Useful Life Consumption percentage (ULC%) methodology to derive a condition rating.
The ULC% is calculated by dividing the assets age by its estimated useful life to determine the percentage of its estimated useful life that has been consumed. This methodology was used because most assets are not routinely subject to physical condition assessments.
Although the average condition of the Municipality’s non-core assets is rated as Good, the condition rating for each
individual underlying asset ranges from Very Good to Very Poor. The figure below provides the condition distribution
for all underlying assets, based on the quantity of assets within each asset category.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 173
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 7
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
According to O. Reg. 588/17, asset management plans must identify the set of planned actions required to maintain assets at their current level of service and provide a ten-year capital plan that forecasts the costs associated with
the lifecycle management strategies over the next ten-years.
33%
70%
29%
35%
27%
27%
98%
100%
24%
23%
32%
36%
32%
40%
2%
5%
1%
5%
6%
6%
2%
11%
4%
13%
8%
11%
16%
27%
1%
21%
15%
23%
15%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
Information Technology
Parking
Parks
Recreation, Community,
and Culture
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 174
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 8
Municipal assets undergo a number of lifecycle activities throughout their lifecycle; however, the lifecycle costing in
the AMP only includes the activities that form a capital cost to the Municipality (i.e.: the replacement of the assets).
The regulation states that only capital costs and “significant” operating costs should be captured in the AMP. However, the regulation does not define a “significant operating cost”. Therefore, no operating costs have been deemed significant for the purpose of this AMP. This operating cost assumption will be reevaluated for the next iteration of the AMP when full lifecycle costing, beyond a ten-year forecast horizon, will be identified.
The figure below identifies the estimated annual cost, over the next ten years, of all capital lifecycle activities
required to maintain all non-core assets at the current level of service. The estimated cost of lifecycle activities, for the 2024-2033 forecast period, is approximately $150 million.
$33,824
$6,692
$18,818
$13,041 $13,976
$18,037
$8,602
$13,970 $16,060
$12,038
$28,631
$149,866 $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 175
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 9
The costs in the figure above also include approximately $34 million in backlog costs. The backlog represents the
total estimated replacement cost of assets that, according to their age and estimated useful life, have surpassed
their scheduled year of replacement, and likely require replacement sometime within the ten-year forecast period.
It is important to note that items appearing in the backlog may not necessarily require immediate attention. These assets have likely been maintained through general maintenance and repair and may still be performing their functional duty at an acceptable level. Since these assets have surpassed their planned year of replacement, it is
difficult to predict in which year these assets will now require replacement. These assets will sit in the backlog until
such time as they are replaced.
The backlog includes only items that have a reasonable likelihood of requiring replacement within the ten-year forecast period. Items that are beyond their estimated useful life but are not planned for replacement over the forecast period have been removed from the backlog.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
The costs identified in the figure above represent the estimated annual gross cost of capital lifecycle activities over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant variances in
annual costs. In an effort to eliminate the significant variances, the AMP provides three scenarios for averaging out the total gross costs over the 2025-2033 period. Averaging out the costs ensures that the annual costs are increasing at a linear rate.
The table below provides the average annual costs for each of the three scenarios. All of the scenarios remove any costs that have already been included in previous municipal budgets. However, the three scenarios differ in their
approach to addressing the backlog.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 176
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 10
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current
Service Level $13,004 $13,521 $14,060 $14,620 $15,202 $15,807 $16,437 $17,092 $17,774 $137,516
Reduce Backlog $14,692 $15,278 $15,887 $16,520 $17,179 $17,864 $18,576 $19,317 $20,087 $155,399
Eliminate Backlog $16,573 $17,235 $17,923 $18,639 $19,384 $20,158 $20,963 $21,800 $22,670 $175,347
The “current service level” scenario represents the status quo and assumes the overall dollar value of the backlog
will remain constant throughout the forecast period. Under this scenario, the overall dollar value of the backlog will
remain constant, but the projects within the backlog could change. This scenario also assumes that the current asset condition distribution would remain relatively constant throughout the forecast period.
The “reduce backlog” scenario identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that 50 per cent of the current backlog would be eliminated over the forecast period. This scenario provides for a gradual
reduction in the dollar value of the backlog over time. This scenario would improve the asset condition distribution
by transitioning more assets into the Very Good to Good condition rating.
The “eliminate backlog” scenario identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that the entire backlog would be eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This would significantly improve the asset condition distribution by transitioning most assets into the Very Good to Good condition rating.
Inflation Assumption
Future costing throughout the forecast period has been inflated at a rate of four per cent per year. This is to ensure that future costs represent a reasonable estimate of the actual cost expected in that year. The four per cent
inflation rate is based on a historical average of the non-residential Building Construction Price Index.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 177
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 11
Introduction
02
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 178
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 12
Overview
The 2024 Asset Management Plan (AMP) is a comprehensive document that provides a long-term plan for investment in non-core capital infrastructure assets. Non-core capital assets include all assets that are not considered “core” for asset management purposes. Core assets, which were the subject of the Municipality’s previous AMP, include Roads, Bridges, Culverts, and Stormwater assets. The AMP for the Municipality’s core
assets was presented to Council in June 2022.
This iteration provides a long-term capital forecast for the replacement and financial management of the Municipality’s existing non-core infrastructure assets. This long-term capital forecast forms one of the pillars of the Municipality’s comprehensive long-term financial plan.
The purpose of the AMP is to identify the capital costs required to maintain the current service delivery standards
of the Municipality’s non-core assets over the next ten years. The AMP identifies only the capital costs of
maintaining or replacing the assets and does not include the operating costs associated with general maintenance and repair. The plan also does not provide a recommendation for funding the capital costs involved in the plan, but rather identifies only the estimated capital costs required to maintain the Municipality’s non-core assets, at their current level of service, over a ten-year forecast horizon. Full lifecycle costing (i.e. beyond a ten-year forecast
horizon), along with a corresponding funding strategy, will be included in the next iteration of the AMP, which is
required by July 1, 2025.
The 2024 AMP aims to capture as many non-core asset types and categories as possible and uses the best information available to forecast the capital financing needs of these assets over the next ten years. A variety of approaches were used to estimate the current state of the Municipality’s infrastructure, along with the estimated
costs to maintain these assets over the long-term. The AMP is intended to be a tool for staff and Council to guide
long-term financial planning decisions and will assist in many areas of financial planning, including capital budgeting and long-term financial forecasting.
Asset management planning has been identified as a key component of the Clarington Strategic Plan. The Municipality has identified the AMP as a strategic action required to address the priority of maintaining, protecting
and investing in municipal infrastructure and assets.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 179
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 13
It is important to note that the AMP represents a snapshot in time and is based on both a series of assumptions
and the best information available to staff at the time of development. As these assumptions change over time, the
underlying data will be updated and refined to ensure the information remains relevant and accurate.
Legislative Context for Asset Management Planning
Asset management planning has become a legislated responsibility for municipalities in the Province of Ontario. The legislative context and requirements have significantly evolved over the past decade.
In 2016, the Provincial Government passed the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, which gave the Province the authority to guide municipal asset management planning through regulation. This was followed, in late 2017, by the introduction of O. Reg. 588/17, which established the standard content to be included in all Asset
Management Plans in the Province of Ontario. Specifically, the regulation requires the following components:
• Development of a Strategic Asset Management Policy.
• Infrastructure asset inventory, including summary level data on each asset category.
• Defined current and proposed levels of service.
• Lifecycle activities undertaken to achieve the defined levels of service.
• Financial strategy to support the levels of service and lifecycle activities.
Although all components were included in O. Reg. 588/17, the Province is utilizing a phased approach for the implementation of the different components. The following table provides the implementation deadlines for the various components listed above:
Table I – Asset Management Plan Implementation Deadlines
Implementation Date Requirement
July 1, 2019 Municipalities to adopt a Strategic Asset Management Policy.
July 1, 2022 Municipalities to complete AMP for core assets, as defined by the Province.
July 1, 2024 Municipalities to complete AMP for remaining non-core assets.
July 1, 2025 Municipalities to develop a funding strategy and proposed service levels for all assets.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 180
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 14
Clarington completed the core asset AMP in 2022 and has now completed the iteration related to non-core assets.
The two plans include all the legislative components required for each implementation date, including a summarized asset inventory, current levels of service metrics, and annualized lifecycle activities.
The Municipality is now working towards developing a funding strategy and proposed levels of service targets for all assets, which represent the final components of the provincial asset management requirements. This final component will be completed and presented to Council in June 2025.
Strategic Asset Management Policy
The Municipality adopted its Strategic Asset Management Policy (G15) in 2019. The policy outlines the commitments and principles that will be considered in the Municipality’s asset management planning. It ensures
strategic alignment with the Municipality’s vision of building a sustainable, creative, and caring community. This vision requires the alignment of many initiatives, while ensuring that all existing and planned asset decisions support the recommended levels of service and long-term vision for the community.
As per O. Reg. 588/17, the Strategic Asset Management Policy must be reviewed every five years. The Municipality’s policy was reviewed as part of the development of the 2024 AMP and no significant changes to the
policy are being proposed. The policy will be reviewed again as part of the 2025 asset management legislative requirements. Any proposed changes stemming from this exercise will be brought to Council in conjunction with the 2025 iteration of the AMP.
Asset Management Plan Development
Overview
The AMP was developed in accordance with O. Reg. 588/17 and is structured to comply with both the legislative requirements contained within the legislation and the Municipality’s Strategic Asset Management Policy.
The 2024 AMP includes only non-core assets, as defined by O. Reg. 588/17, which are owned and operated by
the Municipality. As mentioned, the Municipality has previously developed an AMP that focused on the core assets of Roads, Bridges and Culverts, and Stormwater. The core asset AMP will need to be reviewed and updated by 2027, in accordance with provincial legislation.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 181
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 15
The Municipality’s non-core assets were grouped into different asset categories based on asset characteristics and
levels of service expectations. The following table provides the different asset categories, along with a description
of the assets included in each category.
Table II – Non-core Asset Categories
Asset Category Description
Corporate Facilities Includes all facilities, owned by the Municipality, that are used for public administration purposes and not for community programming purposes.
Corporate Fleet Includes all the vehicles and equipment required to perform the various services provided by the Municipality. This includes fire trucks, snowplows, ice resurfacers, etc.
Emergency Services Includes the various assets and equipment used in the delivery of fire and emergency services. Excludes fire stations (Corporate Facilities) and fire vehicles (Corporate Fleet).
Information Technology Includes various information technology hardware and software used by the Municipality for
service delivery and communication purposes.
Parking Infrastructure Includes the assets used in the delivery of parking services throughout the Municipality. Includes parking lots, parking lot lights, centralized parking meters, and Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers.
Parks Includes infrastructure used in providing parks services and outdoor recreation activities. Includes playground equipment, sports fields/courts, trails, etc. Cemetery infrastructure, such
as columbarium’s, are also included in this asset category.
Recreation, Community, and Culture
Includes the facilities, owned by the Municipality, that are used for community programming and events. Includes arenas, aquatic centres, community halls, museums, and libraries. Also included are various pieces of fitness and recreation equipment.
Transportation Infrastructure Includes the assets used in the delivery of transportation services, with the exception of the Municipality’s Road network. Includes traffic lights, sidewalks, guiderails, streetlights, etc.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 182
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 16
Developing the AMP was a collaborative effort between the Finance and Technology Department and the various
Departments and Divisions that own and operate the assets used in the delivery of municipal services.
Collaboration with service area experts was a key component of ensuring the plan includes the best information available.
Asset Management Plan Structure
The plan has been designed to emphasize the asset categories by providing dedicated chapters for each of the non-core asset categories. Each asset category chapter includes separate sections focusing on the various requirements of O. Reg. 588/17, such as State of Local Infrastructure, Levels of Services, and Lifecycle Management Strategies. These chapters provide a higher degree of granularity by summarizing data down to the
asset sub-type level and provide insight on specific assumptions and nuances that are unique to the corresponding asset category.
The AMP also provides a “Summary of Non-core Infrastructure Assets” chapter that aggregates the information from the individual asset categories to provide insight into the overall state of non-core infrastructure for the Municipality. This chapter provides further information on the legislative requirements for each component of the
AMP, along with background information on the general assumptions and methodologies used to derive the data.
Risk Assessment
The AMP assesses risk as the likelihood of failure, which is quantified through the asset condition rating. The
consequence of failure is difficult to quantify and has not been identified in this iteration of the AMP. The identified lifecycle activities have been established based on the likelihood of asset failure as opposed to the consequence of failure.
The Municipality is currently undertaking work to define a consequence of failure matrix that could be used to prioritize lifecycle activities in future iterations of the AMP. Currently, asset spending prioritization is done by
subject matter experts within the various departments. The AMP identifies the annual costs associated with maintaining and replacing assets based on their likelihood of failure. Individual departments will conduct their own funding assessment as to which projects should be brought forward or pushed back based on the consequence of asset failure.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 183
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 17
Growth Considerations
The Municipality plans for growth through the development of its Official Plan and associated Secondary Plans. The purpose of the Official Plan is to guide and manage development in the Municipality and includes policies that provide for a more urban, walkable community, with great public spaces and complete streets designed for people.
The Municipality uses Development Charges (DC’s), and the associated DC Study, to plan for the infrastructure required to service the increased growth identified through the Official Plan. The Municipality last updated its DC study in 2020 and is currently in the process of developing a new DC Study for implementation in 2025.
The 2020 DC Study forecasts population and employment growth out to 2031. The DC Study estimates are provided in Table III below. The population estimates exclude the census undercount, while the employment
estimates include both work from home and employees with no fixed place of work.
Table III – Population and Employment Estimates – 2020 DC Study
Early 2020 Early 2025 Early 2030 Mid 2031
Population 99,289 113,484 129,687 134,941
Employment 30,765 36,178 39,475 40,458
Annualized estimates for the next ten years are provided in Table IV below. The annualized estimates are based on the information from the 2020 DC Study and use the estimated growth rate from 2030-2031 to derive estimates for 2032 and
2033.
Table IV – Annualized Population and Employment Estimates (2024 – 2033)
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Population 110,645 113,484 116,725 119,965 123,206 126,446 129,687 134,941 140,195 145,449
Employment 35,095 36,178 36,837 37,497 38,156 38,816 39,475 40,458 41,441 42,424
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 184
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 18
The specific types of infrastructure required to service this growth were also included in the 2020 DC Study. The value
of infrastructure requirements identified in the 2020 DC Study, which pertain to the assets included in this AMP, are
provided in the table below. The estimates reflect totals over the entire DC Study forecast period of 2020 – 2031.
The table provides both the actual costs provided in the DC Study ($2020) and an estimate of the value in current dollar terms ($2024). The current estimates are derived by inflating the 2020 costs by the four per cent per year inflation factor used throughout the AMP.
Table V – Value of Growth-Related Infrastructure (2020-2031) – 2020 DC Study
DC Service Area DC Study Cost ($2020) Estimated Current Cost ($2024)
Fire Protection Services $11,483,000 $13,433,000
Parks and Recreation 160,833,000 188,152,000
Library Services 11,072,000 12,953,000
Total $183,388,000 $214,538,000
Annualized growth-related infrastructure cost estimates, for the next ten years, have been provided in the table below. These estimates are based on the information provided above from the 2020 DC Study. The DC Study only
projects infrastructure costs out to 2029 for the DC service areas related to the non-core infrastructure assets. The
DC Study projections were used to derive estimates for the remaining forecast years of 2030 – 2033.
Table VI – Annualized Growth-Related Infrastructure Costs ($000’s) (2024 – 2033)
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2024-2033
Total $20,663 $7,477 $47,082 $12,680 $14,681 $38,568 $4,820 $6,342 $8,680 $12,355 $173,348
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 185
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 19
As the costs in the table above form part of the DC Study, the initial cost of infrastructure would be partially funded
through DC’s. However, the replacement of this infrastructure would not be DC eligible and would need to be
covered through non-DC sources.
Some of the assets included in the costs above have likely been acquired and would be included in the AMP. However, assets that have not yet been acquired are not represented as the AMP deals exclusively with the maintenance and replacement of current infrastructure. The table demonstrates that growth-related infrastructure,
although partially funded by DC’s for the initial acquisition, also have significant replacement costs that need to be
funded. The funding for the replacement of growth-related infrastructure will be planned through capital budgeting and long-term capital forecasting.
Climate Change Considerations
Climate change considerations have been incorporated in the AMP, where possible, through the estimated replacement costing of the assets. Replacement costing is based on the Municipality’s current standards for asset acquisition and functionality. For example, replacement costing for fleet assets assume electric vehicle replacement, where possible, while replacement costing for lighting luminaires assume LED replacement.
In March 2020, the Municipality of Clarington joined over 400 Canadian municipalities and 1,300 local governments by declaring a climate emergency. By declaring a climate emergency, the Municipality acknowledges its leadership role in responding to climate change by reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.
Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan
In March 2021, Clarington Council approved the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCCAP) to prepare for climate change and reduce the negative impact Municipal service delivery may have on the environment. The
CCCAP outlines over one hundred actions the Municipality can take to respond to climate change while adapting
services and operations to minimize climate risks. It also sets targets to reduce corporate GHG emissions. The CCCAP sets a target to reduce corporate GHG emissions by 35 per cent by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The actions in the CCCAP will be considered in all asset replacement activities moving forward.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 186
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 20
Green Fleet and Equipment Policy
In December 2023, Clarington Council approved the Green Fleet and Equipment Policy. This policy directs staff to
prioritize investment in low or zero-emission fleet assets as a means of reducing GHG emissions. As per the
Green Fleet and Equipment Policy, the AMP assumes electric replacement for all fleet assets where an electric replacement is available. Currently, electric replacements are available for cars and vans, light-duty trucks, and certain pieces of equipment. The provisions of the Green Fleet and Equipment Policy have been captured in the levels of service indicators for fleet assets by tracking the number of electric vehicles as a percentage of total fleet.
Asset Management Planning – Long-term Vision
The Municipality will continue working towards satisfying the various legislative components of asset management
planning, in accordance with the legislative deadlines provided in O. Reg. 588/17.
Once the remaining iterations have been completed by the legislative deadlines, staff will undertake work to consolidate the three separate documents into a single, comprehensive AMP, that includes all assets owned and operated by the Municipality. The consolidated plan will include updated asset inventory information for all assets, along with updated lifecycle costing and a corresponding financing strategy.
Future asset management planning will also include the development of a natural asset inventory and the inclusion
of natural assets in future plans. Until a comprehensive natural asset inventory is developed, asset management plans will continue to include only engineered assets.
Going forward, the underlying asset data will be updated on an annual basis to ensure the information remains relevant and useful. This data will then be used to inform future capital budgeting and forecasting. The
development of a single, comprehensive AMP for all assets is intended to form a critical component of the
Municipality’s long-term financial plan.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 187
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 21
Summary of Non-core
Infrastructure Assets
03
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 188
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 22
Overview
The following sections provide an overview of the various components required under the provincial asset management regulation O. Reg. 588/17. The regulation requires an overview of the state of local infrastructure, including asset age, condition, and replacement cost, along with indicators of current service levels and annual lifecycle costing over a ten-year forecast horizon.
The specific information relating to the different asset categories is presented in the corresponding chapter related
to the specific asset category. The summary information on the different asset categories has been aggregated into the sections below. The purpose is to provide an overall summary for all non-core assets owned and operated by the Municipality.
The sections below also provide further context into the assumptions and methodologies used to derive the data,
along with further legislative detail on the various components included in O. Reg. 588/17.
State of Local Infrastructure
According to O. Reg. 588/17, the following information for each asset category must be identified as an indicator of the state of local infrastructure:
•Summary of the assets included in the asset category.
•Replacement cost of the assets included in the asset category.
•Average age of the assets in the asset category, determined by assessing the average age of the
components of the assets.
•Information available on the condition of the assets in the category.
•Description of the municipality’s approach to assessing the condition of the assets in the category (based on
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices where appropriate).
The table below provides the aggregated summary information for the different asset categories included in the AMP.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 189
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 23
Table 1 – Average Age, Replacement Cost, and Average Condition – All Non-core Asset Categories
Asset Category Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Corporate Facilities1 10 82.4 $122,579,000 0.88% Good
Corporate Fleet 209 9.0 44,316,000 84% Good
Emergency Services 779 6.2 2,578,000 57% Good
Information Technology 587 9.3 6,080,000 50% Good
Parking Infrastructure 236 21.7 27,875,000 82% Good
Parks 629 20.5 61,765,000 84% Good
Recreation, Community, and Culture1 172 48.1 461,704,000 0.11% Good
Transportation Infrastructure2 10,267 21.8 215,671,000 29% Very Good
Total3 12,889 41.8 $942,568,000 50% Good
1. Average condition for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture are based on a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as opposed to the Useful Life Consumption percentage (ULC%). 2. Quantity of Transportation Infrastructure also includes a combined 385.6 km’s of sidewalk and guiderails.
3. Total Average Condition of 50% excludes Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture as these assets utilize the
FCI condition methodology. These assets are assessed as “Good”, on average, meaning the total average condition state would remain as “Good” if these assets were included.
The majority of asset data, including the inventory, age, and historical costing of assets, has been extracted from the Municipality’s asset management tracking software, CityWide. The Finance and Technology Department maintains the CityWide database and works with other departments to ensure the system is updated when new assets are acquired.
The majority of data for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture (RCC) facilities has been extracted from Building Condition Assessments (BCA’s) that were completed in late 2023 and early 2024. These
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 190
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 24
BCA’s provide current condition assessments, lifecycle costing, and replacement values. The condition
assessments provided in the AMP were directly extracted from the BCA’s.
Lifecycle costing for Corporate Facilities and RCC assets were derived from the BCA’s but were adjusted to match the annual inflation assumptions used for all other asset categories. Replacement costs for the AMP were estimated by staff and were derived by applying a current cost per square foot estimate to the size of each facility. This approach was used to better estimate the overall cost associated with the complete reconstruction of each
facility.
Asset Exclusions
The assets included in the AMP represent only the assets that are being actively maintained by the Municipality and are scheduled to be replaced. There are some assets in the municipal inventory that are still in use but are not scheduled to be replaced at the end of their useful life. These assets are typically well beyond their estimated useful life but remain in the asset inventory because they continue to perform some functional duty for the
Municipality. These assets have typically already been replaced by newer assets but remain in active service.
These assets have been excluded from the AMP to provide a more realistic representation of the state of local infrastructure.
Summary of Assets
The following table provides the different asset categories included in the AMP, along with the specific asset types included in each category. Each asset type is then further divided into specific asset sub-types. Asset types were determined by grouping similar assets with similar characteristics (e.g. replacement costs, estimated useful lives, and lifecycle activities).
Descriptions of the various asset sub-types are included in the individual chapters for each asset category. These
descriptions also provide further details on the assets included in any “Miscellaneous” category.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 191
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 25
Table 2 – Summary of Asset Types
Asset Category Asset Types Asset Sub-Types
Corporate Facilities Corporate Facilities Municipal Administration Centre
Fire Stations
Operations Depots
Animal Services Building
Corporate Fleet Vehicles Aerials, Pumpers, Tankers
Cars and Vans
Heavy, Medium, and Light Duty Vehicles
Equipment Ice Resurfacers
Loaders, Graders, Tractors, Mowers
Trailers and Unlicensed Equipment
Emergency Services Suppression Gear Bunker Suits and Helmets
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus’
Equipment Suppression Equipment
Defibrillators, Pagers, Radios
Training Infrastructure Miscellaneous training equipment
Information Technology Communications Communication Towers and Wireless Links
Phone system
Software Software systems
Hardware Various hardware (laptops, monitors, etc.)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 192
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 26
Asset Category Asset Types Asset Sub-Types
Parking Infrastructure Parking Lots Paved and Gravel lots
Parking Lot Infrastructure Lights, Central Pay Meters, Electric Vehicle Chargers
Parks Play Courts Tennis, Basketball, and Pickleball Courts
Play Fields Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Football, and Cricket Fields
Lacrosse Bowl
Playgrounds Playground/Outdoor Fitness Equipment and Splashpads
Park Structures/Amenities Sports field lights and Park lights
Park washrooms
Shade structures and Miscellaneous structures
Trails Park/non-park trails, Waterfront trails, Multi-use paths
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Park assets
Recreation, Community, and Culture Facilities Arenas, Aquatic Centres, Indoor Soccer Facility, Community Facilities, Culture Facilities
Equipment Fitness and Recreation equipment
Transportation Infrastructure Guiderails Steel Beam, Guideposts/Post & Cable, Concrete barriers
Sidewalks Concrete and Asphalt
Streetlighting Concrete, Wood, Aluminum poles (standard and decorative)
LED luminaires (standard and decorative)
Traffic Controls Traffic signals and Pedestrian crossings
Equipment Radar message boards
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 193
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 27
Replacement Costing
The total replacement cost of all non-core assets owned by the Municipality is estimated at over $942 million (Table 1). The majority of the cost is associated with the various Corporate and RCC facilities. The estimated replacement cost for these facilities is over $580 million, or over 60 per cent of the total cost of non-core asset
replacement.
Replacement Costing Assumptions
Replacement costing generally represents an estimate for the full replacement of an asset. This would include the estimated cost of the tangible asset, along with the costs associated with construction, installation, and removal of the existing asset. All replacement costing has been provided in current (2024) dollars.
Replacement costing was derived using recent tenders for similar assets, along with the expertise of staff involved
in the purchasing and operation of the assets. When past tenders were used to estimate replacement costing,
costs were inflated to best reflect current pricing.
Replacement costing for facilities is based on a $750 cost per square foot. This cost was applied to the estimated square footage of each facility (both Corporate and RCC) to derive the full replacement cost. The estimated cost per square foot is based on recent tenders and represents the current cost assumption used by the Municipality’s
Facilities Division for capital budgeting purposes.
Estimated Replacement Costing – Core and Non-core Assets
The total replacement cost of over $942 million refers only to the non-core assets included in this AMP. It is important to note that there are also significant replacement costs associated with the Municipality’s core assets. The core assets of roads, stormwater, bridges, and culverts represent a significant share of the total assets owned and operated by the Municipality.
The table below provides the replacement costing for the core assets that was included in the 2022 AMP. The
costs in the 2022 AMP were provided in 2020 dollars. The table inflates the costs into current dollars ($2024), using a four per cent per year inflation factor, as a means of estimating the current replacement cost for these assets.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 194
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 28
Table 3 – Core Asset Replacement Costs
Core Assets 2022 AMP Replacement Cost ($2020) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Stormwater Management $188,266,000 $220,245,000
Roads 714,628,000 836,014,000
Bridges and Culverts 200,020,000 233,995,000
Total $1,102,914,000 $1,290,253,000
The total replacement cost for core assets, based on the information from the 2022 AMP and inflating costs into
current dollars, is approximately $1.3 billion. The figure below shows the total estimated replacement cost for all
Municipal assets, combining the total replacement cost of non-core assets with the estimated current replacement cost for core assets. The addition of the estimated replacement cost of core assets results in a total replacement cost, for all Municipal assets, of over $2.2 billion.
The estimates provided for core assets have been included for illustrative purposes only. The composition of core
assets has likely changed since the core asset AMP was completed and replacement costing has potentially
increased at a higher rate. A true reflection of current replacement costing for core assets would require a detailed review and update of the core asset AMP. The table above is intended to act as a reminder that the Municipality owns a significant amount of additional infrastructure that, although not accounted for in this AMP, must be considered when assessing the full replacement cost of the Municipality’s total asset inventory.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 195
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 29
Figure 1 – Estimated Total Asset Replacement Costing ($2024) – All Core and Non-core Assets
Asset Age
The majority of asset age data was extracted from the Municipality’s asset inventory and was determined based on the in-service date provided in CityWide. The average age for each asset category represents a weighted average, based on replacement cost, of the average age of the various asset types within each category. The
average age of the various asset types, within each asset category, is provided in the individual asset chapters.
The total average age for all non-core assets, presented in Table 1, represents a weighted average of the various asset categories, based on replacement cost. The total average age of all non-core assets is approximately 41.8 years.
Average age varies significantly depending on the type of asset. The average age of facilities is significantly
higher than the other asset categories because these assets are generally maintained and renovated not typically
subject to a full replacement. The age of these assets is based on the initial construction date, which, in the case of the Municipal Administration Centre, was over one-hundred years ago.
$1,290,253,000
$942,167,000
$2,232,420,000
$0
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
Core Asset Replacement Cost Non-core Asset Replacement Cost
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 196
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 30
In certain circumstances, the age of specific asset types was unknown. In these cases, efforts were made to
estimate the age as accurately as possible. In other cases, estimating the age with a reasonable degree of
accuracy was not possible based on data gaps. In these limited circumstances, the average age was listed as “N/A” (not available). This was done for certain types of streetlights that were likely installed before electronic documentation became available.
Estimated Useful Life
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry best practice or through discussions
with service area experts within the Municipality. The Municipality’s Capitalization Policy assigns an estimated
useful life to all capital assets as a means of amortizing the asset for financial reporting purposes. The estimates provided in this policy are based on industry best practice (at the time the policy was developed) and were used in most circumstances for the AMP.
In other circumstances, the expertise of staff was used to determine the estimated useful life based on updated
estimates from recent acquisitions. The estimated useful life of certain assets tends to lengthen over time with
improvements in technology and manufacturing. For example, light poles for streetlights and sports fields are now equipped with a lifetime warranty. The estimated useful life for specific asset types has been included in the chapters for the individual asset categories.
Asset Condition
Condition Assessment Methodology – Non-Facility Assets
The condition for most of the Municipality’s non-core assets (excluding Facilities) has not been assessed through a physical condition assessment. Most of these assets are visually inspected on a periodic basis to identify obvious signs of deterioration; however, most assets are not routinely subject to physical inspections that assess the
structural condition of the asset.
In the absence of physical condition assessments, the AMP uses the age of the asset as a proxy for condition. The metric used is the Useful Life Consumption Percentage (ULC%), which derives a condition based on the assets age relative to its estimated useful life. The ULC% is calculated by dividing the assets age by its estimated useful life to determine the percentage of its estimated useful life that has been consumed.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 197
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 31
New assets would have a ULC% of 0% as these assets have not yet consumed any of their estimated useful lives.
Assets that have reached their estimated useful life would have a ULC% of 100%, indicating that they have
consumed all of their estimated useful life. It is possible for assets to have a ULC% greater than 100% if the asset is beyond its estimated useful life.
It is important to note that a ULC% of greater than 100% is not necessarily an immediate concern. Some assets, through routine maintenance, can last beyond their estimated useful life and still perform their desired level of
service. However, close attention should be paid to these assets as they are beyond their estimated useful life and
will likely require replacement in the near future.
The table below segments the ULC% into qualitive condition states. The ULC% condition states are segmented based on the probability of failure. An asset that has reached its estimated useful life (ULC% of 100%) would be considered in “Fair” condition. Once an asset starts to exceed its estimated useful life, the probability of failure
increases, and the condition becomes “Poor” to “Very Poor”. The condition assessment scale was provided by the
consulting firm Watson and Associates and is based on guidance in the International Infrastructure Management Manual.
Table 4 – ULC% Condition States
ULC% Condition State
0% ≤ ULC% ≤ 45% Very Good
45% < ULC% ≤ 90% Good
90% < ULC% ≤ 100% Fair
100% < ULC% ≤ 125% Poor
125% < ULC% Very Poor
In certain limited cases, the condition of an asset is determined through a physical condition assessment. This is the case for many Emergency Services assets that have a direct impact on the health and safety of the user (e.g. bunker gear, helmets, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA’s), etc.). These assets have been provided a
condition rating of “Assessed”, which reflects the fact that they are physically inspected on a frequent basis to
ensure the assets remain in Very Good condition. This is also the case for certain types of critical IT infrastructure.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 198
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 32
Condition Assessment Methodology – Facility Assets
The condition of Corporate and RCC Facilities were assessed by an engineering consulting team through formal
Building Condition Assessments (BCA’s). The BCA’s were completed in late 2023 and early 2024 and included
visual inspections of the majority of facilities owned by the Municipality.
The purpose of the visual assessments was to provide a general indication of the present physical condition of the building components. The inspections evaluated the structure and facility elements, the building envelope, and the mechanical/electrical systems. The BCA’s also included a predictive ten-year forecast for renewal costs. The
BCA’s did not include any physical or destructive testing and observations were made only in areas that were
visible or readily accessible.
The BCA’s assessed the condition of each facility using a Facility Condition Index (FCI) methodology. The FCI reflects the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies as a percentage of the current replacement value. The AMP uses the FCI derived from the BCA’s as the condition assessment for all facility assets.
The table below segments the FCI% into qualitative condition states. The FCI is a widely recognized benchmark,
used in facilities management, and the condition states identified below are based on industry best practice.
Table 5 – FCI Condition States
FCI Condition State Definition
0% ≤ FCI% < 5% Good
Facilities look clean and functional with limited expectation of
equipment/component failure. Repairs are generally more aesthetic in
nature.
5% ≤ FCI% < 10% Fair Facilities are beginning to show signs of wear and equipment failures are more frequently expected. Specific systems/components require repair or replacement.
10% ≤ FCI% < 30% Poor
Facilities appear worn, with increasing deterioration, and frequent
component failures are expected. Replacement of major systems are required.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 199
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 33
FCI Condition State Definition
30% < FCI% Critical Facilities appear worn, with obvious signs of deterioration, and frequent equipment failures are expected. Replacement of multiple systems are required, and the facility poses a health and safety risk.
Note that the FCI calculations use replacement value, as opposed to replacement cost, as the denominator in the
condition calculation. Total replacement value represents only the sum of the costs of each component part of the facility whereas replacement cost is a broader measure that includes all the other costs associated with replacing a facility (e.g. project management, contingencies, labour costs, etc.).
Assessed Conditions
Most non-core asset categories have an average condition rating of Good (Table 1). The average condition rating for each asset category is determined using the same weighted average approach used for determining average
age. The condition ratings suggest that the majority of assets, with significant estimated replacement costs, are within their estimated useful life. The average condition for Transportation Infrastructure is rated as Very Good due to the lengthy estimated useful lives applied to the assets with the highest replacement costs.
Although the average condition for all asset categories is rated as Good or Very Good, the condition rating for each individual underlying asset ranges from Very Poor to Very Good. The figure below provides the condition
distribution for all underlying assets within the various asset categories. The figure below provides an unweighted view of asset conditions and provides the distribution based on the quantity of assets. The condition distribution for Recreation, Community, and Culture is significantly different than the average condition for this asset category because the distribution is unweighted, and the quantity of recreation equipment far outnumbers the quantity of facilities.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 200
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 34
Figure 2 – Condition Distribution by Asset Category
Assessed Condition – Facilities
The condition assessments provided for all municipal facilities represent the current condition as of 2024. The
individual chapters for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture also provide a long-term condition rating that assesses the total condition for the next five and ten years. The total condition ratings for the next five to ten years range from Good to Critical. This suggests that, although the current condition is rated as Good, these facilities still require a significant amount of renewal needs within the next ten years.
33%
70%
29%
35%
27%
27%
98%
100%
24%
23%
32%
36%
32%
40%
2%
5%
1%
5%
6%
6%
2%
11%
4%
13%
8%
11%
16%
27%
1%
21%
15%
23%
15%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
Information Technology
Parking
Parks
Recreation, Community,
and Culture
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 201
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 35
Levels of Service
The Municipality’s current level of service, for the purpose of the AMP, is defined as maintaining both the asset condition distribution and the overall size of the backlog at current levels. Assets typically require replacement when they reach the point where they can no longer perform their functional duty. It is difficult to predict when an asset will reach the point where it can no longer perform its functional duty as this is typically dependent on the
frequency of use. For example, two identical fleet vehicles may have very different replacement schedules if one
vehicle is used far more frequently than the other. The vehicle with the higher use frequency will likely deteriorate at a faster rate and will likely need to be replaced sooner than the other.
As asset failure can occur at any point throughout the lifecycle, the AMP assumes that assets will require replacement at the end of their useful life. Some assets may need to be replaced before the end of their useful life,
while other assets may last beyond their estimated useful life. The AMP assumes that, on average, assets will no
longer be able to perform their functional duty at the end of their useful life. At this point, the asset will either be replaced or will be included in the backlog. This assumption also ensures that the average condition of each asset category is generally maintained at current levels.
Levels of Service Metrics
Specific levels of service metrics were developed for each asset category. Metrics were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The structure of the levels of service tables are similar for all asset categories and include the following columns:
• Service Attribute – identifies the high-level attribute being addressed and are intended to reflect important values of the organization.
• Levels of Service Statement - intended to capture the expectations of the community.
• Performance Measure – intended to quantify the expectation identified in the Levels of Service Statement.
• Current Performance – identifies the current performance of the metric, using the most recent data available.
Efforts were made to maintain consistency across the various asset categories in terms of the service level
attributes being addressed. Attributes were selected based on certain key characteristics, such as sustainability, accessibility, cost effectiveness, and quality.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 202
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 36
The service attributes of cost effectiveness and quality were applied to all asset categories, whereas sustainability
and accessibility were applied when appropriate. The performance measures for cost effectiveness and quality
were also consistently applied across all asset categories.
Cost effectiveness is measured by identifying the current capital reinvestment rate for each asset category. The reinvestment rate was determined by identifying the most recent capital budget allocations, with respect to replacement and rehabilitation, and dividing by the total estimated replacement cost for the respective asset
category. Quality is measured by the current average condition rating identified in the AMP.
Levels of Service Targets
The AMP identifies only the current level of service for each performance measure. Proposed levels of service and
corresponding service level targets will be included in future iterations of the AMP, in accordance with O. Reg. 588/17. Although efforts will be made to maintain the current subset of performance measures, these measures may be refined in future iterations as more data becomes available.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Lifecycle management strategies represent the set of planned actions required to maintain assets at their current
level of service. The set of actions can include activities intended to maintain or extend the service life of an asset. Asset management plans must also include a ten-year capital plan that forecasts the costs associated with the lifecycle management strategies over the ten-year period.
The table below identifies the main categories of lifecycle activities or planned actions that would be associated
with capital assets.
Table 6 – Lifecycle Activities for Capital Assets
Lifecycle Activity Description
Inspection Includes routine inspections of assets to ensure condition remains at desired levels.
This could include physical inspections or visual inspections.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 203
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 37
Lifecycle Activity Description
General Repair and
Maintenance (minor rehabilitation)
Includes the routine maintenance and repair activities performed to ensure assets
reach their estimated useful life. These activities are generally minor in nature and
typically represent a cost of less than $5,000.
Major Repair and Maintenance (major rehabilitation) Includes major repair and maintenance work that exceeds $5,000 per activity. This would typically include the repair or replacement of a major asset component.
Replacement Includes the full replacement of the asset at the end of its lifecycle.
Expansion or Enhancement Includes the expansion or enhancement of an asset; generally completed to enhance the level of service provided by the asset.
Disposal Activities associated with disposing of an asset once it has reached the end of its
useful life or when it is no longer required by the Municipality.
Inspection activities and general maintenance and repair are either completed by staff or are budgeted through the Municipality’s operating budget. As these activities typically represent operating costs, the cost of these activities has not been included in the AMP. According to O. Reg. 588/17, only capital costs and “significant” operating costs
should be captured in the AMP. The Municipality does not consider inspection and general maintenance and repair
activities as significant operating costs for the purposes of the AMP.
The Lifecycle costs included in the AMP pertain only to major capital repair, maintenance and replacement activities. Major repair and maintenance activities are typically performed on facility assets as these assets are not typically subject to a full replacement. Facility assets are actively maintained through both general and major repair
and maintenance. Replacement activities form the basis of the lifecycle costing for all other asset categories. Most
maintenance activities performed on municipal assets are funded through the operating budget, leaving mainly the replacement of the asset to be funded through the capital budget.
Expansion or enhancement activities have not been included in the AMP as these activities often result in an increased service level. These activities typically represent a capital cost to the Municipality; however, they are
typically partially funded by development charges. According to O. Reg. 588/17, the AMP must include the cost of
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 204
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 38
providing lifecycle activities that would need to be undertaken to maintain the current levels of service. Disposal
activities have also not been included in lifecycle costing as these activities rarely result in a capital cost.
Lifecycle Strategy Costing and Backlog
As mentioned, the Municipality’s current practice is to plan for the replacement of an asset once the asset can no
longer perform its functional duty. Since it is difficult to predict when an asset may fail, the AMP assumes the asset will fail once it reaches Poor condition (i.e. end of its estimated useful life).
The lifecycle management costs presented in the AMP include the major repair and maintenance activities, funded through the capital program, and the end-of-life replacement of the assets. The figure below identifies the estimated annual cost, over the next ten years, to perform these lifecycle activities across all asset categories.
Figure 3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing ($,000’s) – All Non-core Asset Categories
$33,824
$6,692
$18,818
$13,041 $13,976 $18,037
$8,602
$13,970 $16,060 $12,038
$28,631
$149,866 $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 205
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 39
The estimated cost of lifecycle activities, over the 2024-2033 period, is approximately $150 million. The total
estimated cost, including all the costs included in the backlog, is approximately $183.7 million.
The backlog represents the total estimated replacement cost of assets that, according to their age and estimated useful life, have surpassed their anticipated year of replacement. The backlog represents the total estimated cost of the assets that are beyond their estimated useful life and that will likely require replacement sometime within the ten-year forecast period.
It is important to note that items appearing in the backlog may not necessarily require immediate attention. These
assets have likely been maintained through general maintenance and repair and may still be performing their functional duty at an acceptable level. Since these assets have surpassed their planned year of replacement, it is difficult to predict in which year these assets will now require replacement. These assets will sit in the backlog until such time as they are replaced.
The backlog contains only the assets that have a reasonable likelihood of requiring replacement within the ten-
year forecast period. Some backlog items are more theoretical in nature, in that they appear in the backlog only because they have exceeded their estimated useful life. The physical condition of these assets is such that there is a minimal likelihood that replacement would be required within the ten-year forecast period. These items have been removed from the backlog, leaving the backlog with only the items with a reasonable likelihood of requiring
replacement within the forecast period.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
The costs in Figure 3 represent the estimated annual gross cost of replacing assets at the end of their estimated
useful life, along with the estimated gross cost of major repair and maintenance needs over the next ten years. The amount of annual maintenance and replacement activities varies, leading to significant variations in annual costing. In an effort to smooth out the large variances, an average annual cost of lifecycle activities has been determined.
Figure 4 compares the total annual lifecycle costs with the average annual lifecycle costs of maintaining all non-
core assets at their current level of service. The average annual costs have been structured so that the costs increase at the assumed annual rate of inflation (approximately four percent per year). This ensures that, in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the costs are being spread equitably over the forecast period.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 206
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 40
In order to ensure that current levels of service are being maintained, the average annual costs assume the overall
dollar value of the backlog will remain constant throughout the forecast period. This scenario assumes that some
items in the backlog would be addressed on an annual basis, but the replacement of backlog items would come at the expense of other scheduled replacement activities. Some scheduled activities would then fall into the backlog, thus maintaining the overall size of the backlog at its current level. This scenario would also ensure a consistent mix of assets, with condition ratings ranging between Very Good to Very Poor, would be maintained.
Figure 4 also removes the estimated costs that have been previously budgeted. Some lifecycle activities have
already been budgeted but have not yet been performed. The estimated total annual costs, within each scenario, assumes that the previously budgeted activities no longer represent a cost to the Municipality. Since the majority of lifecycle costs for 2024 have been previously budgeted, the total annual costs have been averaged out over the 2025-2033 period.
Figure 4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$746
$17,332
$8,217
$13,950 $17,977
$8,602
$13,970 $16,060 $12,038
$28,625 $13,004 $13,521 $14,060 $14,620 $15,202 $15,807 $16,437 $17,092 $17,774
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 207
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 41
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The average annual costs identified in Figure 4 represent the average annual costs of maintaining current service levels, with the current dollar value of the backlog and the current asset condition distribution remaining constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios that take a more
aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure 5 identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that the current level of service will be maintained and that 50 per cent of the current backlog would be eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This scenario takes a gradual approach to reducing the backlog over time. This scenario would lead to a gradual transition of all assets to Very Good to Good condition, with some assets likely remaining in the
Poor to Very Poor condition at the end of the ten-year forecast period.
Figure 5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$746
$19,112
$10,068
$15,851 $19,953
$10,517 $15,961 $18,132 $14,193
$30,865 $14,692 $15,278 $15,887 $16,520 $17,179 $17,864 $18,576 $19,317 $20,087
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 208
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 42
Figure 6 identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that the current level of
service will be maintained and that the entire backlog will be eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This
scenario would transition the majority of assets into the Very Good to Good condition rating by the end of the forecast period.
Figure 6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the total average annual costs of maintaining the current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the dollar value of the current backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the
backlog over the ten-year forecast period. The total costs, over the 2025-2033 period, range from approximately
$137.5 million, under the current service level scenario, to approximately $175.3 million under the scenario of eliminating the entire backlog.
$746
$20,964
$13,296 $17,828 $22,012
$12,516
$18,040 $20,293 $16,441
$33,210 $16,573 $17,235 $17,923 $18,639 $19,384 $20,158 $20,963 $21,800 $22,670
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 209
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 43
Table 7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Level $13,004 $13,521 $14,060 $14,620 $15,202 $15,807 $16,437 $17,092 $17,774 $137,516
Reduce Backlog $14,692 $15,278 $15,887 $16,520 $17,179 $17,864 $18,576 $19,317 $20,087 $155,399
Eliminate Backlog $16,573 $17,235 $17,923 $18,639 $19,384 $20,158 $20,963 $21,800 $22,670 $175,347
Inflation Assumptions
The costs identified in the lifecycle management strategies are heavily dependent on the inflation assumption used
throughout the AMP. The AMP assumes a four per cent per year inflation assumption for all asset types. The four per cent annual inflation factor is based on the historic average of the non-residential Building Construction Price Index (BCPI). The BCPI is often used as a proxy to estimate inflation on capital infrastructure.
The average annual BCPI growth rate for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area was just over four per cent for the
2010 to 2023 period. Significant inflationary increases began to occur in 2021, with the Toronto CMA BCPI
increasing 9.6 per cent. These above average increases continued in 2022 and 2023, with annual increases of 16.2 and 8.2 per cent respectively.
The significant increases from 2021 to 2023 were related to a number of macroeconomic shocks and geopolitical events (e.g. supply chain issues, labour shortages, international conflicts, etc.). It is difficult to predict whether the
recently elevated BCPI inflation rates will continue into the future or whether these inflation rates will return to the
long run average.
Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation averaged just over two per cent per year over the same 2010 to 2023 period. This is in line with the Bank of Canada target for a two per cent annual inflation rate. CPI inflation also increased
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 210
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 44
significantly between 2021 and 2023 but is beginning to normalize in early 2024. The Bank of Canada is
committed to bringing CPI inflation back down to its two per cent per year target. Assuming annual CPI inflation
returns to the two per cent per year target, and the historical relationship between CPI and BCPI holds, a four per cent annual inflation rate, over the next ten years, is a reasonable assumption.
Inflation factors will be monitored closely over the coming years and any adjustments will be incorporated through the annual capital budget process.
Lifecycle Costing Including Core Assets
The total annual lifecycle costs identified in Figure 3 above reflect only the costs for the non-core assets that form the basis of this AMP. Identifying the total annual lifecycle costing for all assets owned by the Municipality, would
require the inclusion of the core assets included in the 2022 AMP.
The figure below provides the estimated annual lifecycle costs, for all roads, stormwater, and bridges/culverts assets, that were presented in the 2022 AMP, along with the estimated costs in current (2024) dollars. The costs in the figure represent only the capital costs identified in the 2022 AMP.
Figure 7 – 2022 AMP - Total Capital Lifecycle Costs ($,000’s) – Core Assets
$9,512 $12,655 $9,695 $15,605
$27,017
$17,714 $14,034
$11,127 $14,805 $11,340
$18,247
$31,605
$20,723
$16,417
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2022 Total Lifecycle Costs - Core Assets 2024 Updated Total Lifecycle Costs - Core Assets
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 211
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 45
The forecast period for the 2022 AMP was 2021-2030. The figure above includes only the forecasted costs that
are within the forecasted period of the current AMP (2024–2033).
The figure below consolidates the total annual lifecycle costs for both the core and non-core assets, over the 2024-2030 period.
Figure 8 – Total Annual Lifecycle Costs – All Assets
It should be noted again that the estimates provided for core assets have been included for illustrative purposes only. The composition of core assets has likely changed since the core asset AMP was completed and lifecycle
costing has potentially increased at a higher rate. A true reflection of future lifecycle costing for core assets would
require a detailed review and update of the core asset AMP. The figure above is intended to act as a reminder that the Municipality owns a significant amount of additional infrastructure that, although not accounted for in this AMP, must be considered when assessing the total lifecycle costs associated with all municipal infrastructure.
$6,692
$18,818
$13,041 $13,976 $18,037
$8,602
$13,970 $11,127
$14,805
$11,341
$18,255
$31,607
$20,723 $16,417 $17,819
$33,623
$24,383
$32,231
$49,643
$29,325 $30,387
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Non-Core Assets Core Assets Total
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 212
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 46
Corporate Facilities
04
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 213
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 47
Corporate Facilities Overview
Corporate Facilities includes all the facilities, owned by the Municipality, that are used for public administration purposes and not for community programming. Corporate Facilities includes the Municipal Administration Centre and the Animal Services facility, along with various fire stations and Public Works depots. The Municipality’s Corporate Facilities are operated and managed by the Facilities division of the Public Services Department.
The majority of asset management information for Corporate Facilities has been derived from the Building
Condition Assessments (BCA) completed in late 2023 and early 2024. The Municipality contracted an external engineering consultant to conduct detailed condition assessments of all major facilities within the Municipality. The BCA’s provide updated replacement values, condition assessments, and lifecycle management costs.
The Municipality’s Corporate Facilities have been divided into different sub-asset types, based on similar
characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the tables below.
Table A1 – Corporate Facilities Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Corporate Facilities Municipal Administration Centre
The main administration building for the Municipality and the location for
most full-time permanent staff. The building also includes the Bowmanville branch of the Clarington Public Library.
Fire Stations Includes five fire stations, spread across the Municipality, that are operated by Clarington Emergency and Fire Services.
Public Works Depots Includes three Public Works depots used for both administration purposes and for the storage of municipal fleet and equipment.
Animal Services Building The main administrative building for the Animal Services Division.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 214
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 48
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Corporate Facilities is presented in the table below. Replacement costing is
based on a full reconstruction of the corresponding facilities. An estimate of $750 per sq. ft has been applied to the
size of each facility to generate the replacement cost. These figures differ from what is presented in the BCA’s as the BCA’s provide a replacement value as opposed to a replacement cost. Total replacement value represents only a sum of the costs of each component part of the facility, whereas replacement cost is a broader measure that includes all the other costs associated with replacing a facility (e.g. project management, contingencies, labour
costs, etc.).
Table A2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Corporate Facilities
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Corporate Facilities Municipal Administrative Centre 1 121 $66,004,000
Fire Stations 5 26.8 33,344,000
Public Works Depots 3 50 18,855,000
Animal Services Building 1 64 4,376,000
Total 10 78.8 $122,579,000
As shown in Table A2, the total replacement cost for the Municipalities Corporate Facilities is approximately
$122.6 million. The Municipal Administration Centre (MAC) accounts for over half of the total replacement cost.
The MAC is the main administrative building for the Municipality and is where the majority of administrative staff are located.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 215
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 49
Asset Age
Table A3 includes a summary of the average age of the various Corporate Facilities within each sub-category. The age of each asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each asset sub-type. The average age for each asset sub-type represents the simple average of the various facilities
within that category. The total average age for all Corporate Facilities represents a weighted average of all asset sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Table A3 – Average Age and Condition – Corporate Facilities
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Estimated Useful Life1
Average Condition (FCI%)
Average Condition State
Corporate Facilities Municipal Administrative Centre 1 121 50 1.00% Good
Fire Stations 5 26.8 50 0.49% Good
Public Works Depots 3 50 50 1.00% Good
Animal Services Building 1 64 50 1.60% Good
Total 10 78.8 50 0.88% Good
1 Estimated useful life based on the structure of the facility.
The age for each individual facility represents the age of the original portion of the building. For example, the MAC
has an original component built in 1903, with an additional component constructed in 1988 and another addition built in 2003. The AMP uses the date of the original construction as the basis for the age calculation.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy. Figure A1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for
each asset sub-type.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 216
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 50
Figure A1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Corporate Facilities
The average age for many of the Corporate Facilities exceeds the estimated useful life. However, the average age
is based on the original construction date of the facility and all facilities undergo regular rehabilitation and
maintenance activities to ensure the buildings remain in good working order.
Figure A1 also uses the estimated useful life of the building structure to compare against the average age. The estimated useful life of the entire facility is difficult to assess given the various underlying components. The Municipality’s Capitalization Policy assigns different useful life assumptions to different facility components. The
various estimated useful life assumptions are provided in Table A4 below.
121
26.8
50
64
50
50
50
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Municipal Administration Centre
Fire Stations
Public Works Depots
Animal Services Building
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 217
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 51
Table A4 – Estimated Useful Life – Various Building Components
Asset Class Sub-class Type Estimated Useful Life
Buildings Structure Overall 50 years
Roof As per material and condition Variable
Structure Interior 25 years
Structure Mechanical (includes HVAC, heat pumps, water
heaters, etc.) Variable
Specialized Indoor pool; Ice pad 30 years
Specialized Indoor field 15 years
Site Improvement Parking lot, Landscaping 20 years
Whole Sand domes, Salt shed, Quonset hut, Sheds 25 years
Asset Condition
Table A3 also provides the current (2024) average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Corporate Facilities. Corporate Facilities use the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) methodology to assess condition.
The FCI is an industry standard used to assess the condition of building assets.
As described in the Municipality’s BCA’s, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a comparative indicator of the relative condition of facilities. The FCI is expressed as a ratio of the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies to the current replacement value. Calculating the FCI, for a particular year, requires dividing the cost of renewal needs in that particular year by the total estimated replacement value. Note that the BCA’s use total replacement
value, as opposed to total replacement cost, as the denominator in their condition calculations.
The average condition for all Corporate Facilities is rated as Good. The average condition rating for Corporate Facilities was derived using a weighted average based on the replacement cost of each asset sub-type. The condition rating for each facility reflects the current FCI rating for 2024 as provided in the BCA’s.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 218
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 52
The figure below provides the condition distribution for each of the asset sub-types. All the facilities, within each
sub-type, have an FCI rating of Good for 2024.
Figure A2 – Condition Distribution – Corporate Facilities
Long-term Condition Rating
In addition to providing a condition rating for the current year, the BCA’s also provide total condition ratings for the next five and ten years. These condition ratings are derived by summing the total dollar value of renewal needs over the next five and ten years and dividing by the current replacement value. The table below provides the total average condition rating for the next five and ten years for each asset sub-type within Corporate Facilities.
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Municipal Administration Centre
Fire Stations
Public Works Depots
Animal Services Building
Good Fair Poor Critical
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 219
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 53
Table A5 – Total Five- and Ten-Year Average Condition Rating
Total 5-year FCI% Total 5-year Condition State Total 10-year FCI% Total 10-year Condition State
Municipal Administration Building 6.24% Fair 27.57% Poor
Fire Stations 8.79% Fair 20.96% Poor
Public Works Depots 23.78% Poor 30.88% Critical
Animal Services Building 7.20% Fair 26.88% Poor
The table above suggests that, although the current average condition of Corporate Facilities is rated as Good, these facilities will still require a significant amount of renewal needs, over the next five to ten years, relative to their current replacement value.
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Corporate Facilities were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current levels of service performance are provided in the table below. Proposed levels of service
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 220
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 54
Table A6 – Current Levels of Service – Corporate Facilities
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Managing Corporate Facility
assets in a fiscally sustainable
manner
Corporate Facilities Reinvestment
Rate
1.8%
Quality Ensuring Corporate Facilities are in a suitable condition for public administration
% of Corporate Facilities in Fair or better condition (FCI) 100%
Sustainability Providing public administrative
services in an environmentally sustainable manner
Annual electric energy consumption
for all Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft.
1,350 kWh
Annual natural gas consumption for all Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft 17 m3
Annual water consumption for all
Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft.
0.44 m3
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes four main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Corporate Facilities assets maintain their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of each facility, along with the
condition of each major component part (e.g. roof, plumbing, electrical, etc.). Routine inspections are completed by staff, including quarterly mechanical inspections and monthly visual building inspections. Detailed BCAs are completed approximately every 5-years and help identify the potential maintenance requirements over a forecast horizon. The cost of BCA inspections represents a capital cost to the Municipality and have been captured in the
annual lifecycle costing.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 221
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 55
Minor repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the useful life of an asset. These activities
include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets remain in good working order. Minor expenses are
funded through repair and maintenance accounts in the Municipalities operating budget and have not been included in annual lifecycle costing. Major expenses are funded through the Municipalities capital budget.
Major repair and maintenance activities are also performed throughout the assets lifecycle. Major repairs and maintenance occur when the cost to perform the activity exceeds $5,000 and the cost becomes a capital expense.
The BCA’s provide a ten-year forecast for repair and maintenance activities required to maintain the facilities in
good working order. The forecasts from the BCA’s have been used as the basis for the lifecycle costing estimates in the AMP. The AMP assumes that minor costs ($5,000 or less) will flow through the municipal operating budget and have not been included in lifecycle costing. Lifecycle costing in the AMP includes only the major expenses, identified in the BCA’s, that exceed the $5,000 threshold.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of an asset at the end of its useful life. The AMP does not
forecast the full replacement of any Corporate Facilities over the ten-year forecast period.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 222
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 56
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service as identified in the BCA’s.
Figure A3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Corporate Facilities ($,000’s)
It will cost approximately $22.2 million over the next ten years to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including the cost of the backlog, is approximately $22.7 million. The backlog items include maintenance activities that were identified in the BCA’s to be performed in 2023.
$509 $451
$2,670
$565 $1,068
$4,223
$1,319
$3,923
$936
$305
$6,771
$22,229 $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 223
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 57
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure A3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Corporate Facilities assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure A4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining Corporate Facilities assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure A4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$451
$2,670
$565 $1,068
$4,221
$1,319
$3,923
$936 $305
$6,765 $2,104 $2,187 $2,273 $2,363 $2,456 $2,554 $2,655 $2,760 $2,869
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 224
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 58
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure A5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure A5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$451
$2,699
$595 $1,099
$4,254
$1,353
$3,958
$973 $344
$6,805 $2,133 $2,217 $2,305 $2,396 $2,491 $2,589 $2,692 $2,798 $2,909
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 225
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 59
Figure A6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure A6 – Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$451
$2,729
$626 $1,131
$4,289
$1,387
$3,994
$1,010 $382
$6,852 $2,163 $2,249 $2,338 $2,430 $2,526 $2,626 $2,730 $2,838 $2,951
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 226
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 60
Table A7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Level $2,104 $2,187 $2,273 $2,363 $2,456 $2,554 $2,655 $2,760 $2,869 $22,220
Reduce Backlog $2,133 $2,217 $2,305 $2,396 $2,491 $2,589 $2,692 $2,798 $2,909 $22,532
Eliminate Backlog $2,163 $2,249 $2,338 $2,430 $2,526 $2,626 $2,730 $2,838 $2,951 $22,852
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 227
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 61
Corporate Fleet
05
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 228
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 62
Corporate Fleet Overview
The Municipality of Clarington owns and operates a variety of fleet assets, including vehicles and equipment. Fleet assets are all managed by the Works Division, within the Public Services Department, but are operated by various departments and divisions. The Municipality requires a diverse set of vehicles and equipment to ensure the municipality can effectively deliver a variety of services to residents.
The Municipality’s vehicles and equipment have been divided into different asset sub-types, based on similar
characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the tables below.
Table B1 – Fleet Vehicle Types
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Vehicles Aerials Type of fire truck, operated by the Emergency Services Division, that is equipped with an extendable ladder or boom.
Pumpers Type of fire truck, operated by the Emergency Services Division, that carries water and is equipped with a pump to deliver water directly to a fire.
Tankers Type of fire truck, operated by the Emergency Services Division, that is primarily used to transport water to emergencies for use by other vehicles or equipment.
Cars & Vans Includes the vehicles used for various municipal purposes, such as Municipal Law Enforcement and Building Inspections.
Heavy Duty Vehicles Includes the Municipality's largest vehicles, used by the Works Division, such as snowplows and garbage trucks
Medium Duty Vehicles Includes vehicles with at least one ton of payload capacity. This includes several trucks used by the Operations Division.
Light Duty Vehicles Includes vehicles with less than one ton of payload capacity. Includes many pick-up trucks used for operations activities.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 229
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 63
Table B2 – Fleet Equipment Types
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Equipment Ice Resurfacers Used by the Community Services Division to smooth the ice service in the
various arenas.
Loaders & Graders Includes chippers, backhoes, and graders used by the Works Division for
forestry activities.
Tractors & Mowers Includes sidewalk tractors for snow clearing and mowers for grass cutting operations.
Trailers Includes trailers used for transporting equipment, such as pressure washers and steamers.
Unlicensed Equipment Includes various items of miscellaneous equipment, such as gators, excavators, and groomers.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The asset inventory summary for corporate fleet is provided in the table below. The majority of replacement costing has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders for similar vehicles and estimates provided by subject matter experts from the Municipality’s Public Works Division. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 230
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 64
Table B3 – Summarized Asset Inventory – Corporate Fleet
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Vehicles Aerials 2 13.5 $4,800,000
Cars & Vans 30 5.8 1,810,000
Heavy Duty Vehicles 41 8.1 12,780,000
Medium Duty Vehicles 13 11.1 1,628,000
Light Duty Vehicles 36 7.1 3,475,000
Pumpers 8 9.8 7,707,000
Tankers 4 11.8 2,084,000
Equipment Ice Resurfacers 6 9.8 890,000
Loaders & Graders 12 7.8 4,913,000
Tractors & Mowers 31 5.1 2,919,000
Trailers 18 12.7 725,000
Unlicensed Equipment 8 8.6 585,000
Total 209 9 $44,316,000
As shown in Table B3, the total replacement cost for the Municipalities corporate fleet is approximately $44.3 million.
The total replacement cost for vehicles is approximately $34.3 million, while the estimated replacement cost for
equipment is roughly $10 million. The replacement costing is based on an inventory of 134 vehicles and 75 units of equipment.
Emergency Services vehicles, namely Aerials, Pumpers, and Tankers, and Heavy-Duty Vehicles account for over half of the total estimated replacement cost for corporate fleet. These vehicles provide a critical health and safety
function for the Municipality, including the delivery of emergency services and winter maintenance.
The asset inventory in Table B3 includes only the vehicles and equipment that are being actively maintained by the Municipality and are forecasted for replacement at the end of their useful life. The Municipality retains a small subset of vehicles that are beyond their estimated useful life and are not scheduled for replacement. These vehicles are typically retained by the Municipality for training purposes or because they still provide some alternative benefit to the Municipality.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 231
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 65
Once these vehicles reach a state where they can no longer perform even their alternative function, they will be disposed
and will not be replaced. Therefore, these assets have been excluded from the asset inventory for AMP purposes.
Asset Age
Table B4 includes a summary of the average age of the fleet assets within each sub-type. The age of each vehicle
in the asset inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each fleet type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various vehicles/equipment in that category. The total average age for all fleet types represents a weighted average of the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Table B4 – Average Age and Condition – Corporate Fleet Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age (Years)
Estimated
Useful Life (Years)
Average
Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Vehicles Aerials 2 13.5 18 75% Good
Cars & Vans 30 5.8 7 83% Good
Heavy Duty Vehicles 41 8.1 10 81% Good
Medium Duty Vehicles 13 11.1 10 111% Poor
Light Duty Vehicles 36 7.1 7 102% Poor
Pumpers 8 9.8 10 98% Fair
Tankers 4 11.8 15 78% Good
Equipment Ice Resurfacers 6 9.8 15 66% Good
Loaders & Graders 12 7.8 10 78% Good
Tractors & Mowers 31 5.1 10 49% Good
Trailers 18 12.7 11 127% Very Poor
Unlicensed Equipment 8 8.6 10 86% Good
Total1 209 9 84% Good
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 232
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 66
Each vehicle has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s
current Capitalization Policy. Figure B1 compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each
fleet type. The average age, for the majority of the Municipality’s fleet assets, is within the estimate useful life.
Figure B1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Corporate Fleet
13.5
5.8
8.1
11.1
7.1
9.8
11.8
9.8
7.8
5.0
12.7
8.6
18.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
7.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
10.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Aerials
Cars & Vans
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Medium Duty Vehicles
Light Duty Vehicles
Pumpers
Tankers
Ice Resurfacers
Loaders & Graders
Tractors & Mowers
Trailers
Unlicensed Equipment
Estimate Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 233
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 67
Asset Condition
Table B4 also provides the average condition rating for each of the fleet types within the Municipality. The condition percentages are derived using the ULC% methodology. The average condition rating for the entire stock of corporate fleet has been assessed as Good. This rating was derived using a weighted average of all asset sub-
types, based on total replacement cost.
The average condition rating for each fleet type varies from Good to Very Poor. The condition rating of the individual assets within each sub-type also varies from Very Good to Very Poor. The figures below illustrate the condition distribution within each fleet asset sub-type.
Figure B2 – Condition Distribution – Vehicles
47%
29%
15%
28%
25%
50%
100%
20%
29%
8%
22%
38%
2%
15%
8%
7%
12%
15%
6%
13%
25%
27%
27%
46%
36%
25%
25%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Aerials
Cars & Vans
Heavy Duty
Medium Duty
Light Duty
Pumpers
Tankers
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 234
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 68
Figure B3 – Condition Distribution – Equipment
As previously stated, vehicles and equipment that are no longer being actively maintained and are not scheduled
to be replaced have been excluded from the asset inventory. These assets are well passed their estimated useful
life and would typically be assessed as Very Poor. Excluding these assets provides a more accurate reflection of the condition state of the Municipality’s vehicles and equipment.
It should also be noted that Emergency Services Vehicles, such as Aerials, Pumpers, and Tankers, receive annual inspections to ensure the vehicles are able to perform their required service. Although some of these vehicles may
be approaching the end of their useful life, the annual inspections ensure that the vehicles remain in good working
order.
33%
25%
58%
11%
38%
33%
42%
16%
22%
25%
17%
3%
11%
17%
13%
17%
25%
33%
10%
39%
13%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Ice Resurfacers
Loaders & Graders
Tractors & Mowers
Trailers
Unlicensed Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 235
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 69
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Corporate Fleet were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statement is intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service
attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table B5 – Current Levels of Service – Corporate Fleet
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Providing fleet services to the community in a fiscally sustainable manner Corporate Fleet Reinvestment Rate 8.70%
Safety Providing vehicles and equipment that are safe for use in the community % of legislated MTO safety inspections completed 100.00%
% of legislated MTO safety inspections
met
100.00%
Quality Providing corporate fleet assets in an acceptable condition % of vehicles in Fair or better condition 59.70%
% of equipment in Fair or better
condition
66.70%
Sustainability Providing environmentally sustainable fleet services for the community % of vehicles (excluding fire trucks) that are fully electric (EV) 6.67%
Annual fuel expenditure per fleet asset $3,048
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 236
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 70
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure fleet assets maintain their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed annually, as a requirement of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, on all
municipal fleet vehicles included under the Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration. These inspections are done for safety purposes and are completed both in-house and by external contractors. The cost of performing these inspections is financed through the operating budget, therefore the costs have not been identified in annual lifecycle costing.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. These activities
include the general maintenance activities that would typically be performed on a vehicle, such as oil changes and repairs of major component parts (engine, brakes, etc.). The majority of these activities are performed in-house, with the expense flowing through a specific repair and maintenance account in the Municipalities operating budget. As these lifecycle activities are already captured in the Municipality’s operating budget and are not considered a significant operating cost, they have not been identified in the annual lifecycle costing presented in the AMP.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of vehicles or equipment at the end of their useful life. The replacement of vehicles and equipment represent a significant capital expense and form the basis of the annual lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s current level of service is to replace a fleet asset once it can no longer perform its required service. The AMP assumes this would take place at the end of the asset’s useful life.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 237
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 71
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costs for fleet replacements over the next ten years.
Figure B4 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Corporate Fleet ($,000)
It will cost approximately $52.7 million, over the next ten years, to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including all the costs in the backlog, is approximately $54.2 million.
$1,517
$4,869
$6,831
$8,357
$5,182
$3,020 $2,845 $3,445
$6,012 $5,056
$7,109
$52,726 $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 238
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 72
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure B4 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Corporate Fleet assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure B5 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining Corporate Fleet assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed. Figure B5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$5,464
$3,557
$5,182
$3,020 $2,845 $3,445
$6,012 $5,056
$7,109
$3,940 $4,098 $4,261 $4,432 $4,609 $4,793 $4,984 $5,183 $5,390
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 239
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 73
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure B6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure B6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$5,584
$3,682
$5,312
$3,155 $2,845 $3,445
$6,012 $5,056
$7,109
$3,988 $4,147 $4,313 $4,486 $4,665 $4,852 $5,046 $5,248 $5,457
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 240
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 74
Figure B7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure B7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the
current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$5,704 $5,109 $5,442
$3,290 $2,845 $3,445
$6,012
$5,056
$7,109
$4,155 $4,322 $4,496 $4,677 $4,865 $5,061 $5,264 $5,476 $5,695
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 241
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 75
Table B6 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Level $3,940 $4,098 $4,261 $4,432 $4,609 $4,793 $4,984 $5,183 $5,390 $41,690
Reduce Backlog $3,988 $4,147 $4,313 $4,486 $4,665 $4,852 $5,046 $5,248 $5,457 $42,200
Eliminate Backlog $4,155 $4,322 $4,496 $4,677 $4,865 $5,061 $5,264 $5,476 $5,695 $44,012
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 242
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 76
Emergency Services
06
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 243
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 77
Emergency Services Overview
Clarington Emergency and Fire Services (CEFS) owns and operates a number of infrastructure assets that are used for the essential services provided by the fire crews. These assets include items used for the front-line delivery of fire protection services, along with items used for the training of front-line fire fighters.
Some of the largest assets associated with CEFS are the fire stations and fire trucks. Although these assets are
operated by CEFS, they are managed by other divisions within the organization. In order to ensure a consistent
grouping of assets within each asset category, fire stations have been included under Corporate Facilities and fire trucks have been included under Corporate Fleet.
The remaining assets pertaining to Emergency Services have been divided into separate asset sub-types. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the tables below.
Table C1 – Emergency Services Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Suppression Gear Bunker Suits Includes fire protection gear, such as jackets and pants, used by fire fighters when responding to an emergency. Full-time fire fighters have two sets of gear, part-time firefighters have one.
Helmets Includes the helmets used by front line fire fighters when responding to an emergency.
Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA’s)
Apparatus that provides an autonomous supply of atmospheric air when
fighting fires. The SCBA includes the actual unit, along with one
cylinder.
Equipment Suppression Equipment
Includes equipment used in fire suppression or in the maintenance of suppression gear. Includes thermal imaging cameras, air compressors (for SCBA cylinders), SCBA fit testers, and bunker gear
washers/dryers.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 244
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 78
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Defibrillators Apparatus is used to control heart fibrillation by application of an electric current to the chest wall or heart. Includes the defibrillators located on trucks and in the stations.
Digital Pagers Pagers used by fire fighters to notify volunteer fire fighters of an emergency.
Harris Radios The radio’s used in emergency services vehicles to receive dispatch
calls. Includes both mobile and portable radios for each vehicle.
Training Infrastructure Training Equipment Includes various equipment used in firefighting training, such as wired headsets, voice enunciators, training props, and extinguisher training unit.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The asset inventory summary for Emergency Services is provided in the table below. The majority of replacement
costing has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by staff within CEFS. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 245
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 79
Table C2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Emergency Services
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2024)
Suppression Gear Bunker Suits 250 3.9 $750,000
Helmets 187 3.7 78,000
SCBA’s 43 6.0 377,000
Equipment Suppression Equipment 22 10.0 504,000
Defibrillators 12 5.0 38,000
Digital Pagers 135 7.0 135,000
Harris Radios 120 6.3 600,000
Training Infrastructure Training Equipment 10 5.7 96,000
Total 779 6.2 $2,578,000
As shown in Table C2, the total replacement cost for Emergency Services assets (excluding fire stations and fire trucks) is approximately $2.6 million.
Asset Age
Table C3 includes a summary of the average age of Emergency Services assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each asset is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each sub-type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various components within that category. The total average age for all
Emergency Services assets, represents a weighted average of the different asset sub-types, based on total replacement
cost.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 246
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 80
Table C3 – Average Age and Condition – Emergency Services
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Average Estimated Useful Life
Average Condition (ULC%)1
Average Condition State
Suppression Gear Bunker Suits 250 3.9 10.0 Assessed Very Good
Helmets 187 3.7 10.0 Assessed Very Good
SCBA’s 43 6.0 15.0 Assessed Very Good
Equipment Suppression Equipment 22 10.0 13.1 76% Good
Defibrillators 12 5.0 7.0 Assessed Very Good
Digital Pagers 135 7.0 10.0 70% Good
Harris Radios 120 6.3 10.0 63% Good
Training Infrastructure Training Equipment 10 5.7 8.4 67% Good
Total 779 6.2 57% Good
1Average condition labelled “Assessed” indicates the asset is assessed annually to ensure it remains in Very Good condition.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on a combination of industry standards and the
Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy.
The Suppression Equipment and Training Equipment sub-types include various pieces of equipment, as identified in Table C1. These various equipment types also include various useful life estimates. The estimated useful life for these sub-types reflects a weighted average of the estimated useful life of each contributing component.
The figure below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The
average age for all sub-types is within the estimate useful life.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 247
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 81
Figure C1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Emergency Services
3.9
3.7
6.0
10.0
5.0
7.0
6.3
5.7
10.0
10.0
15.0
13.1
7.0
10.0
10.0
8.4
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Bunker Suits
Helmets
SCBA's
Supression Equipment
Defibrilators
Digital Pagers
Harris Radios
Training Equipment
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 248
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 82
Asset Condition
Table C3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Emergency Services. The condition percentages are derived using the ULC% methodology.
Certain asset types have a condition rating labelled as “Assessed”. This is to reflect the fact that these assets are
subject to annual condition inspections to ensure the assets are always maintained in Very Good condition. These assets pose a significant health and safety risk if they are not maintained in Very Good condition. If a particular asset fails inspection, the asset would be immediately repaired or replaced.
The average condition for all Emergency Services assets is rated as Good. The average condition rating for Emergency Services was derived using a weighted average based on the replacement value of each asset sub-
type. The total average condition was derived by applying a 45 per cent ULC% to the assets rated as “Assessed”, which equates to a Very Good condition rating.
The condition of each individual asset with an “Assessed” condition rating is rated as Very Good. However, for the other asset sub-types, the condition of each individual asset varies. The figure below illustrates the condition distribution within each asset sub-type.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 249
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 83
Figure C2 – Condition Distribution – Emergency Services
100%
100%
100%
27%
100%
33%
70%
32%
100%
42%
10%
9%
25%
32%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bunker Suits
Helmets
SCBA's
Supression Equipment
Defibrilators
Digital Pagers
Harris Radios
Training Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 250
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 84
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Emergency Services were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of service
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table C4 – Current Levels of Service – Emergency Services
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Managing Emergency Services assets in a fiscally sustainable manner Emergency Services Reinvestment Rate 7.1%
Quality
Ensuring Emergency Services assets are
in a suitable condition for emergency
response
% of Emergency Services assets in
Fair or better condition (FCI) 100%
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Emergency Services assets maintain
their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed on all suppression gear and life saving devices, such as defibrillators. These inspections are completed annually to ensure the assets remain in Very Good condition. The Municipality contracts out the inspections of these assets and the expense is funded through the municipal operating budget. The
Municipality does not consider this a significant operating expense; therefore, the costs are not included in the
AMP.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the useful life of the assets. These activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets reach their estimated useful life. These
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 251
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 85
expenses are funded through repair and maintenance accounts in the municipal operating budget. These
operating costs are not considered significant for the purposes of the AMP and have not been identified in the
annual lifecycle costing.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life, including the assets that are assessed on an annual basis. The replacement of Emergency Services assets represents a capital expense and forms the basis of the annual lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s current level
of service is to replace an asset once it can no longer perform its functional duty.
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of service.
Figure C3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Emergency Services ($000’s)
It will cost approximately $2.3 million, over the next ten years, to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including the cost of the backlog, is approximately $2.4 million.
$89
$30
$132
$201
$286 $263
$358
$161
$348
$241
$290
$2,310 $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 252
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 86
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure C3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Emergency Services assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure C4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining Emergency Services assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure C4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$132
$201
$286 $263
$358
$161
$348
$241 $290
$216 $224 $233 $242 $252 $262 $273 $283 $295
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 253
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 87
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure C5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure C5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$155
$225
$286 $263
$358
$161
$348
$241
$290
$220 $229 $238 $247 $257 $268 $278 $289 $301
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 254
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 88
Figure C6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure C6 –Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$179
$249 $286 $263
$358
$161
$348
$241 $290
$224 $233 $243 $252 $263 $273 $284 $295 $307
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 255
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 89
Table C5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Levels $216 $224 $233 $242 $252 $262 $273 $283 $295 $2,280
Reduce Backlog $220 $229 $238 $247 $257 $268 $278 $289 $301 $2,328
Eliminate Backlog $224 $233 $243 $252 $263 $273 $284 $295 $307 $2,375
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 256
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 90
Information Technology
07
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 257
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 91
Information Technology Overview
Information Technology (IT) infrastructure includes various pieces of hardware and software used by the various departments and divisions throughout the Municipality. IT infrastructure also includes the telecommunications infrastructure located throughout the municipality to ensure communication channels remain open and accessible. IT infrastructure is managed by the IT division of the Finance and Technology Department but is operated by the
various departments within the municipality.
The Municipality’s IT infrastructure has been divided into different sub-types, based on similar characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the table below.
Table D1 – IT Infrastructure Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Description
Communications Communication Towers Tower structure equipped with antennas, transmitters, and receivers that facilitate wireless communication.
Wireless Links Wireless radio links used to connect remote offices to the Municipal Administration Building, allowing staff access to Internet local applications required for service delivery.
Phone System Phone system used for internal and external communication. Phone system
is being converted to a cloud-based software in 2024.
Software Software Systems Includes the various pieces of software used by the various departments for various activities (e.g. budgeting, scheduling, accounting, etc.). Includes only the major software systems that resulted in an initial capital cost.
Hardware SMART Boards Large, touch screen monitors, that allow users to interact with digital
content.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 258
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 92
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Description
Laptops Various laptops used throughout the Municipality.
Personal Computers (PC’s) Various desk-top computers used throughout the Municipality.
Monitors Various computer monitors used throughout the Municipality.
Servers Unit used to manager network resources, such as data storage, email
processing, file sharing, and application hosting.
Switches Unit that connects devices, such as computers, printers, and servers, to the
local network.
Tablets Electronic device that combines features of a smartphone and laptop.
Wireless Access Points Networking hardware device that allows Wi-Fi devices to connect to a wired network.
Accessories Touch panels and mini PC’s used to control electronic devices in meeting
rooms and Council chambers.
Projectors Output device that projects large scale visual displays.
Firewalls Network security system unit that monitors and controls incoming and outgoing network traffic.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 259
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 93
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Description
Uninterrupted
Power Source (UPS)
Continual power system unit that provides automated backup electric power when the main power source fails.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for IT infrastructure is presented in Table D2 below. The majority of replacement costing has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by
staff within the corporate IT division.
Table D2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – IT Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Communications Communication Towers 5 14.6 $319,000
Wireless Links 16 18 54,000
Phone System 1 6 35,000
Software Software Systems 24 9.7 4,982,000
Hardware SMART Boards 1 8.3 10,000
Laptops 181 2.2 302,000
PC's 105 5.5 84,000
Monitors 97 2.9 15,000
Servers 5 3.6 43,000
Switches 59 6.6 81,000
Tablets 33 1.3 26,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 260
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 94
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Wireless Access Points 43 2.7 41,000
Accessories 6 1.8 36,000
Projectors 2 4 2,000
Firewalls 2 6 43,000
UPS 7 8 7,000
Total 587 9.3 $6,080,200
As shown in Table D2, the total replacement cost for the Municipality’s IT infrastructure is approximately $6.08
million. The majority of the total replacement cost relates to software infrastructure. Software systems are an
important component of IT infrastructure as they are used for accounting, budgeting, building permits, and various other forms of service delivery.
The Municipality uses many pieces of software to perform a variety of functions. The software assets presented in the AMP include only the major software assets that resulted in a significant capital cost at acquisition. The
replacement costing for software is difficult to estimate, given the rapidly changing technology and the variety of
options available. IT software replacement costing, for the purposes of the AMP, was estimated by inflating the original purchase price by the Software and Software Licensing component of the Statistics Canada Informatics Professional Services Price Index. Historical data was analyzed to determine an average annual increase.
The AMP also assumes that software systems will continue to be replaced by software infrastructure purchased
from a supplier. Software purchases may transition to a subscription-based model in the future, where software
subscriptions are provided for a monthly fee as opposed to purchasing physical systems from a supplier. This transition is dependent on a number of factors and is difficult to predict. Therefore, the AMP assumes the current acquisition model will be maintained.
The Municipality is transitioning away from a physical phone system to an online model where no physical phone
unit is required. The replacement cost for phone systems reflects this change.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 261
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 95
Asset Age
Table D3 includes a summary of the average age of the various IT assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each sub-type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various components within that
category. The total average age for all IT assets represents a weighted average of the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Table D3 – Average Age and Condition – IT Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Estimated Useful Life
(Years)
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Communications Communication Towers 5 14.6 40 Assessed1 Very Good
Wireless Links 16 18 7 257% Very Poor
Phone System 1 6 7 86% Good
Software Software Systems 24 9.7 5 N/A2 Very Good
Hardware SMART Boards 1 8.3 10 83% Good
Laptops 181 2.2 4 55% Good
PC's 105 5.5 4 138% Very Poor
Monitors 97 2.9 4 73% Good
Servers 5 3.6 4 90% Good
Switches 59 6.6 4 165% Very Poor
Tablets 33 1.3 4 33% Very Good
Wireless Access Points 43 2.7 4 68% Good
Accessories 6 1.8 4 46% Good
Projectors 2 4 4 100% Fair
Firewalls 2 6 4 150% Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 262
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 96
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Estimated Useful Life (Years)
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
UPS 7 8 4 200% Very Poor
Total 587 9.3 50% Good
1Average condition labelled “Assessed” indicates the asset is assessed annually to ensure it remains in Very Good condition.
2Condition rating for Software Systems is not provided as these assets are continuously maintained to ensure they remain in Very Good condition.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy. Figure D1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The average age, for the majority of the Municipality’s IT assets, is within the estimate useful
life.
Figure D1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – IT Assets
14.6
18.0
6.0
9.7
8.3
3.6
40
7
7
5
10
4
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Communication Towers
Wireless Radios
Phone System
Software Systems
SMART Boards
Hardware
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 263
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 97
Asset Condition
Table D3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within IT. The condition percentages are derived using the ULC% methodology.
Communication Towers have been assigned a condition rating of “Assessed”. This reflects the fact that the
towers are inspected on an annual basis to ensure they remain in Very Good condition. If a structural deficiency is identified during the inspection, corrective action is taken immediately. These assets will always be maintained in Very Good condition.
Software Systems have been assigned a condition rating of “N/A”. This is to reflect the fact that all software systems retained by the Municipality are updated and maintained on a consistent basis to ensure security and
integrity of the systems. Although these systems are not assessed for condition, they are consistently supported and maintained by the supplier to ensure they continue to meet the requirements of the IT division. Therefore, these assets will always be maintained in Very Good condition.
The average condition for all IT assets is rated as Good. The average condition rating for IT infrastructure was derived using a weighted average of all asset sub-types, based on total replacement cost. The total average was
derived by applying a 45 per cent ULC% to the assets rated as “Assessed” or “N/A”, which equates to a Very Good condition rating.
The condition of each individual asset with an “Assessed” and “N/A” condition rating is Very Good. However, for the Hardware sub-asset categories, the condition of each individual asset varies. The figure below illustrates the condition distribution within the Hardware sub-asset type.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 264
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 98
Figure D2 – Condition Distribution – IT Infrastructure – Hardware
31%
1%
61%
27%
70%
7%
50%
43%
100%
55%
1%
21%
80%
30%
93%
33%
7%
8%
1%
8%
17%
100%
5%
55%
3%
2%
35%
18%
20%
61%
100%
57%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
SMART Boards
Laptops
PC's
Monitors
Servers
Switches
Tablets
Wireless Access Points
Accessories
Projectors
Firewalls
UPS
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 265
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 99
Levels of Service
The levels of service for IT were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table D4 – Current Levels of Service – IT Assets
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Managing IT assets in a fiscally sustainable manner IT Infrastructure Facilities Reinvestment Rate 15.4%
Customer Service Provide responsive IT support to
municipal staff Average time to resolve a ticket 1d 19h 18m
Quality Ensuring IT assets remain in a suitable
condition for administrative use
% of IT Hardware in Fair or better
condition (FCI) 69%
Reliability Providing reliable IT connectivity for municipal administration Percent average database availability (excluding planned downtime) 99%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 266
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 100
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure IT assets maintain their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed annually on all communication towers. These inspections are done to ensure the structural integrity of this critical infrastructure and to ensure the condition rating remains Very Good.
The Municipality contracts out the inspections of these assets and the expense is funded through the operating
budget. The Municipality does not consider this a significant operating expense; therefore, the costs are not included in the AMP.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. These activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets reach their estimated useful life. These
expenses are funded through repair and maintenance accounts in the Municipalities operating budget. These
operating costs are not considered significant for the purposes of the AMP and have not been identified in the annual lifecycle costing.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their lifecycle, including the assets that are assessed on an annual basis. The replacement of IT assets represents a capital expense and forms the
basis of the annual lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s current level of service is to replace
an asset once it can no longer perform its functional duty. The AMP assumes this will occur at the end of the asset’s useful life.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 267
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 101
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service.
Figure D3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – IT Infrastructure ($000’s)
It will cost approximately $5.2 million, over the next ten years, to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including all the costs included in the backlog, is approximately $7.9 million. The large cost in 2031 is largely the result of the contract expiration for the AMANDA software system. The contract for the AMANDA system expires in 2031, at which time a renewal of the contract or a replacement of the software will be required. It is too
$2,769
$35 $99 $181 $200 $43
$375 $212
$3,531
$51
$438
$5,166 $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 268
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 102
early to determine which option will be chosen; therefore, to be prudent, the AMP is assuming replacement. The
current replacement cost for the AMANDA software is approximately $2.4 million.
Backlog
The large backlog primarily consists of software system replacement costs. Many software systems are beyond
their estimated useful life of five years. Software systems are assigned an estimated useful life of five years to reflect the rapid pace of technological advancement. Despite the fact that most systems are beyond their estimated useful life, the systems are still being updated and maintained by both the supplier and IT staff; therefore, the condition rating for these assets remains Very Good.
It is difficult to predict when software system replacement will occur as software would only be replaced if the
supplier stops supporting the system or technological advancements lead users to request a change. Given the unpredictability, all software systems have been placed in the backlog, with the exception of the AMANDA system that is under contract until 2031. Again, given the rapid pace of technological advancement, there is a reasonable chance that some, if not all, software systems could require replacement within the next ten years.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
The costs in Figure D3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining IT assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure D4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
IT assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 269
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 103
Figure D4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
$99 $181 $200 $43 $375 $212
$3,531
$51 $438
$489 $508 $527 $547 $567 $589 $611 $635 $659
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 270
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 104
Figure D5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure D5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
Figure D6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
$188 $273 $296 $143 $478 $320
$3,643
$167 $560
$578 $600 $622 $646 $671 $697 $723 $751 $780
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 271
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 105
Figure D6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the
forecast period.
$348 $440 $469 $323 $665 $515
$3,846
$378 $779
$738 $766 $796 $826 $858 $891 $926 $962 $999
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 272
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 106
Table D5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Level $489 $508 $527 $547 $567 $589 $611 $635 $659 $5,132
Reduce Backlog $578 $600 $622 $646 $671 $697 $723 $751 $780 $6,068
Eliminate Backlog $738 $766 $796 $826 $858 $891 $926 $962 $999 $7,761
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 273
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 107
Parking Infrastructure
08
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 274
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 108
Parking Infrastructure Overview
Parking Infrastructure includes all the infrastructure used to provide parking services within the Municipality, including parking lots, parking lot lights, central parking meters, and EV chargers. The Municipality also owns various coin-based on-street parking meters in the downtown area. These meters have not been included in the AMP as they are all scheduled to be replaced by centralized meters in the Fall of 2024. The new on-street central
meters will be included in future iterations of the AMP, after they have been acquired and installed.
The Municipality’s Parking Infrastructure assets have been divided into different asset sub-types, based on similar characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the Table below.
Table E1 – Parking Infrastructure Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Description
Parking Lots Paved Parking Lots Various parking lots, throughout the Municipality, that are paved with
asphalt.
Gravel Parking Lots Various parking lots, throughout the Municipality, that consist of a gravel base.
Parking Lot Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights Includes the light pole and luminaire used to provide lighting to municipally
owned parking lots.
Central Parking Lot Meters Centralized pay stations used in municipally owned parking lots. Does not include on-street parking.
EV Charging Stations Stations used to charge electric vehicles. Includes both the charging units and pedestals.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 275
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 109
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Parking Infrastructure is presented in the table below. Replacement costing
has been derived using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by municipal
staff. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Table E2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Parking Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Parking Lots Paved Parking Lots 57 19.1 $22,029,000
Gravel Parking Lots 23 33.0 4,297,000
Parking Lot Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights1 136 31.7 1,302,000
Central Parking Lot Meters 5 10.4 41,000
EV Charging Stations 15 2.6 206,000
Total 236 21.7 $27,875,000
1 Quantity refers to the number of parking lot light poles. Replacement cost includes both light poles and luminaires. Certain light poles may have multiple luminaires.
As shown in Table E2, the total replacement cost for Parking Infrastructure assets is approximately $27.9 million. Most of the replacement costing relates to the replacement of parking lots, which account for over 94 per cent of total replacement costing.
The replacement costing for parking lots is based on an average cost per square meter that has been applied to the total square meters of each parking lot. The cost includes the full replacement of the parking lot, including excavation work. The same cost per square meter was applied to estimating the replacement cost of gravel
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 276
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 110
parking lots. The assumption used in the AMP is that all gravel parking lots will be converted to paved lots at the
time of replacement.
Replacement costing for parking lot lights assumes a full replacement of both the pole and luminaire. New light poles are now coming equipped with lifetime warranties while new LED luminaires have an estimated useful life of 15-20 years. Given the assumed age of parking lot lots, the AMP has assumed a full replacement of both light pole and luminaire at the time of replacement.
Asset Age
Table E3 includes a summary of the average age of the various Parking Infrastructure assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the
average age for each sub-type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various components within that category. The total average age, for all Parking Infrastructure assets, represents a weighted average of the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Table E3 – Average Age and Condition – Parking Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Estimated Useful
Life (Years)
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Parking Lots Paved Parking Lots 57 19.1 35 55% Good
Gravel Parking
Lots 23 33 15 220% Very Poor
Parking Lot Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights 136 31.7 30 106% Poor
Central Parking Lot Meters 5 10.4 15 69% Good
EV Charging
Stations 15 2.6 8 33% Very Good
Total 236 21.7 82% Good
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 277
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 111
The age of certain individual parking lot lights is unknown. In this circumstance, the age has been estimated
based on the age of the facility in which the lights are located. The age also reflects the age of the light pole as
the luminaires have likely been replaced a few times throughout the lifecycle.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy. Figure E1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The average age, for the majority of Parking Infrastructure sub-types, is within the
estimated useful life.
Figure E1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Parking Infrastructure
19.1
33.0
31.7
10.4
2.6
35.0
15.0
30.0
15.0
8.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Paved Parking Lots
Gravel Parking Lots
Parking Lot Lights
Central Meters
EV Charging Stations
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 278
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 112
Asset Condition
Table E3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Parking Infrastructure. The condition assessments have been derived using the ULC% methodology. The average condition for all Parking Infrastructure assets is rated as Good. This average condition rating was derived using a weighted
average based on the replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
Although the overall condition is assessed as Good, the actual condition of the various assets within each sub-type varies. The figure below illustrates the condition distribution within each specific sub-asset type.
Figure E2 – Condition Distribution – Parking Infrastructure
25%
4%
13%
60%
86%
28%
8%
33%
14%
8%
7%
8%
8%
27%
32%
79%
20%
40%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Paved Parking Lots
Gravel Parking Lots
Parking Lot Lights
Central Meters
EV Charging Stations
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 279
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 113
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Parking Infrastructure were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table E4 – Current Levels of Service – Parking Infrastructure
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Providing Parking services to the community in a fiscally sustainable manner
Parking Infrastructure Reinvestment Rate 3.0%
Accessibility Ensuring an adequate supply of parking at Municipal facilities
# of parking lot spaces per 1,000
population
29
Quality Providing Parking Infrastructure assets in
an acceptable condition
% of parking lots in fair or better
condition
48%
% of parking infrastructure in fair or better condition 69%
Sustainability Providing environmentally sustainable Parking services for the community # of EV charging stations per 1,000 population 0.22
EV Charger Utilization Rate 11.4%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 280
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 114
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Parking Infrastructure assets maintain their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of parking lots and to determine the level of maintenance activity required. These inspections have historically been completed by consultants.
However, annual visual inspections are expected to be completed by staff on a go-forward basis. As these
inspections become incorporated into staff responsibilities, there will be no additional cost to the Municipality beyond staff time.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. These activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets remain in good working order. General
repair and maintenance activities are either completed in-house or are funded through the annual operating
budget. These expenses are not considered significant for the purposes of the AMP and have not been included in annual lifecycle costing.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their lifecycle. The replacement of Parking Infrastructure assets represents a capital expense and forms the basis of the annual lifecycle costing
identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s current level of service is to replace an asset once it can no longer
perform its functional duty.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 281
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 115
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service.
Figure E3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Parking Infrastructure ($000’s)
It will cost approximately $6.4 million over the next ten years to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including all the costs included in the backlog, would be approximately $14.4 million.
Backlog
The backlog for Parking Infrastructure consists mainly of paved and gravel parking lots that are beyond their estimated useful life. The AMP assumes that gravel parking lots would be replaced by paved lots at the time of
$8,076
$391 $363
$1,010 $919
$0 $67 $139 $131
$2,616
$784
$6,421 $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 282
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 116
replacement. However, although most gravel parking lots are beyond their estimated useful life of 15 years, it is
unlikely that these lots would require paving within the ten-year forecast period. As these lots are likely to
maintain their functional duty over the ten-year forecast period, they represent a theoretical backlog cost as opposed to a legitimate backlog cost.
The paved parking lots in the backlog represent a legitimate backlog cost as the condition of a paved lot does start to deteriorate as it reaches the end of its useful life. There is a higher likelihood that a paved lot, at the end
of its useful life, would require attention within the ten-year forecast period. Figure E4 below provides the annual
lifecycle costing, with the exclusion of gravel parking lots from the backlog.
Figure E4 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Parking Infrastructure ($000’s) – Remove Theoretical Backlog
$4,226
$391 $363 $1,010 $919
$0 $67 $139 $131
$2,616
$784
$6,421 $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 283
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 117
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure E4 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Parking Infrastructure assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure E5 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining Parking Infrastructure assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure E5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$363
$1,010 $919
$0 $67 $139 $131
$2,616
$784
$572 $594 $617 $642 $667 $693 $720 $748 $778
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 284
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 118
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure E6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure E6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$581
$1,236 $1,154
$244 $321 $403 $406
$2,902
$1,081
$789 $820 $852 $886 $921 $957 $995 $1,034 $1,075
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 285
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 119
Figure E7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure E7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$798
$1,462 $1,389
$489 $575 $668 $681
$3,188
$1,379
$1,006 $1,046 $1,087 $1,130 $1,175 $1,221 $1,270 $1,320 $1,372
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 286
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 120
Table E5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Level $572 $594 $617 $642 $667 $693 $720 $748 $778 $6,030
Reduce Backlog $789 $820 $852 $886 $921 $957 $995 $1,034 $1,075 $8,330
Eliminate Backlog $1,006 $1,046 $1,087 $1,130 $1,175 $1,221 $1,270 $1,320 $1,372 $10,629
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 287
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 121
Parks
09
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 288
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 122
Parks Overview
Parks infrastructure includes all the infrastructure used to provide parks services within the Municipality, including outdoor sporting activities and outdoor recreation. Included in Parks infrastructure are playgrounds, playfields (soccer, baseball, etc.), play courts (tennis, basketball, etc.), along with various other assets related to outdoor activities. The majority of Parks assets are operated by the Public Works division within the Public Services
Department.
The Municipality’s Parks assets have been divided into different asset sub-types, based on similar characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the table below.
Table F1 – Park Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Play Courts Tennis Courts Various outdoor tennis courts across the Municipality. Includes
combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Basketball Courts Includes both full basketball courts and half courts. Includes combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Pickleball Courts Various pickleball courts across the Municipality. Includes
combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Play Fields Softball Fields Various softball fields across the Municipality. Includes combination of red clay and dirt infield surfaces.
Baseball Fields Various baseball fields across the Municipality. Includes combination of red clay and dirt infield surfaces.
Soccer Fields Includes both full size soccer fields and junior fields across the Municipality.
Lacrosse Bowl Outdoor bowl intended for lacrosse. Includes paved surface, boards, and netting.
Football Fields Includes a grass-surface, full sized football field.
Cricket Fields Includes a concrete pad located on former soccer fields intended
for cricket use.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 289
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 123
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Playgrounds Playground Equipment Includes the play structures and the wood chip base at various playground locations.
Outdoor Fitness
Equipment
Includes outdoor step climber, ladder, inclined crunch bench, and
pullup bars located at Rickard Park.
Splashpads Includes various splash pad play structures and rubber surfaces. Various locations across the Municipality
Park Structures/Amenities Sports Field Lights Includes both the pole and luminaire used to illuminate tennis courts, soccer fields, and baseball/softball fields.
Park Lights Luminaires used to illuminate various parks across the
Municipality.
Shade Structures Includes both steel and wood gazebos and pergolas located at various parks across the Municipality.
Park Washrooms Washroom facilities located at various parks across the
Municipality
Miscellaneous Structures Includes the Rotary Park clock tower, Bowmanville Valley wooden staircase, and viewing decks at the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area.
Trails Park Trails/Walkways Includes paved, brick, and granular trails located at various parks across the Municipality.
Non-Park Trails Includes paved and granular trails located outside the Municipality’s Park network.
Waterfront Trails Includes paved and granular trails that run along the Municipality’s waterfront.
Multi-Use Paths Includes off-road multi-use paths at various locations across the
Municipality.
Miscellaneous Columbarium’s Structures for the public storage of funerary urns.
Skateboard Parks Various skateboard parks and associated infrastructure located throughout the Municipality
Underground Waste
Containers Large waste containers with underground storage capacity.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 290
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 124
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Other Miscellaneous
Includes fountains/monuments, outdoor pool, fish ladder
equipment, bleachers, scoreboards, boat launches, trail netting, and cricket equipment.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Parks assets is presented in the table below. Replacement costing has been derived using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by municipal staff. In
certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Table F2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Parks
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Courts Tennis Courts 11 15.0 $1,300,000
Basketball Courts 23 18.4 1,307,000
Pickleball Courts 6 2.5 362,000
Play Fields Softball 23 30.9 8,107,000
Baseball 7 28.9 2,823,000
Soccer 42 24.9 10,464,000
Lacrosse Bowl 1 19.0 956,000
Football 1 16.0 221,000
Cricket 1 1.0 230,000
Playgrounds Playground Equipment 62 11.0 8,520,000
Outdoor Fitness Equipment 4 6.0 32,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 291
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 125
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Quantity Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Splashpads 16 15.0 3,362,000
Park Structures/Amenities Field Lights 112 23.0 2,397,000
Park Lights 129 18.0 2,020,000
Shade Structures 39 15.7 1,887,000
Park Washrooms 6 25.8 4,124,000
Miscellaneous Structures 3 20.7 594,000
Trails Park Trails/Walkways 73 19.0 3,163,000
Non-Park Trails 17 12.2 2,655,000
Waterfront Trails 11 14.5 2,290,000
Multi-Use Paths 3 3.7 421,000
Miscellaneous Columbarium’s 5 7.8 845,000
Skateboard Parks 5 13.8 1,523,000
Underground Waste Containers 15 10.9 173,000
Other Miscellaneous 14 8.1 1,989,000
Total 629 20.5 $61,765,000
As shown in Table F2, the total replacement cost for Parks assets is approximately $61.8 million. Playgrounds and play fields account for over half of the total replacement value ($34.7 million).
Asset Age
Table F3 includes a summary of the average age of the various Parks assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each individual asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each sub-type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various components within that category. The total average age, for all Parks assets, represents a weighted average of
the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 292
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 126
Table F3 – Average Age and Condition – Parks
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age (Years)
Estimated
Useful Life (Years)
Average
Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Courts Tennis Courts 11 15.0 20 75% Good
Basketball Courts 23 18.4 20 92% Fair
Pickleball Courts 6 2.5 20 13% Very Good
Play Fields Softball 23 30.9 25 124% Poor
Baseball 7 28.9 25 115% Poor
Soccer 42 24.9 25 100% Fair
Lacrosse Bowl 1 19.0 25 76% Good
Football 1 16.0 25 80% Good
Cricket 1 1.0 25 4% Very Good
Playgrounds Playground Equipment 62 11.0 15 73% Good
Outdoor Fitness
Equipment 4 6.0 15 40% Very Good
Splashpads 16 15.0 20 75% Good
Park Structures/ Amenities Field Lights 112 23.0 25 92% Fair
Park Lights 129 18.0 20 90% Good
Shade Structures 39 15.7 27 58% Good
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 293
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 127
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Estimated Useful Life (Years)
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Park Washrooms 6 25.8 45 57% Good
Miscellaneous Structures 3 20.7 33 56% Good
Trails Park Trails/Walkways 73 19.0 22 88% Fair
Non-Park Trails 17 12.2 19 65% Good
Waterfront Trails 11 14.5 19 78% Poor
Multi-Use Paths 3 3.7 20 18% Very Good
Miscellaneous Columbarium’s 5 7.8 50 16% Very Good
Skateboard Parks 5 13.8 25 55% Good
Underground Waste Containers 15 10.9 15 73% Good
Other Miscellaneous 14 8.1 24.1 41% Very Good
Total 629 20.5 84% Good
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy.
Although the asset sub-types are structured to include similar assets, some sub-types include different estimated
useful lives for the underlying assets. This is largely the result of different materials being used to produce the
same asset (e.g. wooden shade structure versus a steel structure). This being the case, an average estimated useful life has been provided for each asset sub-type. Averages represent the average of the useful lives of the underlying assets within the asset sub-type, weighted by replacement cost.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 294
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 128
The Other Miscellaneous sub-type includes a wide variety of assets with a wide variety of estimated useful lives.
The average age for this sub-type represents a weighted average for the various components within the sub-type,
based on total replacement cost.
Figures F1 and F2 compare the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The average age, for the majority of Parks infrastructure sub-types, is within the estimate useful life.
Figure F1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Courts, Fields, and Playgrounds
15.0
18.4
2.5
30.9
28.9
24.7
15.6
11.0
6.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Tennis Courts
Basketball Courts
Pickleball Courts
Softball Fields
Baseball Fields
Soccer Fields
Other Sports Fields
Playground Equipment
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Splashpads
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 295
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 129
Figure F2 - Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Structures and Trails
23.0
17.6
15.7
25.8
20.7
19.0
12.2
14.5
3.7
22.2
20.0
20.0
27.0
45.0
32.5
21.5
18.8
18.6
20.0
31.7
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Field Lights
Park Lights
Shade Structures
Park Washrooms
Miscellaneous Structures
Park Trails/Walkways
Non-Park Trails
Waterfront Trails
Multi-Use Paths
Miscellaneous
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 296
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 130
Asset Condition
Table F3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the Parks asset sub-types. The condition assessments have been derived using the ULC% methodology. The average condition for all Parks assets is rated as Good. This average condition rating was derived using a weighted average based on the replacement
cost of each asset sub-type.
Although the overall condition is assessed as Good, the actual condition of the various assets within each sub-type varies. The figures below illustrate the condition distribution within each specific sub-type.
Figure F3 – Condition Distribution – Courts, Fields, and Playgrounds
50%
35%
100%
9%
14%
33%
32%
100%
19%
17%
9%
13%
29%
31%
67%
32%
38%
13%
4%
2%
2%
6%
17%
17%
29%
19%
13%
31%
33%
26%
57%
43%
33%
21%
6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Tennis Courts
Basketball Courts
Pickleball Courts
Softball
Baseball
Soccer
Other Sports Fields
Playground Equipment
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Splashpads
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 297
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 131
Figure F4 – Condition Distribution – Park Structures and Trails
The condition of the asset is largely dependent on the asset age. The asset age is based on the year of initial
installation. Many assets undergo routine maintenance activities (e.g. soccer fields, baseball fields, etc.) to
ensure the asset is suitable for activity. It is possible that, given the routine maintenance of the asset, the actual structural condition of the asset is better than what is reflected in the ULC%.
10%
22%
43%
33%
25%
25%
41%
27%
100%
42%
32%
32%
33%
67%
50%
27%
18%
37%
45%
12%
13%
7%
12%
32%
5%
5%
8%
24%
18%
5%
26%
29%
8%
25%
33%
6%
18%
8%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Field Lights
Park Lights
Shade Structures
Park Washrooms
Miscellaneous Structures
Park Trails/Walkways
Non-Park Trails
Waterfront Trails
Multi-Use Paths
Miscellaneous
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 298
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 132
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Parks were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table F4 – Current Levels of Service – Parks
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Cost Effective Providing Parks services to the community in a fiscally sustainable manner Parks infrastructure Reinvestment Rate 3.5%
Accessibility Ensuring reasonable availability of park amenities for the community Number of sports fields/courts per 1,000 population 0.37
Number of playgrounds per 1,000
population 0.58
Number of splashpads per 1,000 population 0.15
Kilometers of park trails per 1,000
population 2.66
Quality Providing Parks assets in an acceptable condition % of sports fields/courts in fair or better condition (age based) 0.47
% of playgrounds in fair or better condition (age based) 0.63
% of splashpads in fair or better
condition 0.68
Sustainability Providing environmentally sustainable Parks services for the community
Annual electric energy consumption for parks services, per 1,000 population 1,940 kWh
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 299
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 133
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Annual Propane consumption for
parks services, per 1,000 population 90 m3
Annual water consumption for parks
services, per 1,000 population 575 m3
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes four main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Parks assets maintain their current
level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the condition of various assets and to determine the level of maintenance activity required. These inspections have historically been completed by consultants. However, annual visual inspections are expected to be completed by staff on a go-forward basis. As these inspections become incorporated into staff responsibilities, there will be no additional cost to the Municipality
beyond staff time.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of an asset. These activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets remain in good working order. General repair and maintenance activities are either completed in-house or are funded through the annual operating budget. These expenses are not considered significant for the purposes of the AMP and have not been included in annual
lifecycle costing.
Rehabilitation activities include larger preventative maintenance activities typically performed on the asset at mid-life. Rehabilitation activities include planned activities that are performed on assets to ensure they reach their estimated useful life. These activities result in a capital cost to the Municipality and have been included in the lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. Regularly scheduled rehabilitation activities are only performed on a small
sub-set of asset types as most Parks assets will reach their estimated useful life through minor repair and
maintenance activities. The rehabilitation activities for Parks assets are presented in the table below.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 300
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 134
Table F5 – Rehabilitation Activities – Parks Assets
Sub-Asset Type Activity Estimated Cost ($2024) Frequency
Tennis Courts Resurfacing $37 /sq. m 7 years
Pickleball Courts Resurfacing $37 /sq. m 7 years
Splashpads Resurfacing $17,000 10 years
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. The replacement of Parks assets represents a capital expense and forms the majority of the annual lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s current level of service is to replace an asset once it can no longer perform its functional duty. The AMP assumes an asset will no longer be able to perform its functional duty at the end of its useful life.
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service.
Figure F5 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Parks ($000’s)
$23,062
$621 $1,209 $2,080 $2,756 $1,331 $1,693 $1,825 $2,368 $2,213 $3,532
$19,627 $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 301
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 135
It will cost approximately $19.6 million over the next ten years to maintain the current level of service. The total
cost, including all the costs included in the backlog, would be approximately $42.7 million.
Backlog
The figure below provides the composition of the backlog for Parks assets. Replacement of sports fields
(baseball, softball, and soccer) account for over half of the total costs included in the backlog. The items in the backlog represent legitimate backlog costs as there is a high likelihood that these items will require replacement within the ten-year forecast period. The average condition rating for baseball and softball fields is Poor, whereas the average condition rating for soccer fields is Fair. Playgrounds and splashpads are also frequently used assets that typically require replacement at the end of their useful life.
Figure F6 – Backlog Composition – Parks Assets
Play Courts
5%
Baseball/Softball/Soccer
Fields
55%
Playgrounds and
Splashpads
18%
Sports Field Lights
5%
Park Lights
3%
Trails
11%
Park Miscellaneous
3%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 302
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 136
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure F5 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Parks assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure F7 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Parks assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure F7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$1,209
$2,080
$2,756
$1,331 $1,693 $1,825
$2,368 $2,213
$3,532 $1,799 $1,870 $1,944 $2,021 $2,101 $2,184 $2,271 $2,361 $2,455
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 303
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 137
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure F8 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure F8 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduced Backlog
$2,429
$3,348 $4,076
$2,703 $3,121 $3,309 $3,911 $3,818
$5,202
$3,019 $3,139 $3,264 $3,393 $3,528 $3,669 $3,815 $3,967 $4,125
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 304
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 138
Figure F9 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure F9 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$3,649
$4,617 $5,395
$4,076 $4,548 $4,793 $5,455 $5,424
$6,871
$4,239 $4,408 $4,583 $4,766 $4,956 $5,153 $5,359 $5,572 $5,794
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 305
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 139
Table F6 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Levels $1,799 $1,870 $1,944 $2,021 $2,101 $2,184 $2,271 $2,361 $2,455 $19,006
Reduce Backlog $3,019 $3,139 $3,264 $3,393 $3,528 $3,669 $3,815 $3,967 $4,125 $31,918
Eliminate backlog $4,239 $4,408 $4,583 $4,766 $4,956 $5,153 $5,359 $5,572 $5,794 $44,829
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 306
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 140
Recreation, Community, and Culture
10
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 307
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 141
Recreation, Community, and Culture Overview
Recreation, Community, and Culture (RCC) infrastructure includes all the facilities owned by the Municipality and used for community programming or community use. RCC facilities include arenas, aquatic centres, community halls, and certain libraries. The Bowmanville Library is included under the Corporate Facilities asset category as the Bowmanville branch is connected to, and included with, the Municipal Administration Centre. The Courtice
library has been included with the Courtice Community Centre as the Courtice branch is part of this facility.
Also included in RCC are the various pieces of equipment associated with recreation activities, such as fitness equipment and miscellaneous recreation equipment. The Municipality’s RCC facilities are operated and managed by the Facilities division of the Public Services Department, while the equipment is owned and operated by the Community Services division within Public Services.
The majority of asset management information for RCC Facilities has been derived from the Building Condition
Assessments (BCA) completed in late 2023 and early 2024. The Municipality contracted an external engineering consultant to conduct detailed condition assessments on all major facilities within the Municipality. The BCA’s provide updated replacement values, condition assessments, and lifecycle management costs.
The Municipality’s RCC assets have been divided into different asset sub-types, based on similar characteristics
and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the table below.
Table G1 – Recreation, Community, and Culture Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Facilities Arenas Includes any sports complex that is equipped with at least one ice pad. The entire sports complex would be considered an arena.
Aquatic Centres Includes any sports or community complex that is equipped with at least one swimming pool. The entire sports/community complex would be considered an aquatic centre.
Indoor Soccer Facility The Municipality’s soccer dome, which includes an indoor turf soccer field, along with changerooms and office space.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 308
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 142
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Community Facilities Includes all community halls and community centres that are used for special events and can be rented by the public for private use.
Culture Facilities Includes three museums, one visual arts centre, and the Orono and
Newcastle branches of the Clarington Public Library.
Equipment Fitness Equipment The various pieces of strength and cardio equipment included in the Municipality’s fitness centres. Fitness centres are located within certain arenas and aquatic centres.
Recreation Equipment
Equipment used for the purpose of providing recreation services. This
includes small equipment, such as floor scrubbers, that would not be included in the Municipality’s broader inventory of fleet and equipment.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for RCC is presented in Table G2 below. Replacement costing for RCC facilities is based on a full reconstruction of the corresponding facilities. An estimate of $750 per sq. ft has been applied to
the size of each facility to generate the replacement cost. These figures differ from what is presented in the BCA’s as the BCA’s provide a replacement value as opposed to a replacement cost. Total replacement value represents only a sum of the costs of each component part of the facility, whereas replacement cost is a broader measure that includes all the other costs associated with replacing a facility (e.g. project management,
contingencies, labour costs, etc.).
Replacement costing for equipment has been derived using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by staff within Community Services. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 309
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 143
Table G2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Recreation, Community, and Culture
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2024)
Facilities
Arenas 5 38.2 $202,114,000
Aquatic Centres 3 30.3 102,946,000
Indoor Soccer Facility 1 19.0 23,250,000
Community Facilities 13 80.0 98,861,000
Culture Facilities 6 88.7 33,721,000
Equipment Fitness Equipment 115 6.4 404,000
Recreation Equipment 29 7.2 409,000
Total 172 48.1 $461,705,000
As shown in Table G2, the total replacement cost for RCC assets is approximately $461.7 million. Most of the replacement costing relates to the RCC facilities, with arenas and aquatic centres accounting for the largest share of the cost.
Asset Age
Table G3 includes a summary of the average age of the various RCC assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each
sub-type. The average age for each sub-type represents the simple average of the various components within
that category. The total average age for all RCC assets represents a weighted average of the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 310
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 144
Table G3 – Average Age and Condition – Recreation, Community, and Culture
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age (Years)
Average Estimated Useful Life (Years)
Average Condition (FCI)
Average Condition State
Facilities Arenas 5 38.2 50 0.04% Good
Aquatic Centres 3 30.3 50 0.13% Good
Indoor Soccer Facility 1 19 50 0.00% Good
Community Facilities 13 80 50 0.24% Good
Culture Facilities 6 88.7 50 0.21% Good
Equipment1 Fitness Equipment 115 6.4 8 76% Good
Recreation Equipment 29 7.2 8 94% Fair
Total2 172 48.1 0.12% Good
1 Average condition for equipment assets is based on the ULC% methodology.
2 Total average condition includes only the FCI condition ratings for Facilities as Facilities account for 99 per cent of RCC replacement
costs.
The age for each of the facilities within each facility sub-type represents the age of the original portion of the
building. Some facilities may have undergone additions or significant renovations over the years; however, the AMP uses the date of the original construction as the basis for the age calculation.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s current Capitalization Policy. Figure G1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The average age, for the majority of RCC assets, is within the estimate useful life.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 311
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 145
Figure G1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) –
Recreation, Community, and Culture
In terms of RCC facilities, Figure G1 uses the estimated useful life of the building structure to compare against the average age. The estimated useful life of the entire facility is difficult to assess given the various underlying
components. The Municipality’s Capitalization Policy assigns different useful life assumptions to different facility components. The various estimated useful life assumptions are provided in Table G4 below.
38.2
30.3
19.0
80.0
88.7
6.4
7.2
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
8.3
7.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Arenas
Aquatic Centres
Indoor Soccer Facility
Community Facilities
Culture Facilities
Fitness Equipment
Recreation Equipment
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 312
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 146
Table G4 – Estimated Useful Life – Various Building Components
Asset Class Sub-class Type Estimated Useful
Life
Building Structure Overall 50 years
Roof As per material and condition Variable
Structure Interior 25 years
Structure Mechanical (includes HVAC, heat pumps, water heaters, etc.) Variable
Specialized Indoor pool; Ice pad 30 years
Specialized Indoor field 15 years
Site Improvement Parking lot, Landscaping 20 years
Whole Sand domes, Salt shed, Quonset hut, Sheds 25 years
Asset Condition
Table G3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within RCC. RCC Facilities
use the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) methodology to assess condition. The FCI is an industry standard used to
assess the condition of building assets. The condition of the equipment assets was derived using the ULC% methodology.
As described in the Municipality’s BCA’s, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a comparative indicator of the relative condition of facilities. The FCI is expressed as a ratio of the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies
to the current replacement value. Calculating the FCI, for a particular year, requires dividing the cost of renewal
needs in that particular year by the estimated replacement value. Note that the BCA’s use total replacement value, as opposed to total replacement cost, as the denominator in their condition calculations.
The average condition for all RCC assets is rated as Good. The average condition rating for RCC assets reflects only the facility component and was derived using a weighted average based on the replacement cost of each
sub-type. The condition rating for each facility reflects the current FCI rating for 2024 as provided in the BCA’s.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 313
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 147
Equipment assets were excluded from the total average condition rating as the facility component accounts for
99.8 per cent of the total RCC asset replacement costing.
The figures below provide the condition distribution for each of the sub-asset types. All the facilities, within each asset sub-type, have an FCI rating of Good for 2024. The condition of the individual equipment assets varies from Very Poor to Very Good.
Figure G2 – Condition Distribution – Recreation, Community, and Culture - Facilities
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Arenas
Aquatic Centres
Indoor Soccer Facility
Community Facilities
Culture Facilities
Good Fair Poor Critical
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 314
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 148
Figure G3 – Condition Distribution – Recreation, Community, and Culture – Equipment
Long-term Condition Rating – RCC Facilities
In addition to providing facility condition ratings for the current year, the BCA’s also provide total condition ratings for the next five and ten years. These condition ratings are derived by summing the total dollar value of renewal needs over the next five and ten years and dividing by the current replacement value. The table below provides
the total average condition rating for the next five and ten years for each facility sub-type within RCC.
Table G5 - Total Five- and Ten-year Average Condition Rating – RCC Facilities
Total 5-year FCI% Total 5-year Condition State Total 10-year FCI% Total 10-year Condition State
Arenas 3.13% Good 16.41% Poor
Aquatic Centres 3.64% Good 9.83% Fair
Community Centres 14.08% Poor 25.80% Poor
Culture Facilities 21.19% Poor 33.47% Critical
39%
17%
29%
40%
10%
17%
10%12%
27%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Fitness Equipment
Recreation Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 315
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 149
The table above suggests that, although the current average condition of RCC facilities is rated as Good, these
facilities will still require a significant amount of renewal needs, over the next five to ten years, relative to their
current replacement value.
Levels of Service
The levels of service for RCC were developed to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community.
The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the
performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table G6 – Current Levels of Service – Recreation, Community, and Culture
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Cost Effective Managing Recreation, Community, and Culture assets in a fiscally sustainable manner
Recreation, Community, and Culture Facilities Reinvestment Rate 0.6%
Accessibility Ensuring recreation and culture
activities are accessible to all members of the community
Number of ice pads per capita (ratio) 1: 15,396
Number of indoor swimming pools (excluding tot pools) per capita (ratio) 1: 35,923
Library square feet per person 0.42
Quality Ensuring Recreation, Community, and
Culture assets remain in a suitable
condition for public use
% of Recreation, Community, and
Culture facilities in Fair or better
condition (FCI)
100%
% of Recreation, Community, and Culture equipment in Fair or better condition
77%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 316
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 150
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current Performance
Sustainability Providing Recreation, Community, and Culture services in an environmentally sustainable manner
Annual electric energy consumption for all Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft. 128 kWh
Annual natural gas consumption for all
Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft
16 m3
Annual water consumption for all Corporate Facilities, per sq. ft. 3.2 m3
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes four main types of lifecycle activities to ensure RCC assets maintain their current
level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of each facility, along with the condition of each major component part (e.g. roof, plumbing, electrical, etc.). Routine inspections are completed by staff, including quarterly mechanical inspections and monthly visual building inspections. Detailed BCA’s are
completed approximately every 5-years and help identify the potential maintenance requirements over a forecast
horizon. The cost of BCA inspections represents a capital cost to the Municipality and have been captured in the annual lifecycle costing.
Minor repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. These activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets remain in good working order. Minor expenses
are funded through repair and maintenance accounts in the Municipalities operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipalities capital budget.
Major repair and maintenance activities are also performed throughout the lifecycle of the asset. Major repairs and maintenance occur when the cost to perform the activity exceeds $5,000 and the cost becomes a capital expense.
The BCA’s provide a ten-year forecast for repair and maintenance activities required to maintain the facilities in
good working order. The forecasts from the BCA’s have been used as the basis for the facility lifecycle costing estimates in the AMP. The AMP assumes that minor costs ($5,000 or less) will flow through the municipal
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 317
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 151
operating budget and have not been included in lifecycle costing. The lifecycle costing in the AMP includes only
the major expenses, identified in the BCA’s, that exceed the $5,000 threshold.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. Replacement activities constitute a capital cost and have been included in the AMP for equipment assets. The AMP does not forecast the full replacement of any RCC facilities over the ten-year forecast period.
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service.
Figure G4 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Recreation, Community, and Culture ($,000’s)
$1,371
$295
$7,451
$598
$3,487
$9,156
$1,892
$4,265
$2,725
$1,447
$9,638
$40,954 $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 318
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 152
It will cost approximately $41 million over the next ten years to maintain the current level of service. The total
cost, including all the costs in the backlog, is approximately $42.3 million. The backlog items include maintenance
activities that were identified in the BCA’s to be performed in 2023. The backlog also includes various equipment assets that are beyond their estimated useful life.
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure G4 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining RCC assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure G5 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining RCC assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the
forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure G5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
$295
$7,380
$598 $3,487
$9,099
$1,892
$4,265 $2,725 $1,447
$9,638 $3,852 $4,008 $4,170 $4,338 $4,513 $4,695 $4,884 $5,081 $5,285
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 319
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 153
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure G6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure G6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
$295
$7,455
$677
$3,569
$9,184
$1,981
$4,357 $2,820 $1,547
$9,741 $3,928 $4,087 $4,251 $4,423 $4,601 $4,787 $4,980 $5,180 $5,389
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 320
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 154
Figure G7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure G7 – Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$295
$7,531
$756
$3,650
$9,269
$2,069
$4,449
$2,916 $1,646
$9,845 $4,004 $4,165 $4,333 $4,508 $4,690 $4,879 $5,075 $5,280 $5,492
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 321
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 155
Table G7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Levels $3,852 $4,008 $4,170 $4,338 $4,513 $4,695 $4,884 $5,081 $5,285 $40,825
Reduce Backlog $3,928 $4,087 $4,251 $4,423 $4,601 $4,787 $4,980 $5,180 $5,389 $41,625
Eliminate Backlog $4,004 $4,165 $4,333 $4,508 $4,690 $4,879 $5,075 $5,280 $5,492 $42,426
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 322
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 156
Transportation Infrastructure
11
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 323
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 157
Transportation Infrastructure Overview
Transportation Infrastructure includes all the infrastructure used to ensure the safe and efficient transportation of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Transportation Infrastructure includes items such as sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals, and guiderails. Transportation Infrastructure does not include the municipal road network. Roads are considered core infrastructure and were included in the previous iteration of the AMP related to core
infrastructure.
The Municipality’s Transportation Infrastructure assets have been divided into different asset sub-types, based on similar characteristics and functions. The different sub-types are provided and defined in the table below. Transportation Infrastructure is overseen by both the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department and the Public Works division of the Public Services Department.
Table H1 – Transportation Infrastructure Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Guiderails Steel Beam Guiderails Steel guiderails used to guide traffic along a roadway and away from
hazardous situations, such as drop-offs or fixed objects.
Guideposts / Post & Cable Serve the same purpose as steel guiderails but are constructed using wood posts and steel cables.
Concrete Barriers Serve the same purpose as steel guiderails but are constructed from reinforced concrete.
Sidewalks Concrete Sidewalks Portion of the Municipality’s sidewalk network constructed with a concrete base.
Asphalt Sidewalks Portion of the Municipality’s sidewalk network constructed with an asphalt base.
Streetlighting Concrete Standard Poles Concrete pole used to support the streetlight luminaire.
Wood Poles Wood pole used to support the streetlight luminaire.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 324
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 158
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Aluminum Poles Aluminum pole used to support the streetlight luminaire.
Concrete Decorative Poles Concrete pole used to support the streetlight luminaire. Typically made of spun-concrete to provide aesthetic appeal.
Steel Decorative Poles Steel pole, enhanced with decorative features, used to support a
streetlight luminaire.
Standard LED Luminaire Light fixture, secured to a streetlight pole, to illuminate the roadway.
Decorative LED Luminaire Decorative light fixture, secured to a streetlight pole, to illuminate the roadway.
Traffic Controls Traffic Signals Signaling infrastructure used at roadway intersections to allow safe passage of motor vehicles. Includes traffic lights, cabinets, and
pedestrian signals.
Pedestrian Crossings Signaling infrastructure used to stop traffic and allow pedestrians safe passage across a roadway.
Equipment Radar Message Boards Electronic traffic devices used to enhance safety by displaying vehicle speed and displaying information to drivers.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Transportation Infrastructure is presented in Table H2 below. Replacement
costing has been derived using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and estimates provided by municipal staff. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 325
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 159
Table H2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Transportation Infrastructure
As shown in Table H2, the total replacement cost for Transportation Infrastructure assets is approximately $215.7 million. Most of the replacement costing relates to the sidewalk network, which accounts for over $161 million of
the total replacement cost. The Municipality also owns over 3,700 concrete streetlight poles, totaling over $25
million in replacement costing.
Replacement costing is based on the full replacement of each asset. In terms of traffic signals, this includes all components of a signalized intersection (e.g. LED lights, cabinet, electrical work, light poles, automated pedestrian signals, etc.). The Municipality recently completed an LED conversion program on streetlight
luminaires; therefore, the luminaire replacement costing assumes an LED replacement.
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length (Km) Average Age (Years) Replacement Cost ($2024)
Guiderails Steel Beam Guiderails 23.96 15.8 $8,627,000
Guideposts / Post & Cable 7.02 24.8 839,000
Concrete Barriers 0.02 38.0 13,000
Sidewalks Concrete Sidewalks 347.81 22.8 157,906,000
Asphalt Sidewalks 6.77 23.6 3,787,000
Streetlighting Concrete Standard Poles 3,739 22.6 25,841,000
Wood Poles 143 N/A 659,000
Aluminum Poles 229 N/A 1,781,000
Concrete Decorative Poles 663 17.2 5,156,000
Steel Decorative Poles 247 N/A 1,921,000
Standard LED Luminaire 4,292 4.0 2,468,000
Decorative LED Luminaire 910 2.0 1,283,000
Traffic Controls Traffic Signals 18 20.2 5,076,000
Pedestrian Crossings 5 4.0 238,000
Equipment Radar Message Boards 21 4.9 76,000
Total 10,267 385.58 21.8 $215,671,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 326
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 160
Asset Age
Table H3 includes a summary of the average age of the various Transportation Infrastructure assets within each asset sub-type. The age of each asset in the inventory is assessed and given equal weighting when deriving the average age for each sub-type. The average age for each asset sub-type represents the simple average of the
various components within that sub-type. The total average age, for all Transportation Infrastructure assets, represents a weighted average of the different sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
Table H3 – Average Age and Condition – Transportation Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length (Km)
Average Age (Years)
Average Estimated Useful
Life
Average Condition (ULC%)
Average Condition State
Guiderails Steel Beam Guiderails 23.96 15.8 80 20% Very Good
Guideposts / Post & Cable 7.02 24.8 80 31% Very Good
Concrete Barriers 0.02 38 80 48% Good
Sidewalks Concrete Sidewalks 347.81 22.8 80 29% Very Good
Asphalt Sidewalks 6.77 23.6 80 30% Very Good
Streetlighting Concrete Standard Poles 3,739 22.6 80 28% Very Good
Wood Poles 143 N/A 80 N/A N/A
Aluminum Poles 229 N/A 80 N/A N/A
Concrete Decorative Poles 663 17.2 80 22% Very Good
Steel Decorative Poles 247 N/A 80 N/A N/A
Standard LED Luminaire 4,292 4 15 27% Very Good
Decorative LED Luminaire 910 2 15 13% Very Good
Traffic Controls Traffic Signals 18 20.2 25 81% Good
Pedestrian Crossings 5 4 15 27% Very Good
Equipment Radar Message Boards 21 4.9 10 49% Good
Total 10,267 385.58 21.8 29% Very Good
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 327
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 161
In terms of streetlight poles, the only age and condition information available is for concrete poles (standard and
decorative). The other streetlight pole types represent a much smaller proportion of the total streetlight pole
inventory. The majority of the non-concrete streetlight poles were likely installed before the Municipality instituted electronic tracking. Non-concrete streetlight poles have been assigned an age of “N/A” to reflect the fact that no data is available.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s
current Capitalization Policy. The estimated useful life for guiderails, sidewalks, and streetlight poles has been set
to 80 years to match the estimated useful life of a road. These assets have very long-life spans and will not typically be subject to a large scale replacement unless a major road replacement occurs. Large road replacements may require the removal of the adjacent sidewalk, streetlights, and guiderails, in which new infrastructure would then be installed in its place.
Figure H1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type.
Based on the long estimated useful life assigned to many of the asset categories, the average age for the majority of Transportation Infrastructure is well within the estimated useful life. The figure excludes the assets in which the age is unknown.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 328
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 162
Figure H1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Transportation Infrastructure
Asset Condition
Table H3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Transportation Infrastructure. The condition assessments have been derived using the ULC% methodology. The average condition for all Transportation Infrastructure assets is rated as Very Good. This average condition rating was
derived using a weighted average of all asset sub-types, based on total replacement cost.
15.8
24.8
38.0
22.8
21.7
3.3
20.2
4.0
4.9
80
80
80
80
80
15
25
15
10
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Steel Beam Guiderails
Guideposts / Post & Cable
Concrete Barriers
Sidewalks
Concrete Light Poles
Luminaires
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Crossings
Radar Message Boards
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 329
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 163
The Very Good condition rating stems from the fact that many assets have a very long estimated useful life. Many
of the assets holding a large share of the overall replacement cost (streetlights and sidewalks) do not typically get
replaced unless severely damaged or because they are part of a road segment being replaced.
Although the overall condition is assessed as Very Good, the actual condition of the various assets within each asset sub-type varies. The figure below illustrates the condition distribution within each specific sub-type.
Figure H2 – Condition Distribution – Transportation Infrastructure
91%
74%
50%
86%
97%
100%
39%
100%
52%
9%
26%
50%
14%
3%
33%
38%10%
28%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Steel Beam Guiderails
Guideposts / Post & Cable
Concrete Barriers
Sidewalks
Concrete Light Poles
Luminaires
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Crossings
Radar Message Boards
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 330
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 164
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Transportation Infrastructure were developed in an effort to reflect the desires, values, and expectations of the community. The Level of Service statements are intended to capture the expectations of the community, while the performance measures are intended to quantify those expectations. The Levels of Service attributes are intended to reflect some of the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current level of service performance is provided in the table below. Proposed levels of services
and their respective targets will be identified in future iterations of the AMP.
Table H4 – Current Levels of Service – Transportation Infrastructure
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Cost Effective Maintaining Transportation
Infrastructure in a fiscally sustainable
manner
Transportation Infrastructure
Reinvestment Rate
0.50%
Accessibility Providing Transportation Infrastructure
that is accessible for all
% of sidewalks that comply with AODA
minimum clearance width of 1.5m
83%
Quality Providing major Transportation
Infrastructure assets in an acceptable
condition
% of sidewalks in Fair or better
condition
59.70%
% of streetlight luminaires in Fair or
better condition
66.70%
Sustainability Providing environmentally sustainable
Transportation services for the
community
% of vehicles (excluding fire trucks) that
are fully electric (EV)
6.67%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 331
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 165
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Costing
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Transportation Infrastructure assets maintain their current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of Transportation Infrastructure
assets. Sidewalks receive frequent visual inspections to determine whether maintenance activity is required.
Other assets are also visually inspected to determine the level of maintenance required. These inspections are typically completed at the staff level and do not represent an additional cost to the Municipality. There are no inspection costs included in annual lifecycle costing.
General repair and maintenance activities are performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. These
activities include the general maintenance required to ensure the assets remain in good working order. Sidewalk
infrastructure is generally subject to general repair and maintenance to ensure they remain in suitable condition. General repair and maintenance is typically performed on a sidewalk as opposed to a full sidewalk replacement. These activities are funded through the annual operating budget and have not been included in the AMP.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. The replacement of
Transportation Infrastructure assets can represent both a capital expense and an operating expense. Certain
assets, such as streetlight poles, do not form a significant expense on an individual basis. If an individual streetlight pole or luminaire requires replacement, it would form an operating expense. If a large pool of streetlight poles and luminaires required replacement, the sum total would reflect a capital expense.
As many of the Transportation Infrastructure assets are replaced on a case-by-case basis (i.e.: funded through
the operating budget) and do not require full replacement on a routine basis, the estimated lifecycle capital
costing is quite minimal relative to the overall replacement cost. The routine end-of-life replacements that represent a capital expense are the only lifecycle activities included in the lifecycle costing.
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of service.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 332
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 166
Figure H3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Transportation Infrastructure ($000’s)
It will cost approximately $432,000, over the next ten years, to maintain the current level of service. The total cost, including all the costs in the backlog, is approximately $732,000. Again, this small value reflects the fact that
most Transportation Infrastructure are not routinely replaced and, if they do require replacement on an individual basis, the expense typically forms part of the operating budget.
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure H3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Transportation Infrastructure assets over the next ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
$280
$0
$63 $50
$78
$0
$54
$0 $10
$110
$68
$432 $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 333
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 167
Figure H4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Transportation Infrastructure assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the
backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure H4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s)
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures
below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
$15 $25
$52
$0
$54
$0 $10
$110 $68 $32 $33 $34 $36 $37 $38 $40 $41 $43
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 334
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 168
Figure H5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure H5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Reduce Backlog
Figure H6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
$21 $31
$58
$7
$61
$7 $18
$118 $77 $38 $39 $41 $42 $44 $46 $48 $49 $51
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 335
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 169
Figure H6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,000’s) – Eliminate Backlog
The table below compares the average annual cost of maintaining current service levels (i.e.: maintaining the current dollar value of the backlog) with the alternative scenarios of reducing and eliminating the backlog over the forecast period.
$27 $38
$65
$14
$68
$15 $26
$126 $85
$44 $46 $47 $49 $51 $53 $55 $57 $60
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 336
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 170
Table H5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Current Service Levels $32 $33 $34 $36 $37 $38 $40 $41 $43 $334
Reduce Backlog $38 $39 $41 $42 $44 $46 $48 $49 $51 $399
Eliminate Backlog $44 $46 $47 $49 $51 $53 $55 $57 $60 $463
Streetlight Luminaires
The Municipality implemented an LED streetlight conversion program in 2020. The project included replacing existing streetlight luminaires with LED replacements. The majority of the conversions were completed in 2020,
with additional conversions completed in 2022.
The LED luminaires have an estimated useful life of 15 years; therefore, the estimated replacement of these luminaires falls just outside the 10-year forecast horizon in the AMP (estimated replacement in 2034). The current estimated replacement cost for the standard LED luminaires totals nearly $2.5 million.
Streetlight luminaires tend not to be replaced until they fail. Luminaire replacements are typically funded through
the operating budget as they are replaced on a case-by-case basis. However, given that many of the LED
luminaires were installed at the same time, there is a possibility that a large amount could also fail at the same time. This could potentially lead to a large capital expense.
Table H6 illustrates the impact to the Average Annual Lifecycle Cost if the full replacement of all standard LED luminaires were included within the 10-year forecast period. The table provides the estimated average annual
lifecycle costs under scenario one. The estimated average annual cost would be reduced under the other two
scenarios.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 337
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 171
Table H6 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost – Luminaire Replacement ($000’s)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost (No Luminaires) $32 $33 $34 $36 $37 $38 $40 $41 $43 $334
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost (Luminaires) $344 $355 $367 $380 $393 $407 $421 $436 $451 $3,554
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 338
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 172
Asset
Management
Plan 2024
The Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195
Local: 905-623-3379
info@clarington.net
www.clarington.net
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Page 339
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-031-24
Authored by: Sandra McKee
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number: RFP2024-5
Report Subject: Contract Administration and Construction Inspection Services for the High
Street and O'Dell Street Reconstruction
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-031-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the proposal received from AECOM Canada Ltd. being the highest-ranked
proponent meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of RFP2024-5 be
awarded the contract for the provision of Engineering Services for Contract
Administration and Construction Inspection Services for the High Street and O'Dell
Street Reconstruction;
3. That the funds required for this project in the amount of $98,687.87 (Net HST
Rebate) be funded from the approved budget; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-031-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 340
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-031-24
Report Overview
To request approval to award RFP2024-5 to the highest-ranked proponent to provide
Contract Administration and Inspection Services for the High Street and O’Dell Street
Reconstruction.
1. Background
1.1 The Municipality of Clarington requires the assistance of a qualified firm to provide
Contract Administration and Inspection Services for the High Street and O’Dell Street
Reconstruction.
1.2 A Request for Proposal (RFP) was drafted to allow the Municipality to select a qualified
Engineering Services Consultant with the skills, resources, and experience necessary to
provide contract administration and inspection services for the High Street and O’Dell
Street Reconstruction.
1.3 RFP2024-5 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality’s website. The RFP was structured on a two-envelope
system with price being an evaluated factor.
2. Analysis
2.1 The RFP closed May 6, 2024.
2.2 The RFP stipulated, among other things, that the proponents were to provide a
description of the Firm/Consulting team, key qualifications, firm profile, highlights of past
service and experience of team members with projects of similar size, nature and
complexity, and demonstrate their understanding of the Municipality’s requirements.
2.3 Fifteen companies downloaded the document, and seven proposals were received
(refer to Attachment 1) by the stipulated closing date and time. One proposal received
was deemed non-compliant. Six proposals received complied with Phase 1 -
Mandatory Submission Requirements and were distributed to the evaluation committee
for review, evaluation, and scoring.
2.4 The technical proposals were evaluated and scored independently by the members of
the evaluation committee in accordance with the established criteria as outlined in the
RFP. The evaluation committee was comprised of staff from the Planning and
Infrastructure Services Department.
Page 341
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-031-24
2.5 The evaluation committee met to review and agree upon the overall scores for each
proposal. Some of the areas on which the submissions were evaluated were as follows:
The Proponent’s understanding of the Municipality’s requirements;
Highlights of services provided performing similar work on projects of comparable
nature, size, and scope;
The qualifications and experience record of the Contract Administrator and Site
Inspector to be utilized on the project.
A proposed work plan indicating the project method, schedule, Time-Task Matrix
showing an estimated overall timeline of the project.
2.6 Upon completion of the evaluation, two submissions met the established passing
threshold of 85 percent for Phase 2 - Technical Submission and moved to Phase 3 -
Pricing. The evaluation committee determined that the optional presentation from the
short-listed proponents would not be required.
2.7 The pricing envelopes for the short-listed proponents were opened and evaluated as
stipulated in the RFP document.
2.8 Upon completion of the evaluation scoring, the recommendation is to award the contract
for this work to the highest-ranked proponent, AECOM Canada Ltd.
2.9 AECOM Canada Ltd. has completed work for the Municipality in the past and as such a
reference check was not required.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 As per a standing agreement between the Municipality and the Region of Durham, the
Region of Durham will pay an additional 10.0% on top of the as tendered construction
value of works under their cost responsibility as a contribution for contract
administration, inspection, and material testing works.
3.2 The funding required for this contract award is up to $98,687.87 (Net HST Rebate) and
will be funded from the following account:
Description Account Number Amount
High Street and Odell Street
Reconstruction 110-50-330-83332-7401 $15,081
High Street & O'Dell Street
Reconstruction - Region
Recovery
110-50-330-83332-7402 83,607
Page 342
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-031-24
4. Strategic Plan
Not applicable.
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Services who concurs with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that AECOM Canada Ltd. be awarded the contract for
the provision of Contract Administration and Inspection Services for the High Street and
O’Dell Street Reconstruction.
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379-Ext 2210 or
smckee@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Summary of Proposals Received
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 343
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-031-24
Attachment 1 - Summary of Proposals Received
Municipality of Clarington
RFP2024-5–Contract Administration and Construction Inspection Services
for High Street and O'Dell Street Reconstruction
Summary of Proposals Received
Bidder
AECOM Canada Ltd.*
CIMA Canada Inc.*
Concept Dash Inc.**
EnVision Canada Inc.
HiBridge Engineering Inc.
Noveen Engineering Inc.
Remy Consulting Engineers Ltd.
Note: Bidders marked with “*” were shortlisted.
Bidders marked with "**" were non-compliant.
Page 344
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: FSD-032-24
Authored by: Trevor Pinn
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Amendment to Purchasing Bylaw – Reporting Threshold for Rosters
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-032-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-032-24, as Attachment 1, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-032-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 345
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-032-24
Report Overview
This Report seeks Council approval to add a clause in the Purchasing By-law to change the
reporting requirements to Council for those procurements which follow a roster process. The
roster process completes a number of the back-office review of vendors to ensure that they
meet the requirements of the Municipality and are capable of completing the work.
The current roster is for consulting services and with a limit of $50,000, staff are not able to
utilize the roster to its fullest potential. Other purchases have a reporting limit of $500,000,
however consulting is set at $50,000; the proposal would have consultants appointed
through a roster able to be approved for up to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement
threshold (currently $133,800).
1. Background
1.1 In 2019, the Municipality established a roster of consultants for specific engineering
services. This roster is currently being used; however it is time to issue a new
solicitation.
1.2 Given the increased costs since 2019, the current threshold of $50,000 is problematic.
In the Purchasing By-law, consultants valued greater than $50,000 requires the
Purchasing Manager to issue a bid solicitation and submit a report for Council approval.
1.3 It has been noted that general contract administration services are trending above this
threshold even for relatively easy projects. This is creating additional work for Planning
and Infrastructure Staff, as well as Purchasing Services Staff in having to issue RFPs
for items less than $100,000. For comparison, for non-consulting purchases items less
than $100,000 only require three quotes.
1.4 Finance and Technology staff will be reviewing the Purchasing By-law over the summer
with a revised by-law to come to Council in the fall; however, to facilitate the issuance of
a roster and the expedition of capital projects, staff are recommending a change at this
time.
2. Proposed Amendment
2.1 Staff are recommending that a new paragraph be added after paragraph 64, and that
subsequent paragraphs be renumbered. The proposed paragraph 64.1 would read
“Where a roster has been established for consulting services, in compliance with this
By-law, a report to Council to award a contract under the roster shall only be required
for awards in excess of the threshold set by the Canada Free Trade Agreement
(CFTA).”
2.2 The current threshold is $133,800 for consulting services in the CFTA. Any project
anticipated to be above this would be issued an RFP or RFT as appropriate.
Page 346
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-032-24
2.3 The proposed amendment will only impact consultants performing engineering work,
primarily contract administration, and would be for projects that have already received
budgetary approval. The threshold of the CFTA was chosen to ensure that any projects
greater than this amount still go out for a separate solicitation in compliance with the
free trade agreement. Given that a roster would pre-qualify consultants, and all projects
are already budgeted, increasing the reporting threshold is a reasonable step to
increase efficiency.
2.4 It is anticipated that significant time can be saved from the expanded use of a roster.
The roster has been successful; however, as costs of risen the applicability of the roster
has decreased. The time to draft the RFP, issue the RFP, review the RFP, draft the
report to Council can all be eliminated through the expanded reporting limit in the use of
the roster.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The change in process does not have financial implications as the funds would already
be budgeted for. There will be time efficiencies in departments utilizing the roster as well
as the Purchasing Division through reduced reporting burden and improved timeliness
of award of work.
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 Not Applicable
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure who
concurs with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the Purchasing By-law be amended to add the
reporting limit for procurements undertaken through rosters.
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Assistant Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 ext.2210 or
smckee@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft By-law Amendment
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 347
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2024-XXX
Being a by-law to amend the Purchasing By-law 2021-077.
Whereas, pursuant to Section 270 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Corporation enacted
By-law 2021-077 (the “Purchasing By-law”) to establish and maintain policies with
respect to its procurement of goods and services; and
Whereas it is deemed expedient to amend the Purchasing By-law to change the
process for hiring engineers and engineering consultants;
Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. The following section shall be added:
64.1 Where a roster has been established for consulting services, in
compliance with this By-law, a report to Council to award a contract under
the roster shall only be required for awards in excess of the threshold set
by the Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA).
2. This by-law shall take effect on the date of passing.
Passed in Open Council this 24 day of June, 2024.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 348
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-028-24
Authored by: Colin Lyon, Associate Solicitor
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: RC.C.04.22/23
Report Subject: Surplus Declaration of Unopened Road Allowance between Lots 22 and
23, Concession 4, Former Township of Clarke
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-028-24 be received;
2. That the unopened road allowance between Lots 22 and 23, Concession 4, Former
Township of Clarke described in Report LGS-028-24 is declared surplus and
conditionally approved for sale to the Applicant;
3. That the Applicant shall pay the cost to prepare and register a reference plan for the
property to be conveyed;
4. That the Applicant shall pay the cost for the Municipality to obtain an appraisal of the
property to be conveyed;
5. That the Deputy CAO/Solicitor is authorized to enter into an agreement of purchase
and sale with the applicant with a purchase price consistent with the appraisal
obtained for the value of the property, and any other terms considered necessary by
the Deputy CAO/Solicitor;
6. That the Applicant shall pay the non-refundable processing fee;
7. That once all conditions have been fulfilled by the Applicant, the Deputy
CAO/Solicitor shall prepare the necessary by-law to give effect to the closure and
conveyance of the Road Allowance; and
8. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-028-24 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 349
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-028-24
Report Overview
This report recommends the sale of a portion of an unopened municipal road allowance
located between Lots 22 and 23, Concession 4, Former Township of Clarke to James
William Hale and Carolyn Lorraine Hale (the “Applicant”) in accordance with the Council
approved Road Closure and Conveyance Policy CP-004.
1. Background
1.1 The Applicant has applied to purchase the unopened road allowance located between
Lots 22 and 23, Concession 4, former Township of Clarke (the “Road Allowance”).
1.2 The dimensions of the Road Allowance are approximately 66 feet by 7,000 feet.
1.3 The Applicant’s objective is to increase the economic potential of the property by
expanding the existing apple orchard to include the unopened road allowance.
1.4 The Applicant has submitted the required application together with the initial application
fee, and Staff have made a preliminary determination that the Road Allowance is
surplus to the needs of the Municipality and recommend that it be sold.
2. Next Steps
2.1 If the sale is approved by Council, the Road Allowance will be surveyed and appraised
in accordance with the Road Closure and Conveyance Policy CP-004.
2.2 Upon successful fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the recommendations of this
Report, the by-law to permanently close the Road Allowance will be presented to
Council for enactment, and the sale will be finalized.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 If approved, the proceeds of the sale will be deposited to the appropriate account as
determined by the Finance and Technology Department.
4. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure who
concurs with the recommendations.
Page 350
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-028-24
5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the sale of the above noted
property to the Applicant in accordance with the Council approved Road Closure and
Conveyance Policy CP-004.
Staff Contact: Colin Lyon, Associate Solicitor, 905-623-3379 ext. 2027 or
clyon@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
James William Hale and Carolyn Lorraine Hale
Page 351
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 3, 2024 Report Number: LGS-025-24
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored By: Lindsey Turcotte, Committee Coordinator
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Appointment to Clarington Heritage Committee and Newcastle Arena
Board
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-025-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the resignation of Steve Lawson, Clarington Heritage Committee, and Dave
Bouma, Newcastle Arena Board, be received with thanks;
3. That the Committee consider the applications for appointments to the Clarington
Heritage Committee and Newcastle Arena Board, and that the vote be conducted to
appoint the citizen representatives, in accordance with the Appointment to Boards
and Committees Policy; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-025-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 352
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-025-24
Report Overview
This report is intended to provide background information, regarding the vacancies on the
Clarington Heritage Committee and Newcastle Arena Board to assist in the appointment
process.
1. Clarington Heritage Committee
1.1 The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) is a volunteer advisory committee
established by Council following the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.
1.2 The CHC assists the Municipality to identify, review, discuss, and make
recommendations to Council on properties and issues of cultural heritage, value and
interest.
1.3 The Committee is comprised of 14 members, including:
Ten citizen members appointed by Council (currently one vacancy);
One member of Council;
A representative from the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society;
A representative from Clarington Library, Museums and Archives; and
A representative from Architectural Conservancy Ontario - Clarington Branch.
1.4 The Committee shall seek to obtain the following as voting members:
Clarington residents from each of the four municipal wards that are experienced in
heritage conservation matters;
Building and design specialist; and
An architectural historian.
1.5 The current Committee composition currently meets the qualifications outlined in
Section 1.4.
1.6 The Clerk’s Division received a resignation from Steve Lawson, who was appointed to
the Clarington Heritage Committee in January 2023, for a term ending December 31,
2026, or until a successor is appointed.
1.7 Currently, the Heritage Committee has 13 voting members, therefore Committee may
appoint 1 citizen for a term ending December 31, 2026, or until a successor is
appointed.
Page 353
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-025-24
1.8 The following have put forward an application for consideration:
Glenn Baswick
Rick McEachern
Zane Piekenbrock
Sitara Welch
2. Newcastle Arena Board
2.1 The Newcastle Arena Board operates the Newcastle Memorial Arena.
2.2 The Board is comprised of 8 voting members, including seven community members and
1 Member of Council.
2.3 The Clerk’s Division received a resignation from David Bouma, who was appointed to
the Board in January 2023, for a term ending December 31, 2026, or until a successor
is appointed.
2.4 Currently, the Board has 7 members, therefore Committee may appoint 1 citizen for a
term ending December 31, 2026, or until a successor is appointed.
2.5 The following have put forward an application for consideration:
Tyler Bourque
Anusan Kathir
Phil Haylock
Bryan Hutchinson
Stephanie Hogg
Adam Brooks - Late
3. Advertising and Applications
3.1 The Municipal Clerk’s Division placed an advertisement in local papers and on the
Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/Commitees, to fill the vacancies on the
Clarington Heritage Committee and Newcastle Arena Board.
Page 354
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-025-24
3.2 In an effort to extend the reach of our advertisements for vacancies, the Clerk’s Division
has created a profile on the www.claringtonvolunteers.ca website. Vacancies on the
Clarington Heritage Committee and Newcastle Arena Board were listed on the
Clarington Volunteers website.
3.3 In accordance with the “Appointment to Boards and Committees Policy”, a confidential
application package has been attached as Attachment 1.
4. Financial Considerations
Not applicable.
5. Strategic Plan
L.4.1: Increase opportunities for civic engagement and public participation.
6. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Committee consider the vote to make the
appointments to Clarington Heritage Committee and the Newcastle Arena Board for a
term ending December 31, 2026, or until a successor is appointed.
Staff Contact: Lindsey Turcotte, Committee Coordinator, 905-623-3379 ext. 2106 or
LTurcotte@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Confidential Application Package
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Clarington Heritage Committee
Newcastle Arena Board
Page 355