HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSD-030-24Staff 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:
Reviewed By:
Authored by:
Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: GG-104-24
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.
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.
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. T his 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.
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 tota l
replacement cost. Transportation Infrastructure also represents a large portion of total
replacement costs as this asset category includes all sidewalks, streetlights, and
guiderails.
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.
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
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
$50,000
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-030-24
maintenance. The backlog in Figure 2 has been reduced to include only the assets with
a reasonable possibility of requiring replacement within the ten-year forecast period.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
2.22 The annual lifecycle costs, as presented in Figure 2, can vary significantly from year-to-
year. Figure 3 smooths out the variation by determining the average annual lifecycle
cost of maintaining the current level of service over the forecast period. The average
annual costs are spread over the 2025-2033 period and are presented in real, inflation-
adjusted dollars.
Figure 3 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$35,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-030-24
not yet been performed; therefore, these items remain outstanding lifecycle activities in
the AMP.
2.25 The AMP also provides alternative lifecycle costing scenarios that involve a more
aggressive approach to addressing the backlog. Figure 4 compares the total cost of
these scenarios, over the 2025-2033 period, with the total cost to maintain the current
level of service.
2.26 One alternative scenario provides the average annual cost of reducing the overall size
of the backlog by 50 per cent over the forecast period. The other scenario provides the
average annual cost of eliminating the entire backlog over the forecast period. Both
scenarios would result in an increased level of service as the condition distribution of the
assets would significantly improve.
Figure 4 – Total Lifecycle Cost Comparison, 2025-2033 ($,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
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.
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.
Asset
Management
Plan 2024
Municipality of Clarington
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 3
Executive
Summary
01
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 11
Introduction
02
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 21
Summary of Non-core
Infrastructure Assets
03
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 41
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The average annual costs identified in Figure 4 represent the average annual costs of maintaining current service
levels, with the current dollar value of the backlog and the current asset condition distribution remaining constant
throughout the forecast period. The figures below provide alternative costing scenarios that take a more
aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure 5 identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that the current level of
service will be maintained and that 50 per cent of the current backlog would be eliminated over the ten-year
forecast period. This scenario takes a gradual approach to reducing the backlog over time. This scenario would
lead to a gradual transition of all assets to Very Good to Good condition, with some assets likely remaining in the
Poor to Very Poor condition at the end of the ten-year forecast period.
Figure 5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 42
Figure 6 identifies the estimated average annual lifecycle cost under the assumption that the current level of
service will be maintained and that the entire backlog will be eliminated over the ten-year forecast period. This
scenario would transition the majority of assets into the Very Good to Good condition rating by the end of the
forecast period.
Figure 6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$35,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 43
Table 7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
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
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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 46
Corporate Facilities
04
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 $5,000 threshold.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of an asset at the end of its useful life. The AMP does not
forecast the full replacement of any Corporate Facilities over the ten-year forecast period.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 56
The figure below identifies the annual lifecycle costing required to maintain the Municipality’s current level of
service as identified in the BCA’s.
Figure A3 – Annual Lifecycle Costing – Corporate Facilities ($,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
$8,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 57
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure A3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Corporate Facilities assets over the next ten
years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-
to-year.
Figure A4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Corporate Facilities assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog
throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but
not yet completed.
Figure A4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 58
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below
provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure A5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by
50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure A5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 59
Figure A6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure A6 – Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 60
Table A7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 61
Corporate Fleet
05
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$14,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 72
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure B4 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Corporate Fleet assets over the next ten
years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-
to-year.
Figure B5 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Corporate Fleet assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog
throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but
not yet completed. Figure B5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 73
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below
provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure B6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by
50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure B6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 74
Figure B7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure B7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 75
Table B6 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 76
Emergency Services
06
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$500
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 86
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure C3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Emergency Services assets over the next
ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from
year-to-year.
Figure C4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Emergency Services assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog
throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but
not yet completed.
Figure C4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 87
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures below
provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure C5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced by
50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure C5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 88
Figure C6 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure C6 –Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$400
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 89
Table C5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 90
Information Technology
07
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 $2.4 million.
Backlog
The large backlog primarily consists of software system replacement costs. Many software systems are beyond
their estimated useful life of five years. Software systems are assigned an estimated useful life of five years to
reflect the rapid pace of technological advancement. Despite the fact that most systems are beyond their
estimated useful life, the systems are still being updated and maintained by both the supplier and IT staff;
therefore, the condition rating for these assets remains Very Good.
It is difficult to predict when software system replacement will occur as software would only be replaced if the
supplier stops supporting the system or technological advancements lead users to request a change. Given the
unpredictability, all software systems have been placed in the backlog, with the exception of the AMANDA system
that is under contract until 2031. Again, given the rapid pace of technological advancement, there is a reasonable
chance that some, if not all, software systems could require replacement within the next ten years.
Average Annual Lifecycle Costing
The costs in Figure D3 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining IT assets over the next ten years. The
amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure D4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
IT assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout the
forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet
completed.
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 103
Figure D4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 104
Figure D5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure D5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 105
Figure D6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$4,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 106
Table D5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 107
Parking Infrastructure
08
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$10,000
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 117
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure E4 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Parking Infrastructure assets over the next
ten years. The amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from
year-to-year.
Figure E5 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Parking Infrastructure assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the
backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been
budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure E5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$3,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 118
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures
below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure E6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure E6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$3,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 119
Figure E7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure E7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$3,500
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 120
Table E5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 121
Parks
09
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 $42.7 million.
Backlog
The figure below provides the composition of the backlog for Parks assets. Replacement of sports fields
(baseball, softball, and soccer) account for over half of the total costs included in the backlog. The items in the
backlog represent legitimate backlog costs as there is a high likelihood that these items will require replacement
within the ten-year forecast period. The average condition rating for baseball and softball fields is Poor, whereas
the average condition rating for soccer fields is Fair. Playgrounds and splashpads are also frequently used assets
that typically require replacement at the end of their useful life.
Figure F6 – Backlog Composition – Parks Assets
Play Courts
5%
Baseball/Softball/Soccer
Fields
55%
Playgrounds and
Splashpads
18%
Sports Field Lights
5%
Park Lights
3%
Trails
11%
Park Miscellaneous
3%
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 136
Average Annual Lifecycle Cost
The costs in Figure F5 represent the annual gross cost of maintaining Parks assets over the next ten years. The
amount of lifecycle activities varies on an annual basis, leading to significant cost variances from year-to-year.
Figure F7 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Parks assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the backlog throughout
the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been budgeted but not yet
completed.
Figure F7 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$4,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 137
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures
below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure F8 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure F8 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$6,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 138
Figure F9 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure F9 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$8,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 139
Table F6 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 140
Recreation, Community, and Culture
10
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 153
Alternative Lifecycle Costing
The figure above identifies the average annual costs at current service levels, where the dollar value of the
backlog and current asset condition distribution remain constant throughout the forecast period. The figures
below provide alternative costing scenarios based on a more aggressive approach to addressing the backlog.
Figure G6 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure G6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 154
Figure G7 provides average annual costing under a scenario where the entire backlog is eliminated over the ten-
year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the condition distribution would
include nearly all assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure G7 – Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$12,000
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 155
Table G7 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 156
Transportation Infrastructure
11
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$350
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 167
Figure H4 below removes the significant annual variances by determining the average annual cost of maintaining
Transportation Infrastructure assets at their current level of service (i.e.: maintaining the overall dollar value of the
backlog throughout the forecast period). The figure also nets off any costs where the work has already been
budgeted but not yet completed.
Figure H4 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$120
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 168
Figure H5 provides average annual costing under a scenario in which the overall size of the backlog is reduced
by 50 per cent over the ten-year forecast period. This would result in a service level enhancement in which the
condition distribution would include more assets in the Good to Very Good range.
Figure H5 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$140
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 169
Figure H6 - Total Annual Lifecycle Cost vs Average Annual Lifecycle Cost ($,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
$140
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Annual Lifecycle Cost Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Linear (Average Annual Lifecycle Cost)
Attachment 1 to FSD-030-24
Asset Management Plan 2024 | 170
Table H5 – Average Annual Lifecycle Cost Comparison ($,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
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
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