HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 14-21Report to Council
Report Number: FIN 14-21
Date: September 27, 2021
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2020 Asset Management Plan
- File: F-1200-001
Recommendation:
1.That the 2020 Asset Management Plan, set out in Attachment 1 to this report, be
received for information;
2.That Council endorse, in principle, the use of the 2020 Asset Management Plan for
financial planning purposes as it relates to the development of the Five Year financial
plan; and
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The City is required to have an Asset Management Plan as per
Ontario Regulation 588/17. Asset management is defined as: the coordinated activity of an
organization to realize value from assets. It considers all asset types, and includes all activities
involved in the asset’s life cycle from planning and acquisition/creation; to operational and
maintenance activities, rehabilitation, and renewal; to replacement or disposal and any
remaining liabilities. Asset management is comprehensive and normally involves balancing
costs, risks, opportunities and performance benefits to achieve the total lowest lifecycle cost
for each asset.
Financial Implications: While there are no immediate identifiable financial implications
associated with this report and the attached 2020 Asset Management Plan, in the long-term it
will lead to changes in the annual budgeting process. This is a major change for all Ontario
municipalities.
Discussion: Asset management builds on the Public Sector Account Board (PSAB)
standard PS 3150, which required municipal government to account and report on their
Tangible Capital Assets (TCA), effective with fiscal years starting January 1, 2009. The City,
through its annual financial statements, reports on its TCA through Note 10.
Following the development of FIN 050 Accounting for Tangible Assets Policy, the City
developed FIN 080 Strategic Asset Management Policy, the first requirement of the Ontario
Regulation 588/17. The attached 2020 Asset Management Plan is the next requirement of the
FIN 14-21 September 27, 2021
Subject: 2020 Asset Management Plan Page 2
regulation in the progression of asset management. With Council endorsing the Asset
Management Plan, the City has met the obligations for July 1, 2022 under this Regulation and
the document will be posted on the City’s website.
Attachments:
1. 2020 Asset Management Plan
2. Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, Ontario Regulation 588/17
Prepared By:
Original Signed By:
Julie Robertson
Senior Financial Analyst
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
i
ASSET MANAGEMENT
PLAN
City of Pickering
2020
Asset Inventory Data is current as of December 31st, 2020
Annual Capital Funding includes the 2021 Capital Budget
Reserve Balances are current as of December 31st, 2020
AAttachment #1 to Report #FIN 14-21h
ii
Empowering your organization through advanced
asset management, budgeting & GIS solutions
i
Key Statistics
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$1.36 billion
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$498.3 million
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$498.3 million
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$498.3 million
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$498.3 million
Replacement cost of
asset portfolio
$498.3 million
Replacement cost of
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$42,842
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$26,500 (2016)
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$26,500 (2016)
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$26,500 (2016)
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$26,500 (2016)
Replacement cost of
infrastructure per household
$26,500 (2016)
Replacement cost of
Percentage of assets in
satisfactory or better condition
80.42%
Percentage of assets in
satisfactory or better condition
86.5%
Percentage of assets in
satisfactory or better condition
86.5%
Percentage of assets in
satisfactory or better condition
86.5%
Percentage of assets in
satisfactory or better condition
86.5%
Percentage of assets with
assessed condition data
46.49%
Percentage of assets with
assessed condition data
52.8%
Percentage of assets with
assessed condition data
52.8%
Percentage of assets with
assessed condition data
52.8%
Percentage of assets with
assessed condition data
52.8%
Annual capital
infrastructure deficit
$24.5 million
Annual capital
infrastructure deficit
$5 million
Annual capital
infrastructure deficit
$5 million
Annual capital
infrastructure deficit
Recommended timeframe
for eliminating annual
infrastructure deficit
15 Years
Recommended timeframe
for eliminating annual
infrastructure deficit
10-15 Years
Recommended timeframe
for eliminating annual
infrastructure deficit
10-15 Years
Target reinvestment
rate
2.96%
Target reinvestment
rate
2.13%
Actual reinvestment
rate
1.16%
Actual reinvestment
rate
1.12%
i
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction & Context 5
1.1 An Overview of Asset Management 6
1.2 Key Concepts in Asset Management 8
1.3 Ontario Regulation 588/17 11
2 Scope and Methodology 13
2.1 Asset categories included in this AMP 14
2.2 Deriving Replacement Costs 14
2.3 Estimated Useful Life and Projected Service Life Remaining 15
2.4 Reinvestment Rate 15
2.5 Deriving Asset Condition 16
3 Portfolio Overview 17
3.1 Total Replacement Cost of Asset Portfolio 18
3.2 Target vs. Actual Reinvestment Rate 18
3.3 Condition of Asset Portfolio 19
3.4 Service Life Remaining 24
3.5 Forecasted Capital Requirements 24
4 Analysis of Tax-funded Assets 26
4.1 Road Corridor 27
4.2 Stormwater System 43
4.3 Bridges & Culverts 58
4.4 Buildings & Facilities 68
4.5 Parks 79
4.6 Other Infrastructure 91
5 Impacts of Growth 98
5.1 Description of Growth Assumptions 99
5.2 Impact of Growth on Lifecycle Activities 106
6 Financial Strategy 108
6.1 Financial Strategy Overview 109
6.2 Funding Objective 112
6.3 Financial Profile: Tax Funded Assets 113
6.4 Use of Debt 117
6.5 Use of Reserves 120
7 Appendices 122
Appendix A: 10-Year Capital Requirements 123
Appendix B: Level of Service Maps 128
Appendix C: Risk Rating Criteria 141
Appendix D: Condition Assessment Guidelines 143
Appendix E: Facility Condition Index 145
1
Executive Summary
Municipal infrastructure supports the economic, social, and environmental health and
growth of a community through the delivery of critical services. The goal of asset
management is to deliver an adequate level of service in the most cost-effective
manner. This involves the development and implementation of asset management
strategies and long-term financial planning.
Scope
This asset management plan (AMP) identifies the current practices and strategies that
are in place to manage public infrastructure and makes recommendations where they
can be further refined. Through the implementation of sound asset management
strategies, the City can ensure that public infrastructure is managed to support the
sustainable delivery of municipal services.
This AMP includes the following asset categories:
Asset Categories
Road Corridor
Stormwater System
Bridges & Culverts
Buildings & Facilities
Parks
Other infrastructure
2
Purpose
This AMP leverages the collaborative effort of all departments. Providing sustainable
infrastructure service delivery requires a holistic approach, involving finance,
engineering, and operations etc. Therefore, this AMP should be used as a guiding
document for all departments.
Findings
The overall replacement cost of the asset categories included in this AMP totals $1.36
billion. 80.42% % of all assets analysed in this AMP are in satisfactory or better
condition and assessed condition data was available for 46.49% of assets. For the
remaining 53.51% of assets, assessed condition data was unavailable, and asset age
was used to approximate condition – a data gap that persists in most municipalities.
Generally, age misstates the true condition of assets, making assessments essential to
accurate asset management planning, and a recurring recommendation in this AMP.
The development of a long-term, sustainable financial plan requires an analysis of
whole lifecycle costs. This AMP uses a combination of proactive lifecycle strategies
(roads and stormwater wet ponds) and replacement only strategies (all other assets) to
determine the lowest cost option to maintain the current level of service.
To meet capital replacement and rehabilitation needs for existing infrastructure, prevent
infrastructure backlogs, and achieve long-term sustainability, the City’s average annual
capital requirement totals $40.27 million. Based on a historical analysis of sustainable
capital funding sources, the City is committing approximately $15.75 million towards
capital projects or reserves per year. As a result, there is currently an annual funding
gap of $24.51 million.
It is important to note that this AMP represents a snapshot in time and is based on the
best available processes, data, and information at the City. Strategic asset management
With the development of this AMP the municipality has
achieved compliance with O. Reg. 588/17 to the extent of the
requirements that must be completed by July 1, 202 2. There
are additional requirements concerning current levels of
service for all other capital assets and also proposed levels of
service and growth that must be met by July 1, 202 4 and
2025.
3
planning is an ongoing and dynamic process that requires continuous improvement and
dedicated resources.
Recommendations
A financial strategy was developed to address the annual capital funding gap. The
following graphics shows annual tax/rate change required to eliminate the City’s
infrastructure deficit based on a 15-year plan for tax-funded assets:
Recommendations to guide continuous refinement of the City’s asset management
program include the following:
• Review data to update and maintain a complete and accurate dataset
• Develop a condition assessment strategy with a regularly scheduled update and
review process
• Extension of the implementation of risk-based decision-making as part of asset
management planning and budgeting to all departments.
• Extension of the continuous review, development, and implementation of optimal
lifecycle management strategies for all asset categories across departments.
• Continue to develop and regularly review short- and long-term plans to meet
capital requirements across departments.
Tax-Funded
ASSETS
Average Annual Tax
Change
1.8%
Annual Capital
Requirements
per Household $1,298
4
• Measure current levels of service and identify sustainable proposed levels of
service for all asset categories
5
Key Insights
1. Introduction & Context
• The goal of asset management is to minimize the lifecycle costs of delivering
infrastructure services, manage the associated risks, while maximizing the value
tax and ratepayers receive from the asset portfolio
• The City’s asset management policy provides clear direction to staff on their roles
and responsibilities regarding asset management
• An asset management plan is a living document that should be updated regularly
to inform long-term planning
• Ontario Regulation 588/17 outlines several key milestones and requirements for
asset management plans in Ontario between July 1, 2022 and 2025
6
1.1 An Overview of Asset Management
Municipalities are responsible for managing and maintaining a broad portfolio of
infrastructure assets to deliver services to the community. The goal of asset
management is to minimize the lifecycle costs of delivering infrastructure services,
manage the associated risks, while maximizing the value ratepayers receive from the
asset portfolio.
The acquisition or construction of capital assets accounts for only 10-20% of their total
cost of ownership. The remaining 80-90% derives from operations and maintenance.
This AMP focuses its analysis on the capital costs to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace
existing municipal infrastructure assets.
These costs can span decades, requiring planning and foresight to ensure financial
responsibility is spread equitably across generations. An asset management plan is
critical to this planning, and an essential element of a broader asset management
program. The industry-standard approach and sequence to developing a practical asset
management program begins with a Strategic Plan, followed by an Asset Management
Policy and an Asset Management Strategy, concluding with an Asset Management Plan.
This industry standard, defined by the Institute of Asset Management (IAM),
emphasizes the alignment between the corporate strategic plan and various asset
management documents. The strategic plan has a direct, and cascading impact on
asset management planning and reporting.
Build
20%
Operate, Maintain, and Dispose
80%
Total Cost of Ownership
7
1.1.1 Asset Management Policy
An asset management policy represents a statement of the principles guiding the
municipality’s approach to asset management activities. It aligns with the organizational
strategic plan and provides clear direction to municipal staff on their roles and
responsibilities as part of the asset management program.
The City adopted Policy No. FIN 080 “Strategic Asset Management Policy” on June 25,
2018, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 588/17.
The purpose of the policy is to provide a framework for implementing asset
management to enable a strategic approach at all levels of the organization. As outlined
in the policy, the City seeks to leverage the lowest total lifecycle cost of ownership with
regard to the service levels that best meet the needs of the community while being
cognizant of the risk of failure that is acceptable.
1.1.2 Asset Management Strategy
An asset management strategy outlines the translation of organizational objectives into
asset management objectives and provides a strategic overview of the activities
required to meet these objectives. It provides greater detail than the policy on how the
municipality plans to achieve asset management objectives through planned activities
and decision-making criteria.
The City’s Asset Management Policy contains many of the key components of an asset
management strategy and may be expanded on in future revisions or as part of a
separate strategic document.
1.1.3 Asset Management Plan
The asset management plan (AMP) presents the outcomes of the municipality’s asset
management program and identifies the resource requirements needed to achieve a
defined level of service. The AMP typically includes the following content:
• State of Infrastructure
• Asset Management Strategies
• Levels of Service
• Financial Strategies
The AMP is a living document that should be updated regularly as additional asset and
financial data becomes available. This will allow the municipality to re-evaluate the state
8
of infrastructure and identify how the organization’s asset management and financial
strategies are progressing.
1.2 Key Concepts in Asset Management
Effective asset management integrates several key components, including lifecycle
management, risk management, and levels of service. These concepts are applied
throughout this asset management plan and are described below in greater detail.
1.2.1 Lifecycle Management Strategies
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is
affected by a range of factors including an asset’s characteristics, location, utilization,
maintenance history and environment. Asset deterioration has a negative effect on the
ability of an asset to fulfill its intended function, and may be characterized by increased
cost, risk and even service disruption.
To ensure that municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting the needs of
customers, it is important to establish a lifecycle management strategy to proactively
manage asset deterioration. There are several field intervention activities that are
available to extend the life of an asset. These activities can generally fall within the
categories of maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. The following table
provides a description of each type of activity and the general difference in cost.
Lifecycle
Activity Description Example
(Roads) Cost
Maintenance Activities that prevent defects or
deteriorations from occurring Crack Seal $
Rehabilitation/
Renewal
Activities that rectify defects or
deficiencies that are already present
and may be affecting asset
performance
Mill & Re-
surface $$
Replacement/
Reconstruction
Asset end-of-life activities that often
involve the complete replacement of
assets
Full
Reconstruction $$$
Depending on initial lifecycle management strategies, asset performance can be
sustained through a combination of maintenance and rehabilitation, but at some point,
replacement is required. Understanding what effect these activities will have on the
lifecycle of an asset, and their cost, will enable staff to make better recommendations.
9
The City’s approach to lifecycle management is described within each asset category
outlined in this AMP. Developing and implementing a proactive lifecycle strategy will
help staff to determine which activities to perform on an asset and when they should be
performed to maximize useful life at the lowest total cost of ownership.
1.2.2 Risk Management Strategies
Municipalities generally take a ‘worst-first’ approach to infrastructure spending. Rather
than prioritizing assets based on their importance to service delivery, assets in the
worst condition are fixed first, regardless of their criticality. However, not all assets are
created equal. Some are more important than others, and their failure or disrepair
poses more risk to the community than that of others. For example, a road with a high
volume of traffic that provides access to critical services poses a higher risk than a low
volume rural road. These high-value assets should receive funding before others.
By identifying the various impacts of asset failure and the likelihood that it will fail, risk
management strategies can identify critical assets, and determine where maintenance
efforts, and spending, should be focused.
This AMP includes a high-level evaluation of asset risk and criticality. Each asset has
been assigned a probability of failure score and consequence of failure score based on
available asset data. These risk scores can be used to prioritize maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement strategies for critical assets.
1.2.3 Levels of Service (LOS)
A level of service (LOS) is a measure of what the City is providing to the community and
the nature and quality of that service. Within each asset category in this AMP, technical
metrics and qualitative descriptions that measure both technical and community levels
of service have been established and measured as data is available.
These measures include a combination of those that have been outlined in O. Reg.
588/17 in addition to performance measures identified by the City as worth measuring
and evaluating. The City measures the level of service provided at two levels:
Community Levels of Service, and Technical Levels of Service.
Community Levels of Service
Community levels of service are a simple, plain language description or measure of the
service that the community receives. For core asset categories (Road Corridor, Bridges
10
& Culverts, and Stormwater System) the Province, through O. Reg. 588/17, has
provided qualitative descriptions that are required to be included in this AMP.
Technical Levels of Service
Technical levels of service are a measure of key technical attributes of the service being
provided to the community. These include mostly quantitative measures and tend to
reflect the impact of the municipality’s asset management strategies on the physical
condition of assets or the quality/capacity of the services they provide.
For core asset categories (Road Corridor, Bridges & Culverts, and Stormwater System)
the Province, through O. Reg. 588/17, has provided technical metrics that are required
to be included in this AMP.
Current and Proposed Levels of Service
This AMP focuses on measuring the current level of service provided to the community.
Once current levels of service have been measured, the City plans to establish proposed
levels of service over a 10-year period, in accordance with O. Reg. 588/17.
Proposed levels of service should be realistic and achievable within the timeframe
outlined by the City. They should also be determined with consideration of a variety of
community expectations, fiscal capacity, regulatory requirements, corporate goals, and
long-term sustainability. Once proposed levels of service have been established, and
prior to July 2025, the City must identify a lifecycle management and financial strategy
which allows these targets to be achieved.
11
1.3 Ontario Regulation 588/17
As part of the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, the Ontario government
introduced Regulation 588/17 - Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure
(O. Reg 588/17). Along with creating better performing organizations, more liveable
and sustainable communities, the regulation is a key, mandated driver of asset
management planning and reporting. It places substantial emphasis on current and
proposed levels of service and the lifecycle costs incurred in delivering them.
The diagram below outlines key reporting requirements under O. Reg 588/17 and the
associated timelines.
2019
2022
2024
2025
Strategic Asset Management Policy
Asset Management Plan for Core
Assets with the following
components:
1.Current levels of service
2.Inventory analysis
3.Lifecycle activities to sustain
LOS
4.Cost of lifecycle activities
5.Population and employment
forecasts
6.Discussion of growth impacts
Asset Management Policy Update
and an
Asset Management Plan for All
Assets with the following additional
components:
1.Proposed levels of service for
next 10 years
2.Updated inventory analysis
3.Lifecycle management
strategy
4.Financial strategy and
addressing shortfalls
5.Discussion of how growth
assumptions impacted
lifecycle and financial
Asset Management Plan for Core
and Non-Core Assets
12
1.3.1 O. Reg. 588/17 Compliance Review
The following table identifies the requirements outlined in O. Reg 588/17for
municipalities to meet by July 1, 2022, for core assets only. Next to each requirement a
page or section reference is included in addition to any necessary commentary.
Requirement O. Reg.
Section
AMP Section
Reference Status
Summary of assets in each
category S.5(2), 3(i)4.1.1 - 4.6.1 Complete
Replacement cost of assets in
each category S.5(2), 3(ii)4.1.1 - 4.6.1 Complete
Average age of assets in each
category S.5(2), 3(iii)4.1.3 - 4.6.3 Complete
Condition of core assets in each
category S.5(2), 3(iv)4.1.2 – 4.6.2 Complete
Description of municipality’s
approach to assessing the
condition of assets in each
category
S.5(2), 3(v)4.1.2 – 4.6.2 Complete
Current levels of service in each
category S.5(2), 1(i-ii)4.1.6 - 5.6.6 Complete
Current performance measures in
each category S.5(2), 2 4.1.6 - 5.6.6 Complete
Lifecycle activities needed to
maintain current levels of service
for 10 years
S.5(2), 4 4.1.4 - 4.6.4 Complete
Costs of providing lifecycle
activities for 10 years S.5(2), 4 Appendix A Complete
Growth assumptions S.5(2), 5(i-ii)
S.5(2), 6(i-vi)5.1-5.2 Complete
Furthermore, The City of Pickering has also met most of the requirements mentioned
above for its non-core assets as well in this AMP, which makes the City on the right
track for compliance with the O. Reg 588/17 for municipalities to meet by July 1, 2024.
The City still needs to define the current levels of service for its Other Infrastructure
Category of this AMP to meet the full compliance of the 2024 O. Reg 588/17
requirements.
13
Key Insights
2 Scope and Methodology
• This asset management plan includes 6 asset categories that fall under the tax-
funded category
• The source and recency of replacement costs impacts the accuracy and reliability
of asset portfolio valuation
• Accurate and reliable condition data helps to prevent premature and costly
rehabilitation or replacement and ensures that lifecycle activities occur at the
right time to maximize asset value and useful life
14
2.1 Asset categories included in this AMP
This AMP for the City of Pickering is produced in compliance with Ontario Regulation
588/17. The July 2022 deadline under the regulation—the first of three AMP deadlines—
requires analysis of only core assets (roads, bridges & culverts, and stormwater).
However, the City of Pickering has included all assets categories in this AMP, thereby
covering all regulations for the July 2022 and July 2024 deadlines.
The AMP summarizes the state of the infrastructure for the City’s asset portfolio,
establishes current levels of service and the associated technical and customer oriented
key performance indicators (kpis), outlines lifecycle strategies for optimal asset
management and performance, and provides financial strategies to reach sustainability
for the asset categories listed below.
Asset Category Source of Funding
Road Corridor Tax-Funded Assets
Stormwater System Tax-Funded Assets
Bridges & Culverts Tax-Funded Assets
Buildings & Facilities Tax-Funded Assets
Parks Tax-Funded Assets
Other Infrastructure Tax-Funded Assets
2.2 Deriving Replacement Costs
There are a range of methods to determine the replacement cost of an asset, and some
are more accurate and reliable than others. This AMP relies on two methodologies:
User-Defined Cost and Cost/Unit: Based on costs provided by municipal staff which
could include average costs from recent contracts; data from engineering reports and
assessments; software solutions linked to industry-standard costing databases; staff
estimates based on knowledge and experience
Cost Inflation/CPI Tables: Historical cost of the asset is inflated based on Consumer
Price Index or Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index
User-defined costs based on reliable sources are a reasonably accurate and reliable way
to determine asset replacement costs. Cost inflation is typically used in the absence of
reliable replacement cost data. It is a reliable method for recently purchased and/or
constructed assets where the total cost is reflective of the actual costs that the City
incurred. As assets age, and new products and technologies become available, cost
inflation becomes a less reliable method.
15
2.3 Estimated Useful Life and Projected Service
Life Remaining
The estimated useful life (EUL) of an asset is the period over which the City expects the
asset to be available for use and remain in service before requiring replacement or
disposal. The EUL for each asset in this AMP was assigned according to the knowledge
and expertise of municipal staff and supplemented by existing industry standards when
necessary.
By using an asset’s in-service data and its EUL, the City can determine the projected
service life remaining (PSLR) for each asset. Using condition data and the asset’s PSLR,
the City can more accurately forecast when it will require replacement. The PSLR is
calculated as follows:
𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑐 𝐿𝑖𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑐 (𝑃𝑅𝐿𝑅)=𝐼𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑐 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐+𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑐𝑐(𝐶𝑅𝐿)−𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑌𝑐𝑎𝑙
2.4 Reinvestment Rate
As assets age and deteriorate they require additional investment to maintain a state of
good repair. The reinvestment of capital funds, through asset renewal or replacement,
is necessary to sustain an adequate level of service. The reinvestment rate is a
measurement of available or required funding relative to the total replacement cost.
By comparing the actual vs. Target reinvestment rate the City can determine the extent
of any existing funding gap. The reinvestment rate is calculated as follows:
𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐=𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙
𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐=𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑐
𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑙
16
2.5 Deriving Asset Condition
An incomplete or limited understanding of asset condition can mislead long-term
planning and decision-making. Accurate and reliable condition data helps to prevent
premature and costly rehabilitation or replacement and ensures that lifecycle activities
occur at the right time to maximize asset value and useful life.
A condition assessment rating system provides a standardized descriptive framework
that allows comparative benchmarking across the City’s asset portfolio. The table below
outlines an example of the condition rating system used in this AMP to determine asset
condition. This rating system is aligned with the Canadian Core Public Infrastructure
Survey which is used to develop the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card. When
assessed condition data is not available, service life remaining is used to approximate
asset condition. The City has some asset condition ratings that are aligned with the
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card condition rating system. However, for some assets
such as roads and bridges, a different rating criterion that better suit each of these
assets’ deterioration profiles were adopted.
Condition Description Criteria
Projected
Service Life
Remaining
(%)
Very Good Fit for the
future
Well maintained, good condition, new
or recently rehabilitated 80-100
Good Adequate for
now
Acceptable, generally approaching
mid-stage of expected service life 60-80
Satisfactory Requires
attention
Signs of deterioration, some elements
exhibit significant deficiencies 40-60
Below Satisfactory
Increasing
potential of
affecting
service
Approaching end of service life,
condition below standard, large
portion of system exhibits significant
deterioration
20-40
Needs Substantial
Improvement Unfit for
sustained
service
Near or beyond expected service life,
widespread signs of advanced
deterioration, some assets may be
unusable
0-20
The analysis in this AMP is based on assessed condition data only as available. In the
absence of assessed condition data, asset age is used as a proxy to determine asset
condition. Appendix D includes additional information on the role of asset condition data
and provides basic guidelines for the development of a condition assessment program.
17
Key Insights
3 Portfolio Overview
• The total replacement cost of the City’s asset portfolio is $1.36 billion
• The City’s target re-investment rate is 2.96%, and the actual re-investment rate
is 1.16%, contributing to an expanding infrastructure deficit
• 80.42% of all assets are in satisfactory or better condition
• 25.94% of assets are projected to require replacement in the next 10 years
• Average annual capital requirements total $40.27 million per year across all
assets
18
3.1 Total Replacement Cost of Asset Portfolio
The asset categories analysed in this AMP have a total replacement cost of $1.36 billion
based on inventory data from 2020. This total was determined based on a combination
of user-defined costs and historical cost inflation. This estimate reflects replacement of
historical assets with similar, not necessarily identical, assets available for procurement
today.
3.2 Target vs. Actual Reinvestment Rate
The graph below depicts funding gaps or surpluses by comparing target vs actual
reinvestment rate. To meet the long-term replacement needs, the City should be
allocating approximately $40.27 million annually, for a target reinvestment rate of
2.96%. Actual annual spending on infrastructure totals approximately $15.75 million,
for an actual reinvestment rate of 1.16%. It is worth noting that any surplus in budget
for Bridges and Culverts gets transferred to Road Corridor.
19
3.3 Condition of Asset Portfolio
The current condition of existing assets is central to all asset management planning.
Collectively, 80.42% of assets in Pickering are in satisfactory or better condition. This
estimate relies on age-based, field condition data, and staff assessments. Staff
assessments were used whenever possible as they provide a more precise condition
estimate than age-base assessments. Staff leveraged their knowledge and experience
with maintenance related and operational issues to enhance the level of accuracy of
age-based conditions.
This AMP relies on assessed condition data for 46.39% of assets; for the remaining
portfolio, age is used as an approximation of condition. Assessed condition data is
invaluable in asset management planning as it reflects the true condition of the asset
20
and its ability to perform its functions. The table below identifies the source of condition
data used throughout this AMP.
21
Asset
Category Asset Segment Asset Sub-
segment
% of Assets
with Assessed
Condition
Source of
Condition Data
Road
Corridor Roads Arterial 62% Assessed,
38% Age-based
R.J. Burnside &
Associates
Limited - 2016
Road
Corridor Roads Collector 80% Assessed,
20% Age-based
R.J. Burnside &
Associates
Limited - 2016
Road
Corridor Roads Local 89% Assessed,
11% Age-based
R.J. Burnside &
Associates
Limited - 2016
Road
Corridor
Roadside
Appuretances Broadband 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Road
Corridor
Roadside
Appuretances Guide Rails 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Road
Corridor
Roadside
Appuretances Retaining Walls 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Road
Corridor Sidewalks Sidewalks 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Road
Corridor Street Lights Head Luminaires 83% Assessed,
17% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Road
Corridor Street Lights Poles & Assemblies 93% Assessed,
7% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Road
Corridor
Traffic &
Pedestrian Signals Controllers 86% Assessed,
14% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Road
Corridor
Traffic &
Pedestrian Signals Infrastructure 88% Assessed,
12% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Stormwater
System Drainage Channels Drainage Channels 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Catch Basin and
Lead
88% Assessed,
12% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Clean Water
Collectors 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Inlet/Outlet
Structures 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
22
Asset
Category
Asset Segment Asset Sub-
segment
% of Assets
with Assessed
Condition
Source of
Condition Data
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Oil Grit Separators 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Service
Connections
93% Assessed,
7% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Stormwater
System Storm Sewers Storm Sewer
Mains 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Stormwater
System Stormwater Ponds Dry Ponds 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Stormwater
System Stormwater Ponds Wet Ponds 64% Assessed,
36% Age-based
Staff
Assessments
Bridges &
Culverts Bridges Bridges 100% Assessed 2020 OSIM
Inspections
Bridges &
Culverts Structural Culverts Structural Culverts 99% Assessed 2020 OSIM
Inspections
Buildings &
Facilities Civic Complex Civic Complex 100% Assessed VFA Database
Buildings &
Facilities
Community &
Cultural Buildings
Community &
Cultural Buildings 100% Assessed VFA Database
Buildings &
Facilities Fire Services Fire Services 100% Assessed VFA Database
Buildings &
Facilities Operations Centre Operations Centre 100% Assessed VFA Database
Buildings &
Facilities
Recreation, Pools
& Arenas
Recreation, Pools
& Arenas 100% Assessed VFA Database
Parks Active Recreation
Facilities
Playground
Equipment 100% Assessed Staff
Assessments
Parks Active Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces 100% Assessed Staff
Assessments
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Buildings 100% Assessed Staff
Assessments
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Electrical/Lighting 100% Assessed Staff
Assessments
23
Asset
Category Asset Segment Asset Sub-
segment
% of Assets
with Assessed
Condition
Source of
Condition Data
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Furniture 100% Assessed Staff Assessments
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Structures Site Structures Staff Assessments
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure 100% Assessed Staff Assessments
Parks
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure 100% Assessed Staff Assessments
Parks
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Parking Lots &
Internal Roads 100% Assessed Staff Assessments
Parks
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Pedestrian
Corridors 100% Assessed Staff Assessments
Other
Infrastructure
Furniture &
Fixtures
Furniture &
Fixtures 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure
Information
Technology
Information
Technology 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure
Library Collection
Materials
Library Collection
Materials 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure
Machinery &
Equipment Major 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure
Machinery &
Equipment Minor 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure Vehicles Fire Vehicles 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
Other
Infrastructure Vehicles Vehicles 0% Assessed 100% Age-based
24
3.4 Service Life Remaining
Based on asset age, available assessed condition data and estimated useful life,
25.94% of the City’s assets will require replacement within the next 10 years. Capital
requirements over the next 10 years are identified in Appendix A. Buildings & Facilities
assets were excluded from this analysis due to the nature of the assets. Building and
Facilities have multiple components that have a very short service life. However, the
building themselves are long-lasting.
3.5 Forecasted Capital Requirements
The development of a long-term capital forecast should include both asset rehabilitation
and replacement requirements. With the development of asset-specific lifecycle
strategies that include the timing and cost of future capital events, the City can produce
an accurate long-term capital forecast. The following graph identifies capital
requirements over the next 25 years. It is worth noting that the Average Annual Capital
Requirements are equal to the sum of the annualized lifecycle costs of all assets. The
annualized lifecycle cost is calculated by dividing the total lifecycle cost of the asset by
its respective estimated useful life.
25
26
Key Insights
4 Analysis of Tax-funded
Assets
•Tax-funded assets are valued at $1.36 billion
•80.42% of tax-funded assets are in satisfactory or better condition
•The average annual capital requirement to sustain the current level of service for
tax-funded assets is approximately $40.27 million
•Critical assets should be evaluated to determine appropriate risk mitigation
activities and treatment options
27
4.1 Road Corridor
The Road Corridor are critical components of the provision of safe and efficient
transportation services and represent the highest value asset category in the City’s
asset portfolio. It includes all municipally owned and maintained roadways in addition to
supporting roadside infrastructure including sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals,
guiderails, and retaining walls.
The Operations Department provides roadway operational maintenance including,
patching, grading, sweeping, ditching as well as winter control activities such as
sanding, salting, and plowing.
The Engineering Department is responsible for the design and construction of major
roadway maintenance and rehabilitation activities such as crack seal, asphalt
resurfacing, curb and sidewalk repair/replacement, and reconstruction. They are also
responsible for the maintenance and repair of streetlights, traffic signals, and guide
rails.
Staff are working towards improving the accuracy and reliability of their Road Corridor
inventory to assist with long-term asset management planning.
4.1.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Road Corridor inventory.
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment Quantity
1
Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Roads Arterial 13 Centreline
KM
100% Cost per
Unit $17,810,198
Roads Collector 37 Centreline
KM
100% Cost per
Unit $52,612,912
Roads Local 268 Centreline
KM
100% Cost per
Unit $365,537,102
Roads Gravel 102 Centreline
KM
Not planned for
replacement
Not planned for
replacement
1 The level of maturity of the asset quantity data is still at a basic level. Staff plan to prioritize
data refinement and consolidation efforts to increase confidence in the accuracy and reliability
of asset data and information.
28
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment Quantity Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Roadside
Appurtenances Broadband 1 KM 100% CPI
Inflation $143,175
Roadside
Appurtenances Guide Rails 746 M 100% CPI
Inflation $774,280
Roadside
Appurtenances Retaining Walls 529 M 100% CPI
Inflation $868,766
Sidewalks Sidewalks 331 KM
99% Cost per
Unit, 1% CPI
Inflation
$96,784,783
Streetlights LED Lights 8,295 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $7,151,314
Streetlights Poles &
Assemblies 8,101 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $56,943,137
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Controllers 25 Intersection 100% CPI
Inflation $691,198
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Infrastructure 25 Intersection 100% CPI
Inflation $3,253,735
$602,570,600
29
4.1.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The Average Condition Rating is a weighted
value based on replacement cost.
Asset
Segment Sub-
Segment
Average
Condition
(%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition Source
Roads Arterial 75% Good 62% Assessed, 38% Age-
based
Roads Collector 72% Good 80% Assessed, 20% Age-
based
Roads Local 63% Good 89% Assessed, 11% Age-
based
Roadside
Appurtenances Broadband 95%2 Very Good 100% Age-based
Roadside
Appurtenances Guide Rails 84%2 Good 100% Age-based
Roadside
Appurtenances Retaining Walls 75%2 Good 100% Age-based
Sidewalks Sidewalks 65% Good 100% Age-based
Streetlights Head
Luminaires 86% Very Good 83% Assessed, 17% Age-
based3
Streetlights Poles &
Assemblies 56% Satisfactory 93% Assessed, 7% Age-
based3
2 Currently, the average condition reflects the condition of all assets that are available in the
City’s central inventory. City staff are working to consolidate asset information associated with
Roadside Appurtenances in the central database. Once completed, the average condition will
be more accurate and reflective of the whole asset portfolio.
3 A desktop assessment was completed by City staff. The results of the assessment were used
along with Age-based ratings to calculate the average condition of assets. Desktop assessment
ratings were given a weight of 90% compared to 10% for the age-based rating when performing
the final condition calculation for Head Luminaires. For Poles & Assemblies, the desktop
assessments were given a weight of 55% compared to 45% for the age-based rating when
performing the final condition calculation. Age-based conditions were solely used when
desktop assessments were not performed.
30
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment Average
Condition (%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition
Source
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Controllers 75% Good
86% Assessed,
14% Age-
based4
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Infrastructure 67% Good
88% Assessed,
12% Age-
based4
64% Good
To ensure that the City’s Road Corridor continue to provide an acceptable level of
service, the City should monitor the average condition of all assets. If the average
condition declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement activities is
required to increase the overall condition of Road Corridor.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
4 A desktop assessment was completed by City staff. The results of the assessment were used
along with Age-based ratings to calculate the average condition of assets. Desktop assessment
ratings were given a weight of 75% compared to 25% for the age-based rating when performing
the final condition calculation for Controllers. For Infrastructure, the desktop assessments were
given a weight of 65% compared to 35% for the age-based rating when performing the final
condition calculation. Age-based conditions were solely used when desktop assessments were
not performed.
31
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to more confidently determine the
remaining service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. The following describes the municipality’s current approach:
The City’s entire road network is assessed by an external contractor. The last Road
Needs Study was completed in 2016 based on assessments made in 2011.A road
condition assessment update is planned for 2021.
The Road Needs Study includes a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating for all paved
roads. The 1-100 value is a measure of the surface condition of the roads and is based
on a formula that takes into account surface distresses and ride comfort.
The Road Needs Study also includes another measure, a Priority Guide Number (PGN).
The PGN is established using the older Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)
methodology, however, the PGN does provide a relative comparison of the priority of
the roads for improvement, based on condition, traffic, and improvement costs.
Therefore, the PGN ranking can be considered as one of the comparison factors for
consideration in setting capital programs.
As a supplement to the comprehensive network-wide assessments, City staff complete
regular inspections annually and re-prioritize capital works and maintenance activities as
necessary.
• The City utilizes desktop assessments along with age-based assessments to
estimate the condition of streetlights.
• For traffic & pedestrian signals, the City contracts the services of Durham Region
(The Works Department's Traffic Engineering and Operations Division handles
Durham's traffic control signals by planning, designing, constructing, operating,
and maintaining the traffic control systems). They use an internal asset
management system to effectively manage the City’s traffic signals
infrastructure.
4.1.3 Estimated Useful Life & Average Age
The Estimated Useful Life for Road Corridor has been assigned according to a
combination of established industry standards and staff knowledge. The Average Age of
each asset is based on the number of years each asset has been in-service. Finally, the
Average Projected Service Life Remaining represents the difference between the
Estimated Useful Life and the Average Age, except when an asset has been assigned an
assessed condition rating. Assessed condition may increase or decrease the average
service life remaining.
32
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment
Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
Average Age
(Years)
Average
Projected
Service Life
Remaining
(Years)
Roads Arterial ≤50 18.0 17.1
Roads Collector ≤50 23.3 14.4
Roads Local ≤50 32.9 12.7
Roadside
Appurtenances Broadband ≤30 1.5 28.4
Roadside
Appurtenances Guide Rails ≤40 6.3 33.7
Roadside
Appurtenances
Retaining
Walls ≤40 7.5 32.5
Sidewalks Sidewalks ≤75 30.6 34.1
Streetlights Head
Luminaires ≤20 4.0 6.3
Streetlights Poles &
Assemblies ≤50 5.0 32.8
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Controllers ≤13 9.9 6.8
Traffic &
Pedestrian
Signals
Infrastructure ≤25 12.8 13.1
27.7 21.8
33
Each asset’s Estimated Useful Life should be reviewed periodically to determine whether
adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed length of service life for
each asset type.
34
4.1.4 Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is
affected by a range of factors including an asset’s characteristics, location, utilization,
maintenance history and environment.
The following lifecycle strategies have been developed as a proactive approach to
managing the lifecycle of hard-surfaced (asphalted) rural and urban roads. Instead of
allowing the roads to deteriorate until replacement is required, strategic rehabilitation is
expected to extend the service life of roads at a lower total cost. Lifecycle management
strategies were not developed for other road types5 within the City.
Asphalt Roads (Surface)
Event Name Event Class Event Trigger
Crack Seal # 1 Preventative Maintenance Year: 6
Crack Seal # 2 Preventative Maintenance Year: 12
New Surface – Single Lift Rehabilitation Year: 20
Crack Seal # 3 Preventative Maintenance Year: 26
Crack Seal # 4 Preventative Maintenance Year: 32
New Surface – Double Lift Rehabilitation Year: 40
Crack Seal # 5 Preventative Maintenance Year: 46
Crack Seal # 6 Preventative Maintenance Year: 52
Asset Replacement Replacement Condition: 30
The first and second crack seal treatments applied in years 6 and 12 reset the condition
to 88 and 73 respectively. These preventative maintenance activities are then followed
by a new surface – single lift rehabilitation in year 20, which restores the condition back
to 90.
5 The City only owns and operates 500m of concrete roads (old gravel pit). Once this road
reaches its end of service life, it will be replaced with asphalt.
Gravel roads have low AADT and are inspected regularly. Grading is an important part of rural
road maintenance and involves reshaping the roads. Public Works replaces gravel that has been
either pushed off the road during winter operations and/or swept away during the spring thaw.
While the City owns and operates some roads that are surfaced treated, there is no official
maintenance program for this type of road.
35
Furthermore, the third and fourth crack seal treatments applied in years 26 and 32
reset the condition to 76 and 58 respectively. These preventative maintenance activities
are then followed by a new surface – double lift rehabilitation in year 38, which restores
the condition back to 80.
Finally, the fifth and sixth crack seal treatments applied in years 46 and 52 reset the
condition to 46 and 52 respectively. Then, the asset is used until the end of its
Lifecycle, which is reached when the condition of the asset drops to 30. The
aforementioned lifecycle activities manage to extend the estimated useful life of the
asset from 25 to 54 years as seen below.
36
The following table further expands on the City’s current approach to lifecycle
management:
Activity Type Description of Current Strategy
Maintenance
The City employs preventative maintenance programs to minimize the
destructive impact of climate and traffic through the timely application
of remedial treatments to the pavement.
Maintenance
Asphalt Roads – crack sealing/filling and spot base repairs (small area
patching)
Surface Treatment Roads – small area patching and drainage
improvements
Rehabilitation/
Replacement
The most cost-effective expenditures for road rehabilitation can be
achieved through the application of the right rehabilitation at the right
time. This decision-making process relies primarily on the condition of
the road surface.
Rehabilitation/
Replacement
The city’s current road rehabilitation methods include:
• Grind and Overlay
• Full depth surface replacement
• Full reconstruction
Rehabilitation/
Replacement
Full road reconstruction may be required when substantial base repairs
are necessary or when sub-surface infrastructure also requires
replacement.
Rehabilitation/
Replacement
The City develops a 5-year capital forecast which includes a mix of
named reconstruction projects and general budget allocations for road
resurfacing projects.
Forecasted Capital Requirements
Based on the lifecycle strategies identified previously for roads, and assuming the end-
of-life replacement of all other assets in this category, the following graph forecasts
capital requirements for the Road Corridor.
The annual capital requirement represents the average amount per year that the City
should allocate towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs to meet future
capital needs.
37
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
4.1.5 Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
38
Risks to Current Asset Management Strategies
The following section summarizes key trends, challenges, and risks to service delivery
that the City is currently facing:
Asset Data & Information
The level of maturity is at a basic level for the available inventory data
for Road Corridor used in this Asset Management Plan. Staff plan to
prioritize data refinement and consolidation efforts to increase
confidence in the accuracy and reliability of asset data and information.
Once completed there will be greater confidence in the development of
data-driven strategies to address infrastructure needs.
Climate Change & Extreme Weather Events
An increase in rain causes impact to the road base, leading to the
exposure of the road base. The design of the Stormwater System is the
primary consideration instead of the roadway design itself.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
The current lifecycle management strategy for roads is considered more
reactive than proactive. The goal for the City is to defer the needs for
road reconstruction as it is costly and disruptive. Some potential
additional programs are being considered:
39
• Single lift re-surfacing completed in the 10–15-year mark to push
off double lift requirements another 20 years
4.1.6 Levels of Service (LOS)
The following tables identify the City’s current level of service for the Road Network.
These metrics include the technical and community level of service metrics that are
required as part of O. Reg. 588/17 as well as any additional performance measures that
the City has selected for this AMP.
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community
levels of service provided by the Road Corridor.
Service
Attribute Qualitative Description Current LOS (2020)
Scope
Description, which may
include maps, of the Road
Corridor in the municipality
and its level of connectivity
See Appendix B
Quality
Description or images that
illustrate the different levels
of road class pavement
condition
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a
measure of the surface condition of the road
based on empirical formula that take into
account surface distresses and ride comfort
resulting in a rating between 1 and 100. The
assessment is detailed and allows for future
monitoring and comparisons
A Priority Guide Number (PGN) provides a
relative comparison of the priority of the roads
for improvement, based on condition, traffic,
and improvement costs.
40
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level
of service provided by the Road Corridor.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current
LOS (2020)
Scope Lane-km of arterial roads (MMS classes 1 and 2) per
land area (km/km2) 0.24
Scope Lane-km of collector roads (MMS classes 3 and 4) per
land area (km/km2) 0.66
Scope Lane-km of local roads (MMS classes 5 and 6) per
land area (km/km2) 3.35
Quality Average pavement condition index for paved roads in
the municipality 60.63
Quality
Average surface condition for unpaved roads in the
municipality (e.g., excellent, good, satisfactory, Below
Satisfactory)
Satisfactory
Performance Capital reinvestment rate 0.86%
Performance Operating & Maintenance costs for paved roads /
lane-km (excluding winter control) $5,395.70
Performance Operating & Maintenance costs for unpaved roads /
lane-km (excluding winter control) $6,751.79
Performance % of sidewalks inspected 100%
Performance % of road network inspected 100%
Performance #/year of reported incidents related to the sidewalk
network 17
41
4.1.7 Recommendations
Asset Inventory
• Continue to review and refine the Road Corridor inventory to ensure that it aligns
with the City’s database and that new assets and betterments are reflected and
attributes are detailed.
Condition Assessment Strategies
• A comprehensive assessment of the road network was completed in 2016 and
there are plans to conduct a network-wide road condition assessment in 2021
and every 5 to 10 years. Prioritize regular cursory inspections in between
comprehensive assessments using consistent and standardized condition rating
criterion.
• Develop and conduct condition assessment programs for all other transportation
assets (roadside appurtenances and sidewalks).
Lifecycle Management Strategies
• Implement the identified lifecycle management strategies for roads to realize
potential cost avoidance and maintain an acceptable quality of road pavement
condition.
• Evaluate the efficacy of the City’s lifecycle management strategies at regular
intervals to determine the impact cost, condition, and risk.
• Develop cursory life cycle management strategies for all other transportation
assets (sidewalks, streetlights, roadside appurtenances, park trails, bike/multi-
use pathways/trails, and traffic & pedestrian signals).
Risk Management Strategies
• Implement risk-based decision-making as part of asset management planning
and budgeting processes. This should include the regular review of high-risk
assets to determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies.
• Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to the availability of
additional data and also an evolving understanding of the probability and
consequences of asset failure.
Levels of Service
• Continue to measure current levels of service in accordance with the metrics
identified in O. Reg. 588/17 and those metrics that the City believes to provide
meaningful and reliable inputs into asset management planning.
42
•Work towards identifying proposed levels of service as per O. Reg. 588/17 and
identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between current and
proposed levels of service.
43
4.2 Stormwater System
The City is responsible for owning and maintaining a Stormwater System consisting of
storm sewer mains and other supporting infrastructure. Staff are working towards
improving the accuracy and reliability of their Stormwater System inventory to assist
with long-term asset management planning.
4.2.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Stormwater System inventory.
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment Quantity6 Unit of
Measure
Replacement Cost
Method
Replacement
Cost
Drainage
Channels Drainage Channels 788 M 100% CPI Inflated $3,455,020
Storm
Sewers
Catch Basin and
Lead 5,342 Quantity 100% Cost per Unit $18,697,000
Storm
Sewers
Clean Water
Collectors 5 KM 100% CPI Inflated $1,009,478
Storm
Sewers
Inlet/Outlet
Structures 69 Quantity 100% Cost per Unit $1,857,825
Storm
Sewers Maintenance Holes 3,235 Quantity 100% Cost per Unit $27,982,750
Storm
Sewers Oil Grit Separators 33 Quantity 100% Cost per Unit $3,300,000
Storm
Sewers Service Connections 17 KM 100% Cost per Unit $10,860,200
Storm
Sewers Storm Sewer Mains 210 KM 89% Cost per Unit, 11%
CPI Inflated $194,248,963
Stormwater
Ponds Dry Ponds 30,838 M3 100% CPI Inflated $1,138,672
Stormwater
Ponds Wet Ponds 135,844 M3 93% Cost per Unit, 7%
User-Defined Cost $21,209,415
$283,759,323
6 The level of maturity of the asset quantity data is still at a basic level. Staff plan to prioritize data refinement and
consolidation efforts to increase confidence in the accuracy and reliability of asset data and information.
44
4.2.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The Average Condition Rating is a weighted
value based on replacement cost.
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment
Average
Condition
(%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition Source
Drainage
Channels Drainage Channels 99% Very Good 100% Age-based
Storm Sewers Catch Basin and
Lead 54% Satisfactory 88% Assessed, 12% Age-
based7
Storm Sewers Clean Water
Collectors 100% Very Good 100% Age-based
Storm Sewers Inlet/Outlet
Structures 80% Good 100% Age-based
Storm Sewers Maintenance Holes 86% Very Good 100% Age-based
Storm Sewers Oil Grit Separators 88% Very Good 100% Age-based
7 A desktop assessment was completed by City staff. The results of the assessment were used along
with Age-based ratings to calculate the average condition of assets. Desktop assessment ratings were
given a weight of 50% compared to 50% for the age-based rating when performing the final condition
calculation for Catch Basin and Leads. For Service Connections, the desktop assessments were given a
weight of 55% compared to 45% for the age-based rating when performing the final condition
calculation. Age-based conditions were solely used when desktop assessments were not performed.
45
Asset
Segment
Sub-Segment Average
Condition
(%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition Source
Storm
Sewers Service Connections 56% Satisfactory 93% Assessed, 7% Age-
based
Storm
Sewers Storm Sewer Mains 86% Very Good 100% Age-based
Stormwater
Ponds Dry Ponds 66% Good 100% Age-based
Stormwater
Ponds Wet Ponds 42% Satisfactory 64% Assessed, 36% Age-
based
80% Good
To ensure that the City’s Stormwater System continues to provide an acceptable level of
service, the City should monitor the average condition of all assets. If the average
condition declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement activities is
required to increase the overall condition of the Stormwater System.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to more confidently determine the
remaining service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. The following describes the municipality’s current approach:
Stormwater Management Facilities
In 2020 all stormwater management facilities were assessed by an external consultant
and a detailed Asset Management Plan was provided. Staff recommend that this
46
detailed assessment be completed every 10 years, but there is no firm schedule in-
place.
Using the 2020 assessment as a baseline, City staff plan to complete regular visual
inspections of facilities to identify recommended lifecycle activities, monitor
performance and address any maintenance concerns
Storm Sewers
The City completes Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) inspections in conjunction with
storm sewer flushing activities. The CCTV inspection program is being evaluated to
ensure that there is a defined cycle of inspection across the entire network.
47
4.2.3 Estimated Useful Life & Average Age
The Estimated Useful Life for Stormwater System assets has been assigned according to
a combination of established industry standards and staff knowledge. The Average Age
of each asset is based on the number of years each asset has been in-service. Finally,
the Average Projected Service Life Remaining represents the difference between the
Estimated Useful Life and the Average Age, except when an asset has been assigned an
assessed condition rating. Assessed condition may increase or decrease the average
service life remaining.
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Projected
Service
Life
Remaining
(Years)
Drainage
Channels
Drainage
Channels ≤50 4.5 45.4
Storm
Sewers
Catch Basin
and Lead ≤50 34.5 11.3
Storm
Sewers
Clean Water
Collectors ≤75 2.9 68.3
Storm
Sewers
Inlet/Outlet
Structures ≤75 41.3 35.5
Storm
Sewers
Maintenance
Holes ≤75 34.7 40.3
Storm
Sewers
Oil Grit
Separators ≤50 20.4 28.8
Storm
Sewers
Service
Connections ≤50 34.8 9.2
Storm
Sewers
Storm Sewer
Mains ≤75 34.3 40.6
Stormwater
Ponds Dry Ponds ≤100 32.8 67.2
Stormwater
Ponds Wet Ponds ≤50 17.3 16.3
34.2 27.3
48
Each asset’s Estimated Useful Life should be reviewed periodically to determine whether
adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed length of service life for
each asset type.
4.2.4 Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is
affected by a range of factors including an asset’s characteristics, location, utilization,
maintenance history and environment.
The following lifecycle strategies have been developed as a proactive approach to
managing the lifecycle of wet stormwater ponds. Instead of allowing the stormwater
ponds to deteriorate until replacement is required, strategic rehabilitation is expected to
extend the service life of stormwater ponds at a lower total cost.
Stormwater Ponds (Wet)
Event Name Event Class Event Trigger
Pond Cleanout 1st cycle Maintenance Year: 20
Pond Cleanout 2nd Cycle Maintenance Year: 40
Asset Replacement Replacement Condition: 0
Two cycles of pond cleanout are included in this lifecycle strategy as maintenance
activities. The cleanout includes sediment cleanout, earthworks, landscaping, and outlet
structure repair. The first cycle takes place at year 20 and the second cycle takes place
at year 40. Both cycles restore the condition back to 85. By applying these activities,
the estimated useful life of the asset can get extended from 50 years to 82 years as
seen in the graph below.
49
Stormwater Management Facilities
Activity
Type Description of Current Strategy
Maintenance
Regular inspections are completed across all facilities. When more
detailed inspections were completed in 2020 this included:
Inspection of maintenance hole covers, control structures and access
barriers
Bathymetric surveys and sediment depth measurements at wet ponds
Sediment quality sampling to determine proper disposal requirements
Maintenance
Staff are in the process of evaluating and implementing a proactive
maintenance program which may include:
Debris cleanup
Repairs to outlets, grates, and fences
Rehabilitation
/Replacement
Sediment removal and disposal needs to occur on a regular basis (~
every 20 years).
Rehabilitation
/Replacement
The excavation and removal of sediment from ponds will require a
sampling and analysis plan outlining frequency and testing
parameters.
Rehabilitation
/Replacement
Due to the relatively young age of the City’s stormwater management
facilities, there has not been a previous urgency or requirement to
plan for reconstruction/retrofit needs. The 2020 AMP is the first step
in developing a long-term lifecycle management strategy for facilities.
50
Storm Sewers
Activity
Type Description of Current Strategy
Maintenance
The City’s annual maintenance program for storm sewer mains
includes:
Storm sewer flushing and video inspection
Calcite blockage removal (reaming)
Catch basin cleaning
Rehabilitation
The city is in the process of refining its inventory data and collecting
better condition data on linear storm sewer infrastructure. Once this
process is completed staff will consider the benefits of trenchless
sewer re-lining.
Replacement
Storm sewer replacement is aligned with road reconstruction
programs. When a road is planned for reconstruction, CCTV
inspections are completed to determine if the storm sewer needs
repair or replacement. This project coordination ultimately leads to
lower total project costs and reduces the impact of more frequent
road reconstruction.
Replacement The City develops a 5-year capital forecast which includes specific
named projects
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The following graph forecasts long-term capital requirements. The annual capital
requirement represents the average amount per year that the City should allocate
towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs. The vast majority of the assets
that are due for replacement within the next 25 years are split between Storm Sewers
and Stormwater Ponds as seen below.
51
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
52
Risks to Current Asset Management Strategies
The following section summarizes key trends, challenges, and risks to service delivery
that the City is currently facing:
Climate Change & Extreme Weather Events
Changes to intensity, duration, and frequency of rainfall may impact the
condition and performance of the Stormwater System. Design criteria
can become outdated as Intensity, duration, and Frequency (IDF) curves
are updated. The IDF curves have not been updated yet. This risk is
rather industry driven than City centered.
53
Infrastructure Design/Installation
Design guidelines have been updated to reflect new requirements
around storm sewer sizing for new developments. Although newer
subdivisions are being designed to meet overland flow requirements,
this is not necessarily the case for all of the older developments.
Currently, design standards for linear infrastructure are built to capture
and convey the 1 in 5-year storm event. However, updated IDF curves
may impact this.
Infrastructure Re-investment
Plans to maintain and rehabilitate ponds are entirely dependant on
budget approvals. When adequate budgets are not available, these
plans may be deferred or canceled.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
For storm sewers, inspections are not completed on a strategic level.
Inspections are done on a geographic zone basis, not necessarily
targeted towards areas of elevated need.
The storm sewer age is relatively young north of the Highway 401 (the
majority) and getting older south of the Highway. It is rare that the City
has to plan for full reconstruction/replacement. However, The City is
looking to expand inspection programs to become more strategic as the
average age of storm infrastructure increases.
Furthermore, ponds within the City are relatively new and not at the end
of their lifecycle. The City will be developing a robust lifecycle
management strategy based on recently completed asset management
plan.
4.2.6 Levels of Service (LOS)
The following tables identify the City’s current level of service for the Stormwater
System. These metrics include the technical and community level of service metrics that
are required as part of O. Reg. 588/17 as well as any additional performance measures
that the City has selected for this AMP.
54
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community
levels of service provided by the Stormwater System.
Service
Attribute
Qualitative
Description Current LOS (2020)
Scope
Description, which may
include map, of the
user groups or areas of
the municipality that
are protected from
flooding, including the
extent of protection
provided by the
municipal Stormwater
System
Appendix B
55
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level
of service provided by the Stormwater System.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current LOS
(2020)
Scope % of properties in municipality resilient to a
100-year storm 60%8
Scope % of the municipal stormwater management
system resilient to a 5-year storm 95%8
Performance % of storm sewer mains flushed and inspected 4.59%
Performance % of catch basins cleaned 34.8%
Performance Operating & Maintenance cost / km of storm
sewers and urban ditches $ 10,777.09
Performance Operating & Maintenance cost / # of stormwater
management facilities TBD
Performance Annual capital reinvestment rate 0.43%
8 The City has assumed that ‘resilient to the 5-year event’ is the amount of Pickering’s minor
system within urban settlement and estate development areas that has been designed to
convey the 5-year event.
Similarly, the City assumes that ‘resilient to the 100-year event’ is the amount of area where
the major system is capable of conveying the 100-year event with no impact to buildings within
urban settlement and estate development areas.
Further studies are required to better determine the percentage accuracy to convey both the 5-
year and 100-year event with no impact to infrastructure.
Staff have begun efforts to measure the asset performance against the indicated metrics in the
Ontario Regulation. That work remains ongoing, and a more accurate representation of the
City’s Level of Service (LOS) will be provided in a future AMP.
56
4.2.7 Recommendations
Asset Inventory
•The City’s Stormwater System inventory remains at a basic level of maturity and
staff do not have a high level of confidence in its accuracy or reliability. Staff
recognize that there is a need for additional investment of time and resources to
develop a comprehensive inventory of the Stormwater System and make it a
priority.
•Prepare to add all newly assumed Stormwater System infrastructure to the asset
inventory to support future planning for maintenance and rehabilitation.
Condition Assessment Strategies
•The development of a comprehensive inventory should be accompanied by a
system-wide assessment of the condition of all assets in the Stormwater System
through CCTV or zoom camera inspections.
•Include newly assumed stormwater management ponds in condition assessment
strategies.
Risk Management Strategies
•Implement risk-based decision-making as part of asset management planning
and budgeting processes. This should include the regular review of high-risk
assets to determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies.
•Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to the availability of
data and also an evolving understanding of the probability and consequences of
asset failure.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
•Document and review lifecycle management strategies for the Stormwater
System on a regular basis to achieve the lowest total cost of ownership while
maintaining adequate service levels.
•Consider the development of more preventative maintenance programs.
Levels of Service
•Continue to measure current levels of service in accordance with the metrics that
the City has established in this AMP. Additional metrics can be established as
57
they are determined to provide meaningful and reliable inputs into asset
management planning.
• Work towards identifying proposed levels of service as per O. Reg. 588/17 and
identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between current and
proposed levels of service.
58
4.3 Bridges & Culverts
Bridges & Culverts represent a critical portion of the transportation services provided to
the community. Engineering Services is responsible (though the Capital Budget process)
for any structure replacements or rehabilitation. The Operations Department is
responsible for the maintenance of all bridges and culverts located across municipal
roads with the goal of keeping structures in an adequate state of repair and minimizing
service disruptions. This AMP is for bridges and culverts with a span of three meters or
more. The City has many culverts with a span that is less than three meters, including
driveway culverts, which are not included in this section.
4.3.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Bridges & Culverts inventory.
Asset
Segment Quantity Replacement Cost
Method
Total Replacement
Cost
Bridges 389 100% User-Defined Cost $41,201,000
Structural
Culverts 2810 97% User-Defined Cost,
3% CPI Inflated $28,520,727
66 $69,721,727
9 The bridge quantity represents the total number of bridges with a span of 3 m and more,
including 9 pedestrian bridges.
10 The culvert quantity represents the total number of culverts with a span of 3 m and more,
including 1 pedestrian culvert.
59
4.3.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The Average Condition Rating is a weighted
value based on replacement cost.
Asset Segment Average
Condition (%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition
Source
Bridges 71% Good
100% Assessed
- 2020 OSIM
Inspections
Structural Culverts 69% Satisfactory
99% Assessed -
2020 OSIM
Inspections
70% Good 99% Assessed
To ensure that the City’s Bridges & Culverts continue to provide an acceptable level of
service, the City should monitor the average condition of all assets. If the average
condition declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement activities
is required to increase the overall condition of the Bridges & Culverts.
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to more confidently determine the
remaining service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. The following describes the municipality’s current approach:
Ontario Regulation 104/97 Standards for Bridges requires that every bridge or culvert
with a span of 3.0 m or greater be inspected at least once in every second calendar
year under the direction of a professional engineer and in accordance with the Ontario
Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM).
Each structure receives a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) Rating from 1-100
60
While the BCI is a useful comparative measure for common bridges and culverts to plan
for maintenance and repairs, it does not indicate the safety of the bridge
4.3.3 Estimated Useful Life & Average Age
The Estimated Useful Life for Bridges & Culverts assets has been assigned according to
a combination of established industry standards and staff knowledge. The Average Age
of each asset is based on the number of years each asset has been in-service. Finally,
the Average Projected Service Life Remaining represents the difference between the
Estimated Useful Life and the Average Age, except when an asset has been assigned an
assessed condition rating. Assessed condition may increase or decrease the average
service life remaining.
Asset Segment Estimated Useful
Life (Years)
Average Age
(Years)
Average
Projected
Service Life
Remaining
(Years)
Bridges ≤75 59.3 46.5
Structural Culverts ≤75 47.9 44.1
53.9 45.3
Each asset’s Estimated Useful Life should be reviewed periodically to determine whether
adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed length of service life for
each asset type.
61
4.3.4 Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. To ensure that
municipal assets are performing as expected and meeting the needs of customers and
the Ontario Regulation, it is important to establish a lifecycle management strategy to
proactively manage asset deterioration.
The following table outlines the City’s current lifecycle management strategy.
Activity Type Description of Current Strategy
Rehabilitation /
Replacement
Biennial OSIM inspection reports including a Capital Needs List
identifying recommended rehabilitation and replacement activities
with estimated costs.
Rehabilitation /
Replacement
The report also includes a 2-year priority report to assist the City
with determining the timing and urgency of capital needs when
developing budgets and capital plans.
Maintenance
Biennial OSIM inspections including a list of recommended
maintenance activities that the City considers and completes
according to cost and urgency.
Maintenance
Typical maintenance activities include:
• Obstruction removal
• Cleaning/sweeping
• Erosion control
• Brush/tree removal
62
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The following graph forecasts long-term capital requirements aggregated for every 5
years. The annual capital requirement represents the average amount per year that the
City should allocate towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs.
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
63
4.3.5 Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
64
Risks to Current Asset Management Strategies
The following section summarizes key trends, challenges, and risks to service delivery
that the City is currently facing:
Climate Change & Extreme Weather Events
Changes to intensity, duration, and frequency of rainfall may impact the
condition of bridges and culverts. Although design standards have
evolved over time to meet changing climate, older structures were
designed to a different standard, and therefore not as resilient as newer
structures.
Infrastructure Re-investment
Major capital rehabilitation projects for bridges and culverts are
sometimes dependant on the availability of grant funding opportunities.
When grants are not available, bridge rehabilitation projects may be
deferred. However, bridges and culverts are also funded by the Roads
and Bridges Reserve or by the issuance of debt. An annual capital
funding strategy reduces dependency on grant funding and help prevent
deferral or capital works.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
In the past several years maintenance and capital priorities have followed
OSIM recommendations quite closely. However, the unavailability of adequate
capital budget forced the City to prioritize some projects over others in the
past.
4.3.6 Levels of Service (LOS)
The following tables identify the City’s current level of service for Bridges & Culverts.
These metrics include the technical and community level of service metrics that are
required as part of O. Reg. 588/17 as well as any additional performance measures that
the City has selected for this AMP.
65
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community
levels of service provided by Bridges & Culverts.
Service
Attribute Qualitative Description Current LOS (2020)
Scope
Description of the traffic that is
supported by municipal bridges
(e.g., heavy transport vehicles,
motor vehicles, emergency
vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists)
Bridges and structural culverts are a key
component of the municipal transportation
network. At this time, there are nine
bridges with a load limit by-law. Unless
otherwise posted, there are no restrictions
to the types of traffic that can use
municipal bridges and structural culverts,
meaning heavy transport, motor vehicles,
emergency vehicles and cyclists can cross
them without restriction.
Quality
Description or images of the
condition of bridges and how
this would affect use of the
bridges
Appendix B
Quality
Description or images of the
condition of culverts and how
this would affect use of the
culverts
Appendix B
66
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level
of service provided by Bridges & Culverts.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current LOS
(2020)
Scope % of bridges in the City with loading or
dimensional restrictions 23.68%
Quality Average bridge condition index value for bridges
in the City 70.6%
Quality Average bridge condition index value for
structural culverts in the City 70.2%
Performance Capital re-investment rate 1.91%
Performance Operating & Maintenance costs for bridges &
culverts / m2 $ 26.11
Performance # of unplanned bridge closures TBD
67
4.3.7 Recommendations
Data Review/Validation
• Continue to review and validate inventory data, assessed condition data and
replacement costs for all bridges and structural culverts upon the completion of
OSIM inspections every 2 years.
Condition
• Ensure that the condition ratings from OSIM are entered into asset inventory to
support planning for deterioration modeling.
Risk Management Strategies
• Implement risk-based decision-making as part of asset management planning
and budgeting processes. This should include the regular review of high-risk
assets to determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies.
• Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to an evolving
understanding of the probability and consequences of asset failure.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
• Maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement projects recommended by OSIM
cannot all be met due to budget constraints. Prioritize reinvestment into bridges
and structural culverts to ensure capital rehabilitation and maintenance is
achieved on schedule.
• Work towards developing lifecycle models to prolong estimated useful life and
optimize funding.
Levels of Service
• Continue to measure current levels of service in accordance with the metrics
identified in O. Reg. 588/17 and those metrics that the City believe to provide
meaningful and reliable inputs into asset management planning.
• Work towards identifying proposed levels of service as per O. Reg. 588/17 and
identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between current and
proposed levels of service.
68
4.4 Buildings & Facilities
The City owns and maintains several facilities and recreation centres that provide key
services to the community. These buildings fall under the following categories:
• Civic Complex
• Community & Cultural Buildings
• Fire Services
• Operations Centre
• Recreation, Pools & Arenas
4.4.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Buildings & Facilities asset inventory.
Asset Segment
Quantity
(# of
Facilities)
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Civic Complex 1 100% User-
Defined Cost $38,927,479
Community &
Cultural Buildings 16 100% User-
Defined Cost $51,377,603
Fire Services 4 100% User-
Defined Cost $16,568,369
Operations Centre 5
99% User-
Defined Cost,
0.02% CPI
Inflated
$34,822,278
Recreation, Pools
& Arenas 4 100% User-
Defined Cost $156,260,360
30 $297,956,089
69
4.4.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The FCI Condition Rating is a weighted value
based on replacement cost.
Asset Segment Facility Condition
Index (FCI)11
FCI Condition
Rating
Condition
Source
Civic Complex 0.30 Below Satisfactory VFA Database
Community & Cultural
Buildings 0.26 Satisfactory VFA Database
Fire Services 0.27 Satisfactory VFA Database
Operations Centre 0.00 Excellent VFA Database
Recreation, Pools &
Arenas 0.21 Satisfactory VFA Database
0.21 Satisfactory
To ensure that the City’s Building & Facilities continue to provide an acceptable level of
service, the City monitors the condition of all assets in each of its facilities. As their
condition declines, staff re-evaluate their lifecycle management and funding strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement activities is
required to increase the overall condition of Buildings & Facilities.
11 Appendix E provides details on the FCI Condition Rating Scale
70
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to more confidently determine the
remaining service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. The following describes the municipality’s current approach:
The City has completed and maintains current facility condition assessments through
use of the VFA Facilities software solution, supported by audits undertaken by staff and
third-party consultants over the past five years. It is expected that all facilities will be
re-inspected on a 5-year cycle moving forward. The condition data from the VFA
software is used in this report.
Each facility component is assessed based on inspections, estimated useful life and
discussion with facilities maintenance staff. All component-based data rolls up to
provide an overall Facility Condition Index (FCI) score. The FCI is an industry standard
measure used to compare relative building conditions and defined as the value of
deferred maintenance expected over the next five years divided by the total
replacement value of the building.
The database is updated, upon completion of any new or lifecycle replacement project,
to keep the database current and reflect the changes to the facility condition.
71
4.4.3 Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is
affected by a range of factors including an asset’s characteristics, location, utilization,
maintenance history and environment. The following table further expands on the City’s
current approach to lifecycle management:
Activity Type Description of Current Strategy
Maintenance
City Facilities Maintenance staff develop preventative maintenance plans
that are tailored for each facility. These plans include a variety of
activities that are completed by both internal staff and external
contractors including:
Routine health & safety inspections and general facility maintenance
Elevator & life safety systems testing
Utilities inspection & maintenance (e.g., generators, plumbing, HVAC)
Rehabilitation
Facility rehabilitation relies on determining the optimal time to replace
components to minimize costs and manage risks without jeopardizing
facility safety and operational standards. Staff prioritize rehabilitation
needs into three broad categories:
Primary: health & safety, roof replacement
Secondary: HVAC and electrical systems
Tertiary: cosmetics, lighting, cladding, flooring
Rehabilitation
In general terms, the City’s approach is to look at facilities in term of
generational life cycles, with each cycle lasting roughly 25-30 years. A
major renovation is typically required at that point to address the end of
life of a broad number of building systems (HVAC, roofs, finishes, etc.).
Most buildings have 2-3 generational cycles in them, leaning towards the
lower number if each generation is stretched to 30+ years.
Replacement
Determining facility replacement requirements involves several key
sources of information, including:
Facility condition index & staff inspections
Maintenance and work order records.
Master Plans
Stakeholder input
Replacement Staff aim to start evaluating and planning for facility replacements at
least 5-10 years in advance of required capital works.
72
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The following graph forecasts long-term capital requirements. The annual capital
requirement represents the average amount per year that the City should allocate
towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs. The City uses a generational life
cycle approach, with each cycle lasting 25-30 years. A major renovation is typically
required at that point to address the end of life of a broad number of building systems
(HVAC, roofs, finishes, etc.). Most buildings have 2-3 generational cycles in them,
leaning towards the lower number. Therefore, a 25-year projection was adopted in this
Asset Management Plan. The following graph does not take into account the potential
closure of facilities12.
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
12 Several major facilities have been identified for potential closure (FS5, ESCC and DBA).
Removing and replacing these facilities with new buildings would reduce projected lifecycle
capital costs from the point of each closure as new buildings typically do not incur high costs for
the first 10-15 years after construction. Replacement needs are also pushed back as long as
possible to avoid the related costs prior to closure, save those essential to sustaining
operations.
73
4.4.4 Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
For Buildings and Facilities, the “assets” represented in the risk matrix represent
individual components of the assets. Therefore, the quantities represented below are
more than 30 (total number of facilities).
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
74
Risks to Current Asset Management Strategies
The following section summarizes key trends, challenges, and risks to service delivery
that the City is currently facing:
Climate Change & Extreme Weather Events
The concern is regarding the long-term trend rather than individual
events. Increasing temperatures place greater stress on HVAC systems.
Climate resiliency is already a key consideration in any discussion of new
construction/retrofits - E.g., building roof curbs to allow additional
insulation thickness at a later date.
Infrastructure Design/Installation
Future-proofing is a key strategy for all City capital projects. The City
acknowledges the need to build in as much resilience, durability, and
flexibility as possible. The City wants to be able to keep up with
technological advancements, and aging systems often become more
difficult to maintain as parts and required expertise become sparse.
Redundancy is key for critical systems, such as HVAC, electrical and life
safety systems
75
Lifecycle Management Strategies and Long-term Planning
The current lifecycle management strategy for buildings and facilities
prioritizes certain buildings that are key to the delivery of critical
municipal services (City Hall and Emergency Services as a top priority
then Rec Facilities and Support/Auxiliary).
Long-term planning can be complicated by frequent changes in strategic
priorities affecting the continuity required to effectively deliver major
projects. The City is currently reviewing options to improve funding and
sequencing of works, including a 5–10-year long term plan. This will
address both growth needs, as well as rejuvenation and replacement of
older facilities.
All asset management plans data accuracy degrades with time. The
City’s strategy is to renew it by completing physical audits on a five-year
cycle. The construction cost database software used to cost the work
identified in the asset management plan is automatically updated
annually.
Organizational Knowledge & Capacity
Effective facilities planning is a lengthy and laborious process. Staff
turnover can also lead to loss of institutional knowledge, making
extensive and long-term record-retention essential as a backup. It is
particularly impactful for facilities, where investigation of areas in active
use might not be feasible.
4.4.5 Levels of Service (LOS)
The following tables identify the City’s current level of service for Buildings and
Facilities. These metrics include the technical and community level of service metrics
that are required as part of O. Reg. 588/17 as well as any additional performance
measures that the City has selected for this AMP.
76
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community
levels of service provided by the Buildings & Facilities assets.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current LOS (2020)
Accessible
& Reliable
Description of Pickering’s
Accessibility Advisory
Committee and examples of
accessible facility equipment.
The City of Pickering prepares a Multi-Year
Accessibility Plan that sets out the steps that
will be taken to:
Work toward removing existing barriers for
persons with disabilities
Plan for the prevention of new barriers
Achieve compliance with the AODA
regulations
The implementation of the Plan is supported
by the Pickering Accessibility Advisory
Committee.
Examples of accessible facility equipment
includes:
Steps with non-slip treads and stair lifts
Ramps, sliding doors and automatic doors
Accessible washrooms and shower facilities
Safe &
Regulatory
Description of inspections
processes in place for
facilities
There are several inspection programs in
place to ensure that municipal facilities are
kept in a good state of repair and
maintenance activities are addressed in a
timely manner. These are completed by a
combination of both City staff and external
contractors when subject matter expertise is
required.
The frequency and scope of inspections is
determined by both regulatory requirements
and risk. There are three levels of
prioritization as follows:
Primary: Health & Safety, Roofing
Secondary: HVAC and electrical systems
Tertiary: Cosmetics, lighting, flooring etc.
77
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level
of service provided by the Building & Facilities assets.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current
LOS (2020)
Accessible &
Reliable
% of facilities with accessible entrances and
washrooms 62%
Safe &
Regulatory
% of facilities where monthly inspections have been
completed 100%
Affordable Annual maintenance rate (total maintenance and
repair budgets / total ft2 of all facilities) $ 3.27
Affordable Total utility costs / ft2 of all facilities $ 2.17
Sustainable Overall Facilities Condition Index 0.21
Sustainable Annual capital reinvestment rate 0.78%
78
4.4.6 Recommendations
Asset Inventory
• Continue to review and refine the Building & Facilities asset inventory to ensure
new assets and betterments are reflected and attributes are detailed.
Condition Assessment Strategies
• Ensure that condition ratings from building condition assessments are entered
into the asset inventory on continuous basis to support planning for deterioration
modeling.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
• Maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement projects recommended by building
condition assessments cannot all be met due to budget constraints. Keep
prioritizing capital projects based on health and safety issues, as well as public
feedback.
• Work towards developing lifecycle models to prolong estimated useful life and
optimize use of available funding.
Risk Management Strategies
• Continue to implement risk-management based decision-making as part of asset
management planning and budgeting processes. This includes the regular review
of high-risk assets to determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies.
• Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to the availability of
additional data and also an evolving understanding of the probability and
consequences of asset failure.
Levels of Service
• Continue to measure current levels of service in accordance with the metrics
identified in O. Reg. 588/17 and those metrics that the City believes to provide
meaningful and reliable inputs into asset management planning.
• Work towards identifying proposed levels of service as per O. Reg. 588/17 and
identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between current and
proposed levels of service.
79
4.5 Parks
The City owns and operates several assets that are fall under the Parks assets category.
These assets are essential for the Parks’ service delivery. The asset segments include13:
• Active Recreation Facilities
• Amenities, Furniture & Utilities
• Vehicular and Pedestrian Networks
4.5.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Parks asset inventory.
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment
Quantity
14
Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Active
Recreation
Facilities
Playground
Equipment 86 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $6,519,728
Active
Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces 19,736 M2 100% CPI
Inflation $18,967,71015
Active
Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces 116 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation -
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Buildings 1,489 M2 100% CPI
Inflation $3,636,048
13 Note: The asset inventory includes only traditional tangible capital assets and does not
include natural assets.
14 The level of maturity of the asset quantity data is still at a basic level. Staff plan to prioritize
data refinement and consolidation efforts to increase confidence in the accuracy and reliability
of asset data and information.
15 Replacement cost is for all Sport Playing Surfaces.
80
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment
Quantity
14
Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Buildings 14 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation -
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Electrical/
Lighting 516 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $7,297,086
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site Furniture 106 M2 100% CPI
Inflation $1,134,68916
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site Furniture 182 M 100% CPI
Inflation -
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site Furniture 375 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation -
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site
Structures 1,116 M2
88% User-
Defined Cost,
12% CPI
Inflation
$8,381,55217
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site
Structures 4,311 M
88% User-
Defined Cost,
12% CPI
Inflation
-
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Site
Structures 196 Quantity
88% User-
Defined Cost,
12% CPI
Inflation
-
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure 2,744 M 100% CPI
Inflation $1,254,59818
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure 163 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation -
16 Replacement cost is for all Site Furniture.
17 Replacement cost is for all Site Structures.
18 Replacement cost is for all Subsurface Infrastructure.
81
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment Quantity Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure 762 M2 100% CPI
Inflation $10,102,76719
Amenities,
Furniture
& Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure 3 Quantity
100% CPI
Inflation
-
Vehicular
&
Pedestrian
Networks
Parking Lots
& Internal
Roads
51 KM2 100% CPI
Inflation $2,467,565
Vehicular
&
Pedestrian
Networks
Pedestrian
Corridors 80 KM2 100% CPI
Inflation $7,893,946
$67,655,689
19 Replacement cost is for all Waterfront Infrastructure
82
4.5.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The Average Condition Rating is a weighted
value based on replacement cost.
Asset Segment Sub-Segment
Average
Condition
(%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition
Source
Active Recreation
Facilities
Playground
Equipment 49% Satisfactory 100%
Assessed
Active Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces 46% Satisfactory 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Buildings 66% Good 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Electrical/Lighting 52% Satisfactory 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Furniture 63% Good 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Structures 73% Good 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure 67% Good 100%
Assessed
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure 74% Good 100%
Assessed
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Parking Lots &
Internal Roads 53% Satisfactory 100%
Assessed
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Pedestrian
Corridors 60% Good 100%
Assessed
58% Satisfactory
83
Current Approach to Condition Assessment
Accurate and reliable condition data allows staff to more confidently determine the
remaining service life of assets and identify the most cost-effective approach to
managing assets. The following describes the municipality’s current approach:
Staff began to implement a condition assessment program for parks infrastructure in
2017. Assessments have been continuously completed and there are plans to continue
assessing parks infrastructure using co-op students and other internal staff.
In addition to annual condition assessments, the City employs a Parks Inspector who
inspects all City playgrounds monthly to ensure playground equipment is in good repair
and playgrounds are safe.
84
4.5.3 Estimated Useful Life & Average Age
The Estimated Useful Life for Parks assets has been assigned according to a
combination of established industry standards and staff knowledge. The Average Age of
each asset is based on the number of years each asset has been in-service. Finally, the
Average Projected Service Life Remaining represents the difference between the
Estimated Useful Life and the Average Age, except when an asset has been assigned an
assessed condition rating. Assessed condition may increase or decrease the average
service life remaining.
Asset Segment Sub-Segment
Estimated
Useful
Life
(Years)
Average
Age
(Years)
Average
Projected Service
Life Remaining
(Years)
Active Recreation
Facilities
Playground
Equipment ≤20 16.7 7.4
Active Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces ≤40 26.3 8.7
Active Recreation
Facilities Buildings ≤40 17.3 18.8
Active Recreation
Facilities Electrical/Lighting ≤40 27.1 11.5
Active Recreation
Facilities Site Furniture ≤30 17.6 9.8
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Structures ≤40 11.0 19.8
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure ≤50 28.9 24.1
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure ≤100 12.3 26.6
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Parking Lots &
Internal Roads ≤40 22.7 15.5
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Pedestrian
Corridors ≤40 21.3 17.7
21.4 14.1
85
Each asset’s Estimated Useful Life should be reviewed periodically to determine whether
adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed length of service life for
each asset type.
4.5.4 Lifecycle Management Strategy
The condition or performance of most assets will deteriorate over time. This process is
affected by a range of factors including an asset’s characteristics, location, utilization,
maintenance history and environment.
The following table further expands on the City’s current approach to lifecycle
management:
Activity Type Description of Current Strategy
Maintenance
The City’s parks maintenance program is tailored to each park and
includes activities such as:
• Garbage disposal
• Grass cutting
• Park and playground inspections & repairs
• Park lighting inspections & repairs
• Irrigation system inspections & repairs
Rehabilitation
/Replacement
Based on condition assessment and inspections some repairs can be
completed on-site. Where an external contractor or specialized
materials/equipment are required additional follow-up may be required.
Rehabilitation
/Replacement
Parks staff also receive feedback from park users that informs the
development of both maintenance and capital plans.
86
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The following graph forecasts long-term capital requirements. The annual capital
requirement represents the average amount per year that the City should allocate
towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs.
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
4.5.5 Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
87
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
Risks to Current Asset Management Strategies
The following section summarizes key trends, challenges, and risks to service delivery
that the City is currently facing:
Asset Data Confidence
Currently, the asset data level of maturity is still at a basic level. The City
is undergoing an additional data refinement exercise to continue to
improve parks inventory datasets and to ensure that the inventory
captures all infrastructure with sufficient details to inform asset
management planning. There are some concerns with underestimating
the total life cycle costs for parks infrastructure using the current
datasets.
88
Climate Change & Extreme Weather Events
Flooding can impact programs and activities (e.g., soccer fields).
Waterfront is a major flood risk are (two record high flooding levels have
been recorded in the past 4 years). Erosion has been a problem as well
as damage, causing damages to waterfront infrastructure - e.g., break-
wall. Furthermore, the waterfront infrastructure is deteriorating and
suffering from premature wear from flooding, and also the sandblasting
effect caused by the City’s natural sandy beach and wind.
Infrastructure Design/Installation
There are concerns with contractors and installation practices (e.g.,
grading and its impact on drainage and safety with grass cutting).
Lifecycle Management Strategies
The lifecycle management strategies have been rather reactive than
proactive due to staff resource availability, and budget dollars. Some
maintenance activities are deferred based on staff resources and
availability of budget.
On another note, there is premature wearing of sport field surfaces due
to overbooking of existing infrastructure / lack of sufficient quantity to
meet demand. The Sports Turf Association publication “Athletic Field
Construction Manual” 2nd edition (2012) lays out a 5-part Athletic Field
Classification System, as well as Permitting Hours & Maintenance Cost
for Field Categories that indicates that the City is overbooking its fields
(All - turf and artificial). Furthermore, the City is not programming the
bookings in accordance with the required maintenance capacity and
downtime required for field recovery.
4.5.6 Levels of Service (LOS)
The following tables identify the City’s current level of service for the Road Network.
These metrics include the technical and community level of service metrics that are
required as part of O. Reg. 588/17 as well as any additional performance measures that
the City has selected for this AMP.
89
Community Levels of Service
The following table outlines the qualitative descriptions that determine the community
levels of service provided by the Parks assets.
Service
Attribute Qualitative Description Current LOS (2020)
Accessible
& Reliable
A map of the municipality
with all municipal parks
highlighted
See Appendix B
Safe &
Regulatory
Description of the parks
inspection process and
timelines for regular
inspection
The City employs a Parks Inspector who is
responsible for inspecting all playground
facilities on a monthly basis. Additionally,
Parks staff complete cursory inspections on an
regular basis as part of regular maintenance
and operating activities.
From these inspection activities a deficiency
list is created which is reviewed and
implemented by a combination of City staff
and external contractors when subject matter
expertise is required.
Technical Levels of Service
The following table outlines the quantitative metrics that determine the technical level
of service provided by the Parks assets.
Service
Attribute Technical Metric Current
LOS (2020)
Accessible &
Reliable
Square metres of outdoor recreation facility space per
1,000 population 659.8
Safe &
Regulatory # of customer complaints about conditions in parks 51
Safe &
Regulatory % of monthly park inspections completed 100
Affordable Operating & maintenance cost for parks per # of
parks $ 56,773.21
Sustainable Average condition of parks infrastructure Satisfactory
Sustainable Annual capital reinvestment rate 3.04%
90
4.5.7 Recommendations
Asset Inventory
• Continue to review and refine the Parks asset inventory to ensure new assets
and betterments are reflected and attributes are detailed.
Condition Assessment Strategies
• Identify condition assessment strategies for high value and high-risk assets.
• Review assets that have surpassed their estimated useful life to determine if
immediate replacement is required or whether these assets are expected to
remain in-service. Adjust the service life and/or condition ratings for these assets
accordingly.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
• Work towards developing lifecycle models to prolong estimated useful life and
optimize funding.
Risk Management Strategies
• Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to the availability of
additional data and also an evolving understanding of the probability and
consequences of asset failure.
Levels of Service
• Work towards ensuring that the sport field / infrastructure capacity is in place to
meet the public / user group demand. The City needs to reduce the wear on its
fields and infrastructure caused by over-usage by increasing the sport field
inventory count.
• Continue to measure current levels of service in accordance with the metrics
identified in O. Reg. 588/17 and those metrics that the City believes to provide
meaningful and reliable inputs into asset management planning.
• Work towards identifying proposed levels of service as per O. Reg. 588/17 and
identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between current and
proposed levels of service.
91
4.6 Other Infrastructure
The City owns and maintains several Other Infrastructure that provide key services to
the community. These Other Infrastructure fall under the following categories:
• Furniture & Fixtures
• Information Technology
• Library Collection Materials
• Machinery & Equipment
• Vehicles
4.6.1 Asset Inventory & Replacement Cost
The table below includes the quantity, replacement cost method and total replacement
cost of each asset segment in the City’s Other Infrastructure inventory.
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment Quantity Unit of
Measure
Replacement
Cost Method
Replacement
Cost
Furniture &
Fixtures
Furniture &
Fixtures 860 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $1,527,300
Information
Technology
Information
Technology 638 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $2,270,128
Library
Collection
Materials20
Library
Collection
Materials
11 Quantity 100% CPI
Inflation $2,096,525
Machinery &
Equipment Major 35 Quantity $6,114,758 $6,114,758
Machinery &
Equipment Minor 1,310 Quantity $6,981,929 $6,981,929
Vehicles Fire Vehicles 11 Quantity $8,647,552 $8,647,552
Vehicles Vehicles 115 Quantity $9,501,444 $9,501,444
$37,139,636
20 Through the Current Budget, the Library purchases an additional $300,000 per year in short
term Library collection assets such as e-books and magazines that is not reflected in the above
Library long term assets.
92
4.6.2 Asset Condition
The table below identifies the current average condition and source of available
condition data for each asset segment. The Average Condition (%) is a weighted value
based on replacement cost.
Asset
Segment
Sub-
Segment
Average
Condition
(%)
Average
Condition
Rating
Condition
Source
Furniture &
Fixtures
Furniture &
Fixtures 57% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
Information
Technology
Information
Technology 29% Below
Satisfactory
100% Age-
based
Library
Collection
Materials
Library
Collection
Materials
46% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
Machinery &
Equipment Major 45% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
Machinery &
Equipment Minor 44% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
Vehicles Fire
Vehicles 47% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
Vehicles Vehicles 49% Satisfactory 100% Age-
based
46% Satisfactory
93
To ensure that the City’s Other Infrastructure continue to provide an acceptable level of
service, the City should monitor the average condition of all assets. If the average
condition declines, staff should re-evaluate their lifecycle management strategy to
determine what combination of maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement activities is
required to increase the overall condition of Other Infrastructure.
4.6.3 Estimated Useful Life & Average Age
The Estimated Useful Life for Other Infrastructure has been assigned according to a
combination of established industry standards and staff knowledge. The Average Age of
each asset is based on the number of years each asset has been in-service. Finally, the
Average Projected Service Life Remaining represents the difference between the
Estimated Useful Life and the Average Age.
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment
Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
Average
Age (Years)
Average Projected
Service Life
Remaining (Years)
Furniture &
Fixtures
Furniture &
Fixtures ≤50 8.8 13.3
Information
Technology
Information
Technology ≤10 6.5 -1.121
Library
Collection
Materials
Library Collection
Materials ≤7 2.9 2.9
Machinery &
Equipment Major ≤15 6.1 4.6
Machinery &
Equipment Minor ≤25 7.5 2.6
21 A negative Average Projected Service Life Remaining (Years) means that the majority of
assets have surpassed their useful lives. In other words, there are more assets that have
surpassed their useful lives than those that have not yet reached their useful lives.
94
Asset
Segment Sub-Segment
Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
Average
Age (Years)
Average Projected
Service Life
Remaining (Years)
Vehicles Fire Vehicles ≤15 8.7 6.3
Vehicles Vehicles ≤9 4.8 3.2
6.8 2.8
Each asset’s Estimated Useful Life should be reviewed periodically to determine whether
adjustments need to be made to better align with the observed length of service life for
each asset type.
4.6.4 Lifecycle Management Strategy
Forecasted Capital Requirements
The following graph forecasts long-term capital requirements. The annual capital
requirement represents the average amount per year that the City should allocate
towards funding rehabilitation and replacement needs.
95
The projected cost of lifecycle activities that will need to be undertaken over the next
10 years to maintain the current level of service can be found in Appendix A.
4.6.5 Risk & Criticality
Risk Matrix
The following risk matrix provides a visual representation of the level of risk exposure
for this asset category. It considers both the probability of failure and consequence of
failure.
• Assets that fall in the uper right quadrant require immediate action as they have
high chances of failure and major consequences associated to their failure.
• Assets that fall in the lower right quadrant require monitoring and predictive
analysis of failure as they have high chances of failure with minor to moderate
consequences associated to their failure, which may be tolerable by the City.
• Assets that fall in the upper left quadrant require proactive maintenance to keep
their probability of failure low to moderate since they have moderate to high
consequences associated to their failure.
• The assets that fall in the lower left quadrant have a low to moderate probability
and low to moderate consequences of failure. Therefore, they require usual
routine monitoring
The metrics that have been used to determine both can be found in Appendix C.
96
4.6.6 Levels of Service
The Other Infrastructure category is considered a non-core asset category. As such, the
City has until July 1, 2024, to determine the qualitative descriptions and technical
metrics that measure the current level of service provided.
97
4.6.7 Recommendations
Asset Inventory
• Start to review and validate inventory data, assessed condition data and
replacement costs for all Other Infrastructure.
Condition Assessment Strategies
• Start obtaining and entering condition ratings from assessments into the asset
inventory on a continuous basis to support planning for deterioration modeling.
Risk Management Strategies
• Review risk models on a regular basis and adjust according to the availability of
data and also an evolving understanding of the probability and consequences of
asset failure.
Lifecycle Management Strategies
• Document and review lifecycle management strategies for Other Infrastructure
on a regular basis to achieve the lowest total cost of ownership while maintaining
adequate service levels.
• Consider the development of preventative maintenance programs.
Levels of Service
• Work towards identifying current and proposed levels of service as per O. Reg.
588/17 and identify the strategies that are required to close any gaps between
current and proposed levels of service by July 1st, 2025
98
Key Insights
5 Impacts of Growth
• Understanding the key drivers of growth and demand will allow the City to more
effectively plan for new infrastructure and the upgrade or disposal of existing
infrastructure. There is a Provincial mandate to intensify development around
Major Transit Station Areas and within Strategic Growth Areas (e.g., within
centres and along corridors), within the built-up areas of the city, and to identify
greenfield areas for growth outside the city’s built-up area, in accordance with
the provisions of A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe.
• Significant population and employment growth is expected.
• The costs of growth should be considered in long-term funding strategies that
are designed to maintain the current level of service.
99
5.1 Description of Growth Assumptions
The demand for infrastructure and services will change over time based on a
combination of internal and external factors. Understanding the key drivers of growth
and demand will allow the City to plan for new infrastructure more effectively, as well
as upgrade or dispose of existing infrastructure. Increases or decreases in demand can
affect what assets are needed and what level of service meets the needs of the
community.
5.1.1 Pickering Official Plan – Edition 8 (October 2018)
In 1997, the City of Pickering (Corporation of the Town of Pickering, at the time) and
the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham approved the Official Plan. The
Official Plan lays the “foundation” for building a good community. As a foundation, it
provides a vision of the City, identifies how the vision can be reached, and establishes a
monitoring program for checking progress and making necessary adjustments. The last
consolidation of the plan was in October 2018.
This vision of the plan can be translated into the following set of guiding principles for
Pickering’s future growth and development:
A. To meet people’s needs while ensuring environmentally appropriate actions;
B. To become more self-sufficient while seeking broader connections;
C. To support individual rights while upholding community goals;
D. To welcome diversity while respecting local context; and
E. To manage change while recognizing uncertainty.
Future growth in the City is centered principally around redevelopment and
intensification in the Pickering City Centre and on lands along the Kingston Road
Corridor and within the Specialty Retailing Node (located east of Brock Road, north of
Highway 401 and south of Kingston Road), new development within the Duffin Heights
Neighbourhood and the new Seaton Urban Area.
The City Centre
The Pickering Official Plan supports growth in all portions of the City Centre and
restricts new residential development in City Centre south of Highway 401 to 6,300
people or 3,400 units by 2031 until at least an additional 2,000 people or 1,100 new
units have been developed on lands north of Highway 401 in the City Centre.
Furthermore, South Pickering Urban Area Employment Target Policy adopts an
employment target for the City Centre of 13,500 jobs for the year 2031, which
represents adding 8,800 jobs to the area. Moreover, the total population in the City
Centre is expected to grow from 5,100 (2011) to 13,500 by 2031.
The Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
100
The Pickering Official Plan is currently being amended to provide a comprehensive
policy framework for the redevelopment and intensification of lands along the Kingston
Road Corridor and within the Specialty Retailing Node. The potential mix of uses and
densities along the Corridor and within the Node is expected to yield a total of 22,000
residents and 8,100 jobs by 2041. A map depicting the Kingston Road Corridor and
Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan Area can be found below.
101
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
The development of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, located north of Third
Concession Road and centered around Brock Road, kicked off in 2011. According to the
City’s 20-year Detailed Population Forecast, the Duffin Heights neighbourhood is
forecasted to grow to 12,461 people and 4,360 units by 2031.
The following map presents the Duffin Heights Neighborhood as part of the South
Pickering Urban Area Neighbourhoods:
102
The Seaton Urban Area
According to the Seaton Urban Area Population and Employment Policy, City Council
supports the development of an urban community that will accommodate 61,000 people
by 2031 and be planned to accommodate up to 70,000 people through long-term
intensification. The plan also includes the provision of high-quality employment
opportunities that reflect the needs of the community with the identification of sufficient
employment lands to generate approximately one job for every two residents with
30,500 jobs by 2031, and up to 35,000 jobs through long-term intensification.
Neighbourhood # Neighbourhood Name
1 Rosebank
2 West Shore
3 Bay Ridges
4 Brock Industrial
5 Rougemount
6 Woodlands
7 Dunbarton
8 City Centre
9 Village East
10 Highbush
11 Amberlea
12 Liverpool
13 Brock Ridge
14 Rouge Park
15 Duffin Heights
103
The following table provides a breakdown of the of the 2031 population forecast of the
Seaton Urban Area:
The following map exhibits the neighbourhood of the Seaton Urban Area listed above:
Neighbourhood 2031
Population
Lamoreaux 17,500
Brock-Taunton 5,000
Mount Pleasant 18,000
Wilson Meadows 15,000
Thompson’s Corners 5,500
Pickering Innovation Corridor 0
104
5.1.2 Growth Forecasts
The Durham Regional Official Plan was consolidated on May 26, 2020. The Region's
original Official Plan was adopted by Regional Council on July 14, 1976 and approved by
the Minister of Housing on March 17, 1978.
The goal of the plan is to manage growth and to develop the Region to its economic
potential and increase job opportunities for its residents, while focusing on creating
healthy and complete sustainable communities within the urban environment. The plan
takes into consideration provincial land use policy and plans such as the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan.
The Regional Official Plan recognizes the importance of key economic drivers that will
influence the future growth and development of the Region in several hotspot areas.
Hotspots in Pickering include: the Highway 401 and 407 corridors, the Urban Growth
Centre, and the Federal lands.
The 2006 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe projected the Region of
Durham’s population to reach 960,000 and the employment to reach 350,000 by 2031.
Based on the Region’s update to its Official Plan to address the 2006 Growth Plan
forecasts for Durham, the Region’s population, housing, and employment forecast for
the City of Pickering is reflected in the following table.
Neighbourhood # Neighbourhood Name
16 Lamoreaux
17 Brock Taunton
18 Mount Pleasant
19 Wilson Meadows
20 Thompson’s Corners
21 Innovation Corridor
Pickering’s Forecasted growth 2011 2021 2031
Total Population 110,085 177,915 225,670
Housing 34,860 58,245 77,125
Employment 41,000 67,910 76,720
105
Due to delays in the development of the Seaton Urban Area, and slower than
anticipated growth in South Pickering, population and employment growth in Pickering
has been significantly slower than what is forecasted in the Regional Official Plan. The
following table reflects the actual population and housing numbers for Pickering in
2011, based on Statistics Canada data, as well as a more conservative forecast for 2021
and 2031 based on the City’s Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (updated in
December 2020).
Actual Growth & City Detailed 20 Year
Forecast 2011 2021 2031
Total Population 88,720 94,655 127,341
Housing 29,330 33,337 46,639
According to data from the City’s Economic Development Office, the employment
number in Pickering stands at approximately 36,340 in 2021.
The gaps between the projected growth in terms of population, housing and
employment between the Region’s numbers and the City’s numbers are highlighted in
the two graphs below:
2011 2021 2031
Total Population -
Region's Forecasted
Growth
110,085 177,915 225,670
Housing - Region's
Forecasted Growth 34,860 58,245 77,125
Total Population - Actual
Growth and City Detailed
20 year Forecast
88,720 94,655 127,341
Housing - Actual Growth
and City Detailed 20 year
Forecast
29,330 33,337 46,639
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Projected Growth vs Actual Growth -
Population and Housing -City of Pickering
106
A Place to Grow
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) extended the timeframe of
the Growth Plan to 2051, projecting the Region of Durham’s population to reach
1,300,000 and the employment to reach 460,000 by 2051. At this time, projections for
local municipalities to 2051, are still pending. According to Durham Region’s website,
the estimated population for the region at the end of December 2019 is 699,460
people. Comparing this figure to the projected population of 1,300,000 for 2051,
Durham’s population will have to nearly double over the next 30 years.
5.2 Impact of Growth on Lifecycle Activities
By July 1, 2025, the City’s asset management plan must include a discussion on how
the Assumptions regarding future changes in population and economic activity informed
the preparation of the lifecycle management and financial strategy.
Planning for forecasted population growth may require the expansion of existing
infrastructure and services. As growth-related assets are constructed or acquired, they
should be integrated into the City’s AMP. While the addition of residential units will add
to the existing assessment base and offset some of the costs associated with growth,
the City will need to review the lifecycle costs of growth-related infrastructure on an
ongoing basis. These costs should be considered in long-term funding strategies that
67,910
36,340
2021
Projected Growth vs Actual Growth -
Employement -City of Pickering
Employment - Region's Forecasted Growth
Employment - City's Economic Development Office
107
are designed to, at a minimum, maintain the current level of service.
108
Key Insights
6 Financial Strategy
• The City is committing approximately $15,755,000 towards capital projects per
year from sustainable revenue sources
• Given the annual capital requirement of $41,259,000, there is currently a funding
gap of $25,504,000 annually
• For tax-funded assets, we recommend increasing tax revenues by 1.8% each
year for the next 15 years to achieve a sustainable level of funding
109
6.1 Financial Strategy Overview
For an asset management plan (AMP) to be effective and meaningful, it must be
integrated with a long-term financial plan (LTFP). The development of a comprehensive
LTFP will allow the City of Pickering to identify the financial resources required for
sustainable asset management based on existing asset inventories, desired levels of
service, and projected growth requirements.
This report develops such a financial plan by presenting several scenarios for
consideration and culminating with final recommendations. As outlined below, the
scenarios presented model different combinations of the following components:
1. The financial requirements for:
a. Existing assets
b. Existing service levels
c. Requirements of contemplated changes in service levels (none identified
for this plan)
d. Requirements of anticipated growth (none identified for this plan)
2. Use of traditional sources of municipal funds:
a. Tax levies
b. User fees
c. Reserves
d. Debt
e. Development charges
3. Use of non-traditional sources of municipal funds:
a. Reallocated budgets
b. Partnerships
c. Procurement methods
4. Use of Senior Government Funds:
a. Gas tax
b. Annual grants
Note: Periodic grants are normally not included due to Provincial requirements for firm
commitments. However, if moving a specific project forward is wholly dependent on
receiving a one-time grant, the replacement cost included in the financial strategy is the
net of such grant being received.
If the financial plan component results in a funding shortfall, the Province requires the
inclusion of a specific plan as to how the impact of the shortfall will be managed. In
determining the legitimacy of a funding shortfall, the Province may evaluate a City’s
approach to the following:
1. In order to reduce financial requirements, consideration has been given to
revising service levels downward.
110
2.All asset management and financial strategies have been considered. For
example:
a.If a zero-debt policy is in place, is it warranted? If not the use of debt
should be considered.
b.Do user fees reflect the cost of the applicable service? If not, increased
user fees should be considered.
6.1.1 Annual Requirements & Capital Funding
Annual Requirements
The annual requirements represent the amount the City should allocate annually to
each asset category to meet replacement needs as they arise, prevent infrastructure
backlogs, and achieve long-term sustainability. In total, the City must allocate
approximately $40.27 million annually to address capital expenditures (capex) for the
assets included in this AMP.
For most asset categories the annual requirement has been calculated based on a
“replacement only” scenario, in which capex are only incurred at the construction and
replacement of each asset.
However, for the Road Corridor and Stormwater System, lifecycle management
strategies have been developed to identify capex that are realized through strategic
rehabilitation and renewal of the City’s roads and stormwater wet ponds respectively.
The development of these strategies allows for a comparison of potential cost
111
avoidance if the strategies were to be implemented. The following table compares two
scenarios for the Road Corridor and Stormwater System:
1.Replacement Only Scenario: Based on the assumption that assets deteriorate
and – without regularly scheduled maintenance and rehabilitation – are replaced
at the end of their service life.
2.Lifecycle Strategy Scenario: Based on the assumption that lifecycle activities
are performed at strategic intervals to extend the service life of assets until
replacement is required.
Asset Category
Annual
Requirements
(Replacement Only)
Annual
Requirements
(Lifecycle Strategy)
Difference
Road Corridor $21,280,331 $17,519,766 $3,760,565
Stormwater System $4,146,033 $5,131,544 $(985,511)
The implementation of a proactive lifecycle strategy for roads leads to a potential
annual cost avoidance of $3,760,565 for the Road Corridor. This represents an overall
reduction of the annual requirements for the Road Corridor by 17.67%. As the lifecycle
strategy scenario represents the lowest cost option available to the City, we have used
these annual requirements in the development of the financial strategy.
Annual Funding Available
Based on a historical analysis of sustainable capital funding sources, the City is
committing approximately $15,755,000 towards capital projects per year. Given the
annual capital requirement of $40,270,000, there is currently a funding gap of
$24,515,000 annually.
112
6.2 Funding Objective
We have developed a scenario that would enable the City of Pickering to achieve full
funding within 1 to 20 years for the following assets:
1.Tax Funded Assets: Road Corridor, Stormwater System, Bridges & Culverts,
Buildings & Facilities, Parks, and Other Infrastructure.
Note: For the purposes of this AMP, we have excluded gravel roads since they are a
perpetual maintenance asset and end of life replacement calculations do not normally
apply. If gravel roads are maintained properly, they can theoretically have a limitless
service life.
For each scenario developed we have included strategies, where applicable, regarding
the use of cost containment and funding opportunities.
113
6.3 Financial Profile: Tax Funded Assets
6.3.1 Current Funding Position
The following tables show, by asset category, the City of Pickering’s average annual
capex requirements, current funding positions, and funding increases required to
achieve full funding on assets funded by taxes.
Annual Funding Available
Taxes Gas Tax OCIF Reserve
Funds
Taxes to
Reserves
Total
Available
Road Corridor $17,520,000 $65,000 $2,911,000 $880,000 $800,000 $529,000 $5,185,000 $12,335,000
Stormwater
System $5,131,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 $529,000 $1,229,000 $4,811,000
Bridges &
Culverts $1,136,000 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $529,000 $1,329,000 ($193,000)
Buildings &
Facilities $9,718,000 $209,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $1,804,000 $2,313,000 $7,405,000
Parks $2,722,000 $27,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,029,000 $2,056,000 $666,000
Other
Infrastructure $4,043,000 $499,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,144,000 $3,643,000 $480,000
$40,270,000 $800,000 $2,911,000 $880,000 $3,600,000 $7,564,000 $15,755,000 $24,515,000
The average annual capex requirement for the above categories is $40.27 million.
Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $15.755
million leaving an annual deficit of $24.515 million. Put differently, these infrastructure
categories are currently funded at 39.12% of their long-term requirements.
6.3.2 Full Funding Requirements
In 2021, City of Pickering has budgeted annual tax revenues of $77.971 million. As
illustrated in the following table, without consideration of any other sources of revenue
or cost containment strategies, full funding would require the following tax change over
time:
114
Asset Category Tax Change Required for Full
Funding
Road Corridor 15.8%
Stormwater System 5.0%
Bridges & Culverts -0.2%
Buildings & Facilities 9.5%
Parks 0.9%
Other Infrastructure 0.5%
31.5%
The following changes in costs and/or revenues over the next number of years should
also be considered in the financial strategy:
a) Pickering’s debt payments for these asset categories will be decreasing by
$3.588 million over the next 20 years.
Our recommendations include capturing the above changes and allocating them to the
infrastructure deficit outlined above. The table below outlines this concept and presents
several options:
Without Capturing Changes With Capturing Changes22
5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years
Infrastructure Deficit $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000 $24,515,000
Change in Debt Costs N/A N/A N/A N/A -$1,949,000 -$3,190,000 -$3,487,000 -$3,588,000
Change in OCIF Grants N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resulting Infrastructure Deficit: 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Tax Increase Required 31.5% 31.5% 31.5% 31.5% 28.9% 27.3% 27.0% 26.8%
Annually: 6.3% 3.1% 2.1% 1.6% 5.8% 2.7% 1.8% 1.3%
6.3.3 Financial Strategy Recommendations
Considering all the above information, we recommend the 15-year option. This involves
full capex funding being achieved over 15 years by:
22 In the 2021 CapEx budget, there are projects totalling $15.568 million that could require
debentures not reflected in the table. The City of Pickering has chosen to not include these
potential debentures in the analysis due to uncertainty.
115
a) When realized, reallocating the debt cost reductions of $3.487 million to the
infrastructure deficit as outlined above.
b) Increasing tax revenues by 1.8% each year for the next 15 years solely for the
purpose of phasing in full funding to the asset categories covered in this section
of the AMP.
c) Allocating the current gas tax and OCIF revenue as outlined previously.
d) Allocating the scheduled OCIF grant increases to the infrastructure deficit as they
occur.
e) Reallocating appropriate revenue from categories in a surplus position to those in
a deficit position.
f) Increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation
index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in.
g) Increasing tax revenues relative to changes in debt costs from the issuance of
any new debt.
Notes:
1. As in the past, periodic senior government infrastructure funding will most likely
be available during the phase-in period. By Provincial AMP rules, this periodic
funding cannot be incorporated into an AMP unless there are firm commitments
in place. We have included OCIF formula-based funding, if applicable since this
funding is a multi-year commitment23.
2. We realize that raising tax revenues by the amounts recommended above for
infrastructure purposes will be very difficult to do. However, considering a longer
phase-in window may have even greater consequences in terms of infrastructure
failure.
3. There are projects totalling $15.568 million that could require debentures not
reflected in the analysis. The City of Pickering has chosen to not include these
debentures in the analysis due to uncertainty. If this debt is issued, the resulting
debt costs should be considered as noted in the recommendations above.
Although this option achieves full funding on an annual basis in 15 years and provides
financial sustainability over the period modeled, the recommendations do require
prioritizing capital projects to fit the resulting annual funding available. Current data
shows a pent-up investment demand of $5,509,000 for the Road Corridor, $607,000 for
Parks, $111,366,000 for the Buildings & Facilities, $399,000 for the Stormwater System,
and $5,682,000 for Other Infrastructure.
23 The City should take advantage of all available grant funding programs and transfers from
other levels of government. While OCIF has historically been considered a sustainable source of
funding, the program is currently undergoing review by the provincial government. Depending
on the outcome of this review, there may be changes that impact its availability.
116
Prioritizing future projects will require the current data to be replaced by condition-
based data. Although our recommendations include no further use of debt, the results
of the condition-based analysis may require otherwise.
117
6.4 Use of Debt
For reference purposes, the following table outlines the premium paid on a project if
financed by debt. For example, a $1M project financed at 3.0%24 over 15 years would
result in a 26% premium or $260,000 of increased costs due to interest payments. For
simplicity, the table does not consider the time value of money or the effect of inflation
on delayed projects.
Interest Rate Number of Years Financed
5 10 15 20 25 30
7.0% 22% 42% 65% 89% 115% 142%
6.5% 20% 39% 60% 82% 105% 130%
6.0% 19% 36% 54% 74% 96% 118%
5.5% 17% 33% 49% 67% 86% 106%
5.0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 77% 95%
4.5% 14% 26% 40% 54% 69% 84%
4.0% 12% 23% 35% 47% 60% 73%
3.5% 11% 20% 30% 41% 52% 63%
3.0% 9% 17% 26% 34% 44% 53%
2.5% 8% 14% 21% 28% 36% 43%
2.0% 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 34%
1.5% 5% 8% 12% 16% 21% 25%
1.0% 3% 6% 8% 11% 14% 16%
0.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8%
0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
It should be noted that current interest rates are near all-time lows. Sustainable funding
models that include debt need to incorporate the risk of rising interest rates. The
following graph shows where historical lending rates have been:
24 Current municipal Infrastructure Ontario rates for 15-year money is 3.2%.
118
A change in 15-year rates from 3% to 6% would change the premium from 26% to
54%. Such a change would have a significant impact on a financial plan.
The following tables outline how Pickering has historically used debt for investing in the
asset categories as listed. There is currently $17,321,000 of debt outstanding for the
assets covered by this AMP with corresponding principal and interest payments of
$3,588,000, well within its provincially prescribed maximum of $19,497,000.
Use of Debt in the Last Five Years
Asset Category Current Debt
Outstanding 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Road Corridor $6,194,000 $1,478,000 $2,128,000 $367,000 $2,565,000 $486,000
Stormwater System $376,000 $0 $174,000 $342,000 $0 $0
Bridges & Culverts $1,074,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Buildings & Facilities $6,322,000 $3,608,000 $1,570,000 $1,946,000 $690,000 $191,000
Parks $1,412,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,276,000 $0
Other Infrastructure $1,943,000 $1,390,000 $538,000 $949,000 $0 $0
Total Tax Funded: $17,321,000 $6,476,000 $4,410,000 $3,604,000 $4,531,000 $677,000
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
Historical Prime Business Interest Rate
119
Principle & Interest Payments in the Next Ten Years25
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2031
Road Corridor $1,586,000 $1,351,000 $857,000 $700,000 $623,000 $622,000 $0
Stormwater System $66,000 $66,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $28,000 $28,000
Bridges & Culverts $98,000 $99,000 $99,000 $100,000 $99,000 $99,000 $0
Buildings & Facilities $1,082,000 $1,059,000 $850,000 $558,000 $558,000 $517,000 $370,000
Parks $270,000 $271,000 $146,000 $146,000 $145,000 $145,000 $0
Other Infrastructure $486,000 $407,000 $354,000 $231,000 $232,000 $228,000 $0
Total Tax Funded: $3,588,000 $3,253,000 $2,335,000 $1,764,000 $1,686,000 $1,639,000 $398,000
The revenue options outlined in this plan allow Pickering to fully fund its long-term
infrastructure requirements without further use of debt.
25 In the 2021 CapEx budget, there are projects totalling $15.568 million that could require
debentures not reflected in the table. The City of Pickering has chosen to not include these
potential debentures in the analysis due to uncertainty.
120
6.5 Use of Reserves
6.5.1 Available Reserves
Reserves play a critical role in long-term financial planning. The benefits of having
reserves available for infrastructure planning include:
a) The ability to stabilize tax rates when dealing with variable and sometimes
uncontrollable factors
b) Financing one-time or short-term investments
c) Accumulating the funding for significant future infrastructure investments
d) Managing the use of debt
e) Normalizing infrastructure funding requirement
By asset category, the table below outlines the details of the reserves currently
available to Pickering.
Asset Category Balance on December 31,
2020
Road Corridor $12,025,000
Stormwater System $4,056,000
Bridges & Culverts $1,975,000
Buildings & Facilities $16,632,000
Parks $11,452,000
Other Infrastructure $6,418,000
Total Tax Funded: $52,558,000
There is considerable debate in the municipal sector as to the appropriate level of
reserves that a City should have on hand. There is no clear guideline that has gained
wide acceptance. Factors that municipalities should consider when determining their
capital reserve requirements include:
a) Breadth of services provided
b) Age and condition of infrastructure
c) Use and level of debt
d) Economic conditions and outlook
e) Internal reserve and debt policies.
These reserves are available for use by applicable asset categories during the phase-in
period to full funding. This coupled with Pickering’s judicious use of debt in the past,
allows the scenarios to assume that, if required, available reserves and debt capacity
121
can be used for high priority and emergency infrastructure investments in the short- to
medium-term.
6.5.2 Recommendation
In 2025, Ontario Regulation 588/17 will require Pickering to integrate proposed levels of
service for all asset categories in its asset management plan update. We recommend
that future planning should reflect adjustments to service levels and their impacts on
reserve balances.
122
Key Insights
7 Appendices
• Appendix A identifies projected 10-year capital requirements for each asset
category
• Appendix B includes several maps that have been used to visualize the current
level of service
• Appendix C identifies the criteria used to calculate risk for each asset category
• Appendix D provides additional guidance on the development of a condition
assessment program
• Appendix E identifies criteria used in the FCI condition rating
123
Appendix A: 10-Year Capital Requirements
The following tables identify the capital cost requirements for each of the next 10 years in order to meet projected capital
requirements and maintain the current level of service.
Road Corridor
Segment Sub-Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Roads
Arterial $0 $864,600 $251,458 $197,948 $0 $172,726 $535,585 $0 $0 $881,388 $1,053,613
Roads
Collector $0 $0 $851,178 $2,199,505 $700,718 $1,207,628 $1,225,800 $529,350 $1,050,219 $1,082,056 $698,565
Roads
Local $9,050,539 $15,982,815 $7,139,108 $12,277,252 $13,576,039 $18,160,343 $13,439,686 $14,674,893 $10,682,836 $32,580,485 $19,113,865
Roadside
Appurtenances Broadband $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Roadside
Appurtenances Guide Rails $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Roadside
Appurtenances Retaining Walls $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sidewalks Sidewalks $974,763 $974,763 $0 $0 $63,426 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,059
Streetlights Head
Luminaires $78,284 $7,169 $157,886 $157,049 $171,833 $56,156 $45,271 $408,143 $60,424 $0 $0
Streetlights Poles &
Assemblies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,489,981 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Traffic &
Pedestrian Signals Controllers $0 $0 $0 $0 $395,064 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $324,889
Traffic &
Pedestrian Signals Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,530,333 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total: $10,103,587 $16,854,584 $8,399,630 $14,895,181 $14,843,653 $64,086,833 $17,776,675 $15,612,386 $11,793,478 $34,580,988 $21,329,021
124
Stormwater System
Segment Sub-
Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Drainage
Channels
Drainage
Channels $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewers Catch Basin
and Lead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,363,330 $1,136,403 $0 $0
Storm Sewers Clean Water
Collectors $53,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewers Inlet/Outlet
Structures $77,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewers Maintenance
Holes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,465 $0
Storm Sewers Oil Grit
Separators $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,406,168 $130,477 $0
Storm Sewers Service
Connections $279,544 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewers Storm Sewer
Mains $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Stormwater
Ponds
Dry Ponds $0 $384,300 $2,182,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Stormwater
Ponds
Wet Ponds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total: $411,244 $384,300 $2,182,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,363,330 $13,542,571 $160,943 $0
Bridges & Culverts
Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Bridges $2,954,674 $4,176,000 $1,626,000 $1,804,000 $456,000 $1,276,000 $0 $0 $2,640,000 $0 $0
Structural Culverts $2,045,326 $2,376,000 $1,014,729 $102,000 $668,000 $1,342,149 $0 $0 $649,853 $0 $0
Total: $5,000,000 $6,552,000 $2,640,729 $1,906,000 $1,124,000 $2,618,149 $0 $0 $3,289,853 $0 $0
125
Buildings & Facilities
Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Civic Complex $1,745,570 $2,927,131 $635,007 $976,641 $2,992,941 $507,449 $1,782,161 $154,076 $2,332,705 $1,147,054 $845,457
Community & Cultural Buildings $2,093,261 $1,880,121 $644,189 $3,468,097 $2,909,771 $1,890,277 $3,999,238 $896,067 $2,440,570 $1,007,890 $1,200,926
Fire Services $536,383 $372,671 $217,616 $228,326 $1,942,769 $366,058 $327,939 $1,762,211 $61,402 $231,743 $281,377
Operations Centre $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,102,185 $163,179 $0
Recreation, Pools &
Arenas $8,587,290 $1,887,036 $5,361,024 $4,370,121 $4,199,635 $4,800,070 $5,519,616 $2,827,992 $2,416,316 $8,083,531 $3,052,205
Total: $12,962,503 $7,066,960 $6,857,835 $9,043,185 $12,045,116 $7,563,854 $11,628,953 $5,640,347 $8,353,178 $10,633,397 $5,379,965
126
Parks
Segment Sub-Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Active
Recreation
Facilities
Playground
Equipment $9,359 $0 $0 $318,913 $0 $0 $3,327,614 $0 $0 $3,340,356 $0
Active
Recreation
Facilities
Sport Playing
Surfaces $467,181 $1,098,921 $0 $641,470 $0 $1,733,290 $1,260,840 $0 $1,229,773 $11,489,488 $0
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Buildings
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229,439 $0
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Electrical/Lighting
$157,651 $0 $75,753 $145,067 $0 $0 $13,707 $812,401 $0 $108,294 $209,542
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Furniture
$0 $14,272 $0 $0 $90,388 $0 $127,110 $0 $39,094 $474,665 $0
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Site Structures
$0 $198,000 $0 $238,000 $0 $0 $46,919 $0 $67,447 $117,856 $0
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Subsurface
Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,533 $0
Amenities,
Furniture &
Utilities
Waterfront
Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Parking Lots &
Internal Roads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121,202 $931,481 $0
Vehicular &
Pedestrian
Networks
Pedestrian
Corridors $0 $68,480 $0 $0 $0 $629,415 $0 $17,999 $148,163 $1,262,556 $10,378
Total: $634,191 $1,379,673 $75,753 $1,343,451 $90,388 $2,472,592 $4,776,190 $830,400 $1,605,678 $17,964,669 $219,920
127
Other Infrastructure
Segment Sub-
Segment Backlog 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Furniture &
Fixtures
Furniture &
Fixtures
$161,095 $0 $30,928 $0 $31,076 $86,976 $0 $149,796 $134,726 $307,337 $90,276
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
$874,945 $416,713 $320,351 $216,314 $165,517 $920,482 $378,955 $325,045 $678,780 $1,433,927 $283,494
Library
Collection
Materials
Library
Collection
Materials
$0 $404,723 $430,800 $419,778 $324,082 $444,563 $431,257 $374,649 $398,615 $541,026 $538,034
Machinery &
Equipment
Major $1,149,139 $90,569 $668,816 $553,739 $220,172 $785,431 $471,510 $749,869 $610,796 $1,471,081 $161,046
Machinery &
Equipment
Minor $1,820,184 $416,546 $420,272 $473,292 $231,814 $1,113,831 $998,157 $721,958 $603,045 $1,093,964 $1,073,573
Vehicles Fire Vehicles $287,737 $1,367,843 $0 $0 $0 $1,430,690 $1,907,608 $0 $1,140,962 $0 $0
Vehicles Vehicles $2,119,693 $295,382 $873,691 $678,755 $509,295 $1,442,734 $929,280 $1,120,784 $2,780,725 $1,949,259 $2,304,506
Vehicles Major $1,149,139 $90,569 $668,816 $553,739 $220,172 $785,431 $471,510 $749,869 $610,796 $1,471,081 $161,046
Total: $6,412,792 $2,991,777 $2,744,859 $2,341,878 $1,481,957 $6,224,707 $5,116,767 $3,442,101 $6,347,648 $6,796,594 $4,450,929
128
Appendix B: Level of Service Maps
Dunbarton Rd Culvert
(BCI Rating 95)
129
Radom St Culvert
(BCI Rating 56.5)
130
Palmer Bridge
(BCI Rating 86.6)
131
Michell Bridge
(BCI Rating 57.1)
132
Road Network Classification Map Part 1
133
Road Network Classification Map Part 2
134
Road Network Adequacy Map Part 1
135
Road Network Adequacy Map Part 2
136
Sidewalk Network Classification Map Part 1
137
Sidewalk Network Classification Map Part 2
138
Stormwater System Classification Map Part 1
139
Stormwater System Classification Map Part 2
140
Parks Inventory Map
141
Appendix C: Risk Rating Criteria
Probability of Failure
Asset Category Risk
Criteria
Criteria
Weighting Value/Range Probability of
Failure Score
Road Corridor Condition 100% 0-40 5
Road Corridor Condition 100% 41-60 4
Road Corridor Condition 100% 61-75 3
Road Corridor Condition 100% 75-90 2
Road Corridor Condition 100% 91-100 1
Stormwater System (Main) Condition 90% 0-20 5
Stormwater System (Main) Condition 90% 21-40 4
Stormwater System (Main) Condition 90% 41-60 3
Stormwater System (Main) Condition 90% 61-80 2
Stormwater System (Main) Condition 90% 80-100 1
Stormwater System (Main) Pipe
Material 10% Concrete 2
Stormwater System (Main) Pipe
Material 10% Steel 3
All Other Assets Condition 100% 0-20 5
All Other Assets Condition 100% 21-40 4
All Other Assets Condition 100% 41-60 3
All Other Assets Condition 100% 61-80 2
All Other Assets Condition 100% 81-100 1
142
Consequence of Failure
Asset Category Risk
Classification Risk Criteria
Road Corridor Economic
(100%) Surface Material (20%)
Road Corridor Economic
(100%)
Design Class (25%)
Road Corridor Economic
(100%)
AADT Range (35%)
Road Corridor Economic
(100%)
Roadside Environment
(20%)
Stormwater System (Main)
Economic
(100%)
Replacement Cost
(100%)
All Other Assets Economic
(100%)
Replacement Cost
(100%)
143
Appendix D: Condition Assessment Guidelines
The foundation of good asset management practice is accurate and reliable data on the
current condition of infrastructure. Assessing the condition of an asset at a single point
in time allows staff to have a better understanding of the probability of asset failure due
to deteriorating condition.
Condition data is vital to the development of data-driven asset management strategies.
Without accurate and reliable asset data, there may be little confidence in asset
management decision-making which can lead to premature asset failure, service
disruption and suboptimal investment strategies. To prevent these outcomes, the City’s
condition assessment strategy should outline several key considerations, including:
The role of asset condition data in decision-making
Guidelines for the collection of asset condition data
A schedule for how regularly asset condition data should be collected
Role of Asset Condition Data
The goal of collecting asset condition data is to ensure that data is available to inform
maintenance and renewal programs required to meet the desired level of service.
Accurate and reliable condition data allows municipal staff to determine the remaining
service life of assets, and identify the most cost-effective approach to deterioration,
whether it involves extending the life of the asset through remedial efforts or
determining that replacement is required to avoid asset failure.
In addition to the optimization of lifecycle management strategies, asset condition data
also impacts the City’s risk management and financial strategies. Assessed condition is a
key variable in the determination of an asset’s probability of failure. With a strong
understanding of the probability of failure across the entire asset portfolio, the City can
develop strategies to mitigate both the probability and consequences of asset failure
and service disruption. Furthermore, with condition-based determinations of future
capital expenditures, the City can develop long-term financial strategies with higher
accuracy and reliability.
Guidelines for Condition Assessment
Whether completed by external consultants or internal staff, condition assessments
should be completed in a structured and repeatable fashion, according to consistent
and objective assessment criteria. Without proper guidelines for the completion of
condition assessments there can be little confidence in the validity of condition data and
asset management strategies based on this data.
144
Condition assessments must include a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the
current condition of the asset, collected according to specified condition rating criteria,
in a format that can be used for asset management decision-making. As a result, it is
important that staff adequately define the condition rating criteria that should be used
and the assets that require a discrete condition rating. When engaging with external
consultants to complete condition assessments, it is critical that these details are
communicated as part of the contractual terms of the project.
There are many options available to the City to complete condition assessments. In
some cases, external consultants may need to be engaged to complete detailed
technical assessments of infrastructure. In other cases, internal staff may have
sufficient expertise or training to complete condition assessments.
Developing a Condition Assessment Schedule
Condition assessments and general data collection can be both time-consuming and
resource intensive. It is not necessarily an effective strategy to collect assessed
condition data across the entire asset inventory. Instead, the City should prioritize the
collection of assessed condition data based on the anticipated value of this data in
decision-making. The International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) identifies
four key criteria to consider when making this determination:
1. Relevance: every data item must have a direct influence on the output that is
required
2. Appropriateness: the volume of data and the frequency of updating should
align with the stage in the assets life and the service being provided
3. Reliability: the data should be sufficiently accurate, have sufficient spatial
coverage and be appropriately complete and current
4. Affordability: the data should be affordable to collect and maintain
145
Appendix E: Facility Condition Index
FCI Condition Rating scale Condition Rating
Less than .10 Excellent
Less than .20 Good
Less than .30 Fair
Less than .40 Poor
Above .40 Disposal
1
Français
Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015
ONTARIO REGULATION 588/17
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Consolidation Period: From March 15, 2021 to the e-Laws currency date.
Las amendment: 193/21.
Legislative History: 193/21.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
CONTENTS
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
1. Definitions
2. Application
STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICIES
3. Strategic asset management policy
4. Update of asset management policy
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS
5. Asset management plans, current levels of service
6. Asset management plans, proposed levels of service
7. Update of asset management plans
8. Endorsement and approval required
9. Annual review of asset management planning progress
10. Public availability
Table 1 Water assets
Table 2 Wastewater assets
Table 3 Stormwater management assets
Table 4 Roads
Table 5 Bridges and culverts
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Definitions
1.(1) In this Regulation,
“asset category” means a category of municipal infrastructure assets that is,
(a)an aggregate of assets described in each of clauses (a) to (e) of the definition of core municipal infrastructure asset, or
(b)composed of any other aggregate of municipal infrastructure assets that provide the same type of service; (“catégorie
de biens”)
“core municipal infrastructure asset” means any municipal infrastructure asset that is a,
(a)water asset that relates to the collection, production, treatment, storage, supply or distribution of water,
(b)wastewater asset that relates to the collection, transmission, treatment or disposal of wastewater, including anywastewater asset that from time to time manages stormwater,
(c)stormwater management asset that relates to the collection, transmission, treatment, retention, infiltration, control or
disposal of stormwater,
(d)road, or
(e)bridge or culvert; (“bien d’infrastructure municipale essentiel”)
“ecological functions” has the same meaning as in Ontario Regulation 140/02 (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan) made
under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001; (“fonctions écologiques”)
“green infrastructure asset” means an infrastructure asset consisting of natural or human-made elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions and processes and includes natural heritage features and systems, parklands,
Attachment #2 to Report #FIN 14-21
2
stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces and green roofs; (“bien d’infrastructure verte”)
“hydrological functions” has the same meaning as in Ontario Regulation 140/02; (“fonctions hydrologiques”)
“joint municipal water board” means a joint board established in accordance with a transfer order made under the Municipal
Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997; (“conseil mixte de gestion municipale des eaux”)
“lifecycle activities” means activities undertaken with respect to a municipal infrastructure asset over its service life, including constructing, maintaining, renewing, operating and decommissioning, and all engineering and design work
associated with those activities; (“activités relatives au cycle de vie”)
“municipal infrastructure asset” means an infrastructure asset, including a green infrastructure asset, directly owned by a municipality or included on the consolidated financial statements of a municipality, but does not include an infrastructure
asset that is managed by a joint municipal water board; (“bien d’infrastructure municipale”)
“municipality” has the same meaning as in the Municipal Act, 2001; (“municipalité”)
“operating costs” means the aggregate of costs, including energy costs, of operating a municipal infrastructure asset over its service life; (“frais d’exploitation”)
“service life” means the total period during which a municipal infrastructure asset is in use or is available to be used; (“durée
de vie”)
“significant operating costs” means, where the operating costs with respect to all municipal infrastructure assets within an asset category are in excess of a threshold amount set by the municipality, the total amount of those operating costs. (“frais
d’exploitation importants”)
(2) In Tables 1 and 2,
“connection-days” means the number of properties connected to a municipal system that are affected by a service issue,
multiplied by the number of days on which those properties are affected by the service issue. (“jours-branchements”)
(3) In Table 4,
“arterial roads” means Class 1 and Class 2 highways as determined under the Table to section 1 of Ontario Regulation 239/02 (Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways) made under the Municipal Act, 2001; (“artères”)
“collector roads” means Class 3 and Class 4 highways as determined under the Table to section 1 of Ontario Regulation
239/02; (“routes collectrices”)
“lane-kilometre” means a kilometre-long segment of roadway that is a single lane in width; (“kilomètre de voie”)
“local roads” means Class 5 and Class 6 highways as determined under the Table to section 1 of Ontario Regulation 239/02. (“routes locales”)
(4) In Table 5,
“Ontario Structure Inspection Manual” means the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), published by the Ministry of Transportation and dated October 2000 (revised November 2003 and April 2008) and available on a Government of
Ontario website; (“manuel d’inspection des structures de l’Ontario”)
“structural culvert” has the meaning set out for “culvert (structural)” in the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual. (“ponceau
structurel”)
Application
2. For the purposes of section 6 of the Act, every municipality is prescribed as a broader public sector entity to which that
section applies.
STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Strategic asset management policy
3. (1) Every municipality shall prepare a strategic asset management policy that includes the following:
1. Any of the municipality’s goals, policies or plans that are supported by its asset management plan.
2. The process by which the asset management plan is to be considered in the development of the municipality’s budget
or of any long-term financial plans of the municipality that take into account municipal infrastructure assets.
3. The municipality’s approach to continuous improvement and adoption of appropriate practices regarding asset management planning.
4. The principles to be followed by the municipality in its asset management planning, which must include the principles
set out in section 3 of the Act.
3
5. The municipality’s commitment to consider, as part of its asset management planning,
i. the actions that may be required to address the vulnerabilities that may be caused by climate change to the municipality’s infrastructure assets, in respect of such matters as,
A. operations, such as increased maintenance schedules,
B. levels of service, and
C. lifecycle management,
ii. the anticipated costs that could arise from the vulnerabilities described in subparagraph i,
iii. adaptation opportunities that may be undertaken to manage the vulnerabilities described in subparagraph i,
iv. mitigation approaches to climate change, such as greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and targets, and
v. disaster planning and contingency funding.
6. A process to ensure that the municipality’s asset management planning is aligned with any of the following financial
plans:
i. Financial plans related to the municipality’s water assets including any financial plans prepared under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.
ii. Financial plans related to the municipality’s wastewater assets.
7. A process to ensure that the municipality’s asset management planning is aligned with Ontario’s land-use planning
framework, including any relevant policy statements issued under subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act, any provincial plans as defined in the Planning Act and the municipality’s official plan.
8. An explanation of the capitalization thresholds used to determine which assets are to be included in the municipality’s
asset management plan and how the thresholds compare to those in the municipality’s tangible capital asset policy, if it has one.
9. The municipality’s commitment to coordinate planning for asset management, where municipal infrastructure assets
connect or are interrelated with those of its upper-tier municipality, neighbouring municipalities or jointly-owned municipal bodies.
10. The persons responsible for the municipality’s asset management planning, including the executive lead.
11. An explanation of the municipal council’s involvement in the municipality’s asset management planning.
12. The municipality’s commitment to provide opportunities for municipal residents and other interested parties to provide
input into the municipality’s asset management planning.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
“capitalization threshold” is the value of a municipal infrastructure asset at or above which a municipality will capitalize the
value of it and below which it will expense the value of it. (“seuil de capitalisation”)
Update of asset management policy
4. Every municipality shall prepare its first strategic asset management policy by July 1, 2019 and shall review and, if necessary, update it at least every five years.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS
Asset management plans, current levels of service
5. (1) Every municipality shall prepare an asset management plan in respect of its core municipal infrastructure assets on or before July 1, 2022, and in respect of all of its other municipal infrastructure assets on or before July 1, 2024. O. Reg.
193/21, s. 1.
(2) A municipality’s asset management plan must include the following:
1. For each asset category, the current levels of service being provided, determined in accordance with the following
qualitative descriptions and technical metrics and based on data from at most the two calendar years prior to the year in
which all information required under this section is included in the asset management plan:
i. With respect to core municipal infrastructure assets, the qualitative descriptions set out in Column 2 and the
technical metrics set out in Column 3 of Table 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be.
ii. With respect to all other municipal infrastructure assets, the qualitative descriptions and technical metrics
established by the municipality.
4
2. The current performance of each asset category, determined in accordance with the performance measures established by the municipality, such as those that would measure energy usage and operating efficiency, and based on data from
at most two calendar years prior to the year in which all information required under this section is included in the asset management plan.
3. For each asset category,
i. a summary of the assets in the category,
ii. the replacement cost of the assets in the category,
iii. the average age of the assets in the category, determined by assessing the average age of the components of the
assets,
iv. the information available on the condition of the assets in the category, and
v. a description of the municipality’s approach to assessing the condition of the assets in the category, based on recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices where appropriate.
4. For each asset category, the lifecycle activities that would need to be undertaken to maintain the current levels of
service as described in paragraph 1 for each of the 10 years following the year for which the current levels of service under paragraph 1 are determined and the costs of providing those activities based on an assessment of the following:
i. The full lifecycle of the assets.
ii. The options for which lifecycle activities could potentially be undertaken to maintain the current levels of service.
iii. The risks associated with the options referred to in subparagraph ii.
iv. The lifecycle activities referred to in subparagraph ii that can be undertaken for the lowest cost to maintain the
current levels of service.
5. For municipalities with a population of less than 25,000, as reported by Statistics Canada in the most recent official
census, the following:
i. A description of assumptions regarding future changes in population or economic activity.
ii. How the assumptions referred to in subparagraph i relate to the information required by paragraph 4.
6. For municipalities with a population of 25,000 or more, as reported by Statistics Canada in the most recent official
census, the following:
i. With respect to municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area, if the population and
employment forecasts for the municipality are set out in Schedule 3 or 7 to the 2017 Growth Plan, those forecasts.
ii. With respect to lower-tier municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area, if the population and
employment forecasts for the municipality are not set out in Schedule 7 to the 2017 Growth Plan, the portion of the forecasts allocated to the lower-tier municipality in the official plan of the upper-tier municipality of which it
is a part.
iii. With respect to upper-tier municipalities or single-tier municipalities outside of the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area, the population and employment forecasts for the municipality that are set out in its official plan.
iv. With respect to lower-tier municipalities outside of the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area, the
population and employment forecasts for the lower-tier municipality that are set out in the official plan of the upper-tier municipality of which it is a part.
v. If, with respect to any municipality referred to in subparagraph iii or iv, the population and employment forecasts
for the municipality cannot be determined as set out in those subparagraphs, a description of assumptions
regarding future changes in population or economic activity.
vi. For each of the 10 years following the year for which the current levels of service under paragraph 1 are
determined, the estimated capital expenditures and significant operating costs related to the lifecycle activities
required to maintain the current levels of service in order to accommodate projected increases in demand caused by growth, including estimated capital expenditures and significant operating costs related to new construction or
to upgrading of existing municipal infrastructure assets. O. Reg. 588/17, s. 5 (2).
(3) Every asset management plan must indicate how all background information and reports upon which the information
required by paragraph 3 of subsection (2) is based will be made available to the public. O. Reg. 588/17, s. 5 (3).
(4) In this section,
5
“2017 Growth Plan” means the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 that was approved under subsection 7 (6) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 on May 16, 2017 and came into effect on July 1, 2017; (“Plan de croissance de 2017”)
“Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area” means the area designated by section 2 of Ontario Regulation 416/05 (Growth
Plan Areas) made under the Places to Grow Act, 2005. (“zone de croissance planifiée de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe”) O. Reg. 588/17, s. 5 (4).
Asset management plans, proposed levels of service
6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), on or before July 1, 2025, every asset management plan prepared under section 5 must include the following additional information:
1. For each asset category, the levels of service that the municipality proposes to provide for each of the 10 years
following the year in which all information required under section 5 and this section is included in the asset management plan, determined in accordance with the following qualitative descriptions and technical metrics:
i. With respect to core municipal infrastructure assets, the qualitative descriptions set out in Column 2 and the
technical metrics set out in Column 3 of Table 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be.
ii. With respect to all other municipal infrastructure assets, the qualitative descriptions and technical metrics
established by the municipality.
2. An explanation of why the proposed levels of service under paragraph 1 are appropriate for the municipality, based on
an assessment of the following:
i. The options for the proposed levels of service and the risks associated with those options to the long term
sustainability of the municipality.
ii. How the proposed levels of service differ from the current levels of service set out under paragraph 1 of subsection 5 (2).
iii. Whether the proposed levels of service are achievable.
iv. The municipality’s ability to afford the proposed levels of service.
3. The proposed performance of each asset category for each year of the 10-year period referred to in paragraph 1,
determined in accordance with the performance measures established by the municipality, such as those that would measure energy usage and operating efficiency.
4. A lifecycle management and financial strategy that sets out the following information with respect to the assets in each
asset category for the 10-year period referred to in paragraph 1:
i. An identification of the lifecycle activities that would need to be undertaken to provide the proposed levels of service described in paragraph 1, based on an assessment of the following:
A. The full lifecycle of the assets.
B. The options for which lifecycle activities could potentially be undertaken to achieve the proposed levels of
service.
C. The risks associated with the options referred to in sub-subparagraph B.
D. The lifecycle activities referred to in sub-subparagraph B that can be undertaken for the lowest cost to achieve the proposed levels of service.
ii. An estimate of the annual costs for each of the 10 years of undertaking the lifecycle activities identified in
subparagraph i, separated into capital expenditures and significant operating costs.
iii. An identification of the annual funding projected to be available to undertake lifecycle activities and an
explanation of the options examined by the municipality to maximize the funding projected to be available.
iv. If, based on the funding projected to be available, the municipality identifies a funding shortfall for the lifecycle
activities identified in subparagraph i,
A. an identification of the lifecycle activities, whether set out in subparagraph i or otherwise, that the
municipality will undertake, and
B. if applicable, an explanation of how the municipality will manage the risks associated with not undertaking
any of the lifecycle activities identified in subparagraph i.
5. For municipalities with a population of less than 25,000, as reported by Statistics Canada in the most recent official
census, a discussion of how the assumptions regarding future changes in population and economic activity, set out in subparagraph 5 i of subsection 5 (2), informed the preparation of the lifecycle management and financial strategy
referred to in paragraph 4 of this subsection.
6
6. For municipalities with a population of 25,000 or more, as reported by Statistics Canada in the most recent official census,
i. the estimated capital expenditures and significant operating costs to achieve the proposed levels of service as
described in paragraph 1 in order to accommodate projected increases in demand caused by population and employment growth, as set out in the forecasts or assumptions referred to in paragraph 6 of subsection 5 (2),
including estimated capital expenditures and significant operating costs related to new construction or to upgrading of existing municipal infrastructure assets,
ii. the funding projected to be available, by source, as a result of increased population and economic activity, and
iii. an overview of the risks associated with implementation of the asset management plan and any actions that would
be proposed in response to those risks.
7. An explanation of any other key assumptions underlying the plan that have not previously been explained. O. Reg. 588/17, s. 6 (1); O. Reg. 193/21, s. 2 (1).
(2) With respect to an asset management plan prepared under section 5 on or before July 1, 2022, if the additional information required under this section is not included before July 1, 2024, the municipality shall, before including the
additional information, update the current levels of service set out under paragraph 1 of subsection 5 (2) and the current
performance measures set out under paragraph 2 of subsection 5 (2) based on data from the two most recent calendar years. O. Reg. 193/21, s. 2 (2).
Update of asset management plans
7. (1) Every municipality shall review and update its asset management plan at least five years after the year in which the plan is completed under section 6 and at least every five years thereafter.
(2) The updated asset management plan must comply with the requirements set out under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and subparagraphs 5 i and 6 i, ii, iii, iv and v of subsection 5 (2), subsection 5 (3) and paragraphs 1 to 7 of subsection 6 (1).
Endorsement and approval required
8. Every asset management plan prepared under section 5 or 6, or updated under section 7, must be,
(a) endorsed by the executive lead of the municipality; and
(b) approved by a resolution passed by the municipal council.
Annual review of asset management planning progress
9. (1) Every municipal council shall conduct an annual review of its asset management progress on or before July 1 in
each year, starting the year after the municipality’s asset management plan is completed under section 6.
(2) The annual review must address,
(a) the municipality’s progress in implementing its asset management plan;
(b) any factors impeding the municipality’s ability to implement its asset management plan; and
(c) a strategy to address the factors described in clause (b).
Public availability
10. Every municipality shall post its current strategic asset management policy and asset management plan on a website
that is available to the public, and shall provide a copy of the policy and plan to any person who requests it.
TABLE 1
WATER ASSETS
Column 1 Service attribute Column 2 Community levels of service (qualitative descriptions) Column 3 Technical levels of service (technical metrics)
Scope 1. Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that are connected to the municipal water system.
2. Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that have fire flow.
1. Percentage of properties connected to the municipal water system. 2. Percentage of properties where fire flow is
available.
Reliability Description of boil water advisories and service interruptions. 1. The number of connection-days per year where a boil water advisory notice is in place compared to the
total number of properties connected to the municipal water system.
2. The number of connection-days per year due to water main breaks compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal water system.
7
TABLE 2
WASTEWATER ASSETS
Column 1
Service attribute
Column 2
Community levels of service (qualitative descriptions)
Column 3
Technical levels of service (technical metrics)
Scope Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or
areas of the municipality that are connected to the municipal wastewater system.
Percentage of properties connected to the municipal
wastewater system.
Reliability 1. Description of how combined sewers in the municipal
wastewater system are designed with overflow structures in place which allow overflow during storm events to prevent
backups into homes. 2. Description of the frequency and volume of overflows in
combined sewers in the municipal wastewater system that occur in habitable areas or beaches.
3. Description of how stormwater can get into sanitary sewers in the municipal wastewater system, causing sewage
to overflow into streets or backup into homes. 4. Description of how sanitary sewers in the municipal wastewater system are designed to be resilient to avoid events described in paragraph 3. 5. Description of the effluent that is discharged from
sewage treatment plants in the municipal wastewater system.
1. The number of events per year where combined
sewer flow in the municipal wastewater system exceeds system capacity compared to the total
number of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system.
2. The number of connection-days per year due to wastewater backups compared to the total number of
properties connected to the municipal wastewater system.
3. The number of effluent violations per year due to wastewater discharge compared to the total number of properties connected to the municipal wastewater system.
TABLE 3
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSETS
Column 1 Service attribute Column 2 Community levels of service (qualitative descriptions) Column 3 Technical levels of service (technical metrics)
Scope Description, which may include maps, of the user groups or areas of the municipality that are protected from flooding,
including the extent of the protection provided by the municipal stormwater management system.
1. Percentage of properties in municipality resilient to a 100-year storm.
2. Percentage of the municipal stormwater management system resilient to a 5-year storm.
TABLE 4
ROADS
Column 1
Service attribute
Column 2
Community levels of service (qualitative descriptions)
Column 3
Technical levels of service (technical metrics)
Scope Description, which may include maps, of the road network in
the municipality and its level of connectivity.
Number of lane-kilometres of each of arterial roads,
collector roads and local roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of the municipality.
Quality Description or images that illustrate the different levels of road class pavement condition. 1. For paved roads in the municipality, the average pavement condition index value.
2. For unpaved roads in the municipality, the average surface condition (e.g. excellent, good, fair
or poor).
TABLE 5
BRIDGES AND CULVERTS
Column 1
Service attribute
Column 2
Community levels of service (qualitative descriptions)
Column 3
Technical levels of service (technical metrics)
Scope Description of the traffic that is supported by municipal
bridges (e.g., heavy transport vehicles, motor vehicles, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists).
Percentage of bridges in the municipality with
loading or dimensional restrictions.
Quality 1. Description or images of the condition of bridges and how
this would affect use of the bridges. 2. Description or images of the condition of culverts and
how this would affect use of the culverts.
1. For bridges in the municipality, the average
bridge condition index value. 2. For structural culverts in the municipality, the
average bridge condition index value.
11. OMITTED (PROVIDES FOR COMING INTO FORCE OF PROVISIONS OF THIS REGULATION).
8
Français
Back to top