County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan - Review

Transcription

1 2013 County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan December 18, 2013

2 Capital Asset Management Plan Preface The County of Peterborough owns, operates, and maintains a wide ranging inventory of tangible capital assets. These assets form the foundation for the provision of core services to residents and visitors to our area. While County departments have always engaged in detailed long-term planning for the acquisition, maintenance and replacement of the assets under their stewardship, the efficiencies and financial benefits of pulling these various departmental activities into a comprehensive, integrated strategy have given rise to the development of this document. It is no secret that Ontario s municipalities collectively are struggling to find the financial wherewithal to support the massive needs created by ageing infrastructure. This plan seeks to identify what we have, what condition it is in, and what the anticipated needs are to maintain our infrastructure as we move forward. It will also discuss estimates regarding future needs both from the perspective of preserving existing infrastructure and also anticipated future new asset acquisitions and capacity enhancements. This document represents Phase 1 of the final Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP). Phase 1 will focus on roads and engineered structures (bridges, culverts and associated attributes). Phase 2 of the plan, scheduled for completion in 2014, will encompass the County s remaining assets, primarily facilities and rolling stock. A CAMP is a living document. During the County s annual budget process, projects are identified and prioritized based on various factors. These prioritizing factors include, condition assessments, risk, service delivery requirements, and financial means. It should be noted that the status of these factors does change over time. A road may deteriorate faster or slower than expected, a bridge may be unexpectedly damaged, or traffic volumes may increase resulting in greater than expected wear. The plan must adapt to these changing conditions. Acknowledging this fact, once Phase 2 is completed the CAMP will be reviewed biennially and updated leading up to, and as part of the budget process. Actual asset condition reviews are performed on an on-going rotational basis with a complete cycle completed biannually.

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 4 Establishing Infrastructure Goals... 7 County s Vision Statement... 7 Asset Management Plan Mission Statement:... 8 Asset Management Plan Goals and Objectives:... 8 Implementation Decision Hierarchy... 9 Asset Management Implementation Hierarchy Asset Maintenance Schedule of Winter Control Budgets, Actual Expenditures and PW Working Funds Reserve Balances 2005 to Schedule of Winter Control Budget vs. Actual 2010 to State of the County s Infrastructure Inventory Linear Assets Roads Condition Inspections Linear Assets Roads County of Peterborough Roads Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Map Risk Assessment Engineered Structures Bridges/Culverts Bridge Improvement Need s Summary Culvert Improvement Needs Summary Growth and Capacity Enhancement Planned Actions Financing Strategy Option A Schedule of Finance Plan Project Summary and Plan Funding Sources Option A - Reserve Continuity Schedule based on Finance Plan Option B - Schedule of Finance Plan Project Summary and Plan Funding Sources Conclusions: Appendices... 42

4 Executive Summary The Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure released its 10-year infrastructure plan, Building Together, in June of Asset Management will be the foundation of this strategy. Asset management will allow needs to be prioritized over wants. It will help ensure that investments are made at the right time to minimize future repair and rehabilitation costs and maintain municipal assets. The vision of the province is to have municipalities move toward standardization and consistency in municipal asset management. The first step is requiring any municipality seeking provincial capital funding to prepare a detailed asset management plan and show how its proposed projects fits within it. As part of this process, municipalities will need to demonstrate how they themselves are assisting financially with the proposed project, including engaging with Infrastructure Ontario. To be eligible for funding consideration under the Province s current Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative (MIII) program, the County of Peterborough must complete its asset management plan dealing with roads and bridges by December 31, Subsequent additions to the plan to include fleet and facilities must be complete by December 31, Peterborough County s assets include approximately 1,430 lane kilometres of paved roadway and 156 engineered structures (including bridges and culverts with spans equal to or greater than 6 metres). Asset Management includes the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance for this infrastructure. The Council of the County of Peterborough has long recognized that we have a significant deficit in both the condition and funding of our roads and bridge infrastructure. While successive Councils have contributed more funding and personnel to deal with this deficit, it is recognized that the gap continues to grow. This Capital Asset Management Plan will quantify the extent of our deficit and funding issue and work towards establishing a plan that will lead the County to a more sustainable future. The Asset Management Process seeks to define: What we own? (Inventory) What is it worth? (Valuation) Where is it located? How we operate? (Service Level) What is its condition? (Risk of failure/consequences of failure) What do we need to do? (Construct, maintain, or replace) How much will it cost and how will it be funded? (Financial plan) County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 1

5 The CAMP has incorporated the philosophy expressed in the County s Strategic Plan, Vision Statement, Transportation Plan and Update, and Sustainability Plan and developed a Mission Statement for the Asset Management Plan to reflect this. The purpose of asset management is to help preserve, protect and enhance the quality of life in the County of Peterborough by systematically managing the County s assets in an efficient, effective, and sustainable manner. The plan itself will be updated annually and will play an integral role in the County s annual budget process. Monetary and staffing level constraints play a key factor in the quantity of capital works that can be completed in a given year. As a result, projects may have to be rescheduled to accommodate the reality of circumstances at the time. The decision over which projects are to be completed and which deferred, will be driven by the assets overall condition assessment, prioritization based on risk factors, the availability of funds, and staff work load capacity, all subject to the approval of County Council. The CAMP utilizes all of the tools that are available to staff to maximize the life of the County infrastructure; maintenance, capital rehabilitation and replacement, including pavement preservation, short-term and long-term financial planning, reserve planning and forecasting, and introducing the use of debt financing. The plan does not include factors that are unknown, such as utilization of annual operating surpluses, future financial assistance from the province or any future infrastructure funding initiatives. Every section of road and every structure within the County transportation network are inspected every two years to ensure that legislative requirements are observed and up to date information is available for reliable decision making. Staff has developed a policy related to this, PW 6, which is attached as an appendix to this plan. The data captured from these inspections provides the basis for decision making as to which projects are recommended to County Council on an annual basis as part of the Public Works Department 10-Year Forecast and subsequent annual budgets. County Council has always in the past, and will continue in the future to make all final decisions related to this process. The County s road and bridge infrastructure is in relatively good condition and all roads and bridges currently are in a state of safe repair. On occasion, a structure may have a load limit placed on it as a result of need of repair, and there are always sections of County roads that require maintenance. Having stated this, there is always room for improvement. This plan will help to demonstrate where improvements can be made, from both a functional maintenance and a financial perspective. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 2

6 Financial models are included in this plan which give examples of how Council s decisions will impact the state of the County infrastructure. These models are presented to demonstrate to Council what the impact of their decisions is, not to make the decisions for Council. It is clear however, that maintaining the status quo is an option that will result in a long-term decline in the condition of the County s roads and bridges. Without financial assistance from the province, whether by annual funding mechanisms such as a program similar to the Federal Gas Tax funding program or by the institution of a sustainable version of the MIII infrastructure funding program, successive County Councils will have only the County tax levy available as a source for the required funds. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 3

7 Introduction The Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure released its 10-year infrastructure plan, Building Together, in June The then Provincial Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Transportation the Honourable Bob Chiarelli in his letter of introduction to the plan, recognized the need for all levels of government to work together to develop an infrastructure strategy. The Minister went on to note in his letter, Asset Management will be the foundation of the strategy. Asset management will allow needs to be prioritized over wants. It will help ensure that investments are made at the right time to minimize future repair and rehabilitation costs and maintain municipal assets. We are moving toward standardization and consistency in municipal asset management. The first step is requiring any municipality seeking provincial capital funding to prepare a detailed asset management plan and show how its proposed projects fits within it. As part of this process, municipalities will need to demonstrate how they themselves are assisting financially with the proposed project, including engaging with Infrastructure Ontario 1. (Refer to the Letter from the Minister of Infrastructure contained within the Building Together Guide in the appendices to this plan). Recognizing the significant workload Ontario s Municipalities are already labouring under, the Ministry has limited the mandatory scope for the initial CAMP to include: roads, bridges, water, wastewater, and social housing infrastructure. To be eligible for funding consideration under the Province s current Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative (MIII) program, this portion of the CAMP must be completed by December 31, This is herein designated Phase 1. Other aspects of municipal infrastructure are to be introduced into the plan in subsequent years until the plan constitutes a comprehensive representation of the municipality s total register of tangible capital assets, herein designated Phase 2. Phase 1 of our CAMP is to be completed prior to December 31, Phase 2 is scheduled for completion by December 31, The above two phase approach to the completion of the County s Capital Asset Management Plan was presented in a report to Council August 7, Council received the information and by resolution, approved the approach. (The Capital Asset Management Plan authorization report to Council is included in the appendices for your reference.) 1 Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is a crown corporation wholly owned by the Province of Ontario and established by the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Act, 2011 that defines its responsibilities to its shareholder. IO is guided by Provincial Capital Plans, which build on the success of the ReNew Ontario and the Province s Building a Better Tomorrow framework. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 4

8 The County of Peterborough, located approximately 125 kilometres north-east of the Great Toronto Area, is an upper tier municipality covering over 376,928 hectares of some of the most picturesque rural landscape in Ontario. The County consists of eight lower tier municipalities, Asphodel-Norwood, Cavan Monaghan, Douro-Dummer, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Municipality of Trent Lakes, North Kawartha, Otonabee- South Monaghan, and Selwyn Township and is bordered by the neighboring municipalities of City of Kawartha Lakes (to the west), Haliburton County (to the north), Northumberland County (to the south), and Hastings County (to the east). County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 5

9 Just 90 minutes from Toronto and three and half hours from Ottawa, Peterborough County offers all the benefits of a rural life style without sacrificing availability to large metropolitan centers. The County s natural beauty has long made it a destination of choice for outdoor enthusiasts, vacationers, and tourists from all over the world. With 56,235 permanent residents comprising 32,879 households, Peterborough County embodies a vibrant mix of industry, commerce, agriculture, and tourism. Peterborough County s assets include approximately 1,430 lane kilometres of paved roadway and 156 engineered structures (including bridges and culverts with spans equal to or greater than 6 metres). Storm water drainage systems are treated as features of the road assets and maintained, refurbished, or replaced as part of road works programs, or, as their condition assessment dictates. This core infrastructure forms the backbone upon which the quality of life enjoyed by our permanent residents is built. Without it, commerce would slow or grind to a halt, tourism would cease, and our economic survival would fall into jeopardy. It is not overstating the importance of our infrastructure to say it is the very substance of our survival. It should be no surprise then, maintaining it in good order is a high priority to the community. Asset Management includes the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure used by the municipality to provide core community services. It s not a new concept. The development and maintenance of infrastructure assets has been a primary function of local government since its inception. In Canada, municipalities such as the County of Peterborough build, operate, and maintain the majority of the country s infrastructure. Maintaining that infrastructure has become a significant challenge. Nationwide studies indicate an estimated aggregate infrastructure funding deficit in excess of $120 billion. Peterborough County is not immune to this challenge. Successive County budgets have sought to push more and more of our resources to address infrastructure needs, but for the most part it seems the best we can accomplish is prevent the existing significant deficit from increasing. That being said, this Capital Asset Management Plan will quantify the extent of our funding issue and work towards establishing a sustainable future infrastructure model. Recently, County Council adopted a strategy to establish reserve benchmarks and an annual scheduled review of the County s discretionary reserves (Council report included in the appendices for your reference). Through this review process, Council has taken affirmative action to ensure every available dollar of financial resource is channeled to County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 6

10 address the most urgent long term planning needs; to mitigate exposure to risk; and, is dedicated to meeting Council s long term strategic objectives. While the annual reserve review process will not in itself eliminate our outstanding infrastructure funding shortfall, it does establish a transparent, objective process that ensures tax dollars are deployed to their maximum advantage. Infrastructure is the big winner in this process. The annual review of reserves affords Council the opportunity to ensure any existing reserve funds not needed to achieve the objectives of the home department, or any year end surplus amounts in excess of operational needs may be directed in support of infrastructure or other key strategic objectives. The Asset Management Process seeks to define: What we own? (Inventory) What is it worth? (Valuation) Where is it located? How we operate? (Service Level). What is its condition? (Risk of failure/consequences of failure). What do we need to do? (Construct, maintain, or replace). How much will it cost and how will it be funded? (Financial plan). The process will also discuss the potential for future service expansion and how that may impact future legislators and their constituents. Establishing Infrastructure Goals In 2012, County Council undertook a formal strategic planning process. The outcome from that undertaking was the County of Peterborough Strategic Plan (SP) (refer appendices for a copy of the Strategic Plan). As noted in the SP, The intent of this Strategic Plan Document is to provide a framework to guide the strategic direction of the County of Peterborough. It is intended to be a flowing and evolving document that is re-visited, re-assessed and re-aligned annually with changing priorities, legislation and requirements. It is further intended to provide a common and shared purpose and direction for all Peterborough County Council and staff. The SP, by design, reflects the guiding principles embodied in the County s vision statement, first adopted over 20-years ago: County s Vision Statement Peterborough County is a very special place for people, where planning and stewardship protect a diverse landscape, lifestyle and sense of community. To achieve this vision, the County will: Respect and protect its traditions of rural lifestyle County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 7

11 Maintain and enhance its quality of life through managed orderly growth and development Protect the integrity of the environment Preserve and promote the County s heritage and culture Provide an efficient, helpful, cost-effective form of County Government The County s Vision Statement was adopted by County Council at its meeting of September 4th, During the strategic planning process, Council established a set of goals, thereby giving the vision a more quantifiable face, reflecting the values that drive our priorities and culture. The goals established were as follows: Fiscal Responsibility Communications/Strategic Relations Physical Infrastructure/Facilities Effective Governance Environmental Sustainability To align this Capital Asset Management Plan with Council s strategic goals, the plan s development team has formulated an Asset Management Plan Mission Statement and set of goals to guide the plan s development. Asset Management Plan Mission Statement: The purpose of asset management is to help preserve, protect and enhance the quality of life in the County of Peterborough by systematically managing the County s assets in an efficient, effective, and sustainable manner. Asset Management Plan Goals and Objectives: To develop this plan, a number of goals were identified that the plan should satisfy. 1. To provide levels of service that meets the needs of the community. 2. To provide an Asset Management process that is effective, achievable, and efficient. 3. To enable the collection, coordination, sharing and communication of information. 4. To develop operating, maintenance and capital financial plans that supports the defined level of service. 5. To manage the assets in a sustainable manner. With the development of the CAMP, the County of Peterborough has embarked on the formalization of a comprehensive asset management system. While asset planning has been extensively conducted by each department in the past, the CAMP moves to consolidate those efforts and tie the asset planning process into the broader County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 8

12 organizational strategic goals. It is no secret, maintaining the vast infrastructure under the County s stewardship is a monumental undertaking. Addressing ever increasing long range infrastructure needs while managing mounting pressures to control spending and thus limit the tax burden has resulted in a veritable perfect storm. The CAMP seeks to pull all relevant asset information into one overriding plan and in doing so, create a roadmap by which elected officials and staff may prioritize and evaluate future asset related activities. The financial component of the plan will provide a long term perspective on the financial pressures facing the municipality as it moves forward to maintain current assets and plan for anticipated service delivery enhancements in the years ahead. Our Public Works (PW) Department completes a comprehensive round of asset condition ratings every two years. Roads are inspected by PW Technical Services staff, while bridges and larger engineered structures inspections are outsourced to a licensed private engineering consultant. Inspection information is uploaded to our WorkTech Manager Asset Management software system annually as each round of inspections is completed. The condition information will be updated to the Asset Management Plan biennially, commensurate with the completion of each full round of scheduled inspection activity and in compliance with the legislative requirements. The plan prioritizes infrastructure work with consideration for the risk evaluation for each asset. A risk factor is consolidated into the overall evaluation and prioritization process through our Asset Management software system. The plan itself will be updated biennially and its recommendations will play an integral role in the County s annual budget process. Monetary and staffing level constraints play a key factor in the quantity of capital works that can be completed in a given year. As a result, projects may have to be rescheduled to accommodate the reality of the prevailing current circumstances. The decision regarding which projects are to be completed and which deferred will be driven by the asset s overall condition assessment, prioritization based on risk factors, the availability of funds, and staff work load capacity. All plan proposals are ultimately subject to the approval of County Council, usually through the annual budget process. Implementation Decision Hierarchy Asset management implementations are received, enacted and actualized following the County s governance model. The decision matrix is shown below in hierarchical order. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 9

13 Asset Management Implementation Hierarchy Warden and Council Chieif Administrative Officer (CAO) Director of Public Works Director of Finance/Treasurer Director of Facilties, Procurements, and Communications Manager of Technical Services Manager of Operations Manager of Environmental Services Deputy Treasurer Purchasing Clerk Changes to the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) guidelines that came into effect for municipal financial reporting at the end of 2009, required that municipalities develop a comprehensive inventory of assets, determine their historical cost and accumulated amortization, and calculate the net book value. This was an enormous task requiring several years in completion but it has served to lay the groundwork for the CAMP. From that process, the County developed a comprehensive register of tangible capital assets and related financial information. The information required to be PSAB compliant at the end of 2009 was primarily backward looking. It took into account historical cost (or reasonable estimate where necessary), annual amortization, accumulated amortization and the resultant current net book value of assets. The CAMP on the other hand, takes the PSAB information and looks forward introducing life expectancy based on actual asset condition, expected rates of deterioration, future required service levels, and estimated future replacement costs (based on engineering forecasts). Asset Maintenance Maintenance plays a significant role in asset management. A good maintenance plan prolongs the life of an asset and reduces overall life cycle costs. In 2009, the County introduced a pavement preservation program that was designed to capitalize on the value of doing the right maintenance at the right time. Pavement preservation is a departure from the traditional approach to road asset management. The fundamentals of a pavement preservation program however are not County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 10

14 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) drastically different from our traditional approach roads are inspected and rated on a biennial basis and a capital program is developed. What is different under the pavement preservation program is the type of treatments that are selected and the point in an asset s life that they are applied. The goal of pavement preservation is to apply less expensive treatments while the asset is still in reasonably good condition to extend the overall service life of the road. These treatments are applied more often over the life of the asset than traditional practices dictated but because of the substantially lower cost than major reconstruction work, the overall life cycle costs are reduced. Because the treatments are applied more frequently, the condition of the asset is also maintained at a consistently higher level than under a traditional approach. In recent times, more progressive road authorities including the Ministry of Transport of Ontario (MTO) have recognized the benefits of pavement preservation techniques and are incorporating these treatment practices into their asset management plan. The following chart demonstrates how the application of preservation techniques prolongs the life expectancy of the road. Various condition levels of the road, expressed as its pavement condition index (PCI) 2 trigger maintenance activities. If performed when indicated, each of these maintenance activities, in turn, prolongs the remaining useful life of the road. Performance Curve (based on Pavement Condition Index, PCI) Trigger for Crack Sealing Target level of service for average network condition Trigger level for overlay (mill and fill) Minimum acceptable level of service Pavement age / years 2 The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical index between 0 and 100 which is used to indicate the general condition of pavement. It is widely used in transportation civil engineering. It is a statistical measure and requires manual survey of the pavement. PCI surveying processes and calculation methods have been standardized by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for both roads and airport pavements. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 11

15 Because of the inherent long-term nature of assets, good asset management can maximize the utility provided to our residents by infrastructure well into the County s future. It also affords the opportunity to achieve cost savings by spotting deterioration early and taking action to rehabilitate or renew the asset, thus deferring the need for expensive major reconstruction (see illustration following). While these illustrations are directed specifically at roads, the principle of proper maintenance applied at the appropriate time is applicable to all assets. This CAMP adopts a full lifecycle approach to asset planning, incorporating preventative and corrective maintenance best practices as part of the basic model. Following is a schedule of budget vs. actual capital and maintenance expenditures over the past three years. At the time phase 1 of this plan was prepared, 2013 actual figures were not known. They will be updated when phase 2 of the plan is undertaken in The maintenance figures shown are net of winter control expenditures which are discussed later in this document. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 12

16 Schedule of Budgeted to Actual Roads, Bridges/Culverts Expenditures Roads, Bridges/Culverts Asset Capital + Maintenance Expenditures Year Roads - Budgeted Expenditures Capital Expenditures Maintenance Expenditures Total Roads Capital + Maintenance Capital Expenditures Maintenance Expenditures Total Roads Capital + Maintenance $ $ $ $ 2010 $ 4,724,000 $ 2,147,300 $ 6,871,300 $ 5,366,454 $ 2,505,756 7,872, $ 4,498,000 $ 2,422,300 $ 6,920,300 $ 4,985,930 $ 2,766,016 7,751, $ 6,125,000 $ 2,420,300 $ 8,545,300 $ 4,971,470 $ 2,865,624 7,837, $ 6,618,892 $ 2,581,900 $ 9,200,792 - Bridges/Culverts - Budgeted Expenditures Total Roads Capital Maintenance Capital + Expenditures Expenditures Maintenance 2010 $ 4,090,000 $ 360,400 4,450, $ 1,720,000 $ 458,400 2,178, $ 1,860,000 $ 478,400 2,338, $ 1,956,000 $ 478,400 2,434,400 Total Budgeted Roads, Bridges / Culverts Summary Roads, Bridges/Culverts Total Actual Roads, Bridges / Culverts Bridges/Culverts - Actual Expenditures Total Roads Capital Maintenance Capital + Expenditures Expenditures Maintenance $ $ 397,415 $ 3,165,347 $ $ 561,123 $ 1,891,657 $ $ $ 2,767,932 $ 1,330,534 $ $ 1,844,476 $ 440,079 2,284,555 $ - % Actual costs (over)/under Budget % Budgeted Increase / (Decrease) over Previous Year 2010 $ 11,321,700 $ 11,037, % 9.35% 2011 $ 9,098,700 $ 9,643, % % 2012 $ 10,883,700 $ 10,121, % 19.62% 2013 $ 11,635,192 $ % Roads - Actual Expenditures In 2010 the Build Canada and Infrastructure Stimulus funding packages, jointly funded by the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal levels of government contributed significantly to temporarily reduce infrastructure pressures. Municipalities lack the financial means to maintain this level of service however, resulting in a drop in budgeted capital works expenditures from 2011 to 2012 as evidenced above. While winter control costs are not generally associated directly with the maintenance of an asset, winter control has relevance to any discussion around asset costs in so much as it consumes available financial and employee resources. It is important that winter control activities be performed to industry standards to ensure the safety of the public, limit the liability of the municipality and to minimize the impact of weather conditions County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 13

17 upon our infrastructure. As such, winter control has an immediacy that overrides other planned activity priorities. Severe weather conditions over the years 2005 through 2008 drove the Public Works Working Funds Reserve into a severe deficit condition. Over the period of 2009 to date, increased winter control budgeting, along with more favourable weather conditions have allowed this deficit situation to be rectified. Public Works Working Funds reserves are now restored to a state of reasonable health. By maintaining the current winter control budget levels and with the support of a healthy Working Funds Reserve, the County seeks to favourably position itself against future fluctuations in winter control demands. In recent years, end of period winter control surpluses have been sufficient to not only maintain adequate PW Working Funds Reserves, but to also allow funds to be redirected to help bolster PW capital project funding through the Long Term Planning reserve accounts. In this way, the County has endeavoured to maximize the benefit of every available dollar of funding to the area of greatest need and of potentially highest risk. The following chart illustrates the comparison between winter control budgeted amounts, actual expenditures, and the PW Working Funds Reserve balances from 2005 through Schedule of Winter Control Budgets, Actual Expenditures and PW Working Funds Reserve Balances 2005 to 2012 County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 14

18 Schedule of Winter Control Budget vs. Actual 2010 to Roads - Winter Control Expenditures Winter Year Control Budget ,360, ,491, ,491, $ 4,491,000 Winter Control Actual $ $ 2,348,061 $ $ 3,073,601 $ $ 3,099,201 The winter control figures above provide a glimpse into some of the other pressures placed upon municipal resources. Winter control is an immediate, must-do activity and we are entirely at the mercy of an external and largely unpredictable factor. While County legislators consistently push as many financial resources as possible to support infrastructure, elements like winter control can never be underestimated. State of the County s Infrastructure Inventory Having an accurate, up-to-date inventory of assets is essential in the development of any asset management plan. As previously noted, an exhaustive review and cataloging of assets was undertaken to meet the updated PSAB financial reporting standards, effective December 31, Since that time, assets have been tracked and updated through the financial system on an as-happens basis. All asset transactions are reviewed annually by County Finance staff and as part of the municipality s annual financial audit requirements. To ensure the accuracy of data, County Public Works Technical Services staff undertook an exhaustive review of all linear assets and engineering structures in Their review included verification of the asset s existence, geographical and quantitative description, attributes, and condition status. The Technical Service team s results were compared to the finance system data and any updates or revisions were loaded into both the County s financial and asset management software. The County s Tangible Capital Asset Policy FI-25 qualifies the treatment of tangible capital assets based on their cost. In this policy, bridges (including long span culverts) with a cost equal to, or great than $50,000, civil infrastructure systems (built assets such as roads, storm sewers, transit, parks, etc.) with a value equal to, or greater than $200,000, and all other items with a cost equal to, or great than $5,000 qualify for capitalization. (Policy FI-25 is included in the appendix to this document for reference.) County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 15

19 Engineered Structures Bridges and Large Span Culverts The County has an inventory of 130 bridges in its transportation system. At the end of 2012, their net book value totaled $14,457,983. The amortization expensed for bridges in 2012 was $337,772. The accumulated amortization for bridges to the end of 2012 was $5,538,021. These statistics have been updated to reflect structures uploaded from the lower tier municipalities to the upper tier in There are 26 long span culverts in the County s roads network bringing the total number of bridges and long span culverts to 156 units. This includes culverts that were uploaded to the upper tier in The long span culverts had a net book value of $256,947 at the end of Long span culverts are culverts with expanses equal to, or greater than 3 metres on County roads, and 6 metres on township roads. Their amortization expense for 2012 was $11,608 and their accumulated amortization was $289,571 by the end of While the PW Technical Services teams tracks a much higher number of culverts, only those that are greater in span than 3 metres on County roads, and 6 metres on township roads and have a historical cost greater than $49,999 are considered a tangible capital asset. Culverts of less than 3 metres in span are maintained as part of the annually budgeted operational activities. Actual maintenance and reconstruction decisions for engineered structures are prioritized based on condition assessments, risk factors, and service delivery criteria. The financial depreciation period is estimated at the time the asset is acquired or reconstructed and amortization is calculated annually using the straight line method. This may not coincide exactly with the remaining useful life determined through engineering estimates which are revised based on biennial condition inspections. (A complete inventory of the Engineered Structures is provided in the appendices for your information). Linear Assets Roads At the end of 2012, the County of Peterborough s road network consisted of approximately 715 kilometres (or 1,430 lane kilometres) of paved roadways. The net book value of these assets was $63,347,589. All of the County s roads have paved surfaces of either asphalt or surface treated composition. There are no loose surface carriageways. There are a limited number of storm sewers and storm catch basins within our transportation network. These items are treated as features of the roadway and are refurbished or replaced in conjunction with work being performed on the road segment in which they are located. The net book value of these units at the end of 2012 was $1,799,758. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 16

20 Traffic lights and signals add to the value of the roads system and are also treated as a feature of the road segment in which they are located. These units are monitored regularly by PW staff and updated or replaced based on their condition, reliability, and level of service. The net book value of these devices was $352,838 at the end of The amortization recorded for roads in 2012 was $5,003,204. The total accumulated amortization for roads was $56,763,391 as at the end of County Linear Assets - Roads and Engineered Structures Net Book Value as at December 31, 2012 Net Book Value Dec 31, 2012 Total Net Book Value Dec 31, 2012 Roads Base $ 39,722,123 Surface $ 23,625,466 $ 63,347,589 Storm Sewers and Catch Basins Storm Sewers $ 955,193 Catch Basins $ 844,565 $ 1,799,758 Traffic Lights $ 352,838 Engineered Structures Bridges $ 14,457,983 Culverts $ 256,947 $ 14,714,930 Et Al $ 80,215,115 Condition Inspections Linear Assets Roads County Public Works Technical Services staff complete an inspection of the entire road network operated by the County on a biennial basis. Their inspections are directed by the distress evaluation PCI system developed by the MTO and the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA). The results of the PCI based inspections are used to assist in determining the need and timing for road rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. It provides the basis for the development of the 10-year construction program. As of the last inspection round completed in 2013, the County s road network is broken down into wearing surfaces types as follows: km (25%) of surface treated roadways km (5%) of hot mix urban roadways km (70%) of hot mix rural roadways County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 17

21 The County uses PCI rating to divide the road network into 5 condition ratings; Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor. The classifications are broken down as follows: Classification PCI Very Good 86 to 100 Good 76 to 85 Fair 56 to 75 Poor 50 to 55 Very Poor 00 to 49 The results of the 2013 PCI survey are presented in the table below. This table also provides the results from the 2011 completed round of inspections for comparison purposes. PCI Range Timing of Needs 2011 PCI 2011 km 2013 PCI 2013 km 0-49 Now (reconstruct) 4.4% % Now ( Rehabilitate) 2.9% % Years 40.6% % Years 21.9% % Adequate 30.3% % Total The following charts graphically illustrate the proportionate distribution of Count y roads by PCI index and provide comparative representations for the last two complete inspection rounds, in 2011 and County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 18

22 The year-over-year percentage increase in the 1-5 Year needs shown above should be noted as an area of concern, along with the corresponding decrease in the Very Good PCI category. In 2011, 92.71% of the County s roads were classified as Fair to Very Good. When a complete round of evaluations had been completed in 2013, that group had increased by 1.2% bringing it to 93.91% in total. The significant growth in the Fair group may be attributed to this shift in statistic. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 19

23 Projects are selected from the 10-year forecast and recommended to the annual budget discussion based on an evaluation of each asset s PCI condition assessment and associated risk factor. The realities of available funding however, limit the number of projects undertaken annually. Appendix 11 to this document provides details on the complete road inventory by: road section number unique section identifier; description of the road section designated County road number, from and to; road length length of the section measured in kilometres; maintenance service class per O. Reg. 239/02; asset class classification established under the Transportation Master Plan; 2013 PCI value as measured per the OGRA format for pavement conditions. Following is a map of the County of Peterborough s roads, showing the road network s PCI by physical location. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 20

24 County of Peterborough Roads Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Map County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 21

25 PCI data is uploaded into the Public Works Asset Management software system. This management tool allows County Technical Services staff to conduct a number of checks and balances aimed at verifying the consistency and validity of data. The system also uses, inventory, condition rating, and risk assessment data to develop costing models aimed at evaluating both current network needs and estimating the future cost and timing of rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The output from the asset management system formulate the basis for the development of the Public Works 10- year construction and project forecast, as well at this asset management plan. Various pavement rehabilitation strategies are available to the road building industry for the renewal or preservation of deficient road sections that have been identified through the completion of the biennial PCI survey. Unit rates per kilometer of the rehabilitation strategies are updated annually based on local market conditions for engineering construction materials (sewer, watermain, asphalt, etc.) construction costs. Following is a table of High Class Bituminous (HCB) and Low Class Bituminous (LCB) surface treatment improvement types and costs. It is provided to illustrate the rates of the various rehabilitation strategies that may be considered when assessing improvements for deficient road sections. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 22

26 Risk Assessment As part of the County s risk assessment process undertaken during the preparation of the construction program, consideration is made as to the function of the individual road sections relative to the overall purpose of the County s regional road network in relation to the roadway classification system established under the Transportation Master Plan: County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 23

27 Class A roadway - major County arterial - connections to Provincial highway system - higher travel speeds - higher traffic volumes - frequent heavy trucks - low consideration for land access Class B roadway minor County arterial - connections to major arterials and collectors - high travel speeds - lower traffic volumes - infrequent heavy trucks - some consideration for land access Class C roadway County collector - connections to local road network - low traffic volumes - few heavy trucks - high consideration for land access From the established road classifications, deterioration profiles are developed that are reflective of the function of the roadway, the characteristics of the traffic and the anticipated impact of the selected rehabilitation technique to be implemented based on the condition index of the road section. Pavement sections deteriorate at varying rates as the result of a number of influencing factors, including traffic loading, subsoil conditions, and other parameters. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 24

28 In order to maintain the road network to the desired pavement condition (level of service) established by County of Peterborough Council, investment in infrastructure should be established and sustained over the 10 year horizon of the CAMP. The following chart provides an estimate of the investment required during that 10 year period along with the corresponding PCI that would result from the level of investment. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 25

29 System Generated Projected Funding to Support Roads PCI Levels Council will establish the service level targets to be maintained for the maintenance of transportation infrastructure and will determine levels of funding required to sustain those targets. The preparation of updates to the CAMP and the 10 Year Construction Forecast results in a high level review of planned improvements to the transportation network. Every project is then subject to evaluation through the preparation of the annual budget request submitted to County of Peterborough Council. Engineered Structures Bridges/Culverts Municipalities are mandated by Provincial regulations to inspect each bridge (and qualifying culvert) at least once every two years. The inspections are to be done under the direction of a professional engineer. Each inspection is to be conducted in compliance with Ontario Regulation 104/97 Standards for Bridges, following the Municipal Bridge Appraisal System (MBADES). The resulting inspection report when completed provides an accredited professional engineer s certification of the structural integrity, safety, as determined by the performance of at least one physical inspection of each structure. The County of Peterborough contracts an independent consulting engineer to complete an inspection of each of our bridges/culverts once every two years. The results of those inspections are uploaded into the Public Works asset management system and formulate the basis for the prioritization and cost modeling relating to the replacement and rehabilitation of our bridge structures. The output from the asset management system provides the data used to prioritize which projects will be forwarded to the annual budget. While condition and risk generate the list of potential projects, the reality of available staffing and funding dictates the quantity of work undertaken in each fiscal period. County PW Technical Services staff also conducts their own visual inspections of the structure to validate and better understand the findings contained in the engineer s report. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 26

30 Unit rates for the rehabilitation of various structural elements are updated annually by the consulting engineer based on local market conditions for engineering construction materials costs for such items as concrete, asphalt, labour, equipment rates, etc. The most recently completed consulting engineer s report provides a projection of the funding needs for County bridges & culverts over the next 10 years summarized in the following table: Bridges & Culverts 2013 Estimated 10-Year Rehabilitation Costs NOW 1-5 years 6-10 years Total Bridges $ 19,185,000 $ 11,816,000 $ 2,338,000 $ 33,339,000 Culverts $ 236,000 $ 1,695,000 $ 34,000 $ 1,965,000 $ 19,421,000 $ 13,511,000 $ 2,372,000 $ 35,304,000 It is important to highlight that the Needs noted in the consulting engineer s report reflect the total deficiencies on each structure in relation to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), particularly those shown in the Now category. Many components of a structure or the entire structure itself may not meet the requirements of the CHBDC, but this does not necessarily mean that immediate rectification of the issue is required. For example, if a bridge deck on a structure with a low traffic volume is under-sized, it will not meet the requirements of the CHBDC. In a practical sense, it is not likely that staff would ever recommend the widening of some bridges, so as long as the bridge deck is safe for the public, the Now Need would be considered acceptable. Staff, with the input of the consulting engineer, interpret the priority of the total needs presented in the annual MBADES reports and make the recommendation to Council as part of the annual budget process for the projects to be included for each fiscal year. County staff also makes use of the engineer s report to complete minor structure repairs. These repairs are funded through annual operational funding and constitute a significant cost mitigation strategy by extending the life of the structure between major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The schedule, chart, and graphs following provide graphic representations of the County s engineered structures needs and a comparison of those same needs at the time of the last full inspection, in County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 27

31 Comparison 2011 vs Bridge & Culvert Needs Timing of Needs 2011 Estimated Cost 2013 Estimated Cost Now $ 21,735,000 $ 19,421, years $ 14,212,000 $ 13,511, years $ 2,070,000 $ 2,372,000 Total $ 38,017,000 $ 35,304,000 The above comparison charts show work performed in 2011 and 2012 has made inroads into reducing the 10-year estimated needs for bridges and culverts. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 28

32 The following tables are excerpts from the consultant s report on bridges which provides a summary analysis of the 2013 bridge and culverts needs projected for the 10 year period. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 29

33 2013 Bridge Improvement Need s Summary (i.e. boundary road structures) 2013 Culvert Improvement Needs Summary County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 30

34 (i.e. boundary road structures) The County of Peterborough jointly operates shared boundary roads and structures under boundary agreements with adjacent municipalities. These tables reflect the net 2013 improvements needs summary of boundary road structures. Growth and Capacity Enhancement In 2013, the County of Peterborough conducted an update to the County Transportation Master Plan (2004) which will guide the County in decision making related to infrastructure improvements and enhancements, safety updates and policy and standards development for the next 20 years. To develop the Master Plan update, numerous opportunities for public and private sector engagement were provided and input from all areas was considered in the final document development. (The Transportation Master Plan has been provided in the appendices to this document for your reference). The PW Construction and Rehabilitation 10-year Capital Forecast draws upon the Transportation Master Plan to determine and prioritize growth and capacity enhancement infrastructure projects. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 31

35 Planned Actions The table below summarizes issues that have been identified and will be addressed over the term of the AMP. Further details are provided in the 10 Year Construction Forecast (See appendices). Key Indicator Issue Potential Impact Current Controls Action Plan Condition of wearing surface of 714 km of County roads Condition of County bridges and culverts Deterioration of pavement condition of County road network Deterioration of condition of bridges and culverts Adequacy rating of hard top roads will continue to worsen; rate of deterioration will accelerate beyond ability to rehabilitate, thereby requiring full road base reconstruction at 7 times the cost of rehabilitation Increased number of structures identified as requiring replacement or load restricted; bridge closures or load restrictions will result in the detouring of traffic and will extend response times of emergency service vehicles OGRA Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings are updated every 2 years through established inspection routines Condition of County structures are inspected every 2 years through established inspection routines; load limits are established by bylaw on bridges identified as warranting load capacity restrictions Annual road construction program and 10 Year Construction Forecast includes 463 km of road needs addressed (Class A km; Class B km; Class C km, see appendix to this Plan); pavement preservation techniques are utilized to balance rehabilitation needs and to place selected roads into a holding pattern until funding is available to undertake rehabilitation Annual bridge rehabilitation program and 10 Year Construction Forecast includes rehabilitation of 61 structures and replacement of 15 structures ( Oakdale Br; CR 10 culvert; CR 48 culvert; CN o/h bridge; Deer Bay culvert; McIntosh Br.; Keene Stn. Br.; Steels Br.; Girven Br.; Tully s Br.; Burnt Dam Rd. Br.; Deep River Hatchery Br.; Nichol s Cove Br.; Old Norwood Rd. Br.; County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 32

36 Key Indicator Issue Potential Impact Current Controls Action Plan Crowe River Br., see appendix to this Plan) Reduction in capacity of transportation network Deterioration of ability of transportation network to move traffic Reduced capacity of transportation network will result in travel delays on County roads, shortcutting of traffic through local roads, driver frustration and reduced level of safety Transportation Master Plan update identifies and forecasts improvements to be constructed in order to address transportation network capacity deficiencies 10 Year Construction Forecast includes capacity improvement projects to transportation network in accordance with timing identified in Transportation Master Plan; updating of the Transportation Master Plan on a regular cycle to maintain currency (Selwyn Rd. upgrade; James A. Gifford Causeway widening; Ward St. widening; Clear Zone policy implementation.; misc. intersection improvements; various EA updates, see appendix to this Plan) County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 33

37 Financing Strategy Financing for the 10-year forecast for Public Works roads, engineered structures and transportation plan is structured based on a number of assumptions. All decisions are subject to Council s deliberation during the annual budget process and may be adjusted to reflect the reality of constraints of the day. In the final analysis, all project endorsements and funding decisions are at the discretion of Council. Option A and B have been prepared to reflect the impact of increasing the levy by $720,000 per year over the term of the plan, referred to as Option A, and, increasing the levy by $540,000 per year over the term of the plan, referred to as Option B. In both instances, alternative funding sources will need to be considered in years 2018 and 2022 of the plan. Option A indicates a funding shortfall of just under $6M over the course of the 10-year forecast. Option B, indicates a total funding shortfall of $15.9M over the same 10-year period. Guidelines for the preparation of this plan restrict the inclusion of unconfirmed revenues sources. While the County has been successful in leveraging external funding through past funding initiatives undertaken by the Provincial and Federal levels of government, none of the initiatives are currently supported by legislation with the exception of the Gas Tax programs. It is inconceivable that infrastructure funding programs may alleviate the funding shortfall indicated in the plan but there are no guarantees that will happen. If no funding programs were to occur, other financing options will need to be explored including the possibility of incurring long term debt as indicated by the total annual unfinanced dollars in years 2018 and 2022 of both financing options. New funding initiatives will change the long term financing forecast for the plan and will be assimilated into future plan updates. Council s annual review of County reserves may result in funds being allocated to the Public Work Long Term Planning (LTP) reserves. The first such review is scheduled to take place during the summer of Funds allocated to the PW LTP reserves will be incorporated into the next plan update and may serve to either increase the volume of work performed or reduce the reliance to long term borrowings or alternative funding sources. Underlying Financial Plan Assumptions: The tax requirement for infrastructure is estimated to increase annually by, Option A - $720K, or, Option B - $540K540K per annum over the life of the plan. Development charges revenues are estimated to increase on an average of 2% per annum over the life of the plan. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 34

38 Future costs have been grossed up by a future value calculation utilizing a nominal 1.8% inflation factor. This will be adjusted with each plan update. Development Charges (DC) and Federal Gas Tax (FGT) funds are forecast to be utilized to the maximum level possible each year. There is no advantage to accumulating either DC or FGT funds. By 2018, available funding from all known sources, including reserve reallocations, increasing levy and DC dollars will be insufficient to fund the projects planned in the 10-year forecast. It will be necessary to pursue alternative funding options at that time including financing through long term debt. This is indicated by the total annual unfunded amounts showing in years 2018 and 2022 of both financing options. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 35

39 Option A - Schedule of Finance Plan Project Summary and Plan Funding Sources Roads, Engineered Structures and Transportation Plan 10-year Finance Strategy - Option A: $720K Levy increase each year Roads 10-year Finance Strategy Projected annual cost $ 4,479,200 $ 3,728,800 $ 3,462,500 $ 2,447,500 $ 6,001,250 $ 5,943,700 $ 5,350,650 $ 6,272,650 $ 6,544,600 $ 8,310,200 Add Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions $ - $ 527,728 $ 2,013,942 $ 1,429,724 $ 74,710 $ 685,350 $ 243,350 $ 1,547,272 $ 1,514,834 Total cost + reserve contributions $ 4,479,200 $ 3,728,800 $ 3,990,228 $ 4,461,442 $ 7,430,974 $ 6,018,410 $ 6,036,000 $ 6,516,000 $ 8,091,872 $ 9,825,034 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 4,479,200 $ 3,795,918 $ 4,116,000 $ 4,596,000 $ 7,874,871 $ 6,572,950 $ 6,640,507 $ 7,350,337 $ 9,095,853 $ 11,272, % Roads Finance Strategy Roads Capital Levy (increase by $480K annually) $ 3,156,000 $ 3,636,000 $ 4,116,000 $ 4,596,000 $ 5,076,000 $5,556,000 $6,036,000 $6,516,000 $6,996,000 $ 7,476,000 Contribution from Roads Long Term Planning Reserve $ 692,200 $ 159,918 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,016,950 $ 604,507 $ 834,337 $ 2,281,566 Contribution from Federal Gas Tax Reserve $ 631,000 $ - $ - $ 1,514,834 Contribution from Development Charges Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other funding sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Roads Financing Strategy $ 4,479,200 $ 3,795,918 $ 4,116,000 $ 4,596,000 $ 5,076,000 $ 6,572,950 $ 6,640,507 $ 7,350,337 $ 6,996,000 $ 11,272,400 Unfinanced $ - $ 0 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 2,798,871 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $ 2,099,853 -$ 0 Engineered Structures (Bridges + Long Span Culverts) Projected Annual Cost $ 2,387,614 $ 2,795,015 $ 1,681,016 $ 2,465,017 $ 2,016,018 $ 2,758,019 $ 3,710,020 $ 5,024,021 $ 3,384,022 $ 3,525,023 Add Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions $ - $ - $ 290,984 $ 300,000 $ 751,563 $ - $ - $ 27,978 $ 126,977 Total Cost + reserve contributions $ 2,387,614 $ 2,795,015 $ 1,972,000 $ 2,765,017 $ 2,767,581 $ 2,758,019 $ 3,710,020 $ 5,024,021 $ 3,412,000 $ 3,652,000 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 2,387,614 $ 2,845,325 $ 2,033,061 $ 2,900,538 $ 2,916,701 $ 3,015,339 $ 4,129,171 $ 5,692,275 $ 3,931,129 $ 4,265,944 Engineered Structures Finance Strategy 1.8% Bridges Capital Levy (increase by $240K annually) $ 1,492,000 $ 1,732,000 $ 1,972,000 $ 2,212,000 $ 2,452,000 $2,692,000 $2,932,000 $3,172,000 $3,412,000 $ 3,652,000 Contribution from ES Long Term Planning Reserve $ 100,310 $ 61,061 $ 135,521 $ 257,320 $1,172,171 $ 743,294 $ 613,944 Contribution from Federal Gas Tax Reserve $ 895,614 $ 1,013,015 $ 553,017 $ 66,019 $ 25,000 $ 1,776,981 $ 205,460 Contribution from Development Charges Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other funding sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Engineered Structures Financing Strategy $ 2,387,614 $ 2,845,325 $ 2,033,061 $ 2,900,538 $ 2,452,000 $ 3,015,339 $ 4,129,171 $ 5,692,275 $ 3,617,460 $ 4,265,944 Unfinanced $ - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 464,701 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 313,669 -$ 0 Transportation Plan Finance Strategy Projected annual cost (includes Airport Road) $ 3,020,000 $ 1,027,000 $ 3,065,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,585,000 $ 1,445,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 650,000 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 3,020,000 $ 1,045,486 $ 3,176,333 $ 1,318,722 $ 4,725,457 $ 1,749,278 $ 1,764,070 $ 1,637,202 $ 2,249,142 $ 763,209 Transportation Plan Finance Strategy 1.8% From Roads Long Term Planning Reserve $ 18,486 $ 744,056 $ 68,723 $ 2,297,424 $ 149,278 $ 179,070 $ 278,239 $ 113,208 From Eng. Struct. Long Term Planning Reserve From Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund $ 738,923 $ 319,462 $ 2,016,117 $ 825,517 $ 1,995,060 $ 1,158,368 $ 1,134,535 $ 899,488 $ 1,481,337 $ 171,963 From Development Charges Reserve Fund $ 301,719 $ 707,538 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,475 $ 468,663 $ 478,037 From Airport Road Reserve $ 1,979,358 Other Finance Sources Total Transportation Plan Finance Strategy $ 3,020,000 $ 1,045,486 $ 3,176,333 $ 1,318,723 $ 4,725,457 $ 1,749,278 $ 1,764,070 $ 1,637,202 $ 1,950,000 $ 763,208 Unfinanced $ - $ - $ 0 -$ 1 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 299,142 $ 1 Total annual unfinanced - consider debt financing $ - $ 1 $ 0 -$ 0 $ 3,263,571 $ 1 $ 1 $ 0 $ 2,712,664 $ 0 County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 36

40 Option A - Reserve Continuity Schedule based on Finance Plan Reserve & Reserve Fund Continuity Schedule Roads Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions to reserve - Public Works $ - $ - $ 527,728 $ 2,013,942 $ 1,429,724 $ 74,710 $ 685,350 $ 243,350 $ 1,547,272 $ 1,514,834 Contributions from reserve $ 692,200 $ 178,404 $ 744,056 $ 68,723 $ 2,297,424 $ 1,166,228 $ 783,577 $ 1,112,576 $ - $ 2,394,774 Reserve Closing Balance $ 1,953,223 $ 1,774,819 $ 1,558,491 $ 3,503,710 $ 2,636,010 $ 1,544,492 $ 1,446,265 $ 577,039 $ 2,124,311 $ 1,244,371 (Includes opening balance) Engineered Structures Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions to reserve - Public Works $ - $ - $ 290,984 $ 300,000 $ 751,563 $ - $ - $ - $ 27,978 $ 126,977 Contributions from reserve $ - $ 100,310 $ 61,061 $ 135,521 $ - $ 257,320 $ 1,172,171 $ 743,294 $ - $ 613,944 Reserve Closing Balance $ 2,645,423 $ 2,545,113 $ 2,775,036 $ 2,939,515 $ 3,691,078 $ 3,433,758 $ 2,261,587 $ 1,518,293 $ 1,546,271 $ 1,059,304 (Includes opening balance) Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund Contributions to reserve fund $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 Contributions from reserve fund $ 2,265,537 $ 1,332,477 $ 2,016,117 $ 1,378,534 $ 1,995,060 $ 1,224,387 $ 1,159,535 $ 2,676,469 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 Reserve Fund Closing Balance -$ 25,000 $ 329,320 $ - $ 308,263 $ - $ 462,410 $ 989,672 $ - $ - $ - (Includes opening balance) Road Development Charges Reserve Fund Contributions to reserve fund $ 400,000 $ 408,000 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,474 $ 468,664 $ 478,037 Contributions from reserve fund $ 301,719 $ 707,538 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,475 $ 468,663 $ 478,037 Roads DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance $ 299,538 $ - $ - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 (Includes opening balance) Airport Road Reserve Contributions from Reserve $ 1,979,358 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Airport Road Reserve Closing Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - (Includes opening balance) County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 37

41 Option B - Schedule of Finance Plan Project Summary and Plan Funding Sources Roads, Engineered Structures and Transportation Plan 10-year Finance Strategy - Option B - $540K Levy increase each year Roads 10-year Finance Strategy Projected annual cost $ 4,479,200 $ 3,728,800 $ 3,462,500 $ 2,447,500 $ 6,001,250 $ 5,943,700 $ 5,350,650 $ 6,272,650 $ 6,544,600 $ 8,310,200 Add Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions $ - $ 744,056 $ 1,533,942 $ 5,500,000 $ 2,000,000 Total cost + reserve contributions $ 4,479,200 $ 3,728,800 $ 4,206,556 $ 3,981,442 $ 11,501,250 $ 5,943,700 $ 5,350,650 $ 6,272,650 $ 8,544,600 $ 8,310,200 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 4,479,200 $ 3,795,918 $ 4,332,328 $ 4,116,000 $ 11,945,147 $ 6,498,240 $ 5,955,157 $ 7,106,987 $ 9,548,581 $ 9,757,566 Roads Finance Strategy 1.8% Roads Capital Levy (increase by $360K annually) $ 3,036,000 $ 3,396,000 $ 3,756,000 $ 4,116,000 $ 4,476,000 $4,836,000 $5,196,000 $5,556,000 $ 5,916,000 $6,276,000 Contribution from Roads Long Term Planning Reserve $ 812,200 $ 399,918 $ 576,328 $ - $ 1,969,147 $ 1,662,240 $ 759,157 $ 1,550,987 $ 2,079,941 Contribution from Federal Gas Tax Reserve $ 631,000 $ - $ - $ 1,401,625 Contribution from Development Charges Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other funding sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Roads Financing Strategy $ 4,479,200 $ 3,795,918 $ 4,332,328 $ 4,116,000 $ 6,445,147 $ 6,498,240 $ 5,955,157 $ 7,106,987 $ 5,916,000 $ 9,757,566 Unfinanced $ - $ 0 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 5,500,000 $ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $ 3,632,581 -$ 0 Engineered Structures (Bridges + Long Span Culverts) Projected Annual Cost $ 2,387,614 $ 2,795,015 $ 1,681,016 $ 2,465,017 $ 2,016,018 $ 2,758,019 $ 3,710,020 $ 5,024,021 $ 3,384,022 $ 3,525,023 Add Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions $ - $ - $ 290,984 $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 126,977 Total Cost + reserve contributions $ 2,387,614 $ 2,795,015 $ 1,972,000 $ 2,765,017 $ 4,016,018 $ 2,758,019 $ 3,710,020 $ 5,024,021 $ 4,384,022 $ 3,652,000 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 2,387,614 $ 2,845,325 $ 2,033,061 $ 2,900,538 $ 4,165,138 $ 3,015,339 $ 4,129,171 $ 5,692,275 $ 4,903,151 $ 4,265,944 Engineered Structures Finance Strategy 1.8% Bridges Capital Levy (increase by $180K annually) $ 1,432,000 $ 1,612,000 $ 1,792,000 $ 1,972,000 $ 2,152,000 $2,332,000 $2,512,000 $2,692,000 $ 2,872,000 $3,052,000 Contribution from ES Long Term Planning Reserve $ 85,000 $ 238,797 $ 241,061 $ 92,493 $ 617,320 $1,592,171 $1,223,294 $1,213,943 Contribution from Federal Gas Tax Reserve $ 870,614 $ 994,528 $ 836,045 $ 66,019 $ 25,000 $ 1,776,981 $ 205,460 Contribution from Development Charges Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other funding sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Engineered Structures Financing Strategy $ 2,387,614 $ 2,845,325 $ 2,033,061 $ 2,900,538 $ 2,152,000 $ 3,015,339 $ 4,129,171 $ 5,692,275 $ 3,077,460 $ 4,265,943 Unfinanced $ - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,013,138 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,825,691 $ 1 Transportation Plan Finance Strategy Projected annual cost (includes Airport Road) $ 3,020,000 $ 1,027,000 $ 3,065,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,585,000 $ 1,445,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 650,000 Adjusted for annual inflation $ 3,020,000 $ 1,045,486 $ 3,176,333 $ 1,318,722 $ 4,725,457 $ 1,749,278 $ 1,764,070 $ 1,637,202 $ 2,249,142 $ 763,209 Transportation Plan Finance Strategy 1.8% From Roads Long Term Planning Reserve $ 18,487 $ 744,056 $ 149,279 $ 179,071 $ 278,239 From Eng. Struct. Long Term Planning Reserve From Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund $ 738,923 $ 319,462 $ 2,016,117 $ 894,239 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,158,368 $ 1,134,535 $ 899,488 $ 1,481,337 $ 285,172 From Development Charges Reserve Fund $ 301,719 $ 707,538 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,475 $ 468,663 $ 478,037 From Airport Road Reserve $ 1,979,358 Other Finance Sources Total Transportation Plan Finance Strategy $ 3,020,000 $ 1,045,487 $ 3,176,333 $ 1,318,722 $ 2,119,770 $ 1,749,279 $ 1,764,071 $ 1,637,202 $ 1,950,000 $ 763,209 Unfinanced $ - -$ 1 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,605,687 -$ 1 -$ 1 $ 0 $ 299,142 -$ 0 Total annual unfinanced - consider debt financing $ - -$ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 10,118,824 -$ 0 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 5,757,414 $ 0 County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 38

42 Option B - Reserve Continuity Schedule based on Finance Plan Reserve & Reserve Fund Continuity Schedule Roads Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions to reserve - Public Works $ - $ - $ 744,056 $ 1,533,942 $ 5,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - Contributions from reserve $ 812,200 $ 418,405 $ 1,320,384 $ - $ 1,969,147 $ 1,811,519 $ 938,228 $ 1,829,226 $ - $ 2,079,941 Reserve Closing Balance $ 1,833,223 $ 1,414,818 $ 838,490 $ 2,372,432 $ 5,903,285 $ 4,091,766 $ 3,153,538 $ 1,324,312 $ 3,324,312 $ 1,244,371 (Includes opening balance) Engineered Structures Long Term Planning Reserve Contributions to reserve - Public Works $ - $ - $ 290,984 $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 126,977 Contributions from reserve $ 85,000 $ 238,797 $ 241,061 $ 92,493 $ - $ 617,320 $ 1,592,171 $ 1,223,294 $ - $ 1,213,943 Reserve Closing Balance $ 2,560,423 $ 2,321,626 $ 2,371,549 $ 2,579,056 $ 4,579,056 $ 3,961,736 $ 2,369,565 $ 1,146,271 $ 2,146,271 $ 1,059,305 (Includes opening balance) Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund Contributions to reserve fund $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 Contributions from reserve fund $ 2,240,537 $ 1,313,990 $ 2,016,117 $ 1,730,284 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,224,387 $ 1,159,535 $ 2,676,469 $ 1,686,797 $ 1,686,797 Reserve Fund Closing Balance $ - $ 372,807 $ 43,487 $ - $ - $ 462,410 $ 989,672 $ - $ - $ - (Includes opening balance) Road Development Charges Reserve Fund Contributions to reserve fund $ 400,000 $ 408,000 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,474 $ 468,664 $ 478,037 Contributions from reserve fund $ 301,719 $ 707,538 $ 416,160 $ 424,483 $ 432,973 $ 441,632 $ 450,465 $ 459,475 $ 468,663 $ 478,037 Roads DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance $ 299,538 $ - $ - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 (Includes opening balance) Airport Road Reserve Contributions from Reserve $ 1,979,358 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Airport Road Reserve Closing Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - (Includes opening balance) County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 39

43 Conclusions: If funding were not a constraining element in the Asset Management Plan an incremental $7.4M dollars annually would be required to support infrastructure. This would support an average annual roads PCI of 85 and maintain engineered structures in good condition. These additional funds would also facilitate support of the growth and capacity enhancements identified in the Transportation Master Plan, as set out in the Public Works 10-Year Construction Forecast - Transportation Plan (see appendices attached). This is based on Financing Option A with an annual $720,000 increase to the levy. If Option B is selected, this incremental funding requirement will increase by $8.4 million per year. Schedule of Projected Annual Funding Shortfall to support higher PCI ratings based on Finance Option A - $720,000 annual levy increase: PCI Index Rating Projected 10- year Funding Projected 10- Year Bridge Needs Transportation Plan Projected 10-year needs Total Projected Needs Average Annual Needs per Year Average $720K annual increase Federal Gas Tax Average annual Developm ent 2% annual increase Annual Average Estimated Funding Annual Unfunded 72.8 $ 51,721,050 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 107,017,050 $ 10,701,705 $ 7,888,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 10,012,786 $ 688, $ 59,883,150 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 115,179,150 $ 11,517,915 $ 7,888,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 10,012,786 $ 1,505, $ 68,547,361 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 123,843,361 $ 12,384,336 $ 7,888,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 10,012,786 $ 2,371, $ 80,011,250 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 135,307,250 $ 13,530,725 $ 7,888,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 10,012,786 $ 3,517, $ 118,983,450 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 174,279,450 $ 17,427,945 $ 7,888,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 10,012,786 $ 7,415,159 **** based on 2013 dollars Schedule of Projected Annual Funding Shortfall to support higher PCI ratings based on Finance Option B - $540,000 annual levy increase: PCI Index Rating Projected 10- year Funding Projected 10- Year Bridge Needs Transportation Plan Projected 10-year needs Total Projected Needs Average Annual Needs per Year Average $540K annual increase Federal Gas Tax Average annual Developm ent 2% annual increase Annual Average Estimated Funding Annual Unfunded 72.8 $ 51,721,050 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 107,017,050 $ 10,701,705 $ 6,898,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 9,022,786 $ 1,678, $ 59,883,150 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 115,179,150 $ 11,517,915 $ 6,898,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 9,022,786 $ 2,495, $ 68,547,361 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 123,843,361 $ 12,384,336 $ 6,898,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 9,022,786 $ 3,361, $ 80,011,250 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 135,307,250 $ 13,530,725 $ 6,898,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 9,022,786 $ 4,507, $ 118,983,450 $ 35,304,000 $ 19,992,000 $ 174,279,450 $ 17,427,945 $ 6,898,000 $ 1,686,797 $ 437,989 $ 9,022,786 $ 8,405,159 **** based on 2013 dollars County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 40

44 System Generated Projected Funding to Support Roads PCI Levels Our current average road PCI is approximately 78. By implementing Option A of the finance plan, we will be able to support a PCI of approximately 73 over the course of this 10-year forecast. While great strides were made during the Build Canada and Infrastructure Stimulus joint Federal, Provincial, Municipal funding initiatives, maintaining those levels of service without external support is problematic. Even with significant annual levy increases, it is anticipated that our current condition level will erode to a minor extent while our annual own source funding gradually ramps up.ensure all identified activities of the 10-year plan are funded, additional monies will be required through either external funding opportunities and/or long term debt financing. While debt financing has not traditionally been a favoured option in the municipal sector, it may be the only viable option available to ensure construction and rehabilitation work is done at the appropriate time. By considering debt at the times indicated in Financing Options A and B, the long term costs may be reduced through the timely performance of appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation practices. Reserve restructuring has, and will continue to provide an opportunity to allocate existing financial resources to the areas of greatest need and highest strategic priority. Pavement preservation practices serve to ensure the right work is done at the right time and the useful life of our assets is extended as much as possible between major rehabilitation and reconstruction work. Every effort is being made to ensure County residents realize the very highest return on their infrastructure investment and that all available resources are leveraged. The task is significant and the challenges considerable. The realities of funding and labour constraints must constantly be balanced against service requirements and exposure to risk. County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 41

45 Appendices Page 1. Report to Council, Capital Asset Management Plan authorization A-1 2. Report to Council, Review of County Reserve funds and reserve restructuring proposal (with attachments a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h) A-7 3. County of Peterborough Tangible Capital Asset Policy FI-25 A Roads Inventory and Financial Data as at December 31, A Engineered Structures Inventory and Financial Data as at December 31, 2012 A Transportation Master Plan To follow 7. Public Works - 10-Year Construction Forecast - Roads A Public Works 10-year Construction Forecast - Bridges A Public Works 10-Year Construction Forecast Transportation Plan A Report to Council Benefits of Incorporating Pavement Preservation Into our Asset Management Program for Roads Paul Hurley A Road Section by PCI Indexing A Bridge Improvement Needs A Culvert Improvement Needs A Ontario - Build Together, Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans A County of Peterborough Strategic Plan A-172 County of Peterborough Capital Asset Management Plan Page 42