Township of Amaranth. Asset Management Plan Report

Township of Amaranth Prepared By: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 15 Townline Orangeville ON L9W 3R4 Prepared for: Township of Amaranth File No: 300033404 The material in this report reflects best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

Township of Amaranth i Executive Summary This report contains the Asset Management Plan for the Township of Amaranth with respect to their roads, bridges (including culverts over 3 m), and water assets. The report has been organized as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: State of Local Infrastructure; Chapter 3: Expected Levels of Service; Chapter 4: Asset Management Strategy; Chapter 5: Financing Strategy; and Chapter 6: Recommendations. The "state of local infrastructure" chapter provides an overview of the capital assets owned by the Township. This includes detailed information on the Township's asset inventory, including asset attributes, accounting valuations, replacement costs, useful life, age and asset condition. This information provides the foundation for other sections of the asset management plan. The Township of Amaranth has been developing their asset inventory for many years with their GIS system. This was further enhanced in 2008 to comply with PSAB 3150. The useful lives identified in the PSAB financial statements for Road assets were found to be shorter than true life experience. The 2013 Paved Road Condition Assessment enabled for a more accurate road asset strategy, however not having bridge condition indexes required approximations with respect to their age against identified useful life which is not a very accurate indicator. Township Paved Road Surfaces on average were found to be in good condition. Township Bridges on average were found to be in average condition. "Expected levels of service" compares the current level of service provided by the Township to the recommended level of service that will help extend the life of the above mentioned asset types. The Township takes great care in service levels they offer the public. With some additional annual maintenance funding the road and bridge assets will be able to extend their lifecycle, and therefore be more cost effective over the life of these assets. The "asset management strategy" provides a long term operating and capital forecast for asset related costs, indicating the requirements for maintaining, rehabilitating, replacing/disposing and expanding the Township's assets, while moving towards the specified expected levels of service identified above. The goal of the asset management

Township of Amaranth ii strategy is to have the Township in (or moving towards) a sustainable asset management position over the forecast period. The "financing strategy" identifies a funding plan for the asset management strategy, including a review of historical results and recommendations with respect to the required amounts and types of funding (revenue) annually. Also, any infrastructure funding deficits/shortfalls are identified and recommendations are made regarding potential approaches to reduce and mitigate the shortfall over the forecast period. However, it is expected that the Provincial and Federal levels of Government will establish more infrastructure capital funding opportunities. Overall, this asset management plan is a tool to be used by Township staff for capital and financial decision making. It can be tied to various existing reports (such as the Township's budget, official plan and strategic planning reports) to ensure the asset management plan can be updated to reflect any changes in the municipality s priorities.

Township of Amaranth iii Table of Contents Executive Summary... i 1.0 Introduction... 1 1.1 Overview... 1 1.2 Plan Objectives... 1 1.3 Plan Development... 1 1.4 Maintaining the Asset Management Plan... 2 1.5 Plan Integration... 3 2.0 State of Local Infrastructure... 4 2.1 Scope and Process... 4 2.2 Capital Asset Overview... 6 2.3 Asset Age Analysis... 9 2.4 Asset Condition...10 2.5 Data Accuracy and Completeness...11 3.0 Expected Levels of Service... 12 3.1 Scope and Process...12 3.2 Current Levels of Service versus Expected Levels of Service...14 3.3 Level of Service Performance Measures...15 4.0 Asset Management Strategy... 17 4.1 Scope and Process...17 4.2 Risk Assessment...17 4.3 Priority Identification...20 4.4 Long-term Forecast...20 4.5 Procurement Methods...26 5.0 Financing Strategy... 27 5.1 Scope and Process...27 5.2 Financing Strategy...29 5.3 Funding Shortfall...33 6.0 Recommendations... 34

Township of Amaranth iv Table of Contents (Continued) Tables Table 2.1: Road and Bridge Assets (Excluding Land)... 6 Table 2.2: 2013 Water Assets... 7 Table 2.3: Road and Bridge Assets Age Analysis... 9 Table 2.4: Water Assets Age Analysis... 9 Table 2.5: Asset Condition Format All Assets... 10 Table 2.6: Average Condition by Asset Type... 11 Table 3.1: Level of Services Analysis... 14 Table 4.1: Probability of Failure Matrix... 18 Table 4.2: Consequence of Failure Matrix... 19 Table 4.3: Total Risk of Asset Failure Matrix... 19 Table 4.4: Priorities for the Next Five s Capital Projects... 20 Table 5.1: Tax Supported Historical Results... 28 Table 5.2: Change in Level of Service... 30 Table 5.3: Tax Supported Capital Forecast... 31 Figures Figure 2.1: Road and Bridge Asset Distribution Costs... 7 Figure 2.2: 2013 Water Assets Costs... 8 Figure 3.1: Small but Timely Renewal Investments Save Money... 13 Figure 4.1: Degradation Curve... 21 Figure 4.2: Forecasted Based on PSAB 3150 Asset Data... 23 Figure 4.3: Forecast Based on Desktop Condition Data... 24 Figure 4.4: Schedule Based on an Informed Condition Analysis... 25 Appendices A B C D E F G Detailed Asset Analysis Asset Management Plan Assumptions Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policy Level of Service Impact Scenario Capital Forecasts Road and Bridge Asset Management Strategy and Financing Strategy Water Assets Capital Forecast

Township of Amaranth 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) and Ms. Sharon Larmour were retained by the Township of Amaranth (Township) to prepare an asset management plan. This plan is intended to be a tool for Township staff to use during various decision making processes, including the annual budget process and Provincial/Federal capital grant application processes. This plan will serve as a road map for sustainable infrastructure planning going forward. Assets included in this asset management plan are the following: Roads; Bridges/Culverts; and Water (wells, mains, hydrants, facilities, other). It is recommended that this plan be updated in the near future for other Township owned capital assets. 1.2 Plan Objectives The Township s goals and objectives with respect to their capital assets relate to the level of service being provided to Township residents. Services should be provided at expected levels, as defined within this asset management plan. Township infrastructure and other capital assets should be maintained at condition levels that provide for a safe and functional environment for its residents. Therefore, the asset management plan and its implementation will be evaluated based on the Township s ability to meet these goals and objectives. 1.3 Plan Development The development of the Township s asset management plan was based on the steps summarized below: 1. Develop a complete listing of capital assets to be included in the plan, including attributes such as useful life, age, accounting valuation and current valuation. Update the current valuation to 2013 dollars, and where required, using applicable inflationary indices. 2. Assess current condition of the assets, based on a combination of the following: Existing reports;

Township of Amaranth 2 Asset degradation curves; Age analysis; and Additional condition inspections 3. Assess the risk of asset failure for each asset, based on determining the probability of each asset failing, as well as the consequence of the asset failing. This risk analysis is one of the components used to identify priority projects for inclusion in the asset management plan, as well as asset risk levels that require mitigation. 4. Determine and document current levels of service, based on discussions with Township staff. Further analysis of the practices and identification of additional maintenance measures that can be applied to the assets to extend their lifecycle. 5. Prepare an asset management strategy (i.e. operating and capital forecast) based on the asset inventory, identified priorities, forecast scenarios, and level of service analysis discussed above. 6. Determine a financial strategy to support the asset management strategy, thus determining how the operating and capital related expenditure forecast will be funded over the plan period. 7. Prepare a Final report, summarizing the process, strategy and results of the asset management plan. 1.4 Maintaining the Asset Management Plan The asset management plan should be updated as the capital needs and priorities of the Township changes. This can be accomplished in conjunction with the Township s budget process. Township staff will have the tools available to perform updates to the plan when needed. When updating the asset management plan, note that the state of local infrastructure, expected levels of service, asset management strategy and financing strategy are integrated and impact each other. Looking at these components in reverse order, the financing strategy outlines how the asset management strategy will be funded. The asset management strategy illustrates the costs required to maintain expected levels of service at a sustainable level. The expected levels of service component summarizes and links each service area to specific assets contained in the state of local infrastructure section and thus determines how these assets will be used to provide expected service levels.

Township of Amaranth 3 This report covers a forecast period of 10 years, however it is suggested that more focus and attention be put on the first 5 years of the asset management plan, to ensure accurate capital planning in the short term. 1.5 Plan Integration The municipal environment is continually changing and demanding when it comes to legislation and other responsibilities. Integrating the asset management plan with the Township s budget process as well as PSAB 3150 (tangible capital asset) requirements can make updates in all three areas more efficient. With respect to integrating the Township s budget process with asset management planning, both require a projection of capital and operating costs of a future period. The budget outlines total operating and capital requirements for the Township, while the asset management plan focuses in on specific asset related requirements. With this link to the annual budget, the budget update process can also become an asset management plan update process. Both asset management and Public Standards Accounting Board Section 3150 (PSAB 3150) require a complete and accurate asset inventory. The significant difference between the two lies in valuation approaches (PSAB 3150 requires historical cost valuation, while asset management requires future replacement cost valuation). Using a single asset inventory as the Township s Asset Management database and software which contains both valuation methods is an effective approach to maintaining the Township s asset data.

Township of Amaranth 4 2.0 State of Local Infrastructure 2.1 Scope and Process This section of the plan provides an opportunity to develop a greater understanding of the capital assets owned by the Township. The state of local infrastructure analysis includes: An asset database inventory documenting asset types, sub-types including quantities, materials and other similar asset attributes; Financial accounting valuation (where available); cost valuation; Asset age distribution analysis and asset age as a proportion of expected useful life; Asset condition information; Data Verification and Asset Condition policies; and Documentation of assumptions made in creating the asset inventory. The Township has a detailed inventory listing, created through years of proactive asset management and budgeting methods. This asset inventory is updated annually and was used as a starting point in fulfilling the requirements for this report. This inventory provides current financial accounting valuations (i.e. historical cost, accumulated amortization and net book value) as well as attributes such as replacement cost, useful life and age. With respect to replacement cost, the Township s asset listing contained various recent valuations, which were inflated in order to estimate current 2013 replacement costs. The following data and reports were used to supplement the Township s asset inventory during this process: a. 2013 Paved Road Inspection (completed by Burnside); b. Recent Bridge Inspection Reports; c. Water Rate Study; and d. Discussions with Township staff. The Township has been in the process of continuously improving the way their infrastructure assets have been managed. The process began with soliciting engineering advice when necessary and then looking to new technologies to better develop and maintain a complete asset inventory. The Township as a rural municipality has taken full advantage of Federal and Provincial programs wherever possible for capital

Township of Amaranth 5 infrastructure funding and technology development, however have not always been successful in their endeavours. One successful program, the Provincial GeoSmart program enabled the Township to develop a digital GIS geodatabase inventory of all the Township s infrastructure assets. Making use of this technology has benefitted the Township from improved planning processes to road maintenance and capital planning.. The Township of Amaranth further expanded its GIS geodatabase to include all the Township s tangible capital assets to assist with PSAB 3150 s requirement to financially report on all municipal assets. To accomplish this, the Township did not just want to financially report on its capital assets but to make use of this opportunity to move towards improving the management of their assets. The PSAB 3150 process required the valuation of all capital assets and the assessment of useful life for each asset type and sub-type so that proper straight-line amortization was established. The financial reporting was a helpful initiation to better evaluate the complexity of managing all the various asset types across the Township. Further analysis of the assets revealed that an update to useful life values would better reflect the lifecycle and remaining life of the Township s assets. The Director of Public Works reviewed and reassessed the useful lives of the asset types identified in this study so that they better reflected conditions, maintenance practices and management of the assets under their supervision. These useful life changes will be reflected in the Township s Tangible Capital Asset Policy Amendment. The resulting more realistic useful lives will also better establish a general sense of the future capital needs to replace and dispose of the Township s assets. The review of assets also revealed some updates to the asset inventory and their replacement costs. The Township s recent Bridge Inspection reports contain various recent valuations. Where the valuations only reflected the construction costs of the asset, they were increased for engineering, permitting, and inspection costs by20% to better reflect the total cost of rehabilitation and reconstruction. There is still more work that needs to be done but there has been a good effort accomplished for most of the assets reviewed in this study.

Township of Amaranth 6 2.2 Capital Asset Overview The Township presently owns road, bridge and water capital assets with a 2013 replacement value of approximately $92.5 million (excluding land assets as they are not included in this plan). This total is split into $85.3 million of road and bridge tax supported assets and $7.2 million of water assets. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 outline the breakdown of these totals. In addition the Township is expected to own in the near future this value of yet unassumed capital assets, $171,000 of tax supported assets. The capital asset inventory as part of the asset management software was organized in a Microsoft Sequel database. This made for quick extraction of information and processing for this project and report. Each of the asset types were assessed for their age, condition (if available), and for data accuracy and completeness. Table 2.1: Road and Bridge Assets (Excluding Land) Asset Type Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Road Surfaces 3,191,581 1,918,490 1,273,101 5,862,238 Road Bases 8,521,991 4,156,152 4,365,839 67,047,282 Bridges 4,621,377 1,210,566 3,410,811 12,380,899 Total 16,334,949 7,285,209 9,049,750 85,290,419

Township of Amaranth 7 Figure 2.1: Road and Bridge Asset Distribution Costs 1% 14% 6% Road Surface Asphalt Road Surface Gravel 79% Road Bases Bridges Table 2.2: 2013 Water Assets Asset Type Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Water Main 3,353,600 635,675 2,717,925 4,903,159 Hydrants 151,762 69,810 81,951 232,556 Wells 95,048 68,801 26,247 129,198 Water Facility 740,247 542,848 197,399 1,088,929 Water Fittings 205,733 99,953 105,780 339,145 Water Laterals 21,211 4,878 16,332 32,503 Water System Valves 304,310 132,578 171,732 470,496 Total 4,871,910 1,554,543 3,317,367 7,195,986

Township of Amaranth 8 Figure 2.2: 2013 Water Assets Costs 0% 5% 7% Water Main 2% 3% 15% 68% Hydrants Wells Water Facility Water Fittings Water Laterals Water System Valves Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the Township s financial accounting valuation summary by asset type. Since 2009, the Township has been required under the Public Sector Accounting Board section 3150 (PSAB 3150) to maintain asset listings complete with historical cost (i.e. the original cost to purchase or construct an asset), accumulated amortization and net book value. These values are reported on the Township s audited financial statements each year. Including tax supported Road and Bridge assets and water assets, the Township s total tangible capital asset historical cost (excluding land) is approximately $21.2 million. This is approximately 23% of the total replacement cost of these assets. It is expected that historical cost totals are much smaller than replacement cost totals, given inflationary adjustments that would occur between the original asset purchase/construction date and today. Total accumulated amortization for the Township s assets is $8.8 million or 41.7% of the total asset historical cost. This represents the proportion of tangible capital assets that have been amortized (i.e. used up) to date from a financial valuation perspective. Road and Bridge assets represent the most significant tax supported asset category of the Township. Appendix A provides a further breakdown of these asset types.

Township of Amaranth 9 2.3 Asset Age Analysis Each asset is tracked based on estimated total useful life and remaining service life. Using this information, age analysis of the Townships assets can assist in identifying potential areas of focus for the asset management plan where asset inspected condition is not available. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide a summary of the age analysis undertaken including the average useful life and average remaining useful life of road and bridge tax supported and water assets respectively. This analysis can identify potential short-term priorities within specific asset areas. Table 2.3: Road and Bridge Assets Age Analysis Average Asset Type Useful Life Remaining Life % Remaining Life Road Surfaces - Paved 15 4 29% Road Bases 60 16 27% Bridges 75 34 45% Table 2.4: Water Assets Age Analysis Average Asset Type Useful Life Remaining Life % Remaining Life Water Main 120 97 81% Hydrants 75 52 69% Wells 50 31 62% Water Facility 100 78 78% Water Fittings 120 97 81% Water Laterals 120 97 81% Water System Valves 75 52 69%

Township of Amaranth 10 While this analysis can be useful in looking at the overall age characteristics of specific asset areas, asset condition (see below) will assist in providing a more accurate assessment of assets reaching the end of their useful life. 2.4 Asset Condition Including condition assessments in the asset management plan provides for a higher level of accuracy than simply relying on useful life assumptions, especially when it comes to older, highly used, or more financially significant assets. Engineering based condition assessments can provide more realistic estimates of remaining service life, which can then be used to establish rehabilitation or replacement schedules. A rating out of 100 was provided by Burnside for all assets and was based on a combination of physical inspections, degradation curve analysis, and asset age analysis. This rating was then converted to a condition description of Very Poor to Very Good. Please refer to the table below: Table 2.5: Asset Condition Format All Assets Condition (Provided by Burnside) Condition 0-20 Very Poor 21-40 Poor 41-60 Average 61-80 Good 81-100 Very Good The condition of the assets is an important element of any lifecycle assessment process. The condition assessment process also identifies maintenance and operating practices that can be applied to ensure appropriate service, as well as extending the life of the asset to its maximum service life. The Townships undertakes the following regular condition inspections for the studies asset types: a. Bridges and culverts (larger than 3 metres); b. Roads and sidewalks; c. Water treatment processes and facilities; and d. Water hydrants.

Township of Amaranth 11 A new policy has been proposed that will ensure all Townships assets are reviewed using established engineering methods and practices. Appendix B contains the draft Condition Assessment Policy, which identifies how often Township assets will be assessed. All of the Township s assets, financial valuation, replacement costs, and conditions have been integrated into the Township s asset management software, which is an enterprise cloud hosted system. The software was used during this project to ensure all assets were reviewed. It is vital that one municipal asset inventory is used for all assets and all departments, which provides an efficient managing and reporting process. A high level summary of the average condition in each studied asset category is as follows: Table 2.6: Average Condition by Asset Type Asset Type Condition Road Surfaces - Paved Road Bases Bridges Good Not Available Average Further discussion of condition assessment will take place in Chapter 4 when assessing asset risk and identifying asset priorities. 2.5 Data Accuracy and Completeness An important element of this asset management plan is ensuring that tools and procedures are in place to maintain accuracy and completeness of the asset data and calculations moving forward. As time passes, assets are used, maintained, improved, disposed of, and replaced. All of these lifecycle events can trigger changes to the asset database used within the asset management plan. Therefore, tools and procedures are essential to ensure the asset data remains accurate and complete. Please refer to Appendix B to this report for the Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policy for the Township. This policy illustrates how the asset data will be updated and verified going forward. This includes the timing of condition assessments for each asset area and what should be included within the condition assessment procedures.

Township of Amaranth 12 3.0 Expected Levels of Service The Township of Amaranth has been offering and maintaining for its residents excellent service levels, during challenging economic times. As a lower tier rural community, it has been difficult to ensure Township assets are maintained to appropriate service levels. The Province and County have become more demanding of Township residents to invest more and more into replacing older infrastructure. Township residents are fortunate that many expensive infrastructure asset types as water are relatively new. These asset types are being used by subdivisions within the Township and proper financial rates are being applied. Regulated operations and maintenance practices are provided to ensure that these assets will be maintained and replaced in a sustainable full life cycle manner. The road and bridge assets are not as new and therefore require greater care in planning for their replacement. Many of these assets once had Provincial programs that offered funding to maintain them. The Township now is responsible for condition inspection assessments and technical reporting that demand aggressive schedules of capital improvements and replacements of assets to maintain the high service levels that Ontarians have grown accustom to. 3.1 Scope and Process A level of service (LOS) analysis gives the Township an opportunity to document the level of service that is currently being provided and compare it to the level of service that will ensure the asset achieves its full lifecycle. This can be done through a review of current practices and procedures, an examination of trends or issues facing the Township, or through an analysis of performance measures and targets that staff can use to measure performance. Expected LOS can be impacted by a number of factors, including: Legislative requirements; Strategic planning goals and objectives; Resident expectations; Infrastructure design to account for Climate Change; Council or Township staff expectations; and Financial or resource constraints. The previous task of determining the state of the Township s local infrastructure establishes the asset inventory and condition, as well as asset management policies and principles to guide the refinement and upkeep of asset infrastructure. The LOS analysis will utilize this information and factor in the impact of asset service level targets. It is

Township of Amaranth 13 important to document an expected LOS that is realistic to the Township. It is common to strive for the highest LOS, however these service levels usually come at a cost. It is also helpful to consider the risk associated with a certain LOS. Therefore, expected LOS should be determined in a way that balances both level of investment and associated risk to the Township. The project team reviewed the current maintenance and operations practices being applied to the Township assets. Each asset type had engineering specialists review how the Township achieved their service levels. These maintenance and operations practices were then scrutinized against known best practices as well as the practices of other well run municipalities. It is appropriate to point out that Amaranth Township continues to do a good job of maintaining assets that are under their care. Once the analysis was complete discussions with the Director of Public Works was undertaken to outline some additional maintenance processes that would improve and extend the life of some Township assets. Being able to extend the life of a costly asset by ten or more years could save each tax payer hundreds of dollars. The Levels of Service analysis and discussions resulted in some recommendations that will improve maintenance of various Township assets providing higher levels of service as well as expecting results of extended asset life. The figure below, from The Provincial Building Together Guideline illustrates this strategy. Figure 3.1: Small but Timely Renewal Investments Save Money

Township of Amaranth 14 3.2 Current Levels of Service versus Expected Levels of Service The Township s current LOS has resulted in the current state of infrastructure as discussed in the previous section of the report. This current LOS also relates to the risk assessment discussed in later report sections. Regarding the cost of this LOS, the Township has established an operating and capital budget for the current year that includes the cost of providing this LOS to residents. Therefore in moving from the current LOS to an enhanced LOS, consideration has to be made for the associated cost (or impact on the Township s current budget) in moving to an enhanced LOS. The table below outlines broad LOS descriptions (both current and enhanced LOS). This analysis was documented through discussions with Township staff. Table 3.1: Level of Services Analysis Asset Type Level of Service to Start Next Need (years) Cost Road Surface Crack Sealing 2014 5 $ 20,000 Hot Mix 2014 1 $ 3,000 Bridge & Bridge Deck Bridge Washing 2014 1 Staff Amaranth Estates Additional Maintenance 2017 1 $ 2,500 Hamount Sub-Division Additional Maintenance 2019 1 $ 4,000 Water Capital Improvements 2014 $ 5,500 2016 $ 42,500 2018 $ 65,000 2023 $ 81,000 Roads Public Works Department Level of Service Description Current Expected Meet Minimum Maintenance Standards as defined by Ontario Regulation 239/02. Meet Minimum Maintenance Standards as defined by Ontario Regulation 239/02. Public Works No Road Crack and Seal Program. Expand the Road Crack and Seal Program.

Township of Amaranth 15 Bridges & Culverts Department Level of Service Description Current Expected Public Works Maintain adequate condition and load limits. Maintain adequate condition and load limits. Public Works Public Works Maintenance and rehabilitation completed when needed. Bridge inspections (i.e. using OSIM reports) required every 2 years. Proactive and planned approach to rehabilitation and maintenance. Increase in bridge monitoring. Introduce a River Culvert Repair and Program. Bridge inspections (i.e. using OSIM reports) required every 2 years. Public Works No Bridge Washing. Bridge Washing. Water Public Works Department Meet all legislative requirements. Level of Service Description Current Expected Meet all legislative requirements. Please refer to Appendix C of this report for a table summarizing the estimated budget impacts associated with implementing the expected LOS over the 10-year forecast period. This impact analysis will be factored into the asset management strategy discussed in chapter 4 of this report. 3.3 Level of Service Performance Measures As mentioned above, using performance measures in the LOS review can also be helpful in measuring the Township s goals and objectives when it comes to capital assets. The Township currently tracks specific performance measures as part of the Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) which the province has in place as part of the annual Financial Information Return (FIR) submission. The FIR provides

Township of Amaranth 16 the annual financial results of the Township, while the MPMP provides an evaluation of the Township s performance. The Township will continue to calculate and monitor these performance measures, both for MPMP and asset management purposes. As the Township s asset management plan evolves over time, new performance measures can be introduced to further measure the LOS being provided in each service area.

Township of Amaranth 17 4.0 Asset Management Strategy 4.1 Scope and Process The asset management strategy provides the recommended course of actions required to maintain (or move towards) a sustainable asset position while delivering the levels of service discussed in the previous chapter. The course of actions, when combined together, form a long-term operating and capital forecast that includes: a. Non-infrastructure solutions: reduce costs and/or extend expected useful life estimates; b. Maintenance activities: regularly scheduled activities to maintain existing useful life levels, or repairs needed due to unplanned events; c. Renewal/Rehabilitation: significant repairs or maintenance planned to increase the useful life of assets; d. /Disposal: complete disposal and replacement of assets, when renewal or rehabilitation is no longer an option; and e. Expansion: given planned growth as outlined in the Township s Development Charge. Background Study, other expansion or due to the introduction of new services. Priority identification becomes a critical process during the development of an asset management strategy. Priorities have been determined based on assessment of the overall risk of asset failure, which is determined by looking at both the probability of an asset failing, as well as the consequences of failure. The consequences of the Township not meeting desired levels of service must also be considered in determining risk. As discussed in chapter 3, moving to enhanced levels of service results in both operating and capital budget impacts over the 10 year forecast period. This has to be taken into consideration, with the overall objective of reaching sustainable levels while mitigating risk. 4.2 Risk Assessment The risk of an asset failing is defined by the following calculation: Risk of Asset Failure = Probability of Failure X Consequence of Failure Probability of failure has been linked to the condition assessment for each asset, assuming that an asset in very good condition would have a rare probability of failure. The following table outlines the probability factor tied to each condition rating:

Township of Amaranth 18 Table 4.1: Probability of Failure Matrix Condition (Provided by Burnside) Condition Probability of Failure 0-20 Very Poor Almost Certain 21-40 Poor Likely 41-60 Average Possible 61-80 Good Unlikely 81-100 Very Good Rare Consequence of failure has been determined by examining each asset type separately. Consequence refers to the impact on the Township if a particular asset were to fail. Types of impacts include the following: Cost Impacts: the cost of failure to the Township (i.e. capital replacement, rehabilitation, fines & penalties, damages, etc.); Social impacts: potential injury or death to residents or Township staff; Environmental impacts: the impact of the asset failure on the environment; Service delivery impacts: the impact of the asset failure on the Township s ability to provide services at desired levels; and Location impacts: the varying impact of asset failure based on the asset s location within the Township. Each type of impact was discussed with Township staff and consequence of failure for each asset type was determined by using the information contained in Table 4.2 as a guide to assess the level of impact. Levels of impact were documented as ranging from significant to insignificant. Location factors were considered when asset failures in specific areas would result in significant impacts to hospitals, schools, and other similar high impact areas. With both probability of failure and consequence of failure documented, total risk of asset failure was determined using the matrix contained in Table 4.3. Total risk has been classified under the following categories: Extreme Risk (E): risk well beyond acceptable levels; High Risk (H): risk beyond acceptable levels;

Township of Amaranth 19 Medium Risk (M): risk at acceptable levels, monitoring required to ensure risk does not become high; and Low Risk (L): risk at or below acceptable levels. Table 4.2: Consequence of Failure Matrix Cost Social Environmental Service Delivery Significant Significant Cost Difficult to Recover Death, Serious Injury Long-term Impact Permanent Major Interruptions Major Substantial Cost Multi-year Budget Impacts Major Injury Long-term Impact Fixable Significant Interruptions Moderate Considerable Cost Requires Revisions to Budget Moderate Injury Medium-term Impact Fixable Moderate Interruptions Minor Small/Minor Cost within Budget Allocations Minor Injury Short-term/Minor Impact Fixable Minor Interruptions Insignificant Negligible or Insignificant Cost No Injury No Impact No Interruptions Table 4.3: Total Risk of Asset Failure Matrix Probability of Failure Consequence of Failure Significant Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Almost Certain E E H H M Likely E H H M M Possible E H M M L Unlikely H M M M L Rare H M M L L

Township of Amaranth 20 Risk levels can be reduced or mitigated through planned maintenance, rehabilitation and/or replacement. An objective of this asset management plan is to reduce risk levels where they are deemed to be too high, as well as ensure assets are maintained in a way that keeps risk levels at acceptable levels. 4.3 Priority Identification Through discussions with Township staff and review of the asset risk of failure assessment, the following assets/categories were identified as being priorities of the Township: Table 4.4: Priorities for the Next Five s Capital Projects Asset Description Total Planed Risk Action Bridge 10 (4-72) Concrete Railing Beam Bridge Extreme Bridge 15 (4-71) Concrete Railing Beam Bridge Extreme Bridge 17 (4-70) Concrete Railing Beam Bridge Extreme Bridge 12 (4-76) Concrete Bowstring Arch Bridge Extreme Bridge 13 (4-75) Concrete Bowstring Arch Bridge Extreme Bridge 6 (4-101) 3 Span Prestressed Beam Bridge Extreme Please note that bridge conditions were approximated based on their age, which is not very accurate and may have caused a higher than expected risk assessment for this asset type. 4.4 Long-term Forecast For many years, lifecycle costing has been used in the field of maintenance engineering and to evaluate the advantages of using alternative materials in construction or production design. The method has gained wider acceptance and use recently in the management of capital assets. By definition, lifecycle costs are all the costs which are incurred during the lifecycle of a capital asset, from the time it is purchased or constructed, to the time it is taken out of service for disposal. In defining the long-term forecast for the Township s asset management strategy, costs incurred through an asset s lifecycle were considered and documented. Tax Supported Asset Analysis In forecasting the Township s asset replacement needs, comparisons were made between the following scenarios: Scenario 1: forecast based on PSAB 3150 Asset Data o The strategy was to maintain current maintenance levels. The outcome of this scenario was to retain the current asset service levels, and assets

Township of Amaranth 21 had to be replaced more quickly. The degradation of the assets was rapid and would lead to increased infrastructure deficits. Scenario 2: forecast based on Desktop Condition Data ; o The levels of service were maintained at current levels and desktop analysis using asset specific degradation curves were applied to identify a Target but the assets were still not extending the expected life. Scenario 3: forecast based on an Informed Condition Analysis. o The strategy was to apply increased maintenance practices and use staff knowledge on how the assets reacted in their environment and under various maintenance programs. The resulting Informed Condition Analysis both extended the useful life of many assets beyond the target replacement and was the most cost effective strategy. Target replacement, is the theoretical best practice replacement schedule for each asset as identified by its degradation curve. Each asset s degradation curve has been defined from literature and/or engineering experience with hundreds of assets in the sample. Figure 4.1: Degradation Curve

Township of Amaranth 22 The replacement cost of the road bases under the gravel surface roads is approximately $46,590,208. All of these road bases are well past their expected useful lives. However, there will never be sufficient funds to be able to replace all of these roads. As the surface gravel of these roads continue to settle into the base, it is expected that the continual topping up of gravel every few years has supported the completely used up or limited remaining life of the road base. The continual maintenance gravel application and spot repairs are anticipated to allow these less travelled roads to provide an acceptable level of service. Where increased traffic flows or other unanticipated circumstances warrant substantial capital improvements to one (or more) of these road sections, it will be identified as a special future project. This type of project is beyond the 10 year forecast window of this study. Scenario 1: forecast based on PSAB 3150 Asset Data The replacement forecast based on the PSAB 3150 asset data provides a snapshot of assets at or nearing the end of their useful lives from a purely financial accounting perspective. Figure 4.2 below shows the forecast over a 10-year period, where approximately $5.6 million (replacement cost) in capital assets are showing as immediate needs. For this scenario, these assets have reached the end of their accounting useful lives. This total does not include road base assets worth approximately $67 million that have also reached the end of their accounting useful lives. In total, over $11.5 million in assets (inflated to appropriate year) are shown as replacement needs in the 10-year forecast, which would expand to over $78.5 million if road base assets were included.

Township of Amaranth 23 Figure 4.2: Forecasted Based on PSAB 3150 Asset Data 6,000,000 Based on PSAB 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 Gravel Roads Bridge 1,000,000 - Scenario 2: forecast based on Desktop Condition Data Figure 4.3 below shows the asset replacement forecast developed using the condition data discussed in Chapter 2. As mentioned earlier, each asset was assigned a condition assessment using a physical inspection, a degradation curve analysis or an asset age analysis. Under this scenario, approximately $5.0 million in capital assets are showing the need to be immediately replaced (not including road base assets for gravel surfaces). In total, approximately $11.0 million in assets (inflated to appropriate year) are shown as replacement needs in the 10-year forecast.

Township of Amaranth 24 Figure 4.3: Forecast Based on Desktop Condition Data 6,000,000 Based on Curve 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 Gravel Roads Bridge 1,000,000 - While the condition data scenario above provides a more realistic view of replacement needs over the forecast period, it is not financially feasible, given the Township s current annual capital investment amounts. Significant grant funding would be required to assist in catching up on the immediate capital need requirements. Scenario 3: forecast based on an Informed Condition Analysis A capital replacement scenario was developed that takes the condition information and adjusts replacement timing based on identified priorities and Township staff s knowledge and experience with the assets. Figure 4.4 shows the capital needs forecast under this scenario. All immediate needs have been distributed within the forecast period. In total, approximately $7.5 million in assets (inflated to appropriate year) are shown as replacement needs in the 10-year forecast. This is the recommended scenario for the Township.

Township of Amaranth 25 Figure 4.4: Schedule Based on an Informed Condition Analysis Informed Condition Capital 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 Gravel Roads Bridge 400,000 200,000 - Tax Supported Maintenance, Non-Infrastructure Solutions, Renewal & Rehabilitation For the recommended scenario to be feasible, the level of service adjustments discussed in Chapter 3 are needed in conjunction with the current level of service amounts in order to effectively maintain and rehabilitate the assets as required. The financing strategy discussed in the next Chapter will incorporate the level of service adjustments into the recommended financing analysis. Please refer to Appendix E for details. Please refer to Appendix E for a breakdown of each capital forecast scenario by year and by asset type.

Township of Amaranth 26 Water Asset Management Strategy The water capital forecast and required operating needs were developed as part of the Township s Water Rate Study. Given that the Township s water infrastructure is relatively new, capital replacement needs identified in the rate study were limited. In total, approximately $194,000 in capital needs were identified in the 10-year capital forecast period. Please refer to Appendix G for the Township s Water Rate Study detailed operating and capital forecast. 4.5 Procurement Methods Section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, provides that municipalities (and local boards) shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to its procurement of goods and services. The Township has a procurement policy in place.

Township of Amaranth 27 5.0 Financing Strategy 5.1 Scope and Process The financing strategy outlines the suggested financial approach to funding the recommended asset management strategy outlined in Chapter 4, while utilizing the Township s existing budget structure. This section of the asset management plan will include: Annual expenditure forecasts broken down by: o Maintenance/non-infrastructure solutions; o Renewal/rehabilitation activities; o /disposal activities; o Expansion activities. Actual expenditures in the above named categories for 2012 and 2013 budgeted amounts; A breakdown of annual funding/revenue by source; Identification of the funding shortfall, including how the impact will be managed; and All key assumptions will be documented within Appendix B. The long-term financing strategy forecast (including both expenditure and revenue sources) was prepared, consistent with the Township s departmental budget structure, so that it can be used in conjunction with the annual budget process. Various financing options, including taxation, reserves, reserve funds, debt, user fees and grants were considered and discussed with Township staff during the process. For the recommended asset management strategy scenario, a detailed ten (10) year plan was generated, consistent with the Township s current budget structure. The plan identifies specific maintenance & non-infrastructure solutions, renewal & rehabilitation, replacement & disposal, and expansion activities required for the 10-year forecast period as described in Chapter 4. Table 5.1 outlines the historical capital results for 2012 and 2013 budgeted results for renewal/rehabilitation, replacement/disposal, and expansion. The capital funding includes the use: of grants, development charges for growth (expansion) related costs, reserve/reserve funds as well as contributions from the operating budget.

Township of Amaranth 28 Table 5.1: Tax Supported Historical Results Prior Capital Expenses Description Actual Budget 2012 2013 Engineering/Construction/Paving/Gravel Purchase 118,186 45,000 Gravel Purchase 65,000 60,000 Gravel Spreading 97,588 93,675 Gravel Crushing 84,287 63,150 Subtotal 365,061 261,825 Capital Financing Provincial MIII Grant Grants and Subsidies - Gas Tax 118,186 45,000 Capital Paid from Property Taxes 230,569 183,825 Reserve Fund - Capital Reserve - Roads Reserve Fund - Development Charges Reserve Fund - Roads Debentures Reserve Fund - Gravel 16,306 33,000 Reserves and Reserve Funds Growth Related Debt Non-Growth Related Debt Other - Developer Contribution Other - Transfer from Operating Total Capital financing 365,061 261,825 Total Capital Expenses less Capital Financing - -

Township of Amaranth 29 5.2 Financing Strategy Tax Supported Financing Strategy Table 5.2 shows the tax supported expenditure forecast summary. While this summary only shows high level cost classifications of maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement and expansion categories, further detail can be obtained from Appendix E and the asset management model provided to Township staff for future use. Items in Table 5.2 labelled as LOS Adjustment refer to the level of service analysis discussed in Chapter 3. Contributed assets refer to assets that are expected to be assumed from ongoing development within the Township. Table 5.3 summarizes the recommended strategy to finance only the Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan is not intended to be a comprehensive operating and capital funding requirement for the Township.

Township of Amaranth 30 Table 5.2: Change in Level of Service Departments Description Forecast 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Transportation Services Expenditures Road Surface Crack Sealing 20,000 20,000 Hot Mix 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Bridge & Bridge Deck Bridge Washing Amaranth Estates Additional Maintenance 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Hamount Sub-Division Additional Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Water Capital Improvements 5,500 42,500 65,000 81,000 Total Expenditures (Uninflated) 28,500 3,000 45,500 5,500 70,500 29,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 90,500 Grand Total Expenditures (Inflated) 29,070 3,121 48,285 5,953 77,838 33,222 10,913 11,131 11,353 110,319

Township of Amaranth 31 Table 5.3: Tax Supported Capital Forecast Description Actual Actual Budget Forecast 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Prior Capital Expenses Engineering/Construction/Paving/Gravel Purchase 118,186 45,000 Gravel Purchase 65,000 60,000 Gravel Spreading 97,588 93,675 Gravel Crushing 84,287 63,150 Subtotal - 365,061 261,825 - - - - - - - - - - Capital Forecast Bridge 1 (4-106) GIS ID 2300 1,000 Bridge 10 (4-72) GIS ID 2296 1,109,899 - - - - - - - - - Bridge 12 (4-76) GISID 2479 - - - 511,809 - - - - - - Bridge 13 (4-75) GIS ID 2480 - - - - 399,744 - - - - - Bridge 14 (4-74) GIS ID 2481-30,000 - - - - - - - - Bridge 15 (4-71) GIS ID 2297-480,142 - - - - - - - - Bridge 17 (4-70) GIS ID 2483 - - 453,334 - - - - - - - Bridge 18 (4-50) GIS ID 2290 1,000 - - - - - - - - - Bridge 19 (4-49) GIS ID 2301 8,000 - - - - - - - - - Bridge 2 (4-105) GIS ID 2299 - - - - - 253,475 - - - - Bridge 3 (4-104) GIS ID 2293 - - - - - - - - - 372,179 Bridge 5 (4-155) GIS ID 2302 - - 40,000 - - - - - - - Bridge 6 (4-101) GIS ID 2292 - - - 220,000 - - - - - - Bridge 7 (4-102) GIS ID 2291 5,000 - - - - - - - - - MILL STREET - From: STATION STREET To: HENRY STREET - 12,404 - - - - - - - - Municipal Road - From: 3RD LINE To: END OF SHANNON COURT - - - - - - - - 114,467-9th Line / Station St / 5 Sideroad 278,100 - - - - - - - - - 20th Sideroad - West TL - 8th&9th - - 314,705 - - - - - - - Townline West - - - - 151,285 - - - - - 20th - 8th - 7th - - - - - - 154,964 - - - 20 Sideroad - Cty. Rd 12 - Cty. Rd 11 (Micro Surfacing) 50,470 - - - - - - - - - Village Green - (Micro Surfacing) - - 23,084 - - - - - - - Gravel 223,330 230,030 236,931 244,038 251,360 258,900 266,667 274,667 282,907 291,395 Total Capital financing - - Total Capital Expenses less Capital Financing - 365,061 261,825 1,676,799 752,576 1,068,054 975,847 802,389 512,376 421,632 274,667 397,375 663,574 Capital Expansion Forecast Amaranth Estaes Roads 63,000 Hamount Sub-division Roads 108,000 Subtotal - - - - - - 63,000-108,000 - - - - Level of Service Adjustment - Taxation Funded Total Level of Service Enhancements 29,070 3,121 48,285 5,953 77,838 33,222 10,913 11,131 11,353 110,319 Total - 1,705,869 755,697 1,116,339 1,044,801 880,227 653,598 432,544 285,798 408,728 773,893 Capital Financing Provincial MIII Grant Grants and Subsidies - Gas Tax 118,186 45,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 Capital Paid from Property Taxes 230,569 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 Reserve Fund - Capital Reserve - Roads 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Reserve Fund - Development Charges Reserve Fund - Roads Debentures Reserve Fund - Gravel 16,306 33,000 Reserves and Reserve Funds Growth Related Debt Non-Growth Related Debt Other - Developer Contribution 63,000 108,000 Other - Transfer from Operating Annual Growth Total Capital financing - 365,061 261,825 501,825 351,825 351,825 414,825 351,825 459,825 351,825 351,825 351,825 351,825 Total Capital Expenses less Capital Financing - - 1,204,044 403,872 764,514 629,976 528,402 193,773 80,719 (66,027) 56,903 422,068

Township of Amaranth 32 These lifecycle costs can be recovered through several methods: Taxation funding is suggested for all maintenance costs as well as enhanced level of service related costs; As the Township has recently applied for provincial grant funding for a high priority project (i.e. Bridge # 8: 13th Line), grant funding has been included for these items based on the terms and conditions of the grant applications; The portion of newly acquired or constructed assets that are growth (DC) related are shown as financed by development charges; Federal Gas Tax has been shown as a stable and long-term funding source for eligible capital projects; Developer Contributions related to the assets that are anticipated to be contributed (assumed) over the forecast period (i.e. the developers transfer ownership of these assets to the Township at no cost, therefore it is considered contribution related revenue); The Township will continue to maintain healthy capital reserves/reserve funds in order to provide the remainder of the required lifecycle funding over the forecast period. This will require the Township to proactively increase amounts being transferred to these capital reserves during the annual budget process. While the annual funding requirements may fluctuate, it is important for the Township to implement a consistent, yet increasing annual investment in capital so that the excess annual funds can accrue in capital reserve funds specifically for roads and bridges. In order to fund the recommended non-growth related road and bridge asset requirements over the 10 year forecast period using the Township s own available funding sources (i.e. using taxation, gas tax funding and debentures), an increase in the Township s taxation levy will be required. However, if other funding sources become available (i.e. grant funding) or if maintenance and rehabilitation practices allow for the deferral of capital works, then the impact on Township taxation would decrease. Please refer to further details provided in Appendix E. Water Financing Strategy As mentioned earlier, the water asset management strategy as well as the financing strategy was prepared as part of the Township s Water Rate Study. Maintenance costs (which includes an operational contract) are funded though water rates. Any renewal/rehabilitation or replacement/disposal is funded from the water capital reserve fund.

Township of Amaranth 33 5.3 Funding Shortfall Assuming the Township maintains adequate capital reserve funds, the recommended asset management strategy discussed in Chapter 4 will be fully funded. It is believed this can be accomplished through each annual budget process. However, the recommended asset management strategy (i.e. scenario 3) does defer significant capital replacements, in comparison to the condition based scenario (i.e. scenario 2). In the event that certain deferred replacements result in increased risks and/or projected asset failures, further funding may be required to address the costs associated with accelerating replacement timelines. In addition, in the event that the Township is not successful in the recent grant application, additional funding would be required in the short-term. Under the recommend financing strategy, the Township would be making proactive attempts to mitigate this funding gap over the forecast period. To further mitigate the potential infrastructure funding deficit, the Township could consider: Issuing debt for significant and/or unforeseen capital projects (this would have the impact of spreading out the capital repayment over a defined term, constrained by debt capacity limits); Actively seeking out and applying for grants. It is expected that the Province and Federal Governments will increase funding opportunities for Township infrastructure projects; Taxation rate increases (where needed); Implementing operating efficiencies (i.e. reduced operating costs to allow more capital investment); and Utilizing Provincial and Federal Government funding in partnership with the municipality, which needs to be more stable and reliable, and non-competitive.

Township of Amaranth 34 6.0 Recommendations The following recommendations have been provided for staff (and Council s consideration): That this Road, Bridge and Water Asset Management Plan be received and approved by Council; That consideration of this Road, Bridge and Water Asset Management Plan be given as part of the annual budgeting process to ensure sufficient funds are available to fund the asset management plan; and That the Township continues using a capital reserve fund for roads and bridges capital purposes, ensuring capital investments accrue interest annually, and that contributions to this roads/bridges capital reserve fund be considered during the budget process. The current level of funding for asset replacement and renewal at the Township will not sufficiently fund required capital needs or close the infrastructure funding gap. As such, it is recommended that the following road/bridge impacts be considered during the annual budget process: Initiation of a roads crack seal program $15,000 in 2014 (and then every 5 years) at a cost of $20,000. We recommend the Township set aside $4,000 every year to ensure funds are available; A bridge washing program in 2014 (and every year thereafter) to be completed by Township staff at no cost to the Township; Hot mix program ($3,000 annually) to be able to better patch roads so they can reach a longer useful life; and Annual increase to the Township s taxation levy each year (after inflationary adjustments) to be dedicated to the roads and bridges capital program, starting in 2014. This amount is to be allocated to a roads and bridges capital reserve fund, and be used to fund the related capital program. Substantial investment in roads and bridge capital needs will be required over the 10 year forecast period. Through the recommendations provided above, proactive steps would be taken to increase capital investment as well as reduce the annual infrastructure funding gap for these assets. Enhanced maintenance plans will assist in maintaining adequate asset conditions, mitigate asset risk as well as potentially defer capital needs within the forecast period. In addition, the Township should pursue available capital grants wherever possible to further reduce the infrastructure funding gap.

Township of Amaranth 35 Through the creation of this plan, Township staff have been provided with a model in which amendments and revisions can be made as needed. It is anticipated that this plan adopted by Council will be monitored and updated frequently by Township staff as part of the budget process, with refinements and specific recommendations being provided with respect to the priority of each individual project.

Appendix A Detailed Asset Analysis

APPENDIX A: DETAILED ASSET ANALYSIS A.1 Transportation Assets The Township s Transportation Assets make up one of the key services that reflect the economic and social development of the community. The Transportation assets in this study are made up of the following asset types: Road Surfaces; Road Bases; Bridges & Culverts (Greater than 3 meters). Together at current replacement cost these assets account for $85.3 million dollars of the Township s assets. Further discussion of these assets follows. Asset Type Cost % Road Surface - Asphalt 5,106,249 6% Road Surface - Gravel 755,989 1% Road Bases 67,047,282 79% Bridges 12,380,899 15% Total 85,290,419 Roads Costs 14% 6% 79% 1% Road Surface Asphalt Road Surface Gravel Road Bases Bridges A 1

A.1.1 Roads Amaranth has a vast network of roads totaling over 382.9 km of roads. To establish more appropriate asset management processes the road assets were split into two asset types as Road Surfaces and Road Bases. Road asset management best practices identify that a paved road will replace the asphalt surface twice before requiring the reconstruction of the road base. The Township of Amaranth road surfaces are further grouped into the following categories: Road Surface Condition & Length Asset Type Useful Life Average Condition Length (km) Percent Road Surface Asphalt 15 80.5 57.2 15% Road Surface Gravel 2 Not Available 325.7 85% Road Length 382.9 The Township has undertaken Road Needs Studies in the past every 5 10 years. This practice has provided road surface condition assessments for all road segments of the township. Condition of the hard top road surfaces was reviewed for this project and condition indexes were calculated, based on the Ontario Good Roads approved MTO methodology. This engineering assessment of the hardtop roads inspected for road distress indices and road ride comfort rating, producing a calculated condition index for each road segment (generally intersection to intersection). The overall condition rating of the Township s road surfaces is approximately 80, which is identified as Good. Most of the paved surfaces in the Township have not yet been replaced but are coming due for replacement. The average remaining life of the hardtop surfaces is 10 years which is half of the asset useful life. This identifies that the Township s road surfaces have outperformed their expected lifecycles, and indicates that most of these assets are well designed, constructed and maintained. Gravel roads did not have an updated condition assessment as the Township s standard maintenance practices identify and respond to condition deficiencies. Road bases are very difficult to assess without intrusive drilling of bore holes. However, the surface inspections can reveal some potential road base issues which can be addressed via maintenance spot improvement s or small capital road reconstruction betterments. The Township s greatest infrastructure challenge is with its road bases. Based on the values in the asset database the total replacement of this asset type is over $67 million. We believe that these costs are actually under-estimated and should be reviewed in the future. Almost all the gravel road bases, which account for 85% of all road bases road lengths, have exceeded their lifecycle expectancy, report a Net Book Value of $0, and are not expected to be in good condition. This may also lead one to believe that these road bases must be a high priority replacement need. However, the Township maintains these road bases via their gravel resurfacing program and other maintenance practices. A 2

The paved road bases, which are 15% of the road bases based on length, had an estimated condition extracted from the asset management software. The asset management software includes asset degradation curves which help predict what the assets condition may be if the asset was constructed and maintained using existing best practices. The degradation curve figure shows a road with a useful life of 20 years. So based on the age of the asset the estimated condition was extracted. Road bases for paved roads are estimated to have a very good condition. This indicates that the paved road bases are relatively young in their life cycle and still have over 40 years or two-thirds (2/3) of their life still remaining. A.1.2 Bridges and Culverts The Township undertakes bi-annual bridge and large culvert (greater than 3 meter) inspections by qualified engineers. These inspection assessments are to be completed using the up to date Ministry of Transportation documented inspection methodology (OSIM), which can then calculate a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) for each structure. The Township bridge assessments did not provide BCI values for each structure, and therefore an approximation was established based on the age of the bridge. This estimate is not very accurate and it is recommended that the Township obtain more up to date bridge inspection information. The engineering reports establish the appropriate maintenance needs and timing of capital improvements and replacements of bridge/culvert structures. The average condition of inspected bridges/culverts owned by the Township is Average which is not surprising since the average age is over half of the useful life of these assets. The Township needs to work harder to keep up with the replacement of these structures. Even with a relatively aggressive bridge replacement program as outlined in this study, this asset type still remains as the most critical with respect to capital replacement program, due to their age and extremely high replacement costs. The Township has been very fortunate to be able to partner with the Province on capital funding programs. It is very important that these capital assistance programs continue to help the Township reach funding sustainability. A 3

A.6 Water Assets Water assets are a critical asset group as these assets require a separate financial plan (Ontario Regulation 453/07) to ensure rate payers are not just paying for the water they use but also for the maintenance, operations and replacement of these water assets. The water asset inventory was developed as part of a Water Rate Study. Most of the water assets are young in age and therefore have very high estimated conditions. A more rigorous condition inspection is suggested in the near future. The water chemical processing assets are reviewed regularly to comply with Provincial Water regulations. 131206_Appendix A - Amaranth AM Plan Report.Docx 5/29/2014 11:19 AM A 4

Appendix B Asset Management Plan Assumptions

APPENDIX B: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made during the creation of the Township s asset management plan. 1. STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE a) Indexing: When inflating an asset value to a 2013 replacement value, the Non- Residential Building Construction Price Index (NRBCPI) was used for Road, Bridge/Culvert, related assets. 2. ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY a) Capital inflation rate will be assumed to be 2% annually. b) Operating budget inflation rate will be assumed to be 2% annually. 3. FINANCING STRATEGY a) Development charges rates are assumed to increase at 2% annually. b) Gas tax revenue has been identified as a funding source for the purposes of the analysis (i.e. for asset replacement purposes), and has been assumed to continue throughout the forecast period. c) Interest rate earned on a Capital Reserve Fund will be 3% annually. d) Contributions to Lifecycle Cost Reserve Fund will increase annually based on the capital inflation rate of 3% annually. e) Assessment growth is assumed to be 1% annually. f) In the case where debt financing is needed, the model assumed debt terms of 20 years at 5% annual interest. 131206_Appendix B - Amaranth AM Plan Report.Docx 12/6/2013 9:50 AM B-1

Appendix C Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policy

Data Verification APPENDIX C Township of Amaranth Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policy 1. The main source of asset data updating and editing will be though the Township s PSAB 3150 compliance procedures. 2. Asset additions, disposals, betterments, and write-offs will be recorded based on the Township s PSAB 3150 Compliance Policies. 3. Verification of the correct treatment of asset revisions will be completed through frequent annual reviews by the Township s Treasurer as well as an annual review by the Township s external auditor. 4. During years in which condition assessments are not being performed, asset replacement cost will be determined based on a combination of inflating previous current values or through the use of the current year s historical invoice data. Where indices are being used, the Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index (NRBCPI) shall be used for construction related assets (i.e. roads related, water, and facilities) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shall be used for all other assets (i.e. machinery & equipment). Condition Assessment 1. Condition assessments shall be performed as outlined in Table C-1 below. Condition assessments shall be performed by qualified individuals (or companies) and shall include a review of the following: Current asset condition (consistent with the rating format use within this report, unless Township staff stipulate a new format); i. Identify any unusual wear from asset use that may hinder asset performance and eventually reduce useful life. ii. Assess asset performance and identity (if any) capital improvements that can be applied to extend the asset s useful life and/or bring the asset back to proper service levels. Current asset replacement cost. This is to be based on replacing the asset under current legislation/requirements using the Township s specifications; and Remaining service life, assuming current maintenance and usage levels. C-1

Table C-1 Condition Assessment Time Table Asset Type Frequency of Condition Comments Assessment Road Surface Every 5 s Engineer Inspections along with Minimum Maintenance Standards Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m) Every 2 s As per MTO OSIM inspections Water Main / other pipes and As per Water Regulations and Every 5 s Chambers maintenance history Hydrants As per Fire and Water Regulations Wells & Pumps Every 5 s As per Water Regulations and maintenance history Water Facilities As per Water Regulations and maintenance history Generators Every Season Minimum twice per year Water Equipment As per Water Regulations and maintenance history Water Valves Annual Exercising As per Water Regulations and maintenance history 131206_Appendix C - Amaranth AM Plan Report.Docx 12/9/2013 8:51 AM C 2

Appendix D Level of Service Impact

APPENDIX D: LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACT Departments Description Forecast 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Transportation Services Expenditures Road Surface Crack Sealing 20,000 20,000 Hot Mix 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Bridge & Bridge Deck Bridge Washing Amaranth Estates Additional Maintenance 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Hamount Sub Division Additional Maintenance 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Water Capital Improvements 5,500 42,500 65,000 81,000 Total Expenditures (Uninflated) 28,500 3,000 45,500 5,500 70,500 29,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 90,500 Grand Total Expenditures (Inflated) 29,070 3,121 48,285 5,953 77,838 33,222 10,913 11,131 11,353 110,319 131206_Appendix D Amaranth AM Plan Report.Docx 12/9/2013 5:35 PM

Appendix E Scenario Capital Forecasts

Scenario 1 - PSAB Asset Type Immediate Needs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Total Schduled Capital - Inflated 5,646,176 362,838 681,040 618,846 774,922 403,403 625,216 556,384 577,027 861,279 407,308 11,514,440 Road Surface 1,971,655 139,508 451,010 381,915 530,883 152,044 366,316 289,717 302,360 578,372 115,914 5,279,693 Gravel 223,330 230,030 236,931 244,038 251,360 258,900 266,667 274,667 282,907 291,395 2,560,225 Bridge 3,674,521 - - - - - - - - - - 3,674,521 Scenario 2 - Curves & Target Asset Type Immediate Needs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Total Schduled Capital - Inflated 5,043,006 576,011 506,671 384,934 722,515 656,533 822,114 427,971 663,292 590,268 612,168 11,005,484 Road Surface 1,580,767 134,031 276641.816 148,004 478476.846 405,174 563,214 161303.13 388,624 307,361 320773.646 4,764,370 Gravel 223,330 230,030 236,931 244,038 251,360 258,900 266,667 274,667 282,907 291,395 2,560,225 Bridge 3,462,239 218,650 - - - - - - - - - 3,680,889 Scenario 3 - Consultant Studies & Staff Consultation Asset Type Immediate Needs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Total Schduled Capital - Inflated 1,000 1,675,799 752,576 1,068,054 975,847 802,389 512,376 421,632 274,667 397,375 663,574 7,545,288 Road Surface 0 328570 12,404 337789.2339 0 151285.267 0 154,964 0 114,467 0 1,099,479 Gravel 223,330 230,030 236,931 244,038 251,360 258,900 266,667 274,667 282,907 291,395 2,560,225 Bridge 1,000 1,123,899 510,142 493,334 731,809 399,744 253,475 - - - 372,179 3,885,584

6,000,000 Based on PSAB 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Gravel Roads Bridge - 6,000,000 Based on Curve 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 Gravel Roads Bridge 1,000,000 -

1,800,000 Informed Condition Capital 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 Gravel Roads Bridge 200,000-131206_Appendix E - Amaranth AM Plan Report.docx 12/6/2013 9:55 AM

Appendix F Road and Bridge Asset Management Strategy and Financing Strategy

Description Actual Actual Budget Forecast 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Prior Capital Expenses Engineering/Construction/Paving/Gravel Purchase 118,186 45,000 Gravel Purchase 65,000 60,000 Gravel Spreading 97,588 93,675 Gravel Crushing 84,287 63,150 Subtotal 365,061 261,825 Capital Forecast Bridge 1 (4 106) GIS ID 2300 1,000 Bridge 10 (4 72) GIS ID 2296 1,109,899 Bridge 12 (4 76) GISID 2479 511,809 Bridge 13 (4 75) GIS ID 2480 399,744 Bridge 14 (4 74) GIS ID 2481 30,000 Bridge 15 (4 71) GIS ID 2297 480,142 Bridge 17 (4 70) GIS ID 2483 453,334 Bridge 18 (4 50) GIS ID 2290 1,000 Bridge 19 (4 49) GIS ID 2301 8,000 Bridge 2 (4 105) GIS ID 2299 253,475 Bridge 3 (4 104) GIS ID 2293 372,179 Bridge 5 (4 155) GIS ID 2302 40,000 Bridge 6 (4 101) GIS ID 2292 220,000 Bridge 7 (4 102) GIS ID 2291 5,000 MILL STREET From: STATION STREET To: HENRY STREET 12,404 Municipal Road From: 3RD LINE To: END OF SHANNON COURT 114,467 9th Line / Station St / 5 Sideroad 278,100 20th Sideroad West TL 8th&9th 314,705 Townline West 151,285 20th 8th 7th 154,964 20 Sideroad Cty. Rd 12 Cty. Rd 11 (Micro Surfacing) 50,470 Village Green (Micro Surfacing) 23,084 Gravel 223,330 230,030 236,931 244,038 251,360 258,900 266,667 274,667 282,907 291,395 Total Capital financing Total Capital Expenses less Capital Financing 365,061 261,825 1,676,799 752,576 1,068,054 975,847 802,389 512,376 421,632 274,667 397,375 663,574 Capital Expansion Forecast Amaranth Estaes Roads 63,000 Hamount Sub division Roads 108,000 Subtotal 63,000 108,000 Level of Service Adjustment Taxation Funded Total Level of Service Enhancements 29,070 3,121 48,285 5,953 77,838 33,222 10,913 11,131 11,353 110,319 Total 1,705,869 755,697 1,116,339 1,044,801 880,227 653,598 432,544 285,798 408,728 773,893 Capital Financing Provincial MIII Grant Grants and Subsidies Gas Tax 118,186 45,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 Capital Paid from Property Taxes 230,569 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 183,825 Reserve Fund Capital Reserve Roads 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Reserve Fund Development Charges Reserve Fund Roads Debentures Reserve Fund Gravel 16,306 33,000 Reserves and Reserve Funds Growth Related Debt Non Growth Related Debt Other Developer Contribution 63,000 108,000 Other Transfer from Operating Annual Growth Total Capital financing 365,061 261,825 501,825 351,825 351,825 414,825 351,825 459,825 351,825 351,825 351,825 351,825 Total Capital Expenses less Capital Financing 1,204,044 403,872 764,514 629,976 528,402 193,773 80,719 (66,027) 56,903 422,068

Asset Type: Bridge GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Rehabiliation Rehabiliation Cost Planned $ 4,621,377 $ 1,210,566 $ 3,410,811 $ 12,380,899 2300 Bridge 1 (4-106) 2007 75 69 6 345957.59 27676.61 318280.98 92.00 $ 408,119.54 Very Good Rare Major M 2072 2077 1000 2013 2082 2296 Bridge 10 (4-72) 1900 75 0 113 16232.8 16232.8 0 0.00 $ 1,077,572.12 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2014 2289 Bridge 11 (4-73) 1900 75 0 113 16114.6 16114.6 0 0.00 $ 440,727.00 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2028 2479 Bridge 12 (4-76) 1910 75 0 103 20256 20256 0 0.00 $ 454,735.43 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2017 2480 Bridge 13 (4-75) 1910 75 0 103 15360 15360 0 0.00 $ 344,823.08 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2018 2481 Bridge 14 (4-74) 2000 75 62 13 431256 74751.04 356504.96 82.67 $ 549,561.78 Very Good Rare Major M 2065 2070 30000 2015 2075 2297 Bridge 15 (4-71) 1900 75 0 113 16548 16548 0 0.00 $ 452,580.29 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2015 2482 Bridge 16 (4-69) 1988 75 50 25 303072 101024 202048 66.67 $ 517,234.62 Good Unlikely Major M 2053 2058 2063 2483 Bridge 17 (4-70) 1900 75 0 113 15169 15169 0 0.00 $ 414,865.26 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2016 2290 Bridge 18 (4-50) 2007 75 69 6 340526.97 27242.16 313284.81 92.00 $ 401,713.14 Very Good Rare Major M 2072 2077 1000 2014 2082 2301 Bridge 19 (4-49) 2002 75 64 11 145291.32 21309.39 123981.92 85.33 $ 253,335.15 Very Good Rare Major M 2067 2072 8000 2014 2077 2299 Bridge 2 (4-105) 1900 75 0 113 7761.8 7761.8 0 0.00 $ 212,281.71 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2014 2019 2484 Bridge 20 (4-78) 1980 75 42 33 56370 24802.8 31567.2 56.00 $ 161,635.82 Average Possible Major H 2142 2147 2152 2293 Bridge 3 (4-104) 1920 75 0 93 25057.5 25057.5 0 0.00 $ 276,936.03 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2013 2013 2023 2294 Bridge 4 (4-103) 1995 75 57 18 161595 38782.8 122812.2 76.00 $ 226,290.14 Good Unlikely Major M 2050 2060 2070 2302 Bridge 5 (4-155) 1980 75 42 33 526120 231492.8 294627.2 56.00 $ 1,508,600.96 Average Possible Major H 2035 2045 40000 2016 2055 2292 Bridge 6 (4-101) 1968 75 30 45 355960 213576 142384 40.00 $ 2,370,658.65 Poor Likely Major H 2037 2047 220000 2017 2057 2291 Bridge 7 (4-102) 1991 75 53 22 453778 133108.21 320669.79 70.67 $ 668,094.71 Good Unlikely Major M 2046 2056 5000 2014 2066 2295 Bridge 8 (4-66) 1993 75 55 20 465186 124049.6 341136.4 73.33 $ 668,094.71 Good Unlikely Major M 2048 2058 2068 2298 Bridge 9 (4-65) 2008 75 70 5 903764.71 60250.98 843513.73 93.33 $ 973,038.65 Very Good Rare Major M 2063 2073 2083

Asset Type: Roads GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Surface Type Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition Cost (As per Priority (2013$) Inflated RC Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Subsequent Revised Remaining Useful Life Revised Subsequent Revised Remaining Useful Life Rehabiliation Rehabiliation Cost Planned $ 3,191,581 $ 1,918,490 $ 1,273,101 $ 5,862,238 2402 20TH SIDEROAD From: 0.6 km E. of 9TH LINE To: 8TH LINE 2008 15 10 5 48212.87 16070.96 32141.91 Asphalt 91.60 $ 51,908.41 Very Good Rare minor L 2019 2034 6 2021 2036 8 2038 2370 20TH SIDEROAD From: 10TH SIDEROAD To: 9TH SIDEROAD 2004 15 6 9 83709.15 50225.49 33483.66 Asphalt 91.60 $ 126,141.49 Very Good Rare minor L 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034 2377 20TH SIDEROAD From: 2ND LINE To: MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE 2005 15 7 8 86304.19 46028.9 40275.29 Asphalt 96.00 $ 121,246.36 Very Good Rare minor L 2016 2031 3 2018 2033 5 2035 2375 20TH SIDEROAD From: 4TH LINE To: COUNTY ROAD 11 1996 15 0 17 77255.08 77255.08 0 Asphalt 72.50 $ 186,854.59 Good Unlikely minor M 2007 2022 6 2009 2024 4 2026 2373 20TH SIDEROAD From: 6TH LINE To: 5TH LINE (COUNTY ROAD 12) 2008 15 10 5 81860.24 27286.75 54573.49 Asphalt 91.63 $ 88,134.86 Very Good Rare minor L 2019 2034 6 2021 2036 8 2038 2372 20TH SIDEROAD From: 7TH LINE To: 6TH LINE 2008 15 10 5 111035.29 37011.76 74023.52 Asphalt 91.63 $ 119,546.19 Very Good Rare minor L 2019 2034 6 2021 2036 8 2038 2392 20TH SIDEROAD From: 9TH LINE To: 0.6 km E. of 9TH LINE 2008 15 10 5 40712.58 13570.86 27141.72 Asphalt 91.60 $ 43,833.22 Very Good Rare minor L 2019 2034 6 2021 2036 8 2038 2406 30TH SIDEROAD From: 0.7 KM E. of 2ND LINE To: MONO _ AMARANTH TOWNLINE 2002 15 4 11 40034.94 29358.96 10675.98 Asphalt 96.25 $ 69,806.37 Very Good Rare minor L 2013 2028 0 2015 2030 2 2032 2403 5TH SIDEROAD From: 0.7 km E. of 2ND LINE To: MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE (COU 2003 15 5 10 41014.93 27343.28 13671.64 Asphalt 98.00 $ 66,921.93 Very Good Rare minor L 2014 2029 1 2016 2031 3 2033 2393 5TH SIDEROAD From: 2ND LINE To: 0.7 km E. of 2ND LINE 2003 15 5 10 41995.93 27997.29 13998.64 Asphalt 98.00 $ 68,522.58 Very Good Rare minor L 2014 2029 1 2016 2031 3 2033 2469 5TH SIDEROAD From: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 0.1 km E. of AMARAN 2004 15 6 9 9837.63 5902.58 3935.05 Asphalt 64.00 $ 14,824.34 Good Unlikely minor M 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034 2461 6TH LINE From: COUNTY ROAD 10 To: 0.4 km N. of COUNTY ROAD 10 1991 15 0 22 21104.31 21104.31 0 Asphalt 99.00 $ 58,929.30 Very Good Rare minor L 2002 2017 11 2004 2019 9 2033 2318 9TH LINE From: 0.3 km S. of 20TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH SIDEROAD 2007 2 0 6 585.69 585.69 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 702.81 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2018 2020 5 2020 2022 7 2037 2471 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 1.6 km N. of 15TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH S 2005 2 0 8 2467.01 2467.01 0 Asphalt 52.25 $ 3,465.82 Average Possible minor M 2016 2018 3 2018 2020 5 2035 2385 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 0.7 km N. of 20TH S 2005 2 0 8 1290.35 1290.35 0 Asphalt 52.25 $ 1,812.78 Average Possible minor M 2016 2018 3 2018 2020 5 2035 2395 CRAGO ROAD From: 5TH SIDEROAD To: MCKIBBON AVENUE 1980 15 0 33 3028.71 3028.71 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 30,492.48 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2382 CRAGO ROAD From: HOUGHSON STREET To: END OF CRAGO ROAD 1980 15 0 33 5530.4 5530.4 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 55,679.08 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2410 CRAGO ROAD From: MCKIBBON AVENUE To: HOUGHSON STREET 1980 15 0 33 5712.51 5712.51 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 57,512.48 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2426 Evans Avenue From: JAMES STREET To: END 1985 15 0 28 1047.23 1047.23 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 5,235.48 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2427 Evans Avenue From: JAMES STREET To: HENRY STREET 1985 15 0 28 2554.85 2554.85 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 12,772.63 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2305 GRAND VIEW ROAD From: COUNTY ROAD 109 To: END OF GRAND VIEW ROAD 2008 2 0 5 1504.53 1504.53 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 1,619.85 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2019 2021 6 2021 2023 8 2038 2408 HORNETT LANE From: MENARY DRIVE To: COUNTY ROAD 10 1989 15 0 24 3447.51 3447.51 0 Asphalt 60.00 $ 10,294.23 Average Possible minor M 2000 2015 13 2002 2017 11 2024 2411 HUGHSON STREET From: MCKIBBON AVENUE To: MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE 1980 15 0 33 6040.52 6040.52 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 60,814.82 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2306 MCKIBBON AVENUE From: CRAGO ROAD To: HUGHSON STREET 1980 15 0 33 15940.52 15940.52 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 160,486.28 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2407 MENARY DRIVE From: COUNTY ROAD 12 To: HORNETT LANE 1989 15 0 24 9126.4 9126.4 0 Asphalt 60.00 $ 27,251.29 Average Possible minor M 2000 2015 13 2002 2017 11 2024 2424 MILL STREET From: CHURCH STREET To: CHURCH STREET 1985 15 0 28 10880.75 10880.75 0 Asphalt 93.75 $ 54,396.96 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2425 MILL STREET From: CHURCH STREET To: DAVID STREET 1985 15 0 28 8737.64 8737.64 0 Asphalt 93.75 $ 43,682.74 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2399 MILL STREET From: DAVID STREET To: STATION STREET 1985 15 0 28 5023.24 5023.24 0 Asphalt 93.75 $ 25,113.04 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2024 2422 MILL STREET From: STATION STREET To: HENRY STREET 1985 15 0 28 2338.6 2338.6 0 Asphalt 98.00 $ 11,691.54 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2015 3201 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 0.3 km S. of 20TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH SIDEROA 2009 15 11 4 17583.39 4688.9 12894.48 Asphalt 98.63 $ 19,299.75 Very Good Rare minor L 2020 2035 7 2022 2037 9 2039 2432 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 0.6 km N. of 30TH SIDEROAD To: HIGHWAY 89 2002 15 4 11 34368.19 25203.34 9164.85 Asphalt 55.00 $ 59,925.60 Average Possible minor M 2013 2028 0 2015 2030 2 2032 3202 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH SIDEROAD 2009 15 11 4 39154.55 10441.21 28713.34 Asphalt 98.63 $ 42,976.54 Very Good Rare minor L 2020 2035 7 2022 2037 9 2039 3259 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH SIDEROAD 2010 15 12 3 176525.79 35305.16 141220.63 Asphalt 98.63 $ 190,804.69 Very Good Rare minor L 2021 2036 8 2023 2038 10 2040 3258 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD To: 0.6 km N. of 25TH SIDEROA 2010 15 12 3 42799.21 8559.84 34239.37 Asphalt 98.63 $ 46,261.17 Very Good Rare minor L 2021 2036 8 2023 2038 10 2040 2475 MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE From: 30TH SIDEROAD To: 0.6 km N. of 30TH SIDEROA 2002 15 4 11 34635.25 25399.18 9236.07 Asphalt 55.00 $ 60,391.27 Average Possible minor M 2013 2028 0 2015 2030 2 2032 2470 Municipal Road From: 0.1 km E. of AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 10TH LI 2004 15 6 9 69862.5 41917.5 27945 Asphalt 64.00 $ 105,275.93 Good Unlikely minor M 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034 2405 Municipal Road From: 0.3 km E. of PETER STREET To: 9TH LINE 2004 15 6 9 32480.44 19488.26 12992.18 Asphalt 64.25 $ 48,944.84 Good Unlikely minor M 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034 2380 Municipal Road From: 0.6 km N. of 20TH SIDEROAD To: 1.4 km N. of 20TH SIDEROAD 2006 2 0 7 1343.87 1343.87 0 Asphalt 52.25 $ 1,741.19 Average Possible minor M 2017 2019 4 2019 2021 6 2036 3200 Municipal Road From: 0.6 km N. of 25TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2009 15 11 4 157238.75 41930.33 115308.42 Asphalt 98.25 $ 172,587.26 Very Good Rare minor L 2020 2035 7 2022 2037 9 2039 2448 Municipal Road From: 10TH LINE To: MILL STREET 2004 2 0 9 21927.81 21927.81 0 Asphalt 84.38 $ 33,043.07 Very Good Rare minor L 2015 2017 2 2017 2019 4 2034 2397 Municipal Road From: 10TH LINE To: ST. JOHN STREET 2004 15 6 9 22363.5 13418.1 8945.4 Asphalt 64.25 $ 33,699.61 Good Unlikely minor M 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034 3152 Municipal Road From: 15th Sideroad To: 0.25 l, S. of 20th Sideroad 2007 15 9 6 31203.77 12481.51 18722.26 Asphalt 55.00 $ 37,443.28 Average Possible minor M 2018 2033 5 2020 2035 7 2037 2431 Municipal Road From: 2ND LINE (COUNTY ROAD 11) To: 0.7 km E. of 2ND LINE 2002 15 4 11 40512.02 29708.81 10803.2 Asphalt 96.25 $ 70,638.21 Very Good Rare minor L 2013 2028 0 2015 2030 2 2032 2450 Municipal Road From: 30TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2001 15 3 12 36325.34 29060.27 7265.07 Asphalt 87.75 $ 65,803.90 Very Good Rare minor L 2012 2027 1 2014 2029 1 2031 2409 Municipal Road From: 3RD LINE To: END OF SHANNON COURT 1992 15 0 21 31535.8 31535.8 0 Asphalt 82.88 $ 87,729.51 Very Good Rare minor L 2003 2018 10 2005 2020 8 2022 2374 Municipal Road From: 5TH LINE To: 4TH LINE 1996 15 0 17 66174.95 66174.95 0 Asphalt 72.50 $ 160,055.39 Good Unlikely minor M 2007 2022 6 2009 2024 4 2026 2371 Municipal Road From: 8TH LINE To: 7TH LINE 2006 15 8 7 83769.06 39092.23 44676.83 Asphalt 91.63 $ 108,535.56 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2369 Municipal Road From: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 10TH LINE 2005 15 7 8 81341.81 43382.3 37959.51 Asphalt 48.50 $ 114,274.85 Average Possible minor M 2016 2031 3 2018 2033 5 2035 2429 Municipal Road From: CEDAR PLACE To: SYLVANWOOD ROADE 1998 15 0 15 10344.68 10344.68 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 23,389.42 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2401 Municipal Road From: CHERRYWOOD PLACE To: WOODLAND ROAD 1998 15 0 15 14592.75 14592.75 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 32,994.35 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2464 Municipal Road From: COUNTY ROAD 109 To: 0.6 km N. of COUNTY ROAD 109 2001 15 3 12 35507.91 28406.33 7101.58 Asphalt 82.38 $ 64,323.11 Very Good Rare minor L 2012 2027 1 2014 2029 1 2031 2376 Municipal Road From: COUNTY ROAD 11 To: 2ND LINE 2005 15 7 8 77378.37 41268.46 36109.9 Asphalt 96.00 $ 108,706.72 Very Good Rare minor L 2016 2031 3 2018 2033 5 2035 2439 Municipal Road From: COUNTY ROAD 11 To: 2ND LINE 2006 15 8 7 79789.76 37235.22 42554.54 Asphalt 61.00 $ 103,379.77 Good Unlikely minor M 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2396 Municipal Road From: CRAGO ROAD To: MCKIBBON AVENUE 1980 15 0 33 9878.41 9878.41 0 Asphalt 56.00 $ 99,454.06 Average Possible minor M 1991 2006 22 1993 2008 20 2028 2451 Municipal Road From: DAVID STREET To: HENRY STREET 1985 15 0 28 6986.58 6986.58 0 Asphalt 91.25 $ 34,928.50 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2447 Municipal Road From: EVANS AVENUE To: END OF JAMES STREET 1985 15 0 28 9459.94 9459.94 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 47,293.74 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2412 Municipal Road From: EVANS STREET To: END 1985 15 0 28 2340.46 2340.46 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 11,700.86 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2304 Municipal Road From: HIGHWAY 89 To: MAPLEWOOD DRIVE 1998 15 0 15 13578.49 13578.49 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 30,701.09 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2413 Municipal Road From: MAIN STREET To: EVANS STREET 1985 15 0 28 5210.75 5210.75 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 26,050.47 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2308 Municipal Road From: MAPLEWOOD DRIVE To: END OF CEDAR PLACE 1998 15 0 15 15481.21 15481.21 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 35,003.18 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2307 Municipal Road From: MAPLEWOOD DRIVE To: END OF CHERRYWOOD DRIVE 1998 15 0 15 15708.03 15708.03 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 35,516.00 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2452 Municipal Road From: MAPLEWOOD DRIVE To: END OF WOODLAND DRIVE 1998 15 0 15 23067.09 23067.09 0 Asphalt 63.75 $ 52,154.92 Good Unlikely minor M 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2414 Municipal Road From: MILL STREET To: MAIN STREET 1985 15 0 28 3242.28 3242.28 0 Asphalt 90.25 $ 16,209.36 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2458 Municipal Road From: MILL STREET To: MAIN STREET 1985 15 0 28 3207.51 3207.51 0 Asphalt 91.25 $ 16,035.53 Very Good Rare minor L 1996 2011 17 1998 2013 15 2026 2430 Municipal Road From: MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE To: CEDAR PLACE 1998 15 0 15 19536.11 19536.11 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 44,171.35 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2398 Municipal Road From: ST. JOHN STREET To: PETER STREET 2004 15 6 9 17018.81 10211.29 6807.52 Asphalt 64.25 $ 25,645.68 Good Unlikely minor M 2015 2030 2 2017 2032 4 2034

Asset Type: Roads GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Surface Type Condition Used for Analysis Probability of Failure Asset Condition Revised Subsequent Revised Subsequent Revised Planned Cost (Based on Consequence Risk of Revised Remaining Rehabiliation Rehabiliation (As per Priority Remaining (2013$) Inflated RC Condition or of Failure Failure Useful Life Cost Rating) Expected Useful Life Condition) $ Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2421 Municipal Road From: ST. JOHN STREET To: RUSSEL HILL ROAD 2006 15 8 7 7894.37 3684.04 4210.33 Asphalt 95.00 10,228.36 2428 Municipal Road From: SYLVANWOOD ROAD To: CHERRYWOOD PLACE 1998 15 0 15 4649.41 4649.41 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 10,512.36 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 2400 Municipal Road From: WOODLAND ROAD To: END OF MAPLEWOOD DRIVE 1998 15 0 15 6925.89 6925.89 0 Asphalt 92.13 $ 15,659.51 Very Good Rare minor L 2009 2024 4 2011 2026 2 2028 3510 NULL 2011 15 13 2 27909 3721.2 24187.8 Asphalt 86.67 $ 28,877.49 Very Good Rare minor L 2022 2037 9 2024 2039 11 2041 3512 NULL 2011 15 13 2 55118 7349.07 47768.93 Asphalt 93.75 $ 57,030.69 Very Good Rare minor L 2022 2037 9 2024 2039 11 2041 3514 NULL 2011 15 13 2 10105 1347.33 8757.67 Asphalt 64.00 $ 10,455.66 Good Unlikely minor M 2022 2037 9 2024 2039 11 2041 3557 NULL 2012 15 14 1 29878.54 497.98 29380.56 Asphalt 93.75 $ 30,162.83 Very Good Rare minor L 2023 2038 10 2025 2040 12 2042 3558 NULL 2012 15 14 1 40167.3 669.46 39497.85 Asphalt 98.00 $ 40,549.49 Very Good Rare minor L 2023 2038 10 2025 2040 12 2042 3559 NULL 2012 15 14 1 7078.66 117.98 6960.68 Asphalt 93.33 $ 7,146.01 Very Good Rare minor L 2023 2038 10 2025 2040 12 2042 3562 NULL 2012 15 14 1 8313.31 138.56 8174.75 Asphalt 93.33 $ 8,392.41 Very Good Rare minor L 2023 2038 10 2025 2040 12 2042 3044 PETER COURT From: PETER STREET To: END OF PETER COURT 2006 15 8 7 10560.36 4928.17 5632.19 Asphalt 95.00 $ 13,682.54 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2420 PETER STREET From: RUSSEL HILL ROAD To: PETER STREET / PETER COURT 2006 15 8 7 21362.84 9969.32 11393.51 Asphalt 95.00 $ 27,678.81 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2418 RUSSEL HILL ROAD From: PETER STREET / PETER COURT To: PETER STREET 2006 15 8 7 28529.18 13313.62 15215.56 Asphalt 95.00 $ 36,963.90 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2419 RUSSEL HILL ROAD From: ST. JOHN STREET To: PETER STREET 2006 15 8 7 17761.03 8288.48 9472.55 Asphalt 95.00 $ 23,012.11 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2417 St. John Street From: RUSSEL HILL ROAD To: PETER STREET 2006 15 8 7 30087.73 14040.94 16046.79 Asphalt 95.00 $ 38,983.24 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 2416 St. John Street From: STATION STREET To: RUSSEL HILL ROAD 2006 15 8 7 11966.95 5584.58 6382.38 Asphalt 95.00 $ 15,505.01 Very Good Rare minor L 2017 2032 4 2019 2034 6 2036 9th Line / Station St / 5 Sideroad Asphalt $ 270,000.00 minor 2014 20th Sideroad West TL 8th&9th Asphalt $ 288,000.00 minor 2016 Townline West Asphalt $ 130,500.00 minor 2018 20th 8th 7th Asphalt $ 126,000.00 minor 2020 20 Sideroad Cty. Rd 12 Cty. Rd 11 (Micro Surfacing) M S $ 49,000.00 minor 2014 Village Green (Micro Surfacing) m S $ 21,125.00 minor 2016 2323 NULL 2007 2 0 6 6072.4 6072.4 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,286.64 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2356 30TH SIDEROAD From: 8TH LINE To: 7TH LINE 2007 2 0 6 2650.42 2650.42 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,180.41 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2357 30TH SIDEROAD From: 9TH LINE To: 8TH LINE 2007 2 0 6 2759.74 2759.74 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,311.58 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2358 30TH SIDEROAD From: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 10TH LINE 2007 2 0 6 2644.5 2644.5 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,173.29 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2359 30TH SIDEROAD From: 10TH LINE To: 9TH LINE 2007 2 0 6 2727.87 2727.87 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,273.34 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2386 4TH LINE From: 1.2 km N. of 15TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH SIDEROAD 2008 2 0 5 3531.34 3531.34 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,802.02 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 2387 4TH LINE From: 15TH SIDEROAD To: 1.2 km N. of 15TH SIDEROAD 2008 2 0 5 2580.53 2580.53 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 2,778.33 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3165 15TH SIDEROAD From: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 10TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4589.43 4589.43 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,037.42 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3166 15TH SIDEROAD From: 10TH LINE To: 9TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4812.37 4812.37 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,282.12 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3167 15TH SIDEROAD From: 9TH LINE To: 8TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 5052.33 5052.33 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,545.50 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3168 15TH SIDEROAD From: 8TH LINE To: 7TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4631.22 4631.22 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,083.29 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3169 15TH SIDEROAD From: 7TH LINE To: 6TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 3629 3639 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 6,886.58 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3171 15TH SIDEROAD From: 5TH LINE (COUNTY ROAD 12) To: 4TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4637.34 4637.34 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,090.00 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3176 8TH LINE From: 30TH SIDEROAD To: HIGHWAY 89 2009 2 0 4 3888.14 3888.14 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,267.67 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3178 8TH LINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2009 2 0 4 10744.15 10744.15 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 11,792.92 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3180 8TH LINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH SIDEROAD 2009 2 0 4 10787.31 10787.31 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 11,840.29 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3181 30TH SIDEROAD From: 5TH LINE (COUNTY ROAD 12) To: 4TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4461.83 4461.83 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,897.36 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3183 25TH SIDEROAD From: 5TH LINE To: 4TH LINE 2009 2 0 4 4540 4540 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,983.16 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3184 25TH SIDEROAD From: 4TH LINE To: COUNTY ROAD 11 2009 2 0 4 5318.48 5318.48 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,837.63 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3193 2ND LINE From: 0.6 km N. of COUNTY ROAD 109 To: 5TH SIDEROAD 2009 2 0 4 8584.06 8584.06 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 9,421.97 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3198 25TH SIDEROAD From: 0.1 km E. of COUNTY ROAD 11 To: 2ND LINE 2009 2 0 4 4389.47 4389.47 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,817.94 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3199 25TH SIDEROAD From: 2ND LINE To: MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE 2009 2 0 4 4921.42 4921.42 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,401.81 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3231 6TH LINE From: COUNTY ROAD 109 To: 5TH SIDEROAD 2010 2 0 3 7637.02 7637.02 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 8,229.44 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3238 30TH SIDEROAD From: 6TH LINE To: 5TH LINE (COUNTY ROAD 12) 2010 2 0 3 3151.51 3151.51 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,395.98 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3239 25TH SIDEROAD From: 7TH LINE To: 6TH LINE 2010 2 0 3 4453.38 4453.38 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,798.84 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3241 5TH SIDEROAD From: 6TH LINE To: COUNTY ROAD 12 2010 2 0 3 3299.2 3299.2 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,555.13 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3249 2ND LINE From: 5TH SIDEROAD To: COUNTY ROAD 10 2010 2 0 3 5508.53 5508.53 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 8,479.77 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3250 2ND LINE From: 10TH SIDEROAD To: 1.9 km N. of 10TH SIDEROAD 2010 2 0 3 4877.68 4877.68 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,256.05 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3251 2ND LINE From: 1.9 km N. of 10TH SIDEROAD To: 15TH SIDEROAD 2010 2 0 3 2985.77 2985.77 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,217.38 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3252 2ND LINE From: 15TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH SIDEROAD 2010 2 0 3 7899.73 7899.73 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 8,512.53 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3256 30TH SIDEROAD From: 4TH LINE To: COUNTY ROAD 11 2010 2 0 3 3828.48 3828.48 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,125.46 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3390 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 15TH SIDEROAD To: 1.6 km N. of 15TH S 2011 2 0 2 7591.5 7591.5 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,854.94 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3391 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 1.4km N. of 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH S 2011 2 0 2 8909.03 8909.03 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 9,218.19 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3392 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16103.18 16103.18 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,661.99 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3393 AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE From: 30TH SIDEROAD To: HIGHWAY 89 2011 2 0 2 4789.13 4789.13 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,955.32 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3394 10TH LINE From: 30TH SIDEROAD To: HIGHWAY 89 2011 2 0 2 5803.42 5803.42 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 6,004.81 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3395 10TH LINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16181.6 16181.6 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,743.13 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3396 10TH LINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16113.63 16113.63 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,672.80 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3397 10TH LINE From: 15TH SIDEROAD To: 20TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16113.63 16113.63 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,672.80 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3398 10TH LINE From: COUNTY ROAD 10 To: 15TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16155.46 16155.46 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,716.08 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3399 10TH LINE From: 5TH SIDEROAD To: COUNTY ROAD 10 2011 2 0 2 16045.66 16045.66 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,602.47 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3400 5TH SIDEROAD From: 10TH LINE To: 9TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 7110.49 7110.49 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,357.24 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3401 9TH LINE From: STATION STREET To: 5TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 9735.1 9735.1 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,072.92 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3402 9TH LINE From: 5TH SIDEROAD To: COUNTY ROAD 10 2011 2 0 2 15993.38 15993.38 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,548.38 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3403 8TH LINE From: 5TH SIDEROAD To: COUNTY ROAD 10 2011 2 0 2 16145 16145 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,705.26 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3404 5TH SIDEROAD From: 9TH LINE To: 8TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 7314.4 7314.4 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,568.22 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3405 8TH LINE From: COUNTY ROAD 109 To: 5TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16406.42 16406.42 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,975.75 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3406 5TH SIDEROAD From: 8TH LINE To: 7TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 6645.17 6645.17 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 6,875.77 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3407 5TH SIDEROAD From: 7TH LINE To: 6TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 9123.39 9123.39 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 9,439.99 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3408 9TH LINE From: COUNTY ROAD 10 To: 15TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 16176.37 16176.37 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,737.72 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013

Asset Type: Roads GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Probability of Remaining 2012 Failure Asset Condition Revised Subsequent Revised Subsequent Revised Planned 2012 Net Book Condition Used Cost (Based on Consequence Risk of Revised Remaining Rehabiliation Rehabiliation Age Historic Cost Accumulated Surface Type (As per Priority Remaining Useful Life Value for Analysis (2013$) Inflated RC Condition or of Failure Failure Useful Life Cost Amortization Rating) Expected Useful Life Condition) 3409 25TH SIDEROAD From: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE To: 10TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 6896.13 6896.13 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,135.44 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3410 25TH SIDEROAD From: 10TH LINE To: 9TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 7251.66 7251.66 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,503.31 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3411 25TH SIDEROAD From: 9TH LINE To: 8TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 7298.71 7298.71 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,551.99 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3412 25TH SIDEROAD From: 8TH LINE To: 7TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 6911.82 6911.82 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,151.67 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3415 30TH SIDEROAD From: 7TH LINE To: 6TH LINE 2011 2 0 2 8783.55 8783.55 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 9,088.35 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3416 25TH SIDEROAD From: 6TH LINE To: 5TH LINE (COUNTY ROAD 12) 2011 2 0 2 6660.86 6660.86 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 6,892.00 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3417 4TH LINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD To: 30TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 9646.22 9646.22 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 9,980.96 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3418 4TH LINE From: 20TH SIDEROAD To: 25TH SIDEROAD 2011 2 0 2 15894.04 15894.04 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 16,445.59 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3419 4TH LINE From: 25TH SIDEROAD (Concession 29) To: 25TH SIDEROAD (Concession 30) 2011 2 0 2 3288.6 3288.6 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,402.72 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3515 NULL 2011 2 0 2 7988.85 7988.85 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 8,266.08 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3516 NULL 2011 2 0 2 6603.35 6603.35 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 6,832.50 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3517 NULL 2011 2 0 2 7314.39 7314.39 0 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,568.21 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3518 NULL 2012 2 1 1 3701.1 1850.55 1850.55 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,736.32 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3519 NULL 2012 2 1 1 2994.71 1497.35 1497.35 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,023.20 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3520 NULL 2012 2 1 1 3170.48 1585.24 1585.24 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,200.65 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3521 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10234.4 5117.2 5117.2 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,331.78 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3522 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10247.67 5123.83 5123.83 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,345.18 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3523 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10128.28 5064.14 5064.14 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,224.65 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3524 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10234.4 5117.2 5117.2 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,331.78 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3525 NULL 2012 2 1 1 3707.73 1853.87 1853.87 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,743.01 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3526 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10247.67 5123.83 5123.83 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,345.18 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3527 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10231.09 5115.54 5115.54 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,328.44 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3528 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10320.63 5160.31 5160.31 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,418.83 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3529 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10148.18 5074.09 5074.09 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,244.74 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3530 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10503.03 5251.51 5251.51 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,602.97 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3531 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10197.92 5098.96 5098.96 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,294.95 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3532 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10115.01 5057.51 5057.51 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,211.25 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3533 NULL 2012 2 1 1 8649.16 4324.58 4324.58 Gravel 0.00 $ 8,731.46 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3534 NULL 2012 2 1 1 5933.03 2966.52 2966.52 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,989.48 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3535 NULL 2012 2 1 1 4463.87 2231.94 2231.94 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,506.34 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3536 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10244.35 5122.18 5122.18 gravel 0.00 $ 10,341.82 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3537 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10178.02 5089.01 5089.01 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,274.86 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3538 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10509.66 5254.83 5254.83 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,609.66 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3539 NULL 2012 2 1 1 3956.46 1978.23 1978.23 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,994.11 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3540 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10234.4 5117.2 5117.2 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,331.78 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3541 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10131.59 5065.8 5065.8 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,227.99 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3542 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10138.23 5069.11 5069.11 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,234.69 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3543 NULL 2012 2 1 1 4493.72 2246.86 2246.86 Gravel 0.00 $ 4,536.48 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3544 NULL 2012 2 1 1 5084.04 2542.02 2542.02 Gravel 0.00 $ 5,132.41 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3545 NULL 2012 2 1 1 10204.55 5102.28 5102.28 Gravel 0.00 $ 10,301.65 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3546 NULL 2012 2 1 1 7349.14 3674.57 3674.57 Gravel 0.00 $ 7,419.07 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3547 NULL 2012 2 1 1 2805.67 1402.84 1402.84 Gravel 0.00 $ 2,832.37 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3548 NULL 2012 2 1 1 3797.27 1898.64 1898.64 Gravel 0.00 $ 3,833.40 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 3549 NULL 2012 2 1 1 2520.46 1260.23 1260.23 Gravel 0.00 $ 2,544.44 Very Poor Almost Certain minor H 2 2013 2 2013 Amaranth Estaes 2017 63000 2043 Hamount Sub division 2019 108000 2049

Asset Type: Road Base GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Desktop Degradation Planned $ 8,521,991 $ 4,156,152 $ 4,365,839 $ 67,047,282 2552 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 4694.63 4694.63 0 445339.37 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2553 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6068.35 6068.35 0 381657.11 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2058 2068 2078 2719 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6545.11 6545.11 0 411641.87 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2057 2067 2077 2721 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 7314.11 7314.11 0 460006.72 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2053 2063 2073 2722 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6464 6464 0 406540.82 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2723 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6101.97 6101.97 0 383771.64 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2714 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6307.06 6307.06 0 396670.14 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2057 2067 2077 2715 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 8878.69 8878.69 0 558408.25 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2716 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6298.72 6298.72 0 396146.21 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2717 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6871.46 6871.46 0 432167.2 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2022 2032 2042 2718 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6241.9 6241.9 0 392572.05 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2022 2032 2042 2709 Amaranth East Luther Townline 1854 60 0 159 4369.23 4369.23 0 274794.47 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2055 2065 2075 2710 Amaranth East Luther Townline 1854 60 0 159 14691.32 14691.32 0 923982.31 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2711 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 5296.34 5296.34 0 333103.07 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2030 2040 2050 2691 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6673.95 6673.95 0 419745.09 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2686 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 12441.84 12441.84 0 782505.76 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2689 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 8321.4 8321.4 0 523358.8 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2690 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6063.75 6063.75 0 381368.16 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2677 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 7288.18 7288.18 0 458375.97 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2678 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6418.77 6418.77 0 403696.49 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2668 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 14762.49 14762.49 0 928458.6 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2669 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 14701.13 14701.13 0 924599.58 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2670 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 14702 14702 0 924653.8 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2671 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 14740.71 14740.71 0 927088.88 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2672 10th Line 1854 60 0 159 14640.38 14640.38 0 920778.74 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2665 Amaranth East Luther Townline 1854 60 0 159 8127.21 8127.21 0 511145.13 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2647 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 7233.44 7233.44 0 454933.31 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2648 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6693.42 6693.42 0 420970.04 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2652 5th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6486.78 6486.78 0 407973.27 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2641 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6618.34 6618.34 0 416247.83 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2642 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6658.22 6658.22 0 418756.02 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2643 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6307.24 6307.24 0 396681.49 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2644 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 8236.66 8236.66 0 518028.97 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2645 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6075.39 6075.39 0 382099.7 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2646 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6174.66 6174.66 0 388343.53 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2636 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 5208.26 5208.26 0 327563.66 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2637 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6695.13 6695.13 0 421077.61 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2638 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6415.56 6415.56 0 403494.48 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2639 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6617.82 6617.82 0 416214.91 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2640 25th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6291.71 6291.71 0 395705.22 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2630 Amaranth East Luther Townline 1854 60 0 159 8385.83 8385.83 0 527410.67 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2631 2nd Line 1854 60 0 159 5522.28 5522.28 0 347312.91 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2632 2nd Line 1854 60 0 159 9021.42 9021.42 0 567384.67 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2619 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 5828.8 5828.8 0 366591.5 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2620 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 8012.36 8012.36 0 503921.76 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2621 30th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6429.93 6429.93 0 404397.82 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M

Asset Type: Road Base GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) 2625 Mono Amaranth Townline 1854 60 0 159 2839.78 2839.78 0 178602.62 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2618 Grand View Road 1854 60 0 159 3588.31 3588.31 0 225680.04 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2606 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 15115.22 15115.22 0 950643.05 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2600 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 14590.01 14590.01 0 917610.75 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2601 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 14124.89 14124.89 0 888357.66 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2602 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 14550.59 14550.59 0 915131.24 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2603 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 14735.56 14735.56 0 926764.55 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2604 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 14637.64 14637.64 0 920606.17 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2605 6th Line 1854 60 0 159 5692.23 5692.23 0 358001.66 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2596 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6675.49 6675.49 0 419841.87 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2597 15th Sideroad 1854 60 0 159 6022.92 6022.92 0 378800.2 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2598 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 8883.99 8883.99 0 558741.78 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2599 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 14760.27 14760.27 0 928318.69 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2588 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 14714.96 14714.96 0 925469.09 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2589 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 14844.43 14844.43 0 933612.14 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2590 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 14596.93 14596.93 0 918045.97 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2591 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 14669.87 14669.87 0 922633.62 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2592 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 15105.41 15105.41 0 950025.85 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2582 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14567.76 14567.76 0 916211.6 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2583 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14671.37 14671.37 0 922727.7 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2584 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 5288.1 5288.1 0 332585.02 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2585 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14612.67 14612.67 0 919035.73 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2586 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 5330.69 5330.69 0 335263.61 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2587 7th Line 1854 60 0 159 14736.99 14736.99 0 926854.96 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2581 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14719.54 14719.54 0 925757.27 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2561 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 14739.08 14739.08 0 926985.98 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2562 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 5325.65 5325.65 0 334946.36 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2564 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14967.56 14967.56 0 941355.92 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2565 8th Line 1854 60 0 159 14731.65 14731.65 0 926518.61 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2566 2nd Line 1854 60 0 159 4034.32 4034.32 0 253730.63 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2557 2nd Line 1854 60 0 159 14554.57 14554.57 0 915381.56 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2558 2nd Line 1854 60 0 159 14610.78 14610.78 0 918917.16 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2560 9th Line 1854 60 0 159 1420.88 1420.88 0 89363.58 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2676 20th Sideroad 1963 60 10 50 54026.74 45022.28 9004.46 390366.61 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2593 20th Sideroad 1963 60 10 50 63072.54 52560.71 10511.83 455728.41 Very Poor Almost Certain insignificant M 2674 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 86607.52 63512.18 23095.34 512470.55 Poor Likely insignificant M 2675 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 63850.99 46824.06 17026.93 377816.5 Poor Likely insignificant M 2649 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 66835.15 49012.44 17822.71 395474.26 Poor Likely insignificant M 2650 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 70072.05 51386.17 18685.88 414627.54 Poor Likely insignificant M 2651 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 67737.79 49674.38 18063.41 400815.31 Poor Likely insignificant M 2579 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 37606.04 27577.76 10028.28 222520.92 Poor Likely insignificant M 2569 20th Sideroad 1969 60 16 44 31755.81 23287.6 8468.22 187904.22 Poor Likely insignificant M 2622 Mill Street 1970 60 17 43 3472.69 2488.76 983.93 19866.63 Poor Likely insignificant M 2624 Mill Street 1970 60 17 43 16157.29 11579.39 4577.9 92433.03 Poor Likely insignificant M 2576 Mill Street 1970 60 17 43 7459.22 5345.78 2113.45 42672.9 Poor Likely insignificant M 2549 Cherrywood Place 1971 60 18 42 16203.87 11342.71 4861.16 90071.55 Poor Likely insignificant M 2057 2067 2077 2550 Cedar Place 1971 60 18 42 15969.9 11178.93 4790.97 88770.96 Poor Likely insignificant M 2057 2067 2077 2713 Mono Amaranth Townline 1971 60 18 42 32059.51 22441.66 9617.85 178207.38 Poor Likely insignificant M 2057 2067 2077 Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Desktop Degradation Planned

Asset Type: Road Base GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) 2682 2nd Line 1971 60 18 42 119573.5 83701.45 35872.05 664666.49 Poor Likely insignificant M 2667 Woodland Road 1971 60 18 42 23795.23 16656.66 7138.57 132269.23 Poor Likely insignificant M 2661 Maplewood Drive 1971 60 18 42 4796.18 3357.32 1438.85 26660.24 Poor Likely insignificant M 2662 Maplewood Drive 1971 60 18 42 10671.22 7469.85 3201.37 59317.52 Poor Likely insignificant M 2663 Maplewood Drive 1971 60 18 42 20152.79 14106.96 6045.84 112022.2 Poor Likely insignificant M 2617 Sylvanwood Road 1971 60 18 42 14007.11 9804.98 4202.13 77860.53 Poor Likely insignificant M 2577 Maplewood Drive 1971 60 18 42 7144.52 5001.16 2143.35 39713.82 Poor Likely insignificant M 2578 Maplewood Drive 1971 60 18 42 15053.39 10537.37 4516.02 83676.42 Poor Likely insignificant M 2559 2nd Line 1971 60 18 42 166087.32 116261.12 49826.2 923220.24 Poor Likely insignificant M 2680 4th Line 1972 60 19 41 100060.38 68374.6 31685.79 529700.29 Poor Likely insignificant M 2681 4th Line 1972 60 19 41 73119.38 49964.91 23154.47 387079.82 Poor Likely insignificant M 2613 4th Line 1972 60 19 41 174893.2 119510.35 55382.85 925850.72 Poor Likely insignificant M 2614 4th Line 1972 60 19 41 173144.48 118315.39 54829.08 916593.3 Poor Likely insignificant M 2615 4th Line 1972 60 19 41 173228.5 118372.81 54855.69 917038.09 Poor Likely insignificant M 2563 9th Line 1976 60 23 37 247558.42 152661.03 94897.39 925798.13 Poor Likely insignificant M 2554 4th Line 1978 60 25 35 284846.63 166160.54 118686.1 912092.96 Average Possible insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2555 4th Line 1978 60 25 35 107254.42 62565.08 44689.34 343433.94 Average Possible insignificant L 2556 4th Line 1978 60 25 35 291337.08 169946.63 121390.45 932875.7 Average Possible insignificant L 2548 Mckibbon Avenue 1979 60 26 34 66837.03 37874.32 28962.71 195773.37 Average Possible insignificant L 2057 2067 2077 2699 Hughson Street 1979 60 26 34 25327.28 14352.13 10975.16 74186.54 Average Possible insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2698 Crago Road 1979 60 26 34 23951.98 13572.79 10379.19 70158.1 Average Possible insignificant L 2666 Crago Road 1979 60 26 34 23188.43 13140.11 10048.32 67921.58 Average Possible insignificant L 2572 Crago Road 1979 60 26 34 12699.08 7196.14 5502.93 37197.06 Average Possible insignificant L 2573 Hughson Street 1979 60 26 34 41419.2 23470.88 17948.32 121321.6 Average Possible insignificant L 2687 2nd Line 1980 60 27 33 275936.92 151765.31 124171.61 734265.35 Average Possible insignificant L 2688 2nd Line 1980 60 27 33 70635.51 38849.53 31785.98 187960.38 Average Possible insignificant L 2655 David Street 1984 60 31 29 14245.29 6885.22 7360.07 27248.07 Average Possible insignificant L 2609 Main Street 1984 60 31 29 31029.04 14997.37 16031.67 59351.64 Average Possible insignificant L 2700 Henry Street 1985 60 32 28 10802.14 5041 5761.14 19882.46 Average Possible insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2701 Henry Street 1985 60 32 28 24049.61 11223.15 12826.46 44265.8 Average Possible insignificant L 2054 2064 2074 2702 Henry Street 1985 60 32 28 14964.37 6983.37 7981 27543.48 Average Possible insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2683 10th Line 1985 60 32 28 79603.79 37148.44 42455.35 146519.03 Average Possible insignificant L 2653 James Street 1985 60 32 28 43661.25 20375.25 23286 80363.05 Average Possible insignificant L 2658 Mill Street 1985 60 32 28 40327.58 18819.54 21508.04 74227.1 Average Possible insignificant L 2659 Evans Avenue 1985 60 32 28 4833.35 2255.56 2577.79 8896.28 Average Possible insignificant L 2660 Evans Avenue 1985 60 32 28 11791.61 5502.75 6288.86 21703.68 Average Possible insignificant L 2580 5th Sideroad 1985 60 32 28 112130.95 52327.77 59803.17 206388.63 Average Possible insignificant L 2570 5th Sideroad 1985 60 32 28 114812.92 53579.36 61233.56 211325.09 Average Possible insignificant L 2627 5th Sideroad 1987 60 34 26 29285.33 12690.31 16595.02 48727.68 Average Possible insignificant L 2628 5th Sideroad 1987 60 34 26 207971.48 90120.97 117850.51 346042.4 Average Possible insignificant L 2695 Menary Drive 1988 60 35 25 39630.04 16512.52 23117.52 62765.35 Average Possible insignificant L 2696 Hornett Lane 1988 60 35 25 14970.33 6237.64 8732.69 23709.73 Average Possible insignificant L 2574 Station Street 1988 60 35 25 69940.64 29141.93 40798.71 110770.74 Average Possible insignificant L 2575 Station Street 1988 60 35 25 53225.4 22177.25 31048.15 84297.44 Average Possible insignificant L 2594 20th Sideroad 1989 60 36 24 252470.84 100988.33 151482.5 376204.49 Average Possible insignificant L 2595 20th Sideroad 1989 60 36 24 281594.08 112637.63 168956.45 419600.77 Average Possible insignificant L 2720 5th Sideroad 1990 60 37 23 268235.31 102823.54 165411.77 381775.28 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2053 2063 2073 2692 6th Line 1991 60 38 22 97404.53 35714.99 61689.54 133084.48 Good Unlikely insignificant L Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Desktop Degradation Planned

Asset Type: Road Base GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Cost Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) 2697 Shannon Court 1991 60 38 22 144249.05 52891.32 91357.73 197088.47 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2673 9th Line 1993 60 40 20 272838.65 90946.22 181892.43 363639.4 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2705 St. John Street 1994 60 41 19 108130.42 34241.3 73889.12 143962.74 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2022 2032 2042 2706 Russel Hill Road 1994 60 41 19 102529.23 32467.59 70061.64 136505.43 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2057 2067 2077 2704 St. John Street 1994 60 41 19 43007.28 13618.97 29388.31 57259.07 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2060 2070 2080 2612 Peter Street 1994 60 41 19 28371.08 8984.18 19386.91 37772.71 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2610 Russel Hill Road 1994 60 41 19 63830.23 20212.91 43617.33 84982.34 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2611 Peter Street 1994 60 41 19 76774.56 24311.94 52462.62 102216.16 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2712 30th Sideroad 2001 60 48 12 183155.37 36631.07 146524.3 210064.65 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2685 30th Sideroad 2001 60 48 12 180998.51 36199.7 144798.81 207590.9 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2633 Mono Amaranth Townline 2001 60 48 12 156586.41 31317.28 125269.12 179592.16 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2608 Devonleigh Drive 2001 60 48 12 167655.43 33531.09 134124.34 192287.45 Good Unlikely insignificant L 2703 Station Street 2003 60 50 10 63691.18 10615.2 53075.99 93839.04 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 2684 Station Street 2003 60 50 10 147560.85 24593.47 122967.37 160881.86 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2654 Church Street 2003 60 50 10 99619.55 16603.26 83016.3 108612.68 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2679 Amaranth East Luther Townline 2004 60 51 9 189984.72 28497.71 161487.01 203890.02 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2629 Amaranth East Luther Townline 2004 60 51 9 363229.27 54484.39 308744.88 389814.63 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2664 Amaranth East Luther Townline 2006 60 53 7 201580.12 23517.68 178062.44 208977.94 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2607 Peter Court 2006 60 53 7 48740.11 5686.35 43053.76 50528.83 Very Good Rare insignificant L 3217 Mono Amaranth Townline 2009 60 56 4 20444.17 1362.94 19081.23 20444.17 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2022 2032 2042 3218 Mono Amaranth Townline 2009 60 56 4 82100.7 5473.38 76627.32 82100.7 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2022 2032 2042 3219 Mono Amaranth Townline 2009 60 56 4 9181 612.07 8568.93 9181 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 3561 Station Street 2012 60 59 1 28294.07 471.57 27822.5 28294.07 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2057 2067 2077 3182 Station Street 2012 60 59 1 4454.34 74.24 4380.1 4454.34 Very Good Rare insignificant L 2030 2040 2050 Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Desktop Degradation Planned

Asset Type: Watermain GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 3,353,600 $ 635,675 $ 2,717,925 $ 4,903,159 2822 Distribution Main 2006 100 93 7 140000.46 9800.03 130200.43 93.00 $ 156,263.28 Very Good Rare Moderate M 2086 2096 2106 2823 Distribution Main 2006 100 93 7 57660.74 4036.25 53624.48 93.00 $ 64,358.76 Very Good Rare Moderate M 2086 2096 2106 2824 Distribution Main 2006 100 93 7 185496.24 12984.74 172511.51 93.00 $ 207,043.97 Very Good Rare Moderate M 2086 2096 2106 2825 Distribution Main 2006 100 93 7 6740.12 471.81 6268.31 93.00 $ 7,523.07 Very Good Rare Moderate M 2086 2096 2106 2826 Raw Watermain 2006 100 93 7 572504.63 40075.32 532429.31 93.00 $ 639,008.25 Very Good Rare Moderate M 2086 2096 2106 2827 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 153435.06 35290.06 118144.99 77.00 $ 235,120.87 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2828 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 18406.57 4233.51 14173.06 77.00 $ 28,205.86 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2829 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 15328.65 3525.59 11803.06 77.00 $ 23,489.31 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2830 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 47594.68 10946.78 36647.9 77.00 $ 72,933.15 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2831 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 78118.84 17967.33 60151.51 77.00 $ 119,707.77 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2832 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 171223.83 39381.48 131842.35 77.00 $ 262,380.03 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2833 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 20955.9 4819.86 16136.04 77.00 $ 32,112.41 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2834 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 13743.17 3160.93 10582.24 77.00 $ 21,059.77 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2835 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 88965.53 20462.07 68503.46 77.00 $ 136,329.04 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2836 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 148224.59 34091.66 114132.93 77.00 $ 227,136.45 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2837 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 116397.01 26771.31 89625.7 77.00 $ 178,364.50 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2838 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 20035.59 4608.19 15427.4 77.00 $ 30,702.14 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2839 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 162500.53 37375.12 125125.41 77.00 $ 249,012.62 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2840 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 6338.52 1457.86 4880.66 77.00 $ 9,713.02 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2841 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 124521.44 28639.93 95881.51 77.00 $ 190,814.21 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2842 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 76040.06 17489.21 58550.85 77.00 $ 116,522.29 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2843 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 7095.87 1632.05 5463.82 77.00 $ 10,873.57 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2844 Raw Watermain 1990 100 77 23 217523.24 50030.35 167492.9 77.00 $ 333,328.34 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2845 Raw Watermain 1990 100 77 23 426833.62 98171.73 328661.89 77.00 $ 654,071.45 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2846 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 1990.6 457.84 1532.76 77.00 $ 3,050.36 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 2847 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 9716.45 2623.44 7093.01 73.00 $ 18,382.04 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2848 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 38310.17 10343.75 27966.42 73.00 $ 72,476.99 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2849 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 53518.06 14449.88 39068.18 73.00 $ 101,248.00 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2850 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 14254.75 3848.78 10405.97 73.00 $ 26,967.82 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2851 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 5301.27 1431.34 3869.93 73.00 $ 10,029.20 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2852 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 61889.22 16710.09 45179.13 73.00 $ 117,084.97 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2853 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 16344.19 4412.93 11931.26 73.00 $ 30,920.71 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2854 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 8398.57 2267.61 6130.96 73.00 $ 15,888.82 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2855 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 11661.22 3148.53 8512.69 73.00 $ 22,061.26 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2856 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 650.47 175.63 474.84 73.00 $ 1,230.59 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2857 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 574.63 155.15 419.48 73.00 $ 1,087.10 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2858 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 778.04 210.07 567.97 73.00 $ 1,471.92 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2859 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 18115.31 4891.13 13224.18 73.00 $ 34,271.41 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2860 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 24019.91 6485.38 17534.53 73.00 $ 45,442.00 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2861 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 4244.27 1145.95 3098.32 73.00 $ 8,029.52 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2862 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 55316.71 14935.51 40381.2 73.00 $ 104,650.79 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2863 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 1133.07 305.93 827.14 73.00 $ 2,143.59 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2864 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 3380.08 912.62 2467.46 73.00 $ 6,394.60 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2865 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 109299.01 29510.73 79788.28 73.00 $ 206,777.06 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2866 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 19229.09 5191.85 14037.23 73.00 $ 36,378.50 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2867 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 1305.88 352.59 953.29 73.00 $ 2,470.53 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 2868 Distribution Main 1986 100 73 27 839.76 226.74 613.03 73.00 $ 1,588.71 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2066 2076 2086 3141 Distribution Main 1990 100 77 23 17644.71 4058.28 13586.42 77.00 $ 27,038.41 Good Unlikely Moderate M 2070 2080 2090 Hamount Sub division 2018 100 2114

Asset Type: Hydrant GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 151,762 $ 69,810 $ 81,951 $ 232,556 2933 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2934 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2935 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2936 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2937 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2938 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2939 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2940 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2941 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2942 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2943 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2944 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2945 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2946 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2947 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2948 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2949 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2950 Fire Hydrant 1990 100 77 23 8431.2 3878.35 4552.85 77.00 $ 12,919.80 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 Hamount Sub divis 2018 100 2114

Asset Type: Wells GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 95,048 $ 68,801 $ 26,247 $ 129,198 2814 Municipal Well 2002 50 39 11 38839.88 17089.55 21750.33 78.00 $ 43,066.02 Good Unlikely Major M 2042 2047 2052 2815 Municipal Well 1990 50 27 23 28104 25855.68 2248.32 0.00 $ 43,066.02 Very Good Rare Major M 2816 Municipal Well 1990 50 27 23 28104 25855.68 2248.32 0.00 $ 43,066.02 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E

Asset Type: Water Facilities GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 740,247 $ 542,848 $ 197,399 $ 1,088,929 3020 Waldemar Water Plant 1991 30 8 22 740246.59 542847.5 197399.09 26.67 $ 1,088,928.54 Good Unlikely Major M 2013 2018 2091 Hamount Sub division Water system total

Asset Type: Water Fittings GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 205,733 $ 99,953 $ 105,780 $ 339,145 2951 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 0.00 $ 8,882.37 Very Poor Almost Certain Major E 2030 2035 2090 2952 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2953 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2954 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2955 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2956 Cap Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5726.19 2634.05 3092.14 54.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2957 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2958 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2959 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2960 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2961 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2962 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2963 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2964 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2965 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2966 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2967 Tee Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4695.08 2535.34 2159.73 46.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2968 Cap Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4638.17 2504.61 2133.56 46.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2969 Cap Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4638.17 2504.61 2133.56 46.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2970 Cap Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4638.17 2504.61 2133.56 46.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2971 Tee Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4695.08 2535.34 2159.73 46.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2972 Tee Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4695.08 2535.34 2159.73 46.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2973 Cross Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4894.26 2642.9 2251.36 46.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2974 Reducer Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4894.26 2642.9 2251.36 46.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2975 Reducer Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4894.26 2642.9 2251.36 46.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2976 Reducer Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4894.26 2642.9 2251.36 46.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2977 Cross Fitting 1990 50 27 23 6042.36 2779.49 3262.87 54.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2978 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2979 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2980 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2981 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2982 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2983 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2984 Tee Fitting 1990 50 27 23 5796.45 2666.37 3130.08 54.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2985 Cap Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4638.17 2504.61 2133.56 46.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2986 Reducer Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4894.26 2642.9 2251.36 46.00 $ 9,259.19 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2987 Cap Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4638.17 2504.61 2133.56 46.00 $ 8,774.70 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086 2988 Tee Fitting 1986 50 23 27 4695.08 2535.34 2159.73 46.00 $ 8,882.37 Average Possible Major H 2026 2031 2086

Asset Type: Hydrant Laterals GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 21,211 $ 4,878 $ 16,332 $ 32,503 2869 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1145.92 263.56 882.36 77.00 $ 1,755.98 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2870 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1192.33 274.24 918.1 77.00 $ 1,827.11 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2871 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1187.18 273.05 914.13 77.00 $ 1,819.21 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2872 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1213.91 279.2 934.71 77.00 $ 1,860.17 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2873 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1077.78 247.89 829.89 77.00 $ 1,651.57 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2874 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1275.95 293.47 982.48 77.00 $ 1,955.24 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2875 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1114.61 256.36 858.25 77.00 $ 1,708.00 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2876 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1584.94 364.54 1220.41 77.00 $ 2,428.74 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2877 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1072 246.56 825.44 77.00 $ 1,642.72 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2878 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1045.7 240.51 805.19 77.00 $ 1,602.40 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2879 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1133.27 260.65 872.62 77.00 $ 1,736.59 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2880 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1293.61 297.53 996.08 77.00 $ 1,982.30 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2881 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1153.04 265.2 887.84 77.00 $ 1,766.90 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2882 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1280.62 294.54 986.08 77.00 $ 1,962.40 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2883 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1188.18 273.28 914.9 77.00 $ 1,820.73 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2884 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1049.75 241.44 808.31 77.00 $ 1,608.61 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2885 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 991.24 227.99 763.25 77.00 $ 1,518.96 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090 2886 Hydrant Lateral Line 1990 100 77 23 1210.77 278.48 932.29 77.00 $ 1,855.36 Good Unlikely Major M 2070 2080 2090

Asset Type: Water System Valves GIS ID Asset Name Install Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2012 Accumulated Amortization 2012 Net Book Value Condition Used for Analysis Cost (2013$) Inflated RC Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (Based on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Revised Revised Revised $ 304,310 $ 132,578 $ 171,732 $ 470,496 2887 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2888 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2889 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2890 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2891 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2892 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2893 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2894 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2895 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2896 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2897 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2898 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2899 Water System Valve 2006 50 43 7 9163.7 1282.92 7880.78 86.00 $ 10,228.18 Very Good Rare Major M 2046 2035 2106 2900 Water System Valve 2006 50 43 7 9163.7 1282.92 7880.78 86.00 $ 10,228.18 Very Good Rare Major M 2046 2035 2106 2901 Water System Valve 2006 50 43 7 9163.7 1282.92 7880.78 86.00 $ 10,228.18 Very Good Rare Major M 2046 2035 2106 2902 Water System Valve 2006 50 43 7 9163.7 1282.92 7880.78 86.00 $ 10,228.18 Very Good Rare Major M 2046 2035 2106 2903 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2904 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2905 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2906 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2907 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2908 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2909 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2910 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2911 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2912 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2913 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2914 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2915 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2916 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2917 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2918 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2919 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2920 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2921 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2922 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2923 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2924 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2925 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2926 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2927 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2928 Water System Valve 1986 50 23 27 5406.45 2919.48 2486.97 46.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2026 2035 2086 2929 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2930 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2931 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090 2932 Water System Valve 1990 50 27 23 6674.7 3070.36 3604.34 54.00 $ 10,228.18 Average Possible Major H 2030 2035 2090

Appendix G Water Assets Capital Forecast

Waldemar Waterworks Capital Forecast October 2013 System Element Component One Three Five Ten Well One Camera inspection of well casing $ 3,000 Submersible pump replacement $ 7,000 Transmission main repairs $ 2,500 Well Two Camera inspection of well casing $ 3,000 Submersible pump replacement $ 7,000 Transmission main repairs $ 3,000 Well Three Camera inspection of well casing $ 3,000 Submersible pump replacement $ 7,000 Transmission main repairs Pumphouse Raw Replace pressure gauges $ 1,500 Water Piping Service flow control valves $ 5,000 Service pressure relief valve $ 5,000 Process piping repairs $ 5,000 Replace raw water meters $ 10,000 Pumphouse Chemical metering pumps $ 15,000 Treatment Discharge piping/valves $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,000 Equipment Centreline Injectors $ 500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Reservoir Camera inspection/clean $ 2,500 Treated Water Replace pressure gauges $ 2,000 Process Service flow control valves $ 5,000 Service pressure relief valve $ 5,000 Rebuild high lift pumps $ 10,000 Service emergency pump $ 3,000 Replace treated water meters Instrumentation Replace free chlorine analyzer $ 7,000 and SCADA Replace laptop Replace datalogger $ 2,500 Replace well level tansducers $ 3,000 Replace wireless link Building Services Electrical $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Heating $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Lighting $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 1,000 Gnerator Service $ 500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Treated Water Distribution mains leak repairs $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Distribution Valve repair $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Hydrant repair $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 Service repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 Totals $ 5,500 $ 42,500 $ 65,000 $ 81,000