161117 Council Budget AGDTable of Contents
Agenda 2
OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan - State of Local
Infrastructure
OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan - State of
Local Infrastructure 4
DRAFT 2016 Asset Management Plan 16
Appendix B - Municipal Action Plan Tillsonburg 86
By-Law 4055, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Meeting of
November 17, 2016.
By-law 4055 Confirming 161117 124
1
1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution # 1
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council meeting of November 17, 2016, be adopted.
3.Moment of Silence
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
5.Tillsonburg Asset Management Plan
5.1. OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan - State of Local Infrastructure
OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan - State of Local Infrastructure
DRAFT 2016 Asset Management Plan
Appendix B - Municipal Action Plan Tillsonburg
Proposed Resolution #2
THAT Council receive Report OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan – State
of Local Infrastructure.
6.By-Laws
By-Laws from the Meeting of November 17, 2016
By-law 4055 Confirming 161117
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
BUDGET COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday, November 17, 2016
1:00 PM
Council Chambers
200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
AGENDA
2
Council Meeting – Agenda 2
Proposed Resolution #3
THAT By-Law 4055, To confirm the proceedings of Council at its meeting held on
the 17th day of November, 2016, be read for a first, second and third and final
reading and that the Mayor and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the
same, and place the corporate seal thereunto.
7. Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #4
THAT the Budget Council Meeting of November 17, 2016 be adjourned at _____ p.m.
3
Report Title 2016 Asset Management Plan – State of Local
Infrastructure
Report No. OPS 16-35
Author Kevin De Leebeeck, P.Eng.
Meeting Type Budget Council Meeting
Council Date November 17, 2016
Attachments •Draft 2016 Asset Management Plan
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council receive Report OPS 16-35 2016 Asset Management Plan – State of Local
Infrastructure.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide Town Council with an update on the development and
results of the State of Local Infrastructure component of the Towns Asset Management Plan
(AMP) that has been developed for linear and mobile assets. The development of an AMP for
vertical assets is currently underway.
This report card offers an objective assessment on the state of infrastructure management,
asset replacement values, and asset condition. The infrastructure reviewed within this report
includes mobile assets and the assets identified by the Ministry of Infrastructure – Building
Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans of which roads, bridges and stormwater
apply to the Town of Tillsonburg.
This report card:
•Translates the consolidated condition of the infrastructure within each of the network
areas into a five-level rating system ranging from Very Good to Very Poor, which is then
rolled-up to present the overall Condition vs Performance rating.
•Compares current funding levels with sustainable forecasts in each of the network areas
that is placed into one of five categories ranging from Very Good to Very Poor to present
the overall Funding vs Need rating.
•Includes only the assets identified above, but allows for the inclusion of other Town
assets such as Corporate Facilities, Parks and Recreation in the future.
•Is developed in a format and methodology that is repeatable and consistent with best-
practices to allow comparative analysis, trending, and scenario development.
While the initial emphasis focuses on the age and physical condition of the assets, capacity
analysis and master planning will be crucial in helping to define the functional capacity of the
Page 1 / 12
4
infrastructure moving forward. The Asset Management Plan is a living document that will
incorporate additional information as it becomes available.
Asset Inventory
In order to understand the full inventory of linear infrastructure assets the Town staff reviewed
and extracted asset information from various asset databases, inventory maps, and over 1,500
as-built drawings. This information included physical data such as pipe materials, installation
dates, estimated service life, and asset replacement values. Town staff also conducted a
condition assessment of the entire sidewalk network as well as retaining the services of various
consultants to perform pavement condition assessments, OSIM bridge inspections and limited
CCTV inspection of stormwater infrastructure. This data forms the basis for analysis and the
entire Asset Management Plan.
An inventory was developed for each of the network levels by dividing them into various asset
components as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Asset Inventory Classification
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity
Road
Network
Arterial 19.1 (km) 42.8 (lane km)
Collector 15.0 (km) 30.5 (lane km)
Local 81.1 (km) 156.1 (lane km)
Sidewalks 92.4 (km)
Streetlights 2,788 (ea)
Signalized Intersections 6 (ea)
Bridge
Network
Bridges 1,954 (m2) 9 (ea)
Culverts >3m span 969 (m2) 7 (ea)
Culverts <3m span >40m length 1,791 (m2) 12 (ea)
Culverts <3m span <40m length 535 (m2) 24 (ea)
Retaining Walls 2,086 (m2) 7 (ea)
Stormwater
Network
Collection Pipes 84.6 (km)
Manholes 1,154 (ea)
Structure Leads 23.8 (km)
Inlet Structures 2,713 (ea)
SWM Facilities 14 (ea)
Fleet &
Equipment
Light Duty 16 (ea)
Medium Duty 11 (ea)
Heavy Duty 14 (ea)
Off Road Equipment 20 (ea)
Attachments 41 (ea)
Trailers 8 (ea)
Generators 13 (ea)
Small Equipment 63 (ea)
Page 2 / 12
5
Asset Replacement Values
The replacement cost for mobile and linear assets were estimated using current standards,
historical tender pricing, and current market replacement values. Figure 1 illustrates the
replacement cost breakdown of the Towns $218.0 Million asset inventory.
Figure 1: Asset Replacement Value ($ Millions)
Asset Estimated Service Life
An asset’s Estimated Service Life (ESL) is the period of time that it is expected to be of use and
fully functional to the Town. Once an asset reaches the end of its service life, it is deemed to
have deteriorated to a point that necessitates replacement. The ESL for each asset component
was established by using a combination of industry standards and Town knowledge and
experience. Individual ESL’s were used in conjunction with the original construction dates to
determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset.
Road Network $120.3
Bridge Network
$29.6
Stormwater
Network
$57.7
Fleet & Equipment
$10.5
Total Asset
Replacement Value
$218.0 Million
Page 3 / 12
6
Asset Condition
The Town can undertake numerous investigative techniques in order to determine and track the
physical condition of its infrastructure. For instance, the interior of stormwater pipes can be
routinely inspected using CCTV (closed circuit television) inspection. These inspections are
guided by standard principals of defect coding and condition rating that allow for a physical
condition “score” for the infrastructure to be developed. For infrastructure without a standardized
approach to condition assessment scoring, information such as visual inspections, audits and
other maintenance related observations can be used in establishing the condition of the asset.
Condition vs. Performance
A combination of the Estimated Service Life (ESL) and known asset condition (where available)
was used to estimate the Percentage of Remaining Service life (%RSL) for each asset. The
%RSL for each asset was then weighted (based on replacement value), and used to provide the
weighted average %RSL for the asset. Assets were then placed into one of five rating
categories ranging from Very Good to Very Poor as shown in Table 2. Individual infrastructure
asset scores were then aggregated up to the Component level and then to the Network level in
order to provide an overall system Condition vs. Performance rating. For example, the weighted
average %RSL of the road network is 63%, meaning that on average, the road network assets
are 37% into their weighted average estimated service life of 45 years, and have 63% of their
service life remaining (i.e. the weighted average estimated age of the road network is 17 years
old).
Table 2: Rating Categories based on Service Life and Condition
Page 4 / 12
7
Rating
Category
% of
Remaining
Service Life
(RSL)
Definition
Very
Good 81% - 100%
Fit for the Future - The infrastructure in the system or
network is generally in very good condition, typically new or
recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs
of deterioration that require attention.
Good 61% - 80%
Adequate for Now - Some infrastructure elements show
general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few
elements exhibit significant deficiencies.
Fair 41% - 60%
Requires Attention - The infrastructure in the system or
network shows general signs of deterioration and requires
attention with some elements exhibiting significant
deficiencies.
Poor 21% - 40%
At Risk - The infrastructure in the system or network is in
poor condition and mostly below standard, with many
elements approaching the end of their service life. A large
portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration.
Very
Poor < 20%
Unfit for Sustained Service - The infrastructure in the
system or network is in unacceptable condition with
widespread signs of advanced deterioration. Many
components in the system exhibit signs of imminent failure,
which is affecting service or has effectively exceeded its
theoretical service life.
Understanding the %RSL for each asset helps to facilitate planning for replacement and major
rehabilitation activities by providing insight into the quantity of assets that have exceeded typical
ESL’s, and therefore require attention due to increasing probability of failure and subsequently
deteriorating levels of service. It is also important to note that some low-risk assets may also be
feasible to run-to-failure, and though they may have exceeded their ESL, they may be fully
functional, have good condition, and provide high levels of service for many years.
Table 3 illustrates the percentage of the system assets considered to have less than 40% RSL
or have exceeded their RSL entirely. For example 12% of the road network falls within the Poor
and Very Poor rating category.
Table 3: Summary of Physical Condition and Replacement Value
Page 5 / 12
8
Network
2016
Replacement
Value
(Millions)
Rating Category
(Weighted Avg.
% RSL)
Assets in the Poor &
Very Poor Rating
Category
% Replacement
Value (Millions)
Road Network $120.3 Good ( 63% ) 12% $14.5
Bridge Network $29.6 Good ( 69% ) 11% $3.3
Stormwater Network $57.7 Good ( 68% ) 8% $4.8
Fleet & Equipment $10.5 Fair ( 45% ) 35% $3.7
Total $218.0 Good ( 64% ) 12% $26.2
As can be seen from Table 3, the weighted average for all assets falls within the Good category
with an average estimated RSL of 64%. Also important to note is that approximately 12% of the
Towns assets have less than 40% of their service life remaining, or have exceeded their ESL
entirely. This 12% equates to a total replacement value of $26.2 Million. This is in line with
similar infrastructure categories across Canada, as described in the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM) Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (September 2012), in which it was
identified that by replacement value, 9.5% of the municipal infrastructure across Canada is
considered to be in Poor and Very Poor Condition. Through the development of this report card
it would appear that the Town of Tillsonburg is relatively consistent with municipal infrastructure
conditions across the Country.
Figure 2 shows the replacement value of infrastructure within each of the rating categories.
Overall of the Town’s $218.0 Million in assets, 60% (or $130.2 Million) fall within the Very Good
to Good categories, 28% ($61.6 Million) being in the Fair category, 9% ($19.4 Million) in the
Poor category, and 3% ($6.8 Million) have exceeded their theoretical service lives and as such
are in the Very Poor category.
Page 6 / 12
9
Figure 2: Asset Rating Category Summary by Replacement Value ($ Millions)
The subsequent figure (Figure 3) shows the breakdown of assets by rating category across
each of the network levels. From this it becomes apparent that Fleet & Equipment has the
greatest relative replacement value of assets (35%) that are about to, or have exceeded their
estimated service life. In addition the Road, Bridge and Stormwater Network assets have the
largest value of assets that fall within the Fair rating category, with 26%, 29%, and 31%
respectively. What this helps to illustrate is that in the near future there will be a significant
amount of assets moving from Fair to Poor as the infrastructure continues to age.
Very Good (25%); $55.0
Good (35%); $75.2
Fair (28%); $61.6
Poor (9%);
$19.4
Very Poor (3%); $6.8
Other (12%); $26.2
BACKLOG
Page 7 / 12
10
Figure 3: Breakdown of Asset Rating Category by Network Level
Sustainable Forecasts
Funding and re-investment requirements were developed for each network area based on the
current condition of the asset and the asset’s expected remaining useful life given that condition
to provide trends of replacement costs in any given year. The replacement trends can then be
used to develop short-term and long-term (10-year and 100-year) replacement requirements and
average annual costs.
The analysis indicates that the average annual capital reinvestment required to sustain the
Town’s various assets networks over the next 10 years is $3.28M. Looking further into the
forecast it is apparent that a large group of assets are anticipated to reach the end of their
service lives between 2030 and 2050 (primarily roads) and again between 2080 and 2100
(primarily roads, bridges and stormwater), which increases the required annual capital
reinvestment to $4.72M over the 100 year planning horizon.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Road Network
Bridge Network
Stormwater Network
Fleet & Equipment
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
Page 8 / 12
11
Figure 4 depicts the annual capital investment requirements across all asset networks and
illustrates the current capital investment backlog of $6.8M. The capital investment backlog
refers to the outstanding capital need, which arose in the past but has not been addressed (i.e.
assets that fall within the very poor rating category).
Figure 4: Annual Capital Replacement Forecast
Funding vs. Need
To determine the current funding level the analysis utilized the most recent five year average of
budgeted spending, funded by traditional sources of municipal funds (i.e. taxation, reserves,
debt) and committed senior government grants such as the federal and provincial gas tax where
an ongoing agreement has been executed. The ratio of current funding levels compared to the
annual capital investment required is then placed into one of five rating categories ranging from
Very Good to Very Poor as shown in Table 4.
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2016 2026 2036 2046 2056 2066 2076 2086 2096 2106 2116
Roads Bridges, Culverts & Retaining Walls StormwaterFleet & Equipment 100 Year Average Annual Cost Current Funding Level10 Year Average Annual Cost
Current Funding $1.43M
Backlog:
$6.8M 10 Year Avg.
Annual Cost
$3.28M
100 Year Avg.
Annual Cost
$4.72M
Page 9 / 12
12
Table 4: Rating Categories based on Funding Levels
Rating
Category Description
Very Good 91% - 100% of the Funding need is supported.
Good 76% - 90% of the Funding need is supported.
Fair 61% - 75% of the Funding need is supported.
Poor 46% - 60% of the Funding need is supported.
Very Poor < 45% of the Funding need is supported.
At the current funding level of $1.43M per year, there is an annual funding deficit of $3.29M in
order to maintain existing service standards, as shown in Table 5. Without considerable
improvement to the Funding vs. Need rating it can be expected that the future Condition vs.
Performance rating will significantly diminish.
Table 5: Current Funding vs. Sustainable Forecast
Network
2016 Replacement
Value
(Millions)
Sustainability
Forecast
Current Funding
Levels
Annual Funding
Deficit
Funding vs Need
Rating
Roads $120.3 $2,730,000 $680,000 $2,050,000 Very Poor
Bridges $29.6 $520,000 $0 $520,000 Very Poor
Stormwater $57.7 $640,000 $190,000 $450,000 Very Poor
Fleet & Equipment $10.5 $830,000 $560,000 $270,000 Fair
Total $218.0 $4,720,000 $1,430,000 $3,290,000 Very Poor
Overall Rating
The overall rating for each asset network is based on the consolidation of the Condition vs.
Performance rating and the Funding vs. Need rating, each contributing equally as indicated in
Table 6.
Table 6: Overall Rating Contribution
Rating Category Weighting
Factor
Overall
Rating
Condition vs. Performance 50% } A to F Funding vs. Need 50%
The overall rating ratio is then placed into one of five rating categories ranging from Very Good
to Very Poor as shown in Table 7 below to provide a letter grade for the asset network.
Page 10 / 12
13
Table 7: Overall Letter Grade
Letter
Grade
Rating
Category Description
A Very Good > 80%
B Good 70% - 79%
C Fair 60% - 69%
D Poor 50% - 59%
F Very Poor < 50%
As a strategic document the State of Local Infrastructure Report Card (Table 8) forms the basis
of a communication tool that will be updated regularly to provide the Town with the status on
progress towards sustainable management of its assets. This infrastructure report card will
assist in the identification of trends and issues that will impact the Town when dealing with
infrastructure and services on a sustainable basis. It will also provide an opportunity to engage
stakeholders across the Town, and will form a starting point for the development of more
detailed and tactical operation plans aimed at identifying expenditures needed to provide service
in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.
Table 8: State of Local Infrastructure Report Card
Asset
Network
Condition
vs
Performance
Rating
Funding
vs
Need
Rating
Overall
Rating Comments
Road
Network
Good
(63%)
Very Poor
(25%) F Almost 70% of the road network is in
good to fair condition with less than 15%
in poor to very poor condition.
Bridge
Network
Good
(69%)
Very Poor
(0%) F Over 50% of the bridge network is in
good to fair condition with approximately
15% in poor to very poor condition.
Stormwater
Network
Good
(68%)
Very Poor
(31%) F Nearly 60% of the stormwater network is
in good to fair condition with 10% in poor
to very poor condition.
Fleet &
Equipment Fair (45%) Fair (68%) D While 60% of fleet & equipment is in
good to fair condition nearly 35% is in
poor to very poor condition.
Page 11 / 12
14
FUNDING IMPACT/ FUNDING SOURCE
A report summarizing the capital replacement forecasts of each asset network as well as
potential financing scenarios to address the funding deficit and reach sustainability will follow at
the next Council Budget Meeting. Once the Asset Management Plan incorporates Council’s
direction towards reaching sustainability the Plan will be finalized for the December Council
Meeting and placed on the Towns website.
Page 12 / 12
15
The Town of Tillsonburg
Comprehensive Asset
Management Plan
November 2016
Version 2.0
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Importance of Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Recent Regulatory Changes .............................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Public Expectation of Municipal Services ........................................................................... 4
2.2 Relationship to Other Plans & Programs ...................................................................................... 4
2.3 Purpose of Asset Management ..................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Timeframe and Review Updates ................................................................................................... 6
3 STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 7
3.1 Summary Report Card .................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Base Data ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Asset Rating Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Condition vs. Performance ................................................................................................. 8
3.3.1 Funding vs. Need ............................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Blended Rating ................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 Road Network.............................................................................................................................. 12
3.4.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.4.2 Valuation ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.4.1 Useful Life ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Condition vs. Performance ............................................................................................... 14
3.4.3 Funding vs. Need ............................................................................................................. 15
3.5 Bridge Network ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.5.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.5.2 Valuation ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.5.3 Useful Life ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.5.4 Condition vs. Performance ............................................................................................... 18
3.5.5 Funding vs. Need ............................................................................................................. 19
3.6 Stormwater Network .................................................................................................................... 20
3.6.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.6.2 Valuation ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.6.3 Useful Life ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.6.4 Condition vs. Performance ............................................................................................... 22
3.6.5 Funding vs. Need ............................................................................................................. 23
3.7 Fleet & Equipment ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.2 Valuation ........................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.3 Useful Life ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.7.4 Condition vs. Performance ............................................................................................... 26
3.7.5 Funding vs. Need ............................................................................................................. 27
4 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals.................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Legislative Requirements ............................................................................................................ 28
4.3 Service Level Indicators and Benchmarks .................................................................................. 28
4.3.1 Road Network ................................................................................................................... 29
4.3.2 Bridge Network ................................................................................................................. 30
4.3.3 Stormwater Collection Network ........................................................................................ 31
Page i
17
4.3.4 Fleet & Equipment ............................................................................................................ 32
4.4 Customer Engagement ............................................................................................................... 33
5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .................................................................................................. 34
5.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions ....................................................................................................... 34
5.2.1 Integrated Infrastructure Renewal .................................................................................... 34
5.2.2 Coordination with Municipalities ....................................................................................... 34
5.2.3 Research Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 35
5.2.4 Procurement Methods ...................................................................................................... 35
5.3 Maintenance Activities ................................................................................................................ 35
5.3.1 Condition Assessment and Inspection ............................................................................. 35
5.3.2 Routine Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 37
5.4 Rehabilitation and Replacement Planning .................................................................................. 38
5.4.1 Linear Assets .................................................................................................................... 38
5.4.2 Mobile Assets ................................................................................................................... 44
5.5 Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................... 46
5.5.1 Probability of Failure ......................................................................................................... 46
5.5.1 Consequence of Failure ................................................................................................... 46
5.6 Lifecycle Options Analysis .......................................................................................................... 50
5.6.1 Road Network ................................................................................................................... 50
5.6.2 Bridge Network ................................................................................................................. 55
5.6.3 Stormwater Network ......................................................................................................... 55
5.6.4 Fleet & Equipment ............................................................................................................ 58
5.7 Disposal Activities ....................................................................................................................... 59
5.8 Growth and Demand ................................................................................................................... 59
5.9 Risk Evaluation of Asset Management Strategy ......................................................................... 59
5.9.1 Data Quality ...................................................................................................................... 59
5.9.2 Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 60
5.9.3 Lifecycle Consequences ................................................................................................... 60
5.9.4 Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 60
6 FINANCING STRATEGY ..................................................................................................................... 61
Page ii
18
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Rating Categories based on Service Life and Condition
Table 2 – Rating Categories based on Funding Levels
Table 3 – Overall Rating Contribution
Table 4 – Overall Letter Grade
Table 5 – Road Network Inventory
Table 6 – Road Network Replacement Value
Table 7 – Road Network Useful Life
Table 8 – Bridge Network Inventory
Table 9 – Bridge Network Replacement Value
Table 10 – Bridge Network Useful Life
Table 11 – Stormwater Network Inventory
Table 12 – Stormwater Network Replacement Value
Table 13 – Stormwater Network Useful Life
Table 14 – Fleet & Equipment Inventory
Table 15 – Fleet & Equipment Replacement Value
Table 16 – Fleet & Equipment Useful Life
Table 17 – Condition Assessment Projects by Asset Type
Table 18 – Routine Maintenance Activities by Asset Type
Table 19 – Linear Asset Capital Planning Process
Table 20 – Mileage/Hour Scoring Matrix
Table 21 – Lifecycle O&M Scoring Matrix
Table 22 – Reliability Scoring Matrix
Table 23 – Mechanical/Body Assessment Scoring Matrix
Table 24 – Probability of Failure Score
Table 25 – Linear Asset Consequence of Failure Matrix
Table 26 – Mobile Asset Consequence of Failure Matrix
Table 27 – Asset Risk Scoring Matrix
Table 29 – Asset Risk by Replacement Value
Table 30 – Road Treatment Options
Table 31 – Roadway Extended Repair Life
Table 32 – Roadway Rehabilitation Strategy Cost Summary
Table 33 – Stormwater Pipe Rehabilitation Strategy Cost Summary
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Breakdown of Road Network Components by Value
Figure 2 – Road Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
Figure 3 – Road Network Condition by Replacement Value
Figure 4 – Road Network Replacement Profile
Figure 5 – Breakdown of Bridge Network Components by Value
Figure 6 – Bridge Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
Figure 7 – Bridge Network Condition by Replacement Value
Figure 8 – Bridge Network Replacement Profile
Figure 9 – Breakdown of Stormwater Network Components by Value
Figure 10 – Stormwater Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
Figure 11 – Stormwater Network Condition by Replacement Value
Figure 12 – Stormwater Network Replacement Profile
Figure 13 – Breakdown of Fleet & Equipment Components by Value
Figure 14 – Fleet & Equipment Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
Page iii
19
Figure 15 – Fleet & Equipment Condition by Replacement Value
Figure 16 – Fleet & Equipment Replacement Profile
Figure 17 – Road Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Figure 18 – Watermain Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Figure 19 – Wastewater & Stormwater Sewer Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Figure 20 – Theoretical Corridor Lifecycle
Figure 21 – Corridor Coordination (Project Type) Process Flow Chart
Figure 22 – Asset Risk Distribution
Figure 23 – Timely Renewal of Investments Save Money
Figure 24 – Pavement Degradation Profiles
Figure 25 – Road Rehabilitation Strategy I
Figure 26 – Road Rehabilitation Strategy II
Figure 27 – Road Rehabilitation Strategy III
Figure 28 – Road Rehabilitation Strategy IV
Figure 29 – Road Rehabilitation Strategy V
Figure 30 – Stormwater Pipe Degradation Profile
Figure 31 – Normal vs. Non-Structural Relining
Figure 32 – Normal vs. Structural Relining
Figure 33 – Normal vs. Reconstruction Figure 34 – Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement Figure 35 – Economic Reality of Vehicle Replacement
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Asset Inventory Classification
Appendix B – Asset Management Municipal Action Plan
Appendix C – Priority Project Listing
Page iv
20
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 1
21
2 INTRODUCTION
Tillsonburg’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) fulfills the provincial requirements outlined in the Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans published by the Ontario Ministry of
Infrastructure. The Plan contains the following six key sections:
1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction
3. State of the Local Infrastructure 4. Desired Levels of Service
5. Asset Management Strategy 6. Financing Strategy
The four asset classes addressed in this Plan include:
1. Roads
2. Bridges, Culverts and Retaining Walls 3. Stormwater
4. Fleet & Equipment
Additional asset classes will be included in future iterations of the AMP such as Facilities, Parks and Recreation as outlined in Appendix A. This Asset Management Plan will serve Tillsonburg as a strategic,
planning, and financial management document to ensure that Tillsonburg is well-equipped to manage existing and future operational demands and desired levels of service. It will guide Tillsonburg’s
processes to reflect sound and accountable governance of its municipal infrastructure.
At the strategic level, Section 3: State of the Local Infrastructure of this document outlines current and future challenges to be addressed to sustainably maintain municipal infrastructure services for the long-
term using a lifecycle approach. The Plan also identifies desired levels of service in Section 4 for each asset class through the use of key performance indicators.
At the practical level, Section 5: Asset Management Strategy identifies current and future strategies to
manage the Town’s asset base with the goal of maintaining the assets in an acceptable condition. Recognizing that asset management is evolving to a service based focus that optimizes asset lifecycle
costs considering quantifiable risk and level of service, the Town will continue to develop corporate asset management programs and strategies.
At the financial level, Section 6: Financing Strategy depicts how the Town intends to implement a financial
strategy which indicates how the Town will pay for the Plan and include details on expenditures, revenue sources and projections, and possible funding gap solutions.
2.1 Importance of Infrastructure
The Town is responsible for a diverse array of capital assets. The initial construction and/or
commissioning of infrastructure, its maintenance, and eventual replacement has always been among the most important responsibilities of a municipality. The asset pool of local governments is quite
different to that of most large, private sector businesses. It is comprised of asset types which perform critical functions for thousands of residents, workers and visitors, and forms part of a higher order of
systems, such as roads providing a transportation network service. The total value of these assets is significant. Since governments have long held a role of administering assets, the formal concept of
asset management is not new; however, the linkage of asset management to fiscal sustainability principles has become more prevalent in recent years.
The capital assets the Town of Tillsonburg is responsible for include, but are not limited to the
following:
Page 2
22
• Linear Infrastructure o Roads
o Sidewalks o Streetlights
o Signalized Intersections o Bridges, Culverts and Retaining Walls
o Stormwater Sewers o Stormwater Management Ponds
• Buildings
o Recreation Centre o Fire Hall
o Operations and Customer Service Centre o Museum
o Administrative Offices
• Fields and Parks
o Sports Fields o Parks and Playgrounds o Equipment and furniture o Ice rinks and pools
o Parking Lots o Cemeteries
• Fleet and Equipment
o Automobiles, such as Building and Engineering vehicles o Trucks, such as fire trucks and snowplow trucks
o Operational service trucks and specialized equipment
Although the long-range planning of replacement and growth related capital is not new, there are important factors that have recently contributed to the heightened need for a comprehensive, capital
financing strategy as noted in the following sub-sections: 2.1.1 Recent Regulatory Changes
Over the last decade, important regulatory changes have occurred in Ontario that have increased the need for a municipality’s emphasis on capital planning. Firstly, starting in 2007, the Public
Sector Accounting Board (PSAB 3150) introduced new accounting standards for tangible capital assets owned by governments in Canada. Accrual accounting was required for government
services and many capital assets needed to be depreciated for the purposes of financial reporting. Although acquisition and depreciation costs are not ideal for financial planning, PSAB
3150 helped municipalities to better understand the magnitude of asset funding gaps.
Secondly, municipalities need to prepare asset management plans (AMPs) as a requirement for certain grant applications, such as the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund. In 2012, the
Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure released the “Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans”, a how-to guide to assist municipalities in preparing an AMP. Municipalities
have been given discretion by the Ministry in terms of the precise form of their asset management plan. However, four key components must be included: an analysis of existing infrastructure, a
description of the desired level of service, an asset management strategy, and a financing strategy. This Plan has all four components.
The Infrastructure for Jobs & Prosperity Act, 2015 was established to encourage evidence-based,
strategic long-term infrastructure planning and requires municipalities to consider thirteen (13) statutory infrastructure planning principles when making infrastructure-related decisions. These
include:
Page 3
23
1. A long-term view as well as demographic and economic trends 2. Applicable budgets and fiscal plans
3. Clearly identified priorities 4. Continuation of the provision of core public services
5. Promotion of economic competitiveness, productivity, job creation and training 6. Ensuring health and safety of infrastructure workers
7. Opportunities to foster innovation 8. Evidence-based and transparent decisions
9. Existing plans and strategies such as policy statements and transportation plans 10. Promotion of accessibility for persons with disabilities
11. Designs that minimize environmental impact and are resilient to climate change 12. Use of acceptable recycled aggregates
13. Promotion of community benefits 2.1.1 Public Expectation of Municipal Services
The Town of Tillsonburg consistently delivers a high level of service to its residents and businesses. These services depend to a large degree on the Town’s complex range of assets,
which for many years it has managed without major failures, during a period when technology was less advanced and capital reserve funding activities were minimal. The challenge facing
municipalities today is to convince taxpayers that despite the fact that services are still running well, more funding will be required than in the past. Due to the expectation of high performance
levels and the greater awareness of health, safety and environmental issues, the public generally has a low tolerance for service disruptions. This expectation makes proactively addressing capital
deficiencies essential on both technical and political grounds to avoid major service failures.
Tillsonburg’s prosperity, economic development, competitiveness, image, and overall quality of life are inherently and explicitly tied to the performance of its infrastructure.
2.2 Relationship to Other Plans & Programs
The Town’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) will be a key component of the municipality’s strategic planning process, linking with multiple other corporate plans and documents such as:
• Official Plan – the AMP will influence land use policy directions for long-term growth and development as provided through coordination with the budgeting process.
• Community Strategic Plan – the AMP will support the Economic Sustainability and
Excellent in Local Government in Tillsonburg’s vision to become a regional hub for employment, recreation and culture.
• By-laws, Standards, and Policies – the AMP will influence policies and by-laws related to infrastructure management practices and standards.
• Regulations – the AMP must recognize and abide by industry and senior government
regulations. • Business Plans – the service levels, policies, processes, and budgets defined in the
AMP will be incorporated into business plans as budgets, management strategies, and performance measures.
Updates to existing and future municipal plans and programs having a direct or indirect impact on
municipal assets, including municipal properties and facilities should reference the Town’s AMP and consider the impact on capital planning and future projections.
Page 4
24
2.3 Purpose of Asset Management
Asset management is the coordinated activity in place to manage the way in which the Town realizes value from its assets in order to provide services effectively and in a financially sustainable manner. An asset management plan is a strategic document that states how a group of assets is to be
managed over a period of time. The plan describes the characteristics and condition of infrastructure assets, the level of service expected from them, planned actions to ensure the assets are providing the
expected level of service, and financing strategies to implement the planned actions.
Asset management takes more of a long-term perspective which results in more informed strategic decisions that optimize investments to better manage risk of infrastructure while taking into
consideration other important factors, such as official plans, strategic initiatives, and climate change. Good asset management does not only maximize the benefits provided by the infrastructure, but also
affords the opportunity to achieve cost savings by spotting deterioration early on and taking action to rehabilitate or renew the asset.
Asset management represents a way of doing business that bases decisions on quality data. The goal
of an asset management program is to build, maintain and operate infrastructure cost effectively, provide value to the customer, and improve the credibility and accountability of the municipality. Asset
management is a move away from the current infrastructure management system to managing a network of interrelated assets with interdependent programs and services so that scarce resources ($)
are properly allocated amongst competing asset needs.
Some of the benefits of asset management include:
• Providing the ability to show how, when, and why resources need to be committed by knowing
the total investment required to maintain infrastructure assets at acceptable levels to support sound decision making; • Decisions can be made between competing assets needs to ensure that the priorities of each asset type are being met, reducing the amount of unplanned or high priority
maintenance/emergency activities that require response before the next budgeting cycle;
• Monitoring the performance of assets over the long term to ensure an adequate level of service is maintained and the ability to measure the progress made in achieving the performance
targets;
• Lifecycle costing to identify the investment required to operate, maintain, renew, and replace an asset. Determining how much it will cost enhances financial planning and helps decision makers to select the most cost effective options; and
• Funding decisions can be made with a view of the total cost to be incurred over the useful life of
an asset.
The purpose of the Town’s Asset Management Plan is threefold:
1. To be a strategic work plan for corporate capital assets which reflects the municipality’s need for planning, building, operating, maintaining and financing its infrastructure in a sustainable
way.
2. To fulfill provincial requirements, enabling the Town to apply for capital funding grants such as
the provincial Gas Tax allocation and Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF).
3. To make recommendations for further work towards a more robust corporate asset
management system.
Page 5
25
2.4 Timeframe and Review Updates
This Asset Management Plan analysis was performed over a 100-year period to ensure that all assets
went through at least one cycle of replacement. The asset lifecycle analysis was utilized to help develop a strategy that can be applied throughout the life of an asset to assist in the development of both short term capital plans (5 - 10 year) and long range sustainability plans to ensure the best overall health and performance of the Towns infrastructure.
In subsequent updates to this AMP, actual project implementation will be reviewed and measured
through the established performance metrics to quantify whether the desired level of service is achieved or achievable for each infrastructure asset class. If shortfalls in performance are observed,
these will be discussed and alternate financial models or service level target adjustments will be presented for consideration.
The Plan should also be updated on a regular basis to include additions to the asset inventory, to
expand upon the scope of assets included in the Plan (i.e. Facilities, Parks and Recreation), to implement the Asset Management Municipal Action Plan outlined in Appendix B, to update projected
replacement costs and expected revenues, procedural and policy changes, and to reflect other changes to the supporting data and assumptions that form the basis of this Plan.
A more thorough re-examination of the Plan is recommended to be undertaken with each new term of
Council, perhaps in their second year.
Page 6
26
3 STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 Summary Report Card
Town of Tillsonburg Infrastructure Report Card
Asset
Network
Condition vs.
Performance
Rating
Funding vs.
Need Rating
Overall
Rating Comments
Road
Network Good (63%) Very Poor
(25%) F Almost 70% of the road network is in
good to fair condition with less than 15%
in poor to very poor condition.
Bridge
Network Good (69%) Very Poor
(0%) F Over 50% of the bridge network is in
good to fair condition with approximately
15% in poor to very poor condition.
Stormwater
Network Good (68%) Very Poor
(31%) F Nearly 60% of the stormwater network is
in good to fair condition with 10% in poor
to very poor condition.
Fleet &
Equipment Fair (45%) Fair (68%) D While 60% of fleet & equipment is in
good to fair condition nearly 35% is in
poor to very poor condition.
1. Each asset network is rated on two key, equally weighted (50/50) dimensions: Condition vs. Performance, and Funding vs. Need. 2. The ‘Overall Rating’ is the average of the two dimensions converted to letter grades.
Based on the Summary Report Card results it can be expected that the future Condition vs. Performance
rating of assets will significantly diminish without considerable improvement to the Funding vs. Need
rating.
Page 7
27
3.2 Base Data
In order to understand the full inventory of linear infrastructure assets Town staff reviewed and extracted asset information from various asset databases, inventory maps, and over 1,500 engineering
drawings. Town staff also conducted a condition assessment of the entire sidewalk network as well as retaining the services of various consultants to perform pavement condition assessments, OSIM
bridge inspections and limited CCTV inspection of stormwater infrastructure. This data forms the basis for analysis and the entire Asset Management Plan.
3.3 Asset Rating Criteria
Each asset network will ultimately be evaluated based on two key dimensions, Condition vs.
Performance and Funding vs. Need. 3.3.1 Condition vs. Performance
A combination of the Estimated Service Life (ESL) and known asset condition (where available) was used to estimate the Percentage of Remaining Service life (%RSL) for each asset. The
%RSL for each asset was then weighted (based on replacement value), and used to provide the weighted average %RSL for the asset. Assets are then placed into one of five rating categories
ranging from Very Good to Very Poor as shown in Table 1 below. Individual infrastructure asset scores were then aggregated up to the Component level and then to the Network level in order to
provide an overall system Condition vs. Performance rating.
3.3.1.1 Asset Estimated Service Life
An asset’s ESL is the period of time that it is expected to be of use and fully functional to the Town. Once an asset reaches the end of its service life, it will be deemed to have
deteriorated to a point that necessitates replacement. The ESL for each asset component was established by using a combination of Town staff knowledge and experience, as well as
industry standards. Individual ESL’s was used in conjunction with the original installation dates to determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset.
3.3.1.2 Asset Condition
The Town can undertake numerous investigative techniques in order to determine and track
the physical condition of its infrastructure. For instance, the interior of stormwater pipes can be routinely inspected using CCTV (closed circuit television) inspection. These inspections
are guided by standard principals of defect coding and condition rating that allow for a physical condition “score” for the infrastructure to be developed. For infrastructure without a
standardized approach to condition assessment scoring, information such as visual inspections, bridge audits, annual pavement inspections and other maintenance related
observations can be used in establishing the condition of the asset.
Page 8
28
Table 1: Rating Categories based on Service Life and Condition
Rating
Category
% of
Remaining
Service Life (RSL)
Definition
Very Good 81% - 100%
Fit for the Future - The infrastructure in the system or network is
generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration
that require attention.
Good 61% - 80%
Adequate for Now - Some infrastructure elements show general
signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.
Fair 41% - 60%
Requires Attention - The infrastructure in the system or network
shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention with
some elements exhibiting significant deficiencies.
Poor 21% - 40%
At Risk - The infrastructure in the system or network is in poor
condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the
system exhibits significant deterioration.
Very Poor < 20%
Unfit for Sustained Service - The infrastructure in the system or
network is in unacceptable condition with widespread signs of
advanced deterioration. Many components in the system exhibit signs of imminent failure, which is affecting service or has
effectively exceeded its theoretical service life.
3.3.1 Funding vs. Need
The second evaluation criterion reflects the status of funding dedicated to maintain, rehabilitate, replace, and improve the current condition of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure systems need funding that is dedicated, indexed, and long-term. The primary measure is the actual amount of
funding provided versus the investment required to meet or maintain the desired levels of service. This ratio is then placed into one of five rating categories ranging from Very Good to Very Poor as shown in Table 2 below.
To determine the current level of funding, the plan uses the most recent five year average of budgeted spending, funded by traditional sources of municipal funds and committed senior
government grants. Traditional sources of municipal funds include taxation, reserves and debt. Development charges are not typically used for asset management as by definition, projects
funded by these levies are new growth projects and do not include the rehabilitation and maintenance of pre-existing infrastructure. Committed senior government grants include
programs such as the federal and provincial gas tax where an ongoing agreement has been executed. Funding received as part of a onetime grant program is not included as the Provincial
requirements for asset management plan specifically excludes these types of grants. While the funding versus need ratio is expressed as a percentage of dollars it is important to recognize that
dollars are not the only scarce resource that limits annual spending. Time is a major factor as well. Even if there were revenue sources available to completely fund annual needs
requirements, consideration must be made for available staff time that is required to manage the projects undertaken.
When calculating need, replacement costs are entered onto a timeline over the next 100 years using both condition and age information for each asset. Maintenance and construction costs also
need to be considered in the evaluation of need. Steady funding provides for maintenance that extends the life of infrastructure. Once the replacement profile is determined, the average annual
spending requirement can be calculated. This is the measure of a steady annual investment that would be required to meet future needs completely. This measure is provided in current year
dollars and does not take inflation into account.
Page 9
29
Dedicated funds such as user fees and development charges need to be applied only to infrastructure systems for which they are raised. Indexing means that funds need to increase as
the use of the system increases, or as the cost of providing the service increases. Maintenance and construction costs also need to be considered in the evaluation of funding. Steady funding
provides for maintenance that extends the life of infrastructure. Long-term, multi-year funding plans should account for growth estimates so that projects can be designed and constructed in
anticipation of needs, and not simply in reaction to inadequate capacity or problems caused by poor maintenance.
Table 2: Rating Categories based on Funding Levels
Rating Category Description
Very
Good 91% - 100% of the Funding need is supported.
Good 76% - 90% of the Funding need is supported.
Fair 61% - 75% of the Funding need is supported.
Poor 46% - 60% of the Funding need is supported.
Very
Poor < 45% of the Funding need is supported.
3.3.2 Blended Rating
The overall rating for each asset network should be based on the consolidation of the Condition
vs. Performance rating and the Funding vs. Need rating. At some point the Town may want to consider Capacity vs. Need as an additional asset evaluation criterion that relates the demand on
a system, such as volume or use, to its design capacity.
For the State of Local Infrastructure assessment each factor contributes equally to the overall rating as indicated in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Overall Rating Contribution
Rating Category Weighting
Factor Overall Rating
Condition vs. Performance 50% } A to F
Funding vs. Need 50%
In the future the Town may want to adjust the contribution of each factor to better reflect their relative impact on sustainability. The Funding vs. Need criterion appears to be the most critical
for most municipalities in terms of sustainability. For example, quite often new infrastructure assets are built through grants, development charges, or other external sources of funding with
little or no consideration of its proper maintenance, rehabilitation, and ultimate replacement. In these cases, the newer asset may have received a very favourable Condition vs. Performance
rating, but it will receive a low rating in the Funding vs. Need category due to the lack of financial investment and planning that compromise the long-term sustainability of the asset.
The overall rating ratio is then placed into one of five rating categories ranging from Very Good to
Very Poor as shown in Table 4 below to provide a letter grade for the asset network.
Page 10
30
Table 4: Overall Letter Grade
Letter
Grade
Rating
Category Description
A Very Good > 80%
B Good 70% - 79%
C Fair 60% - 69%
D Poor 50% - 59%
F Very Poor < 50%
Page 11
31
3.4 Road Network
3.4.1 Inventory
The road network that serves the Town of Tillsonburg consists of various types of arterial,
collector, and local roadways as well as other associated asset components such as sidewalks, streetlights and signalized intersections. These components have been identified within Table 5
below. Table 5: Road Network Inventory
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Lane
(km) (km)
Road
Network
Arterial 19.1 42.8
Collector 15.0 30.5
Local 81.1 156.1
Total Roads 115.3 229.4
Sidewalks 92.4
Streetlights 2,788
Signalized Intersections 6.0
The information used to compile the above inventory was determined by reviewing inventory
maps and conducting in-field data collection. 3.4.2 Valuation
The replacement cost for the road network was estimated using current standards, historical tender pricing, and current market replacement values. The estimated replacement value of the
road network and associated components, based upon current dollar value (2016) is $115.9 Million. The following table (Table 6) and associated pie-chart (Figure 1) provides a breakdown
of the contribution of each of the network components to the overall system value.
Table 6: Road Network Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Replacement Value
(2016) (km)
Road
Network
Arterial 19.1 $ 23,691,502
Collector 15.0 $ 12,859,560
Local 81.1 $ 64,986,659
Sidewalks 92.4 $ 10,606,377
Streetlights 2,788 $ 6,909,616
Signalized Intersections 6.0 $ 1,205,286
TOTAL $ 120,259,000
As can be seen from the pie chart of Figure 1, the Towns local roadways by themselves make up
nearly 50% of the network based on replacement value.
If this total asset value is translated to an average value per household assuming 7,200 dwellings, then the average household would have an investment of approximately $16,700 in
road network assets.
Page 12
32
Figure 1: Breakdown of Road Network Components by Value
3.4.1 Useful Life
The generalized values used for typical expected useful life of road network assets are summarized in Table 7 below. It should be recognized that the actual asset life is influenced by
many variables such as installation, traffic patterns, local weather conditions, etc, and may be
greater than the expected useful life in favourable conditions. Town staff will continue to refine the asset’s expected useful life as more specific data becomes available.
Table 7: Road Network Useful Life
Asset Component Expected Useful
Life (years)
Arterial 35
Collector 42
Local 50
Sidewalks 40
Streetlights 40
Signalized Intersections 50
The individual expected useful life in conjunction with the respective original installation dates
were used to determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset. A distribution summary of theoretical RSL is provided in Figure 2 below which indicates that
approximately $16.0 Million (nearly 15%) of assets have exceeded their expected useful life. It is important to note that although some assets may have exceeded their expected useful life, they
may be fully functional, have good condition, and provide high levels of service for many years. Consequently, age alone is not necessarily the best indication of an assets overall condition and
performance.
Arterial 19.7%
Collector
10.7%
Local
54.0%
Sidewalks 8.8%
Streetlights
5.7%
Signalized Intersections
1.0%
Page 13
33
Figure 2: Road Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
3.4.2 Condition vs. Performance
Figure 3 below demonstrates that about 70% of the road network is in good to fair condition, and
that approximately 15% is in poor or very poor condition representing about $14.5 Million.
The overall Condition & Performance rating for the entire road network and associated assets is Good (63%), meaning that on average, the road network assets are 37% into their weighted
average estimated service life of 45 years, and have 63% of their service life remaining (i.e. the weighted average estimated age of the road network is 17 years old).
Figure 3: Road Network Condition by Replacement Value
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
Past Useful
Life
0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50
Remaining Service Life (years)
Arterial Collector Local Sidewalks Streetlights Signalized Intersections
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Arterial Collector Local Sidewalks Streetlights Signalized Intersections
Page 14
34
3.4.3 Funding vs. Need
Figure 4 below outlines the projected capital investment in current year dollars for all road network assets including sidewalks, streetlights and signalized intersections. Each asset
component replacement year is based on the current condition of the asset and the asset’s expected remaining useful life given that condition. The analysis was run over a 100-year period
to ensure that all assets went through at least one cycle of replacement in order to provide a sustainable projection. The average annual capital investment of $2.73 Million represents the
amount required to meet all current and future financial obligations. The current funding level of $680,000 represents the historical five year budgeted average. As a result the roads network
annual funding gap deficit is approximately $2.05 Million with a Funding vs. Need rating of Very Poor.
Figure 4: Road Network Replacement Profile
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
201620212026203120362041204620512056206120662071207620812086209120962101210621112116Arterial Collector Local Sidewalks
Streetlights Signalized Intersections Annual Requirement Current Funding Level
Page 15
35
3.5 Bridge Network
3.5.1 Inventory
The bridge network that serves the Town of Tillsonburg consists of various types of bridge
structures and culverts as well as other associated asset components such as retaining walls. These components have been identified within Table 8 below.
Table 8: Bridge Network Inventory
Asset Type Asset Component Count Quantity
(ea) (m2)
Bridge Network
Bridges > 3m span 9 1,954
Culverts > 3m span 7 969
Culverts < 3m span; > 40m length 12 1,791
Culverts < 3m span; < 40m length 24 535
Retaining Walls 7 2,086
TOTAL 59 7,336
The information used to compile the above inventory was determined from the 2015 bi-annual
OSIM bridge inspection reports.
3.5.2 Valuation
The replacement cost for the bridge network was estimated using current standards, historical
tender pricing, and current market replacement values. The estimated replacement value of the bridge network and associated components, based upon current dollar value (2016) is $29.6 Million. The following table (Table 9) and associated pie-chart (Figure 5) provides a breakdown of the contribution of each of the network components to the overall system value.
Table 9: Bridge Network Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Component Count Replacement Value
(2016) (ea)
Bridge
Network
Bridges > 3m span 9 $ 10,978,196
Culverts > 3m span 7 $ 3,704,400
Culverts < 3m span; > 40m length 12 $ 10,216,041
Culverts < 3m span; < 40m length 24 $ 2,691,478
Retaining Walls 7 $ 1,973,751
TOTAL 59 $ 29,563,866
As can be seen from the pie chart of Figure 5, the Towns bridges and culverts less than 3m span with a length greater than 40m make up over 80% of the network based on replacement value.
If this total asset value is translated to an average value per household assuming 7,200
dwellings, then the average household would have an investment of approximately $4,100 in bridge network assets.
Page 16
36
Figure 5: Breakdown of Bridge Network Components by Value
3.5.3 Useful Life
The generalized values used for typical expected useful life of the bridge network assets are summarized in Table 10 below. It should be recognized that the actual asset life is influenced by
many variables such as installation, traffic patterns, local weather conditions, etc, and may be greater than the expected useful life in favourable conditions. Town staff will continue to refine
the asset’s expected useful life as more specific data becomes available.
Table 10: Bridge Network Useful Life
Asset Component Expected Useful
Life (years)
Steel Structures 80
HDPE 80
CSP/MPPA 45
Concrete Structures 70
Gabion Baskets 50
The individual expected useful life in conjunction with the respective original installation dates were used to determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset. A
distribution summary of theoretical RSL is provided in Figure 6 below which indicates that approximately $11.4 Million (nearly 40%) of assets have exceeded their expected useful life. It is
important to note that although some assets may have exceeded their expected useful life, they may be fully functional, have good condition, and provide high levels of service for many years.
Consequently, age alone is not necessarily the best indication of an assets overall condition and performance.
Bridges > 3m span
37.1%
Culverts > 3m
span 12.5%
Culverts < 3m span; > 40m
length 45.6%
Culverts < 3m
span; < 40m length
9.1% Retaining Walls 6.7%
Page 17
37
Figure 6: Bridge Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
3.5.4 Condition vs. Performance
Figure 7 below demonstrates that about 50% of the bridge network is in good to fair condition
and that about 10% is in poor or very poor condition representing approximately $3.2 Million.
The overall Condition & Performance rating for the entire bridge network and associated assets is Good (69%), meaning that on average, the bridge network assets are 31% into their weighted
average estimated service life of 61 years, and have 69% of their service life remaining (i.e. the weighted average estimated age of the bridge network is 19 years old).
Figure 7: Bridge Network Condition by Replacement Value
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
PastUsefulLife
0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80
Remaining Service Life (years)
Bridges > 3m span Culverts > 3m span Culverts < 3m span; > 40m length
Culverts < 3m span; < 40m length Retaining Walls
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Bridges > 3m span Culverts > 3m span Culverts < 3m span; > 40m length
Culverts < 3m span; < 40m length Retaining Walls
Page 18
38
3.5.5 Funding vs. Need
Figure 8 below outlines the projected capital investment in current year dollars for all bridge network assets including culverts and retaining walls. Each asset component replacement year is
based on the current condition of the asset and the asset’s expected remaining useful life given that condition. The analysis was run over a 100-year period to ensure that all assets went
through at least one cycle of replacement in order to provide a sustainable projection. The average annual capital investment of $520,000 represents the amount required to meet all
current and future financial obligations. The current funding level of $0 represents the historical five year budgeted average. As a result the bridge network annual funding gap deficit is
approximately $520,000 with a Funding vs. Need rating of Very Poor.
Figure 8: Bridge Network Replacement Profile
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
201620212026203120362041204620512056206120662071207620812086209120962101210621112116Bridges > 3m span Culverts > 3m span Culverts < 3m span; > 40m length
Culverts < 3m span; < 40m length Retaining Walls Annual Requirement
Current Funding Level
Page 19
39
3.6 Stormwater Network
3.6.1 Inventory
The stormwater collection network that serves the Town of Tillsonburg consists of various types
and diameter of stormwater collection pipes, manholes, leads, inlet structures such as catch basins and ditch inlets as well as other associated asset components such as stormwater
management ponds. These components have been identified within Table 11 below. Table 11: Stormwater Network Inventory
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity
Stormwater Network
Collection Pipes 84.6 (km)
Manholes 1,154 (ea)
Structure Leads 23.8 (km)
Inlet Structures 2,713 (ea)
SWM Facilities 14 (ea)
The information used to compile the above inventory was determined from various incomplete
databases, dated inventory maps, and as-built drawings. The document of assumptions for the stormwater collection network can be found in Appendix F.
3.6.2 Valuation
The replacement cost for the stormwater collection network was estimated using current standards, historical tender pricing, and current market replacement values. The estimated
replacement value of the stormwater collection network and associated components, based upon current dollar value (2016) is $57.7 Million. The following table (Table 12) and associated pie-chart (Figure 9) provides a breakdown of the contribution of each of the network components to
the overall system value.
Table 12: Stormwater Network Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Replacement Value (2016)
Stormwater
Network
Collection Pipes 84.6 (km) $ 34,606,136
Manholes 1,154 (ea) $ 6,645,990
Structure Leads 23.8 (km) $ 5,148,190
Inlet Structures 2,713 (ea) $ 6,684,795
SWM Facilities 14 (ea) $ 4,624,977
TOTAL $ 57,710,088
As can be seen from the pie chart of Figure 9, the Towns stormwater collection pipes make up
60% of the stormwater network based on replacement value.
If this total asset value is translated to an average value per household assuming 7,200 dwellings, then the average household would have an investment of approximately $8,000 in
stormwater network assets.
Page 20
40
Figure 9: Breakdown of the Stormwater Network Components by Value
3.6.3 Useful Life
The generalized values used for typical expected useful life of the stormwater network assets are summarized in Table 13 below. It should be recognized that the actual asset life is influenced by
many variables such as installation practices, soil conditions, uneven manufacturing quality, local weather conditions, etc, and may be greater than the expected useful life in favourable
conditions. Town staff will continue to refine the asset’s expected useful life as more specific data becomes available.
Table 13: Stormwater Network Useful Life
Asset Component Expected Useful
Life (years)
Collection Pipes 80
Manholes 75
Inlet Structures 75
Leads 80
SWM Ponds 50
The individual expected useful life in conjunction with the respective original installation dates were used to determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset. A
distribution summary of theoretical RSL is provided in Figure 10 below which indicates that approximately $6.7 Million (nearly 15%) of assets have exceeded their expected useful life. It is
important to note that although some assets may have exceeded their expected useful life, they may be fully functional, have good condition, and provide high levels of service for many years.
Consequently, age alone is not necessarily the best indication of an assets overall condition and performance.
Collection Pipes
60.0%
Manholes
11.5%
Structure Leads
8.9%
Inlet Structures 11.6%
SWM Facilities
8.0%
Page 21
41
Figure 10: Stormwater Network Remaining Service Life by Replacement Value
3.6.4 Condition vs. Performance
Figure 11 below demonstrates that about 60% of the stormwater network is in good to fair
condition and that approximately 10% is in poor or very poor condition representing about $4.8 Million.
The overall Condition & Performance rating for the entire stormwater network and associated
assets is Good (68%), meaning that on average, the stormwater network assets are 32% into their weighted average estimated service life of 72 years, and have 68% of their service life
remaining (i.e. the weighted average estimated age of the stormwater collection network is 23 years old).
Figure 11: Stormwater Network Condition by Replacement Value
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
PastUseful
Life
0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 -70 70 - 80
Remaining Service Life
Collection Pipes Manholes Structure Leads Inlet Structures SWM Facilities
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Collection Pipes Manholes Structure Leads Inlet Structures SWM Facilities
Page 22
42
3.6.5 Funding vs. Need
Figure 12 below outlines the projected capital investment in current year dollars for all stormwater network assets including manholes, inlet structures and SWM facilities. Each asset
component replacement year is based on the current condition of the asset and the asset’s expected remaining useful life given that condition. The analysis was run over a 100-year period
to ensure that all assets went through at least one cycle of replacement in order to provide a sustainable projection. The average annual capital investment of $640,000 represents the
amount required to meet all current and future financial obligations. The current funding level of $190,000 represents the historical five year budgeted average. As a result the stormwater
network annual funding gap deficit is approximately $450,000 with a Funding vs. Need rating of Very Poor.
Figure 12: Stormwater Network Replacement Profile
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
201620212026203120362041204620512056206120662071207620812086209120962101210621112116Collection Pipes Manholes Structure Leads Inlet Structures
SWM Facilities Annual Requirement Current Funding Level
Page 23
43
3.7 Fleet & Equipment
3.7.1 Inventory
The fleet and equipment that serves the Town of Tillsonburg spans all departments and consists of a range of light, medium and heavy duty trucks, trailers, generators, and various types of off-
road and small equipment. These components have been identified within Table 14 below. Table 14: Fleet & Equipment Inventory
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity
(ea)
Fleet &
Equipment
Light Duty Trucks 16
Medium Duty Trucks 11
Heavy Duty Trucks 14
Off Road Equipment 20
Attachments 41
Trailers 8
Generators 13
Small Equipment 63
Total 186
The information used to compile the above inventory was determined by conducting in-field data
collection. 3.7.2 Valuation
The replacement cost for fleet and equipment was estimated using current standards, historical tender pricing, and current market replacement values. The estimated replacement value of fleet
and equipment, based upon current dollar value (2016) is $10.45 Million. The following table (Table 15) and associated pie-chart (Figure 13) provides a breakdown of the contribution of each
of the fleet and equipment assets to the overall system value. Table 15: Fleet & Equipment Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity (ea) Replacement Value (2016)
Fleet & Equipment
Light Duty Trucks 16 $ 527,000
Medium Duty Trucks 11 $ 876,000
Heavy Duty Trucks 14 $ 5,617,000
Off Road Equipment 20 $ 2,085,000
Attachments 41 $ 742,000
Trailers 8 $ 155,000
Generators 13 $ 319,000
Small Equipment 63 $ 129,000
TOTAL $ 10,450,000
As can be seen from the pie chart of Figure 13, the Towns heavy duty trucks by themselves
make up about 55% of the fleet and equipment assets based on replacement value.
If this total asset value is translated to an average value per household assuming 7,200 dwellings, then the average household would have an investment of approximately $1,450 in fleet
and equipment assets.
Page 24
44
Figure 13: Breakdown of Fleet & Equipment Components by Value
3.7.3 Useful Life
The generalized values used for typical expected useful life of the bridge network assets are
summarized in Table 16 below. It should be recognized that the actual asset life is influenced by many variables such as installation, traffic patterns, local weather conditions, etc, and may be
greater than the expected useful life in favourable conditions. Town staff will continue to refine the asset’s expected useful life as more specific data becomes available.
Table 16: Fleet & Equipment Useful Life
Asset Component Expected Useful Life (years) Km / Hrs
Cars, Mini Vans, SUV's 8 200,000
1/2 Ton & 3/4 Ton Trucks 8 200,000
1 Ton Trucks 10 250,000
Single Axle Plow Trucks 10 300,000
Tandem Axle Plow Trucks 12 325,000
Street Sweeper 8 10,000
Loader 15 10,000
Grader 20 15,000
Backhoe 12 12,000
Tractors 15 5,000
Sidewalk Machine 10 5,000
Utility Trailers 15 -
Wood Chipper 15 2,000
Mowers 10 2,000
Light Duty Trucks 5.0%
Medium Duty Trucks 7.9%
Heavy Duty Trucks 53.8%
Off Road Equipment 20.1%
Attachments 7.2%
Trailers 1.5%
Generators 3.1%
Small Equipment 1.2%
Page 25
45
The individual expected useful life in conjunction with the respective original installation dates were used to determine the theoretical Remaining Service Life (RSL) of each asset. A
distribution summary of theoretical RSL is provided in Figure 14 below which indicates that approximately $3.7 Million (nearly 40%) of assets have exceeded their expected useful life.
Figure 14: Fleet & Equipment Remaining Service Live by Replacement Value
3.7.4 Condition vs. Performance
Figure 15 below demonstrates that about 60% of fleet and equipment assets are in good to fair
condition, but that approximately 35% are in poor or very poor condition representing about $3.7 Million.
The overall Condition & Performance rating of fleet and equipment assets is Fair (45%), meaning
that on average, fleet and equipment assets are 55% into their weighted average estimated service life of 14 years, and have 45% of their service life remaining (i.e. the weighted average
estimated age of fleet and equipment assets is 8 years old).
Figure 15: Fleet & Equipment Condition by Replacement Value
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Past UsefulLife 0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20
Remaining Service Life
Light Duty Trucks Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Off Road Equipment
Attachments Trailers Generators Small Equipment
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Light Duty Trucks Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Off Road Equipment
Attachments Trailers Generators Small Equipment
Page 26
46
3.7.5 Funding vs. Need
Figure 16 below outlines the projected capital investment in current year dollars for all fleet and equipment assets including light, medium and heavy duty trucks, off-road equipment,
attachments, trailers, generators and small equipment. Each asset component replacement year is based on the current condition of the asset and the asset’s expected remaining useful life given
that condition. The analysis was run over a 100-year period to ensure that all assets went through at least one cycle of replacement in order to provide a sustainable projection. The
average annual capital investment of $830,000 represents the amount required to meet all current and future financial obligations. The current funding level of $560,000 represents the
historical five year budgeted average. As a result the fleet and equipment annual funding gap deficit is approximately $270,000 with a Funding vs. Need rating of Fair.
Figure 16: Fleet & Equipment Replacement Profile
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
201620212026203120362041204620512056206120662071207620812086209120962101210621112116Light Duty Medium Duty Heavy Duty Off Road Equipment
Attachments Trailers Generators Small EquipmentAnnual Requirement Current Funding Level
Page 27
47
4 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE
4.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals
Asset management planning is a method of advancing Tillsonburg’s long-term strategic goals of its infrastructure system. The Plan incorporates current management requirements while looking at how
the Town can best serve the public now and in the future. Therefore, in order to achieve the overall corporate direction, the asset management plan needs to integrate the capital works plan, the Official
Plan, and the Community Strategic Plan. 4.2 Legislative Requirements The following five provincial legislative documents affect asset management planning:
• Ontario Regulation 239/02 made under the Municipal Act, 2001 sets the minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways.
• Ontario Regulation 104/97 made under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement
Act, 1990 sets the standards for detailed bridge inspections and provides a uniform approach for professional engineers and other inspectors to follow.
• Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002: Requires that municipalities plan for the long-term financial viability of their drinking water system.
• Water Opportunities Act, 2010: Sets the framework for a performance measurement regime
and sustainability for water, wastewater, and stormwater over the lifetime of the infrastructure assets.
• Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005: Develops implements and enforces accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with
respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025.
4.3 Service Level Indicators and Benchmarks
The goal of asset management is to move away from reactive and “worst first” planning to maintenance of assets in a “state of good repair”. This is the most economical way to manage assets
in order to continue to provide high levels of service. The path to get there requires a long-term strategy and customer buy-in to assure change. To aid in the evaluation of this change three types of
indicators and associated performance measures have been developed. Strategic Level
Strategic indicators are the highest and most abstract type of indicators. They are set and reviewed by the highest level of municipal decision makers. Examples would include the
percentage of reinvestment compared to the value of the system, or assessing deficit needs versus budget.
Tactical Level
Tactical indicators result from analyzing different but related operational indicators to obtain an overview of an asset’s condition. A tactical indicator provides managerial-level municipal decision
makers with an overview of an asset’s condition, state, or value. Tactical indicators would include the percentage amount for operations and maintenance compared to the value of the system or
the overall asset condition such as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for roads or Bridge Sufficiency Index (BSI) for bridges.
Page 28
48
Operational Level
An operational indicator is generally raw data collected about an asset by work crews while
performing their duties or as part of an asset inventory process. Operational indicators can be expressed as a dollar value per length of asset or simply by the number or breaks or backup occurrences per year.
4.3.1 Road Network
4.3.1.1 Goal
To preserve the roadway network with the goal of protecting public safety, health, property, and
the natural environment while meeting or exceeding all legislative requirements to move people, goods and services safely, efficiently, and effectively that will enable sustainable community
growth and economic development. 4.3.1.2 Objective
• Maintain all arterial and collector roadways in a Fair to Good condition vs. performance
rating with a minimum pavement condition index (PCI) of 50
• Within 10 years improve all local roadways to a minimum Fair condition vs. performance rating 4.3.1.3 Performance Indicators
Decision Level Performance Indicator Measure
Current (2016) Desired (2026)
Strategic Level
Cost per household per month $16.36 /hh $26.25 /hh
Percentage of capital reinvestment compared to total road network replacement value 0.57% 1.13%
Backlog value of road network shortfall
(accumulated asset network deficit) $4,720,083 $2,360,041
Tactical
Level
Overall Condition vs. Performance rating 63% 70%
Percentage of road network replacement value
spent on maintenance 0.22% 0.25%
Percentage of road network replacement value spent on winter control 0.39% 0.43%
Operational Level
Roads maintenance cost per lane km $1,140 /lane km $1,310 /lane km
Winter control cost per lane km $2,060 /lane km $2,590 /lane km
Number of customer requests received annually 775 700
* Does not reflect amount required for sustainability, includes a 1.5% annual rate of inflation.
Page 29
49
4.3.2 Bridge Network
4.3.2.1 Goal
To preserve the existing bridge network with the goal of protecting public safety, health, property, and the natural environment while meeting or exceeding all legislative requirements that will
enable sustainable community growth and economic development.
4.3.2.2 Objective
• Maintain all bridges, culverts, and retaining structures in a Fair to Good condition vs. performance rating with a minimum bridge sufficiency index (BSI) of 60.
• Within 10 years improve all bridge, culvert, or retaining structure to a minimum Good
condition vs performance rating. 4.3.2.3 Performance Indicators
Decision Level Performance Indicator Measure
Current (2016) Desired (2026)
Strategic
Level
Cost per household per month $0.20 /hh $2.40 /hh
Percentage of capital reinvestment compared to
total bridge network replacement value 0.00% 0.51%
Backlog value of bridge network shortfall (accumulated asset network deficit) $0 $0
Tactical Level
Overall Condition vs. Performance Rating 69% 75%
Percentage of bridge network replacement value compared to total OSIM identified improvements 4.60% 1.76%
Percentage of bridge network replacement value
spent on operations and maintenance 0.06% 0.15%
Operational
Level
Operating cost for bridges & culverts per sq.m. $2.31 /sq.m. $6.82 /sq.m.
Number of structures with a posted load restriction 0 0
Number of customer requests received annually < 10 < 5
* Does not reflect amount required for sustainability, includes a 1.5% annual rate of inflation.
Page 30
50
4.3.3 Stormwater Collection Network
4.3.3.1 Goal
To preserve the existing stormwater collection and land drainage system with the goal of protecting public safety, health, property, and the natural environment while meeting or exceeding
all legislative requirements for stormwater quality and management that will enable sustainable community growth and economic development.
4.3.3.2 Objective
• Meet the Ministry of Environment quality requirements for stormwater management for
new developments and reconstruction projects.
• Reduce the number of urgent stormwater projects 4.3.3.3 Performance Indicators
Decision Level Performance Indicator Measure
Current (2016) Desired (2026)
Strategic
Level
Cost per household per month $3.64 /hh $6.54 /hh
Percentage of capital reinvestment compared to
total road network replacement value 0.33% 0.65%
Backlog value of road network shortfall (accumulated asset network deficit) $642,581 $321,290
Tactical
Level
Overall Condition vs. Performance rating 68% 75%
Percentage of road network replacement value spent on operations and maintenance 0.22% 0.27%
Operational Level
Stormwater maintenance cost per km $1,500 /km $2,130 /km
Total number of Storm Facilities serviced annually < 5 All
Number of stormwater backup complaints
received annually 25 < 15
* Does not reflect amount required for sustainability, includes a 1.5% annual rate of inflation.
Page 31
51
4.3.4 Fleet & Equipment
4.3.4.1 Goal
To maintain, repair, and renew the Towns fleet and equipment assets with the goal of providing the necessary vehicles and equipment to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient operations of the
various Town departments that deliver essential services to the public and residents of the Municipality.
4.3.4.2 Objective
• Maintain, repair, and replace vehicles and equipment efficiently
• Comply with Provincial standards and regulations
• Maintain the Towns Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and Carrier Safety Rating (CSR) as per the Highway Traffic Act and associated regulations
4.3.4.3 Performance Indicators
Decision
Level Performance Indicator Measure
Current (2016) Desired (2026)*
Strategic
Level
Cost per household per month $16.04 /hh $17.15 /hh
Percentage of capital reinvestment compared to
total fleet & equipment replacement value 5.38% 6.85%
Backlog value of fleet & equipment shortfall (accumulated asset network deficit) $1,421,000 $0
Tactical Level
Overall Condition vs. Performance Rating 45% 65%
Total Inventory of fleet vehicles and equipment 186 190
Percentage of fleet & equipment replacement
value spent on operations and maintenance 7.99% 7.61%
Operational
Level
Number of repair requests received annually 300 250
Percentage of repair requests serviced in 48
hours 67% 80%
Average cost per repair serviced in 48 hours $4,141 /ea $3,944 /ea
* Does not reflect amount required for sustainability, includes a 1.5% annual rate of inflation.
Page 32
52
4.4 Customer Engagement
Considering that Council has been approving annual budgets that reflect the community’s needs, this
plan assumes that the assets are currently providing the desired level of service. It may be advantageous to consult with the community to refine the desired levels of service. Future public engagement to refine targeted desired service levels could include:
• Engaging the public to help envision what the municipality will look like in the future and the
infrastructure needed to support it.
• Assisting the engagement process by identifying priority projects and developing costing scenarios.
• Having conversations about prioritization and the difficult choices that sometimes need to be made to prioritize infrastructure investments
Page 33
53
5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.1 Objective
An asset management strategy is a set of planned actions that will enable the asset to provide the
desired levels of service outlined in Section 4 in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. The set of planned actions, when combined together form long-term operating and
capital forecasts that include:
• Non-Infrastructure Solutions
• Maintenance Activities
• Rehabilitation and Replacement Planning
• Project Prioritization
• Demand and Growth Planning
5.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions
Non-infrastructure solutions are actions that are taken to gain a better understanding of infrastructure
needs, extend the asset useful life, or lower costs. These strategies are not directly related to individual assets, but affect the system as a whole, such as:
• Integrated Infrastructure Renewal
• Coordination with Municipalities
• Research Partnerships
• Procurement Methods 5.2.1 Integrated Infrastructure Renewal
Through determining road, water and sewer replacement schedules, actions can be taken to align replacement times. For example, if a road section was approaching its replacement year, but a
sewer main located underneath the road was expected to be replaced in five years, the road could be flagged as a candidate for major maintenance activities to increase its service life.
Through taking actions to increase the service life of the road to match the sewer replacement allows for the road to be replaced at the same time as the invasive excavation occurs to replace
the sewer. Utilizing this approach saves costs, minimizes waste and maximizes the use of assets. The Town is currently in the process of implementing this approach as detailed in Section
5.4 – Rehabilitation and Replacement Planning. 5.2.2 Coordination with Municipalities
Municipalities working together can accomplish service levels that would be too expensive for a municipality to afford alone. This occurs between municipalities of all sizes, and presents
significant opportunities for cost savings for both municipalities. For example the scheduling works on inter-related assets at the same time, sharing the cost and working together more
efficiently. The Town, under agreement as the Operating Authority for the water distribution and wastewater collection systems with Oxford County works closely with the Oxford Public Works
Water and Wastewater Divisions to ensure alignment of renewal activities within a street corridor.
Another example is cooperative purchasing, accomplished through partnering with other municipalities, in order to obtain the benefits of volume purchasing and the reduction in
administrative efforts and costs. The Town is currently a member of the Oxford County Service Sharing Committee and undertakes cooperative purchasing with this group (i.e. Road Salt).
Page 34
54
5.2.3 Research Partnerships
The Town of Tillsonburg has recently partnered with the private and academic sectors in the develop a pavement management optimization application to help mitigate the infrastructure
deficit by providing a better road network capital and operational decision making tool that could potentially save thousands of dollars in capital expenses on the municipalities road network
system. 5.2.4 Procurement Methods
The Town of Tillsonburg has a purchasing by-law that establishes policies for the procurement of
goods and services by the Town. The objective of the policy is to ensure: • Best value is achieved consistent with the required quality and service
• Integrity of the purchasing process
• Openness, accountability and transparency and fair treatment of all bidders
• Encourage competition among bidders
5.3 Maintenance Activities
Preservation of an asset is an important aspect in any asset management strategy, especially
considering continuous fiscal constraints. The design life of an asset is often dependent on achieving a minimum level of maintenance to protect the capital investment of the asset. Early detection of
potential issues is crucial to determine and evaluate maintenance and rehabilitation alternatives and is largely accomplished through ongoing condition assessments and inspections.
5.3.1 Condition Assessment and Inspection
The foundation of good asset management practice is based on having comprehensive reliable
information on the current condition of infrastructure. Asset condition and performance information supports lifecycle decision making and is critical to the management of risks and
performance in achieving levels of service. The Town actively undertakes condition assessment activities and utilizes the information gathered in the development of operating and capital plans.
A list of the current condition assessment and inspection initiatives is shown in Table 17.
Page 35
55
Table 17: Condition Assessment Projects by Asset Type
Asset Type Project Interval
Target
% of Network
Road Network
• Visual Pavement Condition Assessment Annual 25%
• Detailed Roadway Surface Distress and Drivability Condition Assessment 5 Years 100%
• MMS Road Patrols Ongoing 100%
Sidewalks • Detailed Sidewalk Condition Assessment 3 Years 100%
• MMS Sidewalk Survey Annual 100%
Bridges,
Retaining Walls and Culverts
• Structural Condition Assessment (OSIM) Bi-Annual 100%
• Detailed Condition Investigation As Required
Stormwater Network
• Collection Pipe CCTV Condition Assessment Annual 10%
• Manhole Condition Assessment Annual 10%
• Stormwater Retention Pond and Oil Grit
Separator Inspection Annual 100%
Fleet &
Equipment • MTO Motor Carrier Safety Standards Schedule 1 and 2 Mileage 100%
Corporate Facilities
• Visual Building Condition Assessment Annual 25%
• Detailed Building Condition Investigation 5 Years 100%
• Building Roof Condition Assessment Annual 25%
Note: The “Target % of Network” represents the percentage of the network assets that are covered in the specified interval
Page 36
56
5.3.2 Routine Maintenance
Routine maintenance activities can be conducted immediately in response to an identified localized issue or as a preventative measure to reduce the occurrence of future more severe
issues. A list of routine maintenance activities generally accounted for within the Towns annual operating budget is provided in Table 18.
Table 18: Routine Maintenance Activities by Asset Type
Asset Type Asset
Component Activity
Road Network
Asphalt
Surfaces
• Pothole repairs
• Roadside maintenance
• Drainage maintenance
• Localized patching
• Crack sealing
Sidewalks • Removal of trip ledges
• Localized panel replacement
Bridges,
Retaining Walls and Culverts
All
Structures
• Wearing surface crack sealing
• Painting
• Washing & Cleaning of:
o Wearing surface & deck
o Sidewalk & railings
o Tops of abutments & piers
o Expansion joints
o Seats & bearings
o Lower chords of trusses
o Deck drains
Concrete
Structures
• Crack Repairs
o Bonding
o Routing and sealing
o Stitching
Steel
Structures
• Localized rust removal and painting
• Sandblasting and repainting
Stormwater Network
Collection
Pipes
• Localized repair of mains or leads
• Cleaning and flushing
• Calcite, roots and other debris removal
Manholes &
Inlet Structures
• Sediment removal
• Frame and grate replacement
• Manhole benching repairs
SWM Facilities
• Vegetation maintenance
• Access maintenance
• Debris and litter control
• Dredging and sediment removal
Fleet &
Equipment All Units
• Regular oil changes and tire rotation
• Service order repair requests
• Refurbish critical components/parts
• Sandblast and repaint
Page 37
57
5.4 Rehabilitation and Replacement Planning
5.4.1 Linear Assets The linear asset rehabilitation and replacement planning process is comprised of two core steps
as shown in Table 19. Developing and coordinating linear infrastructure renewal is a complex, data intensive process requiring several sources of input.
Table 19: Linear Asset Capital Planning Process
Identify and Select Project
Candidates
• Roads
• Sidewalks
• Stormwater Sewers
• Watermains
• Wastewater Sewers
Corridor Coordination Process -
Establish Project Type
• Spot Repair
• Rehabilitation
• Stand-alone Replacement
• Full Corridor Reconstruction
Note: Although Watermains and Wastewater Sewers are Upper Tier assets
consideration of their renewal provides the opportunity for cost-effectiveness when considering the totality of the assets present within the street corridor.
5.4.1.1 Project Identification
The workflow diagrams provided in Figure 17 to Figure 19 were developed to provide clear, transparent rationalization of the road, water, wastewater and stormwater rehabilitation and
replacement candidate selection process as well as providing the opportunity to identify
areas of improvement.
Page 38
58
Figure 17: Road Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Page 39
59
Figure 18: Watermain Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Page 40
60
Figure 19: Wastewater and Stormwater Sewer Candidate Selection Process Flow Chart
Page 41
61
5.4.1.2 Corridor Coordination
The candidate selection process identifies which individual assets require replacement or rehabilitation. In any given right-of-way, there may be multiple assets of varying asset type
that have been identified as replacement or rehabilitation candidates. Moreover, there may be assets within the same right-of-way that have recently been repaired, are in good
condition, and may last for a number of years. The process of corridor coordination allows the Town to identify and evaluate these scenarios, and develop the appropriate strategy that
will extend the life of the corridor as long as possible, while maintaining the required levels of service and minimizing risk exposure.
In order to form the locational relationship between the different asset types all of the Town
right-of-ways were divided into ‘corridors’. Typically a corridor will range along a road from one intersection to the next. With assets grouped into corridors, each asset can be
assessed alongside each other to diagnose the optimum treatment method.
A theoretical example of the lifecycle of infrastructure within a corridor is shown in Figure 20 which illustrates the varying lifespan of asset types. For example, the road may require
rehabilitation at approximately 40 years from the time it was constructed. At 60 years, the watermain may require replacement, requiring a trench to be cut in the road surface (which
may still be in good condition); instead trenchless relining of the watermain could extend the service life of the pipe for an additional 40 years, with minimal impact to the road surface.
This approach to integrated capital planning allows the corridor reconstruction to be harmonized at the end of each asset’s lifecycle, providing greater return on infrastructure
investments over the long-term as well as minimizing disruption to the public due to construction activities.
Figure 20: Theoretical Corridor Lifecycle
In order to ensure consistency across the entire infrastructure network, a formalized decision making process for selection of project type was developed. Outlining the process ensures
a consistent, defensible and transparent approach to decision making. Figure 21 illustrates the decision criteria used in the selection of project type for a corridor. Following the corridor
coordination process, corridors are grouped together, when possible, with the goal of achieving efficiencies in economies of scale.
Page 42
Original Asset
Original Asset
Original Asset
Original Asset
Watermain Lining
Sewer Lining
Minor Rehab
Resurface Partial
Depth Twice Rehab Full Depth
0 20 40 60 80 100
Watermain
Wastewater
Stormwater
Road
Time (Years Since Corridor Construction)
Corridor Original Full Corridor
Reconstruction
Extended Service Life
62
Figure 21: Corridor Coordination (Project Type) Process Flow Chart
Page 43
63
5.4.2 Mobile Assets
In order to ensure that the appropriate vehicle or piece of equipment is identified for replacement during the period of time when the total cost of ownership is lowest a quantitative condition
scoring system has been established based on industry standards and fleet management best practices. The quantitative condition scoring system provides additional information of fleet
assets and is based on the average of four different factors including mileage (or hours), lifecycle operating and maintenance costs, reliability, and the mechanical/body assessment. A description
of each factor and the associated scoring matrix used to estimate the %RSL for each individual fleet asset is provided below:
Mileage/Hours (5 pts)
The odometer or hour meter reading for the respective vehicle or piece of equipment is compared to the standard vehicle and equipment guidelines (Table 16) and assigned a
score based on the extent of use as outlined in Table 20.
Table 20: Mileage/Hour Scoring Matrix
Km / Hours Score
Km/Hrs are less than 20% of vehicle & equipment guideline 1
Km/Hrs are 21-40% of vehicle & equipment guideline 2
Km/Hrs are 41-60% of vehicle & equipment guideline 3
Km/Hrs are 61-80% of vehicle & equipment guideline 4
Km/Hrs are greater than 81% of vehicle & equipment guideline 5
Lifecycle Operation and Maintenance Cost (5 pts)
The total lifecycle maintenance and repair costs (not including repair from accident damage, lube, oil changes, filters, tire rotations, annual inspections etc.) is expressed as
a percentage of the original purchase price for the respective vehicle or piece of equipment. This data is extracted for each vehicle or piece of equipment from the Town’s
financial software system with points assigned as outlined in Table 21. Table 21: Lifecycle O & M Scoring Matrix
Lifecycle Operation & Maintenance Cost Score
Lifecycle O&M costs are less than 20% of original purchase cost 1
Lifecycle O&M costs are 21-40% of original purchase cost 2
Lifecycle O&M costs are 41-60% of original purchase cost 3
Lifecycle O&M costs are 61-80% of original purchase cost 4
Lifecycle O&M costs are greater than 81% of original purchase cost 5
Page 44
64
Reliability (5 pts)
Points are assigned depending on the frequency that a vehicle or piece of equipment is in the shop for repair as outlined in Table 22. The more frequent shop visits the higher the
score. This data is extracted for each vehicle or piece of equipment from the service requests generated by fleet maintenance software.
Table 22: Reliability Scoring Matrix
Reliability Score
less than 5 Service Requests per year 1
more than 5 but less than 10 Service Requests per year 2
more than 10 but less than 15 Service Requests per year 3
more than 15 but less than 20 Service Requests per year 4
more than 20 Service Requests per year 5
Mechanical / Body Assessment (5 pts)
An annual assessment of each vehicle or piece of equipment is performed that takes into
consideration body condition, rust, interior condition, accident history, steering and suspension, engine and transmission, hydraulic and electrical systems, brakes, chassis,
etc. based on the applicable MTO inspection standards. The mechanical/body score is based on the outcome of the assessment evaluation as outlined in Table 23.
Table 23: Mechanical / Body Assessment Scoring Matrix
Mechanical / Body Assessment Score
No visual damage or rust, good drivetrain & engine 1
Minor imperfections in body/paint, interior fair (no rips, tears, burns), good drivetrain 2
Noticeable imperfections in body/paint, minor rust, minor damage to body, worn interior (one or more rips, tears, burns), weak or
noisy drivetrain or engine
3
Previous accident damage, poor paint and body condition, rust
and rusted through areas, bad interior (rips, tears, cracked dash), major damage to body, drivetrain or engine worn or bad 4
Previous accident damage, poor paint and body condition, rust and rusted through areas, bad interior (rips, tears, cracked dash),
major damage to body, drivetrain or engine inoperative or unsafe
5
Page 45
65
5.5 Project Prioritization
Implementation of the rehabilitation and replacement planning process outlined in Section 5.5 revealed
a much larger list of needs than available resources. Therefore project prioritization parameters must be developed to ensure that the right assets come forward in the short-term and long range business plans. An important method of project prioritization is to rank each asset on the basis of how much risk it represents to the municipality. Prioritizing critical assets over lower risk assets ensures that the
municipality is protected against the most severe risks. Asset risk is defined by applying the following formula to each asset.
Asset Risk = Probability of Failure X Consequence of Failure
The objective of this prioritization strategy is to reduce risk levels that are deemed to be high, as well
as to ensure assets are maintained in a way that sustains risk at acceptable levels. It is recognized that the general approach outlined below will need to be reviewed and refined over the upcoming
years and requires monitoring of asset risk scores to ensure in-house knowledge and experience is captured appropriately.
5.5.1 Probability of Failure
The probability of failure relates to the current condition state of each asset, whether they are in
Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, or Very Poor condition. The %RSL score is inversely proportional to the probability of failure and serves as a good indicator regarding the future risk of failure of an
asset as described in Table 24. Table 24 – Probability of Failure Score
%RSL Rating
Category
Probability of Failure Description
Probability of
Failure Score
Very Good Improbable 1
Good Unlikely 2
Fair Possible 3
Poor Likely 4
Very Poor Highly Probable 5
5.5.1 Consequence of Failure
Failure can be defined as the condition at which an asset no longer meets its intended objective.
Typically the most critical assets are those with the highest consequence of failure, and not necessarily a high probability of failure. For example, the failure of a watermain supplying a busy
commercial location may cause substantial financial loss or a failure of a watermain servicing a hospital may have serious or life threatening consequences, however, failure of a watermain in a
low density residential area during work hours may cause minimal disruptions.
The consequence of failure for linear assets can be characterized by examining the weighted balance of legal and regulatory, economic, social, environmental, and service delivery impacts as
summarized in Table 25 and for mobile assets can be characterized by the type of service the vehicle or piece equipment is used for as summarized in Table 26. For example failure of a Fire
Services vehicle could have severe consequences, such as loss of life compared to the failure of a vehicle in Building or Engineering Services.
Page 46
66
Table 25: Linear Asset Consequence of Failure Matrix
Consequence
of Failure Legal & Regulatory Economic Social Environmental Service Delivery
Slight
Low level legal issues;
technical non-compliance;
legal and/or regulatory
actions unlikely; limited
regulatory scrutiny
Repair costs; loss of
income; damage to
property; third party losses
or fines <$25K
No injuries or health
impacts; no media
coverage or loss of
image
No impact or lasting
damage; reversible within
1 week; located significant
distance from
environmental feature
No or few disruptions in non-
essential services; impacts
to minimized residential
zone
Minor
Regulatory non-compliance;
increased direct regulatory
scrutiny
Repair costs; loss of
income; damage to
property; third party losses
or fines $25K - $50K
Minor injuries or health
impacts; possible local
media coverage and
loss of image
Minor, short-term repairable
damage; reversible within
3 months; located
significant distance from
environmental feature
Minor (isolated) disruption in
non-essential services; no or
few disruptions in essential
services; impacts to
minimized residential zone
Moderate
Regulatory non-compliance
with expected regulatory
prosecution; possible fines;
possible civil action by minor
party
Repair costs; loss of
income; damage to
property; third party losses
or fines $50K - $100K
Multiple minor injuries
or health impacts;
some local media
coverage and loss of
image
Moderate; medium-term
repairable damage;
reversible within 1 year;
located in proximity to
environmental feature
Major disruption in non-
essential services with minor
(isolated) disruption in
essential services; impacts
to increasing residential
zone
Major
Multi-jurisdictional regulatory
non-compliance with
prosecution and fines; civil
action by major party
Repair costs; loss of
income; damage to
property; third party losses
or fines $100K - $200K
Serious injuries or
health impacts;
possible regional
media coverage and
significant loss of
image
Long-term damage with
repairable consequences;
reversible within 3 years;
located within regulated
environmental area
Major disruption in essential
services with some non-
essential services
unavailable; impacts to
increasing residential zone
or industrial zone
Severe
Multi-jurisdictional regulatory
non-compliance with
prosecution and significant
fines; class action law suit
Repair costs; loss of
income; damage to
property; third party losses
or fines > $200K
Loss of life, serious
injuries or health
impacts; extensive
media coverage and
loss of image
Long term damage with
permanent lasting
consequences; non-
reversible; located within
regulated environmental
area within significantly
Some essential services
unavailable; impacts to
increasing residential zone;
industrial zone or
institutional zone
Page 47
67
Table 26: Mobile Asset Consequence of Failure Matrix
Type of Service Consequence of
Failure Score
Consequence
of Failure Description
Any standard car, pickup, SUV, van, or equipment 1 Slight
Any vehicle or equipment with standard duties with
attachments, service vehicle or dump body, with occasional off-road use 2 Minor
Any vehicle or equipment with multiple duties, that pulls
trailers, hauls heavy loads, special purpose, or continued off-road use 3 Moderate
Hydro fleet & equipment, any vehicle or equipment
involved in snow removal 4 Major
Emergency fleet & equipment 5 Severe
With both the probability of failure and consequence of failure documented, the total risk of asset failure can be determined. A graphical representation of the risk scoring matrix is illustrated in Table 27. Total risk can be classified under the following categories:
• Extreme Risk: risk well beyond acceptable levels;
• High Risk: risk beyond acceptable levels;
• Medium Risk: risk at acceptable levels, monitoring required to ensure risk does not become high;
• Low Risk: risk at or below acceptable levels.
• Minimal Risk: risk sufficiently below acceptable levels
Table 27: Asset Risk Scoring Matrix
Consequence Probability
Improbable Unlikely Possible Likely Highly Probable
Severe Medium High Extreme Extreme Extreme
Major Low Medium High Extreme Extreme
Moderate Low Low Medium High Extreme
Minor Minimal Low Low Medium High
Slight Minimal Minimal Low Low Medium
The following table (Table 28) and associated bar graph (Figure 22) provides a summary of asset risk
scores by replacement value and indicate that approximately 10% or $20.9 Million of assets have an Extreme level of risk with another 20% or $40.3 Million of High level risk assets.
Extreme risk assets should be addressed in the near term to reduce risk exposure to the Town and High level risk assets should be addressed in the short-term. A list of priority projects is provided in
Appendix C. It should be noted that some assets may require early upgrading if health and safety poses an increased risk. Similarly the Town may be able to delay the replacement of other assets if a higher level of risk can be accepted.
Page 48
68
Table 28: Asset Risk by Replacement Value
Network Minimal Low Medium High Extreme Replacement Value (Millions)
Road Network $5.9 $61.3 $23.3 $20.0 $9.7 $120.3
Bridge Network $0.0 $3.6 $12.2 $7.5 $6.3 $29.6
Stormwater Network $4.5 $27.2 $15.5 $6.3 $4.1 $57.7
Fleet & Equipment $0.2 $1.5 $1.4 $6.5 $0.8 $10.4
Total $10.6 $93.6 $52.4 $40.3 $20.9 $217.9
Figure 22: Asset Risk Distribution
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Road Network
Bridge Network
Stormwater Network
Fleet & Equipment
Extreme High Medium Low Minimal
Page 49
69
5.6 Lifecycle Options Analysis
Asset lifecycle analysis is utilized to help develop a strategy that can be applied throughout the life of
an asset to assist in the development of both short term capital plans and long range sustainability plans to ensure the best overall health and performance of the Towns infrastructure. Figure 23 below illustrates the importance of timely investments and the effects on the overall cost of a typical asset.
Figure 23: Timely Renewal Investments Save Money
Source: Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012) 5.6.1 Road Network
Pavement deterioration is non-linear such that initially in the first few years of service the rate of deterioration is slow. At mid service life the rate of deterioration increases and near the end of its service life the rate of deterioration is quite rapid. The following diagram (Figure 24) illustrates
generalized pavement degradation profiles.
Figure 24: Pavement Degradation Profiles
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Condition Year Arterial Collector Local Replacement Threshold
Page 50
70
During a road’s lifecycle there are opportunities available for work activity to extend the life of the asset which generally coincides with the assets condition. Trigger thresholds used for identifying
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs are provided in Table 30. Adjusting the asset condition trigger thresholds also adjusts the level of service and ultimately changes the required
investment. Table 30: Road Treatment Options
Activity
Condition Trigger Threshold Weighted
Average Unit Price per
Meter Length
Arterial Collector Local Maintenance 1st Crack Seal 90 - 75 90 - 75 90 - 75 $4.15
2nd Crack Seal 75 - 55 75 - 50 75 - 45 $8.65 Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Options Partial Depth (Top Layer) 55 - 40 50 - 30 45 - 20 $182.31
Full Depth (Top & Bottom
Layers) with sport curb and gutter repairs 55 - 40 50 - 30 45 - 20 $371.81
Reconstruction < 40 < 30 < 20 $909.41
The maintenance options identified in Table 30 are proposed to be performed on a regular basis
moving forward. For rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, if one of the rehabilitation or reconstruction options is carried out on a road section, then the road service life will be extended
corresponding to the treatment as summarized in Table 31. Therefore any one of the
rehabilitation options may be implemented for individual road sections within the window of opportunity according to the current road condition.
Table 31: Roadway Extended Repair Life
Activity Added Life (Years)
Arterial Collector Local
Partial Depth (Top Layer) 10 13 15
Full Depth (Top & Bottom
Layers) with sport curb and gutter repairs 15 20 25
Reconstruction 35 42 50
Page 51
71
The following strategies/scenarios for Local roadways have been developed for future rehabilitation activity based on the overall condition of the road:
I. Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer) three times.
II. Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs two times,
then Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer).
III. Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer) two times, then Full Depth rehabilitation (top &
bottom layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs.
IV. Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs once, then Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer) two times.
V. Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs three
times.
Graphical representations of each strategy illustrating the extended service life and associated cost per centerline length of roadway are provided in Figure 25 to Figure 29.
Figure 25: Road Rehabilitation Strategy I
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Condition Year
Normal 1st Partial Depth 2nd Partial Depth 3rd Partial Depth
38 years
$546.94/m
Page 52
72
Figure 26: Road Rehabilitation Strategy II
Figure 27: Road Rehabilitation Strategy III
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Condition Year
Normal 1st Full Depth 2nd Full Depth Partial Depth
58 years
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Condition Year
Normal 1st Partial Depth 2nd Partial Depth Full Depth
50 years
$924.94/m
$736.44/m
Page 53
73
Figure 28: Road Rehabilitation Strategy IV
Figure 29: Road Rehabilitation Strategy V
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Condition Year
Normal Full Depth 1st Partial Depth 2nd Partial Depth
48 years
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Condition Year
Normal 1st Full Depth 2nd Full Depth 3rd Full Depth
70 years
$736.44/m
$1240.08/m
Page 54
74
Table 32: Road Rehabilitation Strategy Cost Summary
Strategies Unit Cost
per Meter
Extended Road Service Life (Years)
Unit Cost per Year of Added Life
I Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer) three times $546.94 38 $14.39
II
Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom
layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs two times, then Partial Depth resurfacing
(top layer)
$952.94 58 $15.96
III
Partial Depth resurfacing (top layer) two times, then Full Depth rehabilitation (top &
bottom layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs
$736.44 50 $14.73
IV
Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom
layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs once, then Partial Depth resurfacing (top
layer) two times
$736.44 48 $15.34
V Full Depth rehabilitation (top & bottom
layers) with spot curb and gutter repairs three times $1240.08 70 $17.72
Based on the road degradation figures and the strategy cost summary in Table 32, road
rehabilitation strategy I appears to be the most economical alternative, however the application of rehabilitation strategy III will also be applied depending on individual road conditions.
5.6.2 Bridge Network
For some bridges in Poor condition, a small holding strategy of repairs can be done to extend the
life of the bridge by 6 to 10 years. This will defer the major expense of structure replacement, while still maintaining the bridge in a serviceable condition. Some other bridges that are still in
Good condition can have work done ahead of other Poor condition bridges to help preserve the bridges before they require extensive repair. The development of a bridge, culvert and retaining
wall management strategy will be included in the next structural condition assessment (OSIM) inspection program scope of work.
5.6.3 Stormwater Network
The rate of deterioration of stormwater sewer collection pipes is also non-linear as shown in Figure 30 which also illustrates the condition based rehabilitation and replacement trigger
thresholds.
Page 55
75
Figure 30: Stormwater Pipe Degradation Profile
There are two relining strategies the Town is currently exploring, non-structural and structural
relining as an effective viable alternative solution for storm sewer rehabilitation. The following Figure 31 to Figure 33 compares the extended service life for non-structural and structural
relining technologies with typical replacement of storm sewers.
Figure 31: Normal vs. Non-Structural Relining
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130Condition Year
Collection Pipes Rehabilitation Threshold Replacement Threshold
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170Condition Year
Normal Non-Structural Relining
25 years
$173.62/m
Page 56
76
Figure 32: Normal vs. Structural Relining
Figure 33: Normal vs. Reconstruction
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180Condition Year
Normal Structural Relining
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210Condition Year
Normal Reconstruction
50 years
80 years
$845.77/m
$318.64/m
Page 57
77
Table 33: Stormwater Pipe Rehabilitation Strategy Cost Summary
Strategy Unit Cost
per Meter
Extended
Service Life
(Years)
Unit Cost per
Year of
Added Life
Non-Structural Relining $183.62 25 $7.34
Structural Relining $338.64 50 $6.77
Reconstruction $845.77 80 $10.57
Based on the sewer pipe degradation figures and the strategy cost summary in Table 33, structural relining appears to be the most economical alternative. However the application of non-
structural relining may also be applied depending on the condition of other street corridor assets in order to facilitate a coordinated full asset reconstruction of the street corridor.
5.6.4 Fleet & Equipment The economic theory of vehicle replacement, as illustrated in Figure 34 indicates that from an
economic perspective the optimal point to replace fleet assets is when the total cost of ownership is at its lowest. As a vehicle ages, its capital cost diminishes and its operating costs increase (i.e.
maintenance, repair, etc.). The combination of these two costs produces a U-shaped total cost curve that reflects the total cost of ownership. Ideally a vehicle or piece of equipment should be
replaced when the capital and operating cost curves intersect and the total cost of ownership begins to increase. However, given that the bottom of the total cost curve is relatively flat
suggests that there is not a single best time to replace a unit, but rather that a period of time exists for replacement as illustrated in Figure 35.
Figure 34: Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement
Page 58
78
Figure 35: Economic Reality of Vehicle Replacement
Based on the economic reality of vehicle replacement timely replacement of fleet assets is
important for controlling the total cost of ownership and overall fleet performance (i.e. vehicle suitability, availability, safety, reliability, and efficiency).
5.7 Disposal Activities
Disposal activities are those associated with disposing of an asset once it has reached the end of its useful life, or is otherwise no longer needed by the municipality. In most cases, once an asset has
reached the end of its useful life it needs to be replaced to continue to provide service. When an asset has been identified for rehabilitation or replacement, the associated cost for proper disposal has been
incorporated in the estimate (i.e. waste asphalt material in conformance with current MOECC policies) 5.8 Growth and Demand
The Town of Tillsonburg had a population of 15,301 according to the 2011 federal census. This
represents a percentage increase of 3.2% from 2006 which is approximately half of the national average of 5.9%. Continuing at this rate, the forecasted population of Tillsonburg in 2031 is estimated
at 17,700. This anticipated 16% population growth over the next 15 years is expected to have a significant impact on the Towns infrastructure requirements.
5.9 Risk Evaluation of Asset Management Strategy
The Town of Tillsonburg Asset Management Strategy is founded on available data, anticipated service
levels, and other assumptions. Assumptions in these items introduce some unavoidable risk that the overall strategy may change over time as the Town evolves and develops more complete data and
processes. Recognizing these uncertainties, Tillsonburg is developing strategies to address each source of risk so that the Asset Management Strategy can evolve over time. Risk mitigation strategies
for each of the following are discussed below: 5.9.1 Data Quality
As with any date-intensive quantitative analysis, the results are only as good as the data that it is based on. The Town recognizes that there are some gaps in the datasets used for the development of the asset management plan that may impact the validity of the results.
Page 59
79
Strategy to Address: It is suggested that in-field data collection and assessments be completed concurrently to ensure
the inventory of assets is complete along with their current physical condition. With updated information the asset management strategies should be reviewed to determine if any significant
changes are required. 5.9.2 Levels of Service
The levels of service present a risk, since no previous levels of service were establish for the Town. The level of service performance indicators have never been measured before and the
expectations of each level of service has not been established. Adjustment is expected in the early years of levels of service to better reflect the level of commitment from the municipality, but
risk exists if a level of service is set at higher expectations than what is possible at the current levels of funding.
Strategy to Address:
It is suggested that to address this source of risk, the targets established in the first year of utilizing the Levels of Service should be reviewed along with the cost to provide the levels of
service. If the cost of the level of service is too high to maintain the target should be adjusted or alternative strategies to accomplish the level of service should be investigated.
5.9.3 Lifecycle Consequences
Lifecycle consequences represent the anticipated outcomes in the event that the municipality does not undertake the recommended asset management activities during the recommended
timeframes. Lifecycle consequences can included but are not limited to deterioration of the physical condition of the asset, a reduction in the outputs and service potential of the assets, increased operating costs, higher costs for subsequent asset management activities than would
otherwise have been incurred had the Town undertaken the recommended asset management
activities and/or a reduction in the estimated useful life of the asset.
Strategy to Address:
It is suggested that future budgets be tied directly to the asset management strategy highlighting the impact that spending decisions have on the condition, useful life, maintenance costs, and future rehabilitation funding needs as well as the potential impact to levels of service and
associated degrees of risk and liability. 5.9.4 Assumptions
As with any assumption, risk exists if that assumption does not account for a large enough percentage of the assets that could potentially result in unexpected costs if not corrected (i.e.
year of installation assumed, when the asset is past its expected useful life, and due to the degradation of the asset, affects surrounding assets.)
Strategy to Address:
It is suggested that through the asset inspection programs the largest assumptions be mitigated and asset management strategy revised, if required.
Page 60
80
6 FINANCING STRATEGY
Page 61
81
APPENDIX A
Asset Inventory Classification
82
Assets that are ultimately to be included in the Town Asset Management Plan are listed below. Assets with a priority ranking of 1, as identified in the Ministry of Infrastructure Building Together Guide for
Municipal Asset Management Plans, were completed in 2013 for future funding eligibility. This update has addressed all items with a priority ranking of 2. Future updates of the Plan will include all assets with
a priority ranking of 3. Asset Inventory Classification
Asset Class Priority Ranking (1-3) Asset Type
Road Network
1 1
1 2
2 2
Arterial Collector
Local Sidewalks
Streetlights Signalized Intersections
Bridge Network
1
1 2
Bridges (Pedestrian & Vehicular)
Culverts (>3m span) Retaining Walls
Stormwater Network
1 1
1 1
2 2
Collection Pipes Manholes
Structure Leads Inlet Structures
Stormwater Management Pods Oil Grit Interceptors (OGI)
Facilities
(major levels i.e. structural, electrical,
mechanical, etc.)
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
Airport Terminal Building Annandale House/Museum
Cemetery Operations Building Community Centre
Customer Service Centre Elliot Fairburn Training Facility
Tillsonburg Fire Hall Gibson House
Highway 3 Barn Lake Lisgar Waterpark
OPP Headquarters Public Works Building
Summer Place
Parks & Open Space
3 3
3 3 3
Sports Fields Parks and Playgrounds
Equipment and Outdoor Furniture Outdoor Pools Cemeteries
Fleet & Equipment
2
2 2
2 2
2
Public Works
Engineering, Building & By-Law Water & Wastewater
Hydro Operations Parks & Facilities
Fire Services
Municipal Parking Lots 3
Information Technology 3
83
APPENDIX B
Asset Management Municipal Action Plan
84
APPENDIX C
Priority Project Listing
85
ASSET MANAGEMENT
MUNICIPAL ACTION PLAN
Town of Tillsonburg
DRAFT
HEMSON Consulting Ltd.
October 201686
87
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION: ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY & PROCEDURE .................. 1
A. WHAT IS ASSET MANAGEMENT? ............................................................. 1
B. LINKAGE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS AND STRATEGIES ............................ 1
C. TIMEFRAMES FOR REVIEW AND UPDATES .............................................. 2
D. WHAT ASSETS ARE COVERED BY THIS PLAN .......................................... 2
E. DATA ALIGNMENT AND POLICY ............................................................. 3
F. DOCUMENTING KEY MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .......... 6
G. PLAN MONITORING ................................................................................. 6
II STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................ 8
A. ASSET DESCRIPTIONS: WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED 8
B. REPLACEMENT COSTS .............................................................................. 9
C. CONDITION ASSESSMENTS .................................................................... 10
III LEVELS OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 12
A. IDENTIFYING CORPORATE GOALS ........................................................ 12
B. IDENTIFYING CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES AND HOW THEY CAN BE
MEASURED .............................................................................................. 12
C. DATA ACCESSIBILITY .............................................................................. 13
D. TARGET LEVELS OF SERVICE ................................................................... 14
E. TRACKING OVER SEVERAL YEARS VS. TARGET ..................................... 15
F. SERVICE CAPACITY ................................................................................. 16
IV ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................... 18
A. SET OF PLANNED ACTIONS TO PROVIDE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE18
B. RISK ASSESSMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN AND STRATEGY ........... 20
C. RISK MATRIX – ASSESSED BY ASSET ....................................................... 20
D. FUTURE DEMAND .................................................................................. 21
E. COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES ............................................................. 22
V FINANCING STRATEGY ................................................................................... 23
A. IDENTIFY AVAILABLE FUNDING TOOLS ............................................... 23
B. LONG-TERM OUTLOOK ......................................................................... 23
C. IDENTIFY INFRASTRUCTURE GAP .......................................................... 25
D. IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY TO TACKLE THE FUNDING SHORTFALL26
VI MAKING ASSET MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL ............................................ 29
A. CREATING ASSET MANAGEMENT INTERNAL NETWORK ...................... 29
B. LINKAGE TO CAPITAL ............................................................................. 29
C. RELATE TO PLAN .................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
HEMSON
88
89
I INTRODUCTION: ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY &
PROCEDURE
A. WHAT IS ASSET MANAGEMENT?
In its most simplistic form, Asset Management is a process of managing assets in the
most cost effective way. The key objective is to maximize benefits and manage risks
while providing services to the public in the most sustainable way. It is important that
your plan clearly define asset management and the benefits of asset management to
your organization. Some benefits of asset management:
Informed and traceable decisions;
Risks are managed where necessary and in advance so the municipality has
the opportunity to coordinate accordingly;
Higher customer satisfaction;
Documents funding plan and strategy to manage infrastructure; and
Demonstrated compliance with regulation and legislation.
Action Items:
Town does a good job defining the objective and scope of the asset
management plan.
o Continue to refine goals and objectives of asset management
planning in the Town.
B. LINKAGE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS AND STRATEGIES
It is important to identify how this document incorporates municipal responsibility
and strategies. For example: Council is committed to ensuring that infrastructure is
provided in a sustainable, orderly and coordinated fashion. Some examples could
include:
Optimal use of existing infrastructure;
An accessible, affordable and available transportation system;
An environment in which all modes of transportation can play a balanced
role;
The provision of infrastructure in a coordinated, efficient and cost effective
manner; and
Integration of planning for infrastructure with the planning for growth.
1
HEMSON
90
Action Items:
Current asset management plan does a good job linking strategic priorities.
Strategies/polices should be a focus – perhaps bring a report to Council
which identifies the strategic use of assets and infrastructure.
C. TIMEFRAMES FOR REVIEW AND UPDATES
The asset management plan should outline key timelines for updates and review. A
snapshot table outlining when such updates and review should take place can help
guide future plans.
Asset Management Policy 5 Years
Asset Management Plan 5 Years
Capital Budget Annually
Asset Register and Data Semi-Annually or Annually
Condition Assessment Reviews and Revisions Two times per year
Action Items:
Identify when you should be reviewing and updating policies and practices,
this strengthens the monitoring section of the plan and will help keep you
moving forward.
D. WHAT ASSETS ARE COVERED BY THIS PLAN
Communities are able to use the Federal Gas Tax funds towards a wide range of projects
that are related to: public transit, wastewater infrastructure, drinking water, solid
waste management, community energy systems, local roads and bridges, capacity
building, highways, local and regional airports, short-line rail, short-sea shipping,
disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment,
culture, tourism, sport and recreation. A municipality needs to include all applicable
assets into their asset management plan to satisfy future grant funding applications.
2
HEMSON
91
Action Items:
The most immediate task is to incorporate all assets into the corporate asset
management plan. The federal gas tax requirements set out all eligible
categories which must be included in a plan by December 31st, 2016. This is
a “soft” deadline and the municipality must show progression towards
completion.
E. DATA ALIGNMENT AND POLICY
Asset management is a data driven process. It is important to recognize that without
reliable data on municipal assets and their associated services, management of these
assets will be difficult. As part of the overall asset management strategy, there should
be a complementary data management strategy.
The data management strategy relates to the methods for the acquisition, storage and
analysis of asset data. Knowledge and decision making on asset management is a
function of the reliability of the data. The asset management strategy should include
policies related to:
Maintaining a central asset register;
Well defined asset attributes required in the asset register;
o Whenever a new asset is entered into the database a replacement cost,
year of service and service life must be entered;
Frequency of asset register updates;
Who is responsible for updates and management of the data or “data
champion;” and
The roles of other departments in collecting and managing data.
It is important that a central asset register be maintained and should contain all assets
the Town owns and manages. The asset register can help facilitate updating the asset
management plan, working towards meeting the gas tax funding requirements and
analysis of the municipal funding gap. At a minimum, an asset register should contain
the following pieces of information:
Asset unique ID;
Name and description of asset;
Useful life in years;
Replacement cost of asset;
3
HEMSON
92
Condition Assessment; and
Detailed asset attributes (diameter, material type, width, make/model, etc.).
In addition to these data attributes, each asset should be broken down into smaller
components wherever possible. This ensures that asset condition is tracked for
components that may require more frequent repairs or replacements. For example, in
the case of facilities, a building can be broken down into its superstructure, foundation,
roof and other components such as HVAC and electric systems. The repair and
maintenance of all these components vary widely and cost efficiencies are possible by
tracking these repairs separately.
The asset register is an integral part of the asset management strategy and should also
play a complementary role informing other data bases the municipality maintains. It is
advantageous that the asset register be spatially mapped using a GIS software solution.
The unique asset ID should be used to create a connection between the asset register
and any spatially mapped assets for database consistency.
The frequency of updates of the asset register is extremely important. As assets age and
more are added over time, the reliability of the data depends on how frequently the
asset register is updated. The asset register should be updated whenever there are new
asset purchases, upgrades and replacements, as well as asset condition ratings and
information on useful life. It is recognized that these types of updates may be required
several times per year, however the reliability of the data will become apparent as
updates occur.
4
HEMSON
93
To facilitate updating the asset register, it is recommended that a data “champion” be
designated. The data champion is intended to be the person who maintains and
regulates the quality of the asset register. Identifying a champion may be challenging
however there are some characteristics that may help in identifying one including:
Knowledgeable about asset management and the municipality’s current
practices;
Well-connected within the municipality;
Interested in contributing to the process; and
Strong communication skills.
Tips to identify a data champion include:
First opportunity to identify a data champion may occur during initial AMP
concept meetings – staff members that relate most strongly to the
objectives/process may emerge at this time
Can also assign “leadership groups” to distribute responsibilities – staff members
or small groups of staff may be assigned specific responsibilities (e.g. project
management, data collection, data integrity, etc.)
A data champion does not and should not be alone in the data management process.
It is important that all other departments contribute to the process to ensure that
reliable data is available. For example, as new assets are acquired for recreation services,
it is required that recreation staff provide the information to the data champion to
update the asset register. This ensures that the register is up to date and that there is
no data loss.
To ensure buy-in and co-operation from all departments, department representatives
and the data champion should meet frequently to identify and address any gaps or
challenges that may arise throughout the process. This creates an internal network
which facilitates communication between departments. As challenges are addressed,
the data register may be adapted to incorporate changes that will facilitate buy-in from
all departments. Communication between municipal departments is key to the success
of the data management strategy.
5
HEMSON
94
Action Items:
Identify data champion.
Review frequency of asset register update.
Incorporate all assets into asset register.
F. DOCUMENTING KEY MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
A good plan should have major assumptions and definitions documented that are clear
and transparent as to the process and use of information. It may also be good to include
a section on the level of confidence or reliability of the information used to inform the
development of the plan. Some examples include:
Include a definitions section – outline all terminology used throughout the
plan.
Condition assessments – How were they completed?
Document key financial drivers: Inflation and Investment rates for example.
Data reliability and confidence – this will also set the tone for future updates
and items for review.
Action Items:
Expand and define key assumptions where necessary.
Incorporate definitions section.
G. PLAN MONITORING
The following indicators should be monitored to measure the effectiveness of the plan.
The municipality should look to review these six compliance mechanisms to ensure
the plan is being utilized to the full extent.
1. Compliance with legislative requirements – Are we meeting all legislated
mandates?
2. Services Delivery –100% compliance with service targets or targets exceeded.
6
HEMSON
95
3. Capital project delivery outputs delivered to schedule (or better) and on
budget (or better).
4. Operational and maintenance budgets met (or better).
5. Risk Management—No events occurring outside the risk profile. How have
projects with high risk been handled?
6. Benchmarking with comparable jurisdiction — Maintain performance.
Action Items:
Monitoring the results is the only way your plan’s success can be rated and
should be reported on an annual basis at minimum.
Even if you are not able to accurately account for all six measurements –
start with what you can report on immediately.
7
HEMSON
96
II STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
A. ASSET DESCRIPTIONS: WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED
The State of the Local Infrastructure section of the plan is about documenting what
the municipality owns; both in a quantitative and qualitative aspect. Below is a
snapshot of how to illustrate the inventory of your assets in an easy to read format. A
municipality should be striving to ensure each asset is valued and accounted for
separately and by asset component for building and structures as this will improve the
accuracy of your plan.
An age profile analysis which details asset age to useful life across all different asset
classes is a helpful way to illustrate the remaining useful life of your assets by category
or holistically. The graph on the following page provides an example of an age profile
analysis which can be included as part of the plan or communicated to Council.
Asset Type Asset Inventory Unit Total Replacement
Value ($000)
Parks Rectangular Fields 130 Each $20,407
Football 2 Each $789
Rugby 2 Each $334
Lacrosse 3 Each $1,143
Multi‐Use Artificial Turf 5 Each $5,400
Water based Artificial Turf 1 Each 1,200
Ball Diamonds 84 Each $37,462
Cricket Pitches 18 Each $2,129
Outdoor Track and Field 32 Lanes $2,567
Tennis Courts 51 Each $8,329
Multi‐Use Sports Field 24 Each $1,465
Skateboard Parks 6 Each $1,784
Outdoor Aquatics 11 Each $3,142
Playgrounds 294 Each $46,849
Shade Structures 132 Each $8,686
Special Facilities 11 Each 21,883
TOTAL $162,879
8
HEMSON
97
Action Items:
Document inventory of all assets – by asset type and by component where
applicable.
Include age profile analysis – see example above.
B. REPLACEMENT COSTS
A comprehensive asset management plan’s key outputs and capital replacement
requirements can only be as good as the inputs into the plan. In order for a municipality
to properly plan for future capital requirements, having reliable replacement costs
identified is a key to success. There can be several methodologies to calculate the
replacement cost of infrastructure assets, they include:
Recent tenders in your municipality and surrounding areas – Cost to construct
certain buildings, the acquisition cost of a new fire truck, vehicle or heavy
equipment, cost to rehabilitate/replace roads and bridges.
If applicable, your Development Charges Background Study contains
information related to the estimated replacement value of all DC eligible assets.
Insurance values, although often low, is a good benchmark or reasonability test.
Historical cost inflated to current dollars. This approach is best used for assets
recently acquired or for low value assets which represent a small share of the
municipality’s total replacement value. The Town should look to move away
3%
10%
9%
21%
<1%
7%
50%
$‐ $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000
Overdue
0 to 9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 +
Age Profile Analysis
Water Infrastructure by Remaining Useful Life Water Pressure
Main
Water Network
Structure
Water Meters
Water Hydrants
Water Control
Valve
Other
Infrastructure
9
HEMSON
98
from this approach and generate replacement cost based on the other three
more credible methodologies.
The Town should develop and implement a policy to update and refine costs. The
policy should address the following:
When a municipality issues a new tender for the construction and/or
acquisition of an asset – important time to look at revising costs.
Close contact with surrounding municipalities on upcoming work – policy to
interact every six months.
Action Items:
Continue to review existing replacement cost methodology and update costs
as required with new information as it becomes available
Implement a policy to continually update replacement costs on a regular
basis. Policy should be documented in Asset Management Plan so it is
endorsed by Council with report
C. CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
To ensure repeatable and consistent approach of condition ratings, a general 5-tier
condition rating system which is backed by other major organizations and associations
should be used. The Building Together Guide specifies assets to be conditioned, at
minimum, as “Good”, “Fair” or “Poor”. The 5-Tier rating approach noted above adds
additional details to these categories. The ideal method to identify asset conditions:
1) Condition rating systems based on engineered metrics and standards:
Pavement Quality Index, Facility Condition Index, Bridge Condition Index,
Ride Comfort Rating and CCTV inspections, etc. These metrics can then be
translated into a 5 tier rating system.
2) Estimate based on age and the remaining useful life of the asset.
3) Estimate based on expert staff opinion. This approach is important where there
is low confidence that age and useful life properly represents a particular asset.
The table below provides some general parameters using the 5-tier rating system,
although it should be noted that the parameters of what constitutes asset condition
10
HEMSON
99
may change from place to place. It is important to note that your existing plan already
includes condition ratings on a 5-tier rating system.
Rating Condition Definition Parameter Probability of
Failure
1 Very Good Well maintained, good
condition, new or recently
rehabilitated
Greater than 80% of Asset
Useful life remaining
Improbable
2 Good Good condition, few elements
exhibit existing deficiencies
60% - 79.9% of Asset Useful
life remaining
Not likely
3 Fair Some elements exhibit
significant deficiencies. Asset
requires attention
40% - 59.9% of Asset Useful
life remaining
Possible
4 Poor A large portion of the system
exhibits significant deficiencies.
Asset mostly below standard
and approaching end of service
life
20% - 39.9% of Asset Useful
life remaining
Likely
5 Very Poor Widespread signs of
deterioration, some assets may
be unusable. Service is affected
Less than 20% of Asset
Useful life remaining
Very Probable
Action Items:
Municipality to verify existing asset conditions regularly – use actual
engineered or staff expertise vs. mathematical remaining useful life approach.
Integrate condition assessment into maintenance activities and future
capital budget exercises.
Map out all “Very Poor” to “Poor” assets. Assets also identified in “Fair”
condition are extremely important to recognize as this category of assets will
continue to deteriorate and transition into the “Poor” category in the near
term. These assets are likely to pose the greatest risk to the organization.
Document all major assumptions associated with carrying out the condition
assessments – staff visual inspection level. This will ensure the process in
place is repeatable and consistent.
What did they look for?
Key items which characterized condition.
11
HEMSON
100
III LEVELS OF SERVICE
A. IDENTIFYING CORPORATE GOALS
A municipality should start by identifying corporate goals for each asset category.
Corporate goals are general and provide a high level expectation as to what should be
achieved by the service. For example, corporate service goals may focus on safety,
reliability and accessibility. Some corporate goals may be directly defined by
legislation, such as goals for local water services, which are governed by strict safety
and reliability regulations. Other corporate goals may be less restricted such as those
for recreation which depend on the types of recreation programs offered and demand
for those programs. It is important that corporate goals for each service category are
well defined, easy to understand and realistic. The table in the following section
provides some examples of services and their associated corporate service goals.
B. IDENTIFYING CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES AND HOW THEY CAN BE
MEASURED
For each corporate goal, there should also be key customer level of service descriptions
which define what the municipal service performance will be measured on and be
specific to the type of service. For example, road related corporate goals may be
measured on safety while fire related corporate goals may focus on quick response times
to emergencies.
To measure the performance of each service category and whether the associated
corporate goals are being met, we must establish performance indicators or level of
service measures. Level of service measures vary widely across services and
municipalities. Where information to establish level of service measures is available
for one service, it may be difficult to obtain for another. However, there are many
sources of information that are readily available and these are discussed in the
following section. The following table shows examples of corporate levels of service
and their associated level of service measures.
12
HEMSON
101
Example Levels of Service and Associated Level of Service Performance Indicator
Service
Area
Corporate Goal Level of Service Level of Service
Performance Indicator
Roads To maintain safe
roadways and roadsides
enabling safe and
efficient travel in a cost
effective way.
Maintain road infrastructure
in state of good repair.
Number of paved land
kilometres where the
condition is rated as good to
very good.
Fire Protect municipal health
and safety efforts
through fire preventions
and protection services.
Fire services that meet fire
master plan priorities.
Number of locations that do
not meet fire master plan
strategic priorities.
Outdoor
Recreation
Provide safe, clean parks
and open space systems
through proactive
property management in
a cost effective way.
Provide sufficient park, trails
and open spaces for
residents.
Square metres of outdoor
recreation facility space per
1,000 persons (municipally
owned).
Indoor
Recreation
Provide accessible and
enjoyable indoor
community space to all
residents.
Infrastructure should
comply with the
Accessibility for Ontarians
with Disabilities Act.
Number of facilities in the
Town that do not comply with
the Act.
Action Items:
Town has done a good job on identifying an associated level of service and
an appropriate performance metric to measure effectiveness.
Continue to expand on level of service definitions and refining performance
measures.
C. DATA ACCESSIBILITY
Most municipalities track levels of service and the performance of assets, but there is
often a disconnect in documenting progress over time for many reasons. Data
limitations, data understanding and limited resources are common challenges faced by
municipalities in documenting their levels of service. Fortunately, there is a wealth of
resources that can be used to obtain level of service data and track it over time.
Municipalities can look to some of the following sources to get input:
Municipal FIR statements;
13
HEMSON
102
Engineering documents and master plans; and
Industry standards, common practices, regulatory requirements and your staff.
Appendix A identifies a range of level of service metrics which can be gathered from
municipal staff and budgets.
D. TARGET LEVELS OF SERVICE
Target levels of service are the main benchmark to measure whether a municipality
has met a particular corporate goal. Target levels of service are mainly a function of
the demand for services from the public.
Public perception and opinion can be established in several ways including through
common municipal practices such as:
Local public surveys;
Local committees and stakeholder consultation; and
Council meetings.
Local perception of current services and actual public demand for services are
complementary to Council engagement. It is important that Council understands what
realistic and reasonable targets are for local services. Establishment of any service level
target should be done through consultation with Council.
Finally, level of service targets should be well defined and realistic. Some level of
service targets will be mandated through legislation such as those for bridges. Targets
for engineering services such as roads for example, can be defined by using industry
standards and municipal benchmarks (such as those provided in the FIR). Target levels
of service may not be achievable immediately and it is advantageous for short and long
term goals to be distinguished.
Action Items:
Identify target levels of service in consultation with public and council.
14
HEMSON
103
E. TRACKING OVER SEVERAL YEARS VS. TARGET
Levels of service should be tracked over time. Level of service performance measures
should be tracked and illustrated over a 5-year time frame. This will help illustrate if
the necessary progressions have been made and helps gauge whether corporate goals
have been met. For example, if there has been a corporate decision to increase funding
for road repairs and rehabilitation, the % of roads in good condition should be shown
to increase from year-to-year.
To complement the data management process, a level of service registry should be
established. This registry should include historical levels of service for all services the
Town provides for at least a 5-year time frame. The registry can be used to complement
asset management discussions and budget deliberations with Council and the public.
It also has the advantage of being a central database that staff can reference when
needed.
A sample template that can be used to track level of service measures over time is
provided in the table below.
Tracking the performance of corporate goals over time is a cycle. The previous sections
provided an overview of the process which can be summarized in the figure below. It
is important to recognize that level of service tracking and management is a fluid
process and should be refined over time as lessons are learned and the municipality
changes.
Key Indicators 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5 Year
Average
Qualitative
Measure
Regulated
LOS
TARGET
LOS
Number of paved lane kilometers where the condition is
rated as good to very good 42% 43% 43.3% 43.7% 56.7%46%xx xx
Number of water main breaks per 100 km of water
distribution/transmission pipe in a year 2.02.52.51.75.02.9 xx xx
Unaccounted for Water (water loss after distribution) 31.0% 29.1% 29.9% 30.3% 31.4%30.4%xx xx
Percentage of wastewater estimated to have by‐passed
treatment 0.005% 0.006% 0.007% 0.007% 0.008%0.0066%xx xx
15
HEMSON
104
Action Item:
Start tracking your service levels over a number of years (minimum 5-years).
Establish a level of service centralized registry that includes all current
services.
F. SERVICE CAPACITY
Well-documented set of service levels are used to drive asset management activities as
they relate to the capacity of infrastructure. One of the most common initiatives is to
encourage growth and development in already built-up areas as a means of utilizing
existing capacity within infrastructure as opposed to creating additional capacity in
various neighbourhoods.
The Town should promote intensification and infill where sufficient service
capacity is available or can be made available, to support the resulting growth.
The Town should identify specific levels of service for collector drainage areas
serving properties within the municipality.
16
HEMSON
105
Action Item:
Update your plan to include policies surrounding service capacity.
17
HEMSON
106
IV ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A. SET OF PLANNED ACTIONS TO PROVIDE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Town’s existing plan already identifies several examples of asset management
strategies, specifically related to roads, which will help the Town deliver the services
in a sustainable way. The following tables provide some further examples of the
planned actions which should be documented for core services as well as for other
municipal services such as parks, buildings, etc.
Areas Planned Actions Example:
Non-Infrastructure
Solutions
Work is not carried out on Roads which are planned to have either sewer work
in the next 5 years or are part of a larger project in the 5 year Capital Program
Service level adjustments
Maintenance
Activities
Bridge washing program
Perform regular bridge inspections as mandated by the province
Maintenance activity/programs spearheaded by public through general
use/observation
Street sweeping occurs in spring after the snow melts
Renewal/rehabilitation Sidewalk spot repair program
Catch basin inspection and repair annually
Gravel road resurfacing to have 100 + mm of new gravel applied on an as
needed basis
Replacement Asset replacement is common for heavily deteriorated linear infrastructure
Facilities components are replaced based on inspection reports
Disposal Asset disposal is carried out to avoid cost recovery
Land is reused or sold
Expansion Identify needs through traffic counts and environmental assessment reports
Assumption of capital assets through development agreements
Service improvements made where possible (traffic calming equipment, etc.)
Other Areas Planned Actions Examples:
18
HEMSON
107
Building and Facilities: Buildings and Facilities are inspected monthly
HVAC and heating system are inspected annually
Fire extinguishers, emergency exits and lights inspected monthly
Constructing a new facility or major rehabilitation usually involves a complete
business plan and involvement of key staff, council and sometimes stakeholders
Parks Playground equipment is inspected monthly
Dragging of the baseball diamonds is completed three times per week
Land improvement equipment (soccer nets, courts, etc.) are inspected
once/twice per season
Splash pads are visually inspected monthly – thorough inspection twice a
season
Trails are walked and audited regularly for hazards
Fire Services Vehicle log books outlining defects and repair and maintenance is undertaken
Immediate service needs are addressed by outside contractors
Follow preventative maintenance program – 5,000 km for all non MTO
certification vehicles
Public works fleet Performs annual MTO inspections on all applicable equipment
Servicing undertaken in accordance with frequency of use and manufacturers
recommendations
Corporate IT Computers managed on a lifecycle basis and disposed of at the end of term
Action Items:
Build on existing asset management strategies for all services by the required
categories.
Incorporate non-core infrastructure strategies into plan.
Identify planned or targeted strategies to be initiated into regular practices
in the short-to-medium term.
19
HEMSON
108
B. RISK ASSESSMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN AND STRATEGY
A good asset management plan should recognize the risk associated with a
municipality’s ability to deliver the plan. It should recognize that any deviation may
affect the overall ability to deliver service. An Asset Management Plan should look to
identify possible risks and the mitigating actions.
Identified Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action
Failed Infrastructure Delivery of service
Asset and equipment damage
Repair and rehabilitate as necessary
Increase investment
Non-infrastructure solutions
Inadequate funding Delivery of service
Increased risk of failure
Shorten asset life
Defer funding to future
generations
Reductions of service
Find additional revenue sources
Regulatory requirements Non-compliance
Mandatory investments
Increased costs
Find additional revenue sources
Lobby actions
Plan is not followed Shorten asset life
Inefficient investments
Prioritization process failure
Failure to deliver service
Monitor and review
Create asset management network
Implement processes
Action Item:
Incorporate a risk assessment table associated with the strategy which
outlines any actions that will be taken in response to the potential impacts.
C. RISK MATRIX – ASSESSED BY ASSET
It is important to try and assess the risk associated with each asset and the likelihood
of failure. Certain assets have a greater consequence of failure than others. Asset failure
20
HEMSON
109
can occur as the asset reaches its limits and can jeopardize public/environmental safety.
The risk matrix can help you prioritize which assets should be repaired/replaced, even
those which the municipality has already identified to be in “Very Poor” or “Poor”
condition. The evaluation rating is then linked to the condition assessment parameter
discussed in the previous sections.
Probability
Evaluation
Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Consequence 1 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 6 8 10
3 3 6 9 12 15
4 4 8 12 16 20
5 5 10 15 20 25
Example: Probability of Failure level 5 (Very Poor Asset) multiplied by Consequence
of Failure level 5 = Risk Score of 25. This would illustrate that the particular asset
assessed should be prioritized for replacement immediately as it would have the highest
risk.
Contingency Plan to Reduce Consequence of Failure: A more advanced model
would consider redundancy factors which essentially reduces the consequence of
failure and overall asset risk if the municipality has a plan in place to manage asset
failure. This would result in a reduced consequence of failure as the widespread impact
would be minimal if the municipality can react quickly and efficiently.
Action Items:
Town should try and apply the risk matrix approach to remaining non-core
assets. The probability of failure and associated consequence should be
applied to each asset and asset component.
Consider the use of redundancy factors to reduce the consequence of failure
– explore back-up alternatives.
D. FUTURE DEMAND
This component of the plan analyzes how future demand can impact the delivery of
services in the community.
21
HEMSON
110
This component assesses the type of growth which is anticipated in the community.
Even if growth is limited this does not directly translate into a reduction or sustained
capital investment. The Town has to be responsive to new capital investments and
operating and maintenance required to address changing demographics and demands.
The assets requiring attention to service demands will be different based on how the
change takes places (existing area vs. greenfield areas).
Action Items:
Create a population and household growth graph to illustrate what the future
looks like in Tillsonburg.
E. COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES
The Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans (Guide) states that ‘to ensure the
most efficient allocation of resources, best practice is for a number of delivery
mechanisms to be considered — such as working with other municipalities to pool
projects and resources, or considering an AFP model.’ The design-build-finance-
maintain AFP (Alternate Financing and Procurement) model takes a lifecycle
perspective and builds effective asset management directly into the contract. The
Guide also states that municipalities should have procurement by-laws in place to serve
as the basis for considering various delivery mechanisms.
Procurement – a procurement policy that addresses the acquisition of an asset in
great detail including consideration of socioeconomic factors and health and safety.
Alternative Service Delivery (Shared Services) – A municipality’s ability to explore
the shared services concept to deliver services.
Action Items:
Include procurement policy into the Asset Management Plan.
Explore opportunity to utilize alternative service delivery options.
22
HEMSON
111
V FINANCING STRATEGY
A. IDENTIFY AVAILABLE FUNDING TOOLS
A broad range of funding tools are available to a municipality in order to fund
infrastructure repair and replacement activities, although, recognizing that property
taxes and utility rates are the most common own source revenues. As part of the Asset
Management Plan, the Town should look to list each funding tool and discuss to what
extent each funding tool is used. This will demonstrate that the municipality is
exercising all available funding options.
Grants – Federal and Provincial Public Private partnerships
Development Charges Local Improvement Charges
Utility Rates Developer Contributions
Property Taxes Debt (as a financing tool)
User Fees Reserve and Reserve Funds
Action Item:
Identify funding tools and applicability in the Town. Also good to provide
financial information into each description. Answer questions like: How
much revenue was generated from the funding source in the latest year?
What % of total revenues did that represent? What is the current % of the
annual repayment limit?
B. LONG-TERM OUTLOOK
The municipality’s long term budgetary outlook should be observed from two
perspectives:
a) Operating Costs – A municipality should look at operating costs holistically, a
significant component of costs is related to maintaining infrastructure in a state of good
repair. This is also true as often times the general maintenance and repair costs are
undertaken by municipal staff, or contracted services, which is all captured in the
23
HEMSON
112
operating budget. These maintenance expenses ensure that the assets deliver services
at existing levels.
b) Capital Requirements – Future capital requirements should be calculated to reflect
in-year requirements and the replacement of assets outside of the AMP planning
period. It is important to show the capital requirements delineated by maintenance,
growth and non-infrastructure.
How are operating
and maintenance
costs going to
change in the
next few years?
Are there
increased costs
associated with
enhanced repair
programs?
Future operating
needs to be
considered within
the AMP.
$‐
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2016 Budget 2017 Budget
Operating Budget Expenditures
General Government and Misc. Expenses Economic Development and BIA
Fire Services Development Services
Public Works and Operations Arena and Parks
Recreation, Culture and Tourism Library
24
HEMSON
113
This simply looks
at capital
replacement
(maintenance of
existing system).
Identify annual in-
year capital
requirements by
department.
Replacement
schedule should be
based on
condition
assessment and
risk matrix.
Action Items:
Incorporate future operating budget implications into your asset
management plan.
Look to break-down capital costs by non-infrastructure, maintenance and
growth expenditures.
Replacement schedule should reflect prioritized asset list (based on condition
and risk).
C. IDENTIFY INFRASTRUCTURE GAP
It is important to recognize what current capital expenditures are versus calculated
requirements. The difference between the two is considered to be the funding shortfall
(i.e. infrastructure gap/deficit).
$‐
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
20162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035Tax Supported Assets:
Capital Replacement Schedule
Vehicles Machinery & Equipment Buildings
Land Improvements Computers Pumping Stations
Heritage Assets
25
HEMSON
114
The difference
between current
expenditures and
required capital
contributions is
the funding
shortfall.
Analysis takes into
account how much
is required to fund
in-year capital
requirements plus
savings for long-
term replacements.
Action Items:
Identify infrastructure funding shortfall to consider all tax supported assets
vs. utility rate supported assets.
Annual capital contributions need to consider asset replacement over the
long-term (outside of the planning period).
D. IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY TO TACKLE THE FUNDING SHORTFALL
In order for an asset management plan to be effective a municipality must identify how
to manage the funding shortfall. One of the most important questions the financing
strategy means to address is how much does your capital spending need to increase to
close the infrastructure gap. It is important to recognize that once the in-year gap is
closed, the cumulative infrastructure deficit will need to be addressed. The
municipality has to recognize the relationship between the increased capital
contribution requirements and the impact on the tax levy. Therefore, a good plan will
likely have to take a long-term perspective and outline the key revenue sources which
will be used to sustain infrastructure investments.
$‐
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
20162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035Tax Supported Assets:
Calculated Annual Capital Contribution
Vehicles Machinery & Equipment Buildings
Land Improvements Computers Pumping Stations
Heritage Assets
26
HEMSON
115
The table below provides an example of how to look at achieving financial
sustainability over the long-term.
Certainly the above example looks solely at increased capital spending to close the
infrastructure gap. Additional tests and variations should be explored which consider
the use of debt to fund infrastructure or perhaps increased alternative revenue
solutions.
A municipality also has the ability to manage the funding shortfall through the
creation of additional policy:
Review under utilized infrastructure which may not warrant
repair/replacement;
Coordinate assets into specific hubs to create operating and capital
repair/maintenance efficiencies where possible. Example: Sport fields into
centralized areas;
Leverage growth related works with asset repair and replacement activities.
Example: watermain upsizing in conjunction with road resurfacing projects;
and
Legend ABCDEFG
Projected
Annual Capital
Provision (1)
Annual Capital
Contributions
(Tax Supported)
% Annual
Increase in
Capital
Contributions
Other Sources
of Funding
(Gas Tax)
Total Capital
Funding
=(B+D)
Annual Funding
Gap
=(A-E)
Cumulative
Infrastructure
Deficit
=(sum of F)
2013 - $ 1,250,000 $ 350,000 $1,600,000
2014 - $ 1,270,000 $ 350,000 $1,620,000
2015 - $ 1,310,000 $ 350,000 $1,660,000
2016 $6,500,000 $1,366,903 4.3% $ 357,000 $1,723,903 $4,776,097 $4,776,097
2017 $3,800,000 $1,426,278 4.3% $ 364,140 $1,790,418 $2,009,582 $6,785,679
2018 $3,200,000 $1,488,231 4.3% $ 371,423 $1,859,654 $1,340,346 $8,126,025
2019 $3,100,000 $1,552,876 4.3% $ 378,851 $1,931,727 $1,168,273 $9,294,298
2020 $3,100,000 $1,620,329 4.3% $ 386,428 $2,006,757 $1,093,243 $10,387,540
2021 $3,000,000 $1,690,712 4.3% $ 394,157 $2,084,869 $915,131 $11,302,672
2022 $3,000,000 $1,764,152 4.3% $ 402,040 $2,166,192 $833,808 $12,136,480
2023 $3,000,000 $1,840,782 4.3% $ 410,081 $2,250,863 $749,137 $12,885,617
2024 $2,950,000 $1,920,741 4.3% $ 418,282 $2,339,023 $610,977 $13,496,594
2025 $2,950,000 $2,004,173 4.3% $ 426,648 $2,430,821 $519,179 $14,015,773
2026 $2,950,000 $2,091,229 4.3%
$ 435,181 $2,526,410 $423,590 $14,439,363
2027 $2,950,000 $2,182,066 4.3% $ 443,885 $2,625,951 $324,049 $14,763,412
2028 $2,950,000 $2,276,849 4.3% $ 452,762 $2,729,612 $220,388 $14,983,801
2029 $2,950,000 $2,375,750 4.3% $ 461,818 $2,837,567 $112,433 $15,096,233
2030 $2,950,000 $2,478,946 4.3% $ 471,054 $2,950,000 $0 $15,096,233
2031 $2,950,000 $2,586,625 4.3% $ 480,475 $3,067,100 -$117,100 $14,979,133
2032 $2,950,000 $2,698,981 4.3% $ 490,084 $3,189,066 -$239,066 $14,740,068
2033 $2,950,000 $2,816,218 4.3% $ 499,886 $3,316,104 -$366,104 $14,373,964
2034 $2,950,000 $2,938,547 4.3% $ 509,884 $3,448,431 -$498,431 $13,875,533
2035 $2,950,000 $3,066,190 4.3%
$ 520,082 $3,586,271 -$636,271 $13,239,262
Total Infrastructure Deficit $13,239,262
27
HEMSON
116
Explore major building rehabilitation vs. complete replacement.
Action Items:
Illustrate when the infrastructure gap will be closed.
Identify what the rate (tax and utility) implications would be in order to
carry out the required capital contributions – test various funding options.
Look to break-down capital costs by non-infrastructure, maintenance and
growth expenditures.
Contributed assets – identify how much (in $) is contributed each year. The
Municipality assumes responsibility for future repair and replacement.
Identify policy to manage funding shortfall.
28
HEMSON
117
VI MAKING ASSET MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL
A. CREATING ASSET MANAGEMENT INTERNAL NETWORK
In order to operationalize a plan, it really starts with involving the necessary staff in
your organization. The internal network needs to be created and each member has to
be informed about asset management and the effects of good practice on your
organization.
B. LINKAGE TO CAPITAL
1) The Town should adopt multi-year capital budgets and forecasts for all services
based on a minimum 10 year forecast horizon. The long-term capital forecast
should incorporate the prioritized capital projects as a result of risk assessment
and condition analysis undertaken.
2) Capital budgets and forecasts should identify and evaluate each capital project
in terms of the following, including but not limited to:
o gross and net project costs;
o timing and phasing;
o funding sources;
o growth-related components;
o potential financing and debt servicing costs;
o long-term costs, including operations, maintenance, and asset
rehabilitation costs;
o capacity to deliver; and
o alternative service delivery and procurement options.
3) Utilize capital prioritization matrix to assist in capital budget decision making.
C. RELATE TO PLAN
1) Endorse Financing Strategy: In order to operationalize a plan, a financing
strategy needs to be adopted. The financial plan is the most critical step in
putting the plan into action and ultimately the only avenue to ensure your
assets continue to meet service levels.
2) Plan Monitoring – monitor progress: success and failures.
3) Keep it a living document – ongoing updates and refinements are encouraged.
29
HEMSON
118
119
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
30
HEMSON
120
121
Suggested Service Level Descriptions and Associated Level of Service Performance IndicatorsTown of TillsonburgAsset CategoryLevel of ServiceLevel of Service Performance IndicatorRoads• All new roads in the municipality are paved• Number of roads that are currently unpaved that should be paved• Concrete curb, gutter & stormwater on all urban roads• Number of roads that do not meet curb, gutter & stormwater requirements• Provide maintenance in accordance with minimum regulatory requirements •Number of times road maintenance is not in accordance with minimum regulatory requirements• Paved roads should be maintained in a state of good repair• Percentage of roads in good to very good conditionBridges & Culverts • All bridges should be maintained to be safe for use• Percentage of recommended repairs completed in accordance with timing identified in the bi‐annual bridge (OSIM) inspections•All bridges should be maintained in state of good repair• Percentage of bridges in good to very good conditionStormwater• All stormwater infrastructure assets should be maintained in state of good repair• Percentage of stormwater infrastructure assets in good to very good conditionSolid Waste• Provide residential solid waste services including garbage and recycling •Number of locations where solid waste collection services are not available• Minimize the number of complaints from residents about the solid waste collection service• Number of complaints received• Maximize the rate of solid waste that is diverted from landfills• Solid waste landfill diversion rate31HEMSONHEMSON122
Suggested Service Level Descriptions and Associated Level of Service Performance IndicatorsTown of TillsonburgAsset CategoryLevel of ServiceLevel of Service Performance IndicatorFacilities• Facilities should comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act• Number of facilities that do not comply with the Act• All facilities should be maintained in state of good repair• Percentage of facilities in good to very good condition• Number of outstanding repair/rehabilitation activities for all facilities.Vehicles & Equipment • All vehicles & equipment should be maintained in state of good repair•Percentage of vehicles & equipment in good to very good condition• Maintain minimum fleet availability• Percentage of vehicles available for duty• Perform preventative maintenance and repairs to meet industry standards of safety and operation• Number of equipment units inspected (weekly, monthly, etc)• Percentage of preventative maintenance inspections completed per yearImprovement to Land •All land improvements should be maintained in state of good repair • Percentage of land improvement assets in good to very good conditionOutdoor Recreation • Provide a variety of parks and open spaces residents• Number of parks of each size/type• Provide sufficient parks and open spaces for residents• Square metres of park space per 1,000 persons• Provide an extensive trail network• Total kilometres of trails.• Provide sufficient trails for residents• Total kilometres of trails per 1,000 personsIndoor Recreation • Provide a variety of indoor recreation facility space for residents• Square metres of indoor recreation facilities• Provide sufficient recreation facility space for residents• Square metres of indoor recreation facilities per 1,000 persons• Facilities should comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act• Number of facilities that do not comply with the Act• All indoor recreation facilities should be maintained in state of good repair •Number of days program space is closed due to mechanical issues or facility repairs32HEMSONHEMSON123
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
BY-LAW NUMBER 4055
BEING A BY-LAW to confirm the proceedings of Council at its meetings held on the 17th day of
November, 2016
WHEREAS Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the powers of a
municipal corporation shall be exercised by its council;
AND WHEREAS Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that municipal
powers shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Town of
Tillsonburg at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law;
NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF
TILLSONBURG ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. All actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg at its meeting held
on November 17th, 2016, with respect to every report, motion, by-law, or other action
passed and taken by the Council, including the exercise of natural person powers, are
hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied
in this or a separate by-law.
2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to do all the things necessary to give effect
to the action of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg referred to in the
preceding section.
3. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary in
that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg.
4. This By-Law shall come into full force and effect on the day of passing.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 17th DAY OF November, 2016.
READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 17th DAY OF November, 2016.
_____________________________
MAYOR – Stephen Molnar
______________________________
TOWN CLERK – Donna Wilson
124