HomeMy WebLinkAboutFND-020-13 Clarington REPORT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: December 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#:
Report#: FND-020-13 File#:
Subject: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN — ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report FND-020-13 be received;
2. THAT the Asset Management Plan for the Municipality of Clarington, Attachment
"A", be adopted as Clarington's Asset Management Plan for Roads and Bridges
to comply with the requirements of the Small Rural and Northern Municipal
Infrastructure Fund — Capital Program; and
3. THAT a copy of this report, including Attachment "A", be forwarded to the
Ministry of Rural Affairs, to comply with the grant application guidelines and to
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Municipal Finance Branch.
Submitted by: Reviewed b � t' 6_ (
Y Y
Nancy T ylor, A CPA,CA, Franklin Wu,
Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer
NT/hjl
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
REPORT NO.: FND-020-13 PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Small, Rural and Northern Municipal Infrastructure Fund — Capital Program
was released in October 2013. It is referred to as MITI — Municipal Infrastructure
Investment Initiative. The deadline for submitting an Expression of Interest was
November 1, 2013. Clarington submitted an Expression of Interest through
Engineering Report EGD-037-13. This is a prescreening process. Municipalities
successful through the prescreening process would be advised in late November,
early December 2013 by receiving an invitation to submit a full application. Full
applications are due in January 2014.
1.2 In order to fulfill the requirements of the MIII, Clarington, through resolution of
Council, had to commit to the following:
"the municipality has a comprehensive asset management plan that includes all
the information and analysis described in Building Together: Guide for Municipal
Asset Management Plans in place or will have one in place by December 31,
2013.""
The comprehensive AMP must be publicly available, including online, by May 30,
2014.
1.3 The attachment to this report, "The Asset Management Plan for the Municipality of
Clarington" is being provided for Council adoption to comply with the MIII funding
application rules outlined above.
2. COMMENTS
2.1 Clarington staff in all departments have always worked very proactively with
respect to Asset Management, through internal processes as well as five year
capital forecasts. Some departments have forecasting and asset
replacement/rehabilitation plans for longer time frames and in significant detail,
through the use of specialized software. Clarington also has detailed growth
management plans through the Development Charges Background Study, as well
as a number of Planning Discussion papers covering particular categories,
Financial Impact Studies, Master Plans and the Land Acquisition Strategy.
2.2 With respect to capital assets, Finance staff have focused significant effort, firstly
on compliance with PSAB for capital asset reporting, on a manual basis to meet
compliance deadlines and then conversion to software based processes to
streamline capital asset reporting. This has been an extremely complicated
process due to the significant extent of asset activity in Clarington (both our own
capital programs as well as contributed assets through developer placed capital
works), as well as staffing resource issues.
REPORT NO.: FND-020-13 PAGE 3
2.3 Notwithstanding the significant work and effort in this area, as well as the
significant number of studies undertaken, until now Clarington has not had the
opportunity to compile all the existing information into a specific Asset
Management Plan document. We have focused on Roads and Bridges for the
purposes of complying with the MIII application.
2.4 For Council's understanding, the attached AMP is the first version to be adopted
by Council. Staff have recently proceeded with an RFP award for Asset
Management Plan software to incorporate all capital asset elements. Departments
with asset management responsibilities have commenced initial meetings to
proceed through the work required to bring a second version to Council in 2014 to
2015. Significant work still remains in this area that will be undertaken in the
coming months.
3. CONCURRENCE - Not applicable
4. CONCLUSION
It is recommended that Council adopt Attachment "A", "The Asset Management
Plan for the Municipality of Clarington" and that this document be included in the
full application submission to the Ministry of Rural Affairs should Clarington be
successful in its prescreening application under the MITI funding opportunity.
CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable
The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the
following priorities of the Strategic Plan:
Promoting economic development
x Maintaining financial stability
Connecting Clarington
Promoting green initiatives
Investing in infrastructure
Showcasing our community
Not in conformity with Strategic Plan
Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance/Treasurer
Attachments:
Attachment "A" —Asset Management Plan for the Municipality of Clarington
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ministry of Rural Affairs, Small, Rural & Northern Municipal Infrastructure
Fund-Capital Program
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Municipal Finance Branch
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON
ti
THEASSETMANAGEMENTPLANFORTHEMUNICIPALITYOFCLARINGTON
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
1.0 ES.............................................................................................................4
XECUTIVE UMMARY
2.0 I.......................................................................................................................6
NTRODUCTION
2.1PAMP.........................................................................6
URPOSE OF THE SSET ANAGEMENT LAN
2.2DAMP.................................................................6
EVELOPMENT OF THE SSET ANAGEMENT LAN
2.3KSAMP..................................................................7
EY ECTIONS OF THE SSET ANAGEMENT LAN
2.3.1CI...............................................................................7
URRENT NFRASTRUCTURE
2.3.2DLS..............................................................................7
ESIRED EVELS OF ERVICE
2.3.3AMS........................................................................7
SSET ANAGEMENT TRATEGY
2.3.4FS.......................................................................................8
INANCIAL TRATEGY
2.4RAMPMP............................8
ELATIONSHIP OF THE SSET ANAGEMENT LAN WITH UNICIPAL LANNING
2.5AMF......................................................................................8
SSET ANAGEMENT RAMEWORK
3.0 SLI............................................................................................10
TATE OF OCAL NFRASTRUCTURE
3.1RN............................................................................................................10
OADS ETWORK
3.1.1W?.....................................................................................10
HAT DO WE OWN
3.1.2W?......................................................................................10
HAT IS IT WORTH
3.1.3W?..............................................................................11
HAT CONDITION IS IT IN
3.1.4W?.....................................................................12
HAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO IT
3.1.5W?.........................................................................12
HEN DO WE NEED TO DO IT
3.1.6H?.................................................................15
OW MUCH FUNDING DO WE NEED
3.1.7H..................................................................17
OW DO WE REACH SUSTAINABILITY
3.1.8R......................................................................................18
ECOMMENDATIONS
3.2BN.........................................................................................................19
RIDGES ETWORK
Page 1
3.2.1 WHAT DO WE OWN?......................................................................................19
3.2.2 WHAT IS IT WORTH?.......................................................................................19
3.2.3 WHAT CONDITION IS IT IN?...............................................................................20
3.2.4 WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO IT?......................................................................22
3.2.5 WHEN DO WE NEED TO DO IT?......................................................................... 23
3.2.6 HOW MUCH FUNDING DO WE NEED?..................................................................23
3.2.7 HOW DO WE REACH SUSTAINABILITY?.................................................................25
3.2.8 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................26
4.0 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE..........................................................................................................27
4.1 KEY FACTORS THAT IMPACT LOS.........................................................................................28
4.1.1 ASSET PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................28
4.1.2 STRATEGIC AND CORPORATE GOALS..................................................................28
4.1.3 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS............................................................................28
4.1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS.............................................................................28
4.1.5 FUNDING AVAILABILITY....................................................................................28
4.2 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.........................................................................................29
4.3 ROADS NETWORK LOS.....................................................................................................29
4.4 BRIDGES NETWORK LOS...................................................................................................30
5.0 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY....................................................................................................32
5.1 OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................................32
5.2 NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS.....................................................................................32
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE COSTING REVIEW.............................................................................................32
5.4 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGY...........................................................................33
5.5 FUTURE GROWTH.............................................................................................................35
6.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.............................................................................................37
Page 2
6.1 OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................................37
6.2 THREE YEAR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT..........................................................................38
6.3 FINANCIAL FUNDING PLAN.................................................................................................39
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................43
Page 3
1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Asset Management Plan (AMP) is the first to be compiled for the Municipality of Clarington. It is
assembled from multiple sources and studies. It is developed to comply with the requirements of the
Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative(MITI). This AMP includes all the information and analysis
described in Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans.
It is critical to keep in mind that while we have used useful life in determining the infrastructure deficit
for the purposes of our first iteration of an AMP, plans are already underway to consider condition
ratings and class of road in determining priorities and infrastructure deficit conclusions in the next
version of Clarington's AMP. Clarington also uses a sophisticated pavement management analytical
analysis tool that aids in decision making over where to most effectively use maintenance dollars to
extend the life of the road surface. This will also be integrated into the next iteration of the AMP.
The estimated replacement value of the Municipality of Clarington's entire road network, in 2013
dollars, is approximately$475.4 million. The cost per household for the road network is$15,163, based
on 31,355 households.
Approximately 68%of our Roads-Base and 82%of Roads-Surface is in the fair to excellent condition
rating, with an overall weighted average of 78%for our entire road network's condition, which is
considered fair to excellent.
The estimated replacement value of the Municipality of Clarington's entire bridge network, in 2013
dollars, is approximately$71.7 million. The cost per household for the bridge network is$2,288, based
on 31,355 households.
The bridge inventory in Clarington has, at this point, a better condition record than the roads inventory.
85% is rated fair to excellent. 34%of the Municipality's bridge infrastructure is in good to excellent
condition, while less than 15% is in poor or critical condition.
For our current purposes, it is recommended that for the Roads component Option#2—50%of
Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years be utilized in our AMP. At the 101h year
(2023), there will be a surplus of$2.5 million. With respect to Bridges, it is recommended that Option#2
—50%of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years be selected. At the 10 year mark
(2023)there is a $10.8 million deficit.This is based on a total 3.75%tax levy increase annually and a net
effect of an $8.3 million deficit. This deficit can be addressed by selective utilization of debt facilities for
several of the more significant projects.This will be refined in our next iteration of the Municipality's
AMP that will be based on factors other than the life span of the asset in being the determining factor
for replacement.
Page 4
Infrastructure Report Card
Municipality of Clarington
Asset Categories have been rated based on condition and funding and the overall rating is a blend of
the condition and funding. The roads and bridges are then combined for an overall rating for both
assets.
ASSET OVERALL CONDITION FUNDING
CATEGORY RATING RATING RATING COMMENTS
A funding rating of 60%was selected
due to accomplishing 50%funding of
ROADS 69% 78% 60% the infrastructure deficit over the
first 10 years when it is spread over a
15 year time frame.
A funding rating of 50%was selected
due to not quite accomplishing 50%
funding of the infrastructure deficit
BRIDGES 67% 85% 50% over the first 10 years when it is
spread over a 15 year time frame,
prior to the consideration of debt
financing.
Page 5
2 .0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of an asset management plan (AMP) is to establish a detailed infrastructure strategy that
will be used to manage infrastructure. Over time,this asset management plan will assist in providing a
greater quality of infrastructure to those who use it, as well as maintain a consistent level of funding
required annually. Included in this version of the AMP will be the current 868 kilometres of centerline
roads network, as well as the current 94 bridges included in the municipality's inventories.This current
asset management plan is set as a starting point for our municipality's AMP and will continue to evolve
for all asset categories in future versions. It is the goal of the Municipality of Clarington to have an asset
management plan that monitors all of our tangible capital asset(TCA) categories in the near future.
With our municipality's implementation of CityWide's tangible capital asset computer software in the
next few months, there will be an in depth overview of all the current TCA categories in preparation for
the inclusion of the assets to the asset management plan. This current asset management plan will
provide the details of our roads and bridges networks for the next 10 years. Updating will be an ongoing
process until a full AMP is up and running for all TCA categories.
2.1 Purpose of the Asset Management Plan
This plan will provide a detailed scope of the current infrastructure standing, which includes the number
of assets in the inventory, current replacement value of the assets,funding provided annually for
infrastructure improvements,the value of funding we require to sustain the current infrastructure and
determine if our funding is currently in a surplus or deficit. In the case of a surplus or deficit,we will
provide various scenarios that can be undertaken to deal with the surplus or deficit and management
and Council can be consulted in order to determine the proper scenario for that specific situation. This
process will allow the municipality to provide a reasonable level of service, as well as a predictable
annual budget value for infrastructure. This will limit large fluctuations from year to year of the annual
capital budget due to the future plans inclusion in the average annual capital investment requirement.
This is also a critical component of the Municipality's Strategic Plan, 2011-2014, as it includes an
objective entitled "Expand and consolidate asset replacement strategy" and several action items
pertaining to this objective.
2.2 Development of the Asset Management Plan
This AMP was developed by the Municipality of Clarington's Finance Department. Information regarding
the current infrastructure was compiled from the current PSAB 3150 database and was set out to
produce an annual replacement cost for each category of asset. The Engineering Department was
consulted for infrastructure details regarding condition ratings, infrastructure requirement lists (10 years
needs list), and current preventative processes in place. Clarington's finance department provided the
financial details required while preparing options for surplus' and shortfalls on the annual capital
investment required.
In 2014,we will continue to work with a cross departmental team to enhance our asset management
Page 6
plan. We will address all areas of Clarington's assets and incorporate them into a combined asset
management and financial strategy for the Municipality of Clarington. We will be assisted by the help of
the soon to be implemented CityWide's 'Tangible Assets' and 'Capital Planning &Analysis' software.
2.3 Key Sections of Asset Management Plan
There are several key sections that are included in the analysis of each asset category which are listed
and discussed below:
2.3.1 Current Infrastructure
Identify the current standing of the asset infrastructure by providing the current replacement
costs for assets as well as the number of assets included in that category. Provide a condition
rating for all assets included in the category and determine the current condition standing of the
category as a whole. Show the current value of assets overdue for replacement and the
measures to be taken in order to rehabilitate those assets. Determine an annual capital funding
requirement by calculating assets to be replaced in the next 10 years.
2.3.2 Desired Level of Service
The desired level of service will be determined by comparing current performance measures to
previous values from those same measures. In order to determine more exact levels of service,
further discussions with management and staff regarding current service levels will assist in the
selection of the desired levels of service, as well as ensure that they are achievable levels. One
- of the action items in the Council approved document"Strategic Plan 2011-2014" is to define
and establish service levels by category and function. This more detailed look at service levels
will support the next version of Clarington's Asset Management Plan.
2.3.3 Asset Management Strategy
This strategy provides a plan of action in order to maintain the desired level of service provided
in the above section. Included in this plan will be the assurance that it is providing the most cost
effective approach for reaching the desired service level and procedures to minimize risks due to
providing these service levels. Providing a ten year requirements list will allow monitoring the
work is completed on a priority based level and ensure the work is being completed in a timely
fashion. Included in this section will be preparations for future growth and demand increases.
This will be based upon current and future Development Charges Background Studies to
determine new growth related works that would then have to be factored into subsequent
versions of the Asset Management Plan.
Prior to establishing the annual Pavement Rehabilitation program Clarington uses it's Pavement
Management System (PMS) as a tool to assist with finalizing the annual and forecasted
rehabilitation program. Clarington's PMS consists of several integrated components:
Page 7
• Inventory and condition data collection
• Data storage and management
• Network analysis application
The analysis component of the PMS is provided by Deighton's infrastructure management
software dTIMS which uses the road network and pavement condition data, along with user
defined (specific to Clarington) performance and treatment models,to develop a
recommended, multi year, optimized maintenance and rehabilitation program based on
provided budgets.
Clarington's fundamental goal of our PMS is to find the optimal solution regarding costs,
resources,time and returns. The analysis process involves complex decisions at many different
levels relating to the factors to be optimized. In other words the PMS is a tool to get
information to help answer questions like, "What roads should 1 fix first?"or "How much should 1
be cutting or increasing my road budget to maintain or improve my overall road condition?" It
provides staff with enough information to show how to distribute the fixed amount of budget
dollars to ensure we are keeping more roads in GOOD to EXCELLENT condition and minimizing
those that are in POOR to VERY POOR condition. It guides us with distributing dollars to best
improve the condition of the overall network as opposed to looking at individual roads in
isolation. This will be a useful tool to use for future iterations of the AMP.
2.3.4 Financial Strategy
This section obtains the information created in the above noted sections of the asset
management plan and provides funding options for all the required infrastructure needs.
Included in the financial strategy will be the current budget provided for infrastructure and
ensure that the value is adequate to meet the requirements for infrastructure. In the case that
financing does not meet the infrastructure needs this section will provide options available for
managing the deficit and allow for the appropriate action to be undertaken.
2.4 Relationship of the Asset Management Plan with Municipal Planning
The AMP directly affects the way a municipality budgets for infrastructure items. The AMP provides the
required value of annual funding to maintain a desired level of service, which directly can be used in the
capital budget to ensure that infrastructure work is fully funded and limiting budget deficits due to
infrastructure. In addition to the annual funding,the AMP also provides a plan for work that is required
annually for the next 10 years,thus providing a more precise budget figure annually and limiting the
calculation at budget preparation time. This also allows for an iterative review of service level decisions
into the future.
2.5 Asset Management Framework
The asset management plan will provide assistance to multiple areas of the municipality, such
Page 8
as:
• Decisions for levels of service being provided and investment decisions
• Planning and management of capital assets
• Meeting a sustainable service level provided to the public
• Meet upper tier government standards and requirements
The asset management plan will be an essential document in assisting staff and council to make
informed decisions regarding infrastructure investment. As well as providing condition details
to ensure the infrastructure can perform the required services, an annual review of the AMP
will be beneficial for future versions of the plan, due to the ever changing infrastructure
requirements, as well as economic factors.
Page 9
3 .0 STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 Road Network Infrastructure
3.1.1 Inventory: What do we own?
As shown in the summary table below,the entire network comprises approximately 868 centreline
kilometres of road.
Road Network Inventory
Asset Quantity Quantity
Asset Type Component (metres) (km)
Rural 597,110 597
Roads Semi-Urban 75,020 75
Urban 196,990 196
869,120 868
The road network data was extracted from Clarington's WorkTech software database and our financial
tangible capital asset records.
3.1.2 Inventory: What is it worth?
The estimated replacement value of the Municipality of Clarington's entire road network, in 2013
dollars, is approximately$475.4 million. The cost per household for the road network is$15,163, based
on 31,355 households.
Road Network Replacement Value
Asset Replacement
Asset Type Component Value in 2013$
Rural 201,485,597
Roads- Base Semi-Urban 32,212,656
Urban 135,981,022
Total for Roads—Base $ 369,679,275
Rural 44,428,435
Roads—Surface Semi-Urban 11,887,129
Urban 49,445,051
Total for Roads—Surface $ 105,760,615
$ 475,439,890
Page 10
3.1.3 Inventory: What condition is it in?
The following charts represent Clarington's road network condition ratings for both the Base and the
Surface. Approximately 68% of our Roads-Base and 82%of Roads-Surface is in the fair to excellent
condition rating,with an overall weighted average of 78%for our entire road network's condition, which
is considered fair to excellent.
Roads - Rase Condition Roads - surface
Rating Condition Rating
■CRITICAL ■POOR FAIR ■GOOD ®EXCELLENT ■CRITICAL ■POOR FAIR ■GOOD is EXCELLENT
0.8% 0.2%
27.9%
v graph e results based on the following The above ap depicts g d p g criteria:
PCI(Pavement Condition Condition based on
Index)as per WorkTech for Percentage of Remaining
AMP Condition Rating Surface(%) Useful Life for Base(yrs) Criteria
Excellent 90 to 100 35 to 40 No noticeable defects
Good 80 to 89 25 to 34 Minor deterioration
Fair 61 to 79 15 to 24 Deterioration evident
Poor 31 to 60 10 to 14 Serious deterioration
Critical 1 to 30 0 to 9 General or complete failure
Currently,there is no legislation for road inspections mandated for municipalities. In Clarington,we
perform condition rating inspections of our entire road network every two years. In the Municipal Act
2001,the Ontario Regulation 239/02 introduced the minimum maintenance standards for municipal
highways. There are sections covering potholes, shoulder drop-offs, cracks, debris, bridge deck spalls,
and roadway surface discontinuities. Decisions around the Asset Management Plan funding strategies
must keep in consideration adherence to minimum maintenance standards in order to protect the
municipality in the event of lawsuits.
Pagel 1
3.1.4 Inventory: What do we need to do to it?
There are generally four distinct phases in an asset's life cycle that require specific types of attention
and lifecycle activity. These are presented at a high level for the road network below. Further detail is
provided in the "Asset Management Strategy' section of this AMP.
Currently,there is no legislation for road condition inspections mandated for municipalities. In
Clarington,we perform condition rating inspections of our entire road network every two years. In the
first quarter of 2014, we expect to have an approved 'Transportation Master Plan' available for
circulation. It is anticipated that our current system of inspecting all roads every two years will change to
every three years.
In the Municipal Act 2001,the Ontario Regulation 239/02 introduced the minimum maintenance
standards for municipal highways. As mentioned above,the AMP must keep in consideration adherence
to minimum maintenance standards.
The minor and major maintenance phases of our roads asset lifecycle activities are included in the
provincial minimum maintenance standards in sections; potholes, shoulder drop-offs, cracks, debris, and
road surface discontinuities.
Addressing Asset Needs
Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage
Minor maintenance Activities such as inspections,monitoring,sweeping,etc. 15l Qtr
Activities such as repairing pot holes,grinding out roadway
Major maintenance rutting,ditching&shoulder maintenance,and patching 2"d Qtr
sections of road
Rehabilitation activities such as asphalt overlays,mill and
Rehabilitation 3'd Qtr
paves,etc.
Replacement Full road reconstruction 4th Qtr
3.1.5 Inventory: When do we need to do it?
At the time of this report, useful life data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data
within Clarington's financial tangible capital asset records. The proposed useful lives are used to
determine replacement needs of the individual road segments. We have incorporated the condition
ratings and priority rating that was provided from the Engineering departments WorkTech database.
Page 12
Asset Useful Life in Years
Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life(yrs)
Rural—High Float 7
Roads- Base Semi-Urban 40
Urban 40
Rural— High Float 7
Roads—Surface Semi-Urban 20
Urban 20
When we analyze our data and calculate the replacement cost of our roads based on being replaced at
the end of their estimated useful life we can determine what our infrastructure deficit is currently. We
have a backlog of roads that have exceeded their useful life in the amount of$60.1 million in current
dollars. The following chart depicts the future replacement needs for the Municipality of Clarington for
the next 35 years and further. The 2013 column represents all the roads infrastructure deficit to date
and the following columns are grouped into 5 yr increments. The chart highlights that our infrastructure
deficit alone is higher than the next 10 years worth of anticipated road replacements. It is critical to
keep in mind that while we have used useful life in determining the infrastructure deficit for the
purposes of our first iteration of an AMP, plans are already underway to consider condition ratings and
class of road in determining priorities and infrastructure deficit conclusions in the next version of
Clarington's AMP. Clarington also uses a sophisticated pavement management analytical analysis tool
that aids in decision making over where to most effectively use maintenance dollars to extend the life of
the road surface. This will also be integrated into the next iteration of the AMP.
Road Network Replacement Cost
(in future $)
$160,000,000
$140,000,000 The Infrastructure deficit
$120,000,000 for our roads network is
$60.1 million
$100,000,000 - - -
$80,000,000 - -
$60,000,000 -
$40,000,000 -
$20,000,000 -
5- - ---
2013 2014 to 2019 to 2024 to 2029 to 2034 to 2039 to 2044 AN D
2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 BEYOND
Page 13
When deciding on the priority status of rehabilitation or reconstructing road segments, using the "worst
first"approach is contrary to Clarington's pavement management philosophy. Typically,for lost roads, if
in an urban environment, we will wait until there are other needs on the street such as storm sewers,
sanitary sewers or water main, and reconstruct the road while coordinating with other required
improvements. If it is sanitary and water improvements we get the added benefit of some cost sharing
with the upper tier municipality, Durham Region, when reconstructing the road. If you undertake the
worst roads first we would be taking away dollars that would go farther in rehabilitating roads that are
in better condition. A road that has reached 75%of its life has lost 40%of the quality of the road. If you
wait for the road for the road to use another 12%of its useful life the road will drop another 40% in the
quality of the road. For every$1 dollar you spend at the 75%of the road's useful life to bring it back to a
very good condition you will need to spend $4 if you delay the treatment an additional 12%of the road's
useful life. This is illustrated in the attached graphic.
PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE: MAINTENANCE COST VS.CONDITION
10
Very Good
Each$1.00 of
8 40%Quality Rehabilitation Cost
Drop Here...
Good
6 - _ --75%of Life-------
T
M Fair
CY
4 40%Quality Will Cost$4.00 to
Drop $5.00 if Delayed
to Here
Poor
2 �- 12%of Life----
Total
Very Poor Failure
4 8 12 16
Time(Varies for Each Road Section)
Adapted Frorn:American Public Works Association,1983.
The Hole Story.Facts and Fallacies of Potholes
Another opportunity we would leverage to deal with the "lost" roads is reconstructing roads in
conjunction with development needs in which these roads have been identified in our Development
Charge By-Law. Other opportunities to address the lost roads are when there are additional funding
programs offered by the Provincial and/or Federal governments. Our last course of action would be to
budget the reconstruction as either a separate budget item through tax levy increases or as a last resort
fund all or part of the reconstruction through our annual pavement rehabilitation funding.
Page 14
3.1.6 How much funding do we need?
The table below illustrates what Clarington has historically, on average, allocated annually for capital
investment in our roads network.
Budget I Capital Total Capital 5 year Average
Year Investment Investment Annual Capital
$ over 5 yrs Investment
2012 $5,038,866
2011 $7,876,600
2010 $5,838,800 $29,355,154 $5,871,031
2009 $5,290,000
2008 $5,310,888
To further illustrate the financial impact of the roads infrastructure deficit for the Municipality of
Clarington, we have expanded on the previous chart to show the annual replacement cost by year for
the next 10 years using three scenarios below. The blue columns represent the annual replacement
required based on the roads useful life, and the red columns represent the options for handling the
infrastructure deficit of$60.1 million for our roads.
The chart clearly shows that our average annual capital investment in our roads of$5.9 million is not
going to cover the backlog but only increase the deficit over time. Several alternative scenarios have
been developed as part of this review. The first scenario reflects the infrastructure deficit of$60.1
million being spread over 10 years. The alternative scenarios involve only 50%of the infrastructure
deficit spread over 15 years, and 25%of the total $60.1 million deficit to be spread over 15 years. These
scenarios will be addressed in the Financial Management Strategy section of the AMP.
Option 1: Spread 100%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 10 years
Road Network Replacement Cost by Year
$25,000,000 5 year average of annual capital - -
investment for Clarington's road
$20,000,000 network is currently$5.9 million
$15,000,000 - -- - - - -
$10,000,000 -- -
$5,000,000 — - -
$- —- 1
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
■Anneal Replacement Costs ■100°i infrastructure Deficit spread over 10 years
Page 15
Option 2: Spread 50%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 15 years
Road Network Replacement Cost by Year
$20,000,000 - -- —
i 5 year average of annual capital
$15,000,000 investment for Clarington's road _-
network is currently$5.9 million
$10,000,000 -
$5,000,000 - -
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
■Annual Replacement Costs ■50%of Infrastructure Deficit spread over 15 years
Option 3: Spread 25%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 15 years
Road Network Replacement Cast by Year
$35,000,000 --
$30,000,000 -
$25,000,000 - - —
$20,000,000 — -- -
$15,000,000 - -
$10,000,000 - - -- -
$5,000,000 -
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
■Annual Replacement Costs ■Z5% Infrastructure Deficit spread over 15 years
The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following
constraints and assumptions:
➢ Replacement costs are based on the 2013 current value plus an annual inflation rate of 2%to
make replacement costs more realistic at the time of replacement.
The timing for individual road segment replacement was defined by the replacement year as
described in the previous section 1.5 Inventory: What is the useful life.
Page 16
➢ The analysis was run for a 40 year period to ensure all assets have cycled through at least one
iteration of its lifecycle,therefore providing a sustainable projection.
y All assets that are overdue for replacement have been divided and added to the next 10 years of
replacements, in order to bring those up to standards. Two other scenarios are provided.
3.1.7 How do we reach sustainability?
Road Network Replacement 40yr Forecast
(by4yr increments)
$120,000,000 — -
$110,000,000 4 year average annual capital _
requirement to reach
$100,000,000 - sustainability for Clarington's road -
$90,000,000
network is$67.6 million
---- —
$80,000,000 — - -
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
540,000,000
530,000,000
520,000,000 --
$10,000,000 -
2014- 2018- 2022- 2026- 2030- 2034- 2038- 2042- 2046- 2050-
2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 2041 2045 2049 2053
■Replacement Costs ■Infrastructure Deficit
The chart is segmented into 4 year increments to ensure that we capture the maximum 40 year useful
life of our roads. It's important to note that these figures don't include any new roads that are added to
our network in the next 40 years.
The calculation to determine the average annual investment into Clarington's roads is as follows:
Total Replacement Cost of all roads for the next 40 years ($676,024,194)
40 years
_$ 16,900,605 per year or$67,602,419 for a 4yr period
Based on the above assumptions and calculations,the average annual investment into Clarington's
Page 17
roads network is$16.9 million and our current average annual investment is$5.1 million. Clarington is
operating at an annual deficit of$11.8 million compared to the optimal level to reach our financial
sustainability.
3.1.8 Recommendations
The implementation of TCA software 'CityWide' (scheduled to be implemented within the next 3
months) will assist greatly in the Asset Management Plan process and continuously in the future
of infrastructure. The more fulsome AMP exercise bringing in all municipal assets will be
undertaken within the next year with an updated AMP coming forward to Council in early 2015.
This will be an organization wide initiative incorporating a team of staff from all departments
with asset maintenance/management responsibilities. This team has met several times already
in working through the full request for proposal process for budgeted software acquisition and
are now moving on to the implementation stage.
y The Operations Department, along with the report on 'Rural Roads Initiative' indicates that 37%
of our rural roads have not received any preventative maintenance in the last 15 years. Our
current budget allows for funds to be allocated to the rural roads preventative program to fund
24km per year, and that is recommended to be increased to at least 40km per year (an annual
budget increase of approximately$3 million).
Y The Municipality should strive to eliminate the road network infrastructure deficit of$60.1
million over the next 15 plus years.
Y A more complex condition assessment program should be established as part of the next
iteration of the AMP to incorporate the PCI, asset age, performance, risk analysis and priority
assessment across all assets. This will be an evolution to the next level of complexity, by moving
away from an assessment based on lifespan of an asset only. Many assets will over or
underperform and this will be taken into consideration along with the usage of the asset. For
roads,this would bring in the class of the road in order to establish priority needs. This may
dramatically shift the infrastructure deficit calculations.
The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated annually.
Page 18
3.2 Bridges Network Infrastructure
3.2.1 Inventory: What do we own?
As shown in the summary table below,the entire network comprises approximately 94 Roadway
Bridges.
Bridges Network Inventory
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity
C-Cast In Place 77
P- Precast Concrete 9
Bridges S-Steel 3
T-Timber/Wood 2
Multi-Span 2
94
The Bridges network data was extracted from the Clarington WorkTech software database and financial
tangible capital asset records.
3.2.2 Inventory: What is it worth?
The estimated replacement value of the Municipality of Clarington's entire bridge network, in 2013
dollars, is approximately$71.7 million. The cost per household for the bridge network is$2,288, based
on 31,355 households.
Bridges Network Replacement Value
Replacement Cost in
Asset Type Asset Component 2013$
Cast In Place $ 43,763,215
Precast Concrete $ 19,094,151
Bridges Steel $ 1,506,156
Timber/Wood $ 895,795
Multi-Span $ 6,487,764
$ 71,747,081
Page 19
Bridge Inventory - By Type
Timber/Wood Multi-Span
1.25% 9.04%
Steel:2.10%
Precast Concrete
26.61`
Cast In Place
61.00%
■Cast In Place ■Precast Concrete Steel ■Timber/Wood ■Multi-Span
I
3.2.3 Inventory: What condition is it in?
The bridge inventory in Clarington has, at this point, a better condition record than the roads inventory.
85% is rated fair to excellent. 34%of the Municipality's bridge infrastructure is in good to excellent
condition,while less than 15% is in poor or critical condition. AECOM, our engineering consultants
provides a detailed listing of our bridges, as well as a Bridge Condition Index(BCI). This index is a
weighted calculation of the total condition of each bridge in our inventory,taking in to consideration
physical condition,value, performance deficiencies, improvement costs,traffic, etc. The BCI provides a
rating between 0 (lowest possible score)to 100 (highest possible score) for an overall condition rating of
each bridge,which is used to provide a current condition of each bridge.
AMP Condition Rating BCI (Bridge Condition Rating) Criteria
Excellent 90 to 100 No noticeable defects
Good 80 to 89 Minor deterioration
Fair 61 to 79 Deterioration evident
Poor 31 to 60 Serious deterioration
Critical 1 to 30 General or complete failure
Page 20
Bridges Condition by Quantity
50 -
45 ---- - - --- - --
40 ----- -
35 '
30
25 - ----- __ ---- - ----
20 -- —
15 -- - ------- --- -
10 -- - - - --
5 -- -
0
Excellent Good Fair Poor Critical
3.3.4 Inventory: What do we need to do to it?
Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage
Activities such as inspections, monitoring, sweeping,winter
Minor Maintenance 1st Qtr
control, etc.
Major Maintenance Activities such as repairs to cracked or spalled concrete, damaged 2nd Qtr
expansion joints, bent or damaged railings, etc.
Rehabilitation rehabilitation events such as reinforcement of structural 3rd Qtr
elements, deck replacement, etc.
Replacement Full structure reconstruction 4th Qtr
Inspections are completed for all structures that span 3 metres or more. Structure inspections for the
municipality are performed by AECOM. Inspections are completed on a bi-annual basis (once every two
years). Included in the inspection must be structure type, number of spans, span lengths, other key
attribute data, detailed photo images, &structure element by element inspection, rating&
recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, & replacement. The records of these are forwarded to the
Municipality's Infrastructure Manager, as a PDF file for record retention.
Page 21
3.3.5 Inventory: When do we need to do it?
For the purpose of this report, useful life data for each asset structure was obtained from the accounting
data within the Municipality's tangible capital asset records. This proposed useful life is used to
determine replacement needs of individual assets, which will be used to assist in calculations for the
overall financial requirements.
Asset Useful Life in Years
Asset Type Asset Component Useful
Life
Cast In Place 50
Precast Concrete 45
Bridges Steel 40
Timber/Wood 50
Multi-Span 75
As field condition information becomes available in time, data should be updated in the system in order
to have an increasingly more accurate picture of current asset age&future replacement requirements.
The following table provides the current projections of structure replacements based on the age of the
asset only. As mentioned for Roads, the future iterations of the AMP will include conditions beyond
simply the age of the asset in assessing replacement requirements.
Bridge Network Replacement Cost
(in future $}
$40,000,000 - -- - - ----
$35,000,000 --- --
$30,000,000 The Infrastructure -
$25,000,000 -
deficit for our Bridges is
--- -
$18.2 million _--
$20,000,000 - - -
$15,000,000 - - --- -
$10,000,000 - ---
$5,000,000 - -
so - -- -
2013 2014 to 2015 to 2024 to 2029 to 2034 to 2039 to 2044 and
2018 2023 2028 2033 2033 2043 Beyond
Page 22
3.3.6 Inventory: How much funding do we need?
The table below, illustrates what Clarington has histroically, on average, allocating annually for capital
investment of our bridges.
Capital Total Capital 5 year Weighted
Budget Investment Investment over 5 Average Annual
Year $ yrs Capital Investment
2012 $970,000
2011 $801,000
2010 $600,000 $3,132,000 $624,600
2009 $650,000
2008 $102,000
To further illustrate the financial impact of the bridges infrastructure deficit for the Municipality of
Clarington,we have expanded on the previous chart to show the annual replacement cost by year for
the next 10 years. The blue columns represent the annual replacement required based on the roads
useful life, and the red columns represent the options for handling the infrastructure deficit of$18.2
million for our bridges.
The chart clearly shows that our average annual capital investment in our bridges of$625 thousand is
not going to cover the backlog but only increase the deficit over time. Several alternative scenarios have
been developed as part of this review. The first scenario reflects the infrastructure deficit of$18.2
million being spread over 10 years. The alternative scenarios involve only 50%of the infrastructure
deficit spread over 15 years or the total $60.1 million deficit to be spread over 15 years. These scenarios
will be addressed in the Financial Management Strategy section of the AMP.
Option 1: Spread 100%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 10 years
Bridge Network Replacment Cost per Year
$16,000,000 — - - - - - -
514,000,000 -I- - -- - —
5 year average of annual capital
$12,000,000 investment forClarington's
$10,000,000 bridge network is currently$625 — - --
53,000,000 thousand
$6,000,000 -----
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
■Annual Replacement Costs N 100%lnfrastructure Deficit spread over 10yeors
Page 23
Option 2: Spread 50%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 15 years
Bridge Network Replacement Cost per Year
16,000,000 �-
14,000,000 -
12,000,000 5 year average of annual capital - -
10,000,000 investment for Clarington's bridge
network is currently$625 thousand
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000 -- -- - -- --- --
2,000,00o I - - - - -
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
■Annual Replacement Costs ■Infrastructure Deficit 50%Spread over 15 years
Option 3: Spread 100%of the infrastructure deficit evenly over the next 15 years
Bridge Network Replacment Cost per Year
$16,000,000
S14,000,000
$12,000,000 5 year average of annual capital
investment for Clarington's bridge
4 7 A W--�-�
$10,000,000
network is currently$625 thousand
$8,000,000
S6,000,000 - -- -- —
$4,000,000 — --
$2,000,000 --
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
MAnnual Replacement Costs 0 100%Infrastructure Deficit Spread over 15 years
The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following
constraints and assumptions:
Replacement costs are based on the 2013 current value plus an annual inflation rate of 2%to
make replacement costs more realistic at the time of replacement.
➢ The timing for individual structure replacement was defined by the replacement year as
described in the previous section 3.3.5 Inventory: What is the useful life.
➢ The analysis was run for a 70 year period to ensure all assets cycled through at least one
replacement,therefore providing a sustainable projection.
Page 24
➢ All assets that are overdue for replacement have been divided &added to the next 10 years of
replacements, in order to bring those up to standards. Alternative scenarios are also provided
for allocation over the next 15 years, and allocation of only 50%of the replacements over the
next 15 years. These will be addressed in the Financial Management Strategy section of this
AMP
3.3.7 Inventory: How do we reach sustainability?
Sustainable Capital Requirements - 70 Year Forecast
$90,400,000 __.
$80,000,000 - -
$70,000,000
$64,000,000 — - ---g—Year average Annual Ca—prua
Requirement to reach
$54,000,000 sustainability for Clarington's
540,000,000 Bridges Network is$ 18.07 million
$30,000,000 - - - - -
$20,000,040 —
$10,400,400 - - -
s4
2013- 2018- 2023- 2028- 2033- 2038- 2043- 2048- 2053- 2058- 2063- 2068- 2073- 2078-
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 2057 2062 2067 2072 2077 2082
MC-CastlnPlace ■P-Precast Concrete -S-Steel ■T-Timber/Wood ■M-Multi-Span
I
Based on the previous discussed assumptions,the average annual revenue required to sustain the
Municipality of Clarington's bridge structures is$3,614,000.The chart is segmented into 5 year
increments to ensure that we capture the maximum 70 year useful life. It's important to note that these
figures don't include any new bridges that are added to our inventory over the next 70 years. Based on
Clarington's current average annual funding of$625 thousand, there is an annual deficit of$2,989,000.
The calculation to determine the average annual investment into Clarington's bridges is as follows:
Total Replacement Cost of all bridges for the next 70 years ($252,963,810)
70 years
_ $3,613,768 per year or$18,068,840 for a 5yr period
In conclusion, based on the age data only, there are a noticeable percentage of bridges in fair, poor, &
Page 25
critical condition. There are significant needs to be addressed within the next 10 years totaling
approximately$55,500,000. This also includes 35 bridges (valued at$20,293,759) that have surpassed
their useful life expectancy& have not been replaced or rehabilitated. When we compared the Bridges
Needs report, prepared by Aecom, and the replacement needs calculated based on age only we have
concluded that the following bridges need major rehabilitation within the next 2 years;
Structure Road Name 2013 Estimated
ID Replacement Rehab Cost
Cost
98025 Reid Rd $ 945,176 $ 219,000
98037 Elliott Rd $453,157 $ 264,000
98083 Conc. Rd 5 $ 287,891 $ 196,000
TOTAL $ 1,686,224 $ 679,000
3.3.8 Recommendations
➢ The implementation of TCA software 'CityWide' (scheduled to be implemented within the next 3
months) will assist greatly in the Asset Management Plan process and continuously in the future
of infrastructure.
r Several bridges have been fully amortized and included in our backlogged amount to be
replaced and are currently in "Good" working condition as per our BCI. The lifespan of these
bridges require adjusting to allocate a more true replacement date.
y Additional funding will be required if we are looking to maintain or improve the current bridge
infrastructure.
➢ An appropriate%of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance
activities on an annual basis. This should be determined through a detailed analysis of
Operating and Maintenance activities and added to future AMP reporting.
➢ The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis.
- Page 26
4.0 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE
There is an ever increasing expectation for Municipality's to make decisions about the services they
provide to their citizens with a much greater level of empirical data to support those decisions. In
analyzing desired level of services within the Municipality, Council, senior management and other
decision makers will have the information needed to monitor, review and improve services to its
citizens.
Although many informal service levels currently exist within the Municipality of Clarington there needs
to be a formal review and analysis conducted.A community's infrastructure provides the foundation for
its economic development and a well maintained infrastructure is essential for the delivery of critical
core services for the citizens of the Municipality of Clarington.This is a critical component of the
Municipality's Strategic Plan, 2011-2014. The strategic plan refers both to defining and establishing
service levels by category and function as well as expanding and consolidating our asset replacement
strategy.
The Municipality's Roads and Bridges and their Desired Service Levels are currently being reviewed. The
goal is to manage these assets at their lowest overall life cycle cost which will allow the Municipality of
Clarington to enhance the existing financial reporting and planning efforts into a longer term and formal
Financial Strategy.
Desired levels of service (LOS) are indicators, comprising of many factors, which establish defined quality
thresholds at which municipal services should be provided to the community. They support the
organization's strategic goals and are based on customer expectations, statutory requirements,
standards, and the financial capacity of the municipality to deliver those levels of service.
Levels of Service are used to provide measurements of the municipality's efficiency on specific
infrastructure to both customers and staff. Providing customers with the offered and proposed level of
service is a major objective for LOS. On a corporate level, determining the benefits of having a service
along with the associated costs will assist Council and staff to determine the feasibility of providing the
current level of service and in making future service level decisions.
Taking the key factors of providing a service into consideration is an important part of creating a desired
level of service. It is also important to view some performance measures over a full fiscal period, in
order to determine the current level of service that is being provided, and once there is a better
understanding, to determine if the level of service is adequate or needs to be increased.
Page 27
4.1 Key Factors that impact level of service:
4.1.1 Asset Performance
The performance of an asset takes into consideration the current condition of the asset and its
ability to meets its legislative requirements; as well as, ensuring that an asset provides that
service in a safe manner within its capacity requirements.The entire lifecycle costs associated
with an asset(design, maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement) are all critical factors that
affect the level of service to which the Municipality of Clarington can provide.
4.1.2 Strategic and Corporate Goals
Clarington's strategic plan provides the municipality with the direction which we intend to strive
for in the future, how we plan to get to that benchmark, as well as assist in decisions for
resource allocation,while ensuring strategic priorities are followed.The plan helps identify
priorities and give guidance for current and future spending of municipal tax dollars and
revenues. The level of importance that a community's vision is dependent on infrastructure,will
ultimately affect the level of service provided or those levels that it attempts to deliver. The
strategic plan references both the need for a service level program and an expanded,
consolidated asset replacement strategy.
4.1.3 Legislative Requirements
Infrastructure levels of service are directly influenced by many legislative and regulatory
requirements. Within this AMP focusing on Clarington's roads and bridges, we must adhere to
the Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal highways that keep levels of service above a
specific standard in order to ensure protection from ever increasing municipal liability awards by
the courts.
4.1.4 Community Expectations
Levels of service are directly related to public expectations regarding how tax dollars are
utilized. The public can provide an opinion in determining when items are required to be
rehabilitated or replaced. Due to the ever increasing cost of infrastructure, it is essential that
the public be included in the decision making process of the service levels and educate them on
the associated costs to provide that level of service. There has been a sequence of public
meetings with respect to the ongoing work on the Transportation Master Plan,which will be an
important linkage in the next version of Clarington's AMP.
4.1.5 Funding Availability
The availability of finances will ultimately control all items of a desired level of service. In an
idealistic scenario, the funds available would be able to achieve corporate goals, meet all
legislative requirements,fund all required assets life cycle needs, as well as meet the needs of
the community. There are also the non-eligible components of the growth related capital
Page 28
projects that are a draw upon the financial resources that would otherwise be devoted to the
priorities noted above. Levels of service will be dictated by the availability of funds,the ability
to increase funds, and the community's willingness to pay.
4.2 Key Performance Indicators
Performance measures that track levels of services should be specific, measureable, achievable,
relevant, and time restricted. Measures that the Municipality reports annually for roads and bridges are
listed below:
• Operating cost for paved roads per lane km
• Total cost for paved roads per lane km
• Operating cost for gravel roads per lane km
• Total cost for gravel roads per lane km
• Operating cost for bridge/culvert structures per square metre
• Total cost for bridge/culvert structures per square metre
These indicators provide a breakdown of the maintenance or day-to-day costs to allow an asset to
continue to perform at the current level and prevent premature aging. In the case of the municipality
wanting to increase the level of service of one of these assets,the measures above would have to
increase. The availability or reallocation of resources (mainly finances)would determine if the level of
service increase of an asset is achievable.
• Percent of paved road lane km where the condition is rated Good or Very Good
• Number of bridge/culvert structures where the condition is rated Good or Very Good
These additional performance measures provide the current status of the municipality's roads and
bridges and show the amount of assets that are in good working condition. This information helps to
decide if additional funding is required in order to have a higher percentage of roads or bridges in good
or very good working condition.
As mentioned in several sections above,this work will be further enhanced in the coming year,to
provide an even greater level of support to more defined decision making around asset replacement.
4.3 Roads Network LOS
The municipality of Clarington roads inventory consists of 868 centreline km of roads. Which includes
597 km's in rural areas, 75 km's in semi-urban areas, and 196 km's in urban areas. The main service that
is provided by this infrastructure item is access to residential, commercial, and industrial properties and
other community amenities for people, goods, and services. Various minimum road standards are
provided by upper tier governments that the municipality must follow in regards to road maintenance,
road conditions, and winter condition maintenance.
Page 29
Roads
Performance Measure 2012 2011 2010
Operating Cost for paved roads per lane km $874.16 $704.70 $923.98
Total Cost for paved roads per lane km $3,869.54 $3,716.14 $3,763.83
Operating Cost for unpaved roads per lane km $2,066.10 $2,348.32 $1,859.41
Total Cost for unpaved roads per lane km $16,600.29 $15,980.19 $15,717.83
%of paved roads with Good to Very Good
57% 57% 59%
Condition rating
Operating Cost for winter maintenance of
$980.28 $1,423.78 $845.99
roads per lane km maintained in the winter
Total Cost for winter maintenance of roads per
$1,217.71 $1,652.93 $1,096.96
lane km maintained in the winter
The municipality has been able to maintain a consistent level of roads in good condition. One concern
here is that as Clarington is a relatively high growth municipality, new roads are being added on at the
very good condition rating and this somewhat masks the overall condition rating. A goal to increase the
percentage of roads in good condition or better to 65%seems reasonable.
4.4 Bridges Network LOS
The municipality's bridge inventory consists of 94 bridges that are equal to or greater than three metres.
The main service that our bridges provide is similar to our roads section. The main service provided by
our bridges is access to and from residential, commercial, industrial properties, as well as access to
other community locations for people, goods, and services. Our bridges receive a detailed visual
inspection on a bi-annual basis, performed by a licensed engineer from AECOM. Any minor repairs or
maintenance are funded by the operating budget. Any major maintenance items (example/damaged
railings or expansion joints, cracked concrete, etc)are funded out of the yearly budget amount for
structure rehabilitation. AECOM provides a detailed listing of our bridges,as well as a Bridge Condition
Index (BCI) which has been transferred into our WorkTech database. This index is a weighted calculation
of the total condition of each bridge in our inventory,taking in to consideration physical condition,
value, performance deficiencies, improvement costs,traffic, etc. The BCI provides a rating between 0
(lowest possible score)to 100 (highest possible score)for an overall condition rating of each bridge,
which is used to provide a current condition of the bridges.
Bridge Condition Index for Clarington
#of Average Condition
Bridge Class Bridges BCI BCI Range Class
Cast In Place 77 73.66 100.00-39.32 Fair
Precast Concrete 10 79.83 95.87-58.37 Fair
Timber/Wood 2 89.53 92.28-86.79 Good
Steel 3 49.58 55.31 -44.01 Poor
Multi-Span 2 81.01 85.80-76.22 Good
Page 30
Bridges
Performance Measure 2012 2011 2010 2009
Operating Cost for bridges and culverts per square
$12.74 $8.04 $4.82 $8.16
metre of service area
Total Cost for bridges and culverts per square metre
$46.17 $39.74 $38.40
of service area
of Bridges/culverts with Good to Very Good
75% 75% 79% 79%
Condition rating
The municipality's average operating cost for bridges and culverts have increase substantially in the past
two years. The increase is partially due in part to some major rehabilitation that was completed to
some of the larger bridges within the municipality (Example- Bowmanville Creek Bridge). The increase
would also be caused by some other factors that will continue to cause the annual operating cost to
increase in future years as well; such as, maintaining the current bridge condition rating with our aging
bridges, rehabilitations, and replacements. If funding is maintained at the current level without any
increase, eventually the bridges will begin to deteriorate and the condition ratings would decline.
Another cause for additional funding is the constant increasing constructions costs of infrastructure
work to be completed.
The municipality has continued to maintain a reasonable condition rating of bridges. There was a small
decline from 2010 to 2011, due in most part to the decrease of operating costs in 2010, which was
lowered due to the economic downturn in recent years. If the municipality plans to continue or improve
the current state of bridge conditions, they will have to be prepared for increases in costs.
Page 31
5 .0 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.1 Objective
The main objective of a proper asset management strategy is to provide a plan of action to maintain
desired levels of service, minimize the associated risks with implementing services, while providing the
best cost effective measures.
In order to assist in the implementation of an asset management plan, the current processes in place for
maintaining, repairing and rehabilitating infrastructure provide a strong base for the asset management
strategy. This section of the Asset Management Plan will provide the measures and practices that are
currently in place and those that will be used in the future to continually maintain and improve our
current asset conditions, provide accurate asset valuations, extend the assets useful life, and maintain
levels of service.
5.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions
The Municipality of Clarington has completed the procurement process for selecting new asset
management software (Citywide)which will be implemented within the next 3 months. Citywide
software will help our municipality to develop a set of direct and indirect infrastructure actions and life-
cycle interventions based on best practices within the industry. This will be implemented with a cross
departmental team and extended to all municipal assets.
Clarington's engineering department will have a completed 'Transportation Master Plan' by early 2014.
The purpose of this plan is to develop policies and strategies for the transportation network which
includes the entire road and bridges network up to the year 2031.
Our goal is to link the asset management plan to both the strategic plan and the official plan. We plan
on utilizing departmental master plans and land acquisition studies as well as incorporating new growth
related assets through our Development Charges Background Study. We will continue with all our
condition rating assessments and incorporate the results into our new asset management software. We
will also be looking to integrate decisions generated through our elaborate pavement management
software solution.
5.3 Life-cycle Costing Review
The municipality of Clarington assumes that an asset will be replaced at the end of its useful life. Based
on the age and expected useful life,the graph below illustrates the cost of roads and bridges that will be
due for replacement. It is expected that$7.9 million worth of roads and bridges should be replaced in
Page 32
2014 and then almost double to $14.2 million by 2017. It is important to note that implementation of
more robust rehabilitation and preventative maintenance strategies will serve to ensure that assets are
able to be used to the end of their estimated useful life. As referenced several times throughout the
AMP,the use of useful life only has some limitations so this will be revised and broadened to
incorporate other decision factors such as detailed condition ratings and road classification in the next
version of our AMP.
10 year Life-Cycle Replacement of roads &
Bridges
$2s,000,000 - -
$20,000,000 -
$15,000,000 -
$10,000,000
s5,000,a00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
■Roads ■Bridges
5.4 Inspection and Maintenance Strategy
Roads
The municipality of Clarington's engineering and operations departments have a preventative
maintenance program in place in order to maintain the current level of service and life expectancy of
our roads networks. A crack sealing program has been adopted in order to maintain roadways through
their useful life expectancy. This process is beneficial because it protects the road from moisture.from
entering into the cracks and limits the deterioration of the pavement. The municipality completes
approximately 20 to 30 kilometres of road crack sealing annually. As part of this maintenance program,
newly formed roads are regularly sealed after seven years of use,where older roadways that have been
rehabilitated are inspected and crack sealed every three years.
Other processes that are part of a proactive approach to maintaining roadways that the municipality
uses are ditching and shouldering. Both of these practices have not been performed on all of
Clarington's roads, but have been completed on a large percentage of them and this provides better
drainage for the roadway,therefore, limits the water that can pool and freeze on the road. Clarington,
through its annual operating budget allocates$1.8 million for its road maintenance program that
includes ditch/shoulder maintenance, pavement resurfacing, pavement patching, surface treatment,
gravel patching and resurfacing, dragging and grading of rural roads.
The municipality of Clarington performs road inspections of our entire road network on a bi-annual basis
Page 33
to calculate the `Pavement Condition Index' rating or PCI. The PCI is a numerical indicator(1 to 100)that
rates the surface condition of the pavement. The PC] provides a measure of the present condition of the
pavement based on the distress observed on the surface of the pavement, which also indicates
structural integrity and surface operational condition. It provides an objective and rational basis for
determining maintenance and repair needs and priorities. Continuous monitoring of the PCI is used to
establish the rate of pavement deterioration, which permits early identification of major rehabilitation
needs. The PCI provides feedback on pavement performance for validation or improvement of current
pavement design and maintenance procedures.
Condition Activities Required BCI Rating
Excellent Inspections and monitoring 90- 100
Good Minor Maintenance—sweeping, roadside 80-89
maintenance
Major Maintenance—crack sealing, repairing pot
Fair holes, grinding out roadway rutting, small 61 -79
patching
Poor Rehabilitation -asphalt overlays, mill and paves 31-60
Critical Full road reconstruction 0-30
The above chart provides the condition category of a road segment with regards to the Pavement
Condition Index and the approximate activities that will be undertaken in the current condition state.
Throughout the life of each road segment,these activities are to be completed in order to maintain or
extend the current useful life of the road.
Bridges
All of Clarington's bridges are inspected by AECOM every other year. After completing the inspection,
AECOM provides a summary report to the municipality which contains details pertaining to bridges that
require regular maintenance (cracked concrete, bent railings, etc), and those that require rehabilitation
(structure elements, deck replacement) and bridges that require full replacement. In addition to the
summary report, AECOM provides a detailed report that states any bridges that require any future
Engineering investigations; such as, deck surveys. Clarington,through its annual budget allocates
$22,500 towards bridge maintenance.
In order to assist in asset management of our bridge inventory,AECOM provides a 10 year structures
forecast. This forecast provides structure repairs, rehabilitations, and replacements that will be
required to be completed within the next 10 year period. The forecast specifies the year when the work
will be required, provides an estimated cost for the required work on each structure, as well as a yearly
total cost for all structures within the given year. This 10 year requirement list provides assistance for
the municipality from a budgeting perspective. Providing the repairs and rehabilitations required will
Page 34
allow the finance staff to ensure that funding is available for the fiscal period when the work is due to be
completed for each bridge. Since this work dictates when costs will be required,this allows the
municipality to budget for these costs over multiple years, in turn providing additional flexibility on the
annual budget.
The inclusion of our Bridge Condition Index(BCI) into the asset management plan provides a more
realistic current overall condition rating of each bridge. Engineering compiles several weighted factors
(Superstructure, wearing surface, expansion joints, deck, substructure, and railings) in the completion of
the BCI calculation. The BCI calculation provides a value for each bridge between one (1) and one
hundred (100)that is determining the overall current condition of the bridge. The higher BCI rating
represents the bridge is in better condition, the lower BCI ratings determines the bridge is evident to
require rehabilitation within the near future.
Condition Activities Required BCI Rating
Maintenance (Sweeping and Winter
Excellent 90- 100
Maintenance)
Good Maintenance (Sweeping and Winter 80-89
Maintenance, slight wearing visible)
Major Maintenance (Cracked concrete, damaged
Fair 61 -79
expansion joints)
Poor Rehabilitation (Deck replacement, Structural 31-60
elements reinforcements)
Critical Full reconstruction of Bridge 0-30
The above chart provides the condition category of a bridge with regards to the Bridge Condition Index
and the approximate activities that will be undertaken in the current condition state. Throughout the
life of each bridge,these activities are completed in order to maintain or extend the current useful life
of the bridge.
5.5 Future Growth
In order to prepare for future growth requirements,the municipality of Clarington will consult our
'Official Plan' and 'Development Charges Background Study'. We have also undertaken a number of
Master Plans (Transportation and Fire as two very recent examples), Financial Impact Analysis of New
Growth, and a number of discussion papers (Countryside Discussion Paper, Natural Heritage System
Discussion Paper, Parks Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper, Intensification Discussion Paper and
Economic Base and Employment Lands Discussion Paper)that will provide a significant amount of
research upon which future growth implications will be based. One of the key aspects of the Official Plan
is providing the Municipality of Clarington with a clear vision of how and where to accommodate future
Page 35
growth. In doing so, the Municipality's Official Plan Review will provide a "local approach"to reaching
the objectives of the Provincial and Regional Growth Plans. Clarington's current growth framework will
be reviewed and updated to meet the requirements of both the Provincial Growth Plan and the Growing
Durham Study using best practices of plan preparation, implementation and monitoring. Beginning with
a design emphasis,the goal is not only to create great urban places, but also to improve how the land
use planning is linked to infrastructure and fiscal planning. The Development Charges Background Study
provides information regarding new growth related capital projects in order to accommodate growth.
The municipality will incorporate these plans of the expected demand changes of our road and bridges
inventories into subsequent versions of our AMP. The Development Charges Background Study which
will be undertaken in late 2014 will provide the rationale for the demand change, present the estimated
expansion requirements that would be necessary to meet the increased demand for each project, and
produce reasoning of how undertaking this option would manage the obstacle. This report will also
provide the total effect that the required costs associated with the expansion would have on the current
and long term budget plans in accordance with the Development Charges Act. This will allow the ability
to prepare for the future growth costs and fund the expansion over multiple budget years,therefore,
not restricting funding for other required items. Incorporating the new assets into the AMP will pick up
future asset replacement requirements.
Page 36
6.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6.1 Objective
The objective of a financial strategy in the Asset Management Plan is to support the municipality's
current financial planning and budgeting processes. The financial strategy will dictate the current
funding resources utilized and the required funding to sustain the current capital asset inventories,
achieve the desired level of service, and the projected growth. This will give Council and staff the ability
to make more informed budget and service level decisions into the future.
There are various capital resources used by the municipality in regards to funding the roads and bridges
asset inventories:
• Tax Levies
• Reserves
• Reserve Funds
• Development Charges
• External Financing(Ontario Power Generation &Canadian Pacific Rail funding and developer
contributions)
• Coordination with upper tier with responsibilities for water and sewer works
• Debenture debt
The municipality of Clarington's roads network relies on all the above resources for funding the current
infrastructure requirements. While the smaller bridges inventory utilizes only the tax levy for funding,
specialized bridge rehabilitation funding was provided by Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure
Fund—Intake 1 (COMRIF)within the previous three years to increase the current service level of
multiple bridges in our inventory.
In accordance with the provincial requirements,the asset management plan financial strategy is
required to have an in-depth process for managing a budget shortfall. In the case of a shortfall,the
province can decide to review the municipality's financial strategy and confirm that the shortfall is
justifiable. In the province's review,they will analyze service levels to ensure the municipality has
considered decreasing services levels where applicable to reduce financial restrictions. The province will
also review that all possible asset management and financial strategies have been considered for
funding,for example, is the use of debt a viable option and what would the impact be if debt was used
for funding?
Page 37
6.2 Three Year Historical Infrastructure Investment
The level of investment is important to maintain a specific and expected level of service and to
ensure that optimum life expectancies of the assets are being achieved.Premature deterioration
often results in unplanned repair costs that are typically much higher than planned maintenance
costs and deferred maintenance can lead to shortened useful life. We have included the current
year's budget for comparison.
Repair& Rehabilitation
Maintenance and
Costs Non- Replacement Annual
Asset Replacement (Operating Infrastructure Costs Total Investment
Class Value$ Exp) Solutions Costs (Capital Exp) Investment$ Level%
2010 Actual
Roads 430,798,704 1,596,520 123,090 11,387,537 13,049,975 3.04%
Bridges 68,324,203 16,315 16,602 404,150 437,067 0.64%
Total $499,122,907 $1,612,835 $82,519 $11,791,687 $13,487,042 2.71%
2011 Actual
Roads 452,765,201 1,654,383 38,249 8,492,422 10,174,267 2.2S%
Bridges 68,981,853 6,019 29,823 2,126,067 2,161,909 3.13%
Total $521,747,054 $1,660,402 $57,285 $10,618,489 $12,336,175 2.37%
2012 Actual
Roads 462,692,545 1,718,695 72,962 5,671,408 7,463,065 1.61%
Bridges 69,876,321 14,815 17,698 2,274,293 2,306,806 3.30%
Total $532,568,866 $1,733,510 $90,661 $7,945,701 $9,769,871 1.83%
2013 Budget
Roads 475,439,890 1,800,909 20,000 5,445,512 7,266,421 1.53%
Bridges 71,747,081 22,500 25,000 8,920,000 8,967,500 12.5%
Total $547,186,971 $1,823,409 $45,000 $14,365,512 $16,233,921 2.97%
Page 38
6.3 Financial Funding Plan
Roads
In the following charts,the annual replacement costs are based on the asset's useful life. In future
asset management plans,the priority,road class,condition and risk will be considered for the asset
and the most suitable one will be chosen.
Option #1 - 100% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 10 years
Annual 100%of Grant- Annual
Optio Replacemen Infras. Reserve Reserve Federal Property Total Surplus/
n#1 t Costs Deficit Total Costs Funds s Gas Tax Taxation Tax Levy Funding (Deficit)
2014
4,213,519 6,013,459 10,226,978 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 945,300 4,873,167 (5,353,811)
2015
3,303,787 6,013,459 9,317,246 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 2,119,550 6,047,417 (3,269,829)
2016
2,932,518 6,013,459 8,945,977 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 3,293,800 7,221,667 (1,724,310)
2017
14,230,846 6,013,459 20,244,305 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 4,468,050 8,395,917 (11,848,388)
2018
10,235,241 6,013,459 16,248,700 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 5,642,300 9,570,167 (6,678,533)
2019
16,310,803 6,013,459 22,324,262 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 6,816,550 10,744,417 (11,579,845)
2020
3,481,519 6,013,459 9,494,978 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 7,990,800 11,918,667 2,423,689
2021
6,180,662 6,013,459 12,194,121 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 9,165,050 13,092,917 898,796
2022
5,897,017 6,013,459 11,910,476 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 10,339,300 14,267,167 2,356,691
2023
12,256,638 6,013,459 18,270,097 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 11,513,550 15,441,417 (2,828,680)
139,177,140 101,572,917 $(37,604,223)
The above chart for 0ption#1 illustrates a financial funding plan for Roads over the next 10 years for 100
percent of our infrastructure deficit of$60.1 million spread evenly over those 10 years. Included in the
Reserve Fund column are contributions from the rate stabilization reserve fund of$1 million, $100,000
from the Municipal Capital Works, $3000 from Roads Capital and $31,867 from Roads Contributions.
The Pits and Quarries reserve is contributing$300,000. A major portion of the annual Federal Gas Tax
grant is included in the financial plan along with $500,000 from supplementary property taxation
revenue pertaining to the Energy from Waste Facility that has not yet been incorporated into our tax
base. For the tax levy contribution, a 2.75%annual increase is included. The tax levy contribution for
2014 is based on a 5 year historical average. At the 10"year (2023),there will be a deficit of$37.6
million that clearly shows the financial funding cannot support 100 percent of the infrastructure deficit
within 10 years.
Page 39
Option #2 - 50% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years
Annual 50%of Annual
Option Replacement Infras. Reserve Grant-Federal Property Tax Surplus/
#2 Costs Deficit Total Costs Funds Reserves Gas Tax Taxation Levy Total Funding (Deficit)
(1,344,838)
2014 4,213,519 2,004,486 6,218,005 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 945,300 4,873,167
739,144
2015 3,303,787 2,004,486 5,308,273 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 2,119,550 6,047,417
2,284,663
2016 2,932,518 2,004,486 4,937,004 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 3,293,800 7,221,667
(7,839,415)
2017 14,230,846 2,004,486 16,235,332 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 4,468,050 8,395,917
(2,669,560)
2018 10,235,241 2,004,486 12,239,727 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 5,642,300 9,570,167
(7,570,872)
2019 16,310,803 2,004,486 18,315,289 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 6,816,550 10,744,417
6,432,662
2020 3,481,519 2,004,486 5,486,005 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 7,990,800 11,918,667
4,907,769
2021 6,180,662 2,004,486 8,185,148 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 9,165,050 13,092,917
6,365,664
2022 5,897,017 2,004,486 7,901,503 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 10,339,300 14,267,167
1,180,293
2023 12,256,638 2,004,486 14,261,124 1,134,867 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 11,513,550 15,441,417
$ 99,087,410 $101,572,917 $ 2,485,510
The above chart for Option#2 illustrates a financial funding plan for Roads over the next 10 years for 50
percent of our infrastructure deficit of$60.1 million spread evenly over 15 years. Included in the
Reserve Fund column are contributions from the rate stabilization of$1 million, $100,000 from the
Municipal Capital Works, $3000 from Roads Capital and $31,867 from Roads Contributions. The Pits and
Quarries reserve is contributing$300,000. A major portion of the annual Federal Gas Tax grant is
included in the financial plan along with $500,000 from the projected property taxation supplementary
revenue to come from the Energy from Waste facility. For the tax levy contribution, a 2.75%annual
increase is included. The tax levy contribution for 2014 is based on a 5 year historical average. At the
10th year(2023),there will be a surplus of$2.5 million which will be used up in the next
5 years.
Option #3 — 25% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years
The chart below for Option#3 illustrates a financial funding plan for Roads over the next 10 years for 25
percent of our infrastructure deficit of$60.1 million evenly over 15 years which is similar to Option#2
except for the tax levy. The tax levy contribution for 2014 is based on a 5 year historical average.
Spreading the infrastructure deficit over the 15 years at a rate of 25%allows the tax levy increase
percentage to be lowered by 50%.At the 2023 year,there is a surplus of$2.9 million which will be used
up in the next 5 year period.
Page 40
Annual Grant-
Option Replacement 25%oflnfrast. Reserve Federal Gas Property Annual Surplus/
#3 Costs Deficit Total Costs Funds Reserves Tax Taxation Tax Levy Total Funding (Deficit)
2014 4,213,519 1,002,243 5,215,762 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 945,300 4,873,167 342,595
1,134,867
2015 3,303,787 1,002,243 4,306,030 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 1,906,050 5,833,917 1,527,887
1,134,867
2016 2,932,518 1,002,243 3,934,761 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 2,866,800 6,794,667 2,859,906
1,134,867
2017 14,230,846 1,002,243 15,233,089 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 3,827,550 7,755,417 7,477,672
1,134,867
2018 10,235,241 1,002,243 11,237,484 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 4,788,300 8,716,167 2,521,317
1,134,867
2019 16,310,803 1,002,243 17,313,046 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 5,749,050 9,676,917 7,636,129
1,134,867
2020 3,481,519 1,002,243 4,483,762 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 6,709,800 10,637,667 6,153,905
1,134,867
2021 6,180,662 1,002,243 7,182,905 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 7,670,550 11,598,417 4,415,512
1,134,867
2022 5,897,017 1,002,243 6,899,260 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 8,631,300 12,559,167 5,659,907
1,134,867
2023 12,256,638 1,002,243 13,258,881 300,000 1,993,000 500,000 9,592,050 13,519,917 261,036
1,134,867
$ 89,064,980 $ 91,965,417 $ 2,900,437
Bridges
Option#1 - 100% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 10 years
Annual 100%of Infrast. Annual Surplus/
Replacement Costs Deficit Total Costs Tax Levy Total Funding (Deficit)
2014 3,701,078 1,817,018 5,518,096 364,200 364,200 (5,153,896.00)
2015 492,352 1,817,018 2,309,370 791,200 791,200 (1,518,170.00)
2016 - 1,817,018 1,817,018 1,218,200 1,218,200 (598,818.00)
2017 - 1,817,018 1,817,018 1,645,200 1,645,200 (171,818.00)
2018 3,788,802 1,817,018 5,605,820 2,072,200 2,072,200 (3,533,620.00)
2019 4,146,647 1,817,018 5,963,665 2,499,200 2,499,200 (3,464,465.00)
2020 14,642,256 1,817,018 16,459,274 2,926,200 2,926,200 (13,533,074.00)
2021 - 1,817,018 1,817,018 3,353,200 3,353,200 1,536,182.00
2022 820,041 1,817,018 2,637,059 3,780,200 3,780,200 1,143,141.00
2023 - 1,817,018 1,817,018 4,207,200 4,207,200 2,390,182.00
$ 45,761,356 $ 22,857,000 $ (22,904,356)
The above chart illustrates a financial funding plan for Bridges over the next 10 years with 100 percent
of infrastructure deficit spread evenly over the next 10 years. There are no contributions from the
reserve funds and reserves as these funds are used to their maximum potential for roads funding. The
tax levy is contributing 1%annually after the 2014 year and is based on a 5 year historical average. At
the 10 year mark(2023)there is a $22.9 million deficit that the tax levy cannot support.
Page 41
Option #2 - 50% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years
Annual Replacement 100%of Infrast. Annual Surplus/
Total Costs Tax Levy Total Funding
Costs Deficit (Deficit)
2014 3,701,078 605,673 4,306,751 364,200 364,200 (3,942,551)
2015 492,352 605,673 1,098,025 791,200 791,200 (306,825)
2016 - 605,673 605,673 1,218,200 1,218,200 612,527
2017 - 605,673 605,673 1,645,200 1,645,200 1,039,527
2018 3,788,802 605,673 4,394,475 2,072,200 2,072,200 (2,322,275)
2019 4,146,647 605,673 4,752,320 2,499,200 2,499,200 (2,253,120)
2020 14,642,256 605,673 15,247,929 2,926,200 2,926,200 (12,321,729)
2021 - 605,673 605,673 3,353,200 3,353,200 2,747,527
2022 820,041 605,673 1,425,714 3,780,200 3,780,200 2,354,486
2023 - 605,673 605,673 4,207,200 4,207,200 3,601,527
$ 33,647,906 $22,857,000 $ (10,790,906)
The above chart illustrates a financial funding plan for Bridges over the next 10 years with 50 percent of
infrastructure deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years. There are no contributions from the reserve
funds and reserves as these funds are used to their maximum potential for roads funding. The tax levy is
contributing 1%annually after the 2014 year and is based on a 5 year historical average. At the 10 year
mark(2023)there is a $10.8 million deficit that will have to be defined in the next 5 years funding plan.
Option#3 - 100% of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years
Annual Replacement 100%of Infrast. Total Costs Tax Levy Total Funding Annual Surplus/
Costs Deficit (Deficit)
(4,548,223)
2014 3,701,078 1,211,345 4,912,423 364,200 364,200
(912,497)
2015 492,352 1,211,345 1,703,697 791,200 791,200
6,855
2016 - 1,211,345 1,211,345 1,218,200 1,218,200
433,855
2017 - 1,211,345 1,211,345 1,645,200 1,645,200
(2,927,947)
2018 3,788,802 1,211,345 5,000,147 2,072,200 2,072,200
(2,858,792)
2019 4,146,647 1,211,345 5,357,992 2,499,200 2,499,200
(12,927,401)
2020 14,642,256 1,211,345 15,853,601 2,926,200 2,926,200
2,141,855
2021 - 1,211,345 1,211,345 3,353,200 3,353,200
1,748,814
2022 820,041 1,211,345 2,031,386 3,780,200 3,780,200
2,995,855
2023 - 1,211,345 1,211,345 4,207,200 4,207,200
$39,704,626 $22,857,000 $(16,847,626)
The above chart illustrates a financial funding plan for Bridges over the next 10 years with 100 percent
Page 42
of infrastructure deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years. There are no contributions from the
reserve funds and reserves as these funds are used to their maximum potential for roads funding. The
tax levy is contributing 1%annually after the 2014 year and is based on a 5 year historical average. At
the 10 year mark(2023)there is a $16.8 million deficit that will have to be defined in the next 5 years
funding plan.
Recommendations
Due to the substantial deficit in annual infrastructure, it is critical that a plan to increase road and bridge
infrastructure funding be developed. The implementation of capital asset accounting software
(CityWide) in the near future will provide extensive assistance in the process of determining the
appropriate plan for handling the current infrastructure deficit. This software will provide multiple
options that could be undertaken in order to meet the annual funding requirements. There are various
processes that can be implemented to decrease the annual deficit; some of the options will not require
specific increases in financial contributions. Again, our recommendations are based on life span of the
asset in being the determining factor for replacement. This will be broadened in future AMP's as
detailed in some of the above sections as this is currently a severely limiting factor for this version of the
Municipality's AMP.
An increase in tax levies is an expected option to increase funding for roads and bridges. But,this option
alone would not commonly be a wise option. Due to the substantial value of the deficit,the tax rate
increase required to fund the full annual deficit would be excessive for the community members to
endure. This option would be best suited to fund a portion of the deficit, aside from the entire deficit.
Providing additional funding from Reserve Funds to decrease the annual deficit is a viable option
provided for here. There would need to be a review of current retained balances in the Reserve Funds,
to determine if the municipality has the capacity to decrease the balance maintained in the Reserve
Funds and provide additional funding for the annual deficit to further utilize this option.
A short term solution would be debt financing or debentures. In order to gradually implement other
funding sources, debt financing can fund the annual capital deficit currently. This option will not provide
a permanent solution, but will provide current resources until a permanent funding plan is in place.
The final solution option that can be exercised in order to decrease the annual infrastructure deficit is to
review the current levels of service provided by the municipality. Decreasing the current level of service
provided to the public would allow costs required for infrastructure to decrease,therefore, decreasing
the deficit.
For our current purposes, it is recommended that for the Roads component Option#2—50%of
Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years be utilized in our AMP. At the 10th year
(2023), there will be a surplus of$2.5 million.With respect to Bridges, it is recommended that Option#2
—50%of Infrastructure Deficit spread evenly over the next 15 years be selected. At the 10 year mark
(2023)there is a $10.8 million deficit.This is based on a total 3.75%tax levy increase annually and a net
Page 43
effect of an $8.3 million deficit. This deficit can be addressed by selective utilization of debt facilities for
several of the more significant projects.This will be refined in our next iteration of the Municipality's
AMP that will be based on factors other than the life span of the asset in being the determining factor
for replacement.
Page 44