HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSD-022-25Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: June 16, 2025 Report Number: FSD-022-25
Authored By: Paul Davidson, Manager, Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: 2025 Asset Management Plan
Recommendations:
1.That Report FSD-022-25, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2.That the Municipality’s 2025 Asset Management Plan, attached to Report FSD-022-
25 as Attachment #1, be approved;
3.That Council approve the recommended financing strategy that will close the
estimated annual infrastructure gap and accumulated backlog over the next twenty
years (Option 4);
4.That the additional investment in asset management activities, as included in the
financing strategy recommendation, be included in the 2026 budget update and be
brought forward annually through subsequent annual budgets; and
5.That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-022-25, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-022-25
Report Overview
This report provides an overview of the Municipality’s 2025 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
provides a consolidated update to both the 2022 Asset Management Plan for core assets
and the 2024 Asset Management Plan for non-core assets.
The plan provides summary level information on all municipal assets, including age,
condition, and replacement cost, as well as an estimate of the annual lifecycle costs required
to maintain assets at their proposed level of service.
In accordance with O. Reg 588/17, the update plan includes defined levels of service targets
and provides a financing strategy to close the estimated infrastructure gap. The regulation
also requires that the 2025 Asset Management Plan be approved by Council by July 1,
2025.
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 In 2019, the Municipality approved its Strategic Asset Management Policy in
accordance with O.Reg 588/17, this is the first requirement of the regulation.
1.3 In 2022, the Municipality completed its first AMP in accordance with O. Reg 588/17. The
2022 Asset Management Plan was required to include only the core assets of roads,
bridges, culverts, and stormwater infrastructure.
1.4 In 2024, the Municipality completed the next iteration of the AMP by building a plan
consisting of only the remaining non-core assets. This AMP was approved by Council in
June 2024 and consisted of assets such as parks, fleet, information technology, and
facilities.
1.5 The 2025 AMP represents the next iteration of legislated asset management
requirements. This AMP combines and updates the information from the previous plans
to create a single consolidated AMP. The 2025 update includes addition al requirements,
such as proposed service level targets and a financing strategy to address the
estimated infrastructure gap. The 2025 AMP must be approved by Council and posted
to the municipal website by July 1, 2025.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-022-25
1.6 Following completion of the asset management plans, proposed levels of service (the
2025 AMP), the Municipality is required to review and update its plan at least every five
years. This is the final, and continuing, phase of the adoption of the regulation.
1.7 Further, every council is required to conduct an annual review of its asset management
progress on or before July 1 each year. This review will address:
a. The municipality’s progress in implementing its asset management plan;
b. Any factors impeding the municipality’s ability to implement its asset management
plan; and
c. A strategy to address the factors described in (b) above.
2. 2025 Asset Management Plan – Overview
2.1 The 2025 Asset Management Plan (AMP) provides a long-term plan for investment in all
the capital infrastructure assets owned and operated by the Municipality of Clarington.
The 2025 AMP combines the Municipality’s previous plans for core infrastructure
assets, completed in 2022, and non-core infrastructure assets, completed in 2024, into
a single consolidated plan.
2.2 The AMP provides summary level data on the state of the Municipality’s capital
infrastructure assets, including the average age, condition, and replacement cost. The
2025 AMP also identifies proposed service level targets and includes a financing
strategy that provides options for addressing the annual infrastructure gap over time.
2.3 The proposed service level targets represent the future service levels the Municipality
would like to achieve over the long-term. The proposed service level targets combine
the desired service levels identified in various master plans and strategies with
recommendations from staff based on experience and municipal best practices .
2.4 The financing strategy identifies the Municipality’s current infrastructure gap, or the
difference between the Municipality’s current asset management funding allocations and
the required investment needed to meet the proposed levels of service.
2.5 All municipally owned 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 appendices pertaining to each specific
asset category. The appendices provide a more granular view by summarizing data
down to the asset sub-type level.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-022-25
2.6 Municipal facilities have been divided into two asset categories. Corporate Facilities
consists of the facilities used for municipal administration, such as the Municipal
Administration Centre, fire stations, and operations depots. The Recreation, Community,
and Culture asset category includes the facilities that are accessed by the public, such
as arenas, aquatic centres, and community centres.
2.7 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 .
3. Summary of Infrastructure Assets
3.1 The table below provides summary level data for each asset category included in the
AMP, such as average age, condition, and total replacement cost.
Table 1 - Average Age, Replacement Cost, and Average Condition – All Asset
Categories
Asset Category Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age
(Years)
Replacement
Cost ($2025)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Roads 921.56 20.6 $1,861,661,000 60.8% Good
Bridges and Culverts 274 42.9 $225,710,000 72.1% Good
Stormwater 11,170 281.49 24.5 $248,698,000 33.3% Very Good
Corporate Facilities1 11 77.9 $147,637,000 3.8% Good
Corporate Fleet 309 10.2 $53,001,000 73.3% Good
Emergency Services 783 6.8 $2,876,000 59.0% Good
Information Technology 1620 8.0 $9,434,000 60.0% Good
Parking Infrastructure 389 23.1 $28,420,000 67.3% Good
Parks 537 66.28 19.3 $65,171,000 82.1% Good
Recreation1 168 47.0 $574,847,000 1.7% Good
Transportation 11,084 387.22 23.6 $223,146,000 33.2% Very Good
Total2 26,345 1,656.55 29.19 $3,440,601,000 57.7% 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 Lif age (ULC%). Average Condition for Roads utilizes the
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-022-25
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology and the average condition for Bridges and Culverts utilizes the
Bridge Condition Index (BCI) methodology.
2. Total Average Condition of 57.7% 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.
3.2 The Municipality owns and operates over 26,000 individual assets and over 1,650
kilometers of linear assets. The total replacement cost across all assets is estimated at
over $3.4 billion. Clarington’s extensive road network accounts for over 50 per cent of
the total replacement cost. When factoring in bridges, culverts, and stormwater
infrastructure, the Municipality’s core assets account for over 67 per cent of total
replacement value.
3.3 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
(2025) dollars and has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders and staff
estimates.
4. Asset Condition
4.1 The average condition of Clarington’s assets is rated as Good. The average condition of
each asset category represents a weighted average, based on replacement cost, of the
average condition of the various asset types within each asset category. The total
average condition represents a weighted average of the various asset categories, based
on replacement cost.
4.2 The condition assessments for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and
Culture were determined using a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) methodology. The FCI
reflects the ten-year average annual cost of remedying mainte nance deficiencies as a
percentage of replacement value. The FCI condition methodology and data were
derived from the Building Condition Assessments that were completed by an external
engineering consultant in late 2023 and early 2024 .
4.3 The condition for Roads assets were derived using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
methodology, while the condition for Bridges and Culverts was assessed using the
Bridge Condition Index (BCI). Both methodologies represent industry standards and are
based on the physical condition of the assets. The condition rating for roads, bridges
and culverts were assigned by engineering consultants assessing the assets.
4.4 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
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-022-25
been consumed. This methodology was used for the majority of assets where physical
condition assessments have not been completed.
4.5 Although the average condition of the Municipality’s assets is rated as Good, the
condition of each individual asset ranges from Very Good to Very Poor. The figure
below provides the condition distribution across all assets within each asset category.
Figure 1 – Condition Distribution by Asset Category
5. Levels of Service Metrics
5.1 The 2025 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.
5.2 As per O. Reg 588/17, the 2025 AMP must also include proposed service level targets
for each metric.
5.3 The Municipality retained Hemson Consulting to assist in the development of le vels of
service metrics for the AMP. Consultations were held with staff representatives, from
14%
72%
32%
43%
68%
47%
7%
62%
32%
10%
93%
56%
28%
20%
82%
27%
24%
16%
25%
12%
27%
49%
6%
13%
20%
9%
1%
1%
11%
5%
11%
5%
26%
9%
15%
6%
18%
4%
16%
10%
12%
2%
14%
19%
56%
22%
21%
20%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Bridges & Culverts
Stormwater
Roads
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
IT - Corporate
IT - Library
Parking
Parks
Recreation
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-022-25
each asset category, to develop specific measures related to their service area. As part
of these consultations, staff discussed service level targets based on kn owledge of the
assets and municipal best practice.
5.4 Many service level targets have been derived based on the current levels of service
provided by the assets. In some cases, the current level of service was adjusted to
address a known deficiency or to align with industry standard. In other cases, levels of
service metrics and targets were pulled from departmental master plans, such as the
Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan.
5.5 The levels of service metrics, along with the current level of service and proposed
service level target have been included in the specific asset category appendices to the
2025 AMP.
6. Estimated Annual Infrastructure Gap
6.1 The AMP provides a comparison of the current funding allocation for asset management
activities and the required investment needed to meet the proposed level of service for
each asset category. The difference between the annual funding allocation and the
annual funding requirement is called the infrastructure gap.
6.2 The table below provides the average annual investment requirements, for each asset
category, to meet the proposed levels of service. The average annual investment is
expressed in current (2025) dollars; therefore, the annual investment will need to be
scaled up for inflation in each subsequent year.
Table 2 – Estimated Average Annual Investment Requirement by Asset Category
($2025)
Asset Type
Average Annual
Capital
Requirement
Average Annual
Operating
Requirement
Average Annual
Total
Requirement
Roads $6,184,000 $4,951,000 $11,135,000
Bridges and Culverts 4,373,000 210,000 4,583,000
Stormwater 657,000 537,000 1,194,000
Corporate Facilities 1,809,000 2,098,000 5,950,000
Corporate Fleet 3,936,000 1,851,000 5,787,000
Emergency Services 282,000 398,000 680,000
Information Technology 758,000 2,371,000 3,129,000
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-022-25
Parking Infrastructure 766,000 38,000 804,000
Parks 3,223,000 4,116,000 7,339,000
Recreation 3,411,000 3,734,000 7,145,000
Transportation 528,000 2,218,000 2,746,000
Total $25,927,000 $22,522,000 $48,449,000
6.3 The current funding allocation for asset management activities is comprised mainly of
tax levy funding, with some additional funding available through the annual Canada
Community Building Fund allocation. Council has also recently provided staff with the
authority to pursue a Stormwater Fee that will be used to finance future asset
management activities related to stormwater infrastructure.
6.4 The table below identifies the average annual funding available from the various funding
sources. Although the stormwater fee has not yet been implemented, stormwater fee
revenue has been identified in the table as future revenue is intended to offset
stormwater capital requirements.
Table 3 – Estimated Average Annual Funding Allocation ($2025)
Funding Source Funding
Allocation
Tax Levy (Operating) $22,234,000
Tax Levy (Capital Reserve Funds Contribution) 12,142,000
Grants 2,990,000
Stormwater Fee 657,000
Total $38,023,000
6.5 The table below illustrates the estimated average annual infrastructure gap based on
the estimated funding requirements and funding available.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-022-25
Table 4 – Estimated Average Annual Infrastructure Gap ($2025)
Average Annual
Funding
Requirement
Average Annual
Funding Available
Estimated Average
Annual
Infrastructure Gap
$48,449,000 $38,023,000 $10,426,000
6.6 It should also be noted that the grant funding received by the Municipality no longer
includes an allocation from the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). OCIF
funding is an annual provincial grant provided to Ontario municipalities with populatio ns
less than 100,000. The funding is provided to assist with the cost of core asset repair
and rehabilitation. Clarington received its last annual allocation in 2024 as Clarington’s
population now exceeds 100,000. Clarington’s annual allocation was approximately $3
million which now has to be made up from other sources, such as increased capital
reserve contributions. The loss of OCIF funding is a significant contributing factor to the
annual infrastructure gap.
7. Addressing the Infrastructure Gap
7.1 As per O. Reg 588/17, the AMP must provide a set of options for addressing the
estimated infrastructure gap over time. The AMP provides four options that address the
infrastructure gap in different ways and over different time horizons.
7.2 Each option requires increasing the Municipality’s annual infrastructure levy to address
the annual funding shortfall. The Municipality’s current infrastructure levy is
approximately 0.06 percent on the overall tax bill. The existing infrastructure levy is
insufficient as it does not keep up with the assumed rate of inflation.
7.3 The first option involves closing the annual infrastructure gap over a 10-year period.
Under this option, the estimated $10.4 million annual infrastructure gap would be
gradually reduced to zero over ten years. The table below identifies the additional
annual investment requirement in 2026, along with the estimated impact to the tax bill
and the estimated annual dollar impact to the average household.
Option 1 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 10 years
Additional
Annual
Investment
Estimated Tax Levy
Impact of Additional
Investment
Estimated Annual
Impact to the
Average Household
2026 Budget $1,445,000 0.54 percent $29
Municipality of Clarington Page
10
Report FSD-022-25
7.4 These additional annual investments would need to continue over the next ten years,
with each subsequent investment increasing at a 3 per cent inflation rate.
7.5 Closing the annual infrastructure gap over ten years would mean that it would take ten
years for the annual funding to meet required levels. During this time, a back log would
begin to accumulate in the years where funding falls short of needs. This backlog would
continue to grow each year until the gap is fully closed.
7.6 The second option for addressing the infrastructure gap involves increasing the annual
infrastructure levy to a point where both the annual gap and the accumulated backlog
would be eliminated within ten years. The table below shows the additional investment
required in 2026, along with the tax levy impacts.
Option 2 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated
backlog over 10 years
Additional
Annual
Investment
Estimated Tax Levy
Impact of Additional
Investment
Estimated Annual
Impact to the
Average Household
2026 Budget $2,440,000 0.92 percent $49
7.7 It should be noted that O. Reg 588/17 does not require the infrastructure gap to be
closed within a certain period. Municipalities have the flexibility to determine their own
timeline, based on financial feasibility. As a means to reduce the cost of closing the
infrastructure gap, the table below outlines a third option of closing the annual
infrastructure gap over a twenty-year period.
Option 3 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 20 years
Additional
Annual
Investment
Estimated Tax Levy
Impact of Additional
Investment
Estimated Annual
Impact to the
Average Household
2026 Budget $945,000 0.33 percent $18
7.8 Option 3, similar to Option 1, would result in a large cumulative backlog at the end of the
twenty-year period as it would take 20-years for annual funding allocations to meet
annual funding requirements.
7.9 The fourth option involves closing both the annual infrastructure gap and the
accumulated backlog over a 20-year period. The table below provides the additional
annual cost and tax levy impacts of this scenario.
Municipality of Clarington Page
11
Report FSD-022-25
Option 4 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated
backlog over 20 years
Additional
Annual
Investment
Estimated Tax Levy
Impact of Additional
Investment
Estimated Annual
Impact to the
Average Household
2026 Budget $1,392,000 0.52 percent $28
8. Financing Strategy Recommendation
8.1 Staff are recommending Option 4 as the desired strategy for addressing the
infrastructure gap. While this option results in a longer time frame, it addresses both the
annual infrastructure gap and the accumulated backlog at the lowest cost to the
taxpayer.
8.2 Another advantage of an extended time frame is it allows time for the underlying data to
improve and assumptions to become clearer. As the Municipality progresses in asset
management maturity, better information will become available and adjustments to the
funding requirements can be made. The long-term goal of closing both the annual
infrastructure gap and the accumulated backlog over 20-years will remain, but the
annual investments may be adjusted as better data becomes available.
9. Financial Considerations
9.1 As part of O. Reg 588/17, a financing strategy must be included within the AMP that
addresses the infrastructure gap over time. Staff have provided options for addressing
the gap over both a ten and twenty year period.
9.2 Staff are recommending a plan to close both the annual infrastructure gap and the
accumulated backlog over a twenty-year period. This would result in an approximately
$1.39 million increase to the capital reserve fund transfers in 2026. This increase would
result in an estimated 0.52 per cent increase to the overall 2026 tax bill, which
approximately translates to an additional $28 per year for the average household.
9.3 Additional annual investments would need to continue for the next twenty years in order
for the strategy to achieve its objective. The annual investment would need to be
increased for inflation in each subsequent year to ensure a consistent investment in real
dollar terms. In 2027, the additional annual investment would equate to approximately
$1.43 million, adjusted for inflation.
Municipality of Clarington Page
12
Report FSD-022-25
9.4 The additional tax levy investments in asset management activities will be brought
forward through the annual budget update process and will be identified in future multi-
year budget updates.
10. Strategic Plan
The 2025 Asset Management Plan supports strategic plan priority L.2.5: Maintain,
protect and invest in Municipal infrastructure and assets.
11. Climate Change
The AMP addresses the Municipality’s climate change goals by incorporating lifecycle
activities that advance the goal of achieving net zero green house gas emissions by
2050.
12. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAOs for Public Services and Planning
and Infrastructure, along with the Deputy CAO/Solicitor who concur with the
recommendations.
13. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that The Municipality’s 2025 Asset Management Plan,
as presented in Attachment #1, be approved to meet the legislative requirements of
having an updated Asset Management Plan approved by Council by July 1, 2025. It is
further recommended that Council approve the financing recommendation included in
this report and that the additional asset management investment be included in future
annual budgets, beginning in 2026.
Staff Contact: Paul Davidson, Manager of Financial Planning / Deputy Treasurer, 905-623-
3379 ext. 2607 or pdavidson@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 2025 Asset Management Plan
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Asset
Management
Plan 2025
Municipality
of Clarington
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 2
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Summary of Infrastructure Assets
4. Growth and Expansion
5. Financing Strategy
Appendices
Appendix A: Corporate Facilities
Appendix B: Corporate Fleet
Appendix C: Emergency Services
Appendix D: Information Technology
Appendix E: Parking Infrastructure
Appendix F: Parks
Appendix G: Recreation, Community, and Culture
Appendix H: Transportation Infrastructure
Appendix I: Bridges and Culverts
Appendix J: Roads
Appendix K: Stormwater Management
Appendix L: Natural Assets
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 3
Executive
Summary
01
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 4
Overview
The 2025 Asset Management Plan (AMP) has been completed in accordance with provincial regulation O. Reg.
588/17, which establishes the standard content included in all Municipal Asset Management Plans in the Province of
Ontario. This document is intended to satisfy the legislative requirement of completing an updated AMP, including
proposed levels of service and a financing strategy, by July 1, 2025.
The purpose of the AMP is to identify both the operating and capital costs associated with maintaining and replacing
the Municipality’s infrastructure assets at the proposed service levels over the next ten years. The AMP compares
the estimated costs with the estimated funding available to identify the current infrastructure gap. The AMP then
proposes a financing strategy aimed at reducing the infrastructure gap over time.
The AMP is divided into several sections, each providing a specific set of information related to different aspects of
the plan.
The Introduction provides a contextual overview of asset management planning, including the purpose of the AMP
and a summary of the provincial legislation. The introduction also provides a risk assessment discussion and
climate considerations as required under the legislation.
The Summary of Infrastructure Assets summarizes all asset categories to provide an aggregate view of all assets
owned by the Municipality. This section also provides greater context on the various components of the AMP,
including a discussion on the embedded assumptions and methodologies.
The Growth and Expansion section provides the growth forecast for the next ten years, along with cost estimates for
the expansionary activities required to meet that forecast. The Financing Strategy section outlines strategies and
recommendations to close the infrastructure gap over time.
The AMP also includes individual appendices for each of the asset categories covered in the plan. These
appendices contain greater detail by providing summary level information down to the asset sub-type level. These
sections also define some of the alternative assumptions and methodologies specific to each asset category. The
Summary of Infrastructure Assets essentially serves as an aggregate summary of the information presented in
these appendices.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 5
Summary of Assets
The table below provides the summary-level data for each asset category included in the AMP. This data includes
average age, average condition, and total replacement cost for all the underlying assets within the various asset
categories.
Table 1a - Average Age, Replacement Cost, and Average Condition – All Asset Categories
Asset Category Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age
(Years)
Replacement
Cost ($2025)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Roads 921.56 20.6 $1,861,661,000 60.8% Good
Bridges and Culverts 274 42.9 $225,710,000 72.1% Good
Stormwater Management 11,170 281.49 24.5 $248,698,000 33.3% Very Good
Corporate Facilities1 11 77.9 $147,637,000 3.8% Good
Corporate Fleet 309 10.2 $53,001,000 73.3% Good
Emergency Services 783 6.8 $2,876,000 59.0% Good
Information Technology 1,620 8.0 $9,434,000 60.0% Good
Parking Infrastructure 389 24.6 $28,420,000 67.3% Good
Parks 537 66.28 19.3 $65,171,000 82.1% Good
Recreation, Community,
and Culture1
168 47.0 $574,847,000 1.7%
Good
Transportation
Infrastructure
11,084 387.22 23.6 $223,146,000 33.2% Very Good
Total2 26,345 1,656.55 29.19 $3,440,601,000 57.7% Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 6
1. Average condition for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture are based on a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as
opposed to the Useful Lif age (ULC%). Average Condition for Roads utilizes the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology and the
average condition for Bridges and Culverts utilizes the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) methodology.
2. Total Average Condition of 57.7% 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 average age and condition for each asset category represent a weighted average, based on replacement cost,
of the average age and condition of the various assets within each asset category. The total average age and
condition for all non-core assets represent 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 ten-year average annual cost of remedying
maintenance deficiencies as a percentage of replacement value. The FCI data and methodology were derived from
Building Condition Assessments completed by an external engineering consultant in late 2023 and early 2024.
The condition for roads assets was derived using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology, while the
condition for bridges and culverts was assessed using the Bridge Condition Index (BCI). Both methodologies
represent industry standards and are based on the physical condition of the assets. The condition rating for roads,
bridges and culverts were assigned by engineering consultants assessing the assets.
The remaining assets use a Useful Life Consumption percentage (ULC%) methodology to determine condition
ratings. The ULC% is calculated by dividing the asset’s age by its estimated useful life to determine the percentage
of its estimated useful life that has been consumed. This methodology was used for the majority of assets where
physical condition assessments have not been completed.
The average condition of the Municipality’s assets is rated as Good. However, although the average condition 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 7
Figure 1a – Condition Distribution by Asset Category
14%
72%
32%
43%
68%
47%
7%
62%
32%
10%
93%
56%
28%
20%
82%
27%
24%
16%
25%
12%
27%
49%
6%
13%
20%
9%
1%
1%
11%
5%
11%
5%
26%
9%
15%
6%
18%
4%
16%
10%
12%
2%
14%
19%
56%
22%
21%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bridges & Culverts
Stormwater Management
Roads
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
Information Technology - Corporate
Information Technology - Library
Parking
Parks
Recreation
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 8
Lifecycle Management Strategies
According to O. Reg. 588/17, asset management plans must identify the set of planned actions required to maintain
the assets and provide a financing strategy to achieve the proposed service level targets over time. Depending on
the type of asset, there are many different lifecycle activities to be completed. These activities range from asset
inspections to minor or major rehabilitation activities to complete replacement and disposal of the assets at the end
of their useful life.
Inspection activities and minor repairs are typically financed through the Municipality’s operating budget, while major
rehabilitation and replacement activities are financed through the capital budget. Operating budget activities are
funded by the property tax levy, whereas the capital budget items are funded primarily through property tax-
supported reserve funds and government grants (e.g., Canada Community Building Fund allocation).
Expansion activities are also considered part of the asset lifecycle, as expanding the asset inventory is often
necessary to maintain consistent service levels during periods of growth. Initial capital acquisition of expansion
assets is typically funded through development charges, but subsequent replacements must be funded from other
sources.
Estimated Infrastructure Gap and Financing Strategy
After assessing the funding required to achieve the proposed levels of service over the next ten years and comparing it to
the estimated funding available for the same period, an average annual infrastructure gap of approximately $10.4 million
has been identified.
Table 1b - Estimated Average Annual Infrastructure Gap ($2025)
Average Annual Funding
Requirement Average Annual Funding Available Estimated Average Annual
Infrastructure Gap
$48,612,000 $38,023,000 $10,426,000
The Municipality’s current infrastructure levy is approximately 0.06% of the overall tax bill. However, the existing
infrastructure levy is insufficient, as it does not keep pace with the assumed rate of inflation. If annual investment
does not keep up with inflation, it effectively means that – in real dollar terms – the value of the investment is
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 9
declining each year. This practice is a significant contributing factor to the estimated $10.4 million average annual
infrastructure gap.
The average annual expenditure requirement reflects the cost to maintain existing assets in accordance with their
proposed levels of service. Expansionary activities are not included, as they are often dependent on the pace of
development and population growth. Given the uncertainty in timing, and the fact that first-round capital acquisition
is largely funded through development charges, the AMP assumes that funding for subsequent replacements will
begin after the new assets have been assumed.
As part of the asset management regulation, a financing strategy is required to address the infrastructure gap. As
the legislation does not provide a timeline for addressing the gap, the AMP outlines multiple options for addressing
the estimated infrastructure gap over both ten- and twenty-year periods.
Close the Estimated Infrastructure Gap Over Ten Years
The first option involves closing the estimated annual infrastructure gap over ten years. This would require
increasing the annual infrastructure levy from 0.06% to 0.60% in 2026. This equates to a 0.54% increase on the
overall tax bill, or approximately $29 more per year for the average household.
This option would provide an additional infrastructure investment of approximately $1.4 million in 2026. An additional
investment of $1.4 million, adjusted annually for inflation, would need to be added to the levy in each subsequent
year over the ten-year period. This strategy would result in the annual funding available matching the annual funding
required by year ten.
The table below illustrates the financial impact in 2026, including the estimated annual impact on the average
household.
Option 1 – Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 10 years
10-year Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Annual
Increase for
the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $1,445,000 $14,206,000 0.54% $29
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 10
As mentioned, closing the annual infrastructure gap over ten years would mean that it would take ten years for annual
funding to meet the required levels. During this time, a backlog would begin to accumulate in the years where funding falls
short of needs. This backlog would continue to grow each year until the gap is fully closed. Once the gap is closed, the
backlog would stop growing and remain constant unless additional funding is provided.
The table below outlines a second option in which both the annual infrastructure gap and the accumulated backlog are
addressed within the ten-year period. Under this scenario, the Municipality eliminate the entire backlog over the ten-year
period and, moving forward, would only need to maintain capital investment at the rate of inflation. As with the first option,
these additional investments would need to continue annually over the ten-year period, with each year’s investment
increasing in line with inflation.
Option 2 would increase the annual infrastructure levy from 0.06% to 0.98% in 2026. This equates to a 0.92% increase to
the overall tax bill, or approximately $49 more per year for the average household.
Option 2 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated backlog over 10 years
10-year Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Annual
Increase for
the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $2,440,000 $15,201,000 0.92% $49
Close the Estimated Infrastructure Gap Over Twenty Years
The tables below provide two options for addressing the infrastructure gap over a twenty-year period. Option 3 involves
closing the annual infrastructure gap over a twenty-year period, while Option 4 addresses both the annual infrastructure
gap and the associated backlog within the same timeframe.
Option 3 would increase the infrastructure levy from 0.06% to 0.39% in 2026. This represents a 0.33% increase to the
overall tax bill, or approximately $18 more per year for the average household
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 11
Option 4 would increase the annual infrastructure levy from 0.06% to 0.58% in 2026. This represents a 0.52% increase to
the overall tax bill, or approximately $28 more per year for the average household.
Option 3 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 20 years
20-year Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Annual
Increase for
the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $945,000 $13,706,000 0.33% $18
Option 4 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated backlog over 20 years
20-year Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Annual
Increase for
the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $1,392,000 $14,153,000 0.52% $28
The additional annual investments under Options 3 and 4 would need to continue over the next twenty years, with
each subsequent investment increasing at the rate of inflation, to ensure the respective gaps close within the
desired timeframes.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 12
Conclusion
It is important to note that the AMP represents a snapshot in time and is based on a series of assumptions and the
best information available to staff at the time of development. These assumptions will change over time as current
uncertainties become clearer and, in particular, as more physical condition assessments are performed on our
assets. As better information becomes available, the underlying data will be updated and refined for future reports
to Council.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 13
Introduction
02
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 14
Overview
The 2025 Asset Management Plan (AMP) provides a long-term plan for investment in all the capital infrastructure
assets owned and operated by the Municipality of Clarington. The 2025 AMP combines the Municipality’s previous
plans for core infrastructure assets, completed in 2022, and non-core infrastructure assets, completed in 2024, into
a single consolidated plan. The new plan provides updated asset inventories, replacement costs, and condition
ratings, along with updated metrics for monitoring the current levels of service provided by each asset category.
In addition to providing updated summary-level data on the state of the Municipality’s capital infrastructure assets,
the 2025 AMP also identifies proposed service level targets that represent the future service levels the Municipality
aims to achieve over the long term. The proposed service level targets combine the desired service levels
identified in various master plans and strategies with recommendations from staff based on experience and
municipal best practices.
This iteration also provides a long-term financing strategy that identifies the required investment needed to achieve
the proposed levels of service over the next ten years. The financing strategy identifies the Municipality’s current
infrastructure gap – the difference between its current investment and the required investment in capital
infrastructure assets. It analyzes both the operating and capital costs of maintaining infrastructure assets and
specifies the annual investment necessary to close the infrastructure gap over the long term.
The AMP aims to capture as many asset types and categories as possible and uses the best information available
to forecast the capital financing needs over the next ten years. A variety of approaches were used to estimate both
the current state of the Municipality’s infrastructure and 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.
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 15
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 various requirements. The following table outlines the implementation deadlines for the
components listed above:
Table 2a – 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 financing strategy and proposed service levels for all assets.
Clarington completed the AMP for core assets in 2022 and for non-core assets in 2024. 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 16
The Municipality has now completed the final component by developing proposed levels of service targets for each
asset category and building out a financing strategy to meet the proposed targets over the next ten years.
Strategic Asset Management Policy
The Municipality adopted its Strategic Asset Management Policy in 2019. The policy outlines the commitments and
principles that guide the Municipality’s asset management planning. It ensures strategic alignment with the
Municipality’s vision of building a sustainable, creative, and caring community. Achieving this vision requires
coordination across multiple 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 2025 AMP and no significant changes are
being proposed. The policy will continue to be reviewed in conjunction future updates to the AMP, and any
substantive changes will be brought forward to Council for consideration.
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 and the Municipality’s Strategic Asset Management Policy.
The 2025 AMP covers all infrastructure assets owned and operated by the Municipality. Assets are grouped into
categories based on their characteristics and associated levels of service expectations. The following table
outlines the asset categories, along with a brief description of the assets included in each category.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 17
Table 2b – AMP Asset Categories
Asset Category Description
Roads Includes the entire municipally owned road network, encompassing all roads of various
surface types in both urban and rural areas.
Bridges and Culverts Includes all bridges, including pedestrian bridges, as well as culverts located throughout the
Municipality.
Stormwater Includes the entire network of stormwater infrastructure, including conduits, catch basins,
maintenance holes, inlet/outlet structures, oil grit separators, and stormwater ponds.
Corporate Facilities Includes all municipally owned facilities used for public administration purposes, excluding
those used for community programming.
Corporate Fleet Includes all vehicles and equipment required to deliver municipal services, such as fire trucks,
snowplows, and ice resurfacers.
Emergency Services
Includes various assets and equipment used in the delivery of fire and emergency services,
excluding fire stations (categorized under Corporate Facilities) and fire vehicles (categorized
under Corporate Fleet).
Information Technology
Includes various information technology hardware and software used by the Municipality for
service delivery and communication purposes. Also includes hardware owned and operated
by Clarington Library, Museums, and Archives.
Parking Infrastructure Includes assets used in the delivery of parking services throughout the Municipality, such as
parking lots, parking lot lighting, parking meters, and electric vehicle (EV) chargers.
Parks
Includes infrastructure used to provide parks services and support outdoor recreational
activities, such as playground equipment, sports fields and courts, and trails. Cemetery
infrastructure, such as columbaria, is also included in this asset category.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 18
Asset Category Description
Recreation, Community,
and Culture
Includes municipally owned facilities used for community programming and events, such as
arenas, aquatic centres, community halls, museums, and libraries. Also includes various
pieces of fitness and recreation equipment.
Transportation
Infrastructure
Includes assets used in the delivery of transportation services, with the exception of the
Municipality’s Road network, such as traffic lights, sidewalks, guiderails, and streetlights.
Developing the AMP was a collaborative effort between the Finance and Technology Department and the various
Departments and Divisions responsible for owning and operating the assets used in the delivery of municipal
services. Collaboration with service area experts was a key component in ensuring the plan reflects the best
information available.
Asset Management Plan Structure
The plan has been designed to emphasize the individual asset categories by providing dedicated appendices for
each. The appendices include 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. They provide a higher
degree of granularity by summarizing data down to the asset sub-type level and provide insight into the specific
assumptions and nuances that are unique to each asset category.
The AMP also provides a “Summary of Non-core Infrastructure Assets” section, which aggregates information from
the individual asset categories to offer a broader view of the Municipality’s overall infrastructure. This section also
outlines further information on the legislative requirements for each component of the AMP and provides
background information on the general assumptions and methodologies used to derive the data.
In addition, separate sections are provided for Growth and Expansion and the Financing Strategy. The Growth and
Expansion section summarizes the estimated costs associated with future development-related activities, while the
Financing Strategy section presents options for addressing the estimated infrastructure gap over time.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 19
Risk Assessment
The AMP assesses risk in terms of likelihood of failure, which is quantified using asset condition ratings. The
consequence of failure, however, is more difficult to quantify and has not been identified in this iteration of the
AMP. The identified lifecycle activities have been based on the likelihood of asset failure rather than the
consequence of failure.
The Municipality is currently developing a risk assessment matrix that will help prioritize lifecycle activities in future
iterations of the AMP. Currently, asset spending prioritization is performed by subject matter experts within the
respective departments.
The AMP outlines the annual costs associated with maintaining and replacing assets based on their likelihood of
failure. Individual departments will continue to assess which projects should proceed or be deferred, considering
the consequences of asset failure as part of their internal decision-making process.
Climate Change Considerations
Climate change considerations have been incorporated in the AMP, where possible, through the estimated
replacement costing of assets. These cost estimates are based on the Municipality’s current standards for asset
acquisition and functionality. For example, replacement costs for fleet assets assumes electric vehicle
replacement, where possible, while lighting assets assume the use of energy-efficient LED luminaires.
The AMP also includes the projected costs of retrofitting municipal facilities with high-efficiency components
intended to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. It accounts for both the replacement and expansion
activities required to meet the GHG reduction targets outlined in Clarington’s Corporate Climate Action Plan.
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 recognizes its
leadership role in addressing climate change by actively working to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.
Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan
In March 2021, Clarington Council approved the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCCAP) to help the
Municipality prepare for climate change and reduce the environmental impact of municipal service delivery. The
CCCAP outlines over 100 actions the Municipality can take to respond to climate change while adapting services
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 20
and operations to minimize climate-related risks. It also establishes specific targets to reduce corporate GHG
emissions, including a 35 per cent reduction by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The actions in the
CCCAP will be considered in all future asset replacement activities.
Green Fleet and Equipment Policy
In December 2023, Clarington Council approved the Green Fleet and Equipment Policy, which directs staff to
prioritize investment in low- or zero-emission fleet assets as a strategy for reducing GHG emissions. In alignment
with this policy, the AMP assumes electric replacements for all fleet assets where a suitable electric replacement is
available. Currently, electric options only exist for cars, vans, light-duty trucks, and certain types of equipment. The
policy’s provisions have been captured in the AMP’s 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 to work towards meeting the various legislative requirements of asset management
planning, in accordance with the timelines established under O. Reg. 588/17. This includes providing future
updates on progress towards achieving the proposed levels of service.
Future asset management planning will incorporate a more comprehensive risk assessment matrix and an
expanded approach to natural asset planning. While an inventory of natural assets has been provided as an
appendix in this AMP, future iterations aim to include condition assessments and defined lifecycle activities for
these assets.
Going forward, the underlying asset data will be updated annually to ensure it remains current and relevant. This
data will support future capital budgeting and long-term financial forecasting. The development of a single,
comprehensive AMP for all municipal assets is intended to serve as a foundational element of the Municipality’s
long-term financial planning strategy.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 21
Summary of Infrastructure Assets
03
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 22
Overview
The following sections provide an overview of the key components required under the provincial asset
management regulation, O. Reg. 588/17. The regulation mandates an assessment of the state of local
infrastructure, including asset age, condition, and replacement cost, as well as indicators of current service levels
and annual lifecycle costing over a ten-year forecast horizon.
Detailed information for each asset category is presented in the corresponding appendix. The summary
information from these appendices has been consolidated in the sections below to offer an overarching view of all
assets owned and operated by the Municipality.
In addition, the following sections provide context regarding the assumptions and methodologies used to derive the
data, along with further explanation of the legislative requirements outlined in O. Reg. 588/17.
State of Local Infrastructure
According to O. Reg. 588/17, the following information must be identified as an indicator of the state of local
infrastructure for each asset category:
Summary of the assets included in the asset category
Replacement cost of the assets included in the asset category
A verage age of the assets in the asset category, determined by assessing the average age of the
components of the assets
I nformation available on the condition of the assets in the category
D escription 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 following table presents a consolidated summary of the asset categories included in the AMP, offering a high-level
view of asset inventory, condition, and replacement cost across the Municipality.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 23
Table 3a – Average Age, Replacement Cost, and Average Condition – All Asset Categories
Asset Category Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age (Years)
Replacement
Cost ($2025)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Roads 921.56 20.6 $1,861,661,000 60.8% Good
Bridges and Culverts 274 42.9 $225,710,000 72.1% Good
Stormwater Management 11,170 281.49 24.5 $248,698,000 33.3% Very Good
Corporate Facilities1 11 77.9 $147,637,000 3.8% Good
Corporate Fleet 309 10.2 $53,001,000 73.3% Good
Emergency Services 783 6.8 $2,876,000 59.0% Good
Information Technology 1,620 8.0 $9,434,000 60.0% Good
Parking Infrastructure 389 24.6 $28,420,000 67.3% Good
Parks 537 66.28 19.3 $65,171,000 82.1% Good
Recreation, Community, and
Culture1
168 47.0 $574,847,000 1.7%
Good
Transportation
Infrastructure
11,084 387.22 23.6 $223,146,000 33.2% Very Good
Total2 26,345 1,656.55 29.19 $3,440,601,000 57.7% 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. Total Average Condition of 57.7% 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.
Most of the asset data—such as inventory, age, and historical costing—has been extracted from the Municipality’s asset
management tracking software, CityWide. The Finance and Technology Department maintains the CityWide database and
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 24
collaborates with other departments to ensure the system is regularly updated as new assets are acquired and existing
assets are rehabilitated or decommissioned.
The majority of data for Corporate Facilities and Recreation, Community, and Culture (RCC) facilities was sourced from
Building Condition Assessments (BCAss) completed in late 2023 and early 2024. These BCAss provide current condition
assessments, lifecycle costing, and replacement cost estimates. The condition ratings presented in the AMP reflect
updated calculations based on these assessments.
Data related to roads assets was primarily obtained from the most recent Roads Needs Study, completed in 2023 by an
engineering consulting firm. The study provides detailed information on asset condition, replacement costs, and lifecycle
strategies.
Information on bridges and culverts was drawn from the 2023 Clarington Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection
Report, also conducted by an engineering consultant. This study provides data on condition, lifecycle activities, and
replacement costing. Under provincial legislation, all bridge and culvert structures with a span greater than 3.0 metres must
be inspected under the direction of a Professional Engineer at intervals not exceeding two years.
Asset Exclusions
Only assets being actively maintained by the Municipality and expected to be replaced have been included in the
AMP. Some municipal assets, although still in use, are not planned to be replaced at the end of their useful life.
These assets are typically well beyond their estimated useful life but continue to serve a functional role. In many
cases, they have already been replaced but remain in service. As a result, they have been excluded from the AMP
to provide a more accurate and realistic representation of the current state of local infrastructure.
Summary of Assets
The following tables present the asset categories included in the AMP, broken down by asset type and sub-type.
Asset types were defined by grouping assets with similar characteristics, such as replacement costs, estimated
useful lives, and lifecycle activities.
Detailed descriptions of the asset sub-types can be found in the appendices for each asset category, which also
provide further information on assets included in any “Miscellaneous” category.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 25
Table 3b – Summary of Non-Core Asset Types
Asset Category Asset Types Asset Sub-Types
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Facilities
Municipal Administration Facilities
Fire Stations
Operations Depots
Corporate Fleet
Vehicles
Aerials, Pumpers, Tankers
Cars and Vans
Heavy, Medium, and Light Duty Vehicles
Equipment
Ice Resurfacers
Loaders, Graders, Tractors, Mowers
Trailers, Unlicensed Equipment, Small 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, Wireless Links, Phone System
Software Software Systems
End User Computing Various Hardware (laptops, monitors, etc.)
Critical Infrastructure Various Hardware (firewalls, servers, etc.)
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 26
Asset Category Asset Types Asset Sub-Types
CLMA Infrastructure Various Hardware (laptops, monitors, etc.)
Parking Infrastructure
Parking Lots Paved and Gravel Lots
Parking Lot Infrastructure Lights, Parking Meters, Electric Vehicle Chargers
Parks
Courts Tennis, Basketball, and Pickleball Courts
Sports Fields Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Football, Cricket, Lacrosse
Playgrounds Playground/Outdoor Fitness Equipment and Splashpads
Park Structures/Amenities
Sports Field Lights and Park Lights
Shade Structures, Park Washrooms, Miscellaneous Structures
Trails Park/Non-park Trails, Waterfront Trails, Multi-use Paths
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Park Assets
Recreation, Community,
and Culture
Facilities Arenas, Aquatic Centres, Community Centres,
Hamlet/Neighbourhood 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
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 27
Table 3c – Summary of Core Asset Types
Asset Category Asset Types Asset Sub-Types
Roads
Rural Various Surface Types
Semi-Urban Various Surface Types
Urban Various Surface Types
Bridges and Culverts Bridges Bridges (various built forms) and Pedestrian Bridges
Culverts Various Culverts
Stormwater Management
Stormwater Ponds Wet Ponds and Dry Ponds
Conduits Mainline Pipes
Structures
Maintenance Holes, Catch Basins, Oil Grit Separators
Inlet / Outlet Structures
Replacement Costing
The total estimated replacement cost of all assets owned and operated by the Municipality is over $3.4 billion. The
majority of the cost is attributed to the three core asset categories: roads, bridges and culverts, and stormwater
infrastructure. Together, these categories represent more than $2.3 billion in replacement costs, accounting for
over 67 per cent of the Municipality’s total asset replacement value.
Replacement Costing Assumptions
Replacement costing generally reflects the estimated cost for the full replacement of an asset. This includes not
only the tangible asset itself but also associated costs such as construction, installation, and the removal of
existing assets. All replacement cost estimates have been provided in current (2025) dollars.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 28
Replacement costs were determined using a combination of recent tenders for similar assets and the expertise of staff
involved in asset purchasing and operations. Where past tenders were used, costs were adjusted to reflect current market
prices. For roads, bridges, and culverts, base replacement costs were sourced from engineering reports and subsequently
inflated to 2025 values.
For facilities, replacement costing was calculated by multiplying the total square footage by an assumed cost per square
foot. These cost assumptions were informed by recent tenders, the Altus Group 2025 Canadian Cost Guide, and relevant
figures from the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan—particularly for recreation facilities.
Asset Age
The majority of asset age data was extracted from the Municipality’s asset inventory and is based on the in-
service dates recorded in CityWide. The average age for each asset category is calculated as a weighted
average, based on replacement cost, of the average ages of the various asset types within that category.
Detailed average ages by asset type are provided in the individual asset appendices.
The overall average age across all asset categories is also calculated as a replacement cost-weighted average,
and is estimated to be approximately 29.19 years.
Average age varies significantly by asset type. For example, the average age of facilities is significantly higher
than the other asset categories because these assets are generally maintained and renovated instead of being
fully replaced. Their reported age is based on the original construction date — in some cases, such as the
Municipal Administration Centre, this dates back over 100 years.
In cases where the exact in-service date of an asset was unknown, reasonable estimates were made when
possible. However, for some assets—such as certain older streetlights—a reliable estimate could not be
determined due to data limitations. In these instances, the average age is reported as “N/A” (not available).
Estimated Useful Life
Each asset has been assigned an estimated useful life, based on industry best practices or input from service area
experts within the Municipality. The Municipality’s Capitalization Policy outlines standard useful life estimates for all
capital assets for the purpose of amortizing assets for financial reporting purposes. The estimates provided in this
policy are based on prevailing best practices at the time the policy was developed and were used in most
circumstances for the AMP.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 29
In certain circumstances, however, staff expertise was used to assign more current useful life estimates,
particularly when supported by data from recent acquisitions. In some asset categories, technological
advancements and improvements in manufacturing have led to long expected useful lives. For example, light poles
for streetlights and sports fields now often come with lifetime warranties, extending their expected lifespan.
Estimated useful lives for specific asset types are provided in the appendices corresponding to each asset
category.
Asset Condition
Condition Assessment Methodology
Physical condition assessments have not been completed for the majority of the Municipality’s non-core assets.
While many of these assets undergo periodic visual inspections to identify obvious signs of deterioration, they are
not routinely subject to detailed structural assessments.
However, physical condition assessments are carried out for specific Emergency Services assets that have a
direct impact on user health and safety—such as bunker gear, helmets, and Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBAs). These assets are assigned a condition rating of “Assessed”, indicating that they undergo frequent,
structured inspections to ensure they remain in Very Good condition. This approach is also applied to certain types
of critical IT infrastructure.
In addition, comprehensive physical condition assessments have been completed for all municipal facilities, as well as the
core asset categories of roads and bridges and culverts. These assessments were performed by third-party engineering
consultants, utilizing established industry-standard methodologies.
Given the wide variation in asset types, the AMP applies multiple condition assessment methodologies. The specific
approaches used for each asset category are detailed in the sections that follow.
Useful Life Consumption Percentage (ULC%)
In the absence of physical condition assessments, the majority of the Municipality’s assets use asset age as a proxy for
condition. The primary metric used is the Useful Life Consumption Percentage (ULC%), which estimates an asset’s
condition based on its age relative to its estimated useful life. The ULC% is calculated by dividing an asset’s age by its
estimated useful life to determine the percentage of useful life that has been consumed.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 30
New assets have a ULC% of 0%, indicating that none of their estimated useful life has been consumed. Assets that have
reached the end of their estimated useful life will have a ULC% of 100%, while assets beyond their estimated useful life will
show a ULC% greater than 100%.
It is important to note that a ULC% exceeding 100% is not necessarily a cause for immediate concern. Some assets can
continue to provide the desired level of service beyond their estimated lifespan, particularly if they have been well
maintained. However, these assets warrant closer monitoring, as they are more likely to require replacement in the near
future.
The table below segments the ULC% into qualitative condition states, which are based on the probability of failure. An
asset with a ULC% of 100% is categorized as being in “Fair” condition. As the ULC% increases beyond 100%, the asset’s
condition shifts into “Poor” or “Very Poor,” reflecting a higher risk of failure.
This condition assessment scale was provided by the consulting firm Watson & Associates, based on guidance from the
International Infrastructure Management Manual.
Table 3d – 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
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
The condition of Corporate and RCC Facilities was assessed by Nadine International Inc, an engineering
consulting team, through formal Building Condition Assessments (BCAs). The BCAs were completed in late 2023
and early 2024 and included visual inspections of the majority of facilities owned by the Municipality.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 31
The purpose of the visual assessments was to provide a general indication of the current physical condition of the
building components. The inspections evaluated the structure and facility elements, the building envelope, and the
mechanical and electrical systems. The BCAs also included a predictive ten-year forecast for renewal costs. These
assessments did not include any physical or destructive testing; observations were made only in areas that were
visible or readily accessible.
The BCAs 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 methodology derived from the BCAs but uses the 10-year average annual cost of remedying
maintenance deficiencies as a percentage of the current replacement value. This is being done to provide a more
balanced view of facility condition.
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 practices.
Table 3e – FCI Condition States
FCI Condition State Definition
Good
Facilities look clean and functional with limited expectation of
equipment/component failure. Repairs are generally more aesthetic in
nature.
Fair
Facilities are beginning to show signs of wear and equipment failures are
more frequently expected. Specific systems/components require repair or
replacement.
Poor
Facilities appear worn, with increasing deterioration, and frequent
component failures are expected. Replacement of major systems are
required.
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 32
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology was used to assess the condition of the Municipality’s Road network.
The PCI for each road segment was determined by WSP Canada Inc, engineering consultants, through the 2023 Roads
Needs Study.
Determining a PCI value includes several components. First, visual inspections of the road network are conducted to
identify the density and severity of distress. This data is recorded as a Distress Manifestation Index (DMI) in accordance
with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) manuals.
The various road segments are subsequently driven along at the posted speed limit, to record a Riding Condition Rating
(RCR). The RCR is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being excellent.
A PCI score is eventually derived using a combination of the DMI and the RCR results. The PCI is rated on a scale from 0
to 100, 0 being very poor and 100 being very good. The table below segments the PCI into qualitative condition states as
determined by the engineering consultants in the Roads Needs Study. The PCI is a widely recognized benchmark for
assessing the condition of the road network.
Table 3f – PCI Condition States
PCI Condition State
75 to 100 Very Good
Roads within this category may show surface distress for up to 10% of
the length. The required maintenance effort may be slightly above
average but not uneconomical compared to the reconstruction costs.
60 to < 75 Good
Roads within this category show surface distress from 11% to 15%
of the length. Similar to the Very Good level, required maintenance
may be above average but not necessarily uneconomical compared to
the cost of a full reconstruction.
40 to < 60 Fair
Roads show surface distress from 16% to 20% of the length and the
required maintenance effort is high.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 33
PCI Condition State
20 to < 40 Poor
Roads show surface distress of more than 20% of the length, and the
required maintenance effort is excessive.
0 to < 20 Critical
These roads have exceeded their expected useful life and require
replacement.
Bridge Condition Index (BCI)
All bridges and culvert assets use the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) as a measure of condition. The BCI for the
Municipality’s bridge and culvert assets were determined by GHD Limited, an engineering consultant, and were extracted
from the 2023 Municipal Structure and Inventory Inspection Report.
As per the Municipal Structure and Inventory Report, BCI values are established using Material Condition Rating (MCR)
values for each component. The rating values are weighted, and those weighted values are combined with weightings
reflecting the importance of each component to produce the BCI values.
The table below segments the BCI values into qualitative condition states. As per the Ministry of Transportation guidelines,
a condition of 70 and above would result in no work needed in the next five years, whereas anything below 60 would
require work within the following year.
Table 3g – BCI Condition States
BCI Condition State
80 to 100 Very Good
The structure is functioning as intended. Very little to no
deterioration. New or recent rehabilitation. Very low risk of failure.
Low capital maintenance needs.
70 to < 80 Good
The structures are functioning as intended. No major maintenance is
anticipated within the next five years. Some signs of deterioration.
Low risk of failure. Some unplanned maintenance is required.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 34
BCI Condition State
65 to < 70 Fair
The structures are functioning as intended. Additional signs of
deterioration and minor distress observed. Maintenance will be
required within the next five years to maintain functionality. Level of
Service may be affected. Some failures occur. Rehabilitation is
possible.
60 to < 65 Poor
The structures are starting not to function as intended. Significant
distress observed. Maintenance and some repairs are required
within the next few years to restore functionality Failures will
increasingly occur. Reduced ability to provide the service.
Maintenance costs will likely increase. Rehabilitation may become
impossible.
0 to < 60 Critical
The structures are not functioning as intended. Significant
deterioration and major distress observed. Requires immediate
attention. Assets have exceeded their service life and require careful
monitoring and maintenance.
Assessed Conditions
Most asset categories have an average condition rating of Good. The average condition rating for each asset
category is determined using the same weighted average approach used for calculating average age. The
condition ratings suggest that the majority of the assets with significant estimated replacement costs are still within
their estimated useful life. The average condition for Transportation Infrastructure and Stormwater assets is rated
as Very Good due to the lengthy estimated useful lives assigned to the assets with the highest replacement costs.
Although the average condition for all asset categories is rated as 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. It provides an unweighted view of asset conditions and
provides a distribution based on the quantity of assets. The condition distribution for Recreation, Community, and
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 35
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 36
Figure 3a – Condition Distribution by Asset Category
14%
72%
32%
43%
68%
47%
7%
62%
32%
10%
93%
56%
28%
20%
82%
27%
24%
16%
25%
12%
27%
49%
6%
13%
20%
9%
1%
1%
11%
5%
11%
5%
26%
9%
15%
6%
18%
4%
16%
10%
12%
2%
14%
19%
56%
22%
21%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bridges & Culverts
Stormwater Management
Roads
Corporate Facilities
Corporate Fleet
Emergency Services
Information Technology - Corporate
Information Technology - Library
Parking
Parks
Recreation
Transportation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 37
Levels of Service
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.
Target Performance - identifies the proposed performance metric, utilizing input from Master Plans, and
staff expertise while considering costs to meet this target.
The Municipality retained Hemson Consulting to assist in the development of levels of service metrics for the AMP.
Consultations were held with staff representatives from each asset category, to develop specific measures related
to their service area. As part of these consultations, staff discussed service level targets based on knowledge of
the assets and municipal best practice.
In some cases, levels of service metrics and targets were pulled from departmental master plans. The Municipality
recently completed the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan, which included a number of service level
metrics that have been pulled into the AMP.
The majority of service level targets have been derived based on the current levels of service provided by the
assets. In some cases, the current level of service was adjusted to address a known deficiency or to align with
industry standard. It most cases, the current level of service has been carried forward as the proposed service
level to maintain the status quo.
Progress towards the service level targets is required to be monitored on an annual basis. As part of this annual
monitoring, proposed service levels will be reviewed to ensure they remain consistent with the Clarington Strategic
Plan.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 38
Proposed Levels of Service
The proposed service level targets were established utilizing existing Master Plans, and the knowledge and expertise of
Clarington staff. The targets were derived using the current level of service as the base and then making adjustments to
enhance or reduce desired service levels as needed.
The current levels of service approach, for most assets, is to plan for replacement of an asset once the asset falls into poor
condition. This approach is typically brought forward through the annual budget process, with certain asset replacements
being deferred based on the annual budget constraint or the condition assessment of staff at the time of scheduled
replacement. These factors combined generate the current level of service results shown in the asset category
appendices.
The proposed levels of service recognize that not all assets need to be replaced at the end of their useful life. Some assets
are capable of being pushed beyond their estimated useful life while still performing up to standard.
Proposed service levels will be more clearly defined and adjusted over time as more master plans are created for the asset
categories. As these studies are completed, the associated service levels will be adopted by the AMP and will provide the
implementation strategy for the proposed service levels.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 39
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Lifecycle management strategies represent the set of planned actions required to maintain assets at their current
or proposed 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 3h – 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.
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 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 40
Inspection activities and general maintenance and repair are either completed by staff or are budgeted through the
Municipality’s operating budget. Major rehabilitation and replacement activities typically require a much larger
investment and are therefore included in the capital budget. The capital budget items are typically funded through
tax levy-supported reserve funds. Details of the average annual cost of these activities are provided in the
individual asset category appendices. The summarized costs for all asset categories are provided in the Financing
Strategy section of the AMP.
Expansion or enhancement activities are related to the acquisition of net new infrastructure or represent the
expansion of an existing asset (e.g., facility expansion). These lifecycle activities are required to maintain existing
service level standards in the face of population or employment growth. The initial capital acquisition costs
associated with these activities are typically funded, in whole or in part, by development charges. However, the
ongoing maintenance and subsequent replacement of this infrastructure will need to be included in future
municipal budgets. The following section of the report provides greater detail on the estimated costs associated
with growth and expansion.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 41
04
Growth and Expansion
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 42
Overview
As the Municipality continues to experience growth in population, economic development, and infrastructure
demands, it is essential to plan strategically for the expansion of municipal assets. Growth and expansion activities
are generally required to ensure service level standards remain constant over time as population and employment
expand.
Expansion activities align with the Municipality’s long-term planning frameworks, including the Official Plan and
associated Secondary Plans, to ensure that investments are made in a fiscally responsible, environmentally
sustainable, and community-focused manner. It also considers projected growth patterns, service level
expectations, and available financial resources, ensuring that new assets are added in a way that supports the
overall vision for Clarington’s future.
Growth Considerations
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 and associated secondary plans. The
Municipality is completing an update to its DC study in 2025.
The 2025 DC Study forecasts population and employment growth out to 2034. The DC Study estimates are
provided in Table 4a 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 4a – Population and Employment Estimates – 2025 DC Study
2025 2028 2031 2034
Population 109,379 116,778 125,230 135,536
Employment 33,376 36,224 39,315 42,670
Annualized estimates for the next ten years are provided in Table 4b below. The annualized estimates are based on the
information from the 2025 DC Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 43
Table 4b – Annualized Population and Employment Estimates (2025 – 2034)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Population 109,379 111,462 114,089 116,778 119,530 122,347 125,230 128,575 132,010 135,536
Employment 33,376 34,300 35,249 36,224 37,226 38,256 39,315 40,403 41,521 42,670
Expansion Costs
The specific types of infrastructure required to service this growth are also, for the most part, included in the 2025 DC
Study. A summary of the total DC eligible expansion costs by, over the next 10 years, is provided in the table below.
While most asset categories are eligible for DC financing, parking infrastructure and IT assets are largely ineligible. In
absence of an infrastructure growth forecast for these DC ineligible services, a per capita approach was used to estimate
an annual provision for expansion activities. This is included in Table 4d.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 44
Table 4c – Total Estimated Expansion Costs by Asset Type (2025-2034)
Asset Type Expansion Costs
Roads $192,880,000
Bridges/Culverts 41,149,000
Corporate Facilities 96,532,000
Recreation, Culture, Community 205,098,000
Corporate Fleet 20,433,000
Parks 87,190,000
Transportation 15,829,000
Emergency Services Equipment 304,000
Total $659,415,000
The chart below provides an overview of the allocation of expansion costs over the next 10 years, categorized by asset
type. This breakdown illustrates how projected investments will be distributed across the asset categories to support the
Municipality’s growth objectives.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 45
Figure 4a – Expansion Costs by Asset Category (2025 – 2034)
As shown, the largest share of expansion-related spending is expected to be allocated to roads, and recreation, culture,
and community, reflecting the Municipality’s focus on providing a more urban, walkable community, with great public
spaces and complete streets designed for people.
Roads
29%
Bridges/Culverts
6%
Corporate
Facilities
15%
Emergency
Services …
Recreation,
Culture,
Community
31%
Corporate Fleet
3%
Parks
13%
Transportation
3%
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 46
Annual Provision for Expansion Costs
Although the initial capital acquisition is typically funded through development charges, subsequent repairs and
replacements would require funding from other sources. The table below provides an estimate of the annual capital and
operating provisions required to finance future lifecycle activities over time.
Table 4d – Estimated Average Annual Capital and Operating Provision for Expansion Activities
Asset Type
Average Annual
Capital
Investment
Average Annual
Operating
Investment
Average Annual
Total
Investment
Roads $228,000 $76,000 $304,000
Bridges and Culverts 48,000 4,000 52,000
Stormwater 0 13,000 13,000
Corporate Facilities 193,000 129,000 322,000
Corporate Fleet 140,000 78,000 218,000
Emergency Services 2,000 3,000 5,000
Information Technology 38,000 58,000 96,000
Parking Infrastructure 0 0 0
Parks 329,000 555,000 884,000
Recreation, Community, and Culture 262,000 127,000 389,000
Transportation 24,000 16,000 40,000
Total $1,264,000 $1,059,000 $2,323,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 47
The average annual capital investment represents the estimated annual allocation required to finance the subsequent
capital replacement of the infrastructure. The estimates are derived by taking the annual expansion requirements and
dividing by the average estimated useful life for the asset category.
The average annual operating investment represents the estimated annual allocation required to maintain the asset
throughout its lifecycle. The estimate includes portions for salaries, repair and maintenance, and other miscellaneous
operating expenses associated with the maintenance of the asset. The estimated average annual operating costs were
derived by determining current asset management operating expenditures as a percentage of replacement value and then
applying that percentage to the additional expansion costs.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 48
05
Financing Strategy
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 49
Purpose
The financing strategy provides a comparison of the current funding allocation for asset management activities and the
required investment needed to meet the proposed level of service for each asset category. Like other municipalities, the
comparison identifies a disparity between the current funding allocation and required investment needs. This disparity is
known as the infrastructure gap.
Investment Requirements
The table below provides the average annual investment requirements, for each asset category, to meet the proposed
levels of service. The average annual investment is expressed in current (2025) dollars; therefore, the annual investment
will need to be scaled up for inflation in each subsequent year.
Table 5a – Estimated Average Annual Investment Requirement (PLOS)
Asset Type
Average Annual
Capital
Requirement
Average Annual
Operating
Requirement
Average Annual
Total
Requirement
Roads $6,184,000 $4,951,000 $11,135,000
Bridges and Culverts 4,373,000 210,000 4,583,000
Stormwater 657,000 537,000 1,194,000
Corporate Facilities 1,809,000 2,098,000 5,950,000
Corporate Fleet 3,936,000 1,851,000 5,787,000
Emergency Services 282,000 398,000 680,000
Information Technology 758,000 2,371,000 3,129,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 50
Parking Infrastructure 766,000 38,000 804,000
Parks 3,223,000 4,116,000 7,339,000
Recreation, Community,
and Culture 3,411,000 3,734,000 7,145,000
Transportation 528,000 2,218,000 2,746,000
Total $25,927,000 $22,522,000 $48,449,000
The average annual capital requirement identifies the average annual amount required to complete the major repair and
replacement activities identified in the proposed levels of service. The average annual operating requirement represents
the average annual operating amount needed to achieve the proposed levels of service for each asset category.
The chart below further defines the distribution of investment requirements across the various asset categories.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 51
Figure 5a – Estimated Average Annual Investment Distribution ($2025)
As illustrated in the chart, the largest investment requirement is geared toward Roads. A large portion is also allocated to
Bridges and Culverts. These represent the largest asset categories by total replacement value and are considered part of
the core infrastructure assets operated by the Municipality. Alternatively, Stormwater, another core asset category,
represents a small portion of the distribution relative to its total replacement value. Stormwater assets have a long lifecycle
(75 years) and often do not require major interventions within their useful life.
Roads
23%
Bridges and
Culverts
9%
Stormwater
3%
Corporate
Facilities
8%Corporate Fleet
12%
Emergency
Services
1%
Information
Technology
6%
Parking
Infrastructure
2%
Parks
15%
Recreation,
Community, and
Culture
15%
Transportation
6%
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 52
The most significant non-core asset distributions are to Parks, Recreation, Community, and Culture, Corporate Fleet, and
Corporate Facilities. Parks assets, such as playgrounds, trails, and other outdoor infrastructure, tend to have shorter
lifespans and need to be replaced more often. As a result, there’s less time to set aside funding before replacements are
needed. Fleet includes many heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., fire trucks, snowplows, etc.) with significant replacement costs.
Corporate Facilities, Recreation, Community, and Culture include maintenance of various facilities like ice rinks and
swimming pools, along with investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction projects that often come with significant
costs.
Current Funding Allocations
The Municipality currently uses four main funding sources to finance asset management activities.
1. Tax levy financing is used to fund the operating expenses related to asset management.
2. Tax levy supported capital reserve funds are used to finance capital repair and replacement activities.
3. Grant funding, in the form of the annual Canada Community Building Fund allocation, is used to finance capital
repair and replacement activities.
4. Debenture financing is used to fund large scale capital repair and replacement activities.
Council has also recently provided staff with the authority to pursue a Stormwater Fee that will be used to finance future
asset management activities related to stormwater infrastructure.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual funding available from each funding source, based on current
and expected future contributions over the next ten years. The average annual funding allocations have been presented in
2025 dollars.
Table 5b – Estimated Average Annual Funding Allocations ($2025)
Funding Source Funding Allocation
Tax Levy (Operating) $22,234,000
Tax Levy (Capital Reserve
Funds Contribution) 12,142,000
Grants 2,990,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 53
Stormwater Fee 657,000
Total $38,023,000
Although the stormwater fee has not yet been implemented, the average annual allocation reflects the anticipated revenue
offset available from this funding source.
It should also be noted that the grant funding received by the Municipality no longer includes an allocation from the Ontario
Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). OCIF funding is an annual provincial grant provided to Ontario municipalities with
populations less than 100,000. The funding is provided to assist with the cost of core asset repair and rehabilitation.
Clarington received its last annual allocation in 2024 as Clarington’s population now exceeds 100,000. Clarington’s annual
allocation was approximately $3 million which now has to be made up from other sources, such as increased capital
reserve contributions.
The chart below provides the average annual funding allocation distribution by funding source.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 54
Figure 5b – Estimated Average Annual Funding Distribution ($2025)
The majority of asset management financing comes from tax levy. This is in the form of both operating budget allocations
and the annual tax levy contributions to the capital reserve funds. Tax levy financing accounts for 90% of overall asset
management financing.
Projected Infrastructure Gap
The investment requirements outlined above are reflective of the activities required to meet the proposed levels of service.
The table below provides the current estimated average annual infrastructure gap based on projected funding needs and
funding available. The average annual infrastructure gap is currently estimated at approximately $10.4 million
Tax Levy
(Operating)
58%
Tax Levy
(Capital
Reserve Funds
Contribution)
32%
Grants
8%
Stormwater
Fee
2%
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 55
Table 5c – Estimated Average Annual Infrastructure Gap ($2025)
Average Annual
Funding
Requirement
Average Annual
Funding Available
Estimated Average
Annual
Infrastructure Gap
$48,449,000 $38,023,000 $10,426,000
The estimated average annual infrastructure gap in the table above represents the gap associated with maintaining only
existing infrastructure assets. Expansion activities have not been included in the projected infrastructure gap as the timing
is unclear. Once expansionary assets are acquired, they will form part of the municipal asset inventory and will be layered
into future iterations of the AMP.
As mentioned, the estimated average annual infrastructure gap includes the loss of OCIF funding, which was
approximately $3 million per year. The projected infrastructure gap would be significantly lower had it not been for the loss
of this annual provincial grant.
The Municipality’s current infrastructure levy is approximately 0.06% on the overall tax bill. The existing infrastructure levy
is insufficient as it does not keep up with the assumed rate of inflation. If the annual investment does not keep up with the
rate of inflation, it effectively means that, in real dollar terms, the investment is declining on an annual basis. This practice
is a significant contributing factor to the estimated $10.4 million average annual infrastructure gap.
Closing the Infrastructure Gap
There are several approaches that can be taken to close the projected infrastructure gap over time. These approaches
range from direct financing to policy changes and data improvements.
Financing Strategies
Addressing the infrastructure gap through direct financing will require the expansion of the current capital infrastructure
levy dedicated toward capital asset management activities. The expansion would be in addition to the annual capital
reserve fund transfers.
Given the size of the estimated average annual infrastructure gap, it is not financially feasible to close the entire
infrastructure gap in year one. The more feasible approach is to provide steady annual investment increases that will close
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 56
the gap over time. However, it should be noted that, if the annual gap is not fully addressed in year one, it will compound
over time and lead to a cumulative gap that is much larger than the average annual.
The sections below provide options for addressing the estimated infrastructure gap over time.
Close the Estimated Infrastructure Gap Over Ten Years
The first option involves closing the average annual infrastructure gap over the next ten years. Under this scenario, the
Municipality would get to a point where the annual funding available is equal to the annual funding required by year ten.
The table below provides the additional annual investment required in 2026 to begin closing the average annual gap over
ten years. The table also provides the estimated tax levy impact associated with the additional investment, along with the
estimated annual impact to the average household.
Option 1 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 10 years
Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Estimated
Annual Impact
to the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $1,445,000 $14,206,000 0.54% $29
These additional annual investments would need to continue over the next ten years, with each subsequent investment
increasing at a 3% inflation rate. This means that the additional annual investment to close the annual infrastructure gap
would be $1,489,000 in 2027, representing an additional 0.53% tax levy increase.
However, gradually closing the annual infrastructure gap over a ten-year period means that, for the first nine years, the
annual funding available will remain below the annual funding required. When the funding available does not meet the
funding required, it results in a backlog. The backlog will accumulate each year until the annual infrastructure gap is closed.
Once the annual infrastructure gap is closed, the backlog will stop growing and remain constant until additional funds are
provided.
The table below identifies the estimated cost of a second option in which both the annual infrastructure gap and the
associated backlog are closed within a ten-year period. Under this scenario, the Municipality will have closed the entire
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 57
infrastructure backlog in ten years and, moving forward, will simply need to maintain its capital allocation at the rate of
inflation.
Option 2 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated backlog over 10 years
Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Estimated
Annual Impact
to the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $2,440,000 $15,201,000 0.92% $49
Similar to Option 1, these additional annual investments would need to continue annually over the ten year period, with
each subsequent year increasing at the rate of inflation.
Close the Estimated Infrastructure Gap Over Twenty Years
It should be noted that O. Reg 588/17 does not require the infrastructure gap to be closed within a certain period.
Municipalities have the flexibility to determine their own timeline, based on financial feasibility. As a means to reduce the
cost of closing the infrastructure gap, the table below outlines a third option of closing the annual infrastructure gap over a
twenty-year period.
Option 3 – Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall over 20 years
Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Estimated
Annual Impact
to the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $945,000 $13,706,000 0.33% $18
Similar to Option 1, this scenario would result in a large cumulative backlog at the end of the twenty-year period. The table
below outlines the costs of closing both the annual infrastructure gap and the accumulated backlog over the twenty-year
period.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 58
Option 4 - Close the yearly infrastructure funding shortfall and accumulated backlog over 20 years
Scenario Current Capital
Allocation
Additional
Annual
Investment
Total Capital
Allocation
Estimated Tax
Levy Impact of
Additional
Investment
Estimated
Annual Impact
to the Average
Household
2026 Budget $12,761,000 $1,392,000 $14,153,000 0.52 $28
The additional annual investments under Options 3 and 4 would need to continue over the next twenty years, with each
subsequent investment increasing at the rate of inflation, in order to close the respective gaps within the desired timeframe.
For example, the additional annual investment required to close the annual infrastructure gap would be approximately
$973,000 in 2027, representing an additional 0.33% increase to the tax levy.
It should also be noted that the longer the annual infrastructure gap remains unaddressed, the greater the cumulative
funding shortfall becomes. Closing the gap over a shorter time horizon results in a smaller overall cumulative gap.
Alternative Strategies
Outside of direct financing, other strategies for closing the infrastructure gap are listed below.
Table 5f – Closing the Infrastructure Gap – Alternative Strategies
Strategy Description
Levels of Service
Adjustments
The financing strategy and infrastructure gap are driven by the proposed levels of
service established for each asset category. Service levels could be reviewed and
adjusted to potentially reduce the investment requirement.
Condition Ratings
The majority of asset condition ratings are based on the age of the asset.
Investment in the resources and tools necessary to conduct physical condition
ratings could potentially lengthen the replacement cycle.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 59
Data Improvements
As the Municipality’s asset management practices mature, data quality and asset
inventory information should improve as well. Improved data on replacement
values, estimated useful lives, and asset characteristics will help sharpen financial
forecasting.
Grant Opportunities
Clarington has invested several resources in identifying and pursuing external
grant opportunities. Leveraging outside funding sources to finance asset
management activities will reduce the need for tax levy funding. Currently, the only
annual recurring grant that the Municipality receives is the Canada Community
Building Fund allocation.
Additional User Fees
While Council has provided authority for staff to pursue a stormwater fee,
additional charges could potentially be added to existing user fees to provide
additional revenue toward asset management activities.
Obtaining physical condition ratings for the assets that do not yet have physical condition ratings could potentially have a
significant impact on the infrastructure gap. It is possible that the physical condition of an asset is better than what is
suggested by the asset’s age. This could lengthen the time between asset replacements, which would lower the average
annual allocation required. It is also possible that the physical condition is worse than the age predicts, leading to an
increase in the average annual allocation requirement.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 60
Corporate
Facilities
Appendix A
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 61
Corporate Facilities Overview
Corporate Facilities include all the facilities owned by the Municipality, used for public administration purposes and
not for community programming. Corporate Facilities include the various administrative facilities, such as the
Municipal Administration Centre, the Animal Services Building, and the Shaw House, 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 (BCAs) completed in late 2023 and early 2024. The Municipality contracted Nadine
International Inc, an external engineering consultant, to conduct detailed condition assessments of all major
facilities within the Municipality. The BCAs provide updated replacement values, condition assessments, and
lifecycle management costs.
The Municipality’s Corporate Facilities have been divided into three 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 Facilities
Includes the Municipality’s main administration building, the Bowmanville
branch of the Clarington Public Library, the Animal Services Building and the
Shaw House, which serves as office space for Emergency Services
administrative staff.
Fire Stations Includes five fire stations located across the Municipality, operated by
Clarington Emergency and Fire Services.
Public Works Depots Includes three Public Works depots used for both administration purposes
and storage of municipal fleet and equipment.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 62
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. Replacement costing has been estimated by applying
an estimated cost per square foot to the size of each facility. The square foot costs have been derived using a
combination of the Altus Group 2025 Canadian Cost Guide and internal staff estimates based on recent tenders.
Table A2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Corporate Facilities
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Corporate Facilities Administrative Facilities 3 119.23 $76,275,000
Fire Stations 5 25.34 47,793,000
Public Works Depots 3 51.00 23,569,000
Total 11 77.9 $147,637,000
As shown in the table, the total replacement cost for the Municipality’s Corporate Facilities is approximately $147.6
million. Administrative facilities account for over half of the total replacement cost, with the Municipal
Administrative Centre (MAC) accounting for most of the cost. The MAC is the main administrative building for the
Municipality and is where most administrative staff are located.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 63
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Corporate Facilities within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Corporate Facilities is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
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 Administrative Facilities 3 119.2 50 3.94% Good
Fire Stations 5 25.3 50 2.34% Good
Public Works Depots 3 51 50 5.46% Fair
Total 11 77.9 50 3.81% 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
was originally constructed in 1903, with additional components added in 1988 and 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. Facilities are typically comprised of several large components with varying lifecycles.
The estimated useful lives in the table above represent the average for the structure of the facility. The figure
below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 64
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. All facilities undergo routine rehabilitation and maintenance
activities to ensure the buildings remain in good working order.
The figure above 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 the table below.
119.2
25.3
51
50
50
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Municipal Administrative Facilities
Fire Stations
Public Works Depots
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 65
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 average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Corporate Facilities.
Corporate Facilities are assessed using the Facility Condition Index (FCI) methodology to determine their overall
condition. The FCI is an industry standard used to assess the condition of building assets.
As described in the Municipality’s BCAs, 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 cost.
The FCI condition ratings are calculated using the average annual investment need, over the next ten years,
relative to the current replacement value identified in the BCAs. 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 66
The figure below provides the condition distribution for each of the asset sub-types. Although the average
condition for all Corporate Facilities is Good, the condition rating distribution, within each sub type, varies.
Figure A2 – Condition Distribution – Corporate Facilities
100%
80%
67%
20%
33%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Municipal Administration Facilities
Fire Stations
Public Works Depots
Good Fair Poor Critical
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 67
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Corporate Facilities 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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table A5 – Current Levels of Service – Corporate Facilities
Service Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed
Service Level
Target
Quality Ensuring Corporate Facilities
are in a suitable condition for
public administration
% of Corporate Facilities in
fair or better condition
(FCI) 90% > 80%
Sustainability Providing public administrative
services in an environmentally
sustainable manner
GHG emissions reductions
since 2018 base year 11% 35% by 2030
Net-zero by 2050
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 68
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.
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 Municipality’s operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipality’s capital budget.
Major repair and maintenance activities are also performed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. Major repairs
and maintenance occur when the cost to perform the activity exceeds $5,000 and the cost becomes a capital
expense.
The BCAs provide a ten-year forecast for repair and maintenance activities required to maintain the facilities in
good working order. The forecasts from the BCAs 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 are captured in current operating budget allocations.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of an asset at the end of its useful life. The AMP does not
plan for the full replacement of any Corporate Facilities over the ten-year forecast period.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Corporate Facilities. The total annual capital investment is approximately $1.8 million,
and the total annual operating investment is approximately $2.1 million. The average annual operating investment
for Corporate Facilities includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses
associated with preventative maintenance. The costs in the table below reflect the asset management activities
required for the current assets in the inventory.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 69
Table A6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Corporate Facilities Municipal Administrative
Facilities $793,000
Fire Stations 247,000 $1,973,000 $3,433,000
Public Works Depots 420,000
GHG Reductions GHG Replacements 297,000 152,000 449,000
GHG Expansions 52,000 (27,000) 25,000
Total $1,809,000 $2,098,000 $3,907,000
The GHG reduction activities include the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the corporate
GHG reduction goals established through the Corporate Climate Action Plan. Clarington has set a target to reduce
corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 35% by 2030 (from 2018 levels) and achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050.
These metrics have been included in the proposed levels of service.
The GHG activity costs identified in the table above are drawn from the GHG reduction pathways study conducted by
Sustainable Projects Group and include the activities identified over the next ten years. The average annual GHG
replacement activities include the increment cost of replacing current facility assets with assets that provide enhanced
GHG reductions. The average annual GHG expansion activities include the cost of replacing new assets within corporate
facilities that further enhance GHG reduction. These activities generate a net reduction in average annual operating costs
as many of these activities generate their own energy resulting from reduced utility costs.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 70
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities associated with existing assets, expansion and upgrade
activities are also required to maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases,
the first-round capital acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However,
subsequent replacements and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded
reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The average annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge
Study.
Table A7 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $193,000
Operating Investment 129,000
Total $322,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $1.9 million, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $1.3 million.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 71
Corporate
Fleet
Appendix B
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 72
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 Public 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 it
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 A type of fire apparatus, operated by the Emergency Services Division, that is
equipped with an extendable ladder or boom.
Pumpers A 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 A type of fire truck, operated by the Emergency Services Division, 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 Public 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 73
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 Public 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.
Small Equipment Includes small tools and equipment such as chainsaws, trimmers, blowers,
and compressors.
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. Most of the 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 74
Table B3 – Summarized Asset Inventory – Corporate Fleet
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Vehicles Aerials 2 14.5 $4,944,000
Cars & Vans 33 5.8 2,113,000
Heavy Duty Vehicles 42 8.9 13,317,000
Medium Duty Vehicles 13 12.1 1,628,000
Light Duty Vehicles 37 8.4 3,775,000
Pumpers 8 10.8 8,240,000
Tankers 4 3.5 2,212,000
Equipment Ice Resurfacers 6 10.8 1,035,000
Loaders & Graders 12 7.5 5,087,000
Tractors & Mowers 31 5.7 3,065,000
Trailers 21 10.7 6,925,000
Small Equipment 92 5.1 100,000
Unlicensed Equipment 8 9.6 560,000
Total 309 10.2 $53,001,000
As shown in the table above, the total replacement cost for the Municipalities corporate fleet is approximately $53
million. The total replacement cost for vehicles is approximately $36.2 million, while the estimated replacement cost for
equipment is roughly $16.8 million. The replacement costing is based on an inventory of 139 vehicles and 170 units of
equipment.
Emergency Services vehicles, namely Aerials, Pumpers, 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 75
The asset inventory 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. 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
The table below summarizes the average age of Corporate Fleet within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Corporate Fleet is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
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 14.5 20 81% Good
Cars & Vans 33 5.8 10 58% Good
Heavy Duty Vehicles 42 8.9 10 89% Good
Medium Duty Vehicles 13 12.1 10 121% Poor
Light Duty Vehicles 37 8.4 10 79% Good
Pumpers 8 10.8 15 72% Good
Tankers 4 3.5 15 23% Very Good
Equipment Ice Resurfacers 6 10.8 15 72% Good
Loaders & Graders 12 7.5 15 50% Good
Tractors & Mowers 31 5.7 10 57% Good
Trailers 21 10.7 15 71% Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 76
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average Condition
State
Small Equipment 92 5.1 10 51% Good
Unlicensed Equipment 8 9.6 15 64% Good
Total1 309 10.2 73.3% Good
Each vehicle has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s
current Capitalization Policy. The figure below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for
each fleet type. The average age for most of the Municipality’s fleet assets is within the estimate useful life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 77
Figure B1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Corporate Fleet
14.5
5.8
8.9
12.1
8.4
10.8
3.5
10.8
7.5
5.7
10.7
5.1
9.6
20
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
10
15
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25
Aerials
Cars & Vans
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Medium Duty Vehicles
Light Duty Vehicles
Pumpers
Tankers
Ice Resurfacers
Loaders & Graders
Tractors & Mowers
Trailers
Small Equipment
Unlicensed Equipment
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 78
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 79
Figure B2 – Condition Distribution – Vehicles
55%
31%
15%
24%
25%
100%
18%
31%
8%
29%
50%
50%
6%
6%
7%
50%
15%
11%
23%
12%
13%
6%
22%
54%
29%
13%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Cars and Vans
Light Duty Trucks
Medium Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Trucks
Aerial Trucks
Pumpers
Tankers
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 80
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 working order.
17%
33%
53%
29%
38%
50%
42%
23%
43%
50%
17%
33%
8%
13%
19%
10%
10%
13%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Ice Resurfacers
Loaders/Graders/Chippers
Tractors/Mowers/ATV's
Trailers
Unlicensed Fleet Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 81
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Corporate Fleet were developed 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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table B5 – Current Levels of Service – Corporate Fleet
Service
Attribute
Level of Service
Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed
Service Level
Safety Providing vehicles and
equipment that are safe for
use in the community
% of legislated MTO safety inspections
completed
100% 100%
% of legislated MTO safety inspections
met
93% 100%
Quality Providing corporate fleet
assets in an acceptable
condition
% of heavy-duty vehicles in Fair or
better condition
60% 90%
% of aerials, pumpers, and tankers in
Fair or better condition
86% 90%
% of ice resurfacers in Fair or better
condition
67% 80%
% of vehicles and equipment,
excluding heavy-duty, ice resurfacers,
and aerials/pumpers/tankers, in Fair or
better condition
90% 80%
Sustainability Providing environmentally
sustainable fleet services
for the community
% of vehicles capable of being fully
electric that are fully electric (EV)
16% 90%
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 82
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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. In addition to annual inspections, assessments are
completed on all vehicles during routine maintenance.
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.). Most of these activities are performed in-house, with the
expense flowing through a specific repair and maintenance account in the Municipality’s operating budget.
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
capital lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. The Municipality’s proposed level of service and the annual vehicle
inspection will dictate the appropriate time for asset replacement to occur.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Corporate Fleet. The total annual capital investment is approximately $3.3 million,
and the total annual operating investment is approximately $2.0 million. The average annual operating investment
for Corporate Fleet includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses
associated with preventative maintenance. The costs in the table below reflect the asset management activities
required for the current assets in the inventory.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 83
Table B6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Vehicles $590,000
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1,283,000
Aerials, Pumpers, and Tankers 1,298,000 $1,851,000 $5,787,000
Ice Resurfacers 77,000
Equipment 688,000
Total $3,936,000 $1,851,000 $5,787,000
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities associated with existing assets, expansion and upgrade
activities are also required to maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases,
the first-round capital acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However,
subsequent replacements and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded
reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 84
Table B7 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $140,000
Operating Investment 78,000
Total $218,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $1.9 million, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $1.3 million.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 85
Emergency
Services
Appendix C
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 86
Emergency Services Overview
Clarington Emergency and Fire Services (CEFS) owns and operates several 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. 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 87
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. Most of the 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. Table C2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Emergency Services
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Suppression Gear Bunker Suits 250 3.9 $875,000
Helmets 187 3.7 97,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 88
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
SCBA’s 43 7.0 389,000
Equipment Suppression Equipment 26 11.2 619,000
Defibrillators 12 6.0 40,000
Digital Pagers 135 7.0 139,000
Harris Radios 120 6.8 618,000
Training Infrastructure Training Equipment 10 6.7 99,000
Total 783 6.8 $2,876,000
As shown in the table above, the total replacement cost for Emergency Services assets (excluding fire stations and fire
trucks) is approximately $2.9 million.
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Emergency Services within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Emergency Services is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-
type.
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 7.0 15.0 Assessed Very Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 89
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Estimated
Useful Life
Average
Condition
(ULC%)1
Average
Condition
State
Equipment Suppression Equipment 26 11.2 14.2 79% Good
Defibrillators 12 6.0 7.0 Assessed Very Good
Digital Pagers 135 8.0 10.0 80% Good
Harris Radios 120 6.8 10.0 68% Good
Training Infrastructure Training Equipment 10 6.7 8.3 95% Fair
Total 783 6.9 59% 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 90
Figure C1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Emergency Services
3.9
3.7
7
11.2
6
8
6.8
6.7
10
10
15
14.2
7
10
10
8.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Bunker Suits
Helmets
SCBA's
Suppression Equipment
Defibrilators
Digital Pagers
Harris Radios
Training Equipment
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 91
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 will 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% 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 92
Figure C2 – Condition Distribution – Emergency Services
100%
100%
100%
36%
100%
25%
40%
23%
100%
33%
30%
8%
10%
36%
33%
5%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bunker Suits
Helmets
SCBA's
Suppression Equipment
Defibrillators
Digital Pagers
Harris Radios
Training Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 93
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Emergency Services 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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table C4 – Current Levels of Service – Emergency Services
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed
Service Level
Target
Reliability
Providing Emergency
Services in a reliable and
efficient manner.
Average response time for areas near a
Fire Station. 4 - 6 minutes < 4 minutes
Average response time for areas not
near a Fire Station.
8 - 12 minutes < 8 minutes
Quality
Ensuring Emergency Services
assets are in a suitable
condition for emergency
response
% of emergency services assets related
to fire suppression in Fair or better
condition (To ensure bunker gear,
SCBA, etc. is in working condition).
100% 100%
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides an internationally recognized travel time best practice of 4
minutes for an initial crew of 4 firefighters to arrive on a fire scene 90% of the time, and a travel time of 8 mins for a total of
15 firefighters to arrive on scene 90% of the time.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 94
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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.
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
expenses are funded through repair and maintenance accounts in the municipal operating budget.
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 capital lifecycle costing identified in the AMP. Replacement activities
are completed in accordance with the proposed level of service.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Emergency Services. The total annual capital investment is approximately $282,000
and the total annual operating investment is approximately $398,000. The average annual operating investment for
Emergency Services includes repair and maintenance activities. The costs in the table below reflect the asset
management activities required for the current assets in the inventory.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 95
Table C5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Suppression Gear $167,000
Equipment 109,000 $398,000 $680,000
Training Infrastructure 6,000
Total $282,000 $398,000 $680,000
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 96
Table C6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $2,000
Operating Investment 3,000
Total $5,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the average annual investment requirements.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $24,000, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $26,000.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 97
Information
Technology
Appendix D
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 98
Information Technology Overview
Information Technology (IT) infrastructure includes various pieces of hardware and software used by the
departments and divisions throughout the Municipality. IT asset inventory also includes the telecommunications
infrastructure located throughout the Municipality to ensure communication channels remain open and accessible.
IT infrastructure is managed by the Information & Technology division of the Finance and Technology Department
but is operated by the various departments within the municipality.
The AMP also includes the IT hardware owned and operated by the Clarington Library, Museums, and Archives
(CLMA). The CLMA has responsibility for its own IT network, which is financed through the annual grant allocation
from the Municipality.
IT infrastructure has been divided into various 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 structures 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 99
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Description
Software Software Systems Includes the various pieces of software used by the departments for
operating activities (e.g. budgeting, scheduling, accounting, etc.).
Includes only the major software systems that resulted in an initial
capital cost.
Hardware – End
User Computing
Various Various devices and hardware used by staff to perform their day-to-day
activities. Includes laptops, desktops, monitors, smart phones, tablets,
and docking stations.
Hardware – Critical
Infrastructure
Various Various equipment used for the secure operation of the Municipality’s IT
network. Includes firewalls, servers, network switches/routers,
Uninterrupted Power Supply’s, etc.
Hardware - CLMA
Various Various equipment used for both the day-to-day activities of staff and
the secure operation of the CLMA IT network. Both end-user computing
and critical infrastructure.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
Summarized asset inventories for both Corporate IT infrastructure and CLMA IT infrastructure are presented in the
tables below. Most of the replacement costing has been estimated using a combination of recent tenders for
similar assets and estimates provided by staff within the corporate IT division.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 100
Table D2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Corporate IT Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Communications Communication Towers 5 15.6 $329,000
Wireless Links 16 19.0 56,000
Phone System 1 6.5 37,000
Software Software Systems 24 10.7 5,132,000
Hardware - Laptops 316 2.8 474,000
End User Computing Desktops 126 4.2 139,000
Monitors 448 6.1 85,000
Smartphones 207 2.8 202,000
Tablets 109 2.5 109,000
Hardware - Servers 6 2.5 150,000
Critical Infrastructure Switches 52 5.1 130,000
Wireless Access Points 54 3.2 70,000
Firewalls 3 10.3 150,000
Network Routers 2 6.0 40,000
SAN Appliance and Switches 4 1.5 1,000,000
Backup Recovery Solution 1 1.0 225,000
Datacenter UPS 3 11.3 90,000
Uninterrupted Power Supply 34 2.1 41,000
Total 1,411 8.3 $8,459,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 101
Table D3 - Summarized Asset Inventory – CLMA IT Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Hardware - CLMA Laptops 52 4.4 78,000
Desktops 95 7.4 105,000
Servers 8 3.6 200,000
Switches 8 5.0 20,000
Tablets 19 2.8 19,000
Wireless Access Points 20 5.0 26,000
Firewalls 6 5.0 300,000
Backup and Recovery Solution 1 5.0 225,000
Total 209 4.7 $973,000
As shown in the tables above, the total replacement cost for Corporate IT infrastructure is approximately $8.5
million, while the estimated replacement cost for CLMA IT infrastructure is just under $1 million. Most of the total
corporate IT 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 transition to subscription-based models in the future. In this
case, software subscriptions would be provided for a monthly fee as opposed to purchasing physical systems from
a supplier. This would convert software replacement from a capital to an operating cost. The same assumption is
being used for the corporate phones system.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 102
Asset Age
The tables below include 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 D4 – Average Age and Condition – Corporate 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 15.6 40 Assessed1 Very Good
Wireless Links 16 19.0 7 271% Very Poor
Phone System 1 6.5 7 93% Fair
Software Software Systems 24 10.7 5 N/A2 Very Good
Hardware - Laptops 316 2.8 3 93% Fair
End User Computing Desktops 126 4.2 4 106% Poor
Monitors 446 6.1 7 88% Good
Smartphones 207 2.8 3 93% Fair
Tablets 109 2.5 3 83% Good
Hardware - Servers 6 2.5 5 50% Good
Critical
Infrastructure
Switches 52 5.1 6 85% Good
Wireless Access Points 54 3.2 6 53% Good
Firewalls 3 10.3 5 206% Very Poor
Network Routers 2 6.0 6 100% Fair
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 103
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
SAN Appliance and
Switches
4 1.5 5 30% Very Good
Backup Recovery Solution 1 1.0 5 20% Very Good
Datacenter UPS 3 11.3 8 141% Very Poor
Uninterrupted Power Supply 34 2.1 8 26% Very Good
Total 1,411 8.3 55% 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.
Table D5 – Average Age and Condition – CLMA IT Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Hardware - CLMA Laptops 52 4.4 3 145% Very Poor
Desktops 95 7.4 4 185% Very Poor
Servers 8 3.6 5 73% Good
Switches 8 5.0 6 83% Good
Tablets 19 2.8 3 94% Fair
Wireless Access Points 20 5.0 6 83% Good
Firewalls 6 5.0 5 100% Fair
Backup and Recovery Solution 1 5.0 5 100% Fair
Total 209 4.7 106% Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 104
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry best practice. The figure below
compares the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The average age, for
most of the Municipality’s IT assets, is within the estimated useful life.
Figure D1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – IT Assets
Asset Condition
The tables above also provide the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within IT. The
condition percentages are derived using the ULC% methodology.
15.2
10.7
3.3
3.1
4.7
32.7
5
3.5
5.3
4.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Communications
Software
Hardware - End User Computing
Hardware - Critical Infrastructure
Hardware - CLMA IT
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 105
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% ULC% to the assets rated as “Assessed”, which equates to a Very Good condition
rating. The software assets rated as “N/A” have been excluded from the total average 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 figures below illustrate the
condition distribution within the Hardware sub-asset type.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 106
Figure D2 – Condition Distribution – Corporate IT Infrastructure – Hardware
46%
37%
52%
32%
51%
37%
56%
100%
83%
100%
88%
33%
23%
1%
5%
32%
16%
63%
10%
100%
17%
3%
22%
9%
12%
32%
33%
67%
6%
9%
53%
31%
3%
35%
33%
3%
67%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Laptop
Desktop Computer
Monitor
Smartphone
Tablet
Wireless Access Point
Network Switch
Network Router
SAN Appliance and Switch
Firewall
Server
Backup and Recovery Solution
Uninterruptable Power Supply
Datacenter UPS
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 107
Figure D3 – Condition Distribution – CLMA IT Infrastructure – Hardware
23%
1%
13%
23%
3%
16%
88%
100%
100%
2%
79%
100%
100%
5%
52%
96%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Laptops
Desktops
Tablets
Servers
Switches
Wireless Access Points
Firewalls
Backup and Recovery Solution
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 108
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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service targets are provided
in the table below.
Table D6 – Current Levels of Service – IT Assets
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Service
Level Target
Provide responsive IT support to
municipal staff
% of IT Hardware assets in Fair
or better condition 63% 100%
First contact resolution rate 68% 75%
First response compliance with
Service Level Agreement 80% 85%
The first contact resolution rate represents the percentage of support tickets or requests that are fully resolved during the
initial contact with the IT service desk, without requiring escalation or follow-up. This measure indicates service desk
efficiency and user satisfaction.
The first response compliance with the Service Level Agreement represents the percentage of support requests where the
initial response was provided within the timeframe defined by the Service Level Agreement. This measure tracks how well
the IT team meets its commitment to timely communication.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 109
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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.
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 Municipality’s operating budget.
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. Replacement activities are completed in accordance
with the proposed level of service.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for IT. The total annual capital investment is approximately $758,000 and the total annual
operating investment is approximately $2.37 million. The average annual operating investment for IT includes
salaries, and repair and maintenance activities.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 110
Table D7 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
End User Computing $349,000
Critical Infrastructure 306,000 $1,971,000 $2,729,000
Library IT 103,000
Software Upgrades 0 400,000 400,000
Total $758,000 $2,371,000 $3,129,000
Software upgrades reflect the increased costs of converting physical software systems to subscription-based
solutions. Converting to a subscription-based system would change the replacement activities from capital to
operating as the additional cost would represent a monthly or annual subscription fee.
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. Most of the Information Technology
infrastructure is not eligible for DC financing. As such, all capital acquisition costs, along with subsequent
replacements and general maintenance activities, would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $380,000, while the
cumulative operating requirement by 2034 is approximately $579,000.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 111
Table D8 - Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $38,000
Operating Investment 58,000
Total $96,000
The estimates were derived using a per capita assumption as IT infrastructure is not eligible to be included in a DC
study. While it’s understood that expansion activities related to end-user computing would be tied to increased
staffing levels, the increase in staffing over the next ten years is unknown. Therefore a per capita approach has
been taken to provide a high-level estimate.
The expansion costs outlined above represent a high-level estimate based on population growth and current IT
infrastructure per capita. It is possible that the costs, scope, or timing could change in the future as the needs for IT
infrastructure evolve. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided above.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 112
Parking
Infrastructure
Appendix E
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 113
Parking Infrastructure Overview
Parking Infrastructure includes all the assets used to provide parking services within the Municipality, including
parking lots, parking lot lights, central parking meters, and EV chargers. The Municipality recently replaced all
coin-based parking meters with new on-street meters. These new meters have been included in the parking asset
inventory.
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, paved with asphalt.
Gravel Parking Lots Various parking lots throughout the Municipality, consisting of a gravel
base.
Parking Lot
Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights Includes the light poles and luminaires 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.
On-Street Parking Meters Includes the coin and card based on-street parking meters.
EV Charging Stations Stations used to charge electric vehicles. Includes both the charging units
and pedestals.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 114
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
($2025)
Parking Lots Paved Parking Lots 56 22.9 22,295,000
Gravel Parking Lots 28 32.4 4,426,000
Parking Lot Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights1 186 32.0 1,341,000
Central Parking Lot Meters 5 11.4 41,000
On-street Parking Meters 99 - 111,000
EV Charging Stations 15 4.0 206,000
Total 389 24.6 $28,420,000
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 the table above, the total replacement cost for Parking Infrastructure assets is approximately $28.4
million. Most of the replacement costing relates to the replacement of parking lots, which account for over 94% of
the 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 full replacement of the parking lot, including
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 115
excavation work. The same cost per square meter was applied to estimating the replacement cost of gravel
parking lots. Gravel lots are not typically replaced. They are maintained and managed through operating budget
allocations. However, in order to assign a replacement a value to gravel lots, the same replacement costing
methodology used for paved lots was applied to gravel.
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.
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Parking Infrastructure within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Parking Infrastructure is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-
type.
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 56 22.9 35 65% Good
Gravel Parking Lots 28 32.4 15 N/A N/A
Parking Lot
Infrastructure Parking Lot Lights 186 32.0 30 107% Poor
Central Parking Lot
Meters 5 11.4 15 76% Good
On-street Parking
Meters 99 - 15 0% Very Good
EV Charging Stations 15 4.0 8 50% Very Good
Total 389 24.6 67% Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 116
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.
On-street parking meters were all replaced in late 2024 and early 2025, meaning they are all less than one year
old. Although the new meters are still coin based, they also support card transactions.
Each asset has also been assigned an estimated useful life based on industry standards and the Municipality’s
current Capitalization Policy. The figure below compares the average age to the average estimated useful life for
each asset sub-type. The average age, for most Parking Infrastructure sub-types, is within the estimated useful
life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 117
Figure E1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Parking Infrastructure
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.
22.9
32.4
32
11.4
0
4
35
15
30
15
15
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Asphalt Parking Lots
Gravel Parking Lots
Parking Lot Lights
Central Parking Lot Meters
On-Street Parking Meters
EV Charging Stations
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 118
Gravel parking lots have been assigned a condition of N/A as the assets are maintained annually, and the age of
the asset is not a reflective indication of actual condition.
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
100%
13%
60%
60%
27%
33%
40%
23%
7%
2%
27%
13%
20%
40%
36%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
On-street Parking Meters
Parking Lot Lights
EV Chargers
Parking Meters
Paved Parking Lots
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 119
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 120
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Parking Infrastructure 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 the key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table E4 – Current Levels of Service – Parking Infrastructure
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Service
Level Target
Quality Providing Parking Infrastructure
assets in an acceptable condition
% of asphalt parking lots in
fair or better condition 52% Minimum 50%
% of parking infrastructure in
fair or better condition 74% Minimum 70%
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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, in the future annual visual inspections are expected to be completed by staff. As these inspections
become incorporated into staff responsibilities, there will be no additional cost to the Municipality beyond staff
time.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 121
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.
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. Replacement activities are completed in accordance with the proposed level of service.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Parking Infrastructure. The total annual capital investment is approximately $766,000
and the total annual operating investment is approximately $38,000. The average annual operating investment for
Parking Infrastructure includes repair and maintenance activities.
Table E5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Parking Lots $753,000 $38,000 $804,000
Parking Lot Infrastructure 13,000
Total $766,000 $38,000 $804,000
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. Most parking infrastructure is not eligible for
DC financing. As such, all capital acquisition costs, along with subsequent replacements and general maintenance
activities, would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 122
An analysis was completed to estimate the average annual capital and operating allocations required for future
replacements of growth-related infrastructure. The estimates were derived using a per capita assumption as
parking infrastructure is not eligible to be included in a DC study. Based on the analysis, the estimated future
investment requirement was quite minimal such that an annual allocation is not necessary until future infrastructure
is assumed.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 123
Parks
Appendix F
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 124
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, sports fields
(soccer, baseball, etc.), courts (tennis, basketball, etc.), along with various other assets related to outdoor
activities. Most Parks assets are maintained 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
Courts Tennis Courts Various outdoor tennis courts across the Municipality. Includes a
combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Basketball Courts Includes both full basketball courts and half courts. Includes a
combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Pickleball Courts Various pickleball courts across the Municipality. Includes a
combination of asphalt and acrylic surfaces.
Sports Fields Softball Fields Various softball fields across the Municipality. Includes a
combination of red clay and dirt infield surfaces.
Baseball Fields Various baseball fields across the Municipality. Includes a
combination of red clay and dirt infield surfaces.
Soccer Fields Includes both full size and mini soccer 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 Field (concrete pad) Includes a concrete pad located on former soccer fields intended
for cricket use.
Playgrounds Playground Equipment Includes the play structures and the wood chip/sand base at
various playground locations.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 125
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Purpose
Outdoor Fitness Equipment Includes various equipment, such as outdoor step climbers,
ladders, inclined crunch bench, and pullup bars.
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.
Other Miscellaneous Includes fountains/monuments, fish ladder equipment,
scoreboards, boat launches, trail netting, and cricket equipment.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 126
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 Length
(KM)
Average
Age (Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Courts Tennis Courts 13 15.6 $970,000
Basketball Courts 23 18.8 1,346,000
Pickleball Courts 10 2.7 514,000
Play Fields Softball 24 30.6 3,152,000
Baseball 8 26.3 2,710,000
Soccer 44 25.2 10,421,000
Lacrosse Bowl 1 20.0 402,000
Football 1 17.0 228,000
Cricket (Concrete pad) 1 2.0 19,000
Playgrounds Playground Equipment 67 9.8 9,132,000
Outdoor Fitness Equipment 13 4.0 131,000
Splashpads 17 12.0 4,091,000
Park
Structures/Amenities Field Lights 110 24.9 2,525,000
Park Lights 119 17.6 2,686,000
Shade Structures 41 16.2 2,077,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 127
Asset Type Asset Sub-type Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age (Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Park Washrooms 6 26.8 5,512,000
Miscellaneous Structures 3 21.7 612,000
Trails Park Trails/Walkways 21.4 17.2 6,530,000
Non-Park Trails 11.3 11.5 5,046,000
Waterfront Trails 30.5 18.0 2,113,000
Multi-Use Paths 3 4.7 612,000
Miscellaneous Columbariums 5 8.8 845,000
Skateboard Parks 5 14.8 1,412,000
Underground Waste
Containers 15 11.9 178,000
Other Miscellaneous 11 17.1 1,907,000
Total 537 66.3 18.4 $65,171,000
As shown in the table above, the total replacement cost for all Parks assets is approximately $65.2 million.
Playgrounds and play fields account for almost half of the total replacement value ($30.3 million)
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Parks assets within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Parks assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 128
Table F3 – Average Age and Condition – Parks
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age
(Years)
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average Condition
State
Courts Tennis Courts 13 15.6 25 63% Good
Basketball Courts 23 18.8 25 77% Good
Pickleball Courts 10 2.7 25 10% Very Good
Play Fields Softball 24 30.6 28.7 110% Poor
Baseball 8 26.3 21.3 124% Poor
Soccer 44 25.2 30 86% Good
Lacrosse Bowl 1 20.0 40 50% Good
Football 1 17.0 20 85% Good
Cricket (Concrete
pad)
1 2.0 40 5% Very Good
Playgrounds Playground
Equipment
67 9.8 15 66% Good
Outdoor Fitness
Equipment
13 4.0 15 19% Very Good
Splashpads 17 12.0 20 60% Good
Park
Structures/
Amenities
Field Lights
110 24.9 30
83% Good
Park Lights 119 17.6 15 117% Poor
Shade Structures 41 16.2 27 63% Good
Park Washrooms 6 26.8 35 77% Good
Miscellaneous
Structures
3 21.7 37 53% Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 129
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age
(Years)
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average Condition
State
Trails Park
Trails/Walkways
21.4 17.2 22 82% Good
Non-Park Trails 11.3 11.5 19 82% Good
Waterfront Trails 30.5 18.0 19 127% Very Poor
Multi-Use Paths 3 4.7 20 29% Very Good
Miscellaneous Columbarium’s 5 8.8 75 18% Very Good
Skateboard Parks 5 14.8 25 59% Good
Underground Waste
Containers
15 11.9 20 60% Good
Other Miscellaneous 11 17.1 24.1 71% Good
Total 537 66.3 18.4 82% 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, based on total replacement cost.
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.
The figures below compare the average age with the average estimated useful life for each asset sub-type. The
average age, for most Parks infrastructure sub-types, is within the estimate useful life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 130
Figure F1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Courts, Fields, and Playgrounds
15.6
18.8
2.7
30.6
26.3
25.2
20
17
2
9.8
4
12
25
25
25
28.7
21.3
30
40
20
40
15
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tennis Courts
Basketball Courts
Pickleball Courts
Softball
Baseball
Soccer
Lacrosse Bowl
Football
Cricket (Concrete pad)
Playground Equipment
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Splashpads
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 131
Figure F2 - Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Structures and Trails
24.9
17.6
16.2
26.8
21.7
17.2
11.5
18
4.7
30
15
27
35
37
22
19
19
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Field Lights
Park Lights
Shade Structures
Park Washrooms
Miscellaneous Structures
Park Trails/Walkways
Non-Park Trails
Waterfront Trails
Multi-Use Paths
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 132
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 and Sports Fields
13%
8%
16%
100%
50%
17%
34%
100%
25%
8%
11%
13%
25%
33%
27%
25%
38%
33%
11%
13%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Baseball Diamonds
Softball Diamonds
Soccer Pitches
Football Fields
Pickelball Courts
Tennis Courts
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 133
Figure F4 – Condition Distribution – Parks and Trails
The underlying assets in the various parks categories in the above distribution table include playgrounds,
splashpads, and shade structures.
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%.
44%
40%
39%
22%
27%
38%
29%
34%
39%
44%
17%
5%
1%
11%
27%
62%
10%
15%
11%
11%
9%
12%
9%
11%
11%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Parkettes
Neighbourhood Parks
Community Parks
District Parks
Asphalt Trails
Concrete Trails
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 134
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Parks 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 key characteristics important to the organization.
The Municipality’s current levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table F4 – Levels of Service Measures – Parks
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed
Service
Level Target
Quality Providing Parks assets in an
acceptable condition
% of sports fields/courts in permit parks in
fair or better condition (age based) 51% 90%
% of sports fields/courts in non-permit parks
in fair or better condition (age based) 74% 70%
% of playgrounds, shade structures, and
splashpads in parkettes in fair or better
condition (age based)
78% 75%
% of playgrounds, shade structures, and
splashpads in neighbourhood parks in fair or
better condition (age based)
76% 80%
% of playgrounds, shade structures, and
splashpads in community parks in fair or
better condition (age based)
78% 90%
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 135
% of playgrounds, shade structures, and
splashpads in district parks in fair or better
condition (age based)
78% 90%
It’s important to note that the current performance referenced above is based on age-based condition ratings. It is possible
that the physical condition of the assets are much closer to the proposed level of service. Physical condition assessments
are not currently conducted on any park assets so the actual physical condition is unknown.
The Municipality recently completed a Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan that identified a set of service level
metrics. The table below provides the metrics, along with the current service level performance and proposed service level
targets.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 136
Table F5 – Current Levels of Service – Parks – 2024 PRC Master Plan
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Service
Level Target
Accessibility
Ensuring reasonable
availability of park amenities
for the community
Park supply – municipal wide
parks
0.9 hectares per
1,000 residents 1.1 hectares per
1,000 residents
Park supply – community
parks
0.3 hectares per
1,000 residents
(combined
municipal wide
and community
parks)
Park supply – neighbourhood
parks
0.7 hectares per
1,000 residents
0.75 hectares per
1,000 residents
Park supply – parkettes/urban
parks and squares
0.2 hectares per
1,000 residents
0.15 hectares per
1,000 residents
Park supply – overall 2.0 hectares per
1,000 residents
2.0 hectares per
1,000 residents
Number of ball diamonds 32 54
Number of Cricket Fields 1 1
Number of Tennis Courts 13 32
Number of Pickleball Courts 10 32
Number of Basketball Courts 23 32
Number of Splash Pads 17 30
Number of Skate Parks and
Pump Tracks 5 5
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 137
Number of Skate Zones 0 5
Number of Leash Free Dog
Parks 3 4
Number of Compact Leash
Free Dog Parks 0 2
Number of Community Garden 3 3
Number of Playgrounds 67 93
Number of Outdoor Fitness
Equipment 2 6
Number of Refrigerated
Outdoor Skating Surfaces 3 3
Number of Outdoor Lacrosse
Box 1 1
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 138
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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. Visual inspections are currently completed by staff and physical condition
assessments are planned for the future.
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 externally and are funded through the annual operating
budget.
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.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their lifecycle. The replacement of
Parks assets represents a capital expense and forms the majority of the annual lifecycle costing identified in the
AMP. Replacement activities are completed in accordance with the proposed level of service.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Parks. The total annual capital investment is approximately $3.2 million and the total
annual operating investment is approximately $4.1 million. The average annual operating investment for Parks
includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with
preventative maintenance.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 139
Table F6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Courts $139,000
Playfields 532,000
Playgrounds 754,000 $4,116,000 $7,339,000
Park Structures/Amenities 297,000
Trails 1,438,000
Miscellaneous 63,000
Total $3,223,000 $4,116,000 $7,339,000
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 140
Table F7 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $329,000
Operating Investment 555,000
Total $884,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $3.3 million, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $5.6 million.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 141
Recreation, Community,
and Culture
Appendix G
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 142
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 (BCAs) 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 BCAs
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 Centre
Includes any sports or community complex that is equipped with at
least one swimming pool and the primary activity is aquatic
programming.
Community Centre
Includes any sports or community complex that is equipped with three
or more recreation amenities (swimming pool, refrigerated ice surface,
gymnasium, fitness centre, library branch). The entire complex would
be considered a Community Centre.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 143
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Hamlet/Neighbourhood Facility Includes all community halls that are used for special events.
Unoccupied Heritage Facilities
Unoccupied designated heritage properties that are owned by the
Municipality, including Camp 30 and the building on the site of the
future Operations Depot and Fire Station.
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 located 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. Replacement costing has been estimated by
applying an estimated cost per square foot to the size of each facility. The square foot costs have been derived
using a combination of the Altus Group 2025 Canadian Cost Guide, the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master
Plan, and internal staff estimates.
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 144
Table G2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Recreation, Community, and Culture
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Facilities
Arenas 5 36.7 $252,642,000
Aquatic Centres 1 49.0 25,002,000
Community Centres 2 23.0 137,996,000
Unoccupied Heritage Facilities 2 N/A N/A
Hamlet/Neighbourhood Facilities 13 81.00 102,157,000
Culture Facilities 6 89.7 56,201,000
Equipment Fitness Equipment 110 7.9 428,000
Recreation Equipment 29 8.2 421,000
Total 168 47.0 $574,847,000
As shown in the table above, the total replacement cost for RCC assets is approximately $574.8 million. Most of
the replacement costing relates to the RCC facilities, with arenas and community centres accounting for the
largest share of the cost. Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of RCC assets within each sub-category. The age of each asset is assessed
and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age of all RCC
assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 145
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 36.7 50 1.50% Good
Aquatic Centres 1 49.0 50 2.70% Good
Community Centres 2 23.0 50 1.19% Good
Unoccupied Heritage Facilities 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hamlet/Neighbourhood Facilities 13 81.00 50 2.28% Good
Culture Facilities 6 89.7 50 2.86% Good
Equipment1 Fitness Equipment 110 7.9 8 95% Fair
Recreation Equipment 29 8.2 8 107% Poor
Total2 168 47.0 1.70% 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% 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. The figure below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life
for each asset sub-type.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 146
Figure G1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Recreation, Community, and Culture
The average age for many of the RCC facilities exceeds the estimated useful life. However, the average age is
based on the original construction date of the facility. All facilities undergo routine rehabilitation and maintenance
activities to ensure the buildings remain in good working order.
The figure above 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
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 147
Municipality’s Capitalization Policy assigns different useful life assumptions to different facility components. The
various estimated useful life assumptions are provided in the table below.
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 BCAs, 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.
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
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 148
sub-type. The FCI rating is calculated by dividing the average annual renewal needs over the next ten years by
the total replacement cost.
Equipment assets were excluded from the total average condition rating as the facility component accounts for
99.8% of the total RCC asset replacement costing.
The unoccupied heritage buildings have also been excluded from the average condition as BCAs have not been
performed on these sites.
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 2025. The condition of the individual equipment assets varies from
Very Poor to Very Good.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 149
Figure G2 – Condition Distribution – Recreation, Community, and Culture - Facilities
100%
100%
100%
92%
83%
8%
17%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Arenas
Aquatic Centres
Community Centres
Hamlet/Neighbourhood Facilities
Culture Facilities
Good Fair Poor Critical
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 150
Figure G3 – Condition Distribution – Recreation, Community, and Culture – Equipment
15%
10%
49%
34%
1%8%
31%
27%
24%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Recreation Equipment
Exercise Equipment
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 151
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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table G5 – Levels of Service – Recreation, Community, and Culture
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Service
Level Target
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% > 80%
% of Recreation, Community,
and Culture equipment in Fair
or better condition
61% > 70%
Sustainability
Providing Recreation,
Community, and Culture
services in an environmentally
sustainable manner
GHG emissions reduction since
2018 base year 6% 35% by 2030
net-zero by 2050
The Municipality recently completed a Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan that identified a set of service level
metrics. The table below provides the metrics, along with the current service level performance and proposed service level
targets.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 152
Table G6 - Levels of Service – Recreation, Community, and Culture – PRC Master Plan
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Service
Level Target
Ensuring recreation and culture
activities are accessible to all Number of ice pads 7 9
Accessibility members of the community Number of indoor pools 3 4
Number of indoor walking
tracks 1 2
Number of gymnasiums 3 3
Number of multi-purpose /
group fitness space 31 32
Number of dedicated youth
and older adult spaces 4 4
Number of squash courts 2 5
Number of indoor artificial turf
fields 1 1
Number of outdoor rectangular
fields 50 81
Number of refrigerated
outdoor skating surfaces 3 3
Library space 4 branches
(47,704 sq ft)
80,004 sq ft
plus bookmobile
Museum and archive space 3 3
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 153
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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 BCAs are
completed approximately every five years and help identify the potential maintenance requirements over a
forecast horizon.
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 Municipality’s operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipality’s 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 BCAs provide a ten-year forecast for repair and maintenance activities required to maintain the facilities in
good working order. The forecasts from the BCAs have been used as the basis for the facility lifecycle costing
estimates in the AMP.
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.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for RCC. The total annual capital investment is approximately $3.4 million and the total
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 154
annual operating investment is approximately $3.7 million. The average annual operating investment for RCC
includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with
preventative maintenance across all facility types.
Table G7 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
RCC
Recreation and Community
Facilities $1,643,000
Hamlet/Neighbourhood Facilities 730,000 $3,571,000 $6,298,000
Culture Facilities 287,000
Recreation Equipment 67,000
GHG Reductions GHG Replacements 502,000 258,000 760,000
GHG Expansions 182,000 (95,000) 87,000
Total 1,000 $3,734,000 $7,145,000
The GHG activities include the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the corporate GHG
reduction goals established through the corporate climate action plan. Clarington has set a target to reduce corporate
greenhouse gas emissions by 35% by 2030 (from 2018 levels) and achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050.
The costs identified in the table above are drawn from the GHG reduction pathways study conducted by Sustainable
Projects Group and include the activities identified over the next ten years. The average annual GHG replacement
activities include the increment cost of replacing current facility assets with assets that provide enhanced GHG reduction.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 155
The average annual GHG expansion activities include the cost of emplacing new assets within corporate facilities that
further enhance GHG reduction. These activities generate a net reduction in average annual operating costs as any of
these activities generate their own energy resulting from reduced utility costs.
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Table G8 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $262,000
Operating Investment 127,000
Total $389,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it is possible that the costs, scope, or
timing could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $2.6 million, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $1.3 million.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 156
Transportation
Infrastructure
Appendix H
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 157
Transportation Infrastructure Overview
Transportation Infrastructure includes all the assets 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 as the
road network is captured in its own asset category.
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 poles used to support the streetlight luminaires.
Wood Poles Wood poles used to support the streetlight luminaires.
Aluminum Poles Aluminum poles used to support the streetlight luminaires.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 158
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Concrete Decorative Poles Concrete poles used to support the streetlight luminaires. Typically
made of spun-concrete to provide aesthetic appeal.
Steel Decorative Poles Steel poles, enhanced with decorative features, used to support the
streetlight luminaires.
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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 159
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Transportation 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 H2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Transportation Infrastructure
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(Km)
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement
Cost ($2025)
Guiderails Steel Beam Guiderails 23.3 18.0 $8,582,000
Guideposts / Post & Cable 7.6 25.7 1,167,000
Concrete Barriers 0.02 40.0 13,000
Sidewalks Concrete Sidewalks 349.5 24.8 162,854,000
Asphalt Sidewalks 6.8 25.6 3,901,000
Streetlighting Concrete Standard Poles 4,121 22.6 27,166,000
Wood Poles 139 N/A 641,000
Aluminum Poles 230 N/A 1,789,000
Concrete Decorative Poles 787 17.2 6,120,000
Steel Decorative Poles 243 N/A 1,890,000
Standard LED Luminaire 4,490 4.0 2,468,000
Decorative LED Luminaire 1,030 2.0 1,283,000
Traffic Controls Traffic Signals 18 22.1 4,938,000
Pedestrian Crossings 5 5.0 256,000
Equipment Radar Message Boards 21 5.9 78,000
Total 11,084 387.2 23.61 $223,146,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 160
As shown in the table above, the total replacement cost for Transportation Infrastructure assets is approximately $223.1
million. Most of the replacement costing relates to the sidewalk network, which accounts for over $167 million of the total
replacement cost. The Municipality also owns over 4,000 concrete streetlight poles, totaling over $27 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 Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Transportation Infrastructure assets within each sub-category. The age of
each asset is assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall
average age of all Transportation Infrastructure assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement
cost of each asset sub-type.
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 23.3 18.0 75 24% Very Good
Guideposts / Post & Cable 7.6 25.7 75 34% Very Good
Concrete Barriers 0.02 40.0 75 53% Good
Sidewalks Concrete Sidewalks 349.5 24.8 75 33% Very Good
Asphalt Sidewalks 6.8 25.6 75 34% Very Good
Streetlighting Concrete Standard Poles 4,121 22.6 75 30% Very Good
Wood Poles 139 N/A 75 N/A N/A
Aluminum Poles 230 N/A 75 N/A N/A
Concrete Decorative Poles 787 17.2 75 23% Very Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 161
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(Km)
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Estimated
Useful
Life
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Steel Decorative Poles 243 N/A 75 N/A N/A
Standard LED Luminaire 4,490 4.0 15 27% Very Good
Decorative LED Luminaire 1,030 2.0 15 13% Very Good
Traffic Controls Traffic Signals 18 22.1 25 88% Good
Pedestrian Crossings 5 5.0 15 33% Very Good
Equipment Radar Message Boards 21 5.9 10 59% Good
Total 11,084 387.2 23.61 33.2% Very Good
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 75 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.
The figure 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 most of the
Transportation Infrastructure is well within the estimated useful life. The figure excludes the assets in which the
age is unknown.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 162
Figure H1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Transportation Infrastructure
18
25.7
40
24.8
22.6
17.2
4
2
22.1
5
5.9
75
75
75
75
75
75
15
15
25
15
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Steel Beam Guiderails
Guideposts / Post & Cable
Concrete Barriers
Sidewalks
Concrete Standard Poles
Concrete Decorative Poles
Standard LED Luminaire
Decorative LED Luminaire
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Crossings
Radar Message Boards
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 163
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.
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 they are 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.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 164
Figure H2 – Condition Distribution – Transportation Infrastructure
87%
72%
21%
78%
79%
96%
33%
100%
52%
13%
28%
79%
22%
21%
4%
39%
19%
6%
29%
22%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Steel Beam Guiderails
Guideposts / Post & Cable
Concrete Barriers
Concrete Sidewalks
Asphalt Sidewalks
Concrete Standard Poles
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Crossings
Radar Message Boards
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 165
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Transportation Infrastructure 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 levels of service performance and the proposed levels of service target are provided in
the table below.
Table H4 – Current Levels of Service – Transportation Infrastructure
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed
Service Level
Target
Accessibility
Providing Transportation
Infrastructure that is accessible
for all
% of sidewalks that comply with
AODA minimum clearance width of
1.5m
86% > 85%
Quality
Providing major Transportation
Infrastructure assets in an
acceptable condition
% of sidewalks in Fair or better
condition 100% > 60%
Minimum maintenance standards
met for sidewalks
All minimum
maintenance
standards
met
All minimum
maintenance
standards met
Frequency of streetlight luminaire
inspections
Twice per
year Twice per year
Streetlight luminaire replacement
Replaced
based on
inspections
Replaced based
on inspections
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 166
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
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 are typically performed on a sidewalk as opposed to a full sidewalk
replacement.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. The replacement of
Transportation Infrastructure assets can represent either a capital expense or 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 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. Only the routine end-of-life replacements are
included in the average annual capital investment requirement. The unplanned, case-by-case replacements are
included in the average annual operating requirement.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 167
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Transportation Infrastructure. The total annual capital investment is approximately
$528,000 and the total annual operating investment is approximately $2.2 million. The average annual operating
investment for Transportation Infrastructure includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other
miscellaneous expenses associated with preventative maintenance.
Table H5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Traffic Controls $323,000
Traffic Calming 50,000
Equipment 5,000 $2,218,000 $2,746,000
Sidewalks 100,000
Guiderails 25,000
Streetlighting 25,000
Total $528,000 $2,218,000 $2,746,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 168
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Table H6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $24,000
Operating Investment 16,000
Total $40,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related transportation infrastructure
included in the 2025 Development Charge Study, such as sidewalks and streetlights. As these costs are anticipated for the
future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment
requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $235,000, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $157,000.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 169
Bridges and
Culverts
Appendix I
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 170
Bridges and Culverts Overview
The Municipality’s Bridges and Culverts inventory contains all the various bridges and culverts that are owned
and operated by the Municipality. The maintenance and inspections of these assets are jointly overseen by both
the Public Works division, with the Public Services Department, and the infrastructure division within the Planning
and Infrastructure Department.
Most of the data on Bridges and Culverts assets is derived from the 2023 Clarington Municipal Structure
Inventory and Inspection report conducted by GHD Limited. In 1997, the Province of Ontario passed
amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, the Bridge Act, and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement
Act that require all bridge and culvert structures, with a span greater than 3.0 meters, to be inspected under the
direction of a Professional Engineer at no greater than two (2) year intervals. The latest report for the Municipality
of Clarington was completed in May 2024.
The table below defines the assets that are included in the bridges and culvert asset category.
Table I1 – Bridges and Culvert Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Bridges Bridges Structures that provide a roadway or walkway for the passage of
vehicles, pedestrians, or cyclists across an obstruction, gap or facility
and is greater than or equal to 3 metres in span. Bridges are typically
constructed of concrete (precast or cast in place), steel, or wood. Pedestrian Bridges Intended for pedestrian traffic only and enables pedestrians to cross
wet, fragile, or marshy lands and railways. Culverts Culverts Structures that form an opening through soil for the passage of water,
vehicles or pedestrians/cyclists and has a span of 3 metres or more.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 171
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Bridges and Culverts is presented in Table I2 below. Replacement costing has been
derived using a combination of the 2023 Clarington Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection report and estimates
provided by municipal staff. In certain circumstances, replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation
factor to historical costing.
Table I2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Bridges and Culverts
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Bridges
Bridges - C - Cast in Place 80 51.0 72,427,000
Bridges – P- Precast Concrete 13 31.0 51,237,000
Bridges - S - Steel 4 36.0 5,555,000
Bridges - T - Timber/Wood 2 56.0 1,343,000
Pedestrian Bridges 26 19.0 6,313,000
Culverts Culverts 149 45.0 88,835,000
Total 274 42.9 225,710,000
As shown in Table I2, the total replacement cost for Bridges and Culvert assets is approximately $225.7 million.
Approximately 60% of the replacement costing is comprised of the bridge component and 40% represents the
culvert component.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 172
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Bridges and Culverts assets within each sub-category. The age of each
asset is assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall
average age of all Bridge and Culvert assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of
each asset sub-type.
Table I3 – Average Age and Condition – Bridges and Culverts
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Estimated
Useful
Life
Average
Condition
(BCI%)
Average
Condition
State
Bridges Bridges - C - Cast in Place 80 51.0 75 72.23% Good
Bridges – P- Precast Concrete 13 31.0 75 72.78% Good
Bridges - S - Steel 4 36.0 75 66.77% Fair
Bridges - T - Timber/Wood 2 56.0 75 74.39% Good
Pedestrian Bridges 26 19.0 75 77.78% Good
Culverts Culverts 149 45.0 75 71.42% Good
Total 274 42.9 75 72.07% Good
Both bridges and culverts have an estimated useful life of 75 years. The estimated useful life is defined in the inventory and
inspection report and is based on the design life of the structure extended by appropriately timed maintenance and
rehabilitation works.
Figure I1 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 the asset categories, the average age of all infrastructure is well within the estimated
useful life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 173
Figure I1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Bridges and Culverts
Asset Condition
Table I3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within Bridges and Culverts.
Bridges and Culverts use the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) methodology to assess condition ratings. The BCI
values are derived for each component using a material condition rating determined by engineering consultants.
The BCI is an industry standard used to assess the condition of bridges and culverts.
51.0
31.0
36.0
56.0
19.0
45.0
75
75
75
75
75
75
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Bridges - C - Cast in Place
Bridges – P-Precast Concrete
Bridges - S - Steel
Bridges - T - Timber/Wood
Pedestrian Bridges
Culverts
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 174
The average condition for all bridges and culverts is rated as Good. The average condition rating for bridges and
culverts 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 asset
sub-type varies. The figure below illustrates the condition distribution within each specific sub-type.
Figure I2 – Condition Distribution – Bridges and Culverts
11%
15%
33%
14%
58%
62%
75%
100%
52%
53%
14%
15%
10%
13%
9%
4%
8%
8%
25%
5%
16%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bridges - C - Cast In Place
Bridges - P - Precast Concrete
Bridges - S - Steel
Bridges - T - Timber/Wood
Pedestrian Bridges
Culverts
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 175
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Bridges and Culverts 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 levels of service represent a combination of required measures, as per O. Reg. 588/17, and measures
developed by staff. The table below provides both the current level of service and the proposed service level
target. A Map of all the municipally owned bridges and culverts is provided at the end of this appendix.
Table I4 – Levels of Service Measures – Bridges and Culverts
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Level
of Service Target
Reliability
Maintain safe and reliable bridges
and culverts and to meet reporting
requirements of O. Reg. 588/17
Percentage of bridges in the
Municipality with loading or
dimensional restrictions
2.02% < 2%
Average bridge condition index
value 71.54 > 70
Average culvert condition
index value 71.42 > 70
Average pedestrian bridge
condition index value 77.78 > 70
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 176
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 177
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
The Municipality undertakes four main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Bridges and Culverts assets maintain
their current level of service.
Inspection activities for bridges and culverts structures with a span greater than 3.0 meters are completed at
least every two years by a Professional Engineer. The last inspection was performed in May 2024. The
inspections help identify the potential maintenance requirements over a forecast horizon. The cost of these
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 Municipality’s operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipality’s 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 inspection reports provide a ten-year forecast for repair and maintenance activities required to maintain the
facilities in good condition. The forecasts from the inspection reports have been used as the basis for the average
annual capital requirement in the AMP.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Bridges and Culverts. The total estimated annual capital investment is approximately
$4.4 million, and the total annual operating investment is approximately $210,000. The average annual operating
investment includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with
preventative maintenance.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 178
Table I5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Bridges and Culverts $4,373,000 $210,000 $4,583,000
The average annual capital investment is derived from the 2023 Clarington Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection
report. The engineering consultants provided a 10-year forecast for major repair and rehabilitation. The AMP averages out
the total to determine the average annual investment requirement.
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 179
Table I6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $48,000
Operating Investment 4,000
Total $52,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $478,000, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $39,000.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 180
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 181
Roads
Appendix J
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 182
Roads Overview
The Municipality’s Road network consists of critical components to provide safe and efficient transportation
service throughout our community. The road network includes all municipality-owned and managed roadways
which provide support for roadside infrastructure. The Public Services Department, along with the infrastructure
division of the Planning and Infrastructure Department, are responsible for managing operational and
rehabilitation processes for all our road infrastructure.
Most of the data on the municipal road network is drawn from the 2023 Roads Needs Study conducted by
engineering consultant Golder and Associates. The purpose of the Study was to update the condition of the
Municipality's road assets and to forecast the timing and estimates for major and minor rehabilitation strategies
from 2024 – 2034. The consulting report uses Decision Optimization Technology (DOT) Roads software to
determine the timing of optimized rehabilitation treatments.
Clarington’s road network includes both urban and rural segments and is further divided by surface type. The
table below defines the different surface types within the Municipality.
Table J1 – Roads Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Surface Type High Class Bitumen (HCB) High class bituminous (HCB) surface is divided by four levels that is
determined by the average daily traffic and the asphalt depth.
Low Class Bitumen (LCB) Low class bituminous (LCB) roads
utilized in more rural areas.
are lower grade local paved roads,
Roadside Urban Urban roadsides include curbs and gutters on at least one side of the
road or served by storm/combination sewers. In subdivisions, the
majority of lot frontages must be less than 30 metres
Semi - Urban Semi-Urban roadsides feature development exceeding 50% of the
frontage for a minimum of 300 metres on one side or 200 metres on
both. There are no curbs or gutters with our without storm/combination
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 183
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
sewers. In subdivisions, lot frontages exceed 30 meters and roads
comply with the ministry’s suburban area standards.
Rural Rural roadsides are areas with sparse development, or less than 50%
of the frontage, including developed areas extending less than 300
meters on one side or 200 meters on both sides with no curbs and
gutters.
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Roads is presented in the table below. Replacement costing has been derived using a
combination of the 2023 Roads Needs Study report and estimates provided by municipal staff. In certain circumstances,
replacement costing has been estimated by applying an inflation factor to historical costing.
Table J2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Roads
Roadside Asset Sub-Type Length
(KM’s)
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Rural HCB – Asphalt Average 77.3 16.0 193,925,000
LCB - Surface Treated 95.6 11.2 4,015,000
Gravel 65.5 N/A 4,097,000
Semi-Urban HCB – Asphalt Average 115.4 22.0 289,278,000
LCB - Surface Treated 19.9 13.0 836,000
Urban HCB – Asphalt Average 546.2 21.0 1,369,440,000
LCB - Surface Treated 1.7 10.0 70,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 184
Roadside Asset Sub-Type Length
(KM’s)
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Total 921.6 20.6 1,861,661,000
As shown in Table J2, the total replacement cost for Roads assets are approximately $1.86 billion. Most of the
replacement cost is related to the asphalt roads in both the urban and rural areas. The roads account for
approximately 98% of the cost, or over $1.8 billion.
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Roads assets within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Roads assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
Table J3 – Average Age and Condition – Roads
Roadside Asset Sub-Type Lane
KM’s
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Estimated
Useful Life
Average
Condition
(PCI)
Average
Condition
State
Rural HCB – Asphalt Average 77.3 16.0 75 56.9 Fair
LCB - Surface Treated 95.6 11.2 N/A 67.0 Good
Gravel 65.5 N/A N/A 76.7 Very Good
Semi-Urban HCB – Asphalt Average 115.4 22.0 75 59.4 Fair
LCB - Surface Treated 19.9 13.0 N/A 72.0 Good
Urban HCB – Asphalt Average 546.2 21.0 75 61.5 Good
LCB - Surface Treated 1.7 10.0 N/A 57.5 Fair
Total 921.5 19.1 60.8 Good
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 185
The average estimated useful life represents the average length of time from initial construction to full
replacement. Many lifecycle activities are needed within the 75-year period to ensure the asset meets its useful
life estimate.
The surface of a road has a much shorter estimated useful life, depending on the surface. An asphalt surface has
an estimated useful life of approximately 25 years, whereas a surface treated road has a useful life of 15 years.
Roads are resurfaced once the surface has reached the end of its useful life.
Figure J1 below compares the average age with the average estimated useful life (reconstruction) for each asset
sub-type. Based on the long estimated useful life assigned to the asset categories, the average age of all
infrastructure is well within the estimated useful life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 186
Figure J1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Roads
16
22
21
75
75
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rural High Class Bit.- Asphalt
Semi-Urban High Class Bit.- Asphalt
Urban High Class Bit.- Asphalt
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 187
Asset Condition
Table J3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within the Roads asset
category. Roads assets use the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology to assess condition. The PCI is an
industry standard for assessing the condition of road infrastructure. The PCI values were derived from the 2023
Roads Needs Study.
The Roads Needs Study provided a PCI for each road segment and was calculated by the engineering consultant
using a combination of the Riding Condition Rating (RCR) and Distress Manifestation Index (DMI). The RCR
measures the roughness of the road through a mobile application and is measured through the vehicle’s
suspension. The DCI is measured through visual inspection in accordance with Ontario Ministry of Transportation
manuals.
The average condition for all roads is rated as Good. The average condition rating for roads 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 asset sub-type varies.
The figures below illustrate the condition distribution for each surface type and for each roadside environment.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 188
Figure J2 – Condition Distribution by Surface Type – Roads
30%
45%
20%
25%
21%
13%
28%
13%
1%
4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
High Class Bit.- Asphalt
Low Class Bit.- Surface Treated
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 189
Figure J3 – Condition Distribution by Roadside Environment - Roads
34%
30%
32%
24%
22%
19%
18%
28%
19%
20%
19%
29%
4%
2%
1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Rural
Semi-Urban
Urban
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 190
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Roads 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 levels of service represent a combination of required measures, as per O. Reg. 588/17, and measures
derived by staff. The table below provides both the current level of service and the proposed service level target.
A Map of all the municipally owned road segments is provided at the end of this appendix.
Table J4 – Levels of Service Measures – Bridges and Culverts
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Level of
Service Target
Reliability
Maintain safe and reliable
roads and to meet reporting
requirements of O. Reg. 588/17
Number of lane-kilometres of
arterial roads as a proportion of
square kilometres of land area of
the municipality
0.43 lane km/km²
Maintain current
level of service
Number of lane-kilometres of
collector roads as a proportion of
square kilometres of land area of
the municipality
0.16 lane km/km²
Maintain current
level of service
Number of lane-kilometres of local
roads as a proportion of square
kilometres of land area of the
municipality
2.35 lane km/km²
Maintain current
level of service
Average pavement condition index
value for rural paved roads 62.88 > 60
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 191
Average pavement condition index
value for semi-urban paved roads 60.24 > 60
Average pavement condition index
value for urban paved roads 59.02 > 60
Average surface condition for
unpaved roads 58.07 > 60
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
The Municipality undertakes four main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Roads assets maintain their current
level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of Roads assets. Visual
inspections are typically completed at the staff level. A Roads Needs Study is also conducted every 2 years. The
last study was conducted in 2023.
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 Municipality’s operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipality’s 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.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. The replacement of
Roads assets represents a capital expense.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 192
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Roads infrastructure. The total estimated annual capital investment is approximately
$6.2 million and the total annual operating investment is approximately $5 million. The average annual operating
investment includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with
preventative maintenance.
Table J5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Roads Infrastructure $6,184,000 $4,951,000 $11,135,000
The average annual capital investment is derived from the 2023 Roads Needs Study report. The engineering consultants
provided a 10-year forecast for major repair and rehabilitation. The AMP averages out the total to determine the average
annual investment requirement.
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
In addition to repair and general maintenance activities, expansion and upgrade activities are also required to
maintain the proposed level of service as population growth occurs. In most cases, the first-round capital
acquisition costs would be primarily financed through development charges. However, subsequent replacements
and general maintenance activities would require financing through tax levy funded reserve funds.
The table below provides an estimate of the average annual capital and operating expansion needs over the next
ten years. The annual expansion activities are drawn from the Municipality’s 2025 Development Charge Study.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 193
Table J6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $228,000
Operating Investment 76,000
Total $304,000
The expansion costs outlined above represent a current estimate based on the growth-related infrastructure included in the
2025 Development Charge Study. As these costs are anticipated for the future, it’s possible that the costs, scope, or timing
could change. Any change to these variables could alter the investment requirements provided below.
The cumulative annual capital allocation required by 2034 is approximately $2.3 million, while the cumulative operating
requirement by 2034 is approximately $761,000.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 194
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 195
Stormwater
Management
Appendix K
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 196
Stormwater Management Overview
The Municipality’s stormwater inventory contains various assets, owned and operated by the Municipality, dealing
with stormwater runoff. The maintenance and inspections of these assets are jointly overseen by both the Public
Works division, within the Public Services Department, and the infrastructure division within the Planning and
Infrastructure Department.
The Municipality’s Stormwater 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 K1 – Stormwater Management Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Purpose
Stormwater
Ponds
Wet and Dry Ponds Detention basins are designed to temporarily store stormwater runoff
and release it at a controlled rate. A wet pond maintains a permanent
pool of water whereas a dry pond does not. Conduits Conduits Mainline pipes where water is conveyed from a collection area to a
discharge point. Structures Maintenance Holes Acts as an access point for workers to inspect, clean, and maintain the
stormwater system. Catch Basins Structure designed to collect and channel excess water from paved
surfaces and helps filter out debris or sediment.
Inlet / Outlet Structures Inlet structures collect stormwater runoff from surfaces such as roads,
parking lots, etc. Outlet structures control the release of stormwater
collection.
Oil Grit Separators Specialized devices used to remove pollutants from runoff.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 197
State of Local Infrastructure
Asset Inventory
The summarized asset inventory for Stormwater infrastructure is presented in Table K2 below. Replacement costing has
been derived using a combination of staff estimates and applying an inflation factor to historical costing. Replacement
costing for stormwater ponds reflects an estimated average cost for a stormwater pond clean out. Stormwater ponds would
never be subject to a full replacement; however, a clean out of the sediment build up would restore the pond back to its
original condition.
Table K2 - Summarized Asset Inventory – Stormwater Management
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(KM)
Average Age
(Years)
Replacement Cost
($2025)
Rural Wet Pond 29 17.0 19,053,000
Dry Pond 16 25.0 10,512,000
Conduits Conduit (mainline pipe) 281.5 25.0 157,215,000
Structures Maintenance Holes 4,328 27.0 42,935,000
Catch Basins 6,660 24.8 14,939,000
Inlet / Outlet Structures 163 24.3 244,000
Oil Grit Separators 19 15.8 3,800,000
Total 11,170 281.5 24.54 248,698,000
As shown in Table K2, the total replacement cost for Stormwater assets is approximately $249 million. Most of the
replacement cost is related to conduit infrastructure, which accounts for over 60% of the total replacement cost.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 198
Asset Age
The table below summarizes the average age of Stormwater assets within each sub-category. The age of each asset is
assessed and given equal weighting to calculate the simple average age for each asset sub-type. The overall average age
of all Stormwater assets is calculated as a weighted average, based on the total replacement cost of each asset sub-type.
Table K3 – Average Age and Condition – Stormwater Management
Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Quantity Length
(KM)
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Estimated
Useful Life
Average
Condition
(ULC%)
Average
Condition
State
Rural Wet Pond 29 17.0 75 24% Very Good
Dry Pond 16 25.0 75 35% Very Good
Conduits Conduit (mainline pipe) 281.5 25.0 75 34% Very Good
Structures Maintenance Holes 4,328 27.0 75 34% Very Good
Catch Basins 6,660 24.8 75 33% Very Good
Inlet / Outlet Structures 163 24.3 75 31% Very Good
Oil Grit Separators 19 15.8 75 23% Very Good
Total 11,170 281.5 24.54 33% Very Good
The average age of the Municipality’s stormwater assets is only 24.5 years, meaning the stormwater system is relatively
young. The age is based on the time the assets are assumed as most of the infrastructure is contributed by developers.
The average estimated useful life is based on industry best practice and the Municipality’s Capitalization Policy. The figure
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 the asset categories, the average age of all infrastructure is well within the estimated
useful life.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 199
Figure K1 – Average Age (Years) and Estimated Useful Life (Years) – Stormwater
17
25
25
27
24.8
24.3
15.8
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Wet Pond
Dry Pond
Conduit (mainline pipe)
Maintenance Holes
Catch Basins
Inlet / Outlet Structures
Oil Grit Separators
Estimated Useful Life Average Age
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 200
Asset Condition
Table K3 also provides the average condition rating for each of the asset sub-types within the Stormwater asset
category. The condition of Stormwater assets is assessed based on age, using the ULC% methodology.
The average condition for all stormwater assets is rated as Very Good. The Very Good rating is due to the young age of
the infrastructure relative to the long estimated useful life. The average condition rating for Stormwater was derived using a
weighted average based on the replacement cost of each asset sub-type. Although the overall condition is assessed as
Very Good, the actual condition of the various assets range between Very Good and Good, as illustrated in the condition
distribution below.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 201
Figure K2 – Condition Distribution – Stormwater Management
81%
100%
70%
68%
74%
82%
84%
19%
30%
32%
26%
18%
16%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Storm Water Wet Ponds
Storm Water Dry Ponds
Conduit (Mainline Pipe)
Maintenance Holes
Catch Basins
Inlet / Outlet Structures
Oil Grit Separators
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 202
Levels of Service
The levels of service for Stormwater 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 levels of service represent a combination of required measures, as per O. Reg. 588/17, and measures
derived by staff. The table below provides both the current level of service and the proposed service level target.
Table K4 – Levels of Service Measures – Bridges and Culverts
Service
Attribute Level of Service Statement Performance Measure Current
Performance
Proposed Level of
Service Target
Reliability
To provide reliable stormwater
management services and meet
reporting requirements of O.
Reg. 588/17
Percentage of properties in
municipality resilient to a 100-year
storm (O. Reg. 588/17). 91.5% 95 – 100%
Percentage of the municipal
stormwater management
system resilient to a 5-year storm
(O. Reg. 588/17).
98% 100%
% Of Storm water assets in fair or
better condition 100% > 90%
5-Year Km Average of storm
sewer network CCTV inspected
annually (Includes new
assumptions/Capital
replacements /O&M)
8.97 Maintain current
level of service
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 203
% Of inspections & routine minor
maintenance carried out on Storm
Water Management Facilities
annually
100% 100%
% Of Total Catch basins cleaned
annually (3-year Avg) 26% 33%
% Of streets with catch basins
street swept twice annually 98% 100%
Lifecycle Management Strategies
Repair and Replacement Activities
The Municipality undertakes three main types of lifecycle activities to ensure Stormwater assets maintain their
current level of service.
Inspection activities are completed periodically to assess the overall condition of new stormwater assets being
assumed by the Municipality.
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 Municipality’s operating budget. Major expenses are
funded through the Municipality’s capital budget.
Replacement activities involve the full replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. The replacement of
Stormwater assets represents a capital expense.
Annual Capital and Operating Requirements
The table below provides a summary of the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the
proposed level of service for Stormwater management. The total estimated annual capital investment is
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 204
approximately $657,000 and the total annual operating investment is approximately $537,000. The average annual
operating investment includes salaries, repair and maintenance activities, and other miscellaneous expenses
associated with preventative maintenance.
Table K5 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment ($2025)
Asset Sub-Type
Average
Annual
Capital
Investment
Average
Annual
Operating
Investment
Total
Average
Annual
Investment
Stormwater Management $657,000 $537,000 $1,194,000
The Municipality’s stormwater assets are relatively young and have very long useful lives. Most of the repair and
replacement activities are completed through the annual operating budget allocation. Major replacements tend to only
occur during the reconstruction of a road. Therefore, the average annual capital investments reflect only a capital allocation
for stormwater pond clean outs.
Lifecycle Expansion Activities
As the average capital investment allocation pertains only to stormwater pond clean out, expansion activities would only
include new stormwater pond construction. Stormwater ponds are typically a direct developer responsibility and do not
require replacement. Therefore, no additional capital allocations are required for growth and expansion. The regular clean
out of new stormwater ponds would become part of any future annual stormwater pond clean out program.
Should any future costs arise related to growth-related stormwater infrastructure, these costs would be offset, either in
whole or in part, by the future stormwater fee.
In terms of operating cost impacts from expansion activities, the estimated annual operating allocation, based on a per
capita approach, is approximately $13,000.
Table K6 – Average Annual Capital and Operating Investment – Expansion Activities ($2025)
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 205
Average
Annual
Investment
Capital Investment $0
Operating Investment 13,000
Total $13,000
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 206
Natural Assets
Appendix L
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 207
Natural Assets Overview
The Municipality of Clarington has a range of Natural Assets that provide essential environmental, social, and economic
services to the community. These assets include agricultural lands, wetlands, meadows, and forests. While not traditionally
included in asset inventories, Natural Assets contribute significantly to stormwater management, erosion control, carbon
storage, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities.
Stewardship of these assets involves collaboration across multiple departments, including Planning and Infrastructure
Services and Public Services. Integrating Natural Assets into the asset management framework supports sustainable
service delivery, enhances climate resilience, and can result in long-term cost savings when compared to grey
infrastructure alternatives.
Asset Inventory
The asset inventory for Natural Assets has been compiled from reports provided by local conservation authorities and is
summarized in Table L1. While current data beyond the inventory is limited, future iterations of the AMP will provide
enhanced detail, including estimated useful lives, condition ratings, and levels of service.
The Municipality is committed to improving its understanding of Natural Assets through ongoing collaboration, data
collection, and integration of natural capital valuation approaches. This initiative aligns with Clarington’s sustainability goals
and supports compliance with evolving provincial asset management requirements.
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 208
Table L1 – Summarized Asset Inventory – Natural Assets
Asset Type Asset Sub Type Area (m2)
Agriculture Cultural Hedgerow 2,499,342.10
Cultural Plantation 871.53
Cultural Thicket 30.39
Cultural Woodland 1,225.72
Intensive Agriculture 154,555,814.92
Non-Intensive Agriculture 13,176,120.45
Not Specified 65,420,485.49
Total Agriculture 235,653,890.60
Beach / Bluff Open Beach / Bar 256,434.45
Open Bluff 89,982.92
Shrub Beach / Bar 4,115.08
Shrub Bluff 155.49
Treed Beach / Bar 8,390.82
Treed Bluff 237.22
Total Beach / Bluff 359,315.97
Forest Coniferous Forest 12,509.06
Cultural Plantation 1,701,147.05
Cultural Thicket 10.63
Cultural Woodland 1,442,790.02
Deciduous Forest 30,555.80
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 209
Forest Coniferous 1,042,441.54
Forest Deciduous 10,768,292.60
Forest Mixed 10,754,869.44
Total Forest 25,752,616.13
Forest / Swamp Coniferous Swamp 1,217,628.92
Deciduous Swamp 700,130.20
Mixed Swamp 13,406,395.92
Total Forest / Swamp 15,324,155.04
Meadow Cultural Meadow 157,543,414.79
Cultural Savannah 7,989,538.51
Cultural Thicket 50,396,288.47
Forest Deciduous 3.05
Total Meadow 215,929,244.82
Urban Active Aggregate 211.73
Cultural Plantation 0.43
Cultural Thicket 13.20
Forest Deciduous 0.40
Inactive Aggregate 343.07
Manicured Open Space 113,121.58
Not Specified 916,539.76
Railway 235.92
Road 821,862.81
Asset Management Plan 2025 | 210
Rural Development 10,854,323.51
Urban Area 123,453.18
Urban Development 2,459.74
Total Urban 12,832,565.34
Water Open Water 2,406,020.23
Wetland Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic 71.41
Meadow Marsh 565,169.73
Meadowed Marsh 634,525.32
Not Specified 4,519.19
Open Fen 3.41
Shallow Marsh 601,927.16
Submerged Shallow Aquatic 5,183,064.49
Thicket Swamp 97,743,602.74
Treed Bog 0.70
Total Wetland 107,138,904.37
Asset
Management
Plan 2025
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