Capital Asset Management Plan

Transcription

1 2015 Capital Asset Management Plan City of Peterborough 12/15/2015

2

3 Executive Summary Asset management planning supports evidence based decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets. The objective is to maximize benefits, manage risk, and provide satisfactory levels of service to the public in a sustainable manner. Asset management is important because it takes a long-term perspective; good asset management can maximize the benefits provided by infrastructure. In 2012, the Ministry of Infrastructure released their 10-year infrastructure plan Building Together. In their document, the Ministry elaborated that comprehensive asset management plans will be the foundation of municipal infrastructure strategies and should guide investment decisions. The focus of this first Capital Asset Management Plan is roads, bridges, storm/wastewater systems and social housing. Social housing is defined as assets owned by Peterborough Housing Corporation for which the City provides annual capital subsidies under provincial legislation. Not only will these assets be updated as they are reconstructed or new information becomes available, additional infrastructure groups will be added to the Plan in the coming years. This plan reviews infrastructure in relation to the following elements: State of infrastructure; Desired levels of service; Asset management strategy; and Financing strategy. This Capital Asset management plan inventories all associated, assesses condition ratings, calculates replacement costs and determines remaining useful life. Utilizing this data ultimately allowed the City the ability to measure performance versus targets and timelines. Although it is expected that performance measures will change through the evolution of the Plan, the City is responsible for maintaining certain legislated performance criteria. The Plan s current established criteria for performance are the City s expectations of itself. Future years will see a greater amount of public involvement adjusting these performance measures as information is collected and financial feasibility is further explored. Some performance measures or levels of service will continue to be dictated by legislation.

4

5 Strategies used herein are planned actions that will enable the assets to provide the desired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. This enables the City to demonstrate strong financial planning and budgeting and to make full use of all available infrastructure financing tools. Based on the average funding levels over the last three years, the Capital Asset Management Plan indicates the City currently has a funding shortfall in the order of $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 per year for those assets in the Plan. Part of the work that will go into future updates of the Plan will discuss how to overcome this funding challenge and reduce the gap between needs and available funds. This Capital Asset Management Plan is of great importance for the City in providing direction on asset and financial planning. However, the Plan is not stand alone and must be considered and updated along with many other City Master Plans and the Official Plan. The life-cycle financial implications of these assets are discussed. Based on all the information analysed the City has developed a prioritized project list. With future updates to incorporate the other major City asset groups, the City is making great strides towards a corporate comprehensive asset management plan. This will guide future investments in ways that not only support economic growth, but are fiscally responsible, and respond to changing needs.

6 Revision History Date Version Description Dec 5/ Initial report to Council Aug 25/ Minor grammatical updates to text Dec 15/ Update Table 32 to reflect current budget

7 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Why is Asset Management Important? The State of Our Infrastructure Overview Assets Included in Management Plan Data Collection Data Verification Condition Assessment Desired levels of service Roads Bridges Stormwater and Wastewater Conveyance Systems Wastewater Treatment Plant Social Housing (PHC Assets) Growth and Demand Asset Management Strategies Roads Bridges Piped Sewer System Sewer System Facilities... 21

8 5.5 Social Housing Facilities Assets Life cycle Age Based Asset Needs Risk Based Asset Needs Piped System WWTP System Criticality Road Network Criticality Bridge Criticality Social Housing Criticality Growth Related Needs Summary of Short Term and Long Term Needs Financial Analysis Historic Value vs Replacement Value Asset Historic Value Asset Replacement Value Funding Sources for Relevant Assets Summary of Infrastructure Funding Financial Shortfall Capital Forecasts and Priorities Key Assumptions and Policies Plan Improvements Next Steps... 64

9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Various Road Resurfacing Priorities from MicroPAVER Model... i Appendix 2 - Glossary... v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Asset Attributes... 3 Table 2 Asset Information... 4 Table 3 Assets Condition Assessment Frequency... 6 Table 4 Standard PCI Rating Scale (MicroPAVER)... 8 Table 5 Average PCI for Road Network... 9 Table 6 Pipe Condition Rating Table 7 Average Sewer System Condition Table 8 WWTP Facility Condition Index Table 9 Social Housing (PHC only) Facility Condition Index Table 10 Roads Strategic Process Table 11 Bridges Strategic Plan Table 12 Sewer Strategic Plan Table 13 Sewer Facilities Strategic Plan Table 14 Social Housing Facilities Highlights of Strategies (PHC only) Table 15 Summary of Long Term Annual Capital Replacement Needs Table 16 Summary of Potential Structural Needs for Sanitary Sewer Business Risk Exposure Table 17 - Summary of Required Operational Needs for Sanitary Sewer Business Risk Exposure... 29

10 Table 18 Summary of Required Structural Needs for Storm Sewer Business Risk Exposure Table 19 Summary of Required Operational Needs for Storm Sewer Business Risk Exposure Table 20 Sanitary Piped System Long Term Replacement Needs Table 21 Storm Piped System Long Term Replacement Needs Table 22 Pumping Station Needs from Risk Assessment Table 23 Wastewater Treatment Plant Wet Weather Capacity Needs Table 24 Wastewater Treatment Plant Needs Results Table 25 Roads Cost and PCI for Various Management Scenarios Table 26 Bridge 10 Year Needs Results Table 27 Social Housing Needs Results (PHC only) Table 28 Growth Need Results Table 29 Summary of Short/Long Term Annual Needs Table 30 3 Year Asset Funding Sources Table 31 Summary of Annual Infrastructure Funding Table 32 Prioritized Project List Table 33 Assumptions Made LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Residential Construction Value Figure 2 Commercial/Institutional Construction Value Figure 3 Industrial Construction Value Figure 4 - Asset Life Cycle Strategies... 17

11 Figure 5 75 Year Roads Life Cycle Figure 6 75 Year Piped System Life Cycle Figure 7 75 Year WWTP System Life Cycle Figure 8 75 Year Bridge Life Cycle Figure 9 75 Year Social Housing (PHC) Life Cycle Figure 10 Sanitary Sewer Criticality Figure 11 Storm Sewer Criticality Figure 12 Pumping Station Criticality Figure 13 WWTP Wet Weather Capacity Criticality Figure 14 WWTP Process Criticality Figure 15 WWTP Facility Condition Index Criticality Figure 16 Road Network Pavement Condition Index Criticality Figure 17 Bridge Condition Index Criticality Figure 18 Social Housing Facility Condition Index Criticality Figure 19 3 Year Citywide Capital Funding Source Average Figure 20 CAMP Assets Historic Value Figure 21 CAMP Asset Replacement Value Figure 22 3 Year CAMP Assets Capital Funding Source Average... 54

12

13 1 INTRODUCTION While demand and resident expectations grows for City infrastructure, the existing roads, bridges, sewers, social housing buildings and other crucial pieces of infrastructure continue to age. The common desire to do more with less facilitates the need for sound planning of capital assets. Relationships between assets are becoming easier to identify with improved technologies and the ability to manage assets on a large integrated scale is becoming a reality. In 2012, the Ministry of Infrastructure released their 10-year infrastructure plan, Building Together. 1 In this document the Minister elaborated that asset management will be the foundation of municipal infrastructure strategies to ensure that investments are made at the right time. One of the Ministry s first steps is the requirement for any municipality seeking provincial capital funding to prepare a detailed asset management plan. In a departure from historical approaches, the Ministry has included social housing among the traditional list of priorities (i.e., roads, bridges, water and wastewater). Goals set out by the Ministry of Infrastructure in Building Together are; making good asset management planning universal; moving toward optimal use of a full range of infrastructure financing tools; and addressing the structural challenges facing small communities. A corporate Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP) effectively supports the priorities developed through a Corporate Strategic Plan. Further to these corporate strategies, interdepartmental plans have been completed and also form the decision making structure within the CAMP. As departmental plans are created or updated, the CAMP shall also be updated to reflect the direction of the corporation. Examples include but are not limited to the City s Flood Reduction Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Central Area Master Plan, Official Plan, 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan, and Subwatershed Master Plans. Each plan, and now the CAMP, will underpin the yearly corporate capital budget process. This initial plan is a snap shot in time that identifies the City s position on service levels or grades on key components of infrastructure. The focus of this plan is roads, bridges, storm/wastewater systems, and social housing. Social housing 1 Ministry of Infrastructure, Building Together; Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plan, (Queen s Printer for Ontario, 2012) Page 1

14 is defined as assets owned by Peterborough Housing Corporation (PHC) for which the City provides annual capital subsidies under provincial legislation. This excludes certain assets owned by PHC such as affordable housing buildings. Other assets not included in this current plan are City facilities, roadside infrastructure, City fleet, emergency services equipment, technological infrastructure, waste management, parks/fields/community space, trails, private non-profit and co-operative social housing, and the City owned airport. Subsequent reviews will begin to include additional assets until the Corporation has included all assets in a comprehensive CAMP. Major updates will occur every 5 years or sooner if significant new assets are added. The assets incorporated in this document are reviewed based on several best practice principles. Each asset has been evaluated over its entire lifecycle. Evaluations versus condition rating, residual useful life, probability and consequence of failure, including the impacts on the environment, our social condition, and the City s economy are all considered through the CAMP where appropriate. Throughout the coming years the City will also engage the public in a review and evaluation of the plans target level of services. Although the CAMP recognizes the assets entire life, it will focus on the City s current budget year and nine year capital forecast to facilitate and complement the City s budget process. The CAMP will be reviewed by the corporations Asset Management Plan Steering Committee annually. 1.1 Why is Asset Management Important? The City provides a unique service and requires capital assets that support several outcomes including economic growth, transportation of goods, land development, community needs, managing risk, delivering service level, minimizing costs, health and safety, etc. The effective management of assets is therefore an essential business process providing the opportunity for organisational efficiencies, improved asset use, reduced operating costs, improved quality of life and more effective use of capital funding. Page 2

15 2 THE STATE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE Capital Asset Management Plan 2.1 Overview The following sections provide a brief overview of the City s infrastructure within the focus group of roads, bridges, storm water, wastewater, and social housing. Key areas will highlight asset types within each of the focus groups, financials for each group including replacement costs, age distribution and expected useful life, as well as an overall grade for each group of assets. The asset group s existing data collection plans and policies are also discussed. 2.2 Assets Included in Management Plan Table 1 lists each of the asset groups including a subset of assets related to each. Included are asset attributes such as quantity and expected life. The expected life is based on regular maintenance of the assets. Table 2 includes the attributes collected as well as calculated information that aids in the decision making process such as replacement costs, average remaining useful life, and average condition. This information gives a high level indication of the current state of the City s assets and some insight into what could be expected into the future. Table 1 Asset Attributes Asset Asset Sub-Class Quantity Average Expected Life Roads Arterial 108km 20 yrs Collector 80km 25 yrs Bridge Storm Water System Local 234km 30 yrs Substructure yrs Superstructure 45 75yrs Culverts yrs Local Sewers <450mm Trunk Sewers >= km 75 yrs 111 km 75 yrs Structures 12, yrs Ponds 28 Continuously Evolving Page 3

16 Asset Asset Sub-Class Quantity Average Expected Life Sanitary Local Sewers 284 km 75 yrs Conveyance System <375mm Trunk Sewers >= km 75 yrs Wastewater Treatment Plant Forcemain yrs Structures yrs Facility 17 Varies on Components Equipment All Inclusive Varies on Components Social Housing Facility (PHC) Units Varies on Components Table 2 Asset Information Asset Asset Sub- Class Average Condition Replacement Cost Average Remaining Useful Life Roads Arterial Fair $127,687, yrs Collector Fair $90,088, yrs Local Fair $220,399, yrs Bridge Structure Good $73,898, Storm Water System Sanitary Conveyance System Culverts Fair $7,819, Local Sewers <450mm Trunk Sewers >=450 Structures Ponds Local Sewers <375mm Trunk Sewers >=375 Fair Good N/A $37,515,000 >50 yrs $166,874,000 >50 yrs Master Plan EA currently under review Good Good $34,405,000 >50 yrs $126,872,000 >50 yrs Forcemain Good $2,319,000 >50 yrs Structures N/A Page 4

17 Asset Wastewater Treatment Plant Social Housing Asset Sub- Class Average Condition Capital Asset Management Plan Replacement Cost Average Remaining Useful Life Facility Fair $25,604,000 Varies on Components Equipment Poor $45,304,000 Varies on Components Facility (PHC) Good $56,000,000 Varies on Components Total $1,014,784, Data Collection Data verification and condition assessments vary through the asset groups. Assets such as bridges require condition inspection in keeping with provincial legislation whereas road conditions have been scheduled based on the City s latest Road Needs Study. 2 The City has received funding from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MIII) for building condition assessments (2010 and 2014) for the social housing portfolio which provides comprehensive asset information when combined with annual unit inspections and maintenance records. Where asset information has been assumed, the City will endeavour to collect this information as time, manpower, and funding permits. With each update in information, the City s asset management plan will also be updated resulting in a truly fluid plan Data Verification Data verification is completed on an ongoing basis through day-to-day business processes. With the immense amount of data currently maintained, it is expected that updates will be continuous. To minimize the risk, the City is expecting to purchase a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in the near future. Clean continuous data is the root system of an effective well established asset management plan. With each condition assessment, information will also be 2 City of Peterborough & DM Wills Associates Limited, Road Need Study Report, (2014) Page 5

18 reviewed and corrected where necessary. Future consideration shall be given to a data capture and condition assessment policy to maintain reliable data Condition Assessment Condition assessments form an integral part of the asset decision making process. Not only are immediate needs identified, the assets future residual life can be estimated with a certain level of validation. In the absence of condition assessments, municipalities have tools such as asset age and human experience to estimate residual life. The frequency of routine condition assessments for each asset is listed below. More frequent inspections or detailed assessments for certain assets generally result from the routine assessment. Table 3 Assets Condition Assessment Frequency Asset Asset Sub-Class Condition Assessment Frequency Roads Arterial 2 years Collector 3 years Local 4 years Bridge Substructure 2 years Superstructure 2 years Culverts 2 years Storm Water Local Sewers <450mm 6 years System Trunk Sewers >=450 6 years Structures 6 years Ponds 3 year Sanitary Local Sewers <375mm 6 years Conveyance Trunk Sewers >=375 6 years System Pumping Stations 5-10 years Including Forcemain Structures 6 years Wastewater Facility 5-10 years Treatment Plant Equipment Annual Social Housing Facility (PHC) 5 years Page 6

19 3 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) can be defined using various criteria. Regardless of the criteria used, all methods measure performance versus targets and timelines. Although performance measures are subject to change through the evolution of the plan, the City is responsible for legislated performance criteria such as Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways 3, Environmental Compliance Approvals 4, or the number of rent-geared-to-income housing units for social housing. Each of the asset groups will have its own performance measure and is described in detail through the following sections. The currently established criteria for performance are the City s expectation of itself. Future years will see a greater amount of public involvement adjusting these performance measures as information is collected and financial feasibility is explored. Additional impacts on this measure include changing provincial and federal targets such as the affects of Places to Grow 5 on sanitary servicing capacity, climate change on stormwater infrastructure, new Ontario Building Code requirements on housing units and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability 6 with respect to public spaces. 3.1 Roads Through the winter of 2014, the City finalized the comprehensive Road Needs Study. The City of Peterborough uses MicroPAVER software to perform the roads analysis. This is a well recognized model for pavement conditions used throughout North America. 3 Ontario, Municipal Act 2001, O. Reg. 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, (Consolidated 2013) 4 Ontario, Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.19,(Consolidated 2011) 5 Ontario, Ministry of Infrastructure, Places to Grow; Better Choices Brighter Future, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2006 Office Consolidation, June 2013) 6 Ontario, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act 2005, S.O 2005 Chapter 11, (Consolidated 2009) Page 7

20 The road network is split into three specific categories; Local Roads, Collector Roads, and Arterial Roads. Each category has a distinctive inspection cycle as listed in Table 3. MicroPAVER provides for different means of evaluating pavement. The City uses a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to score the overall road network. The PCI is based on a 0 to 100 scale. The standard grouping and associated pavement strategy for PCI are listed in Table 4. Table 4 Standard PCI Rating Scale (MicroPAVER) Pavement Management Strategy Preventive Maintenance Scale Good Satisfactory Fair Critical PCI 55 Operation & Poor Maintenance Very Poor Full Reconstruction Serious Failed 10-0 City Council was informed of the pavement preservation concept that has been generally adopted by most municipalities as a best practise for pavement management. Significant cost savings result from proactive intervention rather than simply waiting as long as possible before performing maintenance. The common misinterpretation that money is saved if maintenance costs are deferred as long as possible or until significant deterioration becomes apparent is understood by our Council and generally accepted. A target of Fair or better was established through Council 7 with budget adjustments to prevent the City s overall road network from reaching a Poor condition. The roads asset for the City has a pavement preservation budget and evaluation process as well as separate allocations when roads require full reconstruction. The City s road network inspection reviewed thousands of segments that established an overall PCI of approximately 67. Each road category was evaluated and given an individual PCI. The City also evaluated the road network excluding roads less than 15 years old to get a snap shot of how the 7 Wayne H. Jackson, City of Peterborough, Report USEC Road Needs Study, (March 31, 2014) Page 8

21 older portions of the network have ranked. Table 5 provides insight to both evaluations completed for the entire network. Table 5 Average PCI for Road Network Road Type Average PCI Average PCI Local Collector Arterial OVERALL (excluding roads less than 15 years old) 3.2 Bridges Current legislation requires the City of Peterborough to inspect all bridges every two years. 8 The definition of a bridge as adopted by the City and described in the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual 9 is A structure which provides a roadway or walkway for the passage of vehicles across an obstruction, gap or facility and which is greater than 3 m in span. With the potential for a vehicle to cross all pedestrian bridges, the City inspects all pedestrian bridges meeting the definition of a bridge. Experienced, professional engineers and inspectors must follow the guidelines in the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual. This manual provides inspectors with specific inspection procedures that must be followed during all bridge inspections. These inspections, through the use of Municipal Data Works, result in a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) used to give the bridge an overall rating. This rating is organized into ranges from 0 to 100 with immediate action taken to address any safety concerns. The range breakdown is as follows: Good: BCI Range ; For a bridge with a BCI greater than 70, rehabilitation work is not usually required within the next five years. 8 Ontario, Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, O. Reg. 104/97, Standards for Bridges, (Consolidated 2010) 9 Ontario, Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) 2008, (St. Catherines, ON: Ministry of Transpiration, 2008) Page 9

22 Fair: BCI Range 60-70; For a bridge with a BCI between 60 and 70 the rehabilitation work is usually scheduled within the next five years. This is the ideal time to schedule major bridge repairs from an economic perspective. Poor: BCI Less than 60; For a bridge with a BCI rating of less than 60, rehabilitation work is usually scheduled within approximately one year The City of Peterborough currently attempts to maintain bridges in the Fair or better range. The 2012 bridge inspection rating has indicated that City bridges have an overall rating of 69. Although this overall rating of Fair is given to the group of structures, individual bridges will require rehabilitation over the next 5 years to achieve a fair or better rating. The scheduled Fall of 2014 bridge inspection will provide for the two year update requirement. 3.3 Storm water and Wastewater Conveyance Systems Following the flood of 2004, the City of Peterborough began an intense data collection and maintenance exercise of the City s sewer networks. Both storm water and sanitary systems where cleaned of all debris and an inventory database followed over several years. Routine inspections and dedicated funding was also committed through the Council 10 of the time and has remained in place. Inspections of the sewer network include a condition rating of the pipe segment. The condition rating began with a concept developed by the Water Research Centre (WRC) known to be the WRc rating and the best practice through North America which has now evolved to a Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) system. The rating system is based on a 1 to 5 sliding scale from good to critical respectively. The PACP system also allows for separate structural grades versus maintenance grades. This allows the City to identify different priorities within the sewer network. Following the initial cleaning of all sewers in 2004/2005, focus was given to the sanitary sewer system resulting from the City s Flood Reduction Master Plan Malcolm Hunt, City of Peterborough, Report CA Flood Reduction Master Plan Implementation Strategy, (August 2, 2005) 11 City of Peterborough & UMA/AECOM, City of Peterborough Flood Reduction Master Plan, (April, 2005) Page 10

23 The City completed the cleaning cycle of the sanitary sewer system, attention is now focused on both storm sewers and sanitary sewers. Currently, a WRC or PACP condition rating has been given to all sanitary sewer systems and all local mainline storm sewers. An overview of the rating system is provided below. Table 6 Pipe Condition Rating Scale Management Strategy Severity Good 1-2 Long term Monitoring Required Fair 2-4 Short Term Monitoring Minor Rehab or Maintenance Minor Defect Numerous Defects Critical 4-5 Immediate Repair Required Major Defects In the coming years trunk storm sewers will enter the target cycle cleaning program where all sewers are cleaned and given a condition rating every 6 years. There will also be a detailed review to examine extending the 6-year cycle particularly for newer systems. Failure for pipes will likely occur in the first years of existence or in the later part of the 75 year expected life cycle. Areas prone to degradation due to surrounding conditions or based on previous condition rating are also inspected more frequently. The average target LOS for the sewer conveyance systems is Fair or better. The current status of our systems is listed in Table 7 for pipes that have been rated. Table 7 Average Sewer System Condition System Condition Rating Category Average Condition Rating Storm water Structural 2.0 Fair Maintenance 2.0 Fair Sanitary Structural 1.75 Good Maintenance 2.25 Fair OVERALL 2.0 Fair Average Condition Rating Page 11

24 3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant The City owns and operates one Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) geographically located in the southern portion of the City. The WWTP property houses 17 onsite facilities. The operation and maintenance of the conveyance system pump stations and forcemains also falls within the directive of the WWTP organizational responsibilities. The system utilizes 8 pumping stations throughout the conveyance system. The facilities at the WWTP and the pumping stations have been evaluated based on a Facility Condition Index (FCI). This rating system reflects the ratio of Repair Needs to Replacement Value. Each facility is rated every 5-10 years with detailed facility needs recorded and estimated expenditures provided. The overall rating of a facility is scored based on the following FCI parameters; 0% to 5% - Good, 5% to 10% - Fair, Above 10% - Poor. At this time the FCI values contained herein are simply the physical condition needs of each facility as inspected in Future years will include required capacity upgrade needs as a component of the Repair Needs. The WWTP is currently going through a major upgrade. As such the FCI will be more accurately defined following the current construction upgrade project. The following table provides the 5 year FCI for each of the City s sanitary facilities based on the 2012 inspection. Of the 8 pumping stations within the conveyance network, there are only 4 that contain above ground structures which house equipment. Other pumping station facilities are minor in nature and located in below grade structures. The overall target level of service for the WWTP and pumping station systems is Fair or better. Table 8 WWTP Facility Condition Index System 2014 FCI 2015 FCI 2016 FCI 2017 FCI 2018 FCI WWTP 0.6% 0.9% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% Pumping Stations 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% Page 12

25 3.5 Social Housing (PHC Assets) Social Housing owned by PHC consists of rental buildings located throughout the City and County of Peterborough. The City of Peterborough is the service manager for social housing under provincial legislation 12. As PHC s sole shareholder, it directs the operation of PHC. PHC is required to ensure that the assets of the corporation are maintained in good repair, and where reasonably possible, maintain and/or increase the value of the assets. PHC may not dispose or acquire any housing asset, or establish any requirement for additional capital contributions without approval from the City. The City of Peterborough and County of Peterborough have an agreement for social housing funding to share the cost of annual operating and capital subsidies. These annual subsidies are used by PHC to off-set operating and capital expenses. From time to time the province may provide capital funding, specifically for repairs to social housing, to be used at the discretion of the City. PHC subsidies vary according to operating costs of the social housing portfolio. A fixed amount of over $800,000 is provided by the City to PHC annually for capital repairs and upgrades. The City holds a capital reserve of $1.6M (2014) on behalf of PHC, which may be accessed on a case-by-case basis. To date there have been no draws on this reserve. PHC is required to have a 5 year Business Plan which includes annual capital expenditure and revenue forecast. For the purposes of this plan, the 2010 portfolio assessment for PHC will be used. PHC is currently completing an update to the last portfolio assessment and these 2014 results will be incorporated into the asset management plan update for future years. The industry standard for categorizing and indexing social housing is also the FCI rating system. This FCI is calculated using the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessment (i.e., 2014 Assessment) and information from the 2010 building condition assessments. The target for the social housing portfolio is Fair or better (i.e., 10% or less). 12 Ontario, Housing Services Act 2011, S.O. 2011, Chapter 6 Schedule 1, (Consolidated 2014) Page 13

26 Table 9 below includes social housing buildings owned by PHC for which the City provides subsidies. The combined facilities values shown are the 5 year FCI for PHC facilities based on the 2010 inspection. Table 9 Social Housing (PHC only) Facility Condition Index Social Housing 2014 FCI 2015 FCI 2016 FCI 2017 FCI 2018 FCI Peterborough Housing Corporation 4 GROWTH AND DEMAND 1.7% 4.9% 2.4% 2.4% 4.0% The Province of Ontario has provided the frame work for growth management through Places to Grow. The City of Peterborough currently services a population of approximately 82,000 persons living in the city limits. The most recent update to Places to Grow shows the City of Peterborough s 2031 growth forecast population to be 103,000 persons. This expected 25% population growth over the next 16 years will have significant impacts on the City s infrastructure requirements. Adding to service demands is the City s geographic area. Located northwest of the GTA, many residents live in Peterborough and commute to work places throughout Durham Region and the north/east side of Toronto. The City of Peterborough also provides service to the surrounding townships within the County of Peterborough where many County residents commute to the City of Peterborough for work. The City s population also fluctuates with post secondary enrolment in Trent University and Fleming College for ten months of the year as well as servicing the cottage community during the summer months. These factors combined all play a significant role to the service requirements for the City. In order to accommodate residential growth, the City has annexed large plots of land mainly at the north, east and south boundary limits. These annexations have placed further strain on the City s servicing needs where annexed residents are expecting full City service. A review of historic building permit activity was analyzed from a trending perspective. The following figures show activity in residential construction to be the highest with respect to construction value. This, paired with the expected growth projections from the province, gives a general indication of pressures that may be faced in the near future. Page 14

27 Figure 1 Residential Construction Value Figure 2 Commercial/Institutional Construction Value Page 15

28 Figure 3 Industrial Construction Value From a new build standpoint, the City s available vacant land mass in the major land use categories is; Residential ha, Commercial - 60 ha, Industrial - 43 ha. When developing these areas or redeveloping already built up areas, due consideration will have to be given to servicing when trying to meet the provincial targets. LOS and the City s CAMP will play a major role in demand versus available service capacity of significant development area allocations. The City s 2012 Transportation Master Plan 13 will also require updating to reflect the latest growth plan projections versus road capacity while the City s piped services capacity model will have to be developed to reflect these projections. 5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Strategies pertaining to assets include a wide range of corporate involvement across multiple departments and at various levels of staff. Different strategies are used at different stages of an assets life by different individuals throughout a corporation. An asset is managed through its life using key interrelated criteria 13 City of Peterborough & Morrison Hershfield, City of Peterborough Comprehensive Transportation Plan, (August 2012) Page 16

29 shown in Figure 4. A key factor in managing assets is communication and shared infrastructure information across departments and divisions. Figure 4 - Asset Life Cycle Strategies There are general fundamental management decisions that account for responsible annual expenditures. Questions to consider during the decision making process are; What are staff doing? Where are they going? Why are they doing it? What Capital Investment Plan projects should be completed and when? When should we repair versus rehabilitate versus replace? What other assets require capital investment in the area? The following tables provide a high level summary of the existing process for each asset group within the plan. Page 17

30 5.1 Roads Table 10 Roads Strategic Process Strategy State Outcome Operation and Maintenance Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, PCI rated Poor to Very Poor Rehabilitation PCI rated Good to Fair Renewal Risk Profile Drivers Financial Planning Residual useful life consideration or failure Probability of Failure vs Consequence of Failure (PCI, TMP Capacity Analysis) vs (Safety Standards, Minor Roads Related Claims) Coordination with underground projects and other road side environment projects, Increasing operation and maintenance costs, Growth Demands Frequent review of Road Needs Study to optimize capital expenditure. *Assuming Council approval in future years Maintain and repair on regular schedule Resurface, Seal Replace or expand Indentify; Immediate Critical, Moderately Critical, Not Critical Increase or maintain required service level and obtain budget estimates Operating Budget for Operation and Maintenance, Dedicated Capital of $3.4M(2017) plus $240K/yr for Rehabilitation*, Competitive Corporate Capital Budget for Renewal Page 18

31 5.2 Bridges Table 11 Bridges Strategic Plan Strategy State Outcome Operation and Maintenance BCI range major maintenance work not usually required in the next 5 yrs. Minor operation and maintenance (i.e., cleaning) Rehabilitation BCI Rehab work usually scheduled in next 5 yrs. BCI < 60- rehab work is usually scheduled within approximately 1 yr. Renewal Risk Profile Drivers Financial Planning Residual useful life consideration or failure Probability of Failure vs Consequence of Failure (BCI, Detailed Bridge Inspection) vs (Safety Standards) Average Annual Costs vs Condition Inspection/ Trends, Sub-Asset Life Cycle Grouping, Condition/Effective Life vs Growth Demands Review of biennial bridge inspection report and financial requirements Maintain and repair on regular schedule Ideal time to schedule major bridge repairs from economic perspective. Detailed bridge inspection and design scheduled. Replace or expand Indentify; Immediate Critical, Moderately Critical, Not Critical Increase or maintain required service level and obtain budget estimates Contribution to bridge reserves, Competitive corporate capital budget for Renewal Page 19

32 5.3 Piped Sewer System Table 12 Sewer Strategic Plan Strategy State Outcome Operation and Maintenance Pipeline Assessment and Condition Program (PACP) rating- Fair to Very Poor Rehabilitation PACP rating- Good to Fair Renewal Risk Profile Drivers Residual useful life consideration or failure Probability of Failure vs Consequence of Failure (PACP rating, Capacity Analysis, Wet Weather Analysis) vs (Social, Environmental, Financial) Coordination with roads and local utility projects, Other road side environment projects, Growth Demands vs Condition Maintain and repair on regular schedule, continue television inspection and rating Reline, complete spot repair of sewer lines, Replace or expand Indentify; Immediate Critical, Moderately Critical, Not Critical Increase or maintain required service level and obtain budget estimates Page 20

33 Strategy State Outcome Financial Planning Frequent review of PACP needs to optimize capital expenditure, review master plans financial requirements. 5.4 Sewer System Facilities Capital Asset Management Plan Sanitary Operating-user rate for operation and maintenance, Rehab- user rate dedicated $2.5M/yr* Renewal- Competitive capital budget through user rate Storm Operating budget for operation and maintenance, Competitive capital budget process for rehab and renewal, Dedicated $2.5M/yr for Flood Reduction Table 13 Sewer Facilities Strategic Plan Strategy State Outcome Operation and Maintenance Maintenance inspection and review component age Rehabilitation Asset assessed: FCI rating Poor Renewal Risk Profile Residual useful life consideration or failure Probability of Failure vs Consequence of Failure (Capacity Analysis, Wet Weather Analysis) vs (Social, Environmental, Financial) Planned or built-in redundancy Maintain regular schedule and component replacement Replace building elements or systems Replace or expand Indentify; Immediate Critical, Moderately Critical, Not Critical Page 21

34 Strategy State Outcome Drivers Financial Planning Primarily Growth or Probability/Consequence Driven Frequent review of legislated requirements to optimize capital expenditure, Environmental Assessment for future capacity needs, review user rate 5.5 Social Housing Facilities Capital Asset Management Plan Increase or maintain required service level and obtain budget estimates Operating budget for operation and maintenance funded through user Rate, Competitive budget process for rehab and renewal through user rate or development charges Table 14 Social Housing Facilities Highlights of Strategies (PHC only) Strategies Approach Action Operation and Maintenance Maintenance inspection Rehabilitation Asset assessed: FCI rating Poor Renewal Risk Profile Drivers Financial Planning Asset assessed: Residual useful life consideration or failure A-Life Safety B-Structural Integrity C-Legislative requirements D-Building Functionality E-Cost-Effective Initiatives Primarily growth or consequence driven Peterborough s 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan calls for Social Housing Strategy Maintain and repair on regular schedule Replace building elements or systems Sell and replace property or demolish and rebuild Indentify; Immediate Critical, Moderately Critical, Not Critical Increase or maintain required service level of RGI housing is maintained Capital Financing & Community Revitalization Plan including options for 3/5/10 year development and regeneration Page 22

35 6 ASSETS LIFE CYCLE The life cycle cost of an asset is the total cost of that item throughout its life. This includes the costs of planning, design, acquisition, operations, maintenance, and disposal, less any residual value. It is the total cost of providing, owning, and maintaining an asset or component over a predetermined evaluation period. However, assets also include economic costs such as community costs, customer costs, direct costs to organizations as well as environmental costs. For the purpose of our assessment, the economic cost was not included as a physical dollar value. These additional economic impacts were captured through assets consequence of failure analysis and provided a weighted score. Consideration was give to asset failures in different environmental locations (adjacent to water, beneath waterway, open space), asset failures in different geographic locations (downtown, commercial node, residential area) and the magnitude of the assets failures (small pipe vs. large pipe). To accurately determine life cycle costs, organizations need to track costs using various methods such as integrated CMMS s and activity based accounting. In future development phases of the City s CAMP, a CMMS is likely to be incorporated to conduct better asset life cycle cost calculations and an integrated record of works completed. For the purpose of this CAMP, two different life cycle assessments were completed. A simplistic age based assessment was prepared to provide a general level of need and long term need estimates. This simplistic approach also indentified a potential backlog as shown in the figures to follow. Each of the potential backlogs will require a detailed review to confirm the data. A second risk based assessment was also completed that identified critical infrastructure needs in the near-term. Both means of assessing assets have merit. The age based assessment provides useful long term information whereas the risk based assessments provides insight to potentially critical issues and condition based short term needs. The value and importance to applying risk based assessments is providing refined near-term budgetary values for asset replacement and indentifying critical areas. Page 23

36 6.1 Age Based Asset Needs Each group of assets has been evaluated for an understanding of the City s long term needs. This was completed based on a straight line life decay curve. Although easy to apply, it is rarely a true reflection of an asset s life cycle. This simplistic approach is used to provide a macro level needs assessment and general financing concepts. The following series of figures provide a high level replacement needs assessment over a 75 year horizon. The value reflects current replacement dollars for assets assuming they operate completely independently of other surrounding infrastructure. A general trend of high capital required in year 1 suggests infrastructure backlog values, however the average capital requirement over 75 years is the key piece of information for long term investment. Figure 5 75 Year Roads Life Cycle Page 24

37 Figure 6 75 Year Piped System Life Cycle Capital Asset Management Plan Figure 7 75 Year WWTP System Life Cycle Page 25

38 Figure 8 75 Year Bridge Life Cycle Figure 9 75 Year Social Housing (PHC) Life Cycle Although the straight line useful life decay analysis above gives a macro level needs assessment, certain asset groups have used condition based needs Page 26

39 assessments through dedicated software previously discussed in Section 3. The financial analysis to follow will use condition based information where applicable. However, a summary of the annual capital needs based on age decay life cycle costs is provided in the table below. Table 15 Summary of Long Term Annual Capital Replacement Needs Asset Group Annual Capital Required Roads $ 18,800,000 Piped System $ 13,900,000 WWTP Systems $ 3,500,000 Bridges $ 1,400,000 Social Housing (PHC) $ 750,000 Note: Above based on straight line useful life decay curves over 75 years 6.2 Risk Based Asset Needs Risk, in asset management terms, is often used as a measure of criticality. Criticality is based on the probability of an asset failing as well as the consequences of that failure. The product of these two items is often referred to as the Business Risk Exposure or BRE. All assets have a probability of failure and most assets have multiple failure modes. Major failure modes include capacity, LOS, mortality, and efficiency. Probability cannot be absolutely determined but can be estimated based on data collected and available information. Consequence can be simplistic or sophisticated. One measure of consequence is the Triple Bottom Line approach. Alternative measures of criticality could include mandated by-law and legislation requirements or impacts to multiple processes, etc. The following information implements risk at various levels. As previously discussed, factors including environmental, economic, and community related concerns have all been taken into account when measuring consequence. The probability measures have incorporated condition assessments, model output and age if detailed assessments are absent Piped System The piped system capital needs shown in the following tables relies on various criteria. This asset has the greatest level of detailed information available. The Page 27

40 following likelihood of failure and criticality are based on condition ratings, capacity requirements, redundancy, growth needs, flood reduction requirements, pipe age, along with the environmental, social, and financial concerns. Figure 10 and Figure 11 provide insight to the BRE (max score 25) for the City s piped system using the criteria listed above. The figures identify the number of pipes at a given location within the criticality matrix. The tables that follow (Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19) provide financial replacement / maintenance requirements associated to each figure. Figure 10 Sanitary Sewer Criticality Page 28

41 Table 16 Summary of Potential Structural Needs for Sanitary Sewer Business Risk Exposure BRE Required Needs Greater Than 20 (Critical) $350,000 Between 15 to 20 $1,205,000 Between 10 to 15 $1,350,000 Between 5 to 10 $5,750,000 Less Than 5 (Not Critical) $770,000 Total $9,425,000 The following table provides operational needs identified through close circuit video of the sanitary system. The scoring is derived by multiplying the number of defect occurrences by the respective grade and adding the values for an overall segment score. Table 17 - Summary of Required Operational Needs for Sanitary Sewer Business Risk Exposure Score Required Needs Greater Than 40 (Critical) $315,000 Between 30 to 40 $365,000 Between 20 to 30 $470,000 Between 10 to 20 $1,450,000 Less Than 10 (Not Critical) $1,350,000 Total $3,950,000 Page 29

42 Figure 11 Storm Sewer Criticality Table 18 Summary of Required Structural Needs for Storm Sewer Business Risk Exposure BRE Required Needs Greater Than 20 (Critical) $250,000 Between 15 to 20 $260,000 Between 10 to 15 $410,000 Between 5 to 10 $1,000,000 Less Than 5 (Not Critical) $4,250,000 Total $6,170,000 Table 19 utilizes the same process described above for Table 17 with respect to segment scores for a pipes operational maintenance. Page 30

43 Table 19 Summary of Required Operational Needs for Storm Sewer Business Risk Exposure Score Required Needs Greater Than 40 (Critical) $260,000 Between 30 to 40 $285,000 Between 20 to 30 $335,000 Between 10 to 20 $670,000 Less Than 10 (Not Critical) $620,000 Total $2,170,000 The above tables provide the City s required need that will coincide with the City s 10 year Capital Budgeting process. When evaluating assets base on multiple criteria and implementing the results of the condition data above; it is assumed that a piped systems life expectancy can be extended 30 years. Utilizing an extended life cycle, the City s long term planning needs for the pipes system in Table 15 above can be reasonably adjusted for the purpose of an asset management plan. The following table provides the separate systems recalculated long term need based on best management practices. Table 20 Sanitary Piped System Long Term Replacement Needs Timing Required Needs End of Useful Life Total $ 535,800,000 Annual Over Expected 105 yr Life $ 5,100,000 Table 21 Storm Piped System Long Term Replacement Needs Timing Required Needs End of Useful Life Total $ 507,000,000 Annual Over Expected 105 yr Life $ 4,900,000 *Value assuming work is completed independently of surrounding infrastructure WWTP System Criticality The City s WWTP system contains a substantial amount of detailed information much like the conveyance systems. The following series of figures and tables illustrates the level of risk associated to each respective asset as well as the assets needs. The information utilized to identify criticality includes but is not Page 31

44 limited to physical condition, power supply, redundancy, 100 year storm event probability, capacity, and growth demands. The following pumping station criticality figure includes factors such as design flows, wet weather flows, growth, pumping station capacities (short and long term), power supply, structural inspections, and component age analysis. Figure 12 Pumping Station Criticality Table 22 provides a summary of the needs listed for each of the pumping stations shown above. Component replacement timing is estimated and will require a detailed inspection. Page 32

45 Table 22 Pumping Station Needs from Risk Assessment Station Potential Failure Mode Timing Airport Growth Capacity Development Driven Capital Asset Management Plan Required Needs $ 800,000, Wet Weather 100 Yr Stm Through Conveyance System Ashburnham Growth Capacity Upgrade Recently Completed Facility Condition 2017 Facility upgrades $ 250,000 Component 5 yrs $ 450,000 Engleburn Wet Weather 100 Yr Stm Through Conveyance System No Backup Power Utility Dependant & MOE Requirement $500,000 Montgomery Wet Weather 100 Yr Stm Through Conveyance System Valleyview No Backup Power Utility Dependant & MOE Requirement $500,000 Burnham Pt Facility Condition 10 Yrs $ 45,000 No Backup Power 2015 Capital Budget $500,000 Parkhill West Growth Completion Budget Simcoe Wet Weather 100 Yr Stm Through Conveyance System Monaghan No Backup Power 2015 Capital Budget $500,000 Page 33

46 Station Potential Failure Mode Timing Parkhill East No Backup Power Utility Dependant & MOE Requirement Capital Asset Management Plan Required Needs $500, Year Total $4,045,000 Annual Total $404,500 Figure 13 summarizes the criticality of the inflow and infiltration environmental assessment 14 recently completed by the City. The City s WWTP is sensitive to all wet weather events and as such the probability below reflects the likelihood of each rain event occurring based on historical data collected. Figure 13 WWTP Wet Weather Capacity Criticality 14 City of Peterborough & Cole Engineering, Master Plan Detailed Sanitary Sewer EA for the Mitigation and Management of Extraneous Flows into the Sanitary System, (March 2012) Page 34

47 The following table provides a summary of the needs listed for each of the rain event shown above. The City is currently constructing holding tanks to accommodate inflow and infiltration for wet weather. In conjunction with this construction, inflow and infiltration reductions along the conveyance system are being reviewed and remedied where appropriate. Table 23 Wastewater Treatment Plant Wet Weather Capacity Needs Wet Weather Event Peak Flow (m3/s) Potential Secondary By-Pass (m3/s) BRE Required Needs 2 YR Storm 90, Currently Under Construction 5 YR Storm 131,242 2, Currently Under Construction 10 YR Storm 160,445 3, Currently Under Construction 25 YR Storm 180,230 6, Currently Under Construction 50 YR Storm 202,867 8, Currently Under Construction 100 YR Storm Regional Storm 221,098 11, Currently Under Construction 345, ,120 5 Un-feasible & Cost Prohibitive Similar to the pumping station criticality, the WWTP criticality figure to follow includes factors such as redundancy and potential environmental, social and financial losses. Page 35

48 Figure 14 WWTP Process Criticality Table 24 provides a summary of the needs listed for each of the WWTP facilities shown above. Component replacement timing is estimated and will require a detailed inspection. Table 24 Wastewater Treatment Plant Needs Results Facility Potential Failure Mode Timing Required Needs Raw Sewage Bldg Component 5 Yrs $2,000,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $500,000 Plant 1 Bldg Component 5 Yrs $2,500,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $650,000 Page 36

49 Facility Potential Failure Mode Timing Required Needs Raw Sludge Bldg Component 5 Yrs $450,000 I-I Bldg Facility Condition 10 Yrs $110,000 UV Bldg Component 5 Yrs $3,000,000 Boiler Equipment Bldg Facility Condition 10 Yrs $115,000 Component 5 Yrs $1,900,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $120,000 Generator Bldg Component 5Yrs $1,500,000 Facility Condition 2020 $70,000 Backup Generator for WWTP does not have a redundant Power Generation source Environment Dependent Dependant on fuel availability and delivery Screen Bldg Facility Condition 10 Yrs $55,000 Administration Bldg Component 5 Yrs $2,250,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $1,000,000 Plant 2 Bldg Component 5 Yrs $700,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $360,000 Alum Bldg Component 5 Yrs $55,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $100,000 Effluent Bldg Facility Condition 10 Yrs $50,000 Old Pump House Facility Condition 10 Yrs $150,000 Digester Bldg Component 5 Yrs $4,000,000 Biosolids Chemical Bldg Ferric Sulphate Bldg Park Street Emergency Bypass Facility Condition 10 Yrs $325,000 Facility Condition 2023 $50,000 Facility Condition 10 Yrs $90,000 No Backup Power Utility Dependant $500,000 No Redundant Pumps Pump Failure $500,000 Page 37

50 Facility Potential Failure Mode Timing Required Needs Component 5Yrs $620, Year Total $23,720,000 Annual Total $2,372,000 The following provides further detailed structural facility information of the 2012 structural inspections of the WWTP facilities in support of the information above. Page 38

51 Figure 15 WWTP Facility Condition Index Criticality Page 39

52 6.2.3 Road Network Criticality The road network condition rating for Peterborough is established via field inspection with specialized software providing the evaluation. Field inspections have been completed on approximately 2700 segments of road with varying lengths and areas. Each inspection contains approximately 20 distress categories that are evaluated. With an overall funding level or target PCI set for the City road network, a twenty year plan is produced through rigorous modelling algorithms. The following figure and table provides the 2013 inspection evaluation and recommended needs for the City road network based on condition ratings. The alternatives have been reviewed by Council and the recommended alternative was endorsed by Council in early Figure 16 Road Network Pavement Condition Index Criticality Page 40

53 Table 25 Roads Cost and PCI for Various Management Scenarios Scenario Total $ ( ) Average Annual $ Pavement Condition Index Maintain Current Budget* $58M $2.9M Double Current Budget $93M $4.7M Maintain Current PCI $215M $10.8M Unrestrained Budget $152M $7.6M * Current Budget (capital and operating) plus $100,000 per year capital 2014 Recommended alternative by Council Optimal long term replacement need It is recognized that although a target Level of Service for the road system is Fair (56-70) or better, the overall road condition drops below fair through the later part of the 20 year plan. This strategy will therefore require refinement in the future based on our target LOS. As potential infrastructure funding/grants becomes available, the City shall consider funding this asset over and above current budgetary allocations to close the gap between recent funding changes and the optimal $8 million dollar requirement Bridge Criticality Various criteria are considered through the City s biennial bridge inspection program. In addition to the mandated element inspection and condition rating of each structure, the City uses additional prioritization criteria when considering bridge needs. Factors such as average daily traffic counts, load restrictions, bridge conditions and barriers all play a weighted role in prioritizing needs. The Page 41

54 latest inspection completed in 2012 result in the following condition rating and needs. Figure 17 Bridge Condition Index Criticality Table 26 Bridge 10 Year Needs Results Timing 10 yr Needs Immediate $ 2,161, years $ 2,767, years $ 602,500 Total $ 5,531,000 Annual Total $ 531,000 Beyond the needs listed above, the City will require a longer term outlook for its structures. The 2014 OSIM inspection is currently in the process of reviewing such requirements Social Housing Criticality The criticality related to social housing will focus on PHC buildings, as these are owned by PHC for which the City is the sole shareholder. Therefore the City has potential for direct responsibility. The criticality related to all other social housing corporations may be reviewed in subsequent phases of the CAMP. The Page 42

55 following figure illustrates the potential level of risk associated to each respective asset over the next 10 years. Table 27 provides the financial needs associated to the figure. Page 43

56 Figure 18 Social Housing Facility Condition Index Criticality Page 44

57 Table 27 Social Housing Needs Results (PHC only) Facility 10 yr FCI Required Needs 169 Lake St $1,731, Donegal St $1,595, Rogers Rd $670, Spring St, Norwood $451, Simeon Cres, Apsley $415, Ermatinger Street, Lakefield $235, Concession St, Lakefield $490, George St, Havelock $268,000 8 Victoria St, Havelock $400, Parkhill Rd E $721, Herbert St $267, Hilliard St $531, Hilliard St $467, Alexander Ave $1,064, Crawford St $726, Cameron St $532, Anson St $225, Parkhill Rd W $127, Fairbairn St $439, Collison Ave $184, Raymond St $188, Cameron St $46,000 Pratt's Marina, RR# 3 Lakefield $73, Denne Cres $783,000 Total $12,628,000 Average Annual Need $1,263,000 * 2010 Condition Assessment Page 45

58 6.3 Growth Related Needs The CAMP assets related to growth are often captured in the Development Charges (Citywide and Area Specific) study and bylaw. The bylaw is generally based on the findings from Secondary Planning Area Studies, the TMP and previous Development Charge (DC) bylaws. Consideration shall be given to the City s growth targets provided by the province and applied to the DC study versus achieved growth rates. This alone could have drastic impacts on the overall needs of the CAMP. If the City does not meet the proposed growth, the overall need can likely be reduced. The current DC bylaw excludes social housing and therefore is not included in the table below. The growth related needs for social housing will be incorporated upon completion of the proposed Capital Financing & Community Revitalization Plan. Affordable housing does however form part of the DC bylaw and future reviews of the CAMP will include affordable housing as well as other assets within the bylaw. The following table is based on the 2031 growth horizon and development needs indentified in the DC bylaw. The City Share shown below is generally funded through the City s capital levy while the Growth Share is funded by developers and builders. Although the needs identified below are partially funded by external agencies, the growth related projects play a large role in capital levy funding allocations and debenture financing through the annual budget process. These projects often drive budgetary decisions due to the large share of City funding required. 15 City of Peterborough & Hemson Consulting Limited, Citywide Development Charges Background Study, (August 2014) 16 City of Peterborough & Hemson Consulting Limited, Planning Area-Specific Development Charges Background Study, (June 2012) Page 46

59 Table 28 Growth Need Results Growth Area Location DC City Share (16 yrs) DC Growth Share (16yrs) DC - Area Specific* (16yrs) Total Required Needs Lily Lake $16,293,829 $12,044,578 $10,218,100 $38,556,507 Chemong $11,081,331 $7,973,143 $11,315,601 $30,370,076 Coldsprings $4,964,781 $5,787,581 $9,706,000 $20,458,362 LiftLock $6,842,550 $11,380,050 $6,011,000 $24,233,600 Carnegie $1,445,194 $2,957,693 $2,296,600 $6,699,487 Jackson $3,634,900 $3,634,900 Existing Built Area Total Road Related Need $141,587,039 $125,322,754 $266,909,793 $182,214,724 $165,465,802 $347,680,526 Annual Road Need $11,388,420 $10,341,613 $21,730,033 Wastewater $1,564,900 $7,066,700 $8,631,600 Annual Wastewater Need $97,806 $441,668 $2,698,888 $3.238,362 *Generally funded through debenture financing in early stages of development 6.4 Summary of Short Term and Long Term Needs The following is a summary of both short and long term needs based on information currently available. With each set of future asset condition reports and improved accuracy in data, refinements to the costs provided will be required. As previously stated, a CAMP is a fluid document and will require continual updating in order to make the best decisions possible. The table below summarizes the information illustrated in Section 6. It is this information that will be used in the financial analysis to follow. Page 47

60 Table 29 Summary of Short/Long Term Annual Needs Asset Group Annual Growth and Replacement Short Term Needs Total of Replacement Need (10 yrs) DC City Share (16 yrs) DC Growth Share (16yrs) DC - Area Specific (16yrs) Annual Short Term Needs Long Term Annual Replacement Need (75 yr Asset Life) Roads *$4,700,000 $11,500,000 $10,500,000 $26,700,000 **$8,000,000 Bridges $555,000 Included in Included in $555,000 $1,400,000 Roads Roads Piped System $2,700,000 $4,871,500 $10,000,000 Storm $834,000 Sanitary $1,337,500 WWTP $100,000 $450,000 $3,335,000 $3,500,000 Systems Pumping $410,000 Stations WWTP $2,375,000 Social Housing $1,236,000 $1,236,000 $750,000 (PHC) Servicing $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Growth*** *Based on 20 yr modelling output and not meeting acceptable LOS **Based on 20 yr modelling output to meeting acceptable LOS ***Servicing Growth Needs not Included in Area Specific Bylaw Page 48

61 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The main sources of funding, within the City s control, are capital levy (City operating funds to be spent on capital projects),debenture financing and a sewer use fee. Capital projects deferred to future years and construction costs indexed by a range of 3% - 6% per year for inflationary costs results in overall increased project costs through deferral. The sewer fee is directly tied to the water utility billing and the capital levy dollars are directly tied to property taxes. The debt financing is limited by the City s current Financing Policy. In 2012 the City of Peterborough reported the most recent Debt Management and Capital Financing Plan to Council. 17 Of significant importance to capital planning, the following was adopted by Council; That the Debt Management Policy which will increase the maximum amount of debt the City of Peterborough can issue be approved. That the annual draft operating budget include a 5% increase in the capital levy provision as a means of providing more capital levy to support the capital budget requirements. A phase-in of the new maximum debt limit, the total annual amount of new tax-supported debt charges and any increase in the capital levy provision be limited so that the impact on the residential all-inclusive tax increase does not exceed 1% per year. Funding sources available, aside from Capital Levy and Tax Supported Debenture are external funding (Federal Gas Tax, Grants, etc), funding from Reserves or Development Charges, and funding from Non Tax Supported Debt. Figure 19 provides an average value for each capital funding source used through the past 3 annual capital budgets approved. This provides insight to the City s overall capital program. 17 Sandra Clancy, City of Peterborough, Report CPFS Debt Management and Capital Financing Plan, (March 31, 2014) Page 49

62 Figure 19 3 Year Citywide Capital Funding Source Average 7.1 Historic Value vs Replacement Value With the introduction of reporting requirements related to Section 3150 of the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Handbook, municipalities are required to report tangible capital assets as assets (versus expenses) on the financial statements. This not only shows how much has been spent on tangible capital assets, it also indicates historic costs of capital assets. The disclosure of constructed assets by developers and dedicated to a municipality as part of a development agreement also require reporting. In simplistic terms PSAB will; provide a statement of what you own, provide an initial cost of acquisition or Historic Cost, and provide a statement of the amortized value of your assets or book value. Replacement cost is the price to replace an existing asset at current market prices with a similar asset. The replacement asset only has to perform the same functions as the original asset. It does not have to be an exact copy of the original asset. Generally speaking the replacement cost of an asset is always higher than that of the initial installation cost because the existing surroundings Page 50

63 have to be considered. For example, an asset in green field environments such as a new subdivision costs substantially less than replacing that exact asset in the developed environment because of the new surroundings, the need for removal of the existing asset, increasingly stringent legislations, new or different liabilities, and increasing yearly construction costs. 7.2 Asset Historic Value Through PSAB 3150, the City s CAMP asset (roads, bridges, storm/wastewater systems, and social housing) historic values are reported as shown in Figure 20. This visual can be used to identify the difference in asset historic values and replacement costs that follow. Figure 20 CAMP Assets Historic Value *Social housing asset are reported through PHC 7.3 Asset Replacement Value The replacement value is the cost that will be carried forward throughout the CAMP for the purposes of any financial analysis. Figure 21 shows the replacement value for the same CAMP assets shown above. Asset replacement values are based on the 2013 construction season costs or the last completed asset condition assessment for items such as facilities. The values shown below also include replacement of assets in isolation of other surrounding assets. Clearly the coordination and management of asset Page 51

64 replacements is crucial to an effective asset management plan and the citizens of Peterborough. Figure 21 CAMP Asset Replacement Value 7.4 Funding Sources for Relevant Assets With average annual funding for capital of approximately $53.6 million over the last three years, funding for the CAMP asset group is only a share of the overall capital program the City approves. Although some funding is committed to the CAMP assets, other funding is distributed to various departments based on City needs or priorities. The past 3 years of funding allocated to the assets herein are detailed in Table 30. The 3 year funding average for CAMP assets is provided in Figure 22. Table 30 3 Year Asset Funding Sources Financing Source Capital Levy $1,132,000 $383,050 $1,022,500 Development Charges $5,943,000 $4,702,250 $0 Tax Debenture $2,026,000 $3,095,000 $1,788,900 Development Charges Debenture $4,924,000 $4,614,500 $3,946,100 Other $0 $600 $0 Page 52

65 Financing Source Other revenues Sub-Total $14,025,000 $12,795,400 $6,757,500 Sanitary Sewer Reserve Fund $9,366,900 $13,545,400 $819,500 Federal Gas Tax $3,879,000 $3,394,500 $3,420,000 Flood Reduction Reserve $5,100,000 $5,010,700 $2,225,000 Public Works Equipment $0 $0 $0 Tansit $0 $0 $0 Capital Levy Reserve $0 $0 $0 Bridge $0 $0 $0 Waste Management Reserve Fund $0 $0 $0 Other Reserves $0 $600,000 $263,600 Direct revenue Sub-Total $18,345,900 $22,550,600 $6,728,100 County $0 $53,700 $114,100 Other $0 $0 $112,500 Social Housing Tax base (From City Operating) Delivering Opportunity for Ontario Renters Reserve Sub-Total $0 $53,700 $226,600 $813,000 $838,000 $845,000 $573,000 $367,200 0 Capital Reserve $1,000,000 0 $500,000 Sub-Total $2,836,000 $1,205,200 $1,345,000 Grand Total $32,373,810 $35,402,709 $13,713,047 Page 53

66 Figure 22 3 Year CAMP Assets Capital Funding Source Average It is important to note that the funding shown above are capital dollars approved and only a portion allocated to the CAMP asset replacements. New infrastructure is also funded through the totals shown above. This chart also includes the 3 year implementation of the the City s new and increased maximum debt limit policy. Should the City wish to maintain these values, City Council will require a review of the 2012 debt management policy. 7.5 Summary of Infrastructure Funding Public infrastructure is often looked at as the backbone of our economy and quality of life. Unfortunately years of underinvestment throughout the country has left a backlog of delayed repairs. Canada is beginning to confront its "infrastructure deficit" but it is not without challenges. Peterborough and most other municipalities struggle with the same infrastructure challenges. Page 54

67 Needs and Available Funding has been discussed in several manners throughout the document. The gap between the two is further complicated by growth. The following table provides an outlook of Peterborough s gap and the long term strategic planning requirement with respect to our infrastructure. Previous sections of the plan included infrastructure replacement due to condition and age as well new infrastructure related to growth. Table 31 has also included dedicated funding to new infrastructure and for flood related projects identified through multiple environmental assessments. Page 55

68 Table 31 Summary of Annual Infrastructure Funding Asset Group Total of Annual Growth and Replacement Needs Funding Source Roads $26,700,000 Cap Levy Incl. Tax Bridges $555,000 Debt, DC Incl. DC Debt, Fed Gas Tax Piped System - $834,000 Storm Piped System - $1,337,500 Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Reserve Fund WWTP Systems $3,335,000 (SSRF) Past 3 Year Average Capital Funding Difference in Annual Funding Requirement $14,756,933 ($13,332,067) $7,910,600 $3,238,100 Social Housing $1,236,000 Operating & $1,645,400 $409,400 (PHC) D.O.O.R.** Reserve Servicing Growth*** $5,000,000 Cap Levy Incl. Tax $0 ($5,000,000) Debt & SSRF Flood Reduction $5,000,000 FRMP CL & SS $4,111,900 ($888,100) Master Plans Other Other $681,300 $681,300 SubTotal (Excluding $39,325,000 $21,195,533 ($18,129,467) SSRF) SSRF Total $4,672,500 $7,910,600 $3,238,100 Total $43,977,500 $29,106,133 ($14,891,367) ** Delivering Opportunity for Ontario Renters ***Servicing Growth Needs not Included in Area Specific Bylaw Page 56

69 7.6 Financial Shortfall As shown in Table 31, the City currently has an annual funding shortfall of more than $18,000,000 relative to the funding levels over the past three years. Incorporated into this value are assumptions such as provincial targets for growth in Peterborough, user rates remaining constant, social housing support continuing with reduced provincial involvement, status quo levels of service, etc. Several possibilities exist to begin eliminating the gap between needs versus funds available. To overcome this financial challenge, the City must review our core CAMP assets versus the entire corporations capital focus. The core CAMP assets have a large impact on many items previously mentioned including economic growth, transportation of goods, land development, community needs, managing risk, and delivering service levels all at a minimized cost. For example, strategically prioritizing the City s land development growth areas allows for responsible delivery of services in a fiscally responsible manner but may have an impact on economic growth. Bridge repairs could be deferred but reduced levels of service impacts the transportation of goods. Through the following calendar years the City will manage this shortfall through the detailed review of several key factors; maintaining versus new build growth area strategies growth area funding expanded partnerships or external funding disposal capital priority (ie environment, risk, legislation, etc) electoral platforms dedicated funding community review of service level procurement methods Page 57

70 8 CAPITAL FORECASTS AND PRIORITIES Capital Asset Management Plan Capital forecasting and the prioritization thereof play a key role to the City s annual budget process particularly with the financial shortfall challenge. It is important to note that this process is extremely fluid with the exception of projects involving critical infrastructure. Competing with the needs of the CAMP assets are capital projects such as new arenas, new community spaces, City buildings rehabilitation, transit infrastructure, and airport development projects. These types of projects can have a major shift in focus to the overall corporate budget. Each asset is evaluated within its group for risk assessments. Through this process individual asset project needs are identified. In order to evaluate each project equally, the City has created core criteria that takes into account the following; Is the project necessary to support legal obligations (Regulations/Legislation) Is the project necessary from a mandated Health and Safety (H&S) Perspective Does the project support approved City programs/directions such as Official Plan, other Master Plans (FRMP, Development Charge Study, Transportation plan, Downtown Action Plan, Road Needs, Urban Forestry Plan) Is the project supported by a Capital Management Plan (Vehicle, Bus, Road Needs, Sewers) Will the project receive external funding? (Government grant and subsidies) Impact of Deferral Impact on Operations Is the project related to service levels Does the project address a Council direction not captured elsewhere in the priorities For the purposes of this plan, PHC is currently completing an update to the last portfolio assessment and these results will be incorporated into the future years of the City s capital forecasting and prioritization. Screening projects through the above process results in a prioritized list. CAMP assets can utilize this for improved capital planning. It is also understood that all capital asset management plans are fluid and constantly evolving. At times, Page 58

71 external issues can overwrite these decisions. The following table provides a current snapshot in time and should be constantly reviewed to capture current priorities. Table 32 Prioritized Project List Rank Captial Project Name Score Status Bethune St Reconstruction Fully Funded Donegal St Bridge Fully Funded Riverside Sanitary Reconstruction Fully Funded Ashburnham Dr - Lansdowne to Maria Fully Funded Byersville/Parkway Culvert Cleaning Fully Funded Otnb Riv Trail - W/F Entrance at Simcoe Fully Funded Brealey Dr - Lansdowne to Stenson Fully Funded Spillsbury Dr. Outlet Fully Funded 1 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Implementation 92 Partially Funded 2 OSIMS Bridge Inspection 85 Partially Funded 2 Storm Sewer Rehabilitation 85 Partially Funded 2 Detailed Bridge Inspection 85 Partially Funded 5 Citywide Storm Water Quality Implementation 80 Partially Funded 6 NE Jackson-Water Simcoe 100yr Pipe NEJ3 73 Partially Funded 7 Parkway Corridor Extension 72 Partially Funded 8 Parkhill Rd West - Wallis to City Limits 71 Partially Funded 8 Sherbrooke St - Glenforest to Brealey 71 Partially Funded 10 Park St Sanitary Twinning 70 Partially Funded 10 Armour Rd Sanitary Twinning 70 Partially Funded 12 Chemong Rd - Parkhill to Parkway 69 Partially Funded 12 Bears-Marina Blvd Major System Bypass 69 Not Funded 12 Simcoe St Forcemain Replacement 69 Partially Funded 15 Various New Sidewalk Installation 68 Partially Funded 15 A-110 Flow and Rainfall Monitoring 68 Partially Funded 17 Armour Rd Reconstruction 66 Not Funded 18 Various Road Resurfacing 57 Partially Funded 19 OSIM Bridge Capital Program 56 Partially Funded 20 C-210 Disconnect Foundation Drains 53 Partially Funded 21 Extension of Crawford Dr/Harper Rd 51 Not Funded 21 B-120 Sanitary Sewer Relining & Repair 51 Partially Funded 23 A-230 CCTV Inspection of Pipes 50 Partially Funded 24 River Road - Hwy 115 to Lansdowne 46 Not Funded 24 Asset Management Project 46 Partially Funded Page 59

72 Rank Captial Project Name Score Status 26 Brealey Drive - Lansdowne to Sherbooke 44 Partially Funded 27 Street Lighting Program 42 Partially Funded 28 Citywide Transportation Operational Improvements 41 Not Funded 28 Carnegie Planning Area - N/S Arterial 41 Not Funded 28 Carnegie Planning Area E/W Arterial 41 Not Funded 31 Various New Multi-Use Trail 39 Partially Funded 32 Armour Road Realignment 36 Not Funded 33 Victoria Ave Reconstruction 35 Not Funded 34 Charlotte St - Clonsilla to Monaghan 34 Not Funded 35 Nassau Mills Road Bridge - Otonabee River 32 Not Funded 35 NE Jackson-100 yr relief pipe NEJ1 32 Not Funded 35 SE Jackson-Charlotte 100 yr pipe SEJ4 32 Not Funded 35 Byersville-Clonsilla Parkway SWMP 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Armour Road Culvert 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Roger Tivey Outlet Improvements 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Euclid Culvert Replacement 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Caddy Street Culvert 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 4 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 3 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 6 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 5 32 Not Funded 35 Thompson-Armour Rd Runoff Storage 32 Not Funded 35 Meade-Naish Rd Local Drainage 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 2 32 Not Funded 35 Riverview-Algonquin Blvd ROW 32 Not Funded 35 Byersville-Twin Clonsilla East Branch 32 Not Funded 35 Byersville-Cedargrove SWMP 32 Not Funded 35 Riverview-Lorraine Dr Outlet 32 Not Funded 35 Curtis-Strategic Storm Sewer Upgrade 1 32 Not Funded 35 Riverview-Subwatershed Culvert Nassau Mills 32 Not Funded 35 Riverview-Carnegie Culvert at Water 32 Not Funded 35 Meade-Glenmead Rd and Farmcrest Ave 32 Not Funded 35 Meade-SW Corner Farmcrest 32 Not Funded 35 Meade-Syndemham Severn Rochelle 32 Not Funded 35 Byersville-Golfview Dr Inlet 32 Not Funded 35 Riverview-Water St Culvert Upgrade at Zoo 32 Not Funded 35 Thompson-Eldon SWM Pond 32 Not Funded 35 Meade-Creek Levee 32 Not Funded Page 60

73 Rank Captial Project Name Score Status 35 SE Jackson-Simcoe St 100 yr pipe SEJ3 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-River Rd OLF 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Highland Regrade Private Property B9 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Fisher Drive 32 Not Funded 35 SW Jackson-Valleyview Dr SWJ4 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Gilchrist B14 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Stormont B16 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Gilchrist B11 32 Not Funded 35 SE Jackson-Hunter St 100yr pipe SEJ2 32 Not Funded 35 NW Jackson-Hemlock NWJ2 32 Not Funded 35 NW Jackson-Ravenwood SWJ3 32 Not Funded 35 NE Jackson-Parkhill 100yr pipe NEJ2 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Romaine 2 Stm Sewer CB Upgrade 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Crawford Dr and Area 32 Not Funded 35 SW Jackson-Firwood SWJ1 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Chemong Towerhill B2 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Chemong OldTowerhill B3 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Chesterfield B17 32 Not Funded 35 NW Jackson-Bonacord NWJ3 32 Not Funded 35 SE Jackson-Rink 100yr pipe SEJ5 32 Not Funded 35 SW Jackson-Firwood SWJ2 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Park St South Trunk Sewer and CB 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Princess St and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Brookdale Chesterfield B13 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Chemong West B5 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Romaine and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Chamberlain and Park 32 Not Funded 35 NW Jackson-Parkview Dr NWJ1 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Wilfred Dr 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Monaghan and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Arndon Ave 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Southpark Dr 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-High St and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Braidwood Ave and Area 32 Not Funded 35 SE Jackson-Downie Murray 100yr pipe SEJ1 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Southlawn Dr 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Parkhill 100yr pipe B18 32 Not Funded Page 61

74 Rank Captial Project Name Score Status 35 Brookdale-Barnardo 100yr pipe B8 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Stewart Dr 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Sunset Blvd Regrading B1 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-St Catherine's St 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Bellevue B4 32 Not Funded 35 SW Jackson-Regrade on Parkhill SWJ5 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Riverview Heights 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Sherburn St and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Park Dublin Sewer Upgrade B6 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Stormont Glengarry B15 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Barker Sherin 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Donegal Wolsley B10 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Water St and Area 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Perry Aylmer Lake 32 Not Funded 35 Otonabee-Harvey St 32 Not Funded 35 Otonbee-Monaghan Rd 2 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Bennet St 100yr pipe B7 32 Not Funded 35 Brookdale-Greenlawn Ave B12 32 Not Funded 35 Thompson-Scollard Dr Drainage - Major System 32 Not Funded 35 Thompson-Franmor Abbey Lane Chapel Drainage 32 Not Funded 121 Otonabee Dr Reconstruction 31 Partially Funded 122 Lansdowne St W 30 Not Funded 123 University Road Upgrade 29 Not Funded 123 Pioneer Rd Upgrades 29 Not Funded 125 McDonnel Gilchrist Rehabilitation (260m) 27 Not Funded 125 Rain Event Misc Projects 27 Partially Funded 127 Information Management 26 Partially Funded 128 Maria St Extension 24 Not Funded 128 Television Rd Widening 24 Not Funded 128 Brealey Dr - Sherbrooke to Parkhill 24 Not Funded 131 Applegrove Ave 23 Not Funded 131 Murray St Reconstruction 23 Not Funded 131 Ashburnham Dr - McFarlane to Parkhill 23 Not Funded 134 Webber & Rye Urbanization 20 Not Funded 135 ColdSprings Transportation Plan 18 Not Funded 136 Nassau Mills Bridge Over Trent Severn 17 Not Funded *Status based on Council approved capital funding **See Appendix 1 for priority list of road resurfacing locations from MicroPAVER model Page 62

75 9 KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND POLICIES Capital Asset Management Plan Key assumptions made throughout the planning process are listed below. Items of critical importance are expected to be reviewed often with updates made as necessary. In areas where assumptions can be verified with reasonable levels of efforts and funding, the City should endeavour to collect this information as early as possible. To ensure that information and data utilized in the plan are reliable, policies and procedural outlines will need to be developed or reviewed where they exist. The goal of this exercise will be to identify the key areas of improvement necessary to address the quality of the plan. Examples may include but not be limited to; data collection internally, data collection as deliverables from external sources, maintenance data capture, infrastructure renewal data capture and access to financial data. Table 33 Assumptions Made Assumption Average expected life is based on regular maintenance of the assets Replacement Cost calculated for assets independently of each other Average Remaining Useful Life Piped systems life expectancy can be extended 30 years through condition rating recommendation Three year implementation of the the City s increased new maximum debt limit policy to continue Level of Data Used Confidence Intermediate Marginal amount of data, otherwise maintenance assumed to occur Intermediate Actual construction costs however likely that asset replacement is coordinated Intermediate Use of Average expected life High BMP suggest new products can extend pipe life by 50 yrs Intermediate Council discussion on infrastructure need 10 PLAN IMPROVEMENTS The continuous improvement of the plan is an important part of the CAMP s success. Identifying planned improvements to the asset management system(s), including the associated responsibilities, resources and milestones, provides long term reliability. A key element to any corporate plans success is Page 63

76 the cultural shift in implementing new ideas and process to become a business as usual activity. Corporate strategic plans often help guide cultural business practice activities within large corporations. The introduction of a corporate strategic plan could provide corporate direction and pave the road for all future planning exercises with the City. Identifying corporate improvements will result from a well established corporate strategic plan and would form part of future CAMP improvements Next Steps The following tasks outlined for consideration will bring greater accuracy and improved decisions to the CAMP assets herein. A summary of improvements listed throughout the document are provided below thus working towards future achievements for the plan. Review and update replacement costs to reflect field infrastructure Complete information from data gap analysis Routine facility condition assessment on a reliable cycle Where asset information has been assumed, the City will endeavour to collect this information as time, manpower, and funding permits Develop a public process to gain views on performance measures and service level Create data capture and condition assessment policy Obtain a computerized maintenance management system Reconcile 2014 Peterborough Housing Corporation assessment information recently provided to the City with the existing information currently used by the City Continue to develop an overall growth plan Refine and reduce assumptions Create a corporate strategic plan Page 64

77 Update CAMP as departmental plans are created or updated Monitor progress for items identified within the CAMP and provide assessment updates Add other City corporate asset groups as appropriate Page 65

78 Page 66 Capital Asset Management Plan

79 Appendix 1 Various Road Resurfacing Priorities from MicroPAVER Model Street Location From Street To Street Aylmer Street North Brock Street Murray Street Cumberland Avenue Amundsen Avenue Royal Drive Water Street Hilliard Street George Street North Hunter Street West Aylmer Street North Fleming Place Fairbairn Street Wellington Street Bellevue Street Hunter Street West Fleming Place Bethune Street Hospital Drive Hospital Drive Charlotte Street Fairmount Boulevard Kildare Road Kawartha Drive Sherbrooke Street Park Place Rutherford Avenue Lock Street Fradette Avenue Braidwood Avenue Monaghan Road Riverside Drive Bellaire Street Erskine Avenue Hawley Street Erskine Avenue Crawford Drive Mountain Ash Road Crawford Drive Lansdowne Street The Parkway Rye Street West Armour Road Carlisle Avenue Clifton Street Otonabee Drive Finchurst Road Crystal Drive Southlawn Drive Southlawn Drive Saugeen Crescent Hetherington Drive University Heights Lorraine Drive Boulevard Woodland Drive Hetherington Drive City Limit Crawford Drive Barbara Crescent Crawford Drive Maria Street Armour Road Ashburnham Drive Lansdowne Street Wightman Avenue Goodfellow Road West Sherbrooke Street Park Street North Park Place Guthrie Drive Guthrie Drive Mcnamara Road Towerhill Road Hilliard Street Towerhill Court Wallis Drive Sherbrooke Street Danita Boulevard Dumble Avenue Hilliard Street Rishor Crescent Towerhill Road Neptune Street Milroy Drive Dublin Street Aylmer Street North Bethune Street Weller Street Sherwood Crescent Wallis Drive Weller Street Fairmount Boulevard Sherwood Crescent Rink Street Aylmer Street North Streetewart Street Fairmount Boulevard Norwood Terrence Kildare Road Ireland Drive Nornabell Avenue Matthews Court Denure Drive Bertrand Terrence Ireland Drive Kawartha Heights Woodglade Boulevard Wintergreen Trail Boulevard Cherryhill Road Bankside Drive Moncrief Road Page 1

80 Goodfellow Road Street Mary's Street Chamberlain Street Ackison Road Parkhill Road West City Limit Braidwood Avenue George Street South Jane Street Hawley Street Little Street Erskine Avenue Spillsbury Drive Whittington Drive Sir Sandford Fleming Drive Burnham Street Charles Street James Street Marsdale Drive Idyllwood Crescent Tudor Crescent Otonabee Drive Middlefield Road Finchurst Road Neal Drive Bensfort Road Plastics Road Weller Street Hawthorne Drive Weller Crescent Cameron Street Park Street South Street Catherine Street Towerhill Road Towerhill Court Neptune Street Bellevue Street Dominion Crescent Donegal Street Donegal Street Donegal Street Brock Street Alexander Avenue Sherbrooke Street Alexander Court Kensington Drive Fairmount Boulevard Windermere Avenue Kawartha Heights Sumac Street Brealey Drive Boulevard Whitefield Drive Silverdale Road Dead End East Rink Street George Street North Olive Avenue Edgewater Boulevard Maria Street Wallace Street Americredit Way Jameson Drive Fisher Drive Jameson Drive Fisher Drive Americredit Way Fisher Drive Major Bennett Drive Americredit Way Frances Stewart Road Scollard Drive Cunningham Boulevard Swanston Avenue Armour Road Curtis Road Mark Street Maria Street James Street Meadowview Road Walker Avenue Bramble Road Humber Road Dead End East Humber Road Old Norwood Road Naish Drive Old Norwood Road Jameson Drive Americredit Way Major Bennett Drive Champlain Drive University Heights Richard Road Boulevard Royal Drive Edmison Drive Olympus Avenue Linden Lee Sherbrooke Street Hywood Road Ellesmere Avenue Hudson Street Frobisher Street Merino Road Merino Road Roper Drive Springwood Road Woodgrove Crescent Wintergreen Trail Street Paul's Street Trillium Lane Barnardo Avenue Springwood Road Woodgrove Crescent Wintergreen Trail Glengarry Avenue Stormont Street Fairbairn Street Old Towerhill Road Dead End East Towerhill Road Donegal Street Mcdonnel Street London Street Cordach Crescent Park Street North Bonaccord Street Kildare Road Glencairn Avenue Fairmount Boulevard Page 2

81 Applewood Crescent Bankside Drive Applewood Crescent Ferndale Avenue Kawartha Heights Beechwood Drive Boulevard Moncrief Road Treetop Road Redwood Drive Nevin Avenue Sherbrooke Street Link Street Howden Street Park Street South St Catherine Street Arndon Avenue St Catherine Street Monaghan Road Little Street Little Street Hawley Street Major Bennett Drive Fisher Drive Jameson Drive Huntington Circle Ramblewood Drive Huntington Circle Caddy Street Beverly Street Ludgate Street Elgin Street Hazlitt Street Dufferin Street Finchurst Road Otonabee Drive Middlefield Road Summit Drive Dead End South Greencrest Drive Firwood Crescent Weller Street Thornhill Road Cottonwood Drive Kingswood Drive Kingswood Drive Cottonwood Drive Kingswood Drive Kingswood Drive Cottonwood Drive Kingswood Drive Kingswood Drive Frobisher Street Ellesmere Avenue Cumberland Avenue Maryland Avenue High Street Clonsilla Avenue Pinewood Drive Pinewood Drive Forster Avenue Murray Street Reid Street Downie Street GilchriStreet Street London Street Dublin Street Swanston Avenue Snelgrove Road Juliet Road Woodland Street Gordon Avenue Dead End West Gordon Avenue Hopkins Avenue Woodland Street Mayfair Avenue Kensington Drive Kawartha Drive Ashdale Crescent Frances Stewart Road Dead End South West Allum Road Bertrand Terrence Ackerman Crescent Kawartha Drive Fairmount Boulevard Windermere Avenue Heather Lane Danita Boulevard Pulpit Road Hywood Road Linden Lee Dead End North Giles Avenue Allum Road Glenforest Boulevard Mapleridge Drive Brealey Drive Foxfarm Road Mapleridge Court Mapleridge Drive Dead End East Redwood Drive Treetop Road Moncrief Road Redwood Drive Springwood Road Woodgrove Crescent Redwood Drive Woodgrove Crescent Renforth Court Crescentoftdale Stewartcroft Crescent Stewartcroft Crescent Crescent Crescentoftdale Stewartcroft Crescent Cherryhill Road Crescent Applewood Crescent Kawartha Heights Boulevard Bankside Drive Page 3

82 Parnell Street Lynch Street Dead End West Scollard Crescent Scollard Drive Scollard Drive Creekwood Drive Ramblewood Drive Dead End North Caddy Street Ludgate Street Dead End East Bramble Road Meadowview Road Walker Avenue Tivey Street Dead End West Rogers Street Humber Road Saugeen Crescent Southlawn Drive Ashdale Crescent Dead End South Frances Stewart Road East Greencrest Drive Summit Drive Sherbrooke Street Keitel Drive O'Dette Road Giles Avenue Simons Avenue Chemong Road Deana Boulevard Haggart Street Edwards Street Princess Street Whitla Street Lansdowne Street West Dead End North NOTE: Locations shown are the limits (From-To) which works are proposed within and not necessarily the entire segment. Page 4

83 Appendix 2 - Glossary Assets are economic resources controlled by a local government as a result of past transactions or events and from which future economic benefits may be obtained. Asset Management Planning is the process of making the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets. BCI is a Bridge Condition Index rating used as a planning tool that helps schedule maintenance and upkeep. The BCI is not used to rate or indicate the safety of a bridge. The result is organized into ranges from 0 to 100. Immediate action is taken to address any safety concerns. BRE or Business Risk Exposure is a method of calculating (scoring) the nature and level of exposure that an organization is likely to confront through a potential failure of a specified asset or group of assets. It is derived by assessing both likelihood of failure (what is the likelihood or probability that a predicted failure may actually occur?) and the consequence of failure attributable to an asset should it fail (what are the implications or cost to the utility and the community if an asset fails?). CMMS represent Computerized Maintenance Management Systems which is software that maintains a computer database of information about an organization s maintenance operations. This information is intended to help maintenance workers do their jobs more effectively (for example, determining which assets require maintenance and which contain the spare parts they need) and to help management make informed decisions. FCI known as Facility Condition Index is a standard facility management benchmark that is used to objectively assess the current and projected condition of a building asset. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of current year required renewal cost to current building replacement value. Building condition is often defined in terms of the FCI as follows:(good) 0 to 5 percent FCI, (Fair) 5 to 10 percent FCI, (Poor) > 10 percent FCI. The purpose of the FCI is to provide a means for objective comparison of facility or building condition as well as allowing senior decision makers to understand building renewal funding needs and comparisons. Page 5

84 Life Cycle Cost refers to the total cost of ownership over the life of an asset. Costs considered include the financial cost which is relatively simple to calculate and also the environmental and social costs which are more difficult to quantify and assign numerical values. Typical areas of expenditure which are included in calculating the whole-life cost include, planning, design, construction and acquisition, operations, maintenance, renewal and rehabilitation, depreciation and cost of finance and replacement or disposal. Local Sanitary Sewers are considered to be less than 450mm in diameter. Local Storm Sewers are considered to be less than 450mm in diameter. LOS is defined as the service quality for a given activity. LOS are often documented as a commitment to carry out a given action or actions within a specified time frame in response to an event or asset condition data. MDW represents Municipal Data Works. A software that enables users to store data and run analytics on the data within the database. The focus for MDW is municipal infrastructure. MicroPAVER is a Pavement Maintenance Management System originally developed in the late 1970s to help the Department of Defense (DOD) manage maintenance and rehabilitation for its vast inventory of pavements. It uses inspection data and a PCI rating for predicting its maintenance and rehabilitation needs many years into the future. PACP is a Pipeline Assessment Certification Program. Used to standardize and grade pipe line inspections. PCI represent Pavement Condition Index and is a numerical index between 0 (failed) and 100 (excellent) which is used to indicate the general condition of a pavement. PHC represent Peterborough Housing Corporation for which the City of Peterborough provides annual capital subsidies under provincial legislation. Pumping Stations in sewage collection systems, also called lift stations, are normally designed to handle raw sewage that is fed from underground pipes that are sloped so that a liquid can flow in one direction under gravity. Sewage is fed into and stored in an underground pit, commonly known as a wet well. The well is equipped with electrical instrumentation to detect the level of sewage present. When the sewage level rises to a predetermined point, a pump Page 6

85 will be started to lift the sewage upward through a pressurized pipe system called a sewer force main or rising main from where the sewage is discharged into a gravity manhole. From here the cycle starts all over again until the sewage reaches its point of destination, usually a treatment plant. Tangible Capital Assets are non-financial assets having physical substance that: (i) are held for use in the production or supply of goods and services, for rental to others, for administrative purposes or for the development, construction, maintenance or repair of other tangible capital assets; (ii) have useful economic lives extending beyond an accounting period; (iii) are to be used on a continuing basis; and (iv) are not for sale in the ordinary course of operations. Trunk Sanitary Sewers are considered to be equal to or greater than 450mm in diameter. Trunk Storm Sewers are considered to be equal to or greater than 450mm in diameter. Useful Life is the estimate of either the period over which a tangible capital asset is expected to be used. The life of a tangible capital asset may extend beyond the useful life of a tangible capital asset to a government. The life of a tangible capital asset, other than land, is finite, and is normally the shortest of the physical, technological, commercial and legal life. WRC or Water Research Centre is an innovative, research-based group, providing consultancy in the water, waste and environment sectors with expertise built from over 80 years of work. It assists governments and regulatory bodies in creating soundly based regulation and helps organizations impacted by regulation (particularly water utilities, waste management companies, local authorities and their suppliers) to optimise operational efficiency and minimise risk. WWTP is a Wastewater Treatment Plant which is comprised of structures and appurtenances which receive the discharge of a sanitary drainage system and which are designed to bring about a reduction in the organic and bacterial content of the waste so as to render it less offensive or dangerous. The process that removes the majority of the contaminants from wastewater or sewage and produces both a liquid effluent suitable for disposal to the natural environment and a sludge. Page 7

86