Asset Management Plan

Corporation of the Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Prepared by: AECOM 55 Cedar Pointe Drive, Suite 620 705 721 9222 tel Barrie, ON, Canada L4N 5R7 705 734 0764 fax www.aecom.com Project Number: 60304937 Date: January, 2014 Alternate accessible formats will be provided, on request. To request an alternate format please contact Engineering Services at 705-436-3710

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the Report ) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. ( Consultant ) for the benefit of the client ( Client ) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the Agreement ). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the Information ): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the Limitations ); represents Consultant s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information ( improper use of the Report ), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: 2012-01-06 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

AECOM 55 Cedar Pointe Drive, Suite 620 705 721 9222 tel Barrie, ON, Canada L4N 5R7 705 734 0764 fax www.aecom.com January 20, 2014 Andrew Campbell Director of Infrastructure Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Rd. Innisfil, ON L96 1A1 Dear Mr. Campbell: Project No: 60304937 Regarding: Asset Management Plan We are pleased to provide an electronic copy of the Asset Management Plan, dated January 2014. The report has been developed in accordance with provisional guidelines and requirements under the Municipal Infrastructure Initiative Program (MIII). Hard copies will also be provided. The Asset Management Plan has been established to enable the Town to make the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintenance, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets. The Asset Management Plan is broken into four key steps consisting of: status of the base infrastructure, desired levels of service, asset management strategy and financing strategy. General recommendations of the asset management strategy and financing strategy would be as follows: Develop 10-yr capital plan and 20-yr revenue and expenditure forecast to predict future funding needs and potential shortfalls Asset Inventory Development and Facility Inspections Develop Conservation Program Implement Preventative Maintenance Program Develop a CCTV Inspection Program and a Leak Detection Program Update AMP as more data becomes available to make better planning decisions Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

Page 2 January 20, 2014 If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at 705-797- 3277. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Randy Provencal, P. Eng. Branch Manager RP:ls Encl. cc: RPT-2014-01-20-Innisfil AM Plan-60304937.Docx

Distribution List # of Hard PDF Required Association / Company Name Copies 1 Yes Andrew Campbell / Town of Innisfil Revision Log Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description 0 December 2013 Partial Draft Issued for Preparation of Council Report 1 January 2014 Final Report Issued to Town AECOM Signatures Report Prepared By: Erin Hobbs, P.Eng./ Dan Campbell, BGA / Abra Ens, EIT Report Reviewed By: James Zimmerman, P.Eng. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 i

Executive Summary This Asset Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Province of Ontario s Municipal Infrastructure Initiative (MIII) to create a sustainable plan for the Town s infrastructure assets, including water services, wastewater services, stormwater management and road services. The Asset Management Plan, has been developed based on the best available data at the time of the Plan s development. This Asset Management Plan will be a living document that will assist the Town of Innisfil to make the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintenance, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets. The Asset Management Plan is broken into four key steps consisting of: State of the Local Infrastructure - asset inventory, historical and replacement cost valuation, age distribution, asset condition summary Desired Levels of Service - definition of levels of service through performance measures, targets and timeframes Asset Management Strategy - summary of planned actions, including: non-infrastructure solutions; maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement and disposal activities. Financing Strategy - yearly expenditure forecasts for non-infrastructure solutions, maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement and disposal activities, actual expenditures from previous years, breakdown of revenue and identification of any funding shortfall. The Town s assets, total replacement costs and average annual lifecycle needs are summarized as follows: Table E-1 Infrastructure Summary Replacement Cost Valuation Asset Class Quantity 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Water Services Watermains 184.6 km $80,113,785 Hydrants 970 $3,784,940 Valves 1232 $4,555,849 Surface Water Treatment Plant 1 $28,693,000 Groundwater Wells 14 $1,859,000 Storage Reservoirs 12 $4,570,000 Booster / Pumping Stations 12 $12,013,500 Total Water Services $135,590,074 Wastewater Services Sanitary Sewers and Manholes 110.5 km, 1414 manholes $39,888,213 Sanitary Forcemains 9,926 m $3,910,700 Pumping Stations 8 $7,970,500 Water Pollution Control Plants 2 $51,282,380 Total Wastewater Services $103,051,793 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 ii

Asset Class Quantity 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Stormwater Management Storm Sewers and Manholes 57 km, 771 manholes $38,029,440 Catch Basins 1677 $4,814,013 Ponds 41 $4,660,556 Total Stormwater Management $47,504,009 Road Services Roadway Surface 365.63 km $435,897,852 Bridges 14 $14,992,011 Culverts (3.0m + Span) 15 $8,677,325 Streetlights 3054 $4,891,805 Traffic Signals 15 $1,977,000 Total Road Services $466,445,993 Total $752,591,869 Figure E-1 Summary of Infrastructure Asset Values Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 iii

Table E-2 Average Annual Lifecycle Need Asset Type Annual Need Stormwater $742, 200 Roads $2,860,000 Streetlights and Traffic Signals $286,000 Bridges and Culverts $418,900 Water $2,682,800 Wastewater $2,420,800 Total $9,410,700 As the Town s assets inventory continues to change with the addition of new assets, replacement or decommissioning of old assets, the Asset Management Plan should be a living document. It is necessary to update components of the plan to reflect these inventory changes, the changing condition of inventory assets, legislative changes, funding changes, and changes to the Town s levels of service or way of doing business. For these reasons, to ensure the asset management plan will continue to assist the Town in the futre with making make the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintenance, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets, the plan should be reviewed and updated every year. General next steps for improving upon this living document, the first draft of the asset management plan, include the following: Develop 10-yr capital plan and 20-yr revenue and expenditure forecast to predict future funding needs and potential shortfalls Asset Inventory Development and Facility Inspections Develop Conservation Program Implement Preventative Maintenance Program Develop a CCTV Inspection Program and a Leak Detection Program Update AMP as more data becomes available to make better planning decisions Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 iv

Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List Executive Summary page 1. Introduction... 1 2. State of the Local Infrastructure... 4 2.1 Water Services... 5 2.1.1 Water Asset Inventory... 5 2.1.2 Water Services Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 12 2.1.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life... 20 2.1.4 Asset Condition... 22 2.2 Wastewater Services... 24 2.2.1 Wastewater Asset Inventory... 24 2.2.2 Wastewater Services Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 27 2.2.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life... 31 2.2.4 Asset Condition... 33 2.3 Stormwater Management... 35 2.3.1 Stormwater Asset Inventory... 35 2.3.2 Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 39 2.3.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life... 46 2.3.4 Asset Condition... 47 2.4 Roads Services... 49 2.4.1 Road Network Asset Inventory... 49 2.4.2 Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 53 2.4.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life... 56 2.4.4 Asset Condition... 62 3. Desired Levels of Service... 67 3.1 Levels of Service Development... 67 3.1.1 Level of Service Development Framework... 67 3.1.2 Existing Levels of Service... 68 3.1.3 Development of Levels of Service... 69 3.1.4 Key Performance Indicators... 69 3.1.5 Level of Service Targets... 70 3.2 Town of Innisfil Levels of Service... 70 3.3 Maintaining and Updating Levels of Service Indicators... 89 3.3.1 Estimated Time Frame to Achieve Target... 89 3.3.2 External Trends or Issues... 89 4. Asset Management Strategy... 90 4.1 Non-Infrastructure Strategies... 92 4.1.1 Water Conservation Program... 92 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

4.1.2 Leak Detection Program / Water Loss Management Program... 92 4.1.3 CCTV Inspection Programs... 93 4.1.4 Inflow and Infiltration Program... 93 4.1.5 Integrated Infrastructure Renewal... 93 4.1.6 Working with Neighbouring Municipalities... 93 4.1.7 Workflows, Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policies... 94 4.1.7.1 Water, Stormwater & Wastewater Assets... 96 4.1.7.2 Roads... 96 4.1.7.3 Bridges and Culverts... 97 4.2 Operation and Maintenance Strategies... 97 4.3 Asset Renewal/Rehabilitation/Replacement and Growth/Expansion Strategies... 97 4.4 Water Services... 99 4.4.1 Water System Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance... 99 4.4.2 Water System Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement, and Growth... 101 4.5 Wastewater Services... 104 4.5.1 Wastewater System Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance... 104 4.5.2 Wastewater System Infrastructure Renewal and Rehabilitation and Growth... 106 4.6 Roads Services... 110 4.6.1 Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance... 110 4.6.2 Stormwater Management Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement and Growth... 112 4.6.3 Roads Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement... 114 4.6.3.1 Bridge and Structure Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement.... 119 4.6.3.2 Streetlight and Traffic Light Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Replacement.... 121 4.7 Procurement Methods... 121 4.8 Risk... 122 5. Financing Strategy... 124 5.1 Non-Infrastructure Solutions... 124 5.2 Sustainable Asset Management... 125 5.2.1 Infrastructure Maintenance... 127 5.2.2 Water and Wastewater... 127 5.2.3 Roads... 128 5.2.4 Bridges and Culverts... 128 5.2.5 Stormwater... 128 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

List of Figures Figure E-1 Summary of Infrastructure Asset Values... iii Figure 1-1 Town of Innisfil Strategic Plan... 1 Figure 1-2 Plan Do Check Act Cycle... 3 Figure 2-1 Summary of Infrastructure Assets for Water Services, Wastewater Services and Roads Services... 4 Figure 2-2 Summary of Water Services Assets... 5 Figure 2-3 Breakdown of Watermain Inventory by Material... 7 Figure 2-4 Water Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation... 20 Figure 2-5 Age Distribution of Water Service Assets... 21 Figure 2-6 Distribution of Expected Service Life Consumed... 22 Figure 2-7 Condition Distribution of Water Service Assets... 23 Figure 2-8 Summary of Wastewater Services Assets... 24 Figure 2-9 Breakdown of Sanitary Sewer by Material... 25 Figure 2-10 Breakdown of Sanitary Forcemain by Material... 26 Figure 2-11 Summary of Wastewater Services Asset Values... 31 Figure 2-12 Age Distribution of Wastewater Service Assets... 32 Figure 2-13 Distribution of ESL Expired... 33 Figure 2-14 Condition Distribution of Wastewater Assets... 34 Figure 2-15 Summary of Stormwater Assets... 35 Figure 2-16 Breakdown of Sanitary Sewer by Material... 37 Figure 2-17 Summary of Stormwater Asset Values... 45 Figure 2-18 Age Distribution of Stormwater Assets... 46 Figure 2-19 Distribution of ESL Expired... 47 Figure 2-20 Condition Distribution of Wastewater Assets... 48 Figure 2-21 Summary of Stormwater Assets... 49 Figure 2-22 Breakdown of Road System by Function (Lane Kilometres)... 51 Figure 2-23 Breakdown of Road System by Surface Type (Lane Kilometres)... 52 Figure 2-24 Breakdown of Road Services Replacement Values by Asset Type... 54 Figure 2-25 Age Distribution of Roads... 57 Figure 2-26 Age Distribution of Bridges & Culverts... 58 Figure 2-27 Age Distribution of Traffic Signals... 59 Figure 2-28 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Road Base... 60 Figure 2-29 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Road Surface... 61 Figure 2-30 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Bridges and Culverts... 61 Figure 2-31 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Traffic Signals... 62 Figure 2-32 Road Asset Condition... 63 Figure 2-33 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition... 65 Figure 2-34 Traffic Signal Asset Condition... 66 Figure 3-1 Level of Service Hierarchy... 68 Figure 4-1 Accumulation of Costs Over an Asset s Life... 90 Figure 4-2 Data Management System Integration and Improvements... 95 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

Figure 4-3 Forecasted Water Operating and Maintenance Costs... 101 Figure 4-4 20 Year Investment Profile for Watermain, Valves and Hydrants... 102 Figure 4-5 Forecasted Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Costs... 106 Figure 4-6 20 Year Investment Profile for Sanitary Forcemains and Sewers... 107 Figure 4-7 Forecasted Roads Services Operations and Maintenance Costs... 112 Figure 4-8 20 Year Investment Profile for Stormwater Sewers... 113 Figure 4-9 Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Needs for Roads Networks per year (2014-2024)... 117 List of Tables Table E-1 Infrastructure Summary Replacement Cost Valuation...ii Table E-2 Average Annual Lifecycle Need...iv Table 2-1 Watermain Inventory... 6 Table 2-2 Fire Hydrant Inventory... 7 Table 2-3 Valve Inventory... 8 Table 2-4 Groundwater Wells... 9 Table 2-5 Storage Reservoirs... 10 Table 2-6 Booster Stations... 11 Table 2-7 Expected Service Lives... 12 Table 2-8 Watermain Unit Replacement Cost Estimates... 12 Table 2-9 Watermains Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 13 Table 2-10 Hydrant Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 13 Table 2-11 Valve Unit Costs... 14 Table 2-12 Valve Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 15 Table 2-13 Well Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 16 Table 2-14 Storage Reservoirs Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 17 Table 2-15 Booster / Pumping Stations Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 18 Table 2-16 Water Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation... 19 Table 2-17 Expected Service Lives... 21 Table 2-18 Condition According to %ESL Expired... 22 Table 2-19 Sanitary Sewer Inventory... 24 Table 2-20 Sanitary Forcemain Inventory... 26 Table 2-21 Sanitary Manhole Inventory... 27 Table 2-22 Pumping Station Inventory... 27 Table 2-23 Expected Service Lives... 27 Table 2-24 Sanitary Sewer Unit Replacement Cost Estimates... 28 Table 2-25 Sanitary Sewer Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 29 Table 2-26 Sanitary Forcemain Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 29 Table 2-27 Summary of Pumping Stations Valuation... 30 Table 2-28 Wastewater Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation... 30 Table 2-29 Expected Service Life (ESL) of Wastewater Asset Types... 32 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

Table 2-30 Condition According to %ESL Expired... 33 Table 2-31 Storm Sewer Inventory... 35 Table 2-32 Storm Manholes Inventory... 37 Table 2-33 Catch Basins Inventory... 38 Table 2-34 Stormwater Management Ponds... 38 Table 2-35 Expected Service Lives... 40 Table 2-36 Storm Sewer Unit Replacement Cost Estimates... 40 Table 2-37 Storm Sewer Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 41 Table 2-38 Catch Basin Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 42 Table 2-39 Ponds Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation... 42 Table 2-40 Stormwater Summary Replacement Cost Valuation... 44 Table 2-41 Expected Service Life (ESL) of Stormwater Asset Types... 46 Table 2-42 Condition According to %ESL Expired... 47 Table 2-43 Road Services Asset Inventory... 50 Table 2-44 Roadway System by Function... 50 Table 2-45 Bridges & Culverts by Structure Type... 52 Table 2-46 Traffic Signals by Type... 53 Table 2-47 Road Services Financial Accounting Valuation... 53 Table 2-48 Road Services Asset Total Replacement Values... 53 Table 2-49 Road Unit Cost Replacement Values... 54 Table 2-50 Bridge and Culvert Unit Cost Replacement Values... 55 Table 2-51 Traffic Signal Unit Cost Replacement Values... 55 Table 2-52 Street Light Cost Replacement Values... 56 Table 2-53 Road Services Asset Expected Service Lives... 56 Table 2-54 Road Services Asset Condition Scoring System... 62 Table 2-55 Road Services Asset Condition... 63 Table 2-56 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition... 64 Table 2-57 Condition According to %ESL Expired for Traffic Signals... 65 Table 3-1 Levels of Service Summary Statements... 69 Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework... 71 Table 4-1 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Water Operating Costs... 100 Table 4-2 Water Infrastructure Funding Needs... 103 Table 4-3 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Water Capital Costs... 103 Table 4-4 2013 Town of Innisfil Wastewater Operating Costs... 105 Table 4-5 Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Needs... 108 Table 4-6 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Wastewater Capital Costs... 108 Table 4-7 2013 Town of Innisfil Roads Services Operating Costs... 111 Table 4-8 Stormwater Infrastructure Average Annual Rehabilitation and Replacement Need... 113 Table 4-9 Improvement / Rehabilitation Measures for Road Network... 115 Table 4-10 Reconstruction Measures for Road Network... 116 Table 4-11 Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation Needs as presented in the Roads Needs Study... 116 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

Table 4-12 Unaccounted (+10 year needs) Rehabilitation and Reconstruction needs identified in the Roads Needs Study... 117 Table 4-13 Gas-Tax Fund Allocation for Proposed 10 year program budget from Roads Needs Study... 118 Table 4-14 10 year program from Road Needs Study, Summarized by Year and Type of Improvement... 118 Table 4-15 Un-programmed Improvements Identified in Roads Needs Study, Summarized by Road Classification and Type of Improvement... 118 Table 4-16 Rehabilitation and Element Life Spans... 119 Table 4-17 Rehabilitation and Replacement Categories and Definitions... 120 Table 4-18 Cost of Rehabilitation and Replacement Measures and Needs... 120 Table 4-19 Cost of Streetlight and Traffic Signals Replacement... 121 Table 4-20 Purchase Method Purchase Threshold... 121 Table 5-1 Non-Infrastructure Solutions Estimated Costs... 124 Table 5-2 Planned Operating Expenditures and Capital Costs... 125 Table 5-3 Average Annual Lifecycle Need... 127 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937

1. Introduction The Town of Innisfil is located on the western side of Lake Simcoe in South-Central Ontario. It has a population of 32,727 (2011 census) and is expected to grow substantially in the next 20 years (Places to Grow). The Town is committed to making Innisfil The Place to be by 2020 and in so doing, has developed its Community Strategic Plan, Inspiring Innisfil 2020. This plan outlines Innisfil s commitment to improving quality of life; encouraging tourism, the arts, culture and heritage; and providing a nurturing environment for businesses. Figure 1-1 illustrates the Town s Community Strategic Plan. Figure 1-1 Town of Innisfil Strategic Plan Infrastructure supports services vital to achieving these goals: the water system provides life sustaining potable water; the road network provides access to businesses and homes, the wastewater system removes and treats sewage to improve hygiene and quality of life, and the drainage system provides flood protection. To facilitate the provision of these services, the Town owns, operates and maintains an extensive and complex number of infrastructure assets, as summarized in Figure 2-1. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 1

Asset Management Plan The Town retained AECOM to assist with the development of an Asset Management Plan in accordance with the Province of Ontario s Municipal Infrastructure Initiative (MIII) to create a sustainable plan for the these assets, and thus ensure that the Town has the ability to meet its goals. The purpose of developing this Asset Management Plan is to enable the Town to make the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing, and disposing of infrastructure assets. To accomplish this, the asset management plan that follows can be broken down into a number of steps as follows: 1. State of the Local Infrastructure To properly plan infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement, all assets and their relevant attributes must be identified. The asset inventory for this exercise was compiled using data from the Town s GIS and financial reporting (PSAB) documentation. Output: asset inventory, historical and replacement cost valuation, age distribution, asset condition summary 2. Desired Levels of Service Levels of service outline the quality of services that the Town is striving to provide to customers. Generally, service levels relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, health and safety, environmental stewardship, and cost, and are defined to help meet customer expectations. The Town s levels of service, and key performance indicators were developed in a workshop. Output: definition of levels of service through performance measures, targets and timeframes 3. Asset Management Strategy An asset management strategy is a set of planned actions that will enable the assets to provide the desired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. Output: summary of planned actions, including: non-infrastructure solutions; maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement and disposal activities. 4. Financing Strategy The financing strategy outlines how much funding is necessary to implement the asset management strategy, and what sources are available to fund these strategies. Output: yearly expenditure forecasts for non-infrastructure solutions, maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement and disposal activities, actual expenditures from previous years, breakdown of revenue and identification of any funding shortfall. Continuous Improvement An Asset Management Plan should be part of an iterative process. It is necessary to update components of the plan to reflect inventory changes, the changing condition of inventory assets, legislative changes, funding changes, and changes to the Town s way of doing business. For these reasons, once it is established, the plan should be reviewed and updated every year to reflect changes in the asset inventory, to refine levels of service, and to update budgets. This can be achieved through the Plan Do Check Act methodology. The Plan Do Check Act methodology is a cycle that leads to continuous improvement. By incorporating feedback from the previous cycle, the asset management plan can become increasingly relevant and valuable to the Town. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 2

Figure 1-2 Plan Do Check Act Cycle Plan Create the asset management plan. Establish key performance indicators and targets, the activities required under an overall asset management strategy, and the monies required to implement that strategy. Do Implement the asset management plan. Track changes to the inventory, key performance indicators and monies spent as per the format necessary to compare to the asset management plan. Check Compare the measured data (inventory changes, key performance indicators, and monies spent) found in the Do phase to what was established in the Plan phase. Act Analyse the differences between what was estimated measures and what was actually implemented. Determine the root cause of differences and what changes should be made in the next iteration of the asset management plan. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 3

2. State of the Local Infrastructure The following figure summarizes the infrastructure operated and managed within the Town s Water, Wastewater, and Roads Service Areas. Water Services Wastewater Services Stormwater Roads Services 184.6 km of Watermain 970 Hydrants 1232 Valves 1 Surface Water Treatment Plant 14 Groundwater Wells 12 Water Storage Reservoirs 110.5 km of Sanitary Sewer 9,926 m of Sanitary Forcemain 1,414 Manholes 2 Water Pollution Control Plants 8 Pumping Stations 57.0 km of Storm Sewer 771 Storm Manholes 1,677 Catch Basins 41 Stormwater Management Ponds 365.63 Km of Roads 14 Bridges 15 Large Diameter Culverts 3054 Street Lights 15 Traffic Signals 12 Pumping Stations Figure 2-1 Summary of Infrastructure Assets for Water Services, Wastewater Services and Roads Services The State of the Infrastructure has been prepared in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure document: Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans and summarizes the following for each of the service areas listed above: Asset Types Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life Asset Condition Within these sections, details are also provided regarding the data sources, workflows including data verification and condition assessment policies as well as general details regarding how and when data will be updated. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 4

2.1 Water Services 2.1.1 Water Asset Inventory The Town owns and operates six (6) municipal water systems: Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Goldcrest Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System A summary of the Town s assets within these systems is presented in Figure 2-2. The following tables and figures in the sections below summarize the attributes of the water infrastructure assets. This summary is based on data extracted from the GIS and WorkTech databases. Figure 2-2 Summary of Water Services Assets Watermains The breakdown of the Town s watermain inventory by material, length and diameter is summarized in the table and figure below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 5

Table 2-1 Watermain Inventory Note: Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) 100 282 Asbestos Cement 150 8,468 9,943 200 1,193 Cast Iron 50 43 150 7,155 7,198 450 612 Concrete 500 1,097 19,924 600 18,214 Ductile Iron 500 3,911 600 552 4,463 HDPE 150 1,850 200 320 2,170 PE 200 466 466 25 63 50 127 100 714 150 68,787 200 38,540 PVC 250 3,992 140,387 300 20,404 400 749 450 3,115 500 2,081 600 1,817 Total 184,551 184,551 Where diameter was not provided, one was assumed based on the diameter of upstream or downstream pipes. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 6

Figure 2-3 Breakdown of Watermain Inventory by Material Fire Hydrants The Town s asset inventory for fire hydrants includes 970 hydrants. Table 2-2 Fire Hydrant Inventory Hydrant Inventory Quantity Fire Hydrants 970 Valves The Town s valve inventory is summarized below by valve type, diameter, and quantity. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 7

Table 2-3 Valve Inventory Valve Type Diameter (mm) Quantity Total Quantity 150 1 200 7 Blowoff 250 1 11 450 1 600 1 50 5 100 3 150 698 200 309 Gate 250 49 300 102 1,183 400 6 450 2 500 6 600 3 200 5 Valve in Chamber 450 12 500 7 38 600 14 Total 1,232 1,232 Note: Where diameter was not provided, one was assumed based on the diameter of upstream or downstream pipes. Surface Water Treatment Plant The Town owns one (1) direct filtration surface water plant producing treated water from Lake Simcoe. The permit to take water is 28,377 m 3 /day. The plant was initially built in 1996, and in 2006 the plant was expanded to convey water from the plant to Innisfil/Bradford boarder to supply the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. Groundwater Wells The Town currently owns 14 wells, four (4) of which are currently out of service, and two (2) of which are currently in service but will be decommissioned in the future. The summary of wells corresponding to the water system, location, and installation year is provided below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 8

Table 2-4 Groundwater Wells Well ID Water System Address Installation Year Status W1 Cookstown Drinking 49 Queen Street 1960 Out of Service Water System W2 Cookstown Drinking 3946 Victoria Street W 1995 Out of Service Water System W3 Cookstown Drinking 1315 Victoria Street West 1999 Out of Service Water System Cookstown W4 Cookstown Drinking 3946 Victoria Street W 1996 Out of Service Water System W5 Goldcrest Drinking Water System 2067 Fennel Drive 1977 In Service - To be decommissioned in Notes: W6 W7 W8 W9 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 Goldcrest Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System 2014 2067 Fennel Drive 1988 In Service- To be decommissioned in 2014 212 A Sunset Crescent 1971 In Service 212 A Sunset Crescent 1974 In Service 212 A Sunset Crescent 1986 In Service 212A Valleyview Drive 1974 In Service 212A Valleyview Drive 1975 In Service 2223 Industrial Park Road 1974 In Service 2223 Industrial Park Road 1990 In Service 2583 4th Line 1989 In Service The well inventory and attribute data is from both the WorkTech database and Geodatabase. This data was reviewed, compared, and refined against information from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, Annual Reports to the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Environment Inspection Reports, Drinking Water Quality Management System Process Flow Diagrams, as well and input from Town staff. Storage Reservoirs The currently owns 12 storage reservoirs, four (4) of which are currently out of service, to be decommissioned in the future. The summary of reservoirs corresponding to the water system, location, type and installation year is provided below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 9

Table 2-5 Storage Reservoirs Reservoir ID Water System Name/Address Type Installation Status Year R1 Alcona / Golf Golf Haven Water PS Concrete 1970 Out of service Haven Water System Reservoir Underground Cell 1 / Reservoir Notes: R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R10 R11 R12 Goldcrest Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Alcona / Golf Haven Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System 1187 Parkway Drive Goldcrest Water Standpipe Reservoir / 2067 Fennel Drive Churchill Water Reservoir / 212A Valleyview Drive Stroud Water PS Reservoir / 221A Sunset Crescent Innisfil Heights Water Reservoir / 1976 Commerce Park Drive Alcona Reservoir / 1610 Innisfil Beach Road Golf Haven Water PS Reservoir Underground Cell 2 / 1187 Parkway Drive MURF Water Reservoir / 2101 Innisfil Beach Rd. Cookstown Water Reservoir Standpipe #1 / 4137 Highway 89 Cookstown Water Reservoir Standpipe #2 / 4137 Highway 89 Cookstown Water Reservoir Well 2 / 3946 Victoria Street W 2 Storage tanks at Crossroads PS / 2244 Chalmers Crescent Standpipe 1988 In Service Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir 1976, In Service addition in 1987 1988 In Service 1976 In Service 1996 In Service 1985 Out of service 2007 In Service Standpipe 1994 In Service Standpipe 1994 In Service Concrete Reservoir Glass lined storage tanks 1976 Out of service 1990 Out of service The storage reservoir inventory and attribute data is from both the WorkTech database and Geodatabase. This data was reviewed, compared, and refined against information from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, Annual Reports to the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Environment Inspection Reports, Drinking Water Quality Management System Process Flow Diagrams, as well and input from Town staff. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 10

Booster Stations The Town currently owns 12 booster/pumping stations, three (3) of which are currently out of service, and one is under construction. The summary of booster/pumping stations corresponding to the water system, location, and installation year is provided below. Table 2-6 Booster Stations Booster Station ID BS5 Notes: BS6 BS7 BS9 BS10 Name Address Water System Installation Year Status Third Line Booster 1548 3rd Line Alcona / Golfhaven 2007 In Service Pumping Station Drinking Water System Zone 2 Booster Pumping Station Lefroy Booster Pumping Station Innisfil Beach Road 1450 Belle Aire Beach Rd. Churchill Water 212 A Valleyview PS Building Drive Innisfil Heights 2223 Industrial Water PS Building Park Road BS12 Well 2 Pumphouse BS13 BS14 BS15 BS16 BS17 BS19 Alcona Woods Water PS Building Royal Alcona Water PS Building Stroud Water Pump Station MURF Water PS Building Temp Booster Water PS Building Crossroads PS Building Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System 2067 Fennel Drive Goldcrest Drinking Water System 742 Candaras Alcona / Golfhaven Street Drinking Water 1045 Anna Maria Avenue 221 A Sunset Crescent 2101 Innisfil Beach Rd. 1610 Innisfil Beach Rd. 2244 Chalmers Crescent System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System 2008 In Service 2013 Under Construction 1987 In Service 1976 In Service 1970 In Service 1988 Out of Service 1987 Out of Service 1988 In Service 2007 In Service 2007 In Service 1991 Out of Service The booster/pumping stations inventory and attribute data is from both the WorkTech database and Geodatabase. This data was reviewed, compared, and refined against information from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, Annual Reports to the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Environment Inspection Reports, Drinking Water Quality Management System Process Flow Diagrams, as well and input from Town staff. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 11

2.1.2 Water Services Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation The financial accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation utilizes the expected service lives included in the WorkTech Fixed Asset Accounting Setup and 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study. The following table presents the summary of expected service lives. Table 2-7 Expected Service Lives Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Watermains 75 Hydrants 30 Valves (gate valve, valve chamber, blow off) 75 Wells 40 Pumping Stations / Booster Stations 75 Reservoir - Below Grade Concrete 100 Reservoir - Stand Pipe 75 Surface Water Treatment Plant 75 Unit cost for the linear system and facility cost data utilized in the analysis was obtained from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study or the WorkTech database. Historical costs were calculated using the replacement costs and deflated back to the year of installation. The net book values were calculated assuming linear amortization and the expected service lives identified above. Watermains The table below presents the unit replacement costs (in 2013 dollars) used in this analysis for watermains. The data was extracted from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study and inflated to 2013 dollars. Where unit costs were not provided for each diameter in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, values were extrapolated. The 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study assumed that all water mains and services will be replaced with PVC pipe using open cut in the existing road allowance 1. The following table presents the unit prices used to estimate the 2013 replacement value estimate. Table 2-8 Watermain Unit Replacement Cost Estimates Diameter (mm) 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost 25 $201 50 $219 100 $273 150 $302 200 $342 250 $395 1 Town of Innisfil (2006) Full Cost of Services Report. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 12

Notes: Diameter (mm) 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost 300 $480 400 $645 450 $717 500 $752 600 $973 2006 Replacement Costs from 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study with the exception of 25mm and 50mm which were calculated based on interpolation. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for watermains. Table 2-9 Watermains Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Pipe Material Total Length (m) Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Asbestos Cement 9,943 $506,573 $220,962 $3,042,157 Cast Iron 7,198 $390,824 $181,614 $2,170,272 Concrete 19,924 $16,762,825 $15,380,577 $18,986,957 Ductile Iron 4,463 $2,537,126 $2,018,428 $3,478,102 HDPE 2,170 $586,704 $534,937 $668,057 PE 466 $132,005 $114,404 $159,347 PVC 140,387 $32,350,082 $25,551,713 $51,608,893 Total 184,551 $53,266,138 $44,002,636 $80,113,785 Assumptions: Where diameter was not provided, one was assumed based the diameter of upstream or downstream pipes. Where the installation year was not provided, one was assumed based the diameter of upstream or downstream pipes. Where present use the installation date from WorkTech which corresponds to the Initial Value was used. When an installation date was not present the GIS installation data was utilized where available. Hydrants The Town owns and maintains approximately 970 fire hydrants. Based on information presented in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, it was assumed that all fire hydrants are identical, with a replacement cost of $3,902 per hydrant. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation. Table 2-10 Hydrant Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Number of Hydrants Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 970 $2,420,214 $1,264,047 $3,784,940 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 13

Valves The following table presents the unit prices used to estimate the 2013 replacement value estimate. Table 2-11 Valve Unit Costs Notes: Valve Type Diameter 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost 50 $2,065 100 $2,295 150 $2,479 200 $3,305 250 $5,165 Valve in Box 300 $7,024 350 $8,470 400 $10,330 450 $10,903 500 $11,475 600 $12,625 50 n/a 100 n/a 150 $8,677 200 $9,916 250 $11,362 Valve in Chamber 300 $13,222 350 $14,668 400 $15,000 450 $15,328 500 $15,655 600 $16,400 2006 Replacement Costs are from 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study with the exception of 50mm, 100mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which were estimated based on unit cost curve. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 14

The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for valves. Table 2-12 Valve Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Valve Type Diameter (mm) Quantity Calculated Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Blowoff 150 1 $403 $177 $2,479 200 7 $11,352 $9,519 $23,135 250 1 $4,678 $4,366 $5,165 450 1 $7,579 $5,760 $10,903 600 1 $10,825 $9,670 $12,625 Gate 50 5 $5,633 $4,528 $10,325 Valve in Chamber 100 3 $3,798 $3,110 $6,885 150 698 $982,568 $758,909 $1,730,342 200 309 $654,083 $539,807 $1,021,245 250 49 $193,449 $162,069 $253,085 300 102 $547,835 $454,886 $716,448 400 6 $44,039 $34,298 $61,980 450 2 $19,557 $18,124 $21,806 500 6 $60,600 $55,922 $68,850 600 3 $30,425 $26,010 $37,875 200 5 $40,659 $35,519 $49,580 450 12 $143,666 $121,265 $183,936 500 7 $79,191 $62,409 $109,585 600 14 $188,877 $164,170 $229,600 Total 1,232 $3,029,216 $2,470,519 $4,555,849 Surface Water Treatment Plant The replacement value for the treatment plant was estimated in the 2006 Water and Wastewater needs study to be $25,000,000. The replacement value was estimated based on construction/capital costs of tendered projects for water plants of similar size, capacity and technology. Utilizing the 2006 estimated replacement value and inflating it to 2013 dollars, the total replacement value for the treatment plant is estimated at $28.8M. Groundwater Wells Initial values within the WorkTech database were utilized to calculate the 2013 Replacement cost estimates. Values were inflated from the year of installation to 2013. Where available, the values were compared against those presented in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study to ensure consistency in the data being reported. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation. Only those wells that are in service are included the total replacement value. The total replacement value for the wells is estimated at $1.86M. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 15

Table 2-13 Well Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Well ID W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Goldcrest Drinking Water System Goldcrest Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Installation Year Status Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 1960 Out of Service $30,351 $- Not Applicable 1995 Out of Service $83,073 $45,690 Not Applicable 1999 Out of Service $34,032 $22,121 Not Applicable 1996 Out of Service $32,442 $18,654 Not Applicable 1977 In Service $41,781 $4,178 $160,500 1988 In Service $45,526 $17,072 $80,000 1971 In Service $37,301 $- $229,500 1974 In Service $31,480 $787 $155,000 1986 In Service $141,598 $46,019 $275,500 1974 In Service $34,977 $874 $172,000 1975 In Service $38,738 $1,937 $172,000 1974 In Service $38,475 $962 $189,500 1990 In Service $112,901 $47,983 $178,000 1989 In Service $149,593 $59,837 $247,000 Total $852,268 $266,115 $1,859,000 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 16

Storage Reservoirs Initial values within the WorkTech database were utilized to calculate the 2013 Replacement cost estimates. Values were inflated from the year of installation to 2013. Where available, the values were compared against those presented in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study to ensure consistency in the data being reported. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation. The total replacement value for the storage reservoirs is estimated at $ 4.57M. Only those reservoirs with a status of In Service are included in the total replacement value. Table 2-14 Storage Reservoirs Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Reservoir ID R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R10 Water System Alcona / Golf Haven Water System Goldcrest Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Alcona / Golf Haven Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Type Concrete Reservoir Installation Year Status 1970 Out of service Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate $14,496.00 $8,262.72 Not Applicable Standpipe 1988 In Service $174,088.50 $116,059.00 $305,500.00 Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Concrete Reservoir 1976, addition in 1987 In Service $31,150.63 $19,624.90 $129,000.00 1988 In Service $373,068.00 $279,801.00 $654,000.00 1976 In Service $138,605.79 $87,321.65 $574,000.00 1996 In Service $1,021,537.00 $847,875.71 $1,445,500.00 1985 Out of service $33,797.00 $24,333.84 Not Applicable 2007 In Service $278,906.00 $262,171.64 $314,000.00 Standpipe 1994 In Service $389,319.20 $290,691.67 $574,000.00 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 17

Reservoir ID R11 R12 Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Cookstown Drinking Water System Alcona Drinking Water System Type Installation Year Status Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Standpipe 1994 In Service $389,319.20 $290,691.67 $574,000.00 Concrete Reservoir glass lined storage tanks 1976 Out of service 1990 Out of service $25,984.59 $16,370.29 Not Applicable n/a n/a Not Applicable Total $2,870,271.91 $2,243,204.08 $4,570,000.00 Booster Stations Initial values within the WorkTech database were utilized to calculate the 2013 Replacement cost estimates. Values were inflated from the year of installation to 2013. Where available, the values were compared against those presented in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study to ensure consistency in the data being reported. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for the Booster / Pumping Stations. The total replacement value for the Booster / Pumping Stations is estimated at $12.0M. Only those stations with a status of In Service are included in the total replacement value. Table 2-15 Booster / Pumping Stations Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Booster Station ID BS5 BS6 BS7 BS9 Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Churchill Drinking Water System Installation Year Status Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 2007 In Service $1,116,817 $1,027,471 $1,257,500 2008 In Service $698,741 $652,158 $771,500 2013 Under Construction $- $- Not Applicable 1987 In Service $405,072 $264,647 $746,500 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 18

Booster Station ID BS10 BS12 BS13 BS14 BS15 BS16 BS17 BS19 Water System Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Goldcrest Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Stroud Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Alcona / Golfhaven Drinking Water System Installation Year Status Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 1976 In Service $287,336 $145,584 $1,189,500 1970 In Service $949,456 $405,101 $6,013,000 1988 Out of Service 1987 Out of Service $182,853 $121,902 Not Applicable $174,055 $113,716 Not Applicable 1988 In Service $706,115 $470,743 $1,238,000 2007 In Service $474,590 $436,623 $534,500 2007 In Service $233,684 $214,990 $263,000 1991 Out of Service $1,420,445 $1,003,781 Not Applicable Total $6,649,164 $4,856,716 $12,013,500 Summary Valuation The following table and figure presents the summary replacement cost valuation presented above for each of the water system asset classes. The total replacement value for the Water Services assets is estimated at $135M. Table 2-16 Water Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation Asset Class Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Watermains $53,266,138 $44,002,636 $80,113,785 Hydrants $2,420,214 $1,264,047 $3,784,940 Valves $3,029,216 $2,470,519 $4,555,849 Surface Water Treatment Plant $28,693,000 Groundwater Wells $852,268 $266,115 $1,859,000 Storage Reservoirs $2,870,272 $2,243,204 $4,570,000 Booster / Pumping Stations $6,649,164 $4,856,716 $12,013,500 Total $135,590,074 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 19

Figure 2-4 Water Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation 2.1.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life The age distribution of the various assets of the Innisfil water system is presented in the figure below using 2013 replacement value estimates. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 20

$60.0M Booster / Pumping Stations Storage Reservoirs $50.0M Surface Water Treatment Plant Groundwater Wells Valves 2013 Replacement Value $40.0M $30.0M $20.0M Hydrants Watermains $10.0M $0.0M 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age (Years) Figure 2-5 Age Distribution of Water Service Assets The distribution of percentage expected service life (ESL) has been calculated using the ESL values presented in the table below. Table 2-17 Expected Service Lives Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Watermains 75 Hydrants 30 Valves (gate valve, valve chamber, blow off) 75 Wells 40 Pumping Stations / Booster Stations 75 Reservoir - Below Grade Concrete 100 Reservoir - Stand Pipe 75 Surface Water Treatment Plant 75 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 21

The distribution of expected service life consumed is presented in the figure below. $60.0M Booster / Pumping Stations $50.0M Storage Reservoirs Surface Water Treatment Plant 2013 Replacement Value $40.0M $30.0M Groundwater Wells Valves Hydrants Watermains $20.0M $10.0M $0.0M % ESL Figure 2-6 Distribution of Expected Service Life Consumed 2.1.4 Asset Condition In the absence of physical condition assessment data we have assumed that percentage estimated service life consumed is a proxy for condition. The condition ratings have been assigned according to the table below. Table 2-18 Condition According to %ESL Expired %ESL Consumed Condition 0 20% 1 20% 40% 2 40% 60% 3 60% - 80% 4 80% - >100% 5 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 22

The distribution of asset condition according to the 2013 replacement valuation is presented below. $70.0M Booster / Pumping Stations $60.0M Storage Reservoirs Surface Water Treatment Plant 2013 Replacement Value $50.0M $40.0M $30.0M Groundwater Wells Valves Hydrants Watermains $20.0M $10.0M $0.0M 1 2 3 4 5 Condition Figure 2-7 Condition Distribution of Water Service Assets Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 23

2.2 Wastewater Services 2.2.1 Wastewater Asset Inventory The Town owns and operates two (2) wastewater collection systems and treatment plants: Lakeshore system and Cookstown system. A summary of the Town s Wastewater Services assets is presented in the figure below. The following tables and figures in the sections below summarize the attributes of the wastewater infrastructure assets. This summary is based on data extracted from the GIS and WorkTech databases. Figure 2-8 Summary of Wastewater Services Assets Sanitary Sewers The breakdown of the Town s sanitary sewer inventory by material, length and diameter is summarized in the table and figure below. Table 2-19 Sanitary Sewer Inventory Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) 200 4,943 250 543 Asbestos Cement 300 86 6,409 675 172 800 664 UNK 153 200 3,927 Concrete 300 319 5,728 600 1,233 675 97 UNK 3,494 PVC 200 67,182 250 7,880 98,396 300 6,342 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 24

Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) 375 3,827 400 481 450 2,192 525 2,002 600 633 675 1,772 750 1,291 825 621 900 680 Total 110,533 110,533 Figure 2-9 Breakdown of Sanitary Sewer by Material Sanitary Forcemain The breakdown of the Town s sanitary forcemain inventory by material, length and diameter is summarized in the table and figure below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 25

Table 2-20 Sanitary Forcemain Inventory Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) UNK UNK 4,673 4,673 200 457 Cast Iron 2,775 400 1,477 450 841 UNK 149 PVC 2,477 100 299 250 2,029 Total 9,926 9,926 Figure 2-10 Breakdown of Sanitary Forcemain by Material Sanitary Manholes The Town owns and maintains approximately 1,414 sanitary manholes. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 26

Table 2-21 Sanitary Manhole Inventory Sanitary Manhole Inventory Quantity Sanitary Manholes 1,414 Water Pollution Control Plant The Town owns two (2) water pollution control plants (WPCP). The Cookstown WPCP is an extended aeration plant with two effluent retention ponds, as the effluent can only be discharged from October 1 to May 31. The plant was constructed in 1986. The Lakeshore WPCP is an extended aeration with tertiary filtration. The plant was originally constructed in 1987. A Phase 2 expansion was completed in 1996 which doubled the capacity of the plant. Pumping Stations The Town owns eight (8) pumping stations. Table 2-22 Pumping Station Inventory Wastewater System Pumping Station ID Location Installation Year Lakeshore Water Pollution Control Plant and System Cookstown Water Pollution Control Plant and System PS1 1236 Maple Rd. 1987 PS2 690 6th Line 1987 PS3 1692 Cedar Grove Avenue 1987 PS4 2298 Crystal Beach Road 1987 PS5 1208 Killarney Beach Road 1996 PS6 2101 Innisfil Beach Road 2007 PS7 992 Leslie Drive 1997 PSC 1315 Victoria Street West 1999 2.2.2 Wastewater Services Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation The financial accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation utilizes the expected service lives included in the WorkTech Fixed Asset Accounting Setup and 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study. The following table presents the summary of expected service lives. Table 2-23 Expected Service Lives Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Pumping Station Wet Well 40 Treated Effluent Outfall 75 Forcemain 75 Gravity Sanitary Sewer 75 Maintenance Hole 75 WPCP 75 Lagoons 100 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 27

Unit cost for the linear system and facility cost data utilized in the analysis was obtained from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study or the WorkTech database. Historical costs were calculated using the replacement costs and deflated back to the year of installation. The net book values were calculated assuming linear amortization and the expected service lives identified above. Sanitary Sewers The table below presents the estimated unit replacement costs (in 2013 dollars) used in this analysis for sanitary sewers. The data was extracted from the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study and inflated to 2013 dollars. Where unit costs were not provided for each diameter in the 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study, values were extrapolated. The 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study assumed that PVC pipe would be used for all new sanitary sewer replacements regardless of the previous pipe material. All pipes were assumed to be constructed in urban areas, and that sewers would be replaced using open cut construction methods and include the cost of replacing manholes. The unit costs include the full cost of installation, excavation, bedding, backfill, restoration and dewatering as well as 10% for engineering and contingency costs. Table 2-24 Sanitary Sewer Unit Replacement Cost Estimates Notes: Diameter (mm) 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost UNK $361 200 $298 250 $310 300 $356 375 $451 400 $479 450 $574 525 $620 600 $726 675 $831 750 $942 800 $1,020 825 $1,090 900 $1,205 2006 Replacement Costs from 2006 Water and Wastewater Needs Study with the exception of 375mm, 400mm, 600mm, 675mm, 750mm and 800mm which were calculated based on interpolation. Where diameter was not populated the replacement cost was assumed utilizing a weighted average of unit costs by diameter, by total length by diameter. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 28

The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for sanitary sewers, (including manholes). Table 2-25 Sanitary Sewer Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Pipe Material Total Length (m) Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Asbestos Cement 6,409 $1,314,787 $868,390 $2,492,878 Concrete 5,728 $1,237,276 $806,413 $2,314,325 PVC 98,396 $25,508,299 $20,332,653 $35,081,011 Total 110,533 $28,060,361 $22,007,456 $39,888,213 Sanitary Forcemains The Town owns, operates, and maintains approximately 9.9 km of wastewater forcemains. The Town s unit replacement cost estimate in 2007 was $350/m, which inflated to 2013 dollars is $394/m. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for sanitary forcemains. Table 2-26 Sanitary Forcemain Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Pipe Material Total Length (m) Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate UNK 4,673 $1,506,259 $1,305,719 $1,841,271 Cast Iron 2,775 $562,134 $359,766 $1,093,510 PVC 2,477 $522,020 $345,155 $975,919 Total 9,926 $2,590,413 $2,010,640 $3,910,700 Manholes The Town s linear sanitary sewer inventory includes 1,414 manholes. The replacement cost for these assets has been included in the estimated replacement costs for sanitary sewers. Water Pollution Control Plants The Town owns and operates two (2) water pollution control plants and associated infrastructure. The replacement value for the plants was estimated in the 2006 Water and Wastewater needs study to be $30,700,000. The replacement value was estimated based on construction/capital costs of tendered projects for facilities of similar size, capacity and technology. Utilizing the 2006 estimated replacement values and inflating it to 2013 dollars, the total estimated replacement value for Cookstown WPCP is $5.25M and the total estimated replacement value for Lakeshore is $46.03M. The total estimated replacement value for both plants is $51.28M. Pumping Stations The 2013 replacement cost estimates for the pumping stations (except PS5) have been calculated by inflating the 2006 replacement costs to 2013 dollars. The recorded historical cost (1996) for PS5 is higher than the replacement cost (2006), and so the 2013 replacement cost has been estimated by inflating the historical cost to 2013. Pumping stations 3 and 4 have been upgraded since initial construction, and Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 29

hence have a higher replacement cost than might be expected based on historical cost. A summary of the financial valuation is presented below. Table 2-27 Summary of Pumping Stations Valuation Pumping Station ID PS1 System Installation Year Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 1987 $892,614 $312,415 $1,836,500 PS2 1987 $186,060 $65,121 $459,000 PS3 1987 $623,865 $218,353 $2,869,500 PS4 Lakeshore Water 1987 $582,848 $203,997 $2,410,000 PS5 Pollution Control 1996 $279,602 $160,771 $395,500 Plant and System DATA DATA PS6 2007 DATA UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN PS7 1997 PSC Cookstown Water Pollution Control Plant and System 1999 DATA UNKNOWN DATA UNKNOWN DATA UNKNOWN DATA UNKNOWN DATA UNKNOWN DATA UNKNOWN Total $2,564,989 $960,656 $7,970,500 Summary Valuation The following table and figure presents the summary replacement cost valuation presented above for each of the wastewater system asset classes. The total replacement value for the Wastewater Services assets is estimated as $103M. Table 2-28 Wastewater Services Summary Replacement Cost Valuation Asset Class Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Sanitary Sewers $28,060,361 $22,007,456 $39,888,213 Sanitary Forcemains $2,590,413 $2,010,640 $3,910,700 Pumping Stations $2,564,989 $960,656 $7,970,500 Water Pollution Control Plants $51,282,380 Total $33,215,763 $24,978,752 $103,051,793 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 30

Figure 2-11 Summary of Wastewater Services Asset Values 2.2.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life The age distribution of the various assets of the Town s wastewater system is presented in the figure below using current replacement value estimates. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 31

$40.0M $35.0M Water Pollution Control Plant 2013 Replacement Value $30.0M $25.0M $20.0M Pump Stations Forcemains Sewers $15.0M $10.0M $5.0M $0.0M 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Age (Years) Figure 2-12 Age Distribution of Wastewater Service Assets The distribution of percentage expected service life (ESL) has been calculated using the ESL values presented in the table below. Table 2-29 Expected Service Life (ESL) of Wastewater Asset Types Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Pumping Station Wet Well 40 Treated Effluent Outfall 75 Forcemain 75 Gravity Sanitary Sewer 75 Maintenance Hole 75 WPCP 75 Lagoons 100 The distribution of expected service life expired is presented in the figure below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 32

$45.0M $40.0M Water Pollution Control Plant Pump Stations 2013 Replacement Value $35.0M $30.0M $25.0M $20.0M Forcemains Sewers $15.0M $10.0M $5.0M $0.0M %ESL Figure 2-13 Distribution of ESL Expired 2.2.4 Asset Condition In the absence of physical condition assessment data we have assumed that percentage ESL expired is a proxy for condition. The condition ratings have been assigned according to the table below. Table 2-30 Condition According to %ESL Expired %ESL Expired Condition 0 20% 1 20% 40% 2 40% 60% 3 60% - 80% 4 80% - >100% 5 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 33

The distribution of wastewater asset condition according to the 2013 replacement valuation is presented below. $90.0M $80.0M Water Pollution Control Plant 2013 Replacement Value $70.0M $60.0M $50.0M $40.0M Pump Stations Forcemains Sewers $30.0M $20.0M $10.0M $0.0M 1 2 3 4 5 Condition Figure 2-14 Condition Distribution of Wastewater Assets Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 34

2.3 Stormwater Management 2.3.1 Stormwater Asset Inventory The Town s Stormwater Assets include storm sewers, manholes, catch basins as well as 41 stormwater management ponds. The following tables and figures in the sections below summarize the attributes of the stormwater management infrastructure assets. This summary is based on data extracted from the GIS and WorkTech databases as well as the 2012 Stormwater Management Master Plan. Figure 2-15 Summary of Stormwater Assets Storm Sewers The breakdown of the Town s storm sewer inventory by material, length and diameter is summarized in the Table and figure below. Table 2-31 Storm Sewer Inventory Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) UNK 6,845 125 22 200 463 230 12 250 441 300 6,690 350 92 Concrete 375 5,840 49,141 400 625 450 6,486 500 39 525 3,507 600 4,033 675 2,625 685 166 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 35

Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) 700 45 750 1,713 760 288 800 390 825 1,154 900 2,280 975 664 1,000 49 1,050 731 1,150 96 1,200 1,289 1,350 114 1,536 424 1,650 1,358 1,800 576 2,400 43 3,000 43 UNK 7 CSP 500 99 136 800 30 150 94 200 52 250 8 300 679 375 814 HDPE 400 9 450 121 2,290 525 194 600 95 675 150 825 25 900 50 250 65 PE 300 20 110 500 25 UNK 1 150 16 200 19 230 34 PVC 250 281 300 1,264 4,551 375 956 450 891 525 559 600 254 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 36

Pipe Material Diameter (mm) Length (m) Total Length (m) 675 187 750 67 900 21 UNK UNK 754 754 Total 56,982 56,982 Figure 2-16 Breakdown of Sanitary Sewer by Material Storm Manholes The Town owns and maintains approximately 771 storm manholes. Table 2-32 Storm Manholes Inventory Storm Manhole Inventory Quantity Storm Manholes 771 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 37

Catch Basins The Town owns and maintains approximately 1,677 catch basins. Table 2-33 Catch Basins Inventory Type Quantity CB 1,359 DCB 265 DI 7 DICB 35 RLCB 11 Total 1,677 Ponds The Town of Innisfil encompasses two primary watersheds: the Lake Simcoe watershed and the Nottawasaga Valley watershed. There are 39 existing ponds within the Lake Simcoe watershed, and two (2) in the Nottawasaga Valley watershed for a total of 41 ponds. Table 2-34 Stormwater Management Ponds Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type 4-1 Valleyview 1987 Assumed Dry 4-2 Coralwoods 1990 Assumed Dry 6-1 Previn Court Stage 1 2002 Assumed Wet 7-1 Royal Alcona Storm Pond 2007 Assumed Wet 7-2 Wallace Mills Ph 2 1998 Assumed Wet 7-3 Wallace Mills Ph 1 2002 Assumed Wet 7-4 Forest Valley 1998 Assumed Dry 7-5 InnisbrookDevelopements 2003 Assumed Wet Ph 2 7-6 Innisbrook Subdivision 2009 Assumed Wet 7-7 Green Acres Subdivision 2004 Assumed Wet (South) 7-8 ORSI 1999 Assumed Wet 7-13 South Rec. Centre 2008 Assumed Wet 7-14 Innisfil Admin Bld. Back 2008 Assumed Wet Pond 7-15 Innisfil Admin Bld. Front 2008 Assumed Wet Pond 8-1 Trillium Industrial 1993 Assumed Dry 8-2 Taylorwoods 1996 Assumed Dry 8-3 Crossroads Ph 1 Retrofit 2011 Assumed Wet-Retrofit 8-4 Crossroads #2 1993 Assumed Wet 8-5 Skivereen Subdivision 1999 Assumed Wet 8-9 Crossroads Adullum 1993 Assumed Wet 9-1 Alcona Woods 1988 Assumed Dry 9-2 Southview 1988 Assumed Dry Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 38

Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type 9-3 Victoria Green 1986 Assumed Dry 9-4 Doral East 2002 Assumed Wet 9-5 Doral West 2002 Assumed Wet 10-1 Brandy Lane/Village 1992 Assumed Wet-Retrofit North 10-2 Village North Dempster 1988 Assumed Dry 10-3 McKee 1999 Assumed Wet 13-1 Kempenfelt Bayside 2004 Assumed Wet Estates - Wet 13-2 Monrepos 1988 Assumed Dry 13-3 South Shore Woods - 2004 Assumed Wet Wet 15-1 Goldcrest/Fennel's 1990 Assumed Dry Corners 6-2 Tepco North 2005 Unassumed Wet 6-3 Tepco South 2005 Unassumed Wet 7-9 Green Acres Subdivision 2005 Unassumed Wetland (North) - Wetland 7-10 Green Acres Subdivision 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown (West) 7-11 Woodland Park North 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown 7-12 Woodland Park South 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown 8-6 Pratt Alcona North 2007 Unassumed Data Unknown 8-7 Pratt D'amico Subdivision 2010 Unassumed Data Unknown - Phase 1 8-8 Innisfil by the Lake n/a Unassumed Data Unknown 3-1 LSAMI Lefroy P4 Proposed Proposed Proposed 3-2 LSAMI Lefroy P3 Proposed Proposed Proposed 4-3 LSAMI Lefroy P1/P2 Proposed Proposed Proposed 7-16 Alcona Downs Proposed Proposed Proposed 10-4 Innisfil Executive Estates Proposed Proposed Proposed 14-1 Belpark Proposed Proposed Proposed Cookshill North Cookshill North Proposed Proposed Proposed Cookshill South Cookshill South Proposed Proposed Proposed In addition, the Town provided the following information for the Rice Group pond, which was not included in the 2012 Stormwater Management Master Plan. Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type 10-04 Rice Group Pond Early 1970s Wet 2.3.2 Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation The financial accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation utilizes the expected service lives included in the WorkTech Fixed Asset Accounting Setup. The following table presents the summary of expected service lives. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 39

Table 2-35 Expected Service Lives Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Catchbasin 50 Maintenance Hole 75 Storm Sewer 75 SWM Pond 50 Estimated unit Replacement costs for the linear system was obtained from the Town s 2008 financial reporting, and inflated to 2013. Historical costs were calculated using the replacement costs and deflated back to the year of installation. Historic values for the ponds were obtained from the Town s WorkTech database. The net book values were calculated assuming linear amortization and the expected service lives identified above. Storm Sewers The table below presents the estimated unit replacement costs (in 2013 dollars) used in this analysis for storm sewers. The data was extracted from the town s financial reporting and inflated to 2013 dollars. Where unit costs were not provided for each diameter, values were extrapolated. Table 2-36 Storm Sewer Unit Replacement Cost Estimates Diameter (mm) 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost UNK $667 125 $400 150 $379 200 $343 230 $326 250 $317 300 $302 350 $298 375 $300 400 $304 450 $321 500 $348 525 $365 600 $433 675 $525 685 $539 700 $561 750 $640 760 $657 800 $730 825 $779 900 $942 975 $1,128 1000 $1,195 1050 $1,338 1150 $1,654 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 40

Diameter (mm) 2013 Estimated Unit Replacement Cost 1200 $1,828 1350 $2,412 1536 $3,268 1650 $3,865 1800 $4,733 2400 $9,148 3000 $15,074 Notes: 2008 Replacement Costs provided by Town and inflated to 2013. Where unit costs by diameter were not available they were estimated based on interpolation. Where diameter was unknown the replacement cost was assumed utilizing a weighed average of unit costs by diameter by total length by diameter. The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for storm sewers, (including manholes). Table 2-37 Storm Sewer Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Pipe Material Total Length (m) Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Concrete $49,141 $25,202,260 $20,885,792 $35,082,611 CSP $136 $38,846 $27,610 $60,937 HDPE $2,290 $682,462 $607,126 $803,384 PE $110 $26,077 $21,317 $35,457 PVC $4,551 $1,277,961 $1,156,736 $1,543,966 UNK $754 $348,006 $278,201 $503,084 Total $56,982 $27,575,613 $22,976,782 $38,029,440 Manholes The Town s linear storm sewer inventory includes 771 manholes. The replacement cost for these assets has been included in the estimated replacement costs for storm sewers. Catch Basins The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for the catch basins. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 41

Table 2-38 Catch Basin Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Type Quantity Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate CB 1,359 $2,590,611 $1,794,780 $3,901,159 DCB 265 $563,499 $421,745 $760,712 DI 7 $10,803 $6,621 $20,094 DICB 35 $60,491 $40,484 $100,471 RLCB 11 $24,014 $17,443 $31,577 Total 1,677 $3,249,418 $2,281,073 $4,814,013 Ponds The following table presents the Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation for stormwater management ponds. Table 2-39 Ponds Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate 4-1 Valleyview 1987 Assumed Dry $52,060 $24,989 $95,909 4-2 Coralwoods 1990 Assumed Dry $75,351 $40,690 $118,740 6-1 Previn Court Stage 1 2002 Assumed Wet $539,551 $420,850 $671,119 7-1 Royal Alcona Storm Pond 2007 Assumed Wet $256,916 $226,086 $289,329 7-2 Wallace Mills Ph 2 1998 Assumed Wet Data Unknown 7-3 Wallace Mills Ph 1 2002 Assumed Wet Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown 7-4 Forest Valley 1998 Assumed Dry $41,715 $29,201 $57,381 7-5 Innisbrook Developments Ph 2 7-6 Innisbrook Subdivision 7-7 Green Acres Subdivision (South) 2003 Assumed Wet $61,800 $49,440 $74,601 2009 Assumed Wet $342,977 $315,539 $371,249 2004 Assumed Wet Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown 7-8 ORSI 1999 Assumed Wet $395,263 $284,589 $533,190 7-13 South Rec. Centre 2008 Assumed Wet $18,000 $16,200 $19,873 7-14 Innisfil Admin Bld. Back Pond 7-15 Innisfil Admin Bld. Front Pond 2008 Assumed Wet $18,000 $16,200 $19,873 2008 Assumed Wet $18,000 $16,200 $19,873 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 42

Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type Historical Cost 8-1 Trillium Industrial 1993 Assumed Dry Data Unknown Net Book Value - 2013 Data Unknown 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Data Unknown 8-2 Taylorwoods 1996 Assumed Dry $32,699 $21,582 $46,272 8-3 Crossroads Ph 1 Retroft 2011 Assumed Wet- Retrofit $93,323 $89,590 $97,093 8-4 Crossroads #2 1993 Assumed Wet $146,260 $87,756 $215,828 8-5 Skivereen Subdivision 1999 Assumed Wet $53,694 $38,660 $72,431 8-9 Crossroads Adullum 1993 Assumed Wet $76,220 $45,732 $112,474 9-1 Alcona Woods 1988 Assumed Dry $33,000 $16,500 $57,867 9-2 Southview 1988 Assumed Dry $39,900 $19,950 $69,966 9-3 Victoria Green 1986 Assumed Dry $47,916 $22,041 $93,209 9-4 Doral East 2002 Assumed Wet $180,840 $141,055 $224,937 9-5 Doral West 2002 Assumed Wet Data Unknown 10-1 Brandy Lane/Village North 10-2 Village North Dempster 1992 Assumed Wet- Retrofit Data Unknown Data Unknown $76,278 $44,241 $114,357 1988 Assumed Dry $30,122 $15,061 $52,819 10-3 McKee 1999 Assumed Wet Data Unknown 13-1 Kempenfelt Bayside Estates - Wet Data Unknown Data Unknown 2004 Assumed Wet $38,450 $31,529 $45,683 13-2 Monrepos 1988 Assumed Dry $58,705 $29,353 $102,942 13-3 South Shore Woods - Wet 15-1 Goldcrest/Fennel's Corners 2004 Assumed Wet Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown 1990 Assumed Dry $8,000 $4,320 $12,607 6-2 Tepco North 2005 Unassumed Wet $210,099 $176,483 $245,036 6-3 Tepco South 2005 Unassumed Wet $90,804 $76,275 $105,904 7-9 Green Acres Subdivision (North) - Wetland 7-10 Green Acres Subdivision (West) 7-11 Woodland Park North 7-12 Woodland Park South 2005 Unassumed Wetland $414,195 $347,924 $483,071 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown 2006 Unassumed Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown $113,473 $97,587 $130,236 $92,955 $79,941 $106,687 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 43

Pond ID Name Installation Year Status Type Historical Cost 8-6 Pratt Alcona North 2007 Unassumed Data Unknown 8-7 Pratt D'amico Subdivision - Phase 1 2010 Unassumed Data Unknown 8-8 Innisfil by the Lake n/a Unassumed Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown Net Book Value - 2013 Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Data Unknown Data Unknown Data Unknown 3-1 LSAMI Lefroy P4 1995 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 3-2 LSAMI Lefroy P3 1995 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 4-3 LSAMI Lefroy P1/P2 1995 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 7-16 Alcona Downs 2003 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 10-4 Innisfil Executive Estates 1990 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 14-1 Belpark 1988 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Cookshill North Cookshill South Cookshill North n/a Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Cookshill South n/a Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Total $3,656,565 $2,825,562 $4,660,556 Summary Valuation The following table and figure presents the summary replacement cost valuation presented above for each of the stormwater system asset classes. The total replacement value for the stormwater assets is estimated as $103M. Table 2-40 Stormwater Summary Replacement Cost Valuation Asset Class Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Notes: Storm Sewers $27,575,613 $22,976,782 $38,029,440 Catch Basins $3,249,418 $2,281,073 $4,814,013 Ponds $3,656,565 $2,825,562 $4,660,556 Total $34,481,597 $28,083,417 $47,504,008 Data based on available information. Some data gaps do exist as identified in asset summary tables. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 44

Figure 2-17 Summary of Stormwater Asset Values Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 45

2.3.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life The age distribution of the various assets of the Town s stormwater management system is presented in the figure below using current replacement value estimates. $7.0M Sewers Catchbasins $6.0M Ponds $5.0M 2013 Replacement Value $4.0M $3.0M $2.0M $1.0M $0.0M 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Age (Years) Figure 2-18 Age Distribution of Stormwater Assets The distribution of percentage expected service life (ESL) has been calculated using the ESL values presented in the table below. Table 2-41 Expected Service Life (ESL) of Stormwater Asset Types Asset Type Overall Life Expectancy (Years) Catchbasin 50 Maintenance Hole 75 Storm Sewer 75 SWM Pond 50 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 46

The distribution of expected service life expired is presented in the figure below. $14.0M Sewers $12.0M Catchbasins Ponds $10.0M 2013 Replacement Value $8.0M $6.0M $4.0M $2.0M $0.0M %ESL Figure 2-19 Distribution of ESL Expired 2.3.4 Asset Condition In the absence of physical condition assessment data we have assumed that percentage ESL expired is a proxy for condition. The condition ratings have been assigned according to the table below. Table 2-42 Condition According to %ESL Expired %ESL Expired Condition 0 20% 1 20% 40% 2 40% 60% 3 60% - 80% 4 80% - >100% 5 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 47

The distribution of stormwater asset condition according to the 2013 replacement valuation is presented below. $30.0M Sewers Catchbasins $25.0M Ponds $20.0M 2013 Replacement Value $15.0M $10.0M $5.0M $0.0M 1 2 3 4 5 Condition Figure 2-20 Condition Distribution of Wastewater Assets Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 48

2.4 Roads Services 2.4.1 Road Network Asset Inventory The road network inventory was established using data from the 2013 Road Needs Study (RNS) completed by RJ Burnside, the 2010 Bridge Inspection Study prepared by RJ Burnside and GIS inventories of the Town s streetlight and traffic signal assets. From the 2013 RNS road sections were included as follows: Roads identified as being transferred to Innisfil from the County in the future (i.e. 20 Side Road) were included as part of this inventory. Earth road ways and other unopened roadways were excluded. The bridge and culvert inventory was established using information from the 2010 Bride Needs Study completed by RJ Burnside. Key information was compiled from hard copy OSIM forms and digital cost summary tables included with the report. The traffic signal inventory was established using the Innisfil traffic signal GIS layer. The layer includes all signals located with the geographic boundary of Innisfil regardless of the ownership of the roadways they are situated on. Signals at the intersections of County or MTO roads were filtered out of the inventory. Signals located along County Roads at side roads owned by Innisfil were assumed to be 50% owned by Innisfil. Only four sets of signals were documented in the WorkTech database with construction dates. Where necessary construction dates were estimated using the local knowledge of the AECOM team. Traffic signals along 20 Side Road were assumed to 100% owned by Innisfil based on the impending transfer of the roadway. The figure and table below summarize the various roadway and roadway related assets owned by the Town of Innisfil. Figure 2-21 Summary of Stormwater Assets Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 49

Table 2-43 Road Services Asset Inventory Road Services Assets Quantity Unit Roadway (by centre line km) 365.63 centre line km Roadway (by lane km) 744.02 lane km Bridges 14 Each Culverts (3.0m + Span) 15 Each Streetlights 1 3054 Each Traffic Signals 2 15 Each Notes: 1. Includes street lights on poles owned by others. 2. Includes warning lights and pedestrian crosswalks. Roadway Function The table and graph below summarizes the various roadway systems by the function of each roadway. The details presented further in section typically divided the roadway system into these key functional categories. Table 2-44 Roadway System by Function Road Assets Length (centre line km) Lane (centre line km) Arterial 18.65 44.58 Industrial 5.82 11.63 Minor Collector 68.31 137.22 Major Collector 42.87 86.51 Local 229.98 464.07 Total 365.63 744.02 The figure below provides an illustration of the values detailed above by lane kilometers. Letter travelled local roads account for the majority of the Town s road network. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 50

Figure 2-22 Breakdown of Road System by Function (Lane Kilometres) Road Surface Types The long-term performance and expected lifespan of roadway assets (in particular the surface component) is a function of the type of surface applied to the roadway. Most urban roadways and higher volume roadways are surfaced with hot mix asphalt paving, while lower volume rural road ways are typically surfaced with surface treatment (gravel bound together with an emulsion to form a hard top ). In certain circumstances some roads may be surfaced with recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) or simply have a gravel surface. The graph below illustrates the composition of the Town s road network relative to the various surface types. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 51

Figure 2-23 Breakdown of Road System by Surface Type (Lane Kilometres) Bridges and Culverts The roadway network includes a variety of bridges and culverts (structures) that carry roadways over watercourses and other obstructions. Smaller bridges are typically of rigid frame construction, while larger bridges often involve a deck on girders. Depending on the site configuration and hydraulic considerations culverts are typically either concrete box structures or corrugated steel pipes (CSP) of round, elliptical or arched shape. Table 2-45 Bridges & Culverts by Structure Type Bridge Structure Type Quantity Bridge Rigid Frame 10 Bridge Girder 4 Culvert CSP 9 Culvert Concrete 6 It is noted that this report does not address two (2) bridge structures and two (2) large (3.0m + span) culverts that were not included in the Town s 2010 Bridge Needs Study. These assets will be included in the OSIM Inspection and Bridge Needs Study project planned for 2014 and should subsequently be Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 52

considered in an update of this report that is reflective of all findings from the forthcoming study. The structures not addressed herein are: Bridge on Jans Boulevard near Sobeys (Constructed 2004) Bridge on Webster Boulevard between 7 th Line and Forest Street (Constructed 1998) Large Culvert on Jans Boulevard in the Cross Road Subdivision Large Culvert on Webster Boulevard north of Forest Street near the SWM Facility Traffic Signals The roadway network includes a variety of traffic signals for purposes of controlling and directing traffic at high volume intersections and other key locations such as school crossings. Table 2-46 Traffic Signals by Type Signal Type Quantity Full Intersection 9 Midblock Crosswalk 6 Total 15 2.4.2 Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation Table 2-47 Road Services Financial Accounting Valuation Road Services Assets Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate Roadway Surface $155,193,581 $89,117,234 $435,897,852 Bridges $3,999,084 $2,998,427 $14,992,011 Culverts (3.0m + Span) $6,509,731 $5,374,753 $8,677,325 Streetlights 1 Data Unknown Data Unknown $4,891,805 Traffic Signals 2 $1,838,302 $1,667,234 $1,977,000 Notes: 1. Includes all roadway street lights and poles owned by Innisfil. Total Asset Values The tables and graphs below present the total replacement value of roadway related assets in 2013 dollars. Table 2-48 Road Services Asset Total Replacement Values Road Services Assets % of Inventory Replacement Value (2013) Roadway 93.45% $435,897,852 Bridges 3.21% $14,992,011 Culverts 1.86% $8,677,325 Streetlights 1.05% $4,891,805 Traffic Signals 0.43% $1,987,000 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 53

Figure 2-24 Breakdown of Road Services Replacement Values by Asset Type Total Asset Values The following provides a brief outline of the unit prices and cost estimation methodologies used to establish the replacement values noted above. The unit prices below are derived from the benchmark prices for reconstruction type improvements included in the 2013 Road Needs Study data files provided. They are understood to include construction costs as well as soft cost allowances for contingencies, engineering, contract administration, etc. For rural and semi urban costs for road surfaces have been separated from base costs by referencing the value of overlay type treatments provided in the road needs study. Table 2-49 Road Unit Cost Replacement Values Description Unit Price Base Unit Price Surface Units Rural, 2-Lane, Asphalt (50mm) $654 $66 m Rural, 2-Lane, Surface Treatment (DST) $924 $36 m Rural, 2-Lane, Gravel $693 - m Rural, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,332 $198 m Rural, 4-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,776 $264 m Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 54

Description Unit Price Base Unit Price Surface Units Semi Urban, 2-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $964 $194 m Semi Urban, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,477 $260 m Semi Urban, 4-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,990 $326 m Semi Urban, 5-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $2,503 $392 m Urban, 2-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,531 $173 m Urban, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $2,296 $260 m Urban, 4-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $3,062 $347 m Urban, 5-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $3,828 $434 m The following unit prices are used to establish the replacement costs for bridge and culvert assets. They are designed to reflect the economies of scale associated with replacing more substantial structures and assume that for replacement purposes deck areas will be enlarged by 25% to accommodate a wider roadway cross-section and longer span to minimize environmental impact. Table 2-50 Bridge and Culvert Unit Cost Replacement Values Description Unit Price Units Bridge Deck, Deck Area Over 100m 2 $4,000 m 2 of deck area Bridge Deck, Deck Area under 100m 2 $4,500 m 2 of deck area Concrete Culvert, Plan Area Over 100m 2 $2,000 m 2 of plan area Concrete Culvert, Plan Area Under 100m 2 $2,500 m 2 of plan area CSP Culvert, Plan Area Over 100m 2 $1,400 m 2 of plan area CSP Culvert, Plan Area Under 100m 2 $1,750 m 2 of plan area Approach Works $100,000 LS Utilities Relocation $50,00 LS Soft Costs: Detours, Dewatering, etc. 10% of Const. % Contingency 10% of Const. % Engineering 10% of Const. % Contract Administration 10% of Const. % Traffic signals were assigned to three categories and a benchmark replacement cost was calculated for each category based on a detailed itemized estimate using typical unit prices for the components required including poles, pole bases, arms, control, signal heads, handwells, ductwork, wiring, detection loops, minor road works and engineering. Table 2-51 Traffic Signal Unit Cost Replacement Values Signal Type Unit Price Units Full Intersection $161,000 Ea Midblock Crosswalk $88,000 Ea Warning Light $25,000 Ea Street lights were assumed to be replaced with LED fixtures. Poles were assumed to be replaced in kind with the exception of wood poles owned by the Town which were assumed to be replaced with concrete poles. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 55

Table 2-52 Street Light Cost Replacement Values Notes: Item Unit Price Units LED with 100,000hr Life $750 Ea Concrete Pole $1,800 Ea Decorative Concrete Pole $2,700 Ea Steel Pole on Concrete Base $2,500 Ea Decorative Steel Pole on Concrete Base $3,150 Ea Arms 1 $125 - $250 Ea 1. Varied based on length. 2.4.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life Table 2-53 Road Services Asset Expected Service Lives Asset Expected Service Lives (years) Roadway Base: All Roads 50 Roadway Surface: HCB (Hot Mix) 20 Roadway Surface: ICB (RAP) 10 Roadway Surface: LCB (Surface Treatment) 10 Bridges Constructed Prior to 2000 3 50 Bridges Constructed Post 2000 3 75 Culverts Constructed Prior to 2000 3 50 Culverts Constructed Post 2000 3 75 Streetlights 1 25 Traffic Signals 2 22 Notes: 1. Based on typical life of 100,000 hr fixture 2. Based on replacement value weighted average of all components. 3. Bridge code was changed in 2000 to require longer design life. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 56

Figure 2-25 Age Distribution of Roads Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 57

Figure 2-26 Age Distribution of Bridges & Culverts Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 58

Figure 2-27 Age Distribution of Traffic Signals Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 59

Figure 2-28 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Road Base Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 60

Figure 2-29 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Road Surface Figure 2-30 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Bridges and Culverts Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 61

Figure 2-31 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Traffic Signals 2.4.4 Asset Condition Each road section is scored using a simplified composite rating system developed by the Town of Innisfil to provide a snap-shot of each road section s current physical condition. Each road is rated on a scale of 1 10 as detailed below. The rating system is somewhat similar to the structural old MTO RIMS structural adequacy rating. Table 2-54 Road Services Asset Condition Scoring System Road Condition Score Description 1 4 Requires improvement in the form of reconstruction due to deteriorated physical condition. Rehabilitation type strategies to extend the service life of the road without full replacement are not viable or cost effective. 5 7 Requires improvement in the form of rehabilitation (i.e. resurfacing) extend service life and improve the physical condition of the road. 8 10 Roads are in adequate condition and require maintenance type treatments (i.e. slurry sealing or crack sealing) to help preserve pavement condition. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 62

Table 2-55 Road Services Asset Condition Road Condition Score Length (centre line km) Length (lane km) Replacement Value 1-4 (Reconstruct) 65.56 129.81 $73,224,977 5-7 (Rehabilitate) 191.85 388.74 $225,427,546 8-10 (Adequate) 108.21 225.47 $137,245,329 Figure 2-32 Road Asset Condition Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 63

The existing bridge needs study does not establish Bridge Condition Index (BCI), thus the asset condition has been summarized by reviewing and categorizing the type and scope of work recommended for each structure as described in the table below. Table 2-56 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition Requiring No Works: Structures in good condition with no identified works within a 10 year horizon. Long Term Replacement: Replacement in a 6 to 10 year Time Horizon to address long-term functional needs (i.e. upgrades to accommodate additional traffic). Minor Rehabilitation: Repair of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon Generally works to minimize deterioration of aging components (i.e. deck patch waterproof, pave) or upgrade to current standards (i.e. add approach guiderail). Major Rehabilitation: Replacement of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon Generally works to replace selected components that are at or beyond their service life (i.e. decks, wingwalls) and repair other components. Short Term Replacement: Replacement of structures that cannot be economically repaired, but do not represent immediate structural adequacy or issues or safety issues. Immediate Replacement: Replacement to address deteriorated structural condition and safety related issues No. of Structures 6 20.7% of Inventory 1 3.4% of Inventory * This Structure Also Requires Short Term Major Rehab 15 51.7% of Inventory 4 13.7% of Inventory 1 3.4% of Inventory 1 3.4% of Inventory Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 64

Figure 2-33 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition In the absence of physical condition assessment data we have assumed that percentage ESL expired is a proxy for condition. The condition ratings have been assigned according to the table below. Table 2-57 Condition According to %ESL Expired for Traffic Signals %ESL Expired Condition 0 20% 1 20% 40% 2 40% 60% 3 60% - 80% 4 80% - >100% 5 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 65

Figure 2-34 Traffic Signal Asset Condition Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 66

3. Desired Levels of Service 3.1 Levels of Service Development Levels of service, in the context of this Asset Management Plan, are high level summary statements that outline the quality of services that the Town is striving to provide customers. Generally, service levels relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, health and safety, environmental stewardship, and cost, and are defined to help meet customer expectations. Performance indicators and targets are commonly used to describe, quantify, and communicate the services that the public expect to receive and relate expected levels of service into the cost required to provide the services. For most service providers, levels of service (formally or informally established and communicated) are guided by a combination of regulatory requirements, guidelines, by-laws, and policies and procedures. In many cases, levels of service are also implied based on past precedence, community pressure, and system design. However, the Asset Management Plan requires that levels of service be formalized and supported through a framework of performance measures, targets, and timeframes to achieve targets. The objective of the formalized level of service statements and performance measure framework is to assess if the existing infrastructure and funding is able to meet the desired levels of service over the planning period, or identify where actions are needed to enable the assets to provide the desired levels of service. Given the numerous assets that are involved in providing a complex range of water, wastewater, storm, and transportation services, an organization such as the Town of Innisfil could effectively incorporate hundreds of different performance indicators as part of its overall asset management plan. However, in order to get useful information from performance indicators, there needs to be a framework that logically links asset data and performance indicators to the performance indicator user (or group of users). Each individual performance indicator user will only have an interest in a very small subset of the total volume of asset data and performance indicators. A framework to organize and arrange performance indicators is required to begin the process of agreeing on a standard and consistent suite of infrastructure management related performance indicators. 3.1.1 Level of Service Development Framework Levels of service can be defined at several stakeholder levels. At the highest level, levels of service relate to overarching policy statements for example, To provide our customers with clean, safe drinking water through the operation and maintenance of our drinking water systems in a manner that adheres to all applicable legislation and regulations. These policy statements are then broken down into utility goals, which must be met to fulfill policy commitments for example, provide reliable service. Customers define levels of service in terms of qualitative outcomes When I turn on my tap there is clean water, for example. Customer levels of service are defined at a finer level of detail than levels of service goals, but are still qualitative. Agencies must translate these expectations into technical objectives and actual measures (key performance indicators) and targets. These key performance indicators enable staff to measure and communicate their performance in tangible and quantifiable terms, and to prioritize actions and activities that will improve performance. The following figure illustrates this level of service hierarchy. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 67

Summary Statements Levels of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Targets Figure 3-1 Level of Service Hierarchy 3.1.2 Existing Levels of Service Services provided by the Town of Innisfil are guided by the Town s Strategic Plan, Inspiring Innisfil 2020. Inspiring Innisfil 2020 includes the following: Our Actions We will focus on creating a united community and consider our actions through the Triple Bottom Line: Environment, People, Economy. Our Promise We are committed to deliver core services in an efficient and effective manner, fulfilling our responsibilities, and will undertake regular reviews to meet our customers expectations. Although the Town does not have existing, formally established Levels of Service, it does report on several key performance indicators, it does provide guidance to levels of service within the Drinking Water Quality Management System and it does use Standard Operating Procedures to establish a framework of expectations. These performance indicators were incorporated into the levels of service proposed to the Town where possible. Since 2000, the Town of Innisfil has been participating in the Municipal Performance Measurement Program. This is a mandatory performance measurement program launched by the Ontario government designed to promote local government transparency and accountability. Municipalities are required to report MPMP results to the province through the Financial Information Return (FIR) and must also publish results for local taxpayers. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 68

The Town also reports on several performance measures in its rate-based and tax-based operating budgets. These measures provide an overall picture of system performance to stakeholders. 3.1.3 Development of Levels of Service The Levels of Service for the Town of Innisfil were developed for each of the following asset categories: Water Services Water Distribution and Treatment Wastewater Services Wastewater Collection and Treatment Road Services - Stormwater Collection, and Roads Network For each of the asset classes, an overarching policy statement, to guide all further levels of service development, was defined. These summary statements are as follows: Table 3-1 Levels of Service Summary Statements Infrastructure Asset Category Water services Wastewater services Road Services Summary Statement The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil is committed to providing our customers with clean, safe drinking water through the operation and maintenance of our drinking water systems in a manner that adheres to all applicable legislation and regulations. Through best management practices and technological advancements, Innisfil Wastewater division is committed to maintaining the health of our environment and protecting Lake Simcoe and its watershed for all of us to enjoy. Through best management practices and technological advancements, Innisfil Roads division is committed to providing affordable, well-managed and safe traffic flow while contributing to the environment and quality of community life. Then, levels of service goals applicable to all infrastructure asset categories, were defined. These goals include: Provide Service Reliability Provide Adequate infrastructure Capacity Protect Public Health and Safety Protect the Environment Provide Good Customer Service Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency. Customer expectations for levels of service were based on these goals, and key performance indicators were defined based on customers expectations of levels of service. 3.1.4 Key Performance Indicators Key performance indicators were identified based on a number of sources. The first is the Municipal Performance Measurement Program. The Town must measure the key performance indicators listed in this document and provide the data to the Province. Because the Town already has programs in place to measure these targets, it was logical to incorporate them into the official Levels of Service document. The Town also provides measures for several key performance indicators in their Operating Budgets. Similar Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 69

to the MPMP measures, because these are already being measured, it makes sense to incorporate them into the Levels of Service framework for the Asset Management Plan. The Town assesses the physical condition of bridge, culvert and roads assets on a regular basis. Several key performance indicators were developed based on these inspection results. For water, wastewater, and storm assets, other key performance indicators were identified based on the measures used in the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative (NWWBI). The NWWBI key performance indicators were developed with input from utilities throughout Canada and most indicators have been in place, and measured, for several years. Lastly, measures based on the Town s characteristics (e.g. location, external maintenance contracts, etc.) were identified and incorporated into the key performance indicators. 3.1.5 Level of Service Targets When identifying appropriate key performance indicators, identifying an appropriate target level is crucial. Without a reasonable target, the Town s performance cannot be evaluated. For example, measuring that the Town has cycled 25% of its valves is not relevant or useful unless it is known that the target level of service was to cycle 20% of its valves. In this case the Town has exceeded its performance target. However, if the target level was 30%, the Town would not have achieved its desired performance. Target service levels were agreed upon based on what the Town determined was reasonable considering the levels of service they currently provide, the median levels from the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative (where available), and minimum maintenance standards. Target levels for costs were not set as it was recognized that there are many factors that will impact the Town s ability to meet these targets. 3.2 Town of Innisfil Levels of Service The levels of service for each asset category developed for the Town s Asset Management Plan can be found below. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 70

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WATER SERVICES THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL Strategic Plan: Inspiring Innisfil 2020 Goal: Innisfil Town Council has adopted the fourteen proposed strategies of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 strategic plan. Community, tourism, culture and economy are identified as the four priorities that will make the vision to reshape Innisfil into the place to be by 2020 a reality. WATER SERVICES Level of Service Summary Statement (DWQMS Policy Statement): The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil is committed to providing our customers with clean, safe drinking water through the operation and maintenance of our drinking water systems in a manner that adheres to all applicable legislation and regulations. Function: Infrastructure: Administer, operate and maintain the municipal water treatment and distribution systems within the Town of Innisfil. There is presently one lake based (or surface water) treatment plant and five ground supply systems and associated distribution systems operating. WATER DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT Levels of Service Province Reliable, Efficient, Environmentally Responsible, and Safe Drinking Water Treatment and Supply System with Economic Efficiency. Summary Statement: Current Performance Level of Service Goals Provide Service Reliability Customer Expectations for Levels of Service General expectation is that drinking water is available to customers all of the time (24 / 7) with adequate pressure. Unplanned interruptions to water supply do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Planned service interruptions are reasonable but advance notice to customers is required. Fire flow to hydrants are required all of the time. Key Performance Indicators # of Main Breaks / 100km of Length KPI Definition - Numerator Number of water main breaks in a year. Record the number of breaks/leaks in municipal water mains which require digging to repair. % of Valves Cycled Number of mainline valves that were cycled or exercised. Non-Revenue Water (L/connection/day) % of Hydrants Inspected Average duration of disruption (per occurrence) of supply to Bradford Quantity of water that does not provide any revenue to the utility. Total volume delivered from the treatment plants subtract Billed authorized consumption (L). KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) Total kilometres of water distribution/transmission pipe divided by 100. Total kilometres of water distribution/ transmission pipe do not include the length of service connections and hydrant leads. Includes all mainline valves in the distribution/integrated/transmission system. Pressure reducing valves, air relief valves and hydrant valves are not included. # of residential service connections + # of ICI service connections. Service connections are the pipes that lead from the distribution water main to the customer s plumbing. Total # of service connections = # of retail customers. KPI Performance Indicator Source MPMP Existing Performance Measure 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target 1.3889 0.7042 5-6 Hydrant preventative maintenance inspections include one or a combination of the following activities: 1. A full hydrant flow and operation to ensure the hydrant flows on opening; water is flushed until clear. This type of inspection will likely also include a check for pressure and flow rate. 2. An "operational check" which may include visual inspections, operability check Total number of hydrants 50% (opening the hydrant to ensure it flows), and check of caps, outlets, and oil/lubricant levels. 3. Physical check for leakage (sounding), or a string test. Hydrant painting, snow removal, or a "drive by" visual inspection alone should not be considered as a hydrant inspection. Total length (in hours) of service disruptions to Bradford. Total number of service disruptions to Bradford 12 hrs 20% 160 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 71

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WATER SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Provide Service Reliability (continued) General expectation is that drinking water is available to customers all of the time (24 / 7) with adequate pressure. Unplanned interruptions to water supply do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Planned service interruptions are reasonable but advance notice to customers is required. Fire flow to hydrants are required all of the time. (Distribution 5 Year Running Average Capital Reinvestment + Contribution to Reserves) / Replacement Value (%) (Treatment 5 Year Running Average Capital Reinvestment + Contribution to Reserves) / Replacement Value (%) Capital Reinvestment: This is intended to be a measure of reinvestment to maintain current facilities and excludes expansion of system to handle growth and upgrading to a higher level of service. Maintenance projects are defined as projects which substantially maintain the life of the water system. Projects which serve one or more purpose (maintenance and expansion) should be prorated in order to also capture the capital applied for investment activities. Include both contracted capital work and internal costs associated with capital such as wages for capital engineering staff i.e. design, tendering, etc. Includes capital reinvestment (i.e. replacement and relining) costs for pipes (including valves, hydrants, reservoirs etc), pump stations and meters. A five year running average can be calculated by adding the capital reinvestment values from the last 5 years and dividing by 5. Contribution to Reserves: The total value for the capital reserve at the year end. Includes all reserve funds for future renewal and replacement of the existing system. Does not include rate stabilization reserves, operating reserves, developer's charges or reserves for system expansion. Capital Reinvestment: This is intended to be a measure of reinvestment to maintain current facilities and excludes expansion of system to handle growth and upgrading to a higher level of service. Projects which serve one or more purpose (maintenance and expansion) should be prorated in order to also capture the capital applied for investment activities. Include both contracted capital work and internal costs associated with capital such as wages for capital engineering staff i.e. design, tendering, etc. Includes capital reinvestment (i.e. replacement) costs for utility systems components (for example: pipes (including valves, hydrants, reservoirs etc), pump stations and meters). A five year running average can be calculated by adding the capital reinvestment values from the last 5 years and dividing by 5. Contribution to Reserves:The total value for the capital reserve at the year end. Includes all reserve funds for future renewal and replacement of the existing treatment facilities. Does not include rate stabilization reserves, operating reserves, developer's charges or reserves for system expansion. The amount of money needed to replace all of the existing infrastructure pertaining to water transmission / distribution. The replacement value shall include all engineering costs, construction, supervision, taxes, etc (excluding land purchasing). If this value is developed by a calculations based on unit values times the number of units, unit replacement values shall be estimated based on average construction costs over the last 5 years. For example, if 20 main replacements have been constructed over the last five years, the average unit cost per km of main can be estimated from all 20 construction projects (excluding inflation). The amount of money needed to replace all of the existing infrastructure pertaining to water treatment. The replacement value shall include all engineering costs, construction, supervision, taxes, etc (excluding land purchasing). Total value for each type of infrastructure is calculated by multiplying the unit value by the number of units (where appropriate). Unit replacement values shall be estimated based on average construction costs over the last 5 years. (excluding inflation). 1% 2% Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 72

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WATER SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Provide Adequate Infrastructure Capacity There is no volumetric limit to domestic water consumption except during summer lawn watering restriction periods. Town must provide adequate water capacity for approved new development. # of Hours of Treated Water Storage at Average Day Demand Treatment Plant/Well System Average Day Demand / Existing Water License Capacity (%) # of Days the Filtration Plant Operated at >90% Capacity As per system design, the number of hours of storage at average day demand. Water demanded by the distribution system, which is less than the total amount of raw water entering the plant (units used are ML/day). Collect both design and current average day demand for the treatment plant. Average Day Demand = Total Annual Treated Water (ML) / 365 days (Include treated water volume supplied to neighbouring regions/municipalities). Number of days that the treatment plant operated at greater than 90% of its maximum rated treatment capacity (only required for filtered systems as data is not graphed for unfiltered systems). N/A Existing maximum capacity of the water license, measured in daily flow (ML/day). If the capacity is provided in annual volume (ML), then divide by 365 days to provide the value in ML/day. For multiple surface water sources (or groundwater sources), the total capacity for all surface water sources (or groundwater sources) should be recorded. N/A 24 hrs 80% 0 days Protect Public Health & Safety Meet water quality regulations governing the required standard for drinking water quality. Provide immediate emergency response to customers when water quality issues are identified. Though not a direct health issue, provide drinking water that is clear, tasteless and odorless. Weighted Number of Days when a Boil Water Advisory Issued by the Medical Officer of Health, Applicable to Municipal Water Supply, was in Effect % of Main Length Cleaned MOE Noncompliance orders issued Adverse bacteriological samples reported Summation of: number of boil water days multiplied by the number of connections affected. The number of boil water days refers to the number of days when a boil water advisory issued by the Medical Officer of Health was in effect for part or all of the municipal water supply. Include communal or satellite systems when calculating the number of boil water days because municipalities are ultimately responsible for the on-going operation and maintenance of these systems. Boil water advisories may be isolated or community-wide. The total cumulative length of water mains cleaned using flushing, swabbing and/or pigging methods to remove biofilms, sediment, and corrosion by-products from water main interiors. This generally improves water quality and hydraulic capacity. Excludes service connections and mains cleaned before cement lining, or flushing to increase demand/chlorine residual. Excludes lengths that are spot flushed for the purpose of retaining a chlorine residual. Total connections in the service area. Total connections refer to the total number of water service connections. Total length of main in the distribution/transmission/integrated system (i.e. excluding length of service connections, hydrant leads and standpipe leads). Include all connecting pipes between pump stations, rechlorination facilities and storage facilities. This includes unassumed pipe that is operated and maintained by the municipality but is still under warranty. MPMP Existing Performance Measure User Rate Operating Budget KPI User Rate Operating Budget KPI 0 0 0 20% 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 73

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WATER SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Protect the Environment Promote water conservation. # of Days of Voluntary Water Restrictions Per Capita Average Day Demand for Residential Customers # of Water Quality Customer Complaints / 1,000 People Served Number of days during the year where the municipality promotes voluntary water use restrictions to manage demand (i.e. the public are not fined if they do not comply). Annual average daily per capita residential water consumption in l/capita/day = Total volume delivered to residential customers in ML / 365 days / population served * 1,000,000 litres per ML. If the Total volume delivered to residential customers is unknown due to lack of metering then it can be estimated for residential consumption based on studies. (Should be based on your own residential customers and exclude treated water supplied to neighbouring regions/municipalities.) Total # of customer complaints received at the customer service centre/plant/public works yard. Include all complaints related to water quality, i.e. taste and odour, colour and temperature and other or unknown quality related issues. If the breakdown into different categories is available, provide this data in the relevant fields. Note: A complaint requires follow-up action and should not include general inquiries. N/A 0 N/A 220 Total population, excluding ICI equivalents and population equivalents for treated water supplied to neighbouring regions/municipalities, served by all water utility infrastructure (transmission/ distribution system and all treatment plants and wells) divided by 1000. Note that the total population may well be different to the City's recorded population and, where possible, should estimate the typical number of residents receiving service. 2 Provide Good Customer Service Provide a Service call centre with prompt response in line with the request. # of Water Pressure Complaints / 1,000 People Served # of customer complaints received at the customer service centre that were related to water pressure in the distribution system. Should be a sum of complaints regarding high and low water pressure. Note: A complaint will typically require follow-up action and should exclude general inquiries. Total population, excluding ICI equivalents and population equivalents for treated water supplied to neighbouring regions/municipalities, served by all water utility infrastructure (transmission/ distribution system and all treatment plants and wells) divided by 1000. Note that the total population may well be different to the City's recorded population and, where possible, should estimate the typical number of residents receiving service. 2 Response time for Non-emergencies (days) Response time for Emergencies (hours) When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for a non-emergency, the average number of days between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for an emergency, the average number of hours between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). N/A N/A 1 day 1 hr Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 74

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WATER SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency Customers are charged water rates to pay for expected water services. Operating Costs for the Treatment of Drinking Water / ML Treated Total Costs for the Treatment of Drinking Water / ML Treated Operating Costs for Distribution/Transm ission of Drinking Water / KM of Pipe Total Costs for Distribution/Transm ission of Drinking Water / KM of Pipe Operating Costs for the Treatment and Distribution/Transm ission of Drinking Water / ML Treated Operating Costs for the treatment of drinking water. Treatment of drinking water is defined as all activities from supply source(s) to the completion of treatment (the point where water leaves the treatment plant). Include administration costs and service operating agreements with the Ontario Clean Water Agency and other contractors/suppliers. Include other waterworks system expenses that pertain to the treatment of drinking water. Total Costs for the treatment of drinking water. Total Costs equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets for the treatment of drinking water. Operating costs for the distribution/transmission of drinking water. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support. Revenue from Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. Total Costs for urban storm water management (collection, treatment, disposal). Total Costs equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets for the distribution/transmission of drinking water. Operating Costs for the treatment and distribution/transmission of drinking water. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support for the treatment and distribution/ transmission of drinking water. Revenue from Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. Total megalitres of drinking water treated. Total megalitres of drinking water treated. Total kilometres of water distribution/transmission pipe for which the municipality is responsible. Total kilometres of water distribution/transmission pipe for which the municipality is responsible. Total megalitres of drinking water treated. The volume of drinking water treated is defined as the volume at the point where water enters the treatment plant. MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure $592.03 $578.56 $997.02 $995.40 $6,352.76 $6,337.94 $11,850.67 $11,719.46 $1,065.37 $1,060.28 Total Costs for the Treatment and Distribution/Transm ission of Drinking Water / ML Treated Total Costs for the treatment and distribution/ transmission of drinking water. Total Costs equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue for Tangible Capital Assets for the collection/conveyance of wastewater and the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Total megalitres of drinking water treated. The volume of drinking water treated is defined as the volume at the point where water enters the treatment plant. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1,880.00 $1,886.14 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 75

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WASTEWATER SERVICES THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL Strategic Plan: Inspiring Innisfil 2020 Goal: Innisfil Town Council has adopted the fourteen proposed strategies of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 strategic plan. Community, tourism, culture and economy are identified as the four priorities that will make the vision to reshape Innisfil into the place to be by 2020 a reality. WASTEWATER SERVICES Levels of Service Summary Statement: Through best management practices and technological advancements, Innisfil Wastewater division is committed to maintaining the health of our environment and protecting Lake Simcoe and its watershed for all of us to enjoy. Function: Infrastructure: Administer, operate, and maintain the municipal wastewater treatment and collections systems in the Town of Innisfil. As well, the handling and land application of municipal biosolids under the Nutrient Management Act. There are presently two water pollution control plants and associated collection systems operating. WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT Levels of Service Summary Statement: Province Reliable, Efficient, Safe, and Environmentally Responsible Wastewater Collection and Treatment System with Economic Efficiency. Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Provide Service Reliability Sewer infrastructure is available to customers all of the time (24 / 7). Blockages to the collection system or pump stations failures that result in service interruption do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Sewer back-ups into a customer s property or home are a major customer relations issue that requires a very high priority response. # of Blocked Sewers / 100 km Length % of Length Cleaned # of Pump Station Failures / # of Pump Stations Number of blockages within the service connections for which the municipality is responsible. Only includes blockages that substantially restricts the flow in the service connection and have a commitment of equipment and labour deployed to service. These blockages do not necessarily cause a backup. The length of main cleaned that used hydraulic or mechanical methods to remove grease, sediment, roots and debris etc. from sewer main interiors, for maintenance purposes. Do NOT double count sewers that are cleaned on two or more occasions. This metric is used to see how much of your system received cleaning, not the total amount of cleaning completed. Include the length of main cleaned prior to a CCTV inspection add this length to your total. If a main was cleaned more than once do not add these cleanings to your total. Exclude lengths cleaned immediately prior to slip-lining or any other pipe rehabilitation work, as such cleaning relates to capital reinvestment not general maintenance. # of pump station failures reported to a regulatory body due to mechanical faults rather than capacity or design issues (the metric is used to measure the mechanical reliability of stations). Total length (km) of gravity sewer and forcemains - excluding service connections - in your sanitary collection system divided by 100. Include combined sewers and unassumed pipe that is operated and maintained by the municipality but is still under warranty. Exclude stand alone storm or drainage sewers and sewers located within your WWTPs. Total length (km) of gravity sewer and forcemains - excluding service connections - in your sanitary collection system. Include combined sewers and unassumed pipe that is operated and maintained by the municipality but is still under warranty. Exclude stand alone storm or drainage sewers and sewers located within your WWTPs. The number of sanitary and combined pump stations within the collection or trunk system broken out by pump station capacity (refer to pump station flow range below). Exclude pump stations servicing only stormwater sewers or influent pump stations located within wastewater treatment plants. Call Reports 0 Call reports / SCADA 20% 0.5 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 76

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WASTEWATER SERVICES Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target % of Length CCTV Inspected Total length inspected by CCTV, which does not include length inspected by zoom camera. This includes the sum of both CCTV inspection of new installations and existing sewer pipes. The length of the system that can be inspected by CCTV. Can be calculated by taking the system's total sewer length, and subtracting the length of pipe where it is impossible to inspect by CCTV inspection, if any. 5% Provide Service Reliability (continued) Sewer infrastructure is available to customers all of the time (24 / 7). Blockages to the collection system or pump stations failures that result in service interruption do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Sewer back-ups into a customer s property or home are a major customer relations issue that requires a very high priority response. Collection 5 Year Running Average Capital Reinvestment + Contribution to Reserves / Replacement Value (%) Treatment 5 Year Running Average Capital Reinvestment + Contribution to Reserves / Replacement Value (%) Capital Reinvestment: This is intended to be a measure of reinvestment to maintain current facilities and excludes expansion of system to handle growth and upgrading to a higher level of service. Projects which serve one or more purpose (maintenance and expansion) should be prorated in order to also capture the capital applied for investment activities. Include both contracted capital work and internal costs associated with capital such as wages for capital engineering staff i.e. design, tendering, etc. Includes capital reinvestment (i.e. replacement, relining, and replacement of combined sewer with both sanitary and storm sewer; equivalent sanitary sewer length should be included here; storm sewer length should be recorded in the stormwater datasheet, if applicable) costs for utility systems components (for example: pipes - including valves, hydrants, reservoirs etc - pump stations and meters). A five year running average can be calculated by adding the capital reinvestment values from the last 5 years and dividing by 5. Contribution to Reserves:The total value for the capital reserve at the year end. Includes all reserve funds for future renewal and replacement of the existing collection system. Does not include rate stabilization reserves, operating reserves, developer's charges or reserves for system expansion. Capital Reinvestment: This is intended to be a measure of reinvestment to maintain current facilities and excludes expansion of system to handle growth and upgrading to a higher level of service. Projects which serve one or more purpose (maintenance and expansion) should be prorated in order to also capture the capital applied for investment activities. Include both contracted capital work and internal costs associated with capital such as wages for capital engineering staff i.e. design, tendering, etc. Includes capital reinvestment (i.e. replacement) costs for utility systems components (for example: pipes (including valves, hydrants, reservoirs etc), pump stations and meters). A five year running average can be calculated by adding the capital reinvestment values from the last 5 years and dividing by 5. Contribution to Reserves: The total value for the capital reserve at the year end. Includes all reserve funds for future renewal and replacement of the existing facilities. Does not include rate stabilization reserves, operating reserves, developer's charges or reserves for system expansion. The amount of money needed to replace all of the existing infrastructure pertaining to wastewater collection / conveyance. The replacement value shall include all engineering costs, construction, supervision, taxes, etc (excluding land purchasing). If this value is developed by a calculations based on unit values times the number of units, unit replacement values shall be estimated based on average construction costs over the last 5 years. For example, if 20 main replacement projects have been constructed over the last five years, the average unit cost per km of main can be estimated from all 20 construction projects (excluding inflation). The amount of money needed to replace all of the existing infrastructure pertaining to wastewater treatment. The replacement value shall include all engineering costs, construction, supervision, taxes, etc (excluding land purchasing). Total value for each type of infrastructure is calculated by multiplying the unit value by the number of units (where appropriate). Unit replacement values shall be estimated based on average construction costs over the last 5 years. (excluding inflation). 1% 2% Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 77

Level of Service Goals Provide Adequate Infrastructure Capacity Protect Public Health & Safety Protect the Environment Customer Expectations for Levels of Service There is no volumetric limit. Provide adequate sewer capacity for approved new development. No backups into basements caused by blockages in the Town collection system Sewage is treated according to regulated standards. Sewage can occasionally surcharge from the collection system. Spills must be reported according to regulatory requirements. Level of Service Key Performance Indicators Number of Wastewater Main Backups / 100km Length % of Treatment Plant Design AAF Capacity Utilized # of connections with sanitary flooding caused by network issues / 1,000 service connections # of backups that cause wastewater flooding into homes Total # of Reported Sanitary Sewer Overflows / 100km Length kg of BOD Discharged to the Environment per Capita Percentage of Wastewater Estimated to Have By-passed Treatment. Phosphorus Loading from treatment plants (Cookstown WWTP) Phosphorus Loading from treatment plants (LakeshoreWWTP) Sewer By-pass events MOE non-compliance events KPI Definition - Numerator Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WASTEWATER SERVICES A backup in a wastewater main is defined as an obstruction or hydraulic overload in a municipal system which results in a backup of wastewater which may enter a house. Do not include an obstruction in a lateral line from a house to the wastewater main which results in a backup. Wastewater mains on private property are not measured. Total Annual Flow (ML) into treatment plant. # of connections with sanitary flooding where the main cause was service connection blockage, for which the municipality was responsible. Total number of blocked sewers that caused sanitary and combined sewer systems to back up, which required the deployment of equipment and labour to clear, regardless of reason (e.g., roots, greases, debris, poor hydraulics or structure). Exclude service connection blockages. The number of times an overflow from the collection system has to be reported to the regulatory agency, also called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Combined sewerage overflows to an outfall are not included in the number of reported overflows nor are any overflows allowed by the regulatory agency. However, occurrences when a combined sewer system has an overflow that is not from an outfall pipe, e.g. from a manhole, should be included. Should be a sum of all reported overflows due to internal blockage, external blockage, capacity limitations, pump station failures and other. Estimated megalitres of untreated wastewater. Wastewater which bypasses treatment refers to sewage which is untreated and has by-passed any form of municipal treatment. Note that untreated effluents may occur when the influent exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant. KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) Total kilometres of wastewater mains means total kilometres of sanitary sewer pipes plus total kilometres of combined sanitary/storm sewer pipes divided by 100. It does not include the length of service connections. Total Design Average Annual Flow Capacity (ML). Number of residential + ICI property connections to your sewer system divided by 1000. A "Y" connection (a branched connection to the sewer which connects two buildings) connected to buildings is considered as two connections. N/A Total length of gravity sewer and forcemains - excluding service connections - in your sanitary collection system. Include combined sewers and unassumed pipe that is operated and maintained by the municipality but is still under warranty. Exclude stand alone storm or drainage sewers and sewers located within your WWTPs. Total megalitres of treated wastewater PLUS estimated megalitres of untreated wastewater KPI Performance Indicator Source MPMP Existing Performance Measure Annual Report MPMP Existing Performance Measure User rate operating budget KPI User rate operating budget KPI User rate operating budget KPI User rate operating budget KPI Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 Cookstown - 51% Lakeshore - 55% 0.885 1.7699 Cookstown - 61% Lakeshore - 58% Cookstown - 56% Lakeshore - 53% 0 0 5.92kg 8.44kg 8.68 kg 134kg 228kg 180 kg 0 0 1 Level of Service Target 80% 300kg (MOE CofA) 629kg (MOE CofA) 0 0 0 0 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 78

Level of Service Goals Provide Good Customer Service Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Provide a Service call centre with prompt response in line with the request. Minimize impact to public from system. Level of Service Key Performance Indicators # of Wastewater Related Complaints # of Odour Complaints / 1,000 People Served Response time for Nonemergencies (days) Response time for Emergencies (hours) Operating Costs for the Collection / Conveyance of Wastewater per km Length KPI Definition - Numerator Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WASTEWATER SERVICES Number of odour complaints by the public relating to the wastewater system. When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for a non-emergency, the average number of days between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for an emergency, the average number of hours between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). Operating Costs for wastewater collection/conveyance. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support. Revenue from Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) The population, excluding ICI equivalents, served by the wastewater treatment facility divided by 1000. This includes the population of all wholesale and retail customers. Both current and design population are required for the wastewater treatment plant. Note that this number may well be different to the City's recorded population and, where possible, should estimate the typical number of residents receiving service. N/A N/A Total kilometres of wastewater mains means total kilometres of sanitary sewer pipe plus total kilometres of combined sanitary/storm sewer pipe which are the responsibility of the municipality. This does not include service connections. KPI Performance Indicator Source MOAR. User rate operating budget KPI Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target 70 91 90 100 MOAR..25 MPMP Existing Performance Measure $7,330.32 $7,398.05 1 day 2 hrs. Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency Customers are charged sewer rates to pay for sewer services. Total Costs for the Collection / Conveyance of Wastewater per km Length Operating Costs for the Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater / ML Treated Total Costs for wastewater collection/conveyance. Total Costs are automatically calculated and equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets. Operating Costs for wastewater treatment and disposal. Treatment and disposal include treatment, sludge disposal, operating and maintaining the discharge/effluent system. The definition includes service operating agreements with the Ontario Clean Water Agency and other contractors/suppliers. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support. Revenue from Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. Total kilometres of wastewater mains means total kilometres of sanitary sewer pipe plus total kilometres of combined sanitary/storm sewer pipe which are the responsibility of the municipality. This does not include service connections. The volume (ML) of wastewater treated is defined as the volume at the point where the wastewater enters the treatment plant. MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure $12,351.65 $12,440.16 $503.78 $505.39 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 79

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - WASTEWATER SERVICES Level of Service Goals Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency (continued) Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Customers are charged sewer rates to pay for sewer services. Level of Service Key Performance Indicators Total Costs for the Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater / ML Treated Operating Costs for Collection / Conveyance, Treatment & Disposal of Wastewater per ML Treated KPI Definition - Numerator Total Costs for wastewater treatment and disposal. Total Costs are automatically calculated and equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Other Tangible Capital Assets. Operating Costs for wastewater collection/conveyance. This measure applies to separated sanitary sewer systems as well as combined sanitary/storm sewer systems. Separate stormwater systems are not included. Municipalities which report the integrated measure also report the individual measures for wastewater collection and wastewater treatment and disposal. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support for wastewater collection/conveyance and wastewater treatment and disposal. Revenue rom Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) The volume (ML) of wastewater treated is defined as the volume at the point where the wastewater enters the treatment plant. The volume of wastewater treated is defined as the volume (ML) at the point where the wastewater enters the treatment plant. KPI Performance Indicator Source MPMP Existing Performance Measure MPMP Existing Performance Measure Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 $606.23 $623.23 $760.43 $787.40 Level of Service Target Total Costs for Collection / Conveyance, Treatment & Disposal of Wastewater per ML Treated Total Costs for the collection/conveyance and treatment and disposal of wastewater. Total Costs are automatically calculated and equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets for the collection/conveyance of wastewater and the treatment and disposal of wastewater. The volume of wastewater treated is defined as the volume (ML) at the point where the wastewater enters the treatment plant. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1,038.70 $1,097.45 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 80

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL Strategic Plan: Inspiring Innisfil 2020 Goal: Innisfil Town Council has adopted the fourteen proposed strategies of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 strategic plan. Community, tourism, culture and economy are identified as the four priorities that will make the vision to reshape Innisfil into the place to be by 2020 a reality. ROAD SERVICES Levels of Service Summary Statement: Function: Infrastructure: Through best management practices and technological advancements, Innisfil Roads division is committed to providing affordable, well-managed and safe traffic flow while contributing to the environment and quality of community life. Roads Services presently has jurisdiction over various major divisions such as rehabilitation and maintenance of all Town roads, shoulders of roads, ditches, sidewalks, bridges, traffic control matters, street cleaning, ice and snow removal, roadside weed control, street lighting, railway crossings and municipal drains. The Roads System Infrastructure includes Town roads, ditches, sidewalks, bridges, traffic control systems, street lighting, railway crossing and municipal drains. STORMWATER Levels of Service Summary Statement: Province Reliable, Efficient, Safe, and Environmentally Responsible Storm Water Drainage and Treatment System with Economic Efficiency. Current Performance Level of Service Goals Provide Service Reliability Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators Drainage infrastructure Emergency Sewer is available to customers Repairs / 100 km of all of the time (24 / 7). Sewer Length Blockages to the drainage system that result in localized flooding do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Flooding of a customer s property or home caused by a municipal infrastructure problem is a major customer relations issue that requires a very high priority response. # of Sewer Blockage Removals / 100 km of Sewer % of Sewer Length Cleaned KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Repairs to sewer mains due to breakdowns (either high or low emergency). High emergency breakdowns may result in loss of service or other severe detriment to the utility (e.g. spill, etc.), maintenance must be deployed as soon as possible. Low emergency breakdowns may not result in loss of service or are protected by equipment redundancy, maintenance shall be deployed at the earliest convenience. These repairs may be performed by either dig-up or trenchless methods. Includes reaming & sealing, spot repair <10m and relining (i.e. excludes replacements). # of sewer blockage removals = # of blocked storm sewer occurrences in separate storm sewer systems. These sewer blockages could be due to a number of different causes such as roots, grease, debris, poor hydraulics or structure. Only includes storm sewer blockages (anything that substantially restricts the flow in a main storm sewer not a service connection) that have a commitment of equipment and labour deployed to service. This is the length of main cleaned on at least one occasion during the year using hydraulic (e.g. high pressure flushing) or mechanical (e.g. rodding and chaining) methods to remove grease, sediment, roots and debris etc. from sewer interiors. Do NOT double count sewers that are cleaned on two or more occasions. Exclude lengths cleaned immediately prior to slip-lining, or any other pipe rehabilitation work, as such activity relates to capital reinvestment not general maintenance. Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Total Storm Sewer Length divided by 100 2 Total Storm Sewer Length divided by 100 5 Level of Service Target Total storm sewer length 5% Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 81

Level of Service Goals Provide Service Reliability (continued) Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators % of Ditch Length Cleaned % of Length CCTV Inspected Drainage infrastructure % of Manholes Visually is available to customers Inspected all of the time (24 / 7). Blockages to the drainage system that result in localized flooding do occasionally happen and the Town must respond rapidly. Flooding of a customer s property or home caused by a municipal infrastructure problem is a major customer relations issue that requires a very high priority response. 5 Year Running Average Capital (Pipe Only) Reinvestment + Contribution to Reserves / Replacement Value (%) Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Total length inspected by CCTV in km, which does not include length inspected by Aqua zooming. This includes the sum of both CCTV inspection of new installations and existing storm pipes. The total number of manholes where zoom camera technologies have been used to survey either the manhole or sewer pipes associated with it. Include inspections on both new and existing systems. Capital Reinvestment: This is intended to be a measure of reinvestment to maintain current facilities and excludes expansion of system to handle growth and upgrading to a higher level of service. Include both contracted capital work and internal costs associated with capital such as wages for capital engineering staff i.e. design, tendering, etc. Projects which serve one or more purpose (maintenance and expansion) should be prorated in order to capture the reinvestment and new capital investment. For example if a larger pump is installed, the capital should be prorated by percentage of increase capacity (or flow) to the new investment and remainder to the reinvestment. Capital reinvestment for the stormwater system includes both the linear and the vertical (treatment, retention, and storage components -ditches, pump stations, culverts, gates and treatment and storage infrastructure). A five year running average can be calculated by adding the capital reinvestment values from the last 5 years and dividing by 5. Contribution to Reserves:The total value for the capital reserve at the year end. Includes all reserve funds for future renewal and replacement of the existing stormwater collection system. Does not include rate stabilization reserves, operating reserves, developer's charges or reserves for system expansion. Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source KPI in tax operating budget Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 6000/ total length 5853.43/ total length 4000/ total length Level of Service Target Total Storm Sewer Length 5% Total number of Stormwater Manholes 25% The amount of money needed to replace all of the existing stormwater infrastructure based on multiplying unit replacement values by the number of units (for example Catchbasins). Unit replacement values for stormwater system assets shall be estimated based on average construction costs over the last 5 years. For example, if 20 storm sewer replacements have been constructed over the last five years, the average unit cost per km of sewer can be estimated from unit costs for all 20 construction projects (excluding inflation). Replacement values shall include all engineering costs, construction, supervision, taxes, etc. These costs shall also incorporate the costs associated with maintaining service to customers during construction, restoring ground conditions to preconstruction conditions, and avoiding other infrastructure such as water lines and fibre optic cables (excluding land purchasing). Note: include only infrastructure that has a defined service life and will be replaced at the end of its life. 5% 1% Provide Adequate Infrastructure Capacity Town must provide adequate drainage capacity for approved new development. # of Storms within the Five Year Design Criteria that Resulted in Catchment Level Flooding where the systems have been engineered to accommodate the 5-year storm The number of occurrences of rainfall events which exceed the 5- year storm for which the system was designed that also resulted in flooding. Floods can be described as temporary rises in flow or stage of any watercourse or stormwater conveyance system that results in stormwater runoff exceeding its normal flow boundaries and inundating adjacent, normally dry areas and are identified by customer complaints and/or road closures. N/A 0 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 82

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Protect Public Health & Safety Protect the Environment Ensure that the public remains safe during drainage flooding events. Storm water management facilities shall protect natural environmental features to the greatest extent possible, shall blend with the surrounding environment, and shall be developed on the basis of best management practices. # of Accidents / Safety Incidents Resulting from Floods from Rain/Drainage Events % of Catch Basin Sumps Cleaned (Mechanically) # of Drainage Contamination Events that Impact the Local Environment and Required Notification to Regulatory Agencies P-Loading reduction (kg/yr) # of stormwater ponds cleaned % of total stormwater ponds cleaned # of Stormwater Related Customer Complaints / 1,000 People Served Total number of reported accidents or safety incidents (near misses) resulting from floods caused by rain events/drainage. N/A 0 Total # of catch basin sumps cleaned mechanically. The use of a combination of units to vacuum debris from the sumps of catch basins and catch basin manholes. Sum of # of catch basin sumps cleaned after being inspected (mechanical) and # of catch basin N/A 85-100% sumps cleaned without prior inspection (mechanical). If you don not track whether the catch basin sumps are inspected before hand cleaning, provide the total # of catch basins sumps cleaned (mechanical). # of Drainage Contamination Events that Impact the Local Environment and Required Notification to Regulatory Agencies. Total reduction in phosphorus from all P-loading reduction measures (stormwater). N/A Conservation Authority Number of stormwater ponds where sediment was removed. N/A 2 Number of stormwater ponds where sediment was removed. Total number of stormwater ponds 5% The total number of customer complaints received that were related to stormwater issues, for e.g. blocked catch basins, flooding. Population, excluding ICI equivalents, of the City or Region that is serviced by the stormwater system divided by 1000 2 1% Provide Good Customer Service Provide a Service call centre with prompt response in line with the request. Response time for Nonemergencies (days) When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for a non-emergency, the average number of days between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). N/A 5 days Response time for Emergencies (hours) When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for an emergency, the average number of hours between receiving the call N/A and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc). 4 hrs Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency Customers are charged an drainage fee as part of the municipal tax bill. Total Stormwater O&M Cost / km of Sewer and Ditches Total Stormwater System O&M cost = Total Pump Station O&M Costs + Facility O&M Costs + Urban stormwater system O&M cost + Rural stormwater system O&M cost. All Operations & Maintenance cost allocations for the stormwater system inventory in both the urban and the rural areas. Total Storm Sewer Length including sewer and ditches TBD Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 83

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - ROAD SERVICES THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL Strategic Plan: Inspiring Innisfil 2020 Goal: ROAD SERVICES Levels of Service Summary Statement: Function: Infrastructure: ROADS NETWORK Levels of Service Summary Statement: Innisfil Town Council has adopted the fourteen proposed strategies of the Inspiring Innisfil 2020 strategic plan. Community, tourism, culture and economy are identified as the four priorities that will make the vision to reshape Innisfil into the place to be by 2020 a reality. Through best management practices and technological advancements, Innisfil Roads division is committed to providing affordable, well-managed and safe traffic flow while contributing to the environment and quality of community life. Roads Services presently has jurisdiction over various major divisions such as rehabilitation and maintenance of all Town roads, shoulders of roads, ditches, sidewalks, bridges, traffic control matters, street cleaning, ice and snow removal, roadside weed control, street lighting, railway crossings and municipal drains. The Roads System Infrastructure includes Town roads, ditches, sidewalks, bridges, traffic control systems, street lighting, railway crossing and municipal drains. Province Reliable, Efficient, Safe, and Environmentally Responsible Transpiration System with Economic Efficiency. Level of Service Goals Provide Service Reliability Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Roads should be smooth and drivable at the rated speed limit and there should be no risk of damage to vehicles due to road cracks or potholes. Planned roadway closures to allow repairs and maintenance are reasonable but detours should be well marked and advance notice should be available to allow customer to make alternative travel arrangements. Level of Service Key Performance Indicators % of Road System with 1 to 4 Condition Rating % of Road System with 5 to 7 Condition Rating % of Road System with 8 to 10 Condition Rating % of Road System Categorized as Adequate (condition 6 or higher) % of Structures with "Now" Need % of Structures with 1 to 5 Year Need % of Structures with 6 to 10 Year Need % of Structures Categorized as Adequate % of Paved Lane km where the Condition is Rated as Good to Very Good KPI Definition - Numerator The total number of lane kilometres (see adjacent denominator definition) that are rated as good or very good. Adequacy of roads is determined using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) or the Ministry of Transportation s Roads Inventory Management System (RIMS) or other similar rating system used by the municipality. A road rated as good to very good is a road whose surface distress is minimal and no maintenance or rehabilitation action is required. KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) Lane km: A lane kilometre is a continuous lane of road which conveys traffic in onedirection. Continuous two-way median turn lanes and assumed access lanes may be counted as a single lane. A two-way median turn lane is a continuous centre left turn lane that accepts traffic travelling in both directions. Parking, storage, ramp and turning lanes should not be counted. Total lane kilometres are determined by multiplying the number of centre line kilometres by the number of lanes, for each road. KPI Performance Indicator Source Roads Needs Study Roads Needs Study Roads Needs Study Roads Needs Study OSIMS OSIMS OSIMS OSIMS MPMP Existing Performance Measure Current Performance 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target 39.4 42.4 50% Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 84

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - ROAD SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Provide Service Reliability (continued) Roads should be smooth and drivable at the rated speed limit and there should be no risk of damage to vehicles due to road cracks or potholes. Planned roadway closures to allow repairs and maintenance are reasonable but detours should be well marked and advance notice should be available to allow customer to make alternative travel arrangements. % of Bridges and Culverts where the Condition is Rated as Good to Very Good Number of Bridges and Culverts (see adjacent denominator definition) where the condition is rated as good to very good. The condition of a bridge or culvert in this measure means the condition of primary components which are the main load carrying components of the structure and includes: the deck, beams, girders, abutments, foundations, etc. Secondary and auxiliary components are not included. A bridge or culvert is rated as good to very good if distress to primary components is minimal, requiring only maintenance. Secondary components are any component which helps to distribute loads to primary components or carries wind loads or stabilizes primary omponents, such as: sidewalk, curb, sway bracing, ballast wall, wingwalls, etc. Auxiliary components are any component which does not share in the load carrying capacity of the structure and includes: deck drains, gutters, catchbasins, etc. Total Number of Bridges and Culverts: The total Number of structures that meet the following definitions: A bridge is a structure which provides a roadway or walkway for the passage of vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists across an obstruction, gap or facility and which is greater than or equal to three metres in span. A pedestrian bridge is a structure which provides a walkway for pedestrians or cyclists across an obstruction, gap or facility and which is greater than or equal to three metres in span. Culverts, including concrete and steel: A culvert is defined as an opening through soil with a span equal to or greater than three metres. Include adjacent multiple cell culverts separated by soil with individual spans greater than or equal to three metres. MPMP Existing Performance Measure 86.7 83.3 85% % streetlights repaired Total number of assumed streetlights repaired. Total number of assumed streetlights. 5% the average number of days between receiving repair average # of days from notification and the O&M crew being on-site to notification to repair N/A 5 days undertake the preliminary assessment (not streetlights necessarily complete the full repair etc) Provide Adequate Infrastructure Capacity Town must provide adequate road capacity for approved new development. Average AADT / Mid-block Capacity (Arterial and Collector Roads) Sum of (AADT per road segment / the road segment mid-block capacity) Total number of road segments Protect Public Health & Safety Provide roadside vegetation maintenance to ensure the safety of the traveling public Street lighting should be available from dusk until dawn where street lighting exists. Traffic control and signage must be available at all times. Snow and ice control to consist of street sanding, salting, and plowing according to set priority routes. % of Winter Events where the Response Met or Exceeded Locally Determined Municipal Service Levels for Road Maintenance. # of successful injury claims caused by inadequate sidewalk maintenance / year. # of successful injury claims caused by inadequate road maintenance / year. A winter event is a weather condition affecting roads such as snow fall, wind blown snow, sleet, freezing rain, frost, black ice, etc. A response to a winter event is a series of winter control activities related to one winter event. Report only the number of winter events where the response met or exceeded winter control maintenance levels set by the municipality. Since a response may consist of several winter control activities, each activity must meet the service level set by the municipality. Number of successful (money paid out) injury claims caused by inadequate sidewalk maintenance. Number of successful injury claims (money paid out) caused by inadequate road maintenance. Total number of winter events. A winter event is a weather condition affecting roads such as snow fall, wind blown snow, sleet, freezing rain, frost, black ice, etc. MPMP Existing Performance Measure 100 100 100% N/A 5 N/A 5 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 85

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - ROAD SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Protect the Environment Implement salt management system kg of salt / lane-km / storm event Total quantity of salt applied per lane km. A lane kilometre is a continuous lane of road which conveys traffic in onedirection. Continuous two-way median turn lanes and assumed access lanes may be counted as a single lane. A two-way median turn lane is a continuous centre left turn lane that accepts traffic travelling in both directions. Parking, storage, ramp and turning lanes should not be counted. Total lane kilometres are determined by multiplying the number of centre line kilometres by the number of lanes, for each road. A winter event is a weather condition affecting roads such as snow fall, wind blown snow, sleet, freezing rain, frost, black ice, etc.total number of these winter events. 75 Provide Good Customer Service Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency Provide a Service call centre with prompt response in line with the request. Information to inform customers about road closures, and detours. Transportation infrastructure is paid from property taxes. # of Road/Bridge/Culvert Related Customer Complaints / 1,000 People Served % responses to customer complaints not meeting minimum maintenance standards Response time for Emergencies (hours) Operating Costs for Paved (hard top) Roads / Lane km Total number of road/bridge/culvert (see definitions for these elements above) customer complaints. Total number of responses to road/bridge/culvert complaints (see above) not meeting minimum maintenance standards. When a site visit is made in response to a call that is received for an emergency, the average number of hours between receiving the call and the O&M crew being on-site to undertake the preliminary assessment (not necessarily complete the full repair etc)? Operating Costs for paved (hard top) roads. Paved (hard top) roads are defined as roads with an asphalt surface, concrete surface, composite pavement, Portland cement or surface treatment. Maintenance includes frost heave/base/utility cut repair, cold mix patching, hot mix patching, shoulder maintenance, surface maintenance, surface sweeping and surface flushing. Surface maintenance activities include crack sealing, spray patching, and slurry. The following activities are considered capital items and should not be included in this measure: hot mix patching greater than or equal to 150 metres, surface treatment and double surface treatment, and hot mix overlay. Population / 1,000 Total number of responses to customer complaints. N/A Total paved lane km for hard top roads only. Report only paved lane kilometres maintained within your municipality. A lane kilometre is a continuous lane of road which conveys traffic in onedirection. Continuous two-way median turn lanes and assumed access lanes may be counted as a single lane. A two-way median turn lane is a continuous centre left turn lane that accepts traffic travelling in both directions. Parking, storage, ramp and turning lanes should not be counted. Total lane kilometres are determined by multiplying the number of centre line kilometres by the number of lanes, for each road. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1,412.31 $1,378.70 1 hr Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 86

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - ROAD SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Total Costs for Paved (hard top) Roads / Lane km Total costs for paved (hard top) roads. Total Costs are equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets. Total paved lane km for hard top roads only. Report only paved lane kilometres maintained within your municipality. A lane kilometre is a continuous lane of road which conveys traffic in one direction. Continuous two-way median turn lanes and assumed access lanes may be counted as a single lane. A two-way median turn lane is a continuous centre left turn lane that accepts traffic travelling in both directions. Parking, storage, ramp and turning lanes should not be counted. Total lane kilometres are determined by multiplying the number of centre line kilometres by the number of lanes, for each road. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $7,156.01 $7,211.19 Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency (continued) Transportation infrastructure is paid from property taxes. Operating Costs for Unpaved (loose top) Roads / Lane km Operating Costs for unpaved (loose top) roads. Unpaved (loose top) roads are defined as roads with a gravel, stone or other loose travelling surface. Maintenance includes dust suppression, loose top grading, loose top gravelling, spot base repair, washout repair, road patrol and surface inspection/inventory. The following activities are considered capital items and should not be included in this measure: surface treatment; loosetop gravelling greater than 100 millimetres in depth; gravel patching greater than 100 millimetres in depth and greater than or equal to 150 metres in length. These costs are reflected in the amortization column in Schedule 40 and are carried forward to the total cost measure. Include administration and direct overhead. Total unpaved lane kilometres. Report only unpaved lane kilometres maintained by the Town. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $4,959.42 $4,617.15 Total Costs for Unpaved (loose top) Roads / Lane km Total Costs for unpaved (loose top) roads. Total Costs are equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets. Total unpaved lane kilometres. Report only unpaved lane kilometres maintained by the Town. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $9,146.26 $8,774.92 Operating Costs for Bridges and Culverts /m 2 of Surface Area Operating Costs for bridges and culverts. See above for definition of bridges and culverts. Operating Costs equal the sum of Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits; Materials; Contracted Services; Rents and Financial Expenses; External Transfers; Interfunctional Adjustments; and the Allocation of Program Support. Revenue from Other Municipalities are subtracted from expenses. Total square metres of surface area on bridges and culverts. Total square metres of surface area on bridges and culverts means the equivalent deck area, including sidewalks and railings. For structures with no measurable deck, such as some rigid frame and pipe structures, the equivalent deck area is the width times the length. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1.61 $11.39 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 87

Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan Table 3-2 Levels of Service Framework - ROAD SERVICES Current Performance Level of Service Goals Customer Expectations for Levels of Service Level of Service Key Performance Indicators KPI Definition - Numerator KPI Definition - Denominator (if applicable) KPI Performance Indicator Source 2012 2011 2010 Level of Service Target Total Costs for Bridges and Culverts /m 2 of Surface Area Total Costs for bridges and culverts. Total Costs are equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets. Total square metres of surface area on bridges and culverts. Total square metres of surface area on bridges and culverts means the equivalent deck area, including sidewalks and railings. For structures with no measurable deck, such as some rigid frame and pipe structures, the equivalent deck area is the width times the length. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $127.38 $138.49 Meet Service Requirements with Economic Efficiency (continued) Transportation infrastructure is paid from property taxes. Operating Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roadways / Lane km Maintained in Winter Operating Costs for winter maintenance of roadways, excluding sidewalks and parking lots. Maintenance can include: Administration and direct overhead, continuous and spot: snowplowing, ice control, combination plowing/salting/sanding, winging back snow, ice blading, salting, sanding including spot sanding, snowfencing, snow removal, spring clean-up, winter drainage, winter patrol, winter standby, snow dump operations, receiving/piling/loading sand and salt, brine making, other winter control expenses. Total Lane Kilometres Maintained in Winter. Report only lane kilometres maintained in winter within the Town. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1,450.91 $1,412.85 Total Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roadways / Lane km Maintained in Winter Total Costs for winter maintenance of roadways, excluding sidewalks and parking lots. Total Costs are equal the sum of Operating Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization, less Revenue from Other Municipalities for Tangible Capital Assets. Total Lane Kilometres Maintained in Winter. Report only lane kilometres maintained in winter within your municipality. MPMP Existing Performance Measure $1,609.40 $1,545.47 Town of Innisfil Asset Management Plan 88

3.3 Maintaining and Updating Levels of Service Indicators 3.3.1 Estimated Time Frame to Achieve Target This framework is the first iteration of the Town s Levels of Service and it is expected that the key performance indicator targets will be modified after further review. Additionally, many level of service targets have been defined based on what is thought to be current performance. Once current performance is conclusively known (after several Plan Do Check Act cycles, targets can be more accurately defined, and time frames to achieve them can be established. 3.3.2 External Trends or Issues Several external trends or issues could impact the Town s ability to meet their defined levels of service. These are presented below: Disasters, extreme weather events, or emergencies could result in reduced levels of service. The underlying cause of customer complaints may be due to reasons other than municipal infrastructure. For example, several residential developments in the Town are built on floodplains and are prone to flooding. This increases customer complaints, but is not due to the performance of municipal infrastructure. The Town s infrastructure is fairly young. This impacts the amount of inspection and maintenance required to keep the systems in reasonable condition. As the Town s infrastructure ages, more inspection and maintenance will be necessary. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 89

4. Asset Management Strategy The asset management strategy is the set of planned actions that will enable the assets to provide the desired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost (e.g., through preventative action). Life Cycle Costs of Infrastructure Ownership Life cycle cost is the total cost of an asset throughout its life including planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, renewal, replacement, and disposal costs. Once the Town acquires infrastructure assets, they become responsible for a substantial stream of future resourcing requirements that will be required not only as long as the asset can be operated cost effectively, but as long as the service that the asset provides is required. In other words, the Town is responsible for the replacement of deteriorated assets as long as the service is required. While individual assets may have a useful life that can be predicted in years or decades, the service that the asset provides could be required for a substantially longer duration (perhaps in perpetuity). The purpose of the Asset Management Strategy is to fully understand and predict the financial requirements for the Town s infrastructure to provide the desired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk at the lowest lifecycle cost. The figure below illustrates how costs typically accumulate over an asset s life. Figure 4-1 Accumulation of Costs Over an Asset s Life Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 90

Expressed simply, full life cycle cost of infrastructure can be accumulated under the following broad headings: 1. Installation Cost: Since the 1950 s, by far the largest investment that the Town has made is the design and construction of its municipal infrastructure. Added to Town-purchased inventory is infrastructure that the Town accepts (and takes future financial responsibility for) from developers as new neighborhoods are constructed. For example, as developers build new neighborhoods, the new local infrastructure (including local roads, water mains, sewer mains and drainage) is paid for by the developer and then transferred to the Town for future operation, maintenance and ultimately replacement. The Town s infrastructure inventory was therefore created over many decades through infrastructure paid for by the Town or by developers. 2. Ongoing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: As new infrastructure is commissioned, the Town accepts the responsibility of operating and maintaining the infrastructure according to O&M standards to ensure that the infrastructure is safe and reliable. Operations staff provides the day to day support required to operate infrastructure. In some cases, operations costs are minor, or they can be substantial and technically complex. For example, underground pipes require almost no operational support while a treatment plant or pumping station may require full-time staff to operate the facility safely and efficiently. Maintenance expenses include periodic preventive maintenance to ensure that the infrastructure can provide reliable service throughout the life of the asset and corrective maintenance that is required to repair defective assets as and when needed. The amount of O&M resources required in any period is a function of the current inventory of infrastructure and total O&M needs required for each asset. As the Town s inventory of infrastructure grows, total O&M requirements will also grow. 3. Renewal or Replacement Cost: The third portion of full life cycle costing relates to the renewal and replacement of infrastructure that has deteriorated to the point where it no longer provides the required service. Renewal cost is sometime incurred during the life of an asset where an investment is made to improve the condition and / or functionality of the asset e.g., re-lining of a pipe or resurfacing of a road. Disposal and replacement costs are incurred at the end of an asset s life when it is disposed of and replaced by a fully new asset. Many Canadian municipalities have not traditionally factored renewal or replacement costs into future budget projections, except for assets that have a relatively short life such as computer equipment and vehicles. Part of the problem lies in the fact that large portions of this infrastructure inventory can have a very long life e.g., from 75 to 100 years for underground pipes. For young communities like the Town of Innisfil, there has not been a historical need to forecast expenses that are not anticipated for decades. However, based on the experiences of older Canadian cities such as Victoria, Montreal and Hamilton, (where vast inventories of old assets are now in dire need of renewal or replacement), it is vital that communities fully understand the looming obligations of infrastructure renewal or replacement and develop a strategy to respond in a manner that is fair and affordable. The Asset Management Strategy therefore presents the Town s current approach for responding to the full life cycle costs of all its infrastructure assets, as well as the strategy to improve the Town s ability to predict full life cycle costs of their infrastructure over time. Innisfil s approach to managing assets considers: Non-Infrastructure Strategies related to over-arching programs and business organization Operations and Maintenance Strategies Asset-specific planning for Rehabilitation/Replacement and Expansion activities Water System specific strategies Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 91

Wastewater System specific strategies Roads System specific strategies Procurement strategies Risk Management strategies The strategies are described in the following sections. 4.1 Non-Infrastructure Strategies Non-infrastructure solutions are actions that are undertaken to either extend asset life or lower costs. These strategies are not directly related to individual assets, but affect the system as a whole. 1. Water a. Water Conservation Program b. Leak Detection / Water Loss Management Program 2. Wastewater a. CCTV Inspection Program b. Inflow and Infiltration Analysis 3. Integrated infrastructure planning e.g. scheduling road and sewer replacement at the same time 4. Working with neighbouring municipalities and higher tier governments 5. Workflows 4.1.1 Water Conservation Program Conservation measures encourage the efficient use of water, thereby reducing the quantity of water required per capita, and reducing the need for additional water and wastewater infrastructure to meet population growth needs. To this end, the Town is planning to embark on a water conservation strategy in 2014. 4.1.2 Leak Detection Program / Water Loss Management Program Leak detection and water loss management programs focus on water distribution networks. When water production and consumption is metered, the difference between the two reflects the volume of nonrevenue water. While some of this water may be authorized un-metered / un-billed, likely the most significant portion of non-revenue water is due to leakage on mains, and leakage on service connections prior to the point of customer metering. The first step in managing water losses is to monitor non-revenue trends. As identified in the Levels of Service Framework, this is one performance measure the Town is committed to monitoring. Based on the trending results the Town will further consider if additional action is required to better understand or manage water loss. Strategies to addressing this non-revenue water vary dependent on the system, but the cost savings achieved from treatment and distribution of the water lost as well as the potential capacity regained through leak detection and management activities can hold significant benefits to a municipality. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 92

4.1.3 CCTV Inspection Programs In order to properly assess the conditions facing the sanitary sewer system each municipality needs to embark upon a comprehensive CCTV inspection and review process. Only through many hours of conducting and review video tapes of the underground infrastructure can a municipality properly determine where the areas of concern may be and what action need to be taken in order to rehabilitate the sewer pipes and associated manholes. Not only should the mains be inspected but investigation of laterals should be a fundamental element to any program. Several preventive maintenance initiatives can then be developed based on the outcome of this work. The Town s sanitary system is relatively young, but the Town has established an target service level of CCTVing 5% of the system per year. Consideration will be made to undertake CCTV based on various risk factors including age, and consequence of asset failure. 4.1.4 Inflow and Infiltration Program Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) programs focus on the infiltration and inflow of groundwater and storm water into sanitary system through various means (i.e. foundation drains, direct connections / cross connections of the stormwater system to the sanitary, deteriorating infrastructure). Many municipalities have found that investigating I&I in their sewage systems have unlocked capacity within the system that previously was not considered, and increased the efficiency of the system. Municipalities with aging infrastructure have particularly noticed increases in capacity thorough investigating inflow and infiltration. Additional benefits are that inflow and infiltration programs can be a good opportunity to assess the condition of the network and a majority of inflow and infiltration solutions increase the asset life. The Town recognizes the importance of understanding the inflow and infiltration in the sanitary systems and are in the process of completing an I&I study with a scheduled completion of 2017.See page 167 on the Town s servicing plan. 4.1.5 Integrated Infrastructure Renewal Through determining road and sewer replacement schedules, actions can be taken to align replacement times. For example, if a road section was approaching its replacement year, but a sanitary main located underneath the road was expected to be replaced in 5 years, the road could be flagged as potential candidate for rehabilitative/maintenance actions to increase its service life. Through taking actions to increase the service life of the road through rehabilitative/maintenance actions (i.e. micro-surfacing, slurry application, etc.), the road life can be extended to match the sewer replacement year, allowing for the road to be replaced after excavation of the site occurs which would be required to replace sewer pipes. Utilizing this approach saves costs, minimizes waste, and maximizes the use of assets. These integrated activities will be improved upon through various activities identified in the Levels of Service framework including undertaking CCTV of the sewer system and monitoring and managing water loss management which are indicators of the condition of the buried infrastructure. 4.1.6 Working with Neighbouring Municipalities Municipalities working together can accomplish service levels that would be too expensive for a municipality to afford alone. This occurs between municipalities of all sizes, and presents significant Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 93

opportunities for cost savings for both municipalities. One example is scheduling works of related assets at the same time, sharing the cost and working together more efficiently. Another example would be cooperative purchasing, accomplished through partnering with other public agencies in order to obtain the benefits of volume purchasing and the reduction in administrative efforts and cost. Innisfil currently is a member of the Georgian Bay Area Public Purchasing Cooperative, and undertakes cooperative purchasing with this group. ( Doing Business with Innisfil document). Innisfil also currently has a service agreement with a neighbouring community (Bradford West Gwillimbury - BWG) where the Town provide approximately 50 % of the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant s Production to BWG. This agreement deals with operational and maintenance, life cycle renewal and future expansion costs. 4.1.7 Workflows, Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policies Following the completion to this document, the Town s first Asset Management Plan (AMP) the Town will continue work on asset management, utilizing lessons learned during the preparation of the AMP to consolidate the existing data holdings into WorkTech s Asset Manager, which is a component of the Town s existing enterprise level asset database. The details are as follows: Data consolidation, focused on aligning the structure of the existing data to be more consistent an exchangeable across systems. Improved system integration between various systems such as GIS, WorkTech and Great Plains Dynamics to reduce data duplication and improve access to best available data for all users. Updated work flow documentation to guide consistent and timely creation and updating of data. The figure below provides an illustration of the Town s existing systems along with preliminary recommendations for specific improvements in integration identified in red. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 94

Figure 4-2 Data Management System Integration and Improvements Comprehensive asset data management to support this type of vision is not a simple undertaking for a growing municipality and requires: Collaboration between various departments responsible for creating, updating or analyzing data. This often requires some degree of compromise and flexibility with respect to approach as different end-users often view data about the same assets in very different ways. Dedicated resources to ensure protect the investments made in existing dataset be ensuring they remain update to date and evolve to meet changing needs. Specialized staff to coordinate and support the efforts of other staff that are not dedicated to asset management and data management. Engaging consultants and designers of infrastructure in a fashion that clearly outlines that makes them partners in supplying information that can be utilized more readily to update the Town s existing databases. To help facilitate this undertaking, the Town has received approval to hire a dedicated asset management staff. In addition, the Town will continue to undertake Roads Needs Studies, Bridge Inspections, and Water and Wastewater Rate Studies to help support sustainable management at the lowest overall life cycle cost. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 95

4.1.7.1 Water, Stormwater & Wastewater Assets The Town has made significant efforts to capture infrastructure data for water, stormwater and wastewater assets within its existing GIS system. The Town s intention is to update, consolidate, and integrate this information into the Town s Asset Management (WorkTech) database to allow asset attributes to be managed in a comprehensive and structured fashion similar to that proposed for other assets. Key focus points of the future data management strategy will consider: Completing an inventorying to break assets down into components that better reflect individual service lives and how the overall asset would be managed. Compared to linear assets facilities of this nature are significantly more variable in terms of their composition and include many individualized components. To support further refinement of the AMP and improved decision making in the future utilizing it is necessary to build detailed componentized inventories of each facility. It is anticipated that this process will likely require a significant amount of field work to validate the inventory of components within each facility, establish detailed condition assessments and recommend detailed improvements at a level that can be more readily translated to a prioritized capital program. Capturing both inventory and lifecycle events for assets so that their actual service life is more clearly understood and the level of maintenance effort associated with each asset is better tracked to inform decision making. Life cycle events might include end of life replacements, repair of watermain breaks, etc. Capturing a simplified consolidation of any available condition information for storm or sanitary sewers such as information that might be available. Streamlining data creation processes leveraging the visual strength of GIS to ensure that data capture is complete. 4.1.7.2 Roads Roads are currently inspected through regular road needs studies to assess condition and recommend appropriate strategies for each road segment. The road needs study process will be continued and the Town will consider conducting inspections every 1-2 yrs. However, data management practices should be improved. As a component of this study data from the 2013 Road Needs Study will be consolidated in the Town s WorkTech Asset Manager database. The following will be considered when configuring the work Tech database setup: Using the WorkTech Inspection Batch tools to create a history of condition inspection data that can be used in the future to develop locally applicable performance curves for various types of roads to assist with more advanced predictive modelling of pavement condition. The Town has recently undertaken simplify the condition rating format used to assess road assets. In the future limiting changes in methodology will allow historic information to be used to its maximum value by allowing for direct comparisons over time. Using WorkTech Asset Manager improvement types and benchmark cost calculations to calculate the cost of recommended improvements and future replacement costs for various assets. Input for developing the benchmark unit costs included in WorkTech Asset Manager should be clearly documented so that it can be regularly refreshed and used to automatically update calculations in WorkTech. In addition to regular inspections detailed records of improvements should be captured and linked assets to assist with financial calculations and provide context for changes in asset condition. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 96

4.1.7.3 Bridges and Culverts Regulation requires that all bridges and culverts with spans equal to or great than 3.0m be inspected every two (2) years in accordance with the practices outlined in the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). The Town will follow this approach to ensure that structures are inspected in accordance with regulations and provide an opportunity to capture accurate data to assist with capital planning. Similar to road inspections, it is the Town s intention that future bridge and culvert inspections be consolidated in the WorkTech Asset Manager to create a standardized history of inspection information. In comparison to previous inspections that have been completed using older versions of MTO s OBMS software, inspections completed using WorkTech will focus on the following: Capturing condition data, improvement recommendations and cost estimates at the element level directly in the database so that they can be more readily aggregated and updated. Currently cost estimates are captured outside of the OBMS database using Excel spreadsheets that cannot be readily aggregated or categorized in different ways. Capturing sufficient information to all Bridge Condition Index (BCI) values to be calculated for each structure to provide a quantitative representation of each structure s condition that can be monitored over time. Capturing rehabilitation history information to provide for changes in element condition and overall BCI value. 4.2 Operation and Maintenance Strategies The goal of a maintenance plan is to ensure infrastructure assets are being maintained in a reliable and sustainable manner that supports customer satisfaction, and ensures treatment and distribution of safe potable water that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. Adopting comprehensive operation and maintenance programs, coupled with supporting policies, procedures, and systems, is the number one approach to ensure the reliability, sustainability and safe operation of infrastructure assets and the functions they serve: safe and reliable delivery of services. Well maintained assets reduce the risk of failure; regularly conducted preventive maintenance and inspections help identify problems before they become a serious and potentially costly issue, minimizing or eliminating consequences of asset failures when they do occur. As assets continue to age, it is expected that corrective maintenance will gradually increase; there is also an increased risk that more assets will fail as they approach the end of their expected life (this is when the decision should be made to run an asset to failure, for example if redundancy is in place, or to replace the asset). At the same time, the asset base continues to expand as population and demand increase; this also translates into increases in preventive and corrective maintenance activities. To address these combined challenges, best practices support enhanced preventive maintenance programs to extend the lives of assets (potentially reducing future corrective maintenance requirements) to help ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable service. This combination of enhancing preventive maintenance and addressing increasing corrective maintenance requirements requires organizational commitment, resources, funding, and support. 4.3 Asset Renewal/Rehabilitation/Replacement and Growth/Expansion Strategies Rehabilitation and renewal of existing infrastructure involves performing significant repairs designed to extend the life and return assets to near-original condition and operation. Replacement of existing infrastructure involves the construction of a new asset to fulfill the service requirements of the existing Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 97

asset, and is typically expected to occur when the asset has reached the end of its useful life and renewal/rehabilitation is no longer an option. To best plan for rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure, it is necessary to estimate both the year (range of years) when the activity is expected, and the necessary cost. Because assets typically have a long life-span (30-75 years) and deteriorate at varying rates, depending on everything from local soil conditions, weather, installation/construction practices, materials, and maintenance performed on the asset, it is difficult to know the rehabilitation and replacement needs of a particular asset without knowing its current condition. For the roads and bridges, condition information is provided through the Roads Needs Study and Bridge Inspections respectively. However, for water, wastewater, and stormwater assets, age is the only documented proxy for condition. In addition, unlike above ground assets, condition data is not always available to buried water, wastewater, and stormwater mains. To assess the future investment requirements of the linear watermains, sanitary sewers and storm sewers, straight line depreciation might be sufficient from an accounting point of view, but it overlooks the variable nature of asset deterioration (age waves, natural decay characteristics, etc.). The analysis performed and presented in this asset management strategy introduces performance assessments and non-linear life cycle deterioration / performance curves according to the Weibull two-parameter distribution. The underlying premise of the Weibull type of analysis is that some assets fail prematurely due to severe conditions or improper installation while other assets are very long-lived and function well beyond their theoretical life expectancy. In order to perform a high order network-level analysis, it was assumed that assets would fail (and require replacement) within an envelope approximated by a Weibull probability distribution. The Weibull probability distribution provides a left-skewed distribution that rises slowly and diminishes quickly as the population is consumed. The Weibull distribution has been used extensively in reliability studies and lifetime prediction models in industries ranging from the automotive to the oil and gas industries, and provides a suitable distribution for this type of analysis. The Weibull probability distribution has three parameters for location, scale and shape, as set out below: x f ( x) Where: = scale parameter = shape parameter (or slope) = location parameter x exp 1 The following methodology was used for calculating the projected replacement needs of the Town s water mains connections: The Weibull parameters for scale and location (expected service life) were estimated to determine the proportion of assets requiring replacement for each time step (year). The required replacement for each year was calculated by multiplying the total asset quantity (length) in each category with the Weibull probability density function. By multiplying the required asset replacement for each year with the estimated replacement cost, an annual expenditure requirement per year is generated. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 98

Typically, non-linear asset investment profiles are created using basic inventory data coupled with straight-line depreciation over expected service life. This approach was utilized for hydrants, valves, catch basins. However, for more complex water, wastewater, and stormwater non-linear assets such as treatment plants, wells, pumping stations, reservoirs and ponds, this approach could not reasonably be applied. It is recognized that major components that comprise these assets have different service lives than the overall assets. These complex infrastructure assets are comprised of, for example, process mechanical, structural, building mechanical, electrical and instrumentation control components with varying expected service lives. For example, pumps may have an expected service life of 25 years, so applying an overall service life of 75 years to an overall pumping station would misrepresent the facility s reinvestment requirements for pumps which have a shorter life expectancy. In addition, the approach would not recognize any improvements or reinvestments already made to the stations. To more accurately predict the replacement and renewal of these more complex infrastructure assets, an asset inventory at the component level and current condition data is required. It is the Town s intention to collect this information over time and store this information in the existing infrastructure data management system. However until this is fully implemented, the current 5-year capital budgets are presented to summarize the current renewal, rehabilitation, replacement, disposal and expansion activities. 4.4 Water Services 4.4.1 Water System Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance The goals of the Town s operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are as follows: Ensure infrastructure assets are being maintained in a reliable and sustainable manner that supports customer satisfaction as outlined in the levels of service framework. Support treatment and distribution of safe potable water that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. Reduce the risk of failure which is directly related to meeting regulatory requirements and customer satisfaction. Maximize value by determining lowest sustainable cost alternatives for maintenance over asset lifecycles. The following water Operations and Maintenance activities have been identified as necessary for the Town s infrastructure: Swabbing, flushing, and disinfecting watermains Overhauling well pumps Chemical clean, purge, and retest wells Siteworks and structural maintenance for facilities Maintenance of process mechanical (pumps, valves, piping, etc.) for facilities Maintenance of electrical systems (control panels, distribution, transformers, stand-by power, etc.) for facilities Interior and exterior painting of facilities Valve cycling Hydrant inspections and maintenance Emergency and non-emergency repairs Water meter installation and repair Operation of water treatment, supply and distribution infrastructure. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 99

Further information on recommended maintenance activities can be found in the Town s Full Cost of Services Report (MacViro, 2006). The Town does not currently track maintenance activities in such a way that they can be attributed to individual assets. It is the Town s intention to build upon the existing asset inventory, develop an asset hierarchy, and collect asset component and condition data. As this is completed, that Town will be in a better position to detail all O&M activities required and completed against each asset component. For the purposes of this first draft of the Town s Asset Management Plan, current O&M practices and budgets are assumed to be adequate to meet the Town s needs, however, this will continue to be evaluated as the Town expands on current Asset Management Planning and Management. Future O&M needs are estimated based on budgeted costs and the anticipated needs as outlined in the Water Rate Study (DFA, 2012). The Town s O&M needs for 2013 and 2014 are presented in the Town s 2013 Operating Budget. The budget includes costs for the following services: Treatment, supply and distribution of potable water through ground water wells and the Lakeshore Surface Water Treatment Plant to approximately 7,800 customers. Activities relating to ensuring regulatory compliance. Water meter installation and repair. Water treatment and supply to Bradford West Gwillimbury (BWG) The Operating and Maintenance costs included in this analysis for 2013 and 2014 do not include capitalrelated costs (debt-related costs, capital reserve transfers, etc.). A breakdown of the of the Town s current budgeted (2013 & 2014) operating costs is presented below: Table 4-1 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Water Operating Costs Expenditures 2013 (Approved Budget) 2014 (Budgeted) Wages & Benefits $998,935 $1,010,533 Materials & Supplies $740,509 $754,315 Utilities $697,019 $731,772 Contracted Services $186,540 $172,864 Internal Recoveries / Transfers $450,521 $453,726 Total Expenditures $3,073,524 $3,123,210 Operating and Maintenance needs for 2015 through 2031 are estimated based on the Town s water rates study. The costs included in this analysis include transfer to reserves. Projected O&M costs were developed considering an expected increase in cost of 3% annually, and include the addition of one operator every 5 years. Costs are expected to increase from a budgeted cost of $3,123,210 in 2014 to an expected cost of $5,799,088 in 2033. A slight decrease in operating costs is observed following 2022 and 2023 due to an anticipated decrease in operating costs associated with the well systems corresponding with system integration with the Lake-based water treatment plant. The following figure presents these costs. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 100

$7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 2033 - $5,799,088 $4,000,000 Cost $3,000,000 2014 - $3,123,210 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 Year Figure 4-3 Forecasted Water Operating and Maintenance Costs 4.4.2 Water System Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement, and Growth The funding requirements for the next 20 years for watermains can be estimated using a statistical approach (Weibull Distribution) as described previously. Valves and hydrants are expected to be replaced at the end of their respective expected service lives. It is assumed that adequate maintenance is being performed on the system. The following bar chart presents the watermain, valve and hydrant estimated replacement profile for the next 20 years. The values for 2013 includes the theoretical backlog. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 101

$1.6M Valves $1.4M Hydrants Water Mains $1.2M $1.0M $0.8M $0.6M $0.4M $0.2M $0.0M 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Figure 4-4 20 Year Investment Profile for Watermain, Valves and Hydrants Because the current condition of facility assets is unknown, it is impossible to predict when in time specific rehabilitation and replacement will be necessary. Therefore, the cost for sufficient rehabilitation and replacement was uniformly spread over asset life. An average cost was used for watermains, valves and hydrants to determine total average estimated annual rehabilitation and replacement needs. These values, found in the table below were estimated based on experience with other cities, towns and municipalities and are intended to be used as a reference for lifecycle needs only. This approach does assume that sufficient maintenance has been, and is currently being, performed on these assets. If sufficient maintenance has not been performed, the asset will fail earlier and the annual rehabilitation and replacement need cost will increase. The method also assumes that there has been sufficient investment into rehabilitation and replacement of these assets that in previous years there has either been a comparable level of investment as to what is presented in the table below into rehabilitation or replacement of assets, or that whatever has not been spent on rehabilitation and replacement of water infrastructure assets has been placed into reserves to meet future needs. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 102

Table 4-2 Water Infrastructure Funding Needs Total Replacement Value Average Annual Rehab/Replacement Need Watermains $80,113,785.00 $1,068,200.00 Valves $4,555,849.00 $60,700.00 Hydrants $3,784,940.00 $126,200.00 Surface Water Treatment Plant $28,693,000.00 $889,500.00 Groundwater Wells $1,859,000.00 $74,400.00 Storage Reservoirs $4,570,000.00 $91,400.00 Booster/Pumping Stations $12,013,500.00 $372,400.00 Total $135,590,074.00 $2,682,800.00 The total average annual need accounting for both rehabilitation and replacement of water infrastructure is approximately 2% of the total replacement value. The actual yearly requirements for capital works will fluctuate according to the condition and age of assets. Because the Town s infrastructure is fairly young, it will likely not require $2.68M (as found in the table above) to finance the actual rehabilitation and replacement of the water infrastructure for several decades. However, as assets age, reach the end of their service lives, and require rehabilitation or replacement, the funds required to rehabilitate and replace these assets will increase significantly. Actual planned works are identified through the Town s 5-year capital budget as summarized below. Table 4-3 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Water Capital Costs Project Number WTR-5 WTR-6 WTR-7 WTR-30 WTR-39 WTR-43 Project Name Water Treatment Plant - Phase 3 Expansion Lefroy Lakeshore Watermain Extension Innisfil Heights New Reservoir Churchill Well Pump Replacements Water Efficiency Monitoring/ Implementation 25th Sideroad - Water Services Classification Start Year End Year Growth 2010 2024 $31,120,000 Growth 2010 2016 $2,898,000 Growth 2010 2014 $425,000 Operational 2010 2014 $41,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Growth 2012 2017 $60,000 $62,500 $65,000 $65,000 Operational 2014 2015 $320,000 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 103

Project Number WTR-44 WTR-49 WTR-50 WTR-51 WTR-52 Project Name Generator Replacement - Innisfil Heights Innisfil Heights Watermain Replacement Innisfil Heights Transmission Watermain 6th Line Watermain Water System Financial Plan & Rate Study Classification Start Year End Year Operational 2014 2014 $75,000 Growth 2014 2022 $1,643,400 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Growth 2014 2024 $100,000 $100,000 $2,452,000 $3,066,000 Growth 2015 2018 $769,000 Operational 2014 2015 $40,000 Additional longer term growth related activities, those activities that are required to extend services to meet additional demands due to growth, are also identified through the master planning process. Latest anticipated growth strategies and estimated expected costs can be found in the Town s Master Servicing Plan (Genivar, 2012). 4.5 Wastewater Services 4.5.1 Wastewater System Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance The Goals of the Town s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Activities are as follows: Ensure infrastructure assets are being maintained in a reliable and sustainable manner that supports customer satisfaction. Support collection and treatment of wastewater that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. Reducing the risk of failure which is directly related to meeting regulatory requirement and customer satisfaction. Maximize value by determining lowest sustainable cost alternatives for maintenance over asset lifecycles. The Town does not currently track maintenance activities in such a way that they can be attributed to individual assets. As discussed in previous sections, after the Town develops a comprehensive asset hierarchy, O&M activities should be tracked according to asset and asset component. For the purposes of this study, current O&M practices and budgets are assumed to be adequate to meet the Town s needs. Future O&M needs are estimated based on budgeted costs and the anticipated needs as outlined in the Wastewater Rate Study (DFA, 2012). The Town s Operation Budget outlines the anticipated costs for the following: Operation and maintenance of waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) Operation and maintenance of Pumping stations Sewer collection system flushing and cleaning Flow monitoring, control and recording Process Control sampling and testing Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 104

Wastewater sample collection compliance testing Analyzing microbiological effectiveness Sewer main and lateral locates for contractors and residents Investigation of complaints regarding lateral blockages and odours Building maintenance Ensuring that biosolids are spread on receiving field in conformance with NASM plans as issued by the Ministry of Environment Conducting plant tours for schools and other organizations Various other duties involving resident inquiries and complaints that are directed to this service area. The Operating and Maintenance costs included in this analysis for 2013 and 2014 do not include capitalrelated costs (debt-related costs). A breakdown of the of the Town s current budgeted (2013 & 2014) operating costs is presented below: Table 4-4 2013 Town of Innisfil Wastewater Operating Costs Expenditures 2013 (Approved Budget) 2014 (Budgeted) Wages & Benefits $791,812 $780,959 Materials & Supplies $505,689 $651,313 Utilities $487,112 $492,186 Contracted Services $403,858 $336,612 Internal Recoveries / Transfers $421,875 $424,274 Total Expenditures $2,610,346 $2,685,344 Operating and Maintenance costs from 2015 through 2031 are estimated based on the Town s wastewater rates study (DFA, 2012). The costs included in this analysis include transfer to reserves. Projected O&M costs were developed considering an expected increase in cost of 3% annually. The following figure presents forecasted O&M costs for the wastewater system. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 105

$5,000,000 $4,500,000 2033 - $4,678,723 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 Cost $2,500,000 2014 - $2,685,344 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 Year Figure 4-5 Forecasted Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Costs The operations and maintenance costs for the Town of Innisfil s wastewater system are expected to increase from $2,685,344 in 2014 to $4,678,723 in 2033. 4.5.2 Wastewater System Infrastructure Renewal and Rehabilitation and Growth The funding requirements for the next 20 years for sanitary sewers and forcemains can be estimated using a Weibull curve as described in Section 4. It is assumed that adequate maintenance is being performed on the system. The following bar chart presents the sanitary forcemain and sewer estimated replacement profile for the next 20 years. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 106

$400,000 $350,000 $300,000 Forecasted Investment Need $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 Forcemains Sewers $50,000 $- 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Figure 4-6 20 Year Investment Profile for Sanitary Forcemains and Sewers Because the current condition of facility assets is unknown, it is impossible to predict when in time specific rehabilitation and replacement will be necessary. Therefore, the cost for sufficient rehabilitation and replacement was uniformly spread over asset life. An average cost was used for forcemains and sewers to determine total average estimated annual rehabilitation and replacement needs. These values, found in were estimated based on experience with other cities, towns and municipalities and are intended to be used as a reference for lifecycle needs only. This approach does assume that sufficient maintenance has been, and is currently being, performed on these assets. If sufficient maintenance has not been performed, the asset will fail earlier and the annual rehabilitation and replacement need cost will increase. The method also assumes that there has been sufficient investment into rehabilitation and replacement of these assets that in previous years there has either been a comparable level of investment as to what is presented in the table below into rehabilitation or replacement of assets, or that whatever has not been spent on rehabilitation and replacement of wastewater infrastructure assets has been placed into reserves to meet future needs. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 107

Table 4-5 Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Needs Total Replacement Value Average Annual Rehab/Replacement Need Forcemains $ 3,910,700.00 $ 52,100.00 Gravity Sewers $ 39,888,213.00 $ 531,800.00 Pumping Stations $ 7,970,500.00 $ 247,100.00 Water Pollution Control Plants $ 51,282,380.00 $1,589,800.00 Total $103,051,793.00 $2,420,800.00 The total average annual need accounting for both rehabilitation and replacement of wastewater infrastructure is approximately 2% of the total replacement value. The actual yearly requirements for capital works will fluctuate according to the condition and age of assets. Because the Town s infrastructure is fairly young, it will likely not require $2.42M (as found in the table above) to finance the actual rehabilitation and replacement of the wastewater infrastructure for several decades. This is reinforced by what can be seen in Figure 4-6 currently, little is required for the rehabilitation and replacement of pipe infrastructure. However, as assets age, reach the end of their service lives, and require rehabilitation or replacement, the funds required to rehabilitate and replace these assets will increase significantly. Actual planned works are identified through the Town s 5-year capital budget as summarized below. Table 4-6 Town of Innisfil Budgeted Wastewater Capital Costs Project Number Project Name Classification Start Year Sanitary Pump WW-11 Station No. 1 17 Innisfil WW-17 Heights Servicing Aeration Tank WW-18 Maintenance - Lakeshore Plant Pump Station WW-27 Roof Replacement Inflow and Infiltration WW-30 Reduction Monitoring / Implementation Spring Street WW-33 Sanitary Sewer End Year Growth 2011 2015 $1,260,000 Growth 2013 2017 $27,300,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Operational 2016 2016 $45,000 Operational 2013 2014 $9,500 Growth 2012 2017 $200,000 $200,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 Discretionary 2015 2017 $1,505,000 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 108

Project Number Project Name Classification Start Year 25th Sideroad, Lockhart Rd, Crescent and WW-34 Lillian St - Sanitary Laterals Clarifier weir WW-35 cleaning system WW-36 Refrigerated Samplers Screening and WW-37 Grit Disposal Filter Gallery WW-38 Wall Repair Sanitary Zoom WW-39 Pole Camera Card Access WW-40 Lakeshore WWTP Clarifier Drive WW-41 Replacement Cookstown WW-42 Water Pollution Control Plant Sanitary Pump WW-43 Station No. 2 Sanitary Pump WW-44 Station No. 3 Sanitary Pump WW-45 Station No. 4 6th Line WW-46 Sanitary Sewer Belle Aire WW-47 Beach Road Sanitary Sewer WW-50 Wastewater Rate Study End Year Operational 2014 2015 $100,000 Operational 2014 2014 $50,500 Operational 2014 2014 $28,000 Operational 2014 2015 $34,000 Operational 2015 2015 $15,000 Operational 2014 2014 $24,019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Discretionary 2015 2015 $17,338 Operational 2014 2014 $20,000 Growth 2014 2020 $450,000 $7,900,000 Growth 2014 2017 $250,000 $5,500,000 Growth 2018 2024 $250,000 Growth 2015 2021 $250,000 $7,313,000 Growth 2015 2017 $2,594,000 Growth 2014 2016 $1,650,000 Operational 2014 2018 $20,000 Additional longer term growth related activities, those activities that are required to extend services to meet additional demands due to growth, are also identified through the master planning process. Latest anticipated growth strategies and estimated expected costs can be found in the Town s Master Servicing Plan (Genivar, 2012). Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 109

4.6 Roads Services 4.6.1 Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance The Goals of the Town s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Activities are as follows: Ensure infrastructure assets are being maintained in a reliable and sustainable manner that supports customer satisfaction. Reducing the risk of failure which is directly related to meeting regulatory requirements and customer satisfaction. Maximize value by determining lowest sustainable cost alternatives for maintenance over asset lifecycles. The following Roads Services Operations and Maintenance services were identified in the Towns Operating budget and are assumed to be necessary for the Town s Roads, Bridges/Culverts and Stormwater Management infrastructure. Maintenance and repair of approximately 404 km of road including: o Hard Top Maintenance - Slurry Seal; patching; line striping and durable pavement markings. o Loose Top Maintenance Grading; dust control; patching and washouts; gravel resurfacing. o Winter Control Snow ploughing and snow removal; sanding and salting/salt brine; snow fence installation; culvert thawing, anti-icing. o Roadside Maintenance ditching; debris and litter removal; vegetation/weed control, boulevards and fencing, tree/forestry services. o Traffic Safety Devices Signage, 18 traffic lights, guide rail and guide wire, line striping; pavement markings; railway crossings. o Drainage Storm water management, 20 Municipal Drains, Tile Drains, 40 Detention Pond facilities. o 17 Bridges and 17 Culverts over 3m in diameter of multiple size structures inspection, maintenance and repair. o Sidewalk maintenance 62 km of sidewalk (winter and summer). o Roadway Maintenance 385 centerline kilometers. Fleet management for Roads Services including fuel storage, handling, dispensing over 500,000 litres of fuel and Commercial Vehicle Operator s Registration (CVOR). Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) compliance. Garbage and Recycling contract management liaison with County; Pitch-In Day cleanup. Street lights including maintenance and repair, contract management and supplies of over 3,059 lights (to be transferred when new street light program takes effect). West Nile Virus application and management in conjunction with Simcoe County Health Unit, currently tier two. Gravel Pit/Stump Recycling facility operation and maintenance in accordance with the Aggregate Resources Act and Certificate of Approval. Communication Tower and System operation and management (3 sites). After Hours Emergency Services for Roads. Administration of Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) program for roads, streetlight and traffic signs. Issuance and inspection of Road Occupancy Permits (2012: 342 ROP permits) and related road closures, Oversize Load Permits (2012: 46 OSL permits) and Entranceway permits (2012: 37 entranceway permits). Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 110

Review and comment on land use planning applications including new subdivisions to address road access issue as required. Vactor truck service for Town related operations as well as to Innisfil Hydro, and other utilities in our community. Review and red line comments on subdivision drawings, design concepts, policy and engineering standards deviations on all new subdivisions. Although the Town currently tracks operations and maintenance according to asset category (e.g. ditches, detention ponds, etc.), the Town does not currently track assets in such a way that they can be attributed to an individual asset. After the Town develops a comprehensive asset hierarchy, O&M activities can be assigned to asset and asset component. For the purposes of this first iteration of the Town s Asset Management Plan, future O&M needs are estimated based on budgeted amounts and the assumption that O&M costs for Roads Services would increase at a rate of 3% per year. A breakdown of the of the Town s current budgeted (2013 & 2014) operating costs is presented below: Table 4-7 2013 Town of Innisfil Roads Services Operating Costs Expenditures 2013 (Approved Budget) 2014 (Budgeted) Wages & Benefits $1,805,519 $1,874,245 Materials & Supplies $2,568,489 $2,773,972 Utilities $659,280 $601,300 Contracted Services $214,139 $149,420 Internal Recoveries / Transfers $81,517 $84,530 Total Expenditures $5,328,944 $5,483,467 Operating costs are forecasted to increase from $5,483,467 in 2014 to $9,615,293 in 2033. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 111

$12,000,000 $10,000,000 2033, $9,615,293 $8,000,000 Cost $6,000,000 2014, $5,483,467 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 Year Figure 4-7 Forecasted Roads Services Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.6.2 Stormwater Management Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement and Growth The funding requirements for the next 20 years for stormwater sewers can be estimated using Weibull distribution as described in Section 4. It is assumed that adequate maintenance is being performed on the system. The following bar chart presents the stormwater sewer estimated replacement profile for the next 20 years. The values for 2013 includes the theoretical backlog. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 112

Forecasted Investment Need $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Year Figure 4-8 20 Year Investment Profile for Stormwater Sewers Because the current condition of stormwater ponds is not discreet to a given year, it is not possible to predict when in time specific rehabilitation measures and replacement will be necessary. Therefore, the cost for sufficient rehabilitation and replacement was uniformly spread over asset life. This cost includes periodic draining, cleaning and sediment removal as well as replacement of pond components at the end of their life cycle. An average cost was used for storm sewers to determine total average estimated annual rehabilitation and replacement needs. These values, found in the table below were estimated based on experience with other cities, towns and municipalities and are intended to be used as a reference for lifecycle needs only. It is assumed that sufficient maintenance has been, and is currently being, performed on these assets. If sufficient maintenance has not been performed, the asset will fail earlier and the annual rehabilitation and replacement need cost will increase. It is also assumed that there has been sufficient investment into rehabilitation and replacement of these assets that in previous years there has either been a comparable level of investment into rehabilitation or replacement of assets, or that whatever has not been spent on rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure assets has been placed into reserves to meet future needs. Table 4-8 Stormwater Infrastructure Average Annual Rehabilitation and Replacement Need Total Replacement Value Average Annual Rehab/Replacement Need Gravity Sewers $38,029,440 $507,100 Catch Basins $4,814,013 $96,280 Stormwater Management Ponds $4,660,556 $138,800 Total $47,504,009 $742,180 The total average annual need accounting for both rehabilitation and replacement of stormwater infrastructure is approximately 1.5% of the total replacement value. The actual yearly requirements for capital works will fluctuate according to the condition and age of assets. Because the Town s infrastructure is fairly young, it will likely not require $0.74M (as found in the table above) to finance the actual rehabilitation and replacement of their stormwater infrastructure for several decades. This is Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 113

reinforced by what can be seen in Figure 4-8 currently, little is required for the rehabilitation and replacement of pipe infrastructure. However, as the assets age, reach the end of their service lives, and require rehabilitation or replacement, the funds required to rehabilitate and replace these assets will increase significantly. 4.6.3 Roads Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement In developing this report, the 2013 update to the roads needs study report was not yet available, and some inferences were made based on the spreadsheets provided. It is recommended that when this report becomes available the information presented for the roads system be revisited, and assumptions revised if necessary. Various improvements methods exist that can be utilized in rehabilitation or renewal aspects for roads including the following: - Asphalt Overlay / Scratch Pad o An asphalt overlay is paving a thin layer of asphalt over an already existing layer of asphalt. A scratch pad is a thin lift used to smooth an existing surface. - Asphalt Overlay / Spot Improvement o An asphalt overlay combined with spot improvement, improving spots of the roads where required. A spot improvement program would utilize asphalt overlays in specific locations to address localized road concerns. - Asphalt Overlay / Spot Improvement / Paved Shoulders o An asphalt overlay combined with spot improvement and paved shoulders. - Crack Sealing o Crack sealing is a rehabilitative method used to keep excess water or moisture from penetrating asphalt and to prevent further cracking and deterioration of city streets. (OPSS 341, May 1994) - Double High Float o A two layer application of graded-aggregate and a low viscosity binder. (OPSS 304, Nov. 2006, OPSS 1103, Nov. 2012) - Double High Float / Spot Improvement o A double high float applied in specific locations. - Expanded Asphalt / Asphalt Overlay o Expanded Asphalt, refers to utilizing asphalt overlays to expand the existing asphalt. - Expanded Asphalt / Asphalt Overlay / Paved Shoulders o Expanded Asphalt, refers to utilizing asphalt overlays to expand the existing asphalt and paved shoulders. - Overlay Gravel o A gravel overlay is a thin layer of gravel spread onto of an already existing layer of gravel. - Pulverize / Gravel / Asphalt (50 mm) o Pulverize refers to pulverizing the existing bituminous pavement, mixing the processed material with the underlying granular material, shaping and compacting the blended material, and then adding gravel followed by a 50mm thin layer application of asphalt. (OPSS 330, Nov. 2011) - Pulverize / Gravel / Asphalt (100 mm) / Paved Shoulders o Pulverize refers to pulverizing the existing bituminous pavement, mixing the processed material with the underlying granular material, shaping and compacting the blended material, and then adding gravel followed by a 100 mm layer application of asphalt. (OPSS 330, Nov. 2011) Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 114

- Slurry Seal o A homogeneous mixture of emulsified asphalt, fine aggregate, water, mineral filler (Portland cement) and if required, additive that is applied in a cold fluid state on existing bituminous surfaces, to seal the surface, preventing ravelling and improving frictional characteristics. (OPSS 337, Nov. 2008) - Slurry Seal / Spot Improvement o A slurry seal application combined with a spot improvement program. For each of these rehabilitative measures, the following table breaks down each improvement and rehabilitation measure in terms of how much length of arterial/industrial, collection, and local roads that the measures are applied to. Table 4-9 Improvement / Rehabilitation Measures for Road Network IMPROVEMENT / REHABILITATION MEASURE Arterial / Collection (m) Local (m) Industrial (m) Asphalt overlay / scratch pad 0 43 9876 Asphalt overlay/spot improvement 0 71 3645 Asphalt overlay/spot improvement/paved 128 0 2404 shoulders Crack sealing 0 0 541 Double high float 0 0 541 Double high float / spot improvement 0 0 0 Expanded asphalt / asphalt overlay 0 48,672 10,494 Expanded asphalt / asphalt overlay/paved 2227 7218 1627 shoulders Overlay gravel 0 7 9351 Pulverize/gravel/asphalt (50 mm) 0 3505 17,789 Pulverize/gravel/asphalt (100 mm)/paved 1270 0 0 shoulders Pulverize/gravel/asphalt/paved shoulders 0 0 669 Slurry seal 8248 31,660 91,902 Slurry seal/spot improvement 750 16,220 52,406 Reconstruction typically requires disposal of the asphalt layer if existing, excavation of the base, application of gravel (gran B and A ), and then application of asphalt, but various scenarios can also exist for reconstruction as well. All reconstruction requirements are reviewed in OPSS - Reconstruction - Reconstruction (Gravel to Asphalt) - Reconstruction (Gravel to Asphalt) / Paved Shoulders - Reconstruction (Excavation / Gravel / Asphalt / Paved Shoulders) - Reconstruction (Excavation / Gravel / Double High Float) - Reconstruction (Gravel to Double High Float) - Reconstruction Gravel For each of these reconstruction measures, the following table breaks down each reconstruction measure in terms of how much length of arterial/industrial, collection, and local roads that the measures are applied to. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 115

Table 4-10 Reconstruction Measures for Road Network IMPROVEMENT / REHABILITATION MEASURE Arterial / Collection (m) Local (m) Industrial (m) Reconstruction - 2 lanes 0 414 5799 Reconstruction - 3 lanes 0 376 197 Reconstruction - 4 lanes 136 0 0 Reconstruction - 5 lanes 531 0 0 Reconstruction (gravel to asphalt) 0 0 22,484 Reconstruction (gravel to asphalt)/paved 0 0 622 shoulders Reconstruction (excavation/gravel /asphalt) 0 0 2376 Extrapolated Reconstruction (excavation/gravel 0 0 0 /asphalt) Reconstruction (excavation/gravel 0 824 1816 /asphalt/paved shoulders) Extrapolated Reconstruction (excavation/gravel 0 0 0 /asphalt/paved shoulders) Reconstruction (excavation/gravel/double high 0 0 0 float) Reconstruction (gravel to double high float) 0 0 971 Reconstruction Gravel 0 0 0 Note: 903m from the 235,874m total of local roads could not be accounted for. Reviewing the roads needs study, and isolating the NOW, 1-5, and 6-10 year needs, the actual needs of the study as notified in the roads needs study can be investigated. Table 4-11 Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation Needs as presented in the Roads Needs Study Maintenance Reconstruction Rehabilitation Grand Total NOW $736,947.95 $3,501,071.29 $9,436,302.10 $13,674,321.34 1 to 5 $4,550.17 $ - $1,228,567.58 $1,233,117.74 6 to 10 $520,251.37 $ - $14,434,011.05 $14,954,262.42 Grand Total $1,261,749.49 $3,501,071.29 $25,098,880.73 $29,861,701.50 The total costs of the needs do not address any road section that requires actions past the 10 year period investigated in the roads needs study. The total costs determined in the table are proposed improvement strategies that expand on the high-level approaches proposed in the Roads Needs Study, due to this more detailed approach utilizing 2013 costs and best practices, some of the methods utilized in the rehabilitation category may encompass reconstruction techniques or maintenance techniques. Reviewing the roads needs study, road rehabilitation and reconstruction needs were determined for each road section. To address the total proposed cost of the Roads Needs study, road sections that did not fall Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 116

into the NOW, 1-5, and 6 10 year categories were not given a time of need label, and therefore the costs were determined to be unaccounted and expected costs that would be addressed in +10 years. Table 4-12 Unaccounted (+10 year needs) Rehabilitation and Reconstruction needs identified in the Roads Needs Study Reconstruction Rehabilitation Maintenance Unaccounted Grand Total Unaccounted $9,135,425.68 $5,395,975.69 $2,406,285.91 $3,239,333.03 $ 20,177,020.31 Grand Total $9,135,425.68 $5,395,975.69 $2,406,285.91 $3,239,333.03 $20,177,020.31 Note: Unaccounted costs are the difference between the total cost and all costs that could be labelled a reconstruction, rehabilitation, or maintenance measures. Combining these unaccounted costs and the accounted costs of the NOW, 1-5, and 6-10 year periods, the total amount suggested in the roads needs study for all road sections are $50,038,721.82. When divided the NOW, 1-5 year, and 6-10 year needs into years evenly the distributions of required funds to meet needs of the road assets are provided in the following figure. Figure 4-9 Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Needs for Roads Networks per year (2014-2024) This figure does not take into account the +10 year demands shown in the unaccounted rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. From these maintenance, rehabilitative, and reconstruction measures the following costs can be determined for a 10 year program from the Roads Needs Study performed, summarized by year and type of improvement. Taking into account the typical funding received primarily from gas-tax based funding, assuming a yearly contribution of $1,150,000 dollars per year and the following allocation of funds. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 117

Table 4-13 Proposed 10 year program budget from Roads Needs Study Category Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Arterial Roads Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Collector Roads Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Local Roads Maintenance Treatments on All Classes of Roads Annual Budget Allocation $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $100,000 Utilizing this allocation of funds a proposed budget can be introduced addressing high needs road sections with high traffic counts and low condition scores. A breakdown of the projects can be found in the Roads Needs Study. Table 4-14 10 year program from Road Needs Study, Summarized by Year and Type of Improvement Year Maintenance Reconstruction Rehabilitation Grand Total 2014 $97,038 $9,861 $1,296,993 $1,403,894 2015 $107,024 $538,623 $691,851 $1,337,500 2016 $104,469 $364,766 $841,879 $1,311,115 2017 $92,999 $564,124 $807,920 $1,465,043 2018 $112,323 $302,580 $653,947 $1,068,851 2019 $122,673 $70,590 $787,815 $981,080 2020 $80,589 $415,352 $270,121 $766,063 2021 $143,764 $362,787 $740,174 $1,246,726 2022 $98,704 $362,787 $723,756 $1,185,248 2023 $116,694 $50,215 $776,230 $943,141 2024 $122,981 $268,368 $835,119 $1,226,468 Grand Total $1,199,258 $3,310,053 $8,425,805 $12,935,129 This 10 year program only takes into account the roads that were deemed critical and required maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction within the 10 year period. In addition to this further needs were identified and presented in the following table. Table 4-15 Un-programmed Improvements Identified in Roads Needs Study, Summarized by Road Classification and Type of Improvement Maintenance Reconstruction Rehabilitation Grand Total Arterial $146,309.23 $2,262,551.16 $76,034.83 $2,484,895.23 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 118

Maintenance Reconstruction Rehabilitation Grand Total Collector $600,326.53 $2,621,997.29 $7,894,759.07 $11,117,082.89 Local $1,780,459.35 $16,726,882.86 $4,912,891.13 $23,420,233.34 Grand Total $2,527,095.11 $21,611,431.32 $12,883,685.03 $37,022,211.46 Reviewing the un-programmed improvements identified, a large portion of the costs have been identified as roads that require reconstruction. This implies that the roads are in poor condition and could be considered today s backlog. 4.6.3.1 Bridge and Structure Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation and Replacement. The following section describes planned actions and costs concerning the renewal, rehabilitation and replacement of the Town s Roads Infrastructure. Rehabilitation and renewal of existing infrastructure involves performing significant repairs designed to extend the life and return assets to near-original condition and operation. Replacement of existing infrastructure involves the construction of a new asset to fulfill the service requirements of an existing asset, and is typically expected to occur when the asset has reached the end of its useful life and renewal/rehabilitation is no longer an option. When looking at the system as a whole, rehabilitation and replacement activities can involve anything from structural steel coating to the replacement concrete re-facing. Various improvements methods exist that can be utilized in rehabilitation or renewal aspects. Rehabilitation measures considered focus on elements of the bridge and the measures that need to take place. Rehabilitative measures additionally can be divided into three categories, minor rehabilitation, major rehabilitation, and replacement. Rehabilitation measures that can be utilized are listed in the table below along with the expected life of the rehabilitation options. Table 4-16 Rehabilitation and Element Life Spans Design Scheme Assumed Life (Years) Patch, waterproof, and pave 30 Overlay (latex modified, exposed bridge) 15 Overlay, waterproof and pave 30 Concrete Patches 5-15 Concrete refacing (reinforced with wire mesh, 10-20 min 75mm deep) Expansion joint replacement (strip seal) 5-10 Bearing Replacement 25-50 Structural Steel Coating 10 Timber wearing surface 5-10 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 119

These rehabilitation methods are described in greater detail in the Structure Rehabilitation Manual developed by the MTO (MTO, 2007). The assumed life was estimated based on the professional opinions of experienced AECOM staff. Replacing items could occur for a component of the structure or the entire structure. Components that could be replaced or introduced include: Guiderails Deck boards Concrete Decks Curbs Barriers Signs Bridge Drains Replacement of the entire structure was dependent on the conditional assessment and the recommendation of the inspector. Due to the complex nature of structure rehabilitation, the rehabilitation and replacement measures were divided into various categories. Requiring No Works Long Term Replacement Table 4-17 Minor Rehabilitation Major Rehabilitation Short Term Replacement Immediate Replacement Rehabilitation and Replacement Categories and Definitions Definition Structures in good condition with no identified works within a 10 year horizon. Replacements to address long-term functional needs (i.e. upgrades to accommodate additional traffic). Repair of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon Generally works to minimize deterioration of aging components (i.e. deck patch waterproof, pave) or upgrade to current standards (i.e. add approach guiderail). Replacement of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon Generally works to replace selected components that are at or beyond their service life (i.e. decks, wingwalls) and repair other components. Replacement of structures that cannot be economically repaired, but do not represent immediate structural adequacy or issues or safety issues. Replacement to address deteriorated structural condition and safety related issues All of the rehabilitation measures can be utilized in multiple categories, but are grouped together based on the overall measure of need. Table 4-18 Cost of Rehabilitation and Replacement Measures and Needs Sum of Value Time of Need Type of Need Immediate Long Term Short Term Grand Total (1yr) (5-10yrs) (2-5yrs) Major Rehab $862,500 $862,500 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 120

Sum of Value Time of Need Minor Rehab $521,250 $521,250 Replacement $825,000 $650,000 $1,330,000 $2,805,000 Grand Total $825,000 $650,000 $2,713,750 $4,188,750 4.6.3.2 Streetlight and Traffic Light Infrastructure Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Replacement. Streetlight and Traffic Light Renewal, Rehabilitation, and Replacement programs are assumed to replace traffic lights and streetlights as required. Therefore the funding needs are assumed based on the total replacement cost of all assets divided by their respective service lives. Table 4-19 Cost of Streetlight and Traffic Signals Replacement Replacement Cost ESL Yearly Funding Requirement Streetlights $4,891,805 25 $195,672 Traffic Signals $1,977,000 22 $89,863 4.7 Procurement Methods The standard procurement methods of Innisfil are listed below with various standard methods used depending on the purchasing threshold. Table 4-20 Purchase Method Purchase Threshold Low Cost Purchase < $10,000 Informal Request for Quote / Request for Proposal Informal RFP for Consulting & Professional Services Formal RFP for Consulting & Professional Services Over $10,000 up to $25,000 Over $25,000 up to $75,000 >$75,000 Formal RFQ / RFP Over $25,000 up to $200,000 Request for Tender >$200,000 Other methods of procurement exist for various special cases. One case that can significantly cut costs are cooperative purchasing, accomplished through partnering with other public agencies in order to obtain the benefits of volume purchasing and the reduction in administrative efforts and cost. Innisfil currently is a member of the Georgian Bay Area Public Purchasing Cooperative, and undertakes cooperative purchasing with this group. ( Doing Business with Innisfil document). The town council in addition to these methods are considering the Alternative Financing and Procurement models of Design-Build-Finance (DBF) and Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) models for future projects. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 121

4.8 Risk Innisfil s overall Asset Management Strategy is founded on available data, anticipated service levels, growth expectations and other assumptions. Assumptions in these items introduce some unavoidable risk that the overall strategy may change over time as the Town evolves and develops more complete data and processes. Recognizing these uncertainties, Innisfil is developing strategies to address each source of risk so that the Asset Management Strategy can evolve over time. Risk mitigation strategies for each of the following are discussed below: Data quality Levels of Service Growth expected vs. actual Assumptions Data quality The data provided and collected for the report for various aspects were given only reflecting a very high level of the asset components, and did not accurately reflect the service life s of the necessary components of the assets (i.e. a water treatment plant was assessed at a facility level and did not have age, conditional, performance, or maintenance data for any of the facilities components (i.e. SCADA system, pumps, clarifier, aerators, etc.). Given the high level of the data, significant risk exists in the component asset life reaching the end of their respective service lives before the facility has reached the end of the facility life. This introduces significant difficulty to establish a yearly budget that accurately would reflect the required asset replacement / rehabilitation cost required. Strategy to address: It is suggested an inspection program of assets should be established to utilize the new workflow structure and build the existing database. With a newly built database, the report should be reviewed and see if the new data produces significant changes to the asset management strategy. Levels of Service The levels of service present a risk, since no previous levels of service were established for the town. The Levels of Service therefore have never been measured in previous years and the expectations of each level of service has not been established. Adjustment is expected in the early years of levels of service to better reflect the level of commitment from the municipality, but risk exists if a level of service is set at a higher expectation then what is possible at the current levels of funding. Strategy to address: It is suggested that to address this source of risk, the targets established in the first year of utilizing the Levels of Service should be reviewed along with the cost to provide the levels of service. If the cost of the level of service is too high to maintain the target should be adjusted or alternative strategies to accomplish the level of strategy should be investigated. Growth Levels Growth forecasts are not guaranteed, and while effort has to be made to ensure that services are provided if the growth is met, growth can be greater or lesser then the expected forecast. This can potentially create a surplus or deficit of funding available. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 122

Strategy to address: It is suggested that the growth of the town should be reviewed on a yearly basis to determine if the forecast is accurate, and if possible the budgets should be adjusted accordingly. Assumptions Assumptions have been made in the report to fill data gaps and have been noted where undertaken. As with any assumption, risk exists in that the assumption made not account for a large enough percentage of the assets and could potentially results in unexpected costs if not corrected (i.e. year of installation assumed, when the asset is past its expected service life, and due to the degradation of the asset, effecting surrounding assets). Strategy to address: It is suggested that an inspection program should be developed utilizing the workflow software to eliminate the largest assumptions. The new findings should then be used to adjust the report findings, correcting the asset management strategy if required. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 123

5. Financing Strategy Having a financial plan is critical for putting an asset management plan into action. In addition, by having a strong financial plan, municipalities can demonstrate that they have made a concerted effort to integrate asset management planning with financial planning and budgeting and to make full use of all available infrastructure financing tools. 5.1 Non-Infrastructure Solutions As described in Section 4.1, there are a number of non-infrastructure solutions actions or policies that can lower costs or extend asset life that would greatly benefit the Town as they plan to sustainably manage their infrastructure assets. The forecasted costs of these recommended initiatives are presented in the following table. Table 5-1 Non-Infrastructure Solutions Estimated Costs Program Estimated Cost Timeline Notes Water Conservation Plan $150,000 - $200,000 2014 Cost may vary depending on the size of the program Inflow and Infiltration $100,000 - $200,000 Ongoing Estimated Costs based on Program Workflows, Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policies Water and Wastewater Facility Inspections and Inventory Development the Town s capital budget $50,000 2014 Undertaken as a separate component of the Town s Asset Management Plan. See Section 4.1. $80,000 for initial development, and $20,000 $30,000 for ongoing data maintenance 2014 Conducting this work will enhance the quality of data that currently exists in WorkTech. CCTV Inspection Program $60,000 annually Ongoing Constant video inspection will result in refining the preventative maintenance program as it relates to sanitary and storm sewers Leak Detection Program $40,000 - $60,000 bi-annually Ongoing Constant due diligence will minimize the non-billable water usage within the Town. Preventative Maintenance Program TOTAL $80,000 for initial development, and an increasing cost (~$150,000) $400,000 - $530,000 for initial development and one-time costs; $350,000 annual costs 2014 Vital to ensuring that the life expectancy of the assets is maintained and in fact, in most cases, can be extended. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 124

5.2 Sustainable Asset Management The Town realizes that to best manage its infrastructure assets, a financial plan is critical. The following section presents the Town s past, current and forecast expenditures, summarizes the recommended funding to sustainably manage assets, and identifies the Town s infrastructure funding shortfall. The Town s planned operating expenditures and capital costs are as follows: Table 5-2 Planned Operating Expenditures and Capital Costs Water Wastewater Expenditures 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Operating Costs $2,852,854 $3,038,656 $3,073,524 $3,123,210 $3,436,873 $3,539,979 $3,746,179 $3,858,564 Contributions to Operating and Capital Reserves Contributions to Lifecycle Reserve Fund Long term debt repayment (principal and interest) Capital Projects - Growth Related Capital Projects - Non-Growth Related Capital Projects - Other $2,449,758 $2,863,874 $2,260,206 $2,920,575 $2,365,000 $1,637,976 $780,148 $772,773 - - - - - $918,631 $1,837,261 $2,020,987 $949,905 - - $172,406 - - - - $27,310,000 $16,860,000 - $35,684,700 $769,000 $100,000 $2,452,000 $3,066,000 $500,300 $922,800 $1,177,700 $436,000 - - - - - $100,000 $15,000 $40,000 $60,000 $62,500 $65,000 $65,000 Operating Costs $2,281,951 $2,368,496 $2,610,346 $2,685,344 $2,748,256 $2,830,704 $2,915,625 $3,003,094 Funds Transferred Operating and Capital to Reserves Contributions to Lifecycle Reserve Fund Long term debt repayment (principal and interest) Capital Projects - Growth Related Capital Projects - Non-Growth Related Capital Projects - Other $1,442,094 $1,513,042 $1,157,911 $1,430,467 $1,576,058 $500,000 $540,000 $545,365 - - - - - $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $1,675,000 $132,980 - - - - - - - $330,000 $4,770,000 $5,058,250 $3,279,202 $35,394,000 $217,338 $7,900,000 $6,050,400 $755,000 $147,500 $9,300 $587,317 $1,529,500 $95,000 - $1,512,600 $220,000 - $190,000 $220,000 $200,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 125

Roads Services Other Operating Costs $4,615,543 $4,679,786 $5,328,944 $5,483,467 $5,647,971 $5,817,410 $5,991,932 $6,171,690 Capital Projects - Growth Related Capital Projects - Non-Growth Related Capital Projects - Other Engineering - Studies, etc. - - $7,914,000 $846,675 $1,663,000 - - $287,000 $8,662,244 $6,447,692 $6,946,656 $5,822,165 $2,214,750 $552,000 $2,226,100 $343,000 $535,000 - - - - - - - $350,000 $80,000 $150,000 $140,000 $115,000 $115,000 $165,000 $15,000 These values were derived from the Town s capital budgets and water and wastewater rate studies. The Town s revenues are derived from the following sources: Alternative Revenue Source (ARS): This funding source is derived from OLG slot machine revenues at Georgian Downs race track. This revenue source has been used in the past to fund capital strategic or growth-related roads projects. Capital Reserve Fund: Primary source of financing property tax based projects. This fund is typically used to fund non-growth related capital works and contribution into this fund is according to the Town s policies. Development Charges: To offset the cost of providing services in accordance with the Development Charges Act, municipalities are permitted to charge fees to developers. These fees are generally used to provide funding for growth-related infrastructure projects as well as non-infrastructure (e.g. libraries, etc.) projects. Reserve Funds: This fund is used primarily to fund the urbanization of 7 th and 8 th Line and is developer funded. Reserves: This is the Town s general reserve and is used to fund a variety of programs. Relating to infrastructure, the Water Equipment Reserve Fund and the Wastewater Equipment Reserve Fund are included in the Town s reserves. This fund is not used to fund roads-related projects. Gas Tax Reserve Fund: This source of funding comes from the federal government and has been put in place to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding. This fund has historically only funded roadsrelated projects. Grants: This fund varies depending on the source of the grant, but includes such things as provincial grants. External Capital Contributions: This source contains external funding that is not accounted for in other categories and may be used to fund infrastructure renewal. For example, contributions from Bradford West Gwillimbury for the water treatment plant expansion; and funding for the South Innisfil Creek Drain reconstruction are included in this source. DC Prepayments Developer: this source pertains to development charges paid prior to the start of the projects they fund. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 126

Other: donated funds, fundraising etc. and is sometimes used to fund infrastructure projects. As shown in Section 4, the average annual lifecycle need, by asset type, is as follows: Table 5-3 Average Annual Lifecycle Need Asset Type Annual Need Stormwater $742, 200 Roads $2,860,000 Streetlights and Traffic Signals $286,000 Bridges and Culverts $418,900 Water $2,682,800 Wastewater $2,420,800 Total $9,410,700 It should be noted that the annual need for roads, bridges and culverts has been calculated based on the 10-yr needs identified in the roads needs study and the bridge needs study. Considering the annual reinvestment recommended in the roads needs study is less than 1% annually, which infers an expected service life of over 100 years, it is expected that further funding will be required in later years. 5.2.1 Infrastructure Maintenance For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Town s current maintenance practices and budgets are adequate to maintain their systems. However, the maintenance portion of the Town s current operations and maintenance budget is focused on addressing immediate needs or failures. To steward their infrastructure assets sustainably, the Town will consider the development a preventative maintenance program to extend the life of assets and reduce overall annual replacement costs. The water and wastewater rates study suggested that the Town establish two operating reserve funds in 2016, one for water infrastructure, and the other for wastewater infrastructure, to provide a source of funding to offset any year-end operating deficits that may occur during the period and avoid rate increases ( spikes ) in the subsequent year. The annual contributions are to be based on maintaining balance of between 1.5% to 2% of the annual operating costs. The reserve closing balance of the water operating reserve fund is projected to be $192,000 (in inflated dollars) in 2031 and the closing balance of the wastewater operating reserve fund is projected to be $146,209 (in inflated dollars) in 2031. The Town is also considering tracking their maintenance in a manner such that the maintenance cost can be directly related back to a particular asset. This will enable the Town to potentially reduce lifecycle costs as, for example, the Town can track which assets are in need of frequent repair and can better make replacement decisions. 5.2.2 Water and Wastewater Currently, because these assets are fairly young, water and wastewater assets are assumed to be in good condition, and allow the Town to meet their levels of service. The Town has also developed a plan Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 127

through their Water and Wastewater Rate Studies to fund the expected lifecycle needs of this asset group through the establishment of a Water Asset Life Cycle Reserve Fund and a Wastewater Asset Life Cycle Reserve Fund. These funds are intended to facilitate building a reserve to fund asset replacement in 2031 and beyond. The Rates Studies suggest that the Town begin contributing to these reserve funds in 2016 to decrease the impact of on water and wastewater rates. Annual contributions of approximately $0.92M (water, inflated dollars) and $1.3M (wastewater, inflated dollars) in 2016 increasing to approximately $3.7M (water, inflated dollars) and $2.7M (wastewater, inflated dollars) by 2031 are projected. The annual closing balance is projected to be $50M and $39M by 2031 for water and wastewater respectively. The amount to be contributed to lifecycle reserves is based on a lifecycle analysis of the Town s current TCA inventory. As the Town s inventory is improved upon, future rehabilitation and replacement needs can be more accurately identified and the required contribution values of these reserves can be improved upon. Further information on how the Town proposes to meet their water and wastewater funding needs can be found in the Town s Water and Wastewater Rate Studies. Because the Town s water and wastewater rate studies have identified a financial plan based on lifecycle costs, there is no expected long-term funding shortfall. However, the assumptions and data through which the rate studies were completed should be revisited as the Town improves their asset inventory and can better identify their water and wastewater rehabilitation and replacement needs. 5.2.3 Roads The Town is aware of a backlog of road rehabilitation and replacement. The Town s primary source of revenue for this asset type is the federal gas tax funding. Based on the estimated gas tax funding available, the Town s Road Needs Study has recommended a program, as described in Section 4, which covers $13M worth of works. Until and unless further funding becomes available, the Town will not be able to address this backlog of works. Further detail on the Town s strategy for roads infrastructure can be found in the Town s Roads Needs Study. 5.2.4 Bridges and Culverts The Town s Bridge Needs Study has identified a total funding need of $4.2M in the next 10 years. The Town is planning to address these needs and has incorporated this strategy into their forecasted budgets. 5.2.5 Stormwater The Town s stormwater infrastructure is quite young. Because this infrastructure is still in good condition, the Town has not had to invest in rehabilitation and replacement to meet their levels of service. In future iterations of the Town s asset management plan, a strategy will be developed to allow the Town to manage these assets and continue to meet the required levels of service with respect to the stormwater network. Rpt-2014-01-20-Innisfil Am Plan-60304937 128