Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan Roads and Structures

Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan Roads and Structures 7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7 www.4roads.ca

7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7 Township of Uxbridge Attention: Subject: Mr. Ben Kester, CET, Director of Public Works and Roads Township of Uxbridge, Asset Management Plan Dear Mr. Kester, 4 Roads Management Services Inc. (4 Roads) is pleased to provide this Draft Asset Management Plan for review and comment. Road related information is drawn from the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Report provided by 4 Roads through separate assignment. The 2013 project updated the condition ratings, dimensional information as required, estimated traffic and estimated improvement and replacement costs using more current unit costs provided by the Township. Calculations for Time of Need, Improvement and Replacement Costs and Performance modeling were developed utilizing WorkTech Asset Manager Foundation Software. Similarly, Structures information is drawn from the 2013 Structures Inventory and Inspection provided by AECOM and the Environmental Study Report for Downtown Uxbridge Flood Reduction. We trust that the information provided in this report will be beneficial to the Township of Uxbridge in the continuing evolution of their Asset Management Plans. Please do not hesitate to call or email if you require any further information or discussion on any aspect of the report. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this report. If 4 Roads Management Services Inc. may be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, David Anderson, CET President, 4 Roads Management Services Inc. Dave.anderson@4roads.ca 519 505 5065

Township of Uxbridge Asset Management Plan for Roads and Structures 7 Candle Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, N2P 2K7 www.4roads.ca

Executive Summary In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects, from the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, an AMP has to be developed and approved by a municipal council by December 31, 2013. On April 26, 2013 the province announced that it had created a $100 million Infrastructure Fund for small, rural and northern municipalities. The province requires AMP s for Roads Structures, Water and Waste treatment collection and distribution and Social housing. The Township of Uxbridge (ToU) has responsibility for the local roads and structures within the ToU. Accordingly, the scope of this plan only includes the road and structure assets. Project Approach The ToU has been diligent in the continuing condition rating of their road and structures asset groups. The 2011 Road Needs Study, is essentially the current State of the Infrastructure (SotI); the 2012 Structures Inventory and Inspection report provides the SotI for the Structures Inventory. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for Downtown Uxbridge Flood Reduction (SRM Associates 2012) identifies a preferred alternative for the replacement of several culverts in downtown Uxbridge with upgraded facilities that will reduce/limit the probability of flooding that causes property damage. The outcome of the ESR is significant in terms of the asset management plan. The scope of this report is to develop an AMP following the provincial guidelines producing an AMP with the following content 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. State of Local Infrastructure (SotI) 4. Desired Levels of Service 5. Asset Management Strategy 6. Financing Strategy In order to develop the AMP, the following approach was adopted 1. State of the Infrastructure (SotI) development for roads and structures based on existing documentation. 2. Development of Draft Asset Management and Financing Strategies 3. Uxbridge staff review and comment on Draft 4. Presentation of Draft AMP to Council 5. Revision / Finalization of Asset Management and Financing Strategies 6. Final Report preparation 7. AMP presentation to, and adoption by, Council i

State of the Infrastructure The 2013 AMP provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system and structures inventory, in their entirety. The existing inventory data and condition ratings were used to develop programming and budgets. However, once an asset reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of each project. The ESR is an example of the detailed review and analysis that is required to reach the project stage. For road assets, data and road condition ratings were completed generally in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads from 1991 (Inventory Manual or IM) during a survey in the summer of 2013 (4 Roads Township of Uxbridge 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads). For structure assets, data and structure condition ratings were completed in accordance with the most current version of the Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual and Ontario Structure Inspection Manual in 2013 (AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection). The bi annual appraisals relate to the materials and performance of the structure. When the Inventory Manual was originally developed, the Province provided funding for municipal road systems; the road systems were measured by their system adequacy. The system adequacy is the percentage of the road system that is not a NOW need. Based on the current unit costs being experienced, the estimated total cost of recommended improvements is $47,851,838. The improvement costs include $24,220,670 for those roads identified as NOW needs and $23,631,168 is for road work required in the '1 to 10' year time period or for maintenance. Included in those amounts is $2,530,166 is for work on road sections with a traffic count of less than 50 vehicles per day. Based on the composition of the road system, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows: $4,819,100 for the roads capital/depreciation, excluding resurfacing, based upon a 50 year life cycle. (this would be similar to the PSAB 3150 amortization value, using current costs) $1,468,700 for average annual hot mix resurfacing, based upon an 19(19.47) year cycle.( This would approximate an average of 10.6 km per year) $100,900 annually, for single surface treatment of existing surface treated roads, based on a seven year cycle (this does not include additional padding or geometric correction). $505,814 annually, for resurfacing gravel roads on a three year cycle (this does not include any additional gravel road conversion costs; nor ditching, re grading, dust control, etc.). $83,312 annually for crack sealing For modeling purposes, 4 Roads has created a funding level described as the Preservation Budget. The Preservation Budget is the total of the recommended funding levels for hot mix resurfacing, single surface treatment and crack sealing: $2,159,000. The premise being that if the preservation and resurfacing programs are adequately funded then the system should be sustained. The performance modeling is discussed in Section 9 of this report. To clarify, the required funding level to sustain or improve the road system; it is not the total of all of the above recommendations. Sustainable funding ii

has to be between the Preservation Budget and the Capital Depreciation. The preservation budget and performance model thereof are computer derived. Intangible values and decisions and the effects of other external forces cannot be incorporated into the model. As such the preservation model is the minimum required to maintain the system in theory. From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of managing and maintaining a road system, it should be greater The 2013 Structures Inventory and Inspection (AECOM) identifies needs based on benchmarking costing methods and current unit costs being experienced for structures,, at $3,042,000. The improvement costs include $1,744,000 for those structures identified as NOW needs and $1,298,000 is for structure work required in the '1 to 10' year time period. Culvert 315 is split into 9 sections. A number of the sections have significant materials and performance issues and are recommended for replacement. The area served by the culvert has been identified as a significant flooding hazard since 1954. As the culverts need replaced due to the materials and performance, it is appropriate to address the flooding issue at the time of replacement. The ESR document has also been reviewed as the project costing for the replacement of several culverts in downtown Uxbridge significantly impacts the entire Asset Management Plan (AMP). The ESR identifies a further $10,000,000 in structure needs. The total needs for structures are $13,042,000. The average age of the bridges is approximately 44.1 years and the culverts 44.8 years. Both asset groups had a 50 year design life. However, with appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation a service life of 75 years would not be unreasonable. Notwithstanding the life expectancy of structures, other measures may drive the need to replace a structure. The driver in the development of the ESR was the significant flooding that is caused by insufficient capacity in a series of culvert structures in downtown Uxbridge. Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows; $358,600 for the structures capital/depreciation, based upon an average 50 year design life of the existing inventory ($239,100 assuming 75 year service life) $195,200 for the structures maintenance and minor rehabilitations program. $602,000 for Culvert 315 Debt retirement (20 year amortization on $7.5m @5% interest.) Financial Plan The financial plan/strategy is integral to the asset management plan. The 2013 SotI (4 Roads) identified that current funding level was at approximately the same level as the recommendation for the preservation budget for the road system. The overall condition of the system was above the minimum target set by the province when prior to the removal of conditional grants in the mid 1990 s. It would seem reasonable then, that budget level is adequate to sustain the road system. 4 Roads is advised that there will be a dedicated increase for road assets at the rate of 1% of the tax levy per year (compounded and adjusted for inflation) for the foreseeable future. The 2013 Structures Report (AECOM) and the 2012 ESR (SRM) identified an annualized cost for the structures inventory The ToU s current average annual budget for structures exceeds the annualized iii

cost identified in the 2013 Structures report which appears to be based on a 75 year service life, however is falls short of the amount required based on a 50 year design life. Currently, the TOU has budgeted an average of $513,600 annually for structures over the next 10 years. This funding essentially addresses the needs of the structures inventory with the exception of the replacements of culverts 315 Sections one through 9. The total funding for the two asset groups included in this report appears to be at a sustainable level, with the exception of Culvert 315. Culvert 315 poses a significant impact to the ToU from both functional and financial perspectives. As such, the thrust of the AMP has to be to develop funding for the replacement of Culvert 315. The funding gap is significant, which leaves few alternatives other than debt financing and provincial assistance. 4 Roads understands that currently, the Town of Uxbridge is debt free therefore there should be sufficient borrowing capacity to debenture the replacement cost. From the ESR, the gross cost of Culvert 315 replacement is $10,000,000. It is anticipated that the Region s share would be $2,500,000, leaving Uxbridge with $7,500,000. The recommendation is to finance Uxbridge s share through a debenture. Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20 year payback period, the annual debt repayment is $602,000. An additional $602,000 annually is a significant increase to the Township s budget. The projected is likely to be under construction five or more years from now. It is recommended that the annual contribution to reserve for Culvert 315 be increased over the next five years until it reaches the debt repayment level. Once the project enters the construction phase the debt would be incurred and the annual charge would become debt repayment instead of a contribution to reserve. Asset management strategies are critical to managing the performance of an asset group, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. For roads, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to keep the good roads good. Similarly for structures, the best return on investment is in timely replacement of the bridge deck wearing surface, waterproofing, expansion joints and minor rehabilitations. In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the road and structures inventories; 1. The Township should develop an Asset Management Policy that may be adapted to all assets as plans for the other assets are developed. 2. The cycle for review of the road system should be continued, reviewing the entire system on a maximum four year cycle. 3. The cycle for review of the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire inventory on a two year cycle. 4. Culvert 315 replacement should be financed through debenture. 5. The annual contribution level for the debt repayment should be increased annually from 2015 to 2019 by $100,000 annually, reaching $602,000 per year in 2019. iv

6. The average annual contribution for the structures should be increased to $553,800 based on a 50 year design life. 7. Additional debenture financing may be required for the remainder of the structures inventory. 8. Capital reserves should be established for the road and structure assets. 9. The asset management plan should be reviewed and revised annually from both condition and financial perspectives. 10. Programming for roads should be reviewed to ensure that resurfacing and preservation programs are optimized. 11. Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation and other service life extension treatments are optimized. 12. Traffic counts should be updated and repeated on a regular basis. The counting should include the percentage of truck traffic. 13. The gravel road conversion program should be continued. v

Summary Information Table ES 1: Roadside Environment and Surface Type High Class Bit. asphalt 134.86 269.72 33.27 66.54 41.97 84.52 210.09 420.77 64.70% 64.80% Low Class Bit. surface treated 34.45 68.9 2.89 5.78 37.34 74.68 11.50% 11.50% Total 245.58 490.56 37.18 74.22 41.97 84.52 324.72 649.29 % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% Road Classification Table ES 2: Roadside Environment and Functional Class Rural Roadside Environment Semi Urban Urban Total % of Total Lanekm km km km Lane Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km Cl km Cl km Cl km Surface Type Gravel, Stone, Other Loosetop 76.27 151.94 1.02 1.9 77.29 153.84 23.80% 23.69% Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Cl km Lane Lanekm Lane Cl km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km 100 7.88 15.76 0.51 1.02 1.35 2.7 9.74 19.48 3.00% 3.00% 200 109.71 218.82 2.5 5 112.21 223.82 34.56% 34.47% 300 49.9 99.8 49.9 99.8 15.37% 15.37% 400 66.9 133.8 66.9 133.8 20.60% 20.61% 500 8.98 17.96 8.98 17.96 2.77% 2.77% C/R 1.81 3.62 0.66 1.32 3.77 7.54 6.24 12.48 1.92% 1.92% CCI 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.68 0.10% 0.10% L/R 0.4 0.8 32.36 64.58 31.41 62.81 64.16 128.19 19.76% 19.74% LCI 1.15 2.3 5.1 10.79 6.25 13.09 1.92% 2.02% Total 245.58 490.56 37.18 74.22 41.97 84.52 324.72 649.29 % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% vi

Lanes Cl km Table ES 3: Roadside Environment and Lanes Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km 1 0.6 0.6 0.14 0.14 0.74 0.74 0.23% 0.11% 2 244.98 489.96 37.04 74.08 41.38 82.75 323.39 646.78 99.59% 99.61% 3 0.59 1.77 0.59 1.77 0.18% 0.27% Total 245.58 490.56 37.18 74.22 41.97 84.52 324.72 649.29 % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% Table ES 4: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation and Deck Area Bridge Type / Superstructure Foundation Deck Area PC Piles or caisons SF Spread footings UN Unknown C Cast In Place 79.5 538.81 618.31 BC Box, Closed Footing 195.63 195.63 RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs 79.5 261.68 341.18 SS Solid Slab 81.5 81.5 P Precast Concrete 151.9 138.71 290.61 BT Box/Trapizoidal 151.9 151.9 RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs 138.71 138.71 T Timber/Wood 688.63 688.63 IB I Beams or Girders 45.9 45.9 SS Solid Slab 642.73 642.73 Grand Total 840.53 79.5 677.52 1597.55 Table ES 5: Culvert Structure Summary by Subtype and Footprint Culvert Type Foundation Type Grand Total BD Bedding UN Unknown CPR Cast in Place 12.06 273.72 285.78 CPS Corr Plate Stl 437.99 373.12 811.11 CST Corr. Steel 73.08 73.08 MAS Masonry 76.68 76.68 Grand Total 523.13 723.52 1246.65 vii

Table ES 7: MMS Class by Lanes and Roadside Environment MMS Class 3 4 5 6 TOTAL % OF TOTAL Lanes Roadside Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km 1 R 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.18% 0.09% 1 S 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 0.14 0.14 0.04% 0.02% 2 R 8.57 17.14 207.68 415.36 21.1 42.2 7.63 15.26 244.98 489.96 75.44% 75.46% 2 S 0.25 0.5 10.9 21.8 23.16 46.32 2.73 5.46 37.04 74.08 11.41% 11.41% 2 U 0.24 0.48 18.19 36.38 22.81 45.61 0.14 0.28 41.38 82.75 12.74% 12.74% 3 U 0 0 0.59 1.77 0 0 0 0 0.59 1.77 0.18% 0.27% TOTAL 9.06 18.12 237.96 475.9 67.21 134.27 10.5 21 324.72 649.29 % OF TOTAL 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% Time of Need Table ES 8: Time of Need by Length and MMS Class (Adjusted for boundary roads) Cl km 3 4 5 6 Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Total Lanekm Cl km Lane km NOW 1.15 2.3 50.66 100.72 15.01 29.88 66.82 132.9 1 5 21.46 42.92 8.42 16.84 29.88 59.76 6 10 4 8 94.43 189.38 14.08 28.16 112.51 225.54 ADEQ 3.91 7.82 71.41 142.88 29.7 59.39 10.5 21 115.51 231.1 Total 9.06 18.12 237.96 475.9 67.21 134.27 10.5 21 324.72 649.29 % of Total 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% System Adequacy % 87.3 87.3 78.7 78.8 77.7 77.7 100.0 100.0 79.4 79.5 Good to Very Good % 87.3 87.3 69.7 69.8 65.1 65.2 100.0 100.0 70.2 70.3 viii

Table ES 9: Road System Needs Summary Time of Need 1 to 5 6 to 10 ADEQ NOW TOTAL % OF TOTAL Imp. Class Imp ID CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost CL km Imp. Cost Const NONE 45.71 0 45.71 0 14.08% Const BS 3.8 1,119,998 2.61 1,043,956 0.7 243,435 8.65 2,066,447 15.76 4,473,836 4.85% 9.35% Const REC 4.1 2,304,734 1.8 872,865 3.05 1,291,668 18.68 11,210,781 27.63 15,680,048 8.51% 32.77% Const RNS 0.22 178,238 0.7 470,281 0.92 648,519 0.28% 1.36% Const RSS 0.67 1,104,495 4.86 8,074,242 0.13 211,407 2.46 4,163,096 8.12 13,553,241 2.50% 28.32% Maint CRK 35.34 68,789 35.34 68,789 10.88% 0.14% Maint SD 81.01 0 25.93 0 0.6 0 107.54 0 33.12% Maint SR 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.09% Rehab DST 0.65 27,528 0.65 27,528 0.20% 0.06% Rehab R1 0.85 80,202 17.1 2,816,321 2.05 478,986 20 3,375,510 6.16% 7.05% Rehab R1+ 2.5 305,334 2.73 342,769 5.23 648,104 1.61% 1.35% Rehab R2 7.04 1,207,674 7.04 1,207,674 2.17% 2.52% Rehab RM 0.93 507,488 0.93 507,488 0.29% 1.06% Rehab SST 1.4 23,100 1.4 23,100 0.43% 0.05% Rehab SSTplus 2.1 76,007 2.4 81,360 4.5 157,367 1.39% 0.33% Rehab PR2 3.66 634,911 0.7 123,960 12.75 2,183,419 17.11 2,942,290 5.27% 6.15% Rehab PR2+ 4.94 857,895 0.5 88,820 21.1 3,591,631 26.54 4,538,346 8.17% 9.48% TOTAL 29.88 7,869,488 112.51 13,231,513 115.51 2,530,166 66.82 24,220,670 324.72 47,851,838 % OF TOTAL 9.20% 16.45% 34.65% 27.65% 35.57% 5.29% 20.58% 50.62% ix

Improvement Class Table ES 10: Bridge Structures Time of Need Time of Need NOW 1 5 6 10 Total Const 0 0 0 0 Const Extra 0 0 0 0 Inspection 0 0 0 0 Rehab 833,000 190,000 28,000 1,090,000 Rehab Extra 76,000 21,000 67,000 125,000 Total 909,000 211,000 95,000 1,215,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table ES 11: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need Improvement Class Time of Need NOW 1 5 6 10 Total Const 442,000 4,854,200 5,769,800 11,066,000 Const Extra 388,000 92,000 0 480,000 Inspection 5,000 0 0 5,000 Rehab 0.00 222,000 40,000 262,000 Rehab Extra 0.00 7,000 7,000 14,000 Total 835,000 5,175,200 5,816,800 11,827,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and SRM ESR Report x

Table ES 8: Boundary Roads Roadside Environment Adjacent Agency R S U TOTAL 10102 City of Pickering 6.1 6.1 10601 Township of Brock 0.5 0.8 1.3 10601 Township of Brock 1.78 1.78 27407 Town of East Gwillimbury 2.8 2.8 TOTAL 11.18 0.8 0 11.98 Graph ES1: Road Structural Adequacy Rating vs. Length Note: Data is from the 2013 Study xi

Graph ES2: Road System Performance at Various Budget Levels Note: Data is from the 2013 Study xii

Table ES 9: 10 Year Asset Management Plan and Financial Plan 10 Year Roads, Bridges and Culverts Management Plan Roads Imp.Type 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total BS 33,792 120,252 298,262 1,287,455 565,560 231,430 2,536,751 CRK 57,622 40,770 792 16,574 45,263 58,371 56,556 8,198 17,325 15,226 316,697 DST 27,528 27,528 GRR 741,280 741,280 GRR2 1,186,614 1,144,746 513,100 18,790 939,459 1,750,356 142,394 131,557 5,827,016 MICRO 6,375 28,776 64,260 30,225 122,667 9,591 261,894 PR2 1,709,757 450,875 108,195 196,826 243,460 169,115 2,878,228 PR2+ 213,428 213,428 R1 19,910 425,463 309,471 1,093,080 864,217 184,383 310,000 87,437 1,013,799 760,680 5,068,440 R1+ 121,841 256,892 18,002 251,370 648,105 R2 663,629 409,297 134,746 1,207,672 RM 386,103 121,385 507,488 RNS 243,611 178,238 421,849 SST 21,450 21,450 SSTplus 157,367 227,130 37,290 421,787 Dedicated Increase 90,000 180,000 270,000 360,000 450,000 540,000 630,000 720,000 810,000 4,050,000 Sub Total Roads 2,158,084 2,193,722 2,284,940 2,374,000 2,464,821 2,555,665 2,644,387 2,733,346 2,825,356 2,915,292 25,149,613 Bridges and Culverts 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 C 00000A Brookdale Road 50,000 350,000 400,000 C00218 Conc 6 Culvert 120,000 120,000 South Townline 40,000 40,000 Meyers Road 500,000 500,000 Conc 3 (N of RR8) 50,000 300,000 350,000 Weirs Road 40,000 500,000 540,000 Conc 5 (S of Ravenshoe) 500,000 500,000 Davis Drive 50,000 500,000 550,000 Proposed Additional Funding 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 410,400 C315 Brock St. Culvert (to reserve or debt repayment) 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 4,510,000 Sub Total Bridges and Culverts 310,000 595,600 895,600 785,600 1,045,600 1,197,600 1,147,600 647,600 647,600 647,600 7,920,400 Grand Total 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Funding Sources / Financial Plan Capital Budget / Reserve Operating Budget 2,423,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Reserves 45,000 Debentures Grants Other Total Funding 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 xiii

Contents INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND... 1 PROJECT APPROACH OVERVIEW... 2 ASSET CONDITION RATING METHODOLOGY ROADS... 3 3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology... 3 3.1.1 Inventory Manual History... 3 3.1.2 Inventory Manual Overview... 3 ASSET CONDITION METHODOLOGY STRUCTURES... 5 4.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology Structures... 5 STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS... 6 5.1 Scope / Asset Type(s)... 6 5.2 Road System Inventory and Classification... 6 5.3 Surface Types and Roadside Environment... 6 5.4 MMS Classification... 7 5.4.1 Functional / Existing / Design Classifications... 8 5.5 Drainage... 9 5.6 Boundary Roads... 9 STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE STRUCTURES... 11 6.1 Scope / Asset Type(s)... 11 6.2 Structure Inventory and Classification... 11 6.2.1 Load Restrictions... 11 6.3 Structure Types... 12 ROAD SYSTEM CONDITION... 13 7.1 Road System Condition by Time of Need... 13 7.2 Road System Adequacy... 13 7.2.1 Physical Condition Roads... 14 7.2.2 Good to Very Good Roads... 15 7.2.3 Remaining Service Life Roads... 15 7.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Roads... 16 STRUCTURE INVENTORY CONDITION... 17 8.1 Structures Inventory by Time of Need... 17 8.2 Structure Inventory Overall Condition... 17 8.2.1 Remaining Design and Service Life Structures... 18 8.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Structures... 21

REPLACEMENT COST VALUATION ROADS... 22 REPLACEMENT COST VALUATION STRUCTURES... 23 ASSET CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND PLAN UPDATES... 24 11.1 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Roads... 24 11.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Structures... 24 11.3 Asset Management Plan Updates... 24 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ROADS... 25 12.1 Current Level of Service Measurement... 25 12.1.1 System Adequacy... 25 12.1.2 Physical Condition... 25 12.1.3 MPMP Good to Very Good... 25 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STRUCTURES... 26 13.1 Current Level of Service Measurement Structures... 26 13.1.1 Adequacy Index... 26 13.1.2 NOW Needs Structures Requiring Replacement... 26 PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ROADS... 27 14.1 Overview... 27 14.2 Capital Depreciation... 27 14.3 Hot Mix Resurfacing... 27 14.4 Surface Treatment Resurfacing... 28 14.5 Gravel Road Resurfacing... 29 14.6 Crack Sealing... 29 14.7 Performance Modeling Budget Effect on System Performance... 29 14.7.1 Asset Management Plan and Strategy Analysis... 29 14.7.2 Performance Model Overview... 30 14.8 System Performance at Various Budget Levels Roads... 30 14.9 Record of Assumptions Performance Modeling... 32 14.9.1 Pavement Classification for Modeling... 32 14.10 10 Year Program Roads... 33 PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS STRUCTURES... 34 15.1 Overview... 34 15.2 Capital Depreciation... 34 15.3 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance... 34 15.4 10 Year Program Structures... 35 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY... 36 16.1 Asset Management Overview... 36 16.2 Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating Roads... 37

16.3 Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization... 38 16.4 Asset Management Strategy... 39 FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND PLAN... 40 17.1 Financial Plan Overview... 40 17.2 Asset Management Plan / Financial Plan Decision Matrix... 41 17.2.1 Non Infrastructure Solutions... 41 17.2.2 Maintenance Activities and Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities... 41 17.2.3 Replacement Activities... 42 17.2.4 Disposal Activities... 42 17.2.5 Expansion Activities... 42 17.2.6 Funding Sources... 42 17.3 Asset/ Financial Plan... 42 RECOMMENDATIONS... 44 List of Tables Table 5.1: Surface Type and Roadside Environment Distribution... 6 Table 5.2: Regulation 23/10 Minimum Maintenance Standard Road Classification... 7 Table 5.3: Minimum Maintenance Standards Class Distribution... 8 Table 5.4: Functional Road Class Distribution... 8 Table 5.5: Drainage by Time of Need... 9 Table 5.6: Boundary Roads... 10 Table 6.1: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation Type Sub Type and Deck Area... 12 Table 6.2: Culvert Structure Summary by Culvert Type, Foundation Type and Footprint... 12 Table 7.1: Roads System by Time of Need and MMS Class... 13 Table 7.2: Unit Costs... 14 Table 8.1: Bridge Structures Inventory by Time of Need... 18 Table 8.2: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need... 18 Table 14.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Roads by Asset Class and Life Cycle... 28 Table 14.2: Road Asset Classes... 32 Table 17.1: Proposed AMP and Funding... 43

List of Figures Figure 6.1: Triple Load Posting Sign... 11 Figure 7.1: Remaining Service Life Roads... 15 Figure 8.1: Remaining Design Life Bridge Structures... 19 Figure 8.2: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Bridge Structures... 19 Figure 8.3: Remaining Design Life Culvert Structures... 19 Figure 8.4: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Culvert Structures... 20 Figure 14.1: Performance Modeling at Various Budget Levels... 31 Figure 14.2: Treatment Selection vs. Condition... 33 Figure 15.1: Bridge Deterioration Curve (TAC)... 35 Figure 16.1: Treatment Cost vs. Deterioration... 38 List of Appendices Appendix A: 10 Year Plan For Roads...

Introduction and Background In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects, from the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, municipalities are required to develop an AMP that is approved by council by December 31, 2013. On April 26, the province announced that it had created a $100 million Infrastructure Fund for small, rural and northern municipalities. Accessing these funds requires an asset management plan. The province requires AMP s for Roads, Structures, Water and Waste treatment collection and distribution and Social housing. The Township of Uxbridge (ToU) has responsibility for the local roads and structures within the ToU. Accordingly, the scope of this plan only includes the road and structure assets. The provincial requirements for content of an AMP include; 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. State of the Local infrastructure 4. Expected Levels of Services 5. Asset Management Strategy and, 6. Financing Strategy The 2013 AMP provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system and structures inventory in their entirety. The existing inventory data and condition ratings were used to develop programming and budgets. However, once an asset reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of each project. Further, integral to the AMP is the financial strategy. The current funding for the two asset groups included in this report is generally at a sustainable level, with the exception of a significant series of structures; Culverts 315, Sections 1 through 9. The funding gap is significant. The plan provides for a recommended implementation timeline and a financing option. Key to the development of an AMP is a State of the Infrastructure (SotI) review of the asset or asset group. Understanding the composition and replacement and maintenance costs of an asset group is essential to development of an AMP. This report incorporates the condition information from the 4 Roads 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads and the AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and the SRM 2012 ESR for Culvert 315. 1

Project Approach Overview The ToU has been diligent in the continuing condition rating of their road and structures asset groups. The condition assessments for both asset groups is current through the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads and the 2013 Municipal Structures Inventory and Inspection report. The provincial requirements for content of an AMP include are identified in Section 1 of this report. In order to develop the AMP, the following approach was adopted 1. State of the Infrastructure (SotI) development for roads and structures 2. Development of Draft Asset Management and Financing Strategies 3. Uxbridge staff review and comment on Draft 4. Presentation of Draft AMP to Council 5. Revision / Finalization of Asset Management and Financing Strategies 6. Final Report preparation 7. AMP presentation to and adoption by Council 2

Asset Condition Rating Methodology Roads 3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. The road section reviews follow the methodology of the Ministry of Transportation Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads, 1991. The condition of the road system is mandated by provincial Legislation by the following: Municipal Act 2001, Section 44 (1).The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge. 2001, c. 25, s. 44 (1). Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways is a result of Section 44 3.1.1 Inventory Manual History From the 1960 s until the mid 1990 s, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required municipalities to regularly update the condition ratings of their road systems in a number of key areas. The process was originally created by the MTO, as a means to distribute conditional funding, on an equitable basis, between municipalities. The reports were referred to as a Road Needs Study (RNS) and were required in order to receive a conditional grant to subsidize the municipal road programs. After the introduction in the 1960 s by the MTO, the methodology evolved into the current format by the late 1970 s. The most current version of the Inventory Manual is dated 1991, and is the methodology used for this report. The practice was discontinued by a number of municipalities, when conditional funding for roads was eliminated in the mid 1990 s. To put this in a more current context, a Road Needs Study is essentially the State of the Infrastructure. 3.1.2 Inventory Manual Overview The Inventory Manual Methodology is a sound, consistent, asset management practice that still works well today, and in view of the increasing demands on efficiency and asset management, represents a sound asset management practice that should be repeated on a cyclical basis. The road section review identifies the condition of each road asset by its time of need and recommended rehabilitation strategy. The Township of Uxbridge SotI Roads section of this report summarizes the condition of the road system survey conducted during the spring 2011. The SotI Roads section provides an overview of the overall condition of the road system by road section, including such factors as structural adequacy, drainage, and surface condition. The study also provides an indication of apparent deficiencies in horizontal and vertical alignment elements, as per the Ministry of Transportation s manual, Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. 3

The SotI provides an overview of the physical and financial needs of the road system, which may be used for programming and budgeting. However, once a road section reaches the project design stage, further detailed review, investigation, and design will be required to address the specific requirements of the project. Asset Management by its very nature is holistic. Managing a road network based solely on pavement condition would be critically deficient in scope in terms of the information required to make an informed decision as to the improvements required on a road section. The Inventory Manual offers a holistic review of each road section, developing a Time of Need (TON) or an Adequate rating in six areas that are critical to municipal decision making: 1. Geometrics 2. Surface Type 3. Surface Width 4. Capacity 5. Structural Adequacy 6. Drainage The 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads report provides further detail on the rating system. 4

Asset Condition Methodology Structures 4.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology Structures The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 metres or greater be inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) or equivalent. 4 Roads understands that the Municipal Bridge Appraisal Data Entry System (MBADES) has been identified as an equivalent. The ToU reporting conforms to the MBADES format. Structural inspections shall be in accordance with the following regulations: 104/97, 472/10 Standards for Bridges Regulation 103/97 Standard to determine Allowable Gross Weight for bridges and 160/02, 278/06 and 472/10 (Amending 104/97) The condition of the structures inventory is further mandated by Provincial Legislation by the following: Municipal Act 2001, Section 44 (1).The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge. 2001, c. 25, s. 44 (1). Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways is a result of Section 44 Bridge and Culvert structures are rated as deficient in the NOW, 1 to 5 or 6 to 10 timelines due to: Insufficient width of structure (six metre minimum) Vertical clearance Level of Service (cannot accommodate peak hour traffic) Structural Capacity. Safety Treatments The Condition Ratings, developed through the scoring in MBADES, classify structures as NOW, 1 to 5, or 6 to 10 year needs for reconstruction or rehabilitation. Similar to roads, structures with rehabilitation treatments should be dealt with as a priority, to further defer the need to reconstruct and maximize the value and life cycle of the asset. Field data is obtained through a visual examination of each structure. Overall ratings and Time of Need are calculated based upon the condition ratings and a combination of other calculations and data. Further detail on the MBADES methodology may be found in the AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection. 5

State of the Infrastructure Roads 5.1 Scope / Asset Type(s) This section of the report addresses road assets only. The content will provide review and analysis of the road system from a number of perspectives including condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment, replacement cost and regulation 239/02 classification. 5.2 Road System Inventory and Classification Road sections within road systems may be classified in a number of ways, to illustrate their roadside environment, surface type, functional classification, and so forth. The classifications provide assistance in developing further information, with respect to the road system, such as replacement costs and performance expectations. 5.3 Surface Types and Roadside Environment Roadside environment and surface type criteria of a road section are useful in characterization of the road section, and in determining costs for replacement, reconstruction and rehabilitation treatments. The Inventory Manual classifies the roadside environment as Rural, Semi Urban or Urban. The classification is determined by length, servicing, and adjacent land use. Rural Roads within areas of sparse development, or where development is less than 50% of the frontage, including developed areas extending less than 300 m on one side or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters. Semi Urban Roads within areas where development exceeds 50% of the frontage for a minimum of 300 m on one side, or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters, with or without storm/combination sewers, or for subdivisions where the lot frontages are 30 m or greater. Urban Roads within areas where there are curbs and gutters on both sides, served with storm or combination sewers, or curb and gutter on one side, served with storm or combination sewers, or reversed paved shoulders with, or served by, storm or combination sewers, or for subdivisions with frontages less than 30 m. Table 5.1: Surface Type and Roadside Environment Distribution Rural Roadside Environment Semi Urban Urban Total % of Total Lanekm km km km Lane Lane Lane Cl km Lane km Cl km Cl km Cl km Cl km Surface Type Gravel, Stone, Other Loosetop 76.27 151.94 1.02 1.9 77.29 153.84 23.80% 23.69% High Class Bit. asphalt 134.86 269.72 33.27 66.54 41.97 84.52 210.09 420.77 64.70% 64.80% Low Class Bit. surface treated 34.45 68.9 2.89 5.78 37.34 74.68 11.50% 11.50% Total 245.58 490.56 37.18 74.22 41.97 84.52 324.72 649.29 % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% 6

5.4 MMS Classification In November 2002, Regulation 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMS) came into effect. Essentially, if a municipality met the standard and documented it, they would not be negligent per Section 44(3)c of the Municipal Act noted above. The SotI Roads report provides further detail and background on the Minimum Maintenance Standards. Table 5.2 shows the Regulation 23 10 s traffic/speed/ classification matrix. Table 5.2: Regulation 23/10 Minimum Maintenance Standard Road Classification Annual Average Daily Traffic (number of motor vehicles per day) Posted or Statutory Speed Limit (kilometres per hour) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 15, 000 or more 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 12, 000 14, 999 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 10, 000 11, 999 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 8, 000 9, 999 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 6, 000 7, 999 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 5, 000 5, 999 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4, 000 4, 999 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 3, 000 3, 999 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 2, 000 2,999 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 1, 000 1,999 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 500 999 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 200 499 1 3 4 4 5 5 5 50 199 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 0 49 1 3 6 6 6 6 6 The distribution of the MMS Classes across the road system is detailed in Table 5.3. 7

Table 5.3: Minimum Maintenance Standards Class Distribution MMS Class Roadside Environment 3 4 5 6 TOTAL % OF TOTAL R 8.57 208.28 21.1 7.63 245.58 75.63% S 0.25 10.9 23.3 2.73 37.18 11.45% U 0.24 18.78 22.81 0.14 41.97 12.92% TOTAL 9.06 237.96 67.21 10.5 324.72 % OF TOTAL 2.79% 73.28% 20.70% 3.23% 5.4.1 Functional / Existing / Design Classifications Roads are further classified within the database by classes such as Local, Collector, or Arterial and Residential or Industrial. Items 33 and 105 in the Inventory Manual provide further direction on determination of the Existing or Design Classes of road. Generally, the classifications are predicated on the existing use, roadside environment, and anticipated growth over either the ten or twenty year planning horizon. The road sections are classified by the rater, at the time of the field review. Table 5.4 identifies the Functional Road Class Distribution. Road Classification Table 5.4: Functional Road Class Distribution Roadside Environment Rural Semi Urban Urban Cl km Lane Lanekm Lane Cl km Cl km km km Total Lane Cl km km % of Total Lane Cl km km 100 7.88 15.76 0.51 1.02 1.35 2.7 9.74 19.48 3.00% 3.00% 200 109.71 218.82 2.5 5 112.21 223.82 34.56% 34.47% 300 49.9 99.8 49.9 99.8 15.37% 15.37% 400 66.9 133.8 66.9 133.8 20.60% 20.61% 500 8.98 17.96 8.98 17.96 2.77% 2.77% C/R 1.81 3.62 0.66 1.32 3.77 7.54 6.24 12.48 1.92% 1.92% CCI 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.68 0.10% 0.10% L/R 0.4 0.8 32.36 64.58 31.41 62.81 64.16 128.19 19.76% 19.74% LCI 1.15 2.3 5.1 10.79 6.25 13.09 1.92% 2.02% Total 245.58 490.56 37.18 74.22 41.97 84.52 324.72 649.29 % of Total 75.63% 75.55% 11.45% 11.43% 12.92% 13.02% 8

5.5 Drainage Adequate drainage is critical to the performance of a road to maximize its life expectancy. Roads are designed, constructed, and maintained in order to minimize the amount of water that may enter, or flow over, the road structure. In the case of water flowing over the road, assessment must be made of the circumstances on a sitespecific basis. Factors that should be considered include the traffic volumes of the road section, economic impacts to the loss of the use of the road, upgrade costs, and risks. There is further detailed discussion on drainage in the SotI Roads Report. Table 5.5 provides an overview of the drainage needs of the road system by Time of Need. Table 5.5: Drainage by Time of Need Time of Need Roadside Environment 1 to 5 6 to 10 ADEQ NOW TOTAL R 1.25 166.34 77.99 245.58 S 2.13 14.89 20.16 37.18 U 41.97 41.97 TOTAL 3.38 181.23 140.11 324.72 Maintenance of the drainage system(s) is also critical to the long term performance of a road system. 5.6 Boundary Roads Boundary roads, are roads that a Township would have in common with the abutting municipalities. In order to manage the joint responsibilities, a Boundary Road Agreement that identifies the responsibilities of both agencies is created. The agreements are usually in writing; however, some are informal. The Boundary Road Agreement should identify costs sharing and responsibility arrangements for maintenance or capital works on the road section. From a risk management perspective the agreement reduces the risk for one of the parties in the event of a claim, depending upon the content of the agreement. Boundary road reporting can be dealt with in one of two ways: the length can be split to provide a more accurate depiction of the road system that is actually maintained by the agency, or they may not be adjusted. When MTO was providing subsidy, the roads were adjusted for reporting and accounting purposes. For the purposes of this report adjustment has been made to the road system sizes to account for the 50% sharing of the length of the boundary roads. When a boundary is reconstructed on a day labour basis by the adjacent municipalities, the project should be treated no differently than if the work were being tendered. The exposure to risk for the Township is no different. The assignment of the various aspects of the work should be clear and the 9

timing for completion of the tasks clearly identified and adhered to. Table 5.6 identifies the Township of Uxbridge boundary roads. Table 5.6: Boundary Roads Roadside Environment Adjacent Agency R S U TOTAL 10102 City of Pickering 6.1 6.1 10601 Township of Brock 0.5 0.8 1.3 10601 Township of Brock 1.78 1.78 27407 Town of East Gwillimbury 2.8 2.8 TOTAL 11.18 0.8 0 11.98 10

State of the Infrastructure Structures 6.1 Scope / Asset Type(s) This section of the report addresses structure assets with a span of 3 metres or greater only. This includes structures defined as bridges and culverts. The content will provide review and analysis of the structures inventory from a number of perspectives including condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment, replacement cost. Information for this section of the report is drawn from the 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection prepared by AECOM 6.2 Structure Inventory and Classification Bridges and culverts are defined as follows: Bridge In general, transfers all live loads through a superstructure to a substructure and foundations. AECOM s 2013 Structures Inspection report indicates that for bridges that were originally designed as a bridge and have some depth of fill placed over the deck have been appraised as a bridge. Similarly, Box or open type structures that have less than 600 mm of cover were appraised as a bridge and those with more than 600 mm of cover were appraised as a culvert. Culvert In general, transfers all live loads through fill. 6.2.1 Load Restrictions It should be noted that a deficient bridge may have a load posting/restriction. The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) provides for municipalities to pass by laws to restrict loads on a structure. Generally load restricted structures are identified by the following signage, where a triple posting exists. Figure 6.1: Triple Load Posting Sign L3 L2 L1 L3 postings govern single unit vehicles; L2 postings govern two unit vehicles; and L1 postings govern vehicle trains. Section 13 of Bill 92 amends Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act dealing with the load limit by laws. Municipalities retain the authority to pass load limit by laws, but approval of the Minister of 11

Transportation is no longer required. Two engineer's stamps for all load limit by law recommendations, including load posting and duration, generally 2 years, are now required. Load posting assessments are currently being carried out during the annual bridge appraisal updates. The ToU currently does not have any structures with a Load limit restriction. Load limited structures can impose significant constraints on service delivery both public and private. A fully loaded tandem truck with plough blade attached could easily reach 25 tonnes. A Fire Department tanker truck could weigh more than that. 6.3 Structure Types Bridge structures are classified through a number of data fields; Sub Type, Articulation, Material Types, Substructure, Superstructure, Wearing Surface etc. Table 7.2 summarizes the composition of the ToU Bridge Structures Inventory by Sub Type and Deck Area. Culvert Structures may also be classified by similar parameters as the bridge structures. Table 6.1: Bridge Structure Summary by Bridge Type, Foundation Type Sub Type and Deck Area Bridge Type / Superstructure Foundation Deck Area PC Piles or caisons SF Spread footings UN Unknown C Cast In Place 79.5 538.81 618.31 BC Box, Closed Footing 195.63 195.63 RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs 79.5 261.68 341.18 SS Solid Slab 81.5 81.5 P Precast Concrete 151.9 138.71 290.61 BT Box/Trapizoidal 151.9 151.9 RF Rigid Frame, Vert. Legs 138.71 138.71 T Timber/Wood 688.63 688.63 IB I Beams or Girders 45.9 45.9 SS Solid Slab 642.73 642.73 Grand Total 840.53 79.5 677.52 1597.55 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table 6.2: Culvert Structure Summary by Culvert Type, Foundation Type and Footprint Culvert Type Foundation Type Grand Total BD Bedding UN Unknown CPR Cast in Place 12.06 273.72 285.78 CPS Corr Plate Stl 437.99 373.12 811.11 CST Corr. Steel 83.88 83.88 MAS masonry 76.68 76.68 Grand Total 533.93 723.52 1,257.45 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection 12

Road System Condition The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. The road section reviews follow the methodology of the Ministry of Transportation Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads, 1991. 7.1 Road System Condition by Time of Need The Inventory Manual methodology results in overall rating of road sections by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 7.1 below provides a breakdown of the road system by time of Need and MMS Class. 7.2 Road System Adequacy The system adequacy is a measure of the ratio of the NOW needs to the total system, and includes needs from the six critical areas described earlier in the report. The overall TON is the most severe or earliest identified need. For example a road section may appear to be in good condition, but is identified as a NOW need for capacity, indicating that it requires additional lanes. Equation 7.2: System Adequacy Calculation System Adequacy = Total System (km) NOW Deficiencies (km) X 100 Total System (km) Currently the road system adequacy measures 79.3%. The road system currently measures 324.72 centreline kilometres (adjusted for boundary roads), with 66.82 kilometres rated as deficient in the NOW time period. Time of Need Cl km Table 7.1: Roads System by Time of Need and MMS Class 3 4 5 6 Lanekm Cl km Lane km Cl km Lane km Cl km Total Lanekm Cl km Lane km NOW 1.15 2.3 50.66 100.72 15.01 29.88 66.82 132.9 1 5 21.46 42.92 8.42 16.84 29.88 59.76 6 10 4 8 94.43 189.38 14.08 28.16 112.51 225.54 ADEQ 3.91 7.82 71.41 142.88 29.7 59.39 10.5 21 115.51 231.1 Total 9.06 18.12 237.96 475.9 67.21 134.27 10.5 21 324.72 649.29 % of Total 2.79% 2.79% 73.28% 73.30% 20.70% 20.68% 3.23% 3.23% System Adequacy % 87.3 87.3 78.7 78.8 77.7 77.7 100.0 100.0 79.4 79.5 Good to Very Good % 87.3 87.3 69.7 69.8 65.1 65.2 100.0 100.0 70.2 70.3 The estimates provided in this report are in accordance with the formulae in the Inventory Manual, and utilize the unit costs as identified in Table 7.2. These costs include adjustment factors as per the Inventory Manual, such as Basic Construction, Terrain, Contingency Roadside Environment, and Engineering. 13

Item Table 7.2: Unit Costs Unit 2013 Costs $ Excavation m 3 7.5 Hot Mix Asphalt t 75.00 Single Surface Treatment m 2 2.75 Granular A t 13.00 Granular B t 11.00 Conc Curb and Gutter place linear m 65.00 Conc Curb and Gutter removal linear m 25.00 Subdrains linear m 19.00 Storm Sewer 525mm linear m 450.00 Manholes ea 3500.00 - manhole removed ea 500.00 - manholes Adjust ea 800.00 Catch Basins ea 1500.00 Catch Basins removed ea 600.00 Catch Basin Leads Linear m 250.00 Catch Basins adjust ea 600.00 Asphalt Planing m 2 1.50 Asphalt Pulverizing m 2 1.00 Crack Sealing m 2.00 The traditional target adequacy for upper tier road systems (Regions and Counties) was 75%, while a lower tier s target adequacy was 60%. Based on these former MTO targets, which were in effect when the municipal grant system was in place, the target adequacy for the ToU should be 60%, as a minimum. The minimum target adequacies were established by MTO, to reflect the nature and purpose of the road system. Based on the current review of the road system, the current system adequacy measure is 79.4% meaning that 20.6 % of the road system is deficient in the NOW time period. The current system adequacy is in an acceptable range. 7.2.1 Physical Condition Roads The Physical Condition is an alternate method of describing the condition of a road section or the average condition of the road system. The value is the structural adequacy converted to be expressed as a value out of 100, instead of 20. This methodology lends itself to modeling and comparators that may be more easily understood. There isn t a 1:1 relationship between the weighted average physical condition and the system adequacy. The average Physical Condition of the road system is currently 66.31. 14

7.2.2 Good to Very Good Roads The annual FIR report requires a measure of the good to very good roads be reported. In a calculation similar to that for System Adequacy, 4 Roads has calculated the Good to Very Goods at 70.2% using the following calculation; Equation 7.1: Good to Very Good Roads Good to Very Good = Total System (km) (NOW + 1 to 5 (km) X 100 Total System (km) 7.2.3 Remaining Service Life Roads As indicated previously, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction. The TON then also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road system/section. The following figure summarizes the structural adequacy ratings of the road system and illustrates the estimated remaining service life of the road system. Figure 7.1: Remaining Service Life Roads 15

7.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Roads The methodology of this report is such that a number of the Inventory Manual itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions in terms of; Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs Structural requirements based on road classification Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations 16

Structure Inventory Condition The provincial requirements for AMP s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 metres or greater be inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) or equivalent. The Municipal Bridge Appraisal Data Entry System (MBADES) has been identified as an equivalent. The ToU reporting conforms to the MBADES format. 8.1 Structures Inventory by Time of Need The MBADES Manual methodology results in overall rating of Bridge and Culvert Structures by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 8.1 provides a breakdown of the Bridge Inventory and Table 8.2Culvert Structure Inventories system by Time of Need. 8.2 Structure Inventory Overall Condition Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge structure evaluations will produce a NOW need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the overall bridge structures inventory, the current estimated replacement cost has been compared to the estimated cost of the current needs that have been identified. The following equation describes the ratio of the replacement cost to the needs costs. Equation 8.1: Bridge Structure Replacement to Improvement Ratio Adequacy Index = Total Replacement Cost Total Needs Cost Total Replacement Cost Using Equation 1, the Adequacy Index for the ToU Bridge structures Inventory is 88 % using a replacement cost of $6,500 per square metre and the standardized improvement costs from the MBADES Manual. Applying the same calculation to the culvert structures inventory produces and Adequacy Index of 75% using a replacement cost of $6,000 per square metre and the standardized improvement costs from the MCADES Manual. However, if the now known replacements cost of Culvert 315 in the same formula, the Adequacy Index for the culverts is 0%. 17

Improvement Class Table 8.1: Bridge Structures Inventory by Time of Need Time of Need NOW 1 5 6 10 Total Const 0 0 0 0 Const Extra 0 0 0 0 Inspection 0 0 0 0 Rehab 833,000 190,000 28,000 1,090,000 Rehab Extra 76,000 21,000 67,000 125,000 Total 909,000 211,000 95,000 1,215,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection Table 8.2: Culvert Structures Inventory by Time of Need Improvement Class Time of Need NOW 1 5 6 10 Total Const 442,000 4,854,200 5,769,800 11,066,000 Const Extra 388,000 92,000 0 480,000 Inspection 5,000 0 0 5,000 Rehab 0.00 222,000 40,000 262,000 Rehab Extra 0.00 7,000 7,000 14,000 Total 835,000 5,175,200 5,816,800 11,827,000 *From AECOM 2013 Municipal Structure Inventory and Inspection and SRM ESR Report The number and condition of the bridge and culvert inventory has remained relatively static since the last report. 8.2.1 Remaining Design and Service Life Structures As indicated previously, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction. The TON then also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road system/section. The following figures summarize two different perspectives on bridge life expectancy design life and service life. This difference has a significant impact on development of the financial plan. Whereas structure constructed prior to 2000 had a 50 year design life, they typically had a service life in the 75 year range. Since 2000 the design life has been 75 years. To simplify the presentation the service life of 75 years has been used for both. 18

Figure 8.1: Remaining Design Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.2: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Bridge Structures Figure 8.3: Remaining Design Life Culvert Structures 19

Figure 8.4: Anticipated Remaining Service Life Culvert Structures The condition reviews are just that; the physical condition of the structures. When other issues are considered such is the case of Culvert 315, the time of need could change dramatically. Typically when the roads are assed a Time of Need for Drainage is developed based on visual observation, other reports, or anecdotal information. From a road perspective, water over the road to the point where a car cannot pass or there is basement flooding it would be NOW need. The sizing of Culvert 315 results 20

in significant flooding that meets the aforementioned criteria, therefore the road section should have a NOW need or drainage. 8.3 Record of Assumptions TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs Structures The methodology of this report is such that the MBADES Manual itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions in terms of; Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs Structural requirements based on field ratings of elements Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations 21

Replacement Cost Valuation Roads Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, and functional class of the individual assets. Recommended funding for the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth. The Township should consider those items as additional to the recommendations in this report. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, at $240,953,800. This estimate is based on the Township s unit costs. 22

Replacement Cost Valuation Structures Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, and functional class of the individual assets. Recommended funding for the structure assets should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth. The Township should consider those items as additional to the recommendations in this report. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the bridge and culvert inventory, at $17,928,775. This estimate is based on the replacement costs of $6,500 and $6,000 per square metre respectively for bridges and culverts. These benchmark costs can vary considerably once specific project requirements are realized. Using Culvert 315 once again as an example, there are significant property acquisition costs associated with this project. 23

Asset Condition Assessment and Plan Updates 11.1 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Roads 4 Roads would recommend a four year cycle maximum for review and update of road system condition ratings. 11.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation Structures The Township of Uxbridge s practice has been to update the condition of the structures inventory in accordance with the legislated requirements. The bridge and culvert structures with a span greater than 3 metres should continue to be reviewed on a two year cycle, as required by regulation. 11.3 Asset Management Plan Updates The Asset Management Plan should be reviewed annually to update the condition and financial requirements to maintain the plan. This will ensure that fluctuations in market conditions and other circumstances may be incorporated into the plan. 24

Level of Service (LOS) Roads Level of Service has a different meaning for different interests. For instance, the cost per unit may not have an impact to a ratepayer whose chief concern may be service delivery. Similarly, cost or expenditure per unit may not illustrate the condition of the asset to the end user. Further, municipalities are required to report on various Municipal Performance Measures (MPMP) 4 Roads believes that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the road system 12.1 Current Level of Service Measurement 12.1.1 System Adequacy As described earlier in the report, the system adequacy is the ration of the NOW need roads to the total system. This is a holistic measure as, using the Inventory Manual Methodology, needs are identified in six critical areas, not just the distress on the road surface. The current system adequacy is 79.3% (adjusted for boundary roads). 12.1.2 Physical Condition Physical condition is the Structural Adequacy rating multiplied by five to produce a rating of between 5 and 100. This is a measure of the amount of distress on the road however the scale is not linear. The current average Physical Condition of the road system is 66.31. 12.1.3 MPMP Good to Very Good The province requires annual reporting on the percentage of roads that are rated as good to very good. It has been assumed that the 6 10 and adequate roads are good to very good and this has been expressed as a percentage of the system. Good to very good roads represent 70.2% of the road system. 25

Level of Service (LOS) Structures 4 Roads believes that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the structures inventory. 13.1 Current Level of Service Measurement Structures 13.1.1 Adequacy Index 4 Roads examined the database provided and believed that one means of expressing the condition of the bridge and culvert structures inventory would be a measure of the ratio of the current improvement needs to the current replacement cost. The bridge structures Adequacy Index is 88 meaning that the remaining value of the inventory is 88% of its replacement cost. The culvert structures Adequacy Index is either 76% or 0% depending on how the replacement value of Culvert 315 is considered. 13.1.2 NOW Needs Structures Requiring Replacement The current bridge structures database indicates that there are no bridge structures that require replacement at this time. The current culvert structures database indicates that there are 4 culverts that require replacement. This represents 18% of the culvert inventory 26

Program Funding Recommendations Roads 14.1 Overview Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, functional class of the individual assets and current unit costing. Recommended funding for the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, at $240,953,700. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the road system. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation. 14.2 Capital Depreciation The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the Township road system to the current standard is $240,953,700. This equates to an annual capital depreciation of $4,819,100. The annual capital depreciation is strictly a function of the replacement cost and the design life, and would best be described as an Accountaneering number. This estimate does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 m, sidewalks, or street lighting. The typical design life for a road structure is 50 years before reconstruction/replacement. If the life span is 50 years, then 2% of the replacement cost should be the annual contribution to the capital reserve, to ensure that it can be reconstructed in that time frame. The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the road system over a 50 year life cycle. However, the 50 year life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as crack sealing and hot mix asphalt overlays are delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs. Analogies to houses and cars sometimes make road maintenance easier to understand. If a house does not have the roof renewed within the correct time frame, there will be damage to the structure, below the roof, and if this is not dealt with, it will result in a rapid deterioration of the house. Similarly, roads require crack sealing and resurfacing at the appropriate time, during the life cycle, in order to maximize the life expectancy of the asset. Preservation and maintenance extend the useful life of the pavement, reducing life cycle costs. 14.3 Hot Mix Resurfacing Roads require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Roads require resurfacing at the appropriate interval, for the respective class of road. Different agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, resurfacing is essentially a maintenance activity. 27

Resurfacing schedules are dependent upon traffic loading and the percentage of commercial traffic. Higher traffic volumes and percentages of commercial traffic shorten the interval between resurfacings. Optimal resurfacing intervals will vary from ten to twenty years (or more), depending upon the road function, classification, and quality of design and construction. The Hot Mix Asphalt Resurfacing recommendation in this report is based upon the distribution of the Township s hot mix asphalt inventory. As such, the optimal budget calculation will focus on the 19 year interval (19.5), for hot mix roads. Given the aforementioned, and the information with respect to surface type contained in Table 14.1, the funding for the annual resurfacing program should be $1,468,700 per year on average, in order to maintain the system at its current adequacy level. This estimate is for the major resurfacing work only, and does not include any estimated costs for other pavement preservation activities or programs. Table 14.1 identifies the distribution of hot asphalt roads by asset class and the basis for the recommendation for the annual program budget recommendation. Table 14.1: Hot Mix Asphalt Roads by Asset Class and Life Cycle Asset Class Life Cycle Yrs Average Annual Cost Asset Qty. Unit Cost Weighted Average A/C R 20 0.00 A/C S 20 A/C U 20 HCB1 R 10 HCB1 S 10 HCB1 U 10 HCB2 R 12 HCB2 S 12 HCB2 U 12 HCB3 R 15 65846.34 10.14 6493.72 0.723872 HCB3 S 15 24339.08 3.7 6578.13 0.264135 HCB3 U 15 157539.3 8.14 19353.72 0.581097 HCB4 R 20 588139.7 124.72 4715.68 11.87131 HCB4 S 20 142227.5 29.57 4809.86 2.814582 HCB4 U 20 490648.9 33.85 14494.8 3.221968 Totals 210.12 19.47697 14.4 Surface Treatment Resurfacing Most agencies report that the average life of surface treated road is seven years. Similar to the concept applied to the development of the hot mix resurfacing recommendations, the surface treated road network should be completely resurfaced every seven years, or approximately 14% of the surface treated inventory in each calendar year. 28

At a unit cost of $2.75 per square metre, the annual program size should be $100,900, on average, exclusive of hot mix asphalt padding and other preparatory work. 14.5 Gravel Road Resurfacing When MTO was providing maintenance subsidy, the standard practice for gravel road maintenance was to place approximately 75 mm of gravel on each gravel road section, every three years. Since the conditional grant system was discontinued, a large number of municipalities have reduced the amount of gravel that has been placed on gravel roads, to the point where the gravel roads in the system are a major maintenance problem, particularly in the latter part of the winter and early spring. If the granular base is not replenished, the road structure will disappear through normal usage, and the remaining gravel typically becomes contaminated by other materials, such as the native soil and winter sand. Township of Uxbridge has 192.44 km of gravel surfaced roads. Using the Township s benchmark costing, the annual gravel resurfacing program size should be $505,800 per year, based on adding 75 mm of gravel every three years. This estimate does not include costs for re grading, dust control, or gravel road conversion. 14.6 Crack Sealing Crack sealing is a preservation activity that extends the life of a hot mix asphalt surface. A program estimate is provided based on crack sealing one metre per two lane metre of pavement every 5 years at the unit cost provided by the Township. Based on that premise, the recommended budget for crack sealing is $83,300. 14.7 Performance Modeling Budget Effect on System Performance 14.7.1 Asset Management Plan and Strategy Analysis The asset management plan is a function of the strategy and available financing. The development process for all elements is iterative, concurrent and holistic on a number of levels. It is complex. The provincial guidelines for the preparation of an AMP indicate that the following must be considered; Options must be compared on Lifecycle cost the total cost of constructing, maintaining, renewing and operating an infrastructure asset throughout its service life. Future costs must be discounted and inflation must be incorporated. Assessment of all other relevant direct and indirect costs and benefits associated with each option. o Direct benefits and Costs Efficiencies and network effects Investment scheduling to appropriately time expansion in asset lifecycles Safety Environmental Vulnerability to climate change o Indirect Benefits and Costs Municipal wellbeing and costs 29

Amenity values Value of culturally or historically significant sites Municipal image Assessment of Risks associated with all potential options. Each option must be evaluated based on its potential risk, using an approach that allows for comparative analysis. Risks associated with each option can be scored based on quantitative measures when reasonable estimates can be made of the probability of the risk event happening and the cost associated with the risk event. Qualitative measures can be used when reasonable estimates of probability and cost associated with the risk event cannot be made. Significant effort (and expense) will be required to meet all of these requirements. 14.7.2 Performance Model Overview A properly developed performance model will satisfy the majority of the requirements identified in the foregoing. Key elements of a Performance Model will include; Deterioration Curves identifying anticipated deterioration of an appropriately constructed asset over the life cycle of the asset Trigger points throughout the deterioration curve identifying appropriate treatments at condition ranges Current costing for all treatments identified To capture the essence of the provincial requirements, development and use of a Performance Model is recommended. Through modeling and the resultant outputs the following may be addressed; Review of options and lifecycle effects based on a Return on Investment Analysis Efficiencies and network effects Budget requirements to achieve LOS goals It is respectfully suggested that a 10 year AMP can be developed through a Performance model, however, 4 Roads is of the opinion a number of other requirements that the province has identified should not be addressed until they reach the project stage. Further, a number of those requirements would be addressed through a Class Environmental Assessment process. Through performance modeling appropriate budget levels, programming and associated costs can be determined, delivering key elements of any plan that can be refined or revisited as circumstances change. Once a model is developed, then the effect of any alternatives may also be measured. 14.8 System Performance at Various Budget Levels Roads This report includes budget recommendations for various aspects of the programming that are typical to road departments. System performance can be predicted based on the level of funding. 4 Roads has prepared four different 50 year performance models for the road system. The models have been prepared with the following parameters: 30

Zero budget demonstrates the effect of no work being performed on the road system and how quickly it will deteriorate Existing budget and Preservation budget $2.16m The budgets are approximately the same. This includes the total dollar value of the budget recommendations for Hot Mix Asphalt resurfacing, surface treatment, crack sealing, and gravel road resurfacing Capital Depreciation / Amortization budget $4,819,000m full replacement cost of the road system annualized The Average Physical Condition of the road system is currently 66.1. The performance model calculations all begin with the current Average Physical Condition and for purposes of the graphing, the year end Physical Condition is displayed based on the effects that the improvements have had on the overall condition of the road system. Figure 14.1: Performance Modeling at Various Budget Levels In reviewing the results of the performance models, it should be understood that, with the methodology being used, the trigger for a resurfacing activity is a Physical condition of 70. The existing system has an Average Physical Condition of 66.1. Deterioration curves developed by 4 Roads have been utilized for development of funding and prediction models, and based on our experience with a large cross section of municipalities and resultant feedback, we believe that those deterioration profiles are representative, if the roads are constructed to the assumed standard. 31

The models indicate that the overall condition of the ToU road system will be generally maintained at the current funding level, provided that the optimum program is adhered to. Variance from the program may result in a reduced performance. In the Capital Depreciation and Preservation funding models, not all of the funding will be spent each year once the average rises above 80. The deterioration curves that have been used consider an average/typical performance for the various road classes. When used in the model at a reasonable funding level, the overall average system condition will remain at a similar level as the model will treat the pavements as perpetual. For the purposes of shorter term plans (up to 20 years), 4 Roads believes that this does not pose a problem. The ToU has agreed upon an annual funding increase for roads that is equal to 1% of the levy. The increase will be cumulative, compounded and adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. The proposed funding level and its effect on the condition of average condition of the road system is represented by the orange line in Figure 14.1. The proposed funding level will cause an overall increase to the road system over the 50 year modeling period. 14.9 Record of Assumptions Performance Modeling 14.9.1 Pavement Classification for Modeling In order to develop budget recommendations, 4 Roads adds an additional classification of roads differentiated by surface type, roadside environment and traffic volume. It is anticipated that each road classification will deteriorate at a different rate. Differentiation by roadside environment within a classification permits calculation of the different replacement costs to reflect the servicing and feature differences. Table 14.2: Road Asset Classes Asset Class Subtype Material Roadside Envt AADT Low AADT High A/C All A/C R 1 100,000 CM1 All C/M R 1 3,000 CON All CON R 1 100,000 GST1 All G/S R 1 10,000 HCB1 All HCB R 20,000 100,000 HCB2 All HCB R 10,000 20,000 HCB3 All HCB R 1,000 10,000 HCB4 All HCB R 1 1,000 ICB All ICB S 1 3,000 LCB1 All LCB R 1 5,000 Figure 14.2 illustrates treatment selection by time and asset classes for hot mix roads. Typical treatments and/or improvements have been superimposed over the deterioration curves, to illustrate 32

the general timelines for implementing the treatments. Other road asset classes have been treated similarly. An important concept to remember is that as a road deteriorates the cost of rehabilitation increases. The deterioration curves, improvement types, current unit costs and current condition ratings are essentially the assumptions used to develop budget and programming recommendations in this report. Appendix F of the SotI Roads report provides detail on the deterioration curves for all road asset classes. Figure 14.2: Treatment Selection vs. Condition 14.10 10 Year Program Roads A Return on Investment (ROI) Performance Model scenario has been developed as the initial project selection process for the roads program. The details of the 10 year program are included in Appendix G of the 2013 State of the Infrastructure Roads Report. The overall Asset Management Plan and Financial Plan are discussed further in Section 17 of this report 33

Program Funding Recommendations Structures 15.1 Overview Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the bridge and structure inventory. Recommended funding for the structures inventory should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges. The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. 4 Roads estimates the cost to replace the structures inventory at $17,928,775. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the structures inventory. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation. 15.2 Capital Depreciation The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the ToU Bridge and Culvert structures Inventory the current standard is $17,928,775. The estimated capital depreciation is $358,575 based on a 50 year design life or $239,050 per year based on a 75 year service life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life or service life, and would best be described as an Accountaneering number. This estimate is strictly for structures over 3m span does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 m, sidewalks, or street lighting. The typical design life for a bridge or culvert structure is 50 years if constructed prior to 2000. The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the structures inventory over a 50 or 75 year life cycle. However, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as waterproofing and resurfacing and minor rehabilitations delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs. 15.3 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance After construction of a new bridge, some initial maintenance/rehabilitation efforts will have to be undertaken within 12 to 25 years to maintain the lifecycle of the structure. Generally, the pavement and bridge deck waterproofing should be replaced in the 12 to 20 year timeframe, with a deck rehabilitation being undertaken in the 25 to 35 year timeframe. Failure to follow a preventive and proactive maintenance schedule of timely repairs and rehabilitations will result in higher than expected repair costs, or worse, missing the optimum rehabilitation window completely. The following graph is from the Transportation Association of Canada s (TAC) Bridge Management Guide and illustrates what is referred to as a deterioration curve. 34

Figure 15.1: Bridge Deterioration Curve (TAC) Similar to roads, structures (mostly bridge structures require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Bridges require resurfacing, waterproofing and rehabilitation at the appropriate interval, dependent upon construction type and wearing surface. Different agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, bridge lifecycle minor and major rehabilitations are essentially a maintenance activity. Given the aforementioned, and the information with respect to structure type, the funding for the annual rehabilitation program should be approximately $195,200 per year on average, in order to maximize life expectancy from the bridge and culvert inventory this amount would be in addition to the annualized value for capital depreciation/service life. 15.4 10 Year Program Structures The Township has a 10 year program mapped out for structures. The program includes additional structures and repairs and replacements of the existing inventory. The average annual funding level is $513,000. Given that the proposed programs include additional structures, the average annual; funding will have to increase over time to address the increased funding that will be required. 35

Structures that require rehabilitation should be prioritized to the greatest extent possible in order to realize the maximum life from the structure. Asset Management Strategy 16.1 Asset Management Overview Asset management has as almost as many definitions as there are agencies that manage assets. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines asset management as... a strategic approach to managing transportation infrastructure. It focuses on business processes for resource allocation and utilization with the objective of better decision making based upon quality information and well defined objectives. The document entitled Managing Public Infrastructure Assets, 2001, prepared by AMSA, AMWA, WEF, and AWWA, defines asset management as; managing infrastructure assets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them, while continuously delivering the service levels customers desire, at an acceptable level of risk. The Province of Ontario s document Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans indicates The asset management strategy is the set of actions that, taken together, has the lowest total cost not the set of actions that each has the lowest cost individually Regardless of the source of the definition, the key themes that keep being repeated are; Managing Strategic Effective Efficient $$$$$!! Service Optimizing asset life cycle Risk Management As an absolute minimum, the objective of any asset management plan, or strategy, should be to ensure that the overall condition of an asset group does not does not diminish over time. The asset management strategy of an agency is heavily predicated, and inextricably linked to the available funding. Focus should be on a pavement management strategy that utilizes available funding on preservation and resurfacing programs as a priority. Reconstruction and replacement candidate will remain reconstruction and replacement candidates and cost increases will be incremental with inflation. Preservation and resurfacing opportunities that are missed will escalate in cost by several hundred percent depending on site specifics. 36

A similar approach should be considered for the structures inventory. However, a NOW need structure with a load restriction is a priority. Develop the financial plan in order that there is sufficient funding to maintain the condition of the asset groups. Adjust / confirm the plan and funding requirements annually. 16.2 Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating Roads Information in a database may be sorted and analyzed in numerous ways. Understanding what information a data field represents, is key to the analysis. The Inventory Manual has many rated and calculated data fields and thus provides for many ways to sort data. Some commonly used representations, or sorting of information, from the database include: Priority Rating Priority Guide Number Structural Adequacy (Condition) Priority Rating is a calculated field in the Inventory Manual, and is a function of the traffic count and the overall condition rating of the road section. This approach adds weight to the traffic count of the section. Although the word priority is included in the field name, a road section that has a higher calculated Priority Rating is not necessarily a higher priority in the broader sense of asset management. Similarly, a municipality may choose to sort the road sections based on condition and cost per vehicle. The Priority Guide Number data field would assist in providing that analysis, as sorting on that parameter would prioritize road sections that have higher traffic and thus a lower cost per vehicle. Developing a road capital program around the Priority Rating or Priority Guide Number fields will likely result in programming that would lead to more rapid and widespread deterioration of the overall road system, as road sections with high traffic and in poor condition would be selected first, as opposed to selecting the best rehabilitation candidates at the appropriate time in their life cycles. The exception to this statement would be cases where rehabilitation funding is at a high enough level to ensure that the preservation program requirements can be met. From a more current asset management perspective, project selection should be predicated by condition. (Structural Adequacy or PCI). Figure 16.1 clearly illustrates the financial advantages of managing the road system by performing the right treatment at the right time of the asset life cycle. If appropriate strategies are not undertaken at the correct time, there is a less effective usage of the available funding. Similar concepts may be applied to the structures inventory and other most assets 37

Figure 16.1: Treatment Cost vs. Deterioration If an agency s budget is fully funded, the programming will include reconstruction, resurfacing, and preservation programs. Prioritization within the different programs will vary as demands are different. However, within the resurfacing and preservation programs, the pavement condition should drive the decision making. Where funding is limited, resurfacing and preservation programs should be prioritized over the construction program. The effect of this approach will be that NOW need roads will remain NOW needs. However, by virtue of their NOW need condition, NOW need roads will require increased maintenance and likely generate increased complaints from the driving public. To deal with this eventuality, a municipality should create a maintenance paving budget, over and above the resurfacing budget. The purpose of this budget is to defer the reconstruction needs, and reduce maintenance efforts and complaints until the road can be reconstructed. For structures, resurfacing and bridge deck waterproofing and rehabilitations offer a very good return on investment. When bridge structures are rehabilitated the opportunity to convert the structure to an integral or semi integral structure will improve performance of over the longer term. 16.3 Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization Prioritizing projects from a purely asset management perspective is a relatively straightforward exercise, regardless of funding level. Complications arise when the specific needs, commitments of the agency, and priorities of other utilities factor into the decision making process. 38

The road system is, in reality, a utility corridor. Multiple utilities in both urban and rural roadside environments will present conflicting demands and priorities in advancing projects. The Road Needs Study provides ratings that deal strictly with the condition of various factors as they relate to the road section. Those factors have to be considered in conjunction with needs and priorities that may exist for other utilities or pending development. In fact, the condition of other infrastructure within the road allowance may be the key element in the prioritization. For example, a road rated as a reconstruction project may have a relatively low priority rating, but a trunk storm sewer servicing a greater area may require immediate installation. The priority of the road is then dictated by the other utility, and should be integrated into the capital plan, to best serve all interests. Less tangible priorities may also be project prioritization tools for some agencies. For example, an agency may want to advance projects that also include bus routes or bike lanes. As a municipal road program is developed, opportunities to complete work on smaller sections adjacent to the main project, at a lesser cost than if completed as a stand alone project, should be considered to realize economies of scale, and complete improvements that may otherwise be passed over. 16.4 Asset Management Strategy Notwithstanding the need for program development to include cross asset integration, for the foreseeable future the Township of Uxbridge program should; Focus on those assets that are in a condition range that will benefit from preservation, maintenance and resurfacing treatments and Explore alternatives for additional funding such as o Increase the levy contribution for road infrastructure o User fees o Grant funding o Local improvements 39

Financial Strategy and Plan 17.1 Financial Plan Overview The financial plan/strategy is integral to the asset management plan. The 2013 SotI (4 Roads) identified that current funding level was at approximately the same level as the recommendation for the preservation budget for the road system. The overall condition of the system was above the minimum target set by the province when prior to the removal of conditional grants in the mid 1990 s. It would seem reasonable then, that budget level is adequate to sustain the road system. 4 Roads is advised that there will be a dedicated increase for road assets at the rate of 1% of the tax levy per year (compounded and adjusted for inflation) for the foreseeable future. The 2013 Structures Report (AECOM) and the 2012 ESR (SRM) identified an annualized cost for the structures inventory The ToU s current average annual budget for structures exceeds the annualized cost identified in the 2013 Structures report which appears to be based on a 75 year service life, however is falls short of the amount required based on a 50 year design life. Currently, the TOU has budgeted an average of $513,600 annually for structures over the next 10 years. This funding essentially addresses the needs of the structures inventory with the exception of the replacements of culverts 315 Sections one through 9. The total funding for the two asset groups included in this report appears to be at a sustainable level, with the exception of Culvert 315. Culvert 315 poses a significant impact to the ToU from both functional and financial perspectives. As such, the thrust of the AMP has to be to develop funding for the replacement of Culvert 315. The funding gap is significant, which leaves few alternatives other than debt financing and provincial assistance. 4 Roads understands that currently, the Town of Uxbridge is debt free therefore there should be sufficient borrowing capacity to debenture the replacement cost. From the ESR, the gross cost of Culvert 315 replacement is $10,000,000. It is anticipated that the Region s share would be $2,500,000, leaving Uxbridge with $7,500,000. The recommendation is to finance Uxbridge s share through a debenture. Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20 year payback period, the annual debt repayment is $602,000. An additional $602,000 annually is a significant increase to the Township s budget. The projected is likely to be under construction five or more years from now. It is recommended that the annual contribution to reserve for Culvert 315 be increased over the next five years until it reaches the debt repayment level. Once the project enters the construction phase the debt would be incurred and the annual charge would become debt repayment instead of a contribution to reserve. Asset management strategies (AMS) are critical to managing the performance of an asset group, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. For roads, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to keep the good roads good. Similarly for structures, the best return on investment is in timely replacement of the bridge deck wearing surface, waterproofing, expansion joints and minor rehabilitations. 40

17.2 Asset Management Plan / Financial Plan Decision Matrix The provincial guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans suggests that the detailed plan review Non Infrastructure Solutions Maintenance Activities Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities Replacement Activities Disposal Activities Expansion Activities The ToU considers that an AMP is a dynamic document and will remain in a continuing state of evolution. As condition ratings, technology, site specific circumstances and funding levels change, the asset management plan will also. With respect to the above noted, the ToU will integrate those considerations as identified in the following discussion. 17.2.1 Non Infrastructure Solutions The ToU adheres to the Class Environmental Assessment regulation when considering the advancement of projects as part of its standard service delivery practice. The Class EA provides for public notification and involvement and further requires the consideration and analysis of alternatives, as the final solution. Alternatives include analysis of whether an asset is still required and/or required for the same function and purpose. 17.2.2 Maintenance Activities and Renewal / Rehabilitation Activities Maintenance and renewal /rehabilitation activities have been combined for this discussions as definitions can vary between agencies and may be a reflection of a cost threshold rather than the nature of the activity. For development of appropriate funding levels, and system performance at varying funding levels, the ToU uses Worktech Asset Manager Foundation. The software s performance modeling capabilities have been used to develop the initial program recommendations and provide information on the longer term effect on the overall road system. Essentially, the model will provide a recommended treatment based on Return on Investment, current or projected condition of each asset, current recommendation, and current funding level. The analysis is based on the current unit costs for activities and the anticipated effect on the asset if the treatment is applied. Appendix F provides additional detail on the model. Maintenance and renewal/rehabilitation activities for road assets include crack sealing, slurry sealing/ Microsurfacing renewal of the surface wearing course. Rehabilitation activities include Removal and replacement of all asphalt, including minor drainage improvements 41

New technologies may be used in lieu of replacement of both layers of asphalt, such as cold in place recycling, or expanded asphalt Maintenance and renewal/ rehabilitation activities for structure assets include Crack sealing Pave and waterproofing the bridge deck Minor rehabilitations, expansion joint replacement Rehabilitation activities for structures would include Deck and soffit rehabilitation integrated with a renewal of the wearing course and waterproofing Superstructure rehabilitations 17.2.3 Replacement Activities Replacement activities are distinctly different for the roads and structures asset groups; A bridge or culvert structure will have to be removed completely and replaced whereas there is usually some element of the road asset that may be salvageable. 17.2.4 Disposal Activities As noted in 17.2.3 there is a distinct difference between road and structure assets in terms of disposal. The disposal of a road cannot be accomplished in the same manner as a piece of equipment; the road allowance is the road allowance and even as rehabilitation occurs, the road is never totally removed and rarely closed completely. Structure disposal is complete at the end of the service life. 17.2.5 Expansion Activities In concert with the non infrastructure solutions, expansion requirements will be a consideration in the final project detail. The ToU will consider the Official Plan as an element of any project going forward. The Official plan may indicate a growth potential in the twenty to twenty five year planning horizon and this will be incorporated into the final decision at the project level on a site specific basis. The ToU has very limited expansion potential due to its location in the Green Belt. 17.2.6 Funding Sources Going forward, the ToU will consider all funding options in order to maintain and enhance the overall condition of the asset groups. Funding sources will include debentures, capital reserves, operating budgets, gas tax and grants. 17.3 Asset/ Financial Plan The ToU AMP will based on building the annual funding level to the Preservation budget level for road assets over a 50 period. Table 17.1 provides an overview of the programming and the funding for the 10 year Asset Management Plan. 42

Table 17.1: Proposed AMP and Funding 10 Year Roads, Bridges and Culverts Management Plan Roads Imp.Type 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total BS 33,792 120,252 298,262 1,287,455 565,560 231,430 2,536,751 CRK 57,622 40,770 792 16,574 45,263 58,371 56,556 8,198 17,325 15,226 316,697 DST 27,528 27,528 GRR 741,280 741,280 GRR2 1,186,614 1,144,746 513,100 18,790 939,459 1,750,356 142,394 131,557 5,827,016 MICRO 6,375 28,776 64,260 30,225 122,667 9,591 261,894 PR2 1,709,757 450,875 108,195 196,826 243,460 169,115 2,878,228 PR2+ 213,428 213,428 R1 19,910 425,463 309,471 1,093,080 864,217 184,383 310,000 87,437 1,013,799 760,680 5,068,440 R1+ 121,841 256,892 18,002 251,370 648,105 R2 663,629 409,297 134,746 1,207,672 RM 386,103 121,385 507,488 RNS 243,611 178,238 421,849 SST 21,450 21,450 SSTplus 157,367 227,130 37,290 421,787 Dedicated Increase 90,000 180,000 270,000 360,000 450,000 540,000 630,000 720,000 810,000 4,050,000 Sub Total Roads 2,158,084 2,193,722 2,284,940 2,374,000 2,464,821 2,555,665 2,644,387 2,733,346 2,825,356 2,915,292 25,149,613 Bridges and Culverts 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 C 00000A Brookdale Road 50,000 350,000 400,000 C00218 Conc 6 Culvert 120,000 120,000 South Townline 40,000 40,000 Meyers Road 500,000 500,000 Conc 3 (N of RR8) 50,000 300,000 350,000 Weirs Road 40,000 500,000 540,000 Conc 5 (S of Ravenshoe) 500,000 500,000 Davis Drive 50,000 500,000 550,000 Proposed Additional Funding 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 410,400 C315 Brock St. Culvert (to reserve or debt repayment) 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 602,000 4,510,000 Sub Total Bridges and Culverts 310,000 595,600 895,600 785,600 1,045,600 1,197,600 1,147,600 647,600 647,600 647,600 7,920,400 Grand Total 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Funding Sources / Financial Plan Capital Budget / Reserve Operating Budget 2,423,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 Reserves 45,000 Debentures Grants Other Total Funding 2,468,084 2,789,322 3,180,540 3,159,600 3,510,421 3,753,265 3,791,987 3,380,946 3,472,956 3,562,892 33,070,013 43

Recommendations In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the road and structures inventories; 1. The Township should develop an Asset Management Policy that may be adapted to all assets as plans for the other assets are developed. 2. The cycle for review of the road system should be continued, reviewing the entire system on a maximum four year cycle. 3. The cycle for review of the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire inventory on a two year cycle. 4. Culvert 315 replacement should be financed through debenture. 5. The annual contribution level for the debt repayment should be increased annually from 2015 to 2019 by $100,000 annually, reaching $602,000 per year in 2019. 6. The average annual contribution for the structures should be increased to $553,800 based on a 50 year design life. 7. Additional debenture financing may be required for the remainder of the structures inventory. 8. Capital reserves should be established for the road and structure assets. 9. The asset management plan should be reviewed and revised annually from both condition and financial perspectives. 10. Programming for roads should be reviewed to ensure that resurfacing and preservation programs are optimized. 11. Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation and other service life extension treatments are optimized. 12. Traffic counts should be updated and repeated on a regular basis. The counting should include the percentage of truck traffic. 13. Some consideration should be given to development of a GIS based mapping system, linked to the asset databases 14. The gravel road conversion program should be continued. 44

Appendix A: 10 Year Plan for Roads

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2014 3278 Bolton Drive Quaker Village Drive to Rachel Lee Court CRK $ 297 85 85 2 2014 3390 Oakside Drive Center Road to Apple Tree Crescent CRK $ 653 85 85 2 2014 3392 Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Apple Tree Crescent CRK $ 772 85 85 2 2014 3150 Railway Street Brock Street to Albert Street CRK $ 198 85 85 2 2014 2104 Davis Drive 6th Conc. Road to 1.2 km East PR2+ $ 27,046 25 100 2014 2150 Oxtoby Lane Avonlea Road to Harrison Drive PR2+ $ 9,500 25 100 2014 2146 Scott Court Harrison Drive to South End PR2+ $ 2,325 25 100 2014 2106 Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.7 km West PR2+ $ 15,777 30 100 2014 2130 Foster Drive Regional Road 1 to Mayfair Drive PR2+ $ 31,553 30 100 2014 3388 Maple Brook Drive Main Street North to Maple Brook Drive CRK $ 475 95 95 2 2014 3146 Balsam Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent CRK $ 1,129 90 90 2 2014 3242 Fourth Avenue North Remion Crescent to Barton Lane CRK $ 416 90 90 2 2014 3186 Fourth Avenue North Brock Street to Remion Crescent CRK $ 297 90 90 2 2014 3220 Balsam Street S. Regional Road 8 to McGuire Crescent CRK $ 1,129 90 90 2 2014 3394 Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Ash Green Lane CRK $ 238 90 90 2 2014 2116 Ashworth Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road PR2+ $ 45,548 35 100 2014 2078 Whitney Road Acton Road to Wagners Road PR2+ $ 11,563 30 100 2014 3274 Welwood Drive Toronto Street South to East End CRK $ 475 95 95 2 2014 1047 3rd Conc. Road 1.0 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Feasby Road PR2+ $ 22,538 35 100 2014 3218 Quaker Village Drive Regional Road 8 to Bolton Drive CRK $ 1,584 85 85 2 2014 2016 3rd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road PR2+ $ 47,578 55 100 2014 3102 Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West CRK $ 1,841 75 75 2 2014 3247 Herrema Boulevard Barton Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ 495 85 85 2 2014 3226 McQuire Crescent Balsam Street S. to Balsam Street S. CRK $ 653 85 85 2 2014 1141 Deer Ridge Road Regional Road No. 21 to South End CRK $ 1,802 85 85 2 2014 1212 Foxfire Chase Deer Run to Oakview Place CRK $ 1,188 85 85 2 2014 3170 Dominion Street Main Street to Second Avenue CRK $ 495 85 85 2 2014 3268 James Street 0.20 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court CRK $ 119 85 85 2 2014 1204 Anderson Boulevard Sangster Road to Paisley Road CRK $ 1,901 85 85 2 2014 1206 Sangster Road Anderson Boulevard to North End CRK $ 653 85 85 2 2014 3272 Harman Court Quaker Village Drive to West End CRK $ 79 85 85 2 2014 3061 Wilson Street James Street to 0.1km West CRK $ 198 85 85 2 2014 3178 Gould Street First Avenue to 0.1 km West CRK $ 99 85 85 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2014 3270 Isaac Court Joseph Street to West End CRK $ 396 85 85 2 2014 3200 Maple Street Centre Road to Byam Place CRK $ 218 85 85 2 2014 2138 Hilda Avenue Mayfair Drive to 0.1 km West CRK $ 416 80 80 2 2014 2149 Avonlea Road 0.4 km East to 0.4km East to Cul du Sac CRK $ 554 80 80 2 2014 1024 Mill Run Gate Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 1,980 80 80 2 2014 3054 Joseph Street Mill Street to 0.11 km South of Wilson St. CRK $ 436 80 80 2 2014 3144 Beech Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent CRK $ 535 80 80 2 2014 3230 Colonel Sharpe Cres. Milne Court to Quaker Village Drive CRK $ 851 80 80 2 2014 1033 Lapier Street 0.24m North of Hwy. 47 to 3rd Conc. CRK $ 1,129 80 80 2 2014 3164 Maple Street Ash Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ 257 80 80 2 2014 1210 Paisley Lane Anderson Boulevard to North End CRK $ 653 80 80 2 2014 2056 6th Conc. Road Davis Drive to Regional Road 11 SSTplus $ 76,007 55 90 2014 2069 Birdie Smith Court Bagshaw Crescent to North Cul de sac CRK $ 1,584 80 80 2 2014 3028 Parkside Drive Marietta Street to Franklin Street CRK $ 277 80 80 2 2014 3232 Byam Place Maple Street to West End CRK $ 297 80 80 2 2014 3143 South Cedar Brock Street to 0.15m South of Brock Steet CRK $ 218 80 80 2 2014 3116 Young Street Centre Road to Main Street CRK $ 2,079 90 90 2 2014 1156 Reid Road 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 SSTplus $ 81,360 60 90 2014 3280 Bolton Drive Rachel Lee Court to Concession 6 CRK $ 1,188 90 90 2 2014 3158 Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street CRK $ 337 75 75 2 2014 3197 Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End CRK $ 158 75 75 2 2014 3122 Third Street Jonathan Street to Young Street CRK $ 257 85 85 2 2014 3263 Confederation Drive Button Crescent to Joseph Street CRK $ 733 95 95 2 2014 3384 Geo Isatt Drive Norm Goodspeed Drive to Meadows End Crescent CRK $ 337 95 95 2 2014 3042 Poplar Street Toronto Street South to Centennial Park Road CRK $ 198 80 80 2 2014 3346 Second Avenue Barton Lane to Rosena Lane CRK $ 178 95 95 2 2014 3240 Third Avenue North Dominion Street to Barton Lane CRK $ 396 95 95 2 2014 3339 Russell Barton Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ 495 95 95 2 2014 3344 Second Avenue Rosena Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ 212 95 95 2 2014 3062 Church Street Brock St. to Toronto Street South CRK $ 356 80 80 2 2014 2067 Bagshaw Crescent Durham Regional 1 to 140m West CRK $ 277 85 85 2 2014 2025 Lundy Drive Taylor Drive to Regional Road 11 CRK $ 1,010 85 85 2 2014 3246 Herrema Boulevard Donland Lane to Barton Lane CRK $ 495 85 85 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2014 1080 6th Conc. Road Wagg Road to Old Stouffville Road PR2 $ 283,824 10 100 2014 2108 Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 23 PR2 $ 422,641 15 100 2014 1202 Anderson Boulevard Regional Road 30 to Sangster Road CRK $ 337 90 90 2 2014 1062 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 1.5 km North PR2 $ 247,004 15 100 2014 2158 Zephyr Road West Limit of Zephyr to Regional Road 39 PR2 $ 150,455 20 100 2014 2102 Davis Drive 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road PR2 $ 355,407 15 100 2014 2144 Harrison Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 13 PR2 $ 120,411 25 100 2014 1040 3rd Conc. Road Wagg Road to 0.6 km North PR2 $ 98,801 25 100 2014 2152 Cooks Drive Oxtoby Lane to Avonlea Road R1 $ 19,910 55 97 2014 2082 Wagners Road Whitney Road to 0.2 km South PR2 $ 31,214 15 100 2014 1193 Foxfire Chase Oakview Place to Brookdale Road CRK $ 1,584 90 90 2 2014 1195 Oakview Place Foxfire Chase to West End CRK $ 792 90 90 2 2014 1214 Deer Run Foxfire Chase to West End CRK $ 990 90 90 2 2014 1216 Foxfire Chase 8th Conc. Rd. to Deer Run CRK $ 990 90 90 2 2014 1220 Brookdale Road Brookdale Road to Lake Ridge Road CRK $ 693 90 90 2 2014 3129 Maple Street Cedar Street to Latcham Court CRK $ 455 90 90 2 2014 3156 Albert Street Railway Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ 495 90 90 2 2014 3222a Widdlefield Drive ( to ) Wheler Court to West End CRK $ 301 90 90 2 2014 3276 Rachel Lee Court Bolton Drive to South End CRK $ 297 90 90 2 2014 3284 Galloway Crescent Bolton Drive to End of street CRK $ 772 90 90 2 2014 3132 King Street West Cedar Street to Victoria Street CRK $ 554 90 90 2 2014 3137 Latcham Court Maple Street to North End CRK $ 119 90 90 2 2014 3202 Willis Place Maple Street to 0.15 km South CRK $ 297 90 90 2 2014 3221 Turner Drive Balsam Street S. to West End CRK $ 495 90 90 2 2014 3236 Barton Lane Herrema Boulevard to Second Avenue CRK $ 931 90 90 2 2014 3238 Glenn Gould Crescent Barton Lane to Third Avenue North CRK $ 317 90 90 2 2014 3252 Nation Court Herrema Boulevard to West End CRK $ 184 90 90 2 2014 3264 Forsythe Drive South Balsam Street to South End CRK $ 238 90 90 2 2014 3286 Alsop Place Bolton Drive to End of street CRK $ 792 90 90 2 2014 3290 Fourth Avenue North Barton Lane to Bolster Lane CRK $ 337 90 90 2 2014 3333 Rosena Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ 574 90 90 2 2014 3336 Bolster Lane Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ 515 90 90 2 2014 3338 Russell Barton Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ 416 90 90 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2014 3340 Cosmos Avenue Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ 475 90 90 2 2014 3342 Second Avenue Bolster Lane to Russell Barton Lane CRK $ 208 90 90 2 2014 3386 Meadows End Crescent Balsam Street S. to Meadows End Crescent CRK $ 881 90 90 2 2014 3398 Apple Tree Crescent Oakside Drive to Oakside Drive CRK $ 792 90 90 2 2014 3400 Ash Green Lane Oakside Drive to North Street CRK $ 713 90 90 2 2014 1066 5th Conc. Road OBeirn Road to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 3,366 95 95 2 2014 3334 Bolster Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ 455 90 90 2 2014 3110 North Street Centre Road to Ash Green Road CRK $ 1,564 95 95 2 $ 2,158,084

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2015 3152 Railway Street Albert Street to Spruce Street CRK $ 257 79.56 79.56 2 2015 1098 7th Conc. Road Regional Road 21 to Wagg Road CRK $ 3,960 92.95 92.95 2 2015 1099 7th Conc. Road Wagg Road to 1.4 km North of Wagg CRK $ 2,772 92.95 92.95 2 2015 1160 Wagg Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 4,158 79.27 79.27 2 2015 1052 4th Conc. Road Webb Road to 3.3km North of Webb Road CRK $ 6,534 79.27 79.27 2 2015 1058 4th Conc. Road Wagg Road to OBeirn Road CRK $ 3,960 83.76 83.76 2 2015 2068 Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle CRK $ 1,525 74.49 74.49 2 2015 3099 Gooseberry Lane Sandy Hook Road to South End CRK $ 693 89.73 89.73 2 2015 3184 Third Avenue North Dominion Street to Brock Street East CRK $ 436 89.73 89.73 2 2015 3136 Victoria Street Brock Street to King Street West CRK $ 436 89.73 89.73 2 2015 3262 Confederation Drive Joseph Street to Elgin Park Road CRK $ 139 99.44 99.44 2 2015 1054 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 CRK $ 1,980 94.55 94.55 2 2015 1104 Wagg Road 8th Concession Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 594 94.55 94.55 2 2015 2114 Ashworth Road 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road CRK $ 3,762 94.55 94.55 2 2015 2060 6th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 2.4 km North CRK $ 4,752 94.55 94.55 2 2015 1189 OBeirn Road 5th Conc. Road to Hwy. 47 CRK $ 594 94.55 94.55 2 2015 3300 Nelkydd Lane Brock Street East to Planks Lane CRK $ 396 89.73 89.73 2 2015 3302 Nelkydd Lane Planks Lane to Furlan Court CRK $ 495 89.73 89.73 2 2015 1192 Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18,842 38.77 58.77 2015 2142 Leaskdale Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80,000 57.75 77.75 2015 2012 2nd Conc. Road Zephyr Road to Leitch Road GRR2 $ 77,220 57.75 77.75 2015 2048 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to 1.5km South of Regional Road 13 GRR2 $ 57,915 57.75 77.75 2015 2122 Hollingers Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 81,081 57.75 77.75 2015 2141 Meyers Road 3th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 74,903 57.75 77.75 2015 2166 Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34,749 57.75 77.75 2015 2170 Leitch Road 2nd Conc. Road to Regional Road 39 GRR2 $ 81,081 57.75 77.75 2015 2126 Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20,077 38.77 58.77 2015 1008 Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16,988 38.77 58.77 2015 1092 7th Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Chalk Lake Road GRR2 $ 85,405 57.75 77.75 2015 1102 8th Conc. Road Reid Road to Wagg Road GRR2 $ 56,937 57.75 77.75 2015 2054 5th Conc. Road Brewester Road to York Road 32 GRR2 $ 78,250 57.75 77.75 2015 1184 Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3,861 38.77 58.77 2015 1190 Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96,525 38.77 58.77

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2015 1012 2nd Conc. Road 0.4 km N. of Pickering T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 74,389 57.75 77.75 2015 2042 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76,190 38.77 58.77 2015 1064 4th Conc. Road 1.5 km N. of Reg. Rd. 8 to Davis Drive PR2 $ 214,070 24.98 100 2015 2006 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18,533 38.77 58.77 2015 3048 Mill Street Toronto Street to Bascom Street R1 $ 121,086 59.32 97 2015 2065 6th Conc. Road 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 to Regional Road 13 PR2 $ 82,335 24.9 100 2015 3312 Brownscombe Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Nelkydd Lane CRK $ 673 94.55 94.55 2 2015 3033 Planks Lane 0.2 km East of Third Street to Nelkydd Lane CRK $ 337 94.55 94.55 2 2015 2120 Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76,448 38.77 58.77 2015 2070 Nicholson Drive York Road 32 to 0.7 km South R1 $ 60,292 52 97 2015 3188 O'neil Road Ganton Road to Regional Road 23 GRR2 $ 73,205 57.75 77.75 2015 3192 Ganton Road ONeal Road to Regional Road 23 PR2 $ 63,302 15 100 2015 3050 Mill Street Bascom Street to Main Street R1 $ 21,041 59.32 97 2015 2178 Kester Lane Regional Road No. 39 to Zephyr Road CRK $ 1,683 89.73 89.73 2 2015 2040 4th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4,015 38.77 58.77 2015 3124 Fifth Street Jonathan Street to Young Street PR2 $ 22,362 34.97 100 2015 3207 Enzo Crescent Testa Road to Testa Road R1 $ 169,404 59.1 97 2015 3209 St. Johns Court Enzo Crescent to South End R1 $ 42,351 59.1 97 2015 1090 Hillborne Drive Silver Spring Crescent to North End PR2 $ 68,806 39.27 100 2015 2140 Meyers Road Regional Road 39 to 3th Conc. Road R1 $ 11,289 64.32 97 2015 3162 Ash Street King Street East to Maple Street CRK $ 238 77.69 77.69 2 2015 3004 Crosby Street 7th Concession Road to 0.2 km West CRK $ 396 77.69 77.69 2 $ 2,103,722

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2016 3154 King Street East Spruce Street to Toronto Street North CRK $ 396 81.56 81.56 2 2016 2152 Cooks Drive Oxtoby Lane to Avonlea Road CRK $ 396 95.86 95.86 2 2016 1118 Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR2 $ 32,432 65.7 85.7 2016 2007 2nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR2 $ 32,432 65.7 85.7 2016 2072 8th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR2 $ 85,251 65.7 85.7 2016 1127 Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR2 $ 56,371 65.7 85.7 2016 2052 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 75,161 65.7 85.7 2016 2110 Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR2 $ 41,338 65.7 85.7 2016 2093 Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR2 $ 10,667 65.7 85.7 2016 1073 6th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR2 $ 63,707 65.7 85.7 2016 1176 Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34,749 65.7 85.7 2016 1186 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR2 $ 30,888 65.7 85.7 2016 1218 8th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR2 $ 7,722 65.7 85.7 2016 2092 Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 57,915 65.7 85.7 2016 2118 Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80,309 65.7 85.7 2016 2176 Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 92,355 65.7 85.7 2016 2156 Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR2 $ 48,803 65.7 85.7 2016 1188 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 94,723 65.7 85.7 2016 2172 Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 78,250 65.7 85.7 2016 1140 Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR2 $ 8,443 65.7 85.7 2016 2038 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 84,427 65.7 85.7 2016 2154 Zephyr Road ( to ) 2nd Conc. Road to Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L GRR2 $ 105,946 65.7 85.7 2016 1068 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 0.5 km South GRR2 $ 22,857 65.7 85.7 2016 1205 Anderson Boulevard Paisley Road to 0.76m East RM $ 386,103 23.85 100 2016 2020 3rd Conc. Road Hollingers Road to Regional Road 39 R1 $ 201,074 61.71 97 2016 3208 Testa Road Ontario Street to Reach Street R1 $ 46,305 56.54 97 2016 2074 Acton Road Deerfoot Drive to Whitney Road R1+ $ 36,210 51.35 97 2016 2084 Acton Road Brock Conc. 2 to 0.5km South PR2 $ 73,307 27.75 100 2016 3076 Perry Street Victoria Drive to 0.2 km West PR2 $ 34,888 37.07 100 2016 3205 Testa Road Enzo Crescent to Enzo Crescent R1 $ 62,092 56.5 97 2016 1022 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.7km North of Regional Road 8 R1+ $ 85,631 51.35 97 2016 2087 Pilkey Road Ruddy Drive to South End BS $ 33,792 10 95

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold $ 2,104,940

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2017 3216 Bolton Drive Centre Road to Quaker Village Drive CRK $ 693 87.88 87.88 2 2017 3096 Lormik Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.2 km West CRK $ 396 79.27 79.27 2 2017 3022 Franklin Street Planks Lane to Reach Street CRK $ 713 79.27 79.27 2 2017 3130A Jonathan Street ( to ) Carmody Lane to West End CRK $ 178 83.76 83.76 2 2017 3224 Wheler Court Widdlefield Drive to South End CRK $ 317 83.76 83.76 2 2017 3248 Herrema Boulevard Bolster Lane to Cosmos Avenue CRK $ 515 89.73 89.73 2 2017 3214 Carmody Lane Symes Street to Bolton Drive CRK $ 277 89.73 89.73 2 2017 3210 Carmody Lane Centre Road to Symes Street CRK $ 483 89.73 89.73 2 2017 3212 Symes Street Carmody Lane to Centre Road CRK $ 198 89.73 89.73 2 2017 3020 Franklin Street Brock Street East to Planks Lane CRK $ 416 89.73 89.73 2 2017 3267 Joseph Street Isaac Court to Confederation Drive CRK $ 1,010 94.55 94.55 2 2017 3254 Low Boulevard Fourth Avenue North to Herrema Boulevard CRK $ 273 94.55 94.55 2 2017 3316 Caseton Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Coral Creek Crescent CRK $ 396 94.55 94.55 2 2017 3133 Pine Street King Street West to Maple Street CRK $ 238 94.55 94.55 2 2017 3135 Pine Street Maple Street to North End CRK $ 119 94.55 94.55 2 2017 3207 Enzo Crescent Testa Road to Testa Road CRK $ 1,188 95.86 95.86 2 2017 3209 St. Johns Court Enzo Crescent to South End CRK $ 297 95.86 95.86 2 2017 2027 Smith Drive 250 m South of Regional Road 11 to South End CRK $ 693 89.73 89.73 2 2017 1038 3rd Conc. Road Train Tracks to Wagg Road CRK $ 2,970 94.55 94.55 2 2017 2032 4th Conc. Road North Limit of Sandford to Ashworth Road CRK $ 3,564 94.55 94.55 2 2017 2140 Meyers Road Regional Road 39 to 3th Conc. Road CRK $ 234 95.86 95.86 2 2017 1192 Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18,842 57.75 77.75 2017 2126 Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20,077 57.75 77.75 2017 1008 Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16,988 57.75 77.75 2017 1184 Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3,861 57.75 77.75 2017 1190 Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96,525 57.75 77.75 2017 2042 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76,190 57.75 77.75 2017 2006 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18,533 57.75 77.75 2017 1026 3rd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 97,297 57.75 77.75 2017 2120 Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76,448 57.75 77.75 2017 2040 4th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4,015 57.75 77.75 2017 2044 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84,324 38.77 58.77 2017 2062 6th Conc. Road 2.4 km North of Ashworth Road to Leaskdale Road R1+ $ 183,494 48.82 97

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2017 3079 Campbell Drive 0.15 km W. of Toronto St. to Calming Circle R1 $ 202,199 62.14 97 2017 2076 Deerfoot Drive Acton Road to 0.4 km West PR2 $ 68,806 39.27 100 2017 2034 4th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 3.25km North of Ashworth Road R1 $ 300,033 64.32 97 2017 2064 6th Conc. Road Leaskdale Road to 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 R1 $ 175,754 64.32 97 2017 1128 Chalk Lake Road 1.5 km East of 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 R1 $ 57,283 64.32 97 2017 3026 Marietta Street Planks lane to Brock Street East R1 $ 54,125 64.32 97 2017 2018 3rd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to Hollingers Road R1 $ 195,053 64.32 97 2017 3194 Hamilton Street Regional Road 8 to Munro Crescent R1 $ 51,577 56.54 97 2017 1037 Goodwood Street Lapier Street to 0.27m East PR2 $ 47,244 31.1 100 2017 1033a Lapier Street ( to ) Goodwood Street to 3rd Conc. Road R1 $ 49,106 64.32 97 2017 1100 7th Conc. Road 1.4 km North of Wagg to Brookdale Road R1+ $ 73,398 56.54 97 2017 2026 Smith Drive Regional Road 11 to 250 m South PR2 $ 43,745 31.1 100 2017 2021 Taylor Drive 4th Conc. Road to Lundy Drive CRK $ 1,406 77.69 77.69 2 2017 3103 Centre Road 0.85km South of Ball Road to 0.18km South of Ball Road DST $ 27,528 80.43 90 2017 3034 New Street Third Street to 0.1 km East PR2 $ 14,898 34.97 100 2017 3106 Fourth Street Young Street to North Street PR2 $ 22,133 34.97 100 2017 2085 Ruddy Drive Acton Road to Pilkey Road R1 $ 7,950 64.32 97 $ 2,104,000

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2018 3048 Mill Street Toronto Street to Bascom Street CRK $ 891 92.95 92.95 2 2018 3050 Mill Street Bascom Street to Main Street CRK $ 158 92.95 92.95 2 2018 3205 Testa Road Enzo Crescent to Enzo Crescent CRK $ 396 95.86 95.86 2 2018 3064 Peel Street Toronto Street to Victoria Drive CRK $ 139 92.95 92.95 2 2018 2029 Moore Street 4th Conc. Road to Smith Drive CRK $ 317 81.56 81.56 2 2018 2074 Acton Road Deerfoot Drive to Whitney Road CRK $ 594 95.86 95.86 2 2018 1022 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.7km North of Regional Road 8 CRK $ 1,386 95.86 95.86 2 2018 2020 3rd Conc. Road Hollingers Road to Regional Road 39 CRK $ 4,356 95.86 95.86 2 2018 1016 2nd Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 5,148 97 97 2 2018 1018 2nd Conc. Road Wagg Road to Wees Road CRK $ 4,158 97 97 2 2018 1122 Webb Road 1.0 km East of 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 1,980 97 97 2 2018 1020 2nd Conc. Road Wees Road to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 4,356 97 97 2 2018 1166 Old Hwy. 47 Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 2,178 97 97 2 2018 1056 4th Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Wagg Road CRK $ 1,980 97 97 2 2018 2030 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to North Limit of Sandford CRK $ 792 97 97 2 2018 1200 Ball Road 6th Conc. Road to 0,5 km West GRR2 $ 18,790 65.7 85.7 2018 2094 Davis Drive Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 2nd Conc. Road CRK $ 4,158 97 97 2 2018 2096 Davis Drive 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 3,762 97 97 2 2018 1120 Webb Road Whitchurch Stouffville T/L to 2nd Conc. Road CRK $ 4,158 97 97 2 2018 1028 3rd Conc. Road Webb Road to Secord Road CRK $ 3,960 97 97 2 2018 2087 Pilkey Road Ruddy Drive to South End CRK $ 396 94.55 94.55 2 2018 1116 Pickering/Uxbridge T/L Regional Road 1 to 6th Conc. Road SST $ 21,450 77.27 77.27 3 2018 3195 Munro Crescent Hamilton Drive to Ewin Drive (West) R1 $ 109,765 61.71 97 2018 3196 Munro Crescent Hamilton Street to Ewen Drive(East) R1 $ 189,168 59.32 97 2018 3166 Toronto Street North Albert Street to Durham Region # 1 R1 $ 115,520 59.32 97 2018 3009 Marion Drive 0.12 km S. of Bell St. to East St. R1 $ 53,645 61.71 97 2018 3012 East Street 0.2 km S. of Reach Street to Marion Drive R1 $ 19,764 61.71 97 2018 3024 Marietta Street Parkside Drive to Planks Lane R1 $ 62,115 61.71 97 2018 3198 Ewen Drive Munro Crescent to West End R1 $ 127,053 61.71 97 2018 3206 Ontario Street Munro Crescent to Testa Road R1 $ 45,174 61.71 97 2018 3222 Widdlefield Drive Quaker Village Drive to Wheler Court R1 $ 28,234 61.71 97 2018 3228 Milne Court Widdlefield Drive to North End R1 $ 45,174 61.71 97 2018 1208 Paisley Lane Hwy. No. 47 to Anderson Boulevard RM $ 121,385 22.73 100

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2018 2112 Ashworth Road Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 3rd Conc. Road R2 $ 663,629 41.55 100 2018 3190 O'Neil Road Hwy. 47 to Ganton Road BS $ 120,252 5 95 2018 1088 Silver Spring Cresent 6th Conc. Road to Silver Spring Crescent PR2 $ 201,465 32.98 100 2018 1035 Lapier Street Highway 47 to 0.24m North PR2 $ 41,995 37.07 100 2018 3082 Kirton Court Cemetery Road to South End R1 $ 14,919 61.71 97 2018 3078 Campbell Drive Toronto St. to 0.15 km West R1 $ 53,686 59.32 97 2018 3158 Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street MICRO $ 4,335 72 72 3 2018 3197 Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End MICRO $ 2,040 72 72 3 $ 2,104,821

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2019 3208 Testa Road Ontario Street to Reach Street CRK $ 297 92.95 92.95 2 2019 1033a Lapier Street ( to ) Goodwood Street to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 337 95.86 95.86 2 2019 3026 Marietta Street Planks lane to Brock Street East CRK $ 416 95.86 95.86 2 2019 1128 Chalk Lake Road 1.5 km East of 7th Conc. Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 1,188 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2064 6th Conc. Road Leaskdale Road to 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 CRK $ 3,762 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2034 4th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 3.25km North of Ashworth Road CRK $ 6,435 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2062 6th Conc. Road 2.4 km North of Ashworth Road to Leaskdale Road CRK $ 2,970 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2018 3rd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to Hollingers Road CRK $ 4,158 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2108 Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 4,752 97 97 2 2019 2158 Zephyr Road West Limit of Zephyr to Regional Road 39 CRK $ 1,782 97 97 2 2019 2144 Harrison Drive Regional Road 1 to Regional Road 13 CRK $ 1,386 97 97 2 2019 2150 Oxtoby Lane Avonlea Road to Harrison Drive CRK $ 792 97 97 2 2019 2106 Davis Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.7 km West CRK $ 1,386 97 97 2 2019 2146 Scott Court Harrison Drive to South End CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2019 1080 6th Conc. Road Wagg Road to Old Stouffville Road CRK $ 3,366 97 97 2 2019 2104 Davis Drive 6th Conc. Road to 1.2 km East CRK $ 2,376 97 97 2 2019 2102 Davis Drive 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road CRK $ 4,158 97 97 2 2019 2116 Ashworth Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road CRK $ 3,960 97 97 2 2019 1040 3rd Conc. Road Wagg Road to 0.6 km North CRK $ 1,188 97 97 2 2019 1062 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 1.5 km North CRK $ 2,970 97 97 2 2019 2130 Foster Drive Regional Road 1 to Mayfair Drive CRK $ 2,772 97 97 2 2019 2016 3rd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road CRK $ 4,158 97 97 2 2019 2142 Leaskdale Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80,000 65.7 85.7 2019 1047 3rd Conc. Road 1.0 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Feasby Road CRK $ 1,980 97 97 2 2019 2012 2nd Conc. Road Zephyr Road to Leitch Road GRR2 $ 77,220 65.7 85.7 2019 2048 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to 1.5km South of Regional Road 13 GRR2 $ 57,915 65.7 85.7 2019 2122 Hollingers Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 81,081 65.7 85.7 2019 2141 Meyers Road 3th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 74,903 65.7 85.7 2019 2166 Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34,749 65.7 85.7 2019 2170 Leitch Road 2nd Conc. Road to Regional Road 39 GRR2 $ 81,081 65.7 85.7 2019 1092 7th Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Chalk Lake Road GRR2 $ 85,405 65.7 85.7 2019 1102 8th Conc. Road Reid Road to Wagg Road GRR2 $ 56,937 65.7 85.7 2019 2078 Whitney Road Acton Road to Wagners Road CRK $ 990 97 97 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2019 2054 5th Conc. Road Brewester Road to York Road 32 GRR2 $ 78,250 65.7 85.7 2019 1012 2nd Conc. Road 0.4 km N. of Pickering T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 74,389 65.7 85.7 2019 2085 Ruddy Drive Acton Road to Pilkey Road CRK $ 198 95.86 95.86 2 2019 2082 Wagners Road Whitney Road to 0.2 km South CRK $ 396 97 97 2 2019 3188 O'neil Road Ganton Road to Regional Road 23 GRR2 $ 73,205 65.7 85.7 2019 2044 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84,324 57.75 77.75 2019 3062 Church Street Brock St. to Toronto Street South MICRO $ 3,672 73.76 73.76 3 2019 1010 2nd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 0.4 km North R1 $ 38,331 59.1 97 2019 3104 Second Street Young Street to North Street R1+ $ 18,002 53.91 97 2019 1222 Parratt Road Regional Rd. 47 to 0.21 km North R1 $ 68,518 59.1 97 2019 2028 James Place Smith Drive to 120 m East PR2 $ 20,997 34.97 100 2019 3042 Poplar Street Toronto Street South to Centennial Park Road MICRO $ 2,550 73.76 73.76 3 2019 1158 Wagg Road Regional Road 30 to 2nd Conc. Road R2 $ 409,297 43.91 100 2019 2043 5th Conc. Road 1.85km North of Davis Drive to Region Road #11 BS $ 41,774 22.17 95 2019 1086 6th Conc. Road Quaker Hill Cemetery to Davis Drive BS $ 256,488 22.23 95 2019 1148 Norton Drive Regional Road 21 to Regional Road 21 PR2 $ 103,853 39.27 100 2019 1150 Gamron Avenue Norton Drive to Norton Drive PR2 $ 44,265 39.27 100 2019 3244 Remion Crescent Fourth Avenue North to Barton Lane R1 $ 77,534 59.1 97 2019 2149 Avonlea Road 0.4 km East to 0.4km East to Cul du Sac MICRO $ 7,056 74.48 74.48 3 2019 3144 Beech Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 6,885 74.48 74.48 3 2019 3054 Joseph Street Mill Street to 0.11 km South of Wilson St. MICRO $ 5,808 74.48 74.48 3 2019 3143 South Cedar Brock Street to 0.15m South of Brock Steet MICRO $ 2,805 74.48 74.48 3 $ 2,105,665

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2020 3079 Campbell Drive 0.15 km W. of Toronto St. to Calming Circle CRK $ 1,386 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3194 Hamilton Street Regional Road 8 to Munro Crescent CRK $ 297 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3318 Coral Creek Crescent Nelkydd Lane to Reach Street CRK $ 238 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3396 Oakside Drive Ash Green Lane to Maple Brook Drive CRK $ 356 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3083 Cemetery Road ( to ) 0.030 km East of Campbell Drive to 0.2km West of Kirkton C CRK $ 832 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3167 Toronto Street North Brock Street to Albert Street CRK $ 208 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3195 Munro Crescent Hamilton Drive to Ewin Drive (West) CRK $ 752 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3009 Marion Drive 0.12 km S. of Bell St. to East St. CRK $ 376 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3198 Ewen Drive Munro Crescent to West End CRK $ 891 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3222 Widdlefield Drive Quaker Village Drive to Wheler Court CRK $ 198 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3024 Marietta Street Parkside Drive to Planks Lane CRK $ 436 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3206 Ontario Street Munro Crescent to Testa Road CRK $ 317 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3228 Milne Court Widdlefield Drive to North End CRK $ 317 95.86 95.86 2 2020 3012 East Street 0.2 km S. of Reach Street to Marion Drive CRK $ 139 95.86 95.86 2 2020 1143 Ridge Road Durham Regional 21 to 0.10m North CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2020 2165 Horner Court Regional Road 39 to East Cul d sac CRK $ 673 97 97 2 2020 3380 Norm Goodspeed Drive Brock Street West to Geo Isatt Drive CRK $ 297 97 97 2 2020 3077 Campbell Drive Calming Circle to Cemetary Road CRK $ 931 97 97 2 2020 3079a Campbell Drive ( to ) Roundabout to Cemetery Road CRK $ 941 97 97 2 2020 3305 Nelkydd Lane Caseton Crescent to Coral Creek Crescent CRK $ 178 97 97 2 2020 3304 Nelkydd Lane Furlan Court to Caseton Crescent CRK $ 139 97 97 2 2020 3306 Nelkydd Lane Coral Creek Crescent to Foxbury Road CRK $ 158 97 97 2 2020 3308 Nelkydd Lane Millbury Road to Hayfield Avenue CRK $ 158 97 97 2 2020 3321 Village Green Lane Millbury Road to Hayfield Avenue CRK $ 158 97 97 2 2020 3382 Geo Isatt Drive Norm Goodspeed Drive to West Limit CRK $ 79 97 97 2 2020 3014 Fourth Avenue Brock Street to 0.13 km South CRK $ 257 97 97 2 2020 3292 Fourth Avenue North Bolster Lane to Cosmos Avenue CRK $ 350 97 97 2 2020 3320 Village Green Lane Foxbury Road to Millbury Road CRK $ 178 97 97 2 2020 3341 Second Avenue Russell Barton Lane to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ 455 97 97 2 2020 1194a Brookdale Road ( to ) Foxfire Chase to 0.1km North of Foxfire Chase CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2020 3040 Bascom Street Mill Street to Brock Street CRK $ 871 97 97 2 2020 3114 John Harvey Street Main Street to 0.1 km East CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2020 3172 Dominion Street Second Avenue to 0.2 km East CRK $ 396 97 97 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2020 3319 Village Green Lane Coral Creek Crescent to Foxbrury Road CRK $ 99 97 97 2 2020 3322 Foxbury Road Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ 297 97 97 2 2020 3332 Rosena Lane Second Avenue to Fourth Avenue N CRK $ 495 97 97 2 2020 3383 Norm Goodspeed Drive ( to ) Geo Isatt Drive to Brock Street West CRK $ 295 97 97 2 2020 3402 Cyril Richardson Court Ash Green Lane to Cul de sac CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2020 3250 Maunder Court Herrema Boulevard to West End CRK $ 119 97 97 2 2020 3266 Joseph Street 0.11 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court CRK $ 218 97 97 2 2020 3307 Nelkydd Lane Foxbury Road to Millbury Road CRK $ 119 97 97 2 2020 3314 Furlan Court Nelkydd Lane to West End CRK $ 218 97 97 2 2020 3323 Millbury Road Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ 228 97 97 2 2020 3324 Hayfield Avenue Nelkydd Lane to Village Green Lane CRK $ 228 97 97 2 2020 3288 Elgin Park Drive Concession 7 to Toronto Street South CRK $ 2,257 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3265 Keller Lane Joseph Street to Button Crescent CRK $ 396 97 97 2 2020 3269 Button Crescent Confederation Drive to Joseph Street CRK $ 1,247 97 97 2 2020 3100 Centre Road 0.9km North of Brock Street West to 0.85km South of Ball Road CRK $ 495 92.95 92.95 2 2020 1100 7th Conc. Road 1.4 km North of Wagg to Brookdale Road CRK $ 1,188 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3101 Centre Road 0.18km South of Ball Road to Ball Road CRK $ 356 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3088 Ball Road 6th Conc Road to Centre Road CRK $ 2,178 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3090 Ball Road Centre Road to Regional Road 1 CRK $ 1,980 92.95 92.95 2 2020 2065 6th Conc. Road 0.5 km S. of Regional Road 13 to Regional Road 13 CRK $ 990 92.95 92.95 2 2020 3120 Jonathan Street Centre Road to East End CRK $ 1,303 97 97 2 2020 1090 Hillborne Drive Silver Spring Crescent to North End CRK $ 792 97 97 2 2020 3082 Kirton Court Cemetery Road to South End CRK $ 297 95.86 95.86 2 2020 1091 Sugarbush Lane Rolling Meadows Road to North Cul d sac CRK $ 337 97 97 2 2020 3190 O'Neil Road Hwy. 47 to Ganton Road CRK $ 1,188 94.55 94.55 2 2020 3124 Fifth Street Jonathan Street to Young Street CRK $ 257 97 97 2 2020 1064 4th Conc. Road 1.5 km N. of Reg. Rd. 8 to Davis Drive CRK $ 2,574 97 97 2 2020 1082 6th Conc. Road Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 CRK $ 4,257 97 97 2 2020 1084 6th Conc. Road 0.5 km N. of Regional Road 8 to Quaker Hill Cemetery CRK $ 2,376 97 97 2 2020 2036 4th Conc. Road 3.25km North of Ashworth Road to Regional Road 13 CRK $ 5,445 97 97 2 2020 2100 Davis Drive 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road CRK $ 3,960 97 97 2 2020 1030 3rd Conc. Road Secord Road to 1.7 km North CRK $ 3,366 97 97 2 2020 3072 Colborne Street Toronto Street South to Victoria Drive CRK $ 257 97 97 2

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2020 1070 Owen Road Hwy. 47 to 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2020 1089 Rolling Meadows Road Silver Spring Crescent to East Cul d sac CRK $ 1,010 97 97 2 2020 1083 6th Conc. Road Regional Road 8 to 0.5 km North CRK $ 990 97 97 2 2020 3192 Ganton Road ONeal Road to Regional Road 23 CRK $ 792 97 97 2 2020 3150 Railway Street Brock Street to Albert Street MICRO $ 2,040 73.76 73.76 3 2020 3278 Bolton Drive Quaker Village Drive to Rachel Lee Court MICRO $ 3,825 73.76 73.76 3 2020 2098 Davis Drive 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road R1+ $ 251,370 56.5 97 2020 3102 Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West R1 $ 290,373 65.01 97 2020 1164 Wagg Road 4th Conc. Road to Old Hwy. 47 BS $ 366,813 21.61 95 2020 2046 5th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 1.8 km North BS $ 362,003 23.29 95 2020 1172 Wagg Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road BS $ 451,061 23.29 95 2020 2148 Avonlea Road Harrison Drive to 0.4 km East R2 $ 71,720 37.07 100 2020 3084 Banff Road Hwy. 47 to East End R1 $ 19,627 65.02 97 2020 3390 Oakside Drive Center Road to Apple Tree Crescent MICRO $ 8,415 73.76 73.76 3 2020 3392 Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Apple Tree Crescent MICRO $ 9,945 73.76 73.76 3 2020 2132 Lyons Lane Mustard Street to North End BS $ 38,867 20 95 2020 3108 Sixth Street Young Street to North Street R2 $ 23,580 41.55 100 2020 1024 Mill Run Gate Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 8 MICRO $ 25,500 72 72 3 2020 1039 Goodwood Street 0.27m East to Lapier Street R2 $ 39,446 41.55 100 2020 3230 Colonel Sharpe Cres. Milne Court to Quaker Village Drive MICRO $ 10,965 72 72 3 2020 2121 Ashworth Road 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 to Regional Road 1 BS $ 68,711 21.92 95 2020 3028 Parkside Drive Marietta Street to Franklin Street MICRO $ 3,570 72 72 3 $ 2,104,387

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2021 3196 Munro Crescent Hamilton Street to Ewen Drive(East) CRK $ 1,327 92.95 92.95 2 2021 3078 Campbell Drive Toronto St. to 0.15 km West CRK $ 446 92.95 92.95 2 2021 3166 Toronto Street North Albert Street to Durham Region # 1 CRK $ 1,099 92.95 92.95 2 2021 1222 Parratt Road Regional Rd. 47 to 0.21 km North CRK $ 416 95.86 95.86 2 2021 1205 Anderson Boulevard Paisley Road to 0.76m East CRK $ 1,505 97 97 2 2021 3244 Remion Crescent Fourth Avenue North to Barton Lane CRK $ 574 95.86 95.86 2 2021 1076 6th Conc. Road Allbright Road to Regional Road 21 SSTplus $ 64,410 52 90 2021 1136 Allbright Road Regional Road 1 to 6th Conc. Road SSTplus $ 77,970 52 90 2021 2066 6th Conc. Road York Regional Road 32 to 1.0 km South SSTplus $ 37,290 52 90 2021 1198 Feasby Road 4th Conc. Road to 1.4 km East SSTplus $ 47,460 52 90 2021 3104 Second Street Young Street to North Street CRK $ 257 95.86 95.86 2 2021 2043 5th Conc. Road 1.85km North of Davis Drive to Region Road #11 CRK $ 396 94.55 94.55 2 2021 1192 Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR2 $ 18,842 65.7 85.7 2021 2126 Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR2 $ 20,077 65.7 85.7 2021 1008 Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR2 $ 16,988 65.7 85.7 2021 3076 Perry Street Victoria Drive to 0.2 km West CRK $ 396 97 97 2 2021 1118 Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR2 $ 32,432 65.7 85.7 2021 2007 2nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR2 $ 32,432 65.7 85.7 2021 2072 8th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR2 $ 85,251 65.7 85.7 2021 1127 Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR2 $ 56,371 65.7 85.7 2021 2052 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 75,161 65.7 85.7 2021 2110 Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR2 $ 41,338 65.7 85.7 2021 1010 2nd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 0.4 km North CRK $ 792 95.86 95.86 2 2021 2093 Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR2 $ 10,667 65.7 85.7 2021 1073 6th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR2 $ 63,707 65.7 85.7 2021 1176 Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR2 $ 34,749 65.7 85.7 2021 1184 Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR2 $ 3,861 65.7 85.7 2021 1186 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR2 $ 30,888 65.7 85.7 2021 1190 Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 96,525 65.7 85.7 2021 1218 8th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR2 $ 7,722 65.7 85.7 2021 2092 Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 57,915 65.7 85.7 2021 2124 Hollingers Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road GRR2 $ 77,220 65.7 85.7 2021 1071 Owen Road 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 GRR2 $ 88,340 65.7 85.7

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2021 2118 Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 80,309 65.7 85.7 2021 2176 Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR2 $ 92,355 65.7 85.7 2021 2156 Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR2 $ 48,803 65.7 85.7 2021 1188 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 94,723 65.7 85.7 2021 2042 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR2 $ 76,190 65.7 85.7 2021 2172 Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR2 $ 78,250 65.7 85.7 2021 1140 Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR2 $ 8,443 65.7 85.7 2021 2038 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR2 $ 84,427 65.7 85.7 2021 2006 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR2 $ 18,533 65.7 85.7 2021 1026 3rd Conc. Road Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to Webb Road GRR2 $ 97,297 65.7 85.7 2021 2120 Ashworth Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.35km West of Reg. Road 1 GRR2 $ 76,448 65.7 85.7 2021 1152 Higgin's Lane 7th Conc. Road to 0.3 km East GRR2 $ 11,274 65.7 85.7 2021 2154 Zephyr Road ( to ) 2nd Conc. Road to Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L GRR2 $ 105,946 65.7 85.7 2021 1068 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 0.5 km South GRR2 $ 22,857 65.7 85.7 2021 2040 4th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR2 $ 4,015 65.7 85.7 2021 2084 Acton Road Brock Conc. 2 to 0.5km South CRK $ 990 97 97 2 2021 3218 Quaker Village Drive Regional Road 8 to Bolton Drive MICRO $ 20,400 74.48 74.48 3 2021 2068 Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle R1 $ 74,384 64.32 97 2021 3170 Dominion Street Main Street to Second Avenue MICRO $ 6,000 74.48 74.48 3 2021 3152 Railway Street Albert Street to Spruce Street R1 $ 13,053 67.92 97 2021 3268 James Street 0.20 km South of Wilson St. to Isaac Court MICRO $ 1,530 74.48 74.48 3 2021 3178 Gould Street First Avenue to 0.1 km West MICRO $ 1,275 74.48 74.48 3 2021 3272 Harman Court Quaker Village Drive to West End MICRO $ 1,020 74.48 74.48 3 $ 2,103,346

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2022 1164 Wagg Road 4th Conc. Road to Old Hwy. 47 CRK $ 3,168 94.55 94.55 2 2022 1172 Wagg Road 6th Conc. Road to 7th Conc. Road CRK $ 3,960 94.55 94.55 2 2022 2046 5th Conc. Road Ashworth Road to 1.8 km North CRK $ 3,564 94.55 94.55 2 2022 2098 Davis Drive 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road CRK $ 3,960 95.86 95.86 2 2022 2076 Deerfoot Drive Acton Road to 0.4 km West CRK $ 792 97 97 2 2022 2132 Lyons Lane Mustard Street to North End CRK $ 396 94.55 94.55 2 2022 2010 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 39 to Zephyr Road GRR2 $ 82,162 65.7 85.7 2022 1074 6th Conc. Road 3.1 km North of Pickering T/L to Allbright Road GRR2 $ 60,232 65.7 85.7 2022 1037 Goodwood Street Lapier Street to 0.27m East CRK $ 535 97 97 2 2022 2026 Smith Drive Regional Road 11 to 250 m South CRK $ 495 97 97 2 2022 3106 Fourth Street Young Street to North Street CRK $ 257 97 97 2 2022 3034 New Street Third Street to 0.1 km East CRK $ 198 97 97 2 2022 1052 4th Conc. Road Webb Road to 3.3km North of Webb Road R1 $ 312,020 66.91 97 2022 1160 Wagg Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road R1 $ 213,739 66.91 97 2022 1196 Feasby Road 3rd Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road BS $ 419,301 26.61 95 2022 3146 Balsam Street S. Brock St. to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 14,535 73.76 73.76 3 2022 3242 Fourth Avenue North Remion Crescent to Barton Lane MICRO $ 5,355 73.76 73.76 3 2022 3232 Byam Place Maple Street to West End R1 $ 42,351 66.91 97 2022 3186 Fourth Avenue North Brock Street to Remion Crescent MICRO $ 3,825 73.76 73.76 3 2022 3220 Balsam Street S. Regional Road 8 to McGuire Crescent MICRO $ 14,535 73.76 73.76 3 2022 3394 Oakside Drive Apple Tree Crescent to Ash Green Lane MICRO $ 3,060 73.76 73.76 3 2022 3158 Spruce Street Brock Street to Railway Street R1 $ 49,106 69.47 97 2022 3004 Crosby Street 7th Concession Road to 0.2 km West R1 $ 16,174 66.91 97 2022 2136 Mustard Street Mayfair Drive to 0.2 Km East & West BS $ 82,994 22.17 95 2022 1033 Lapier Street 0.24m North of Hwy. 47 to 3rd Conc. R1 $ 58,441 66.91 97 2022 1141 Deer Ridge Road Regional Road No. 21 to South End MICRO $ 23,205 72 72 3 2022 1212 Foxfire Chase Deer Run to Oakview Place MICRO $ 15,300 72 72 3 2022 3096 Lormik Drive Regional Road 1 to 0.2 km West MICRO $ 5,100 72 72 3 2022 3226 McQuire Crescent Balsam Street S. to Balsam Street S. MICRO $ 8,415 72 72 3 2022 1210 Paisley Lane Anderson Boulevard to North End R1 $ 100,711 66.91 97 2022 2069 Birdie Smith Court Bagshaw Crescent to North Cul de sac R1 $ 77,282 66.91 97 2022 3162 Ash Street King Street East to Maple Street R1 $ 12,006 66.91 97 2022 3164 Maple Street Ash Street to Toronto Street North R1 $ 12,982 66.91 97

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2022 3197 Linton Court Munro Crescent to East End R1 $ 22,587 69.47 97 2022 2138 Hilda Avenue Mayfair Drive to 0.1 km West R1 $ 23,311 66.91 97 2022 3022 Franklin Street Planks Lane to Reach Street MICRO $ 9,180 72 72 3 2022 3061 Wilson Street James Street to 0.1km West MICRO $ 2,550 72 72 3 2022 3200 Maple Street Centre Road to Byam Place MICRO $ 2,805 72 72 3 2022 3270 Isaac Court Joseph Street to West End MICRO $ 5,100 72 72 3 2022 1145 Ridge Road Ridge Road to Around Circle R1 $ 73,089 74.49 97 2022 3058 James Street Wilson Street to 0.20 km South of Wilson St. RNS $ 178,797 23.85 100 2022 3060 Wilson Street Joseph Street to James Street RNS $ 64,814 23.85 100 2022 1146 Tindall Lane Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 BS $ 63,265 37.07 95 2022 1206 Sangster Road Anderson Boulevard to North End MICRO $ 9,702 72 72 3 $ 2,105,356

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2023 3102 Centre Road Brock St. West to 0.9km North of Brock Street West CRK $ 1,841 92.95 92.95 2 2023 1208 Paisley Lane Hwy. No. 47 to Anderson Boulevard CRK $ 337 97 97 2 2023 3084 Banff Road Hwy. 47 to East End CRK $ 356 92.95 92.95 2 2023 3092 Ball Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East SSTplus $ 37,290 52 90 2023 1200 Ball Road 6th Conc. Road to 0,5 km West GRR2 $ 18,790 65.7 85.7 2023 2068 Bagshaw Crescent 140m West to Around Circle CRK $ 1,525 95.86 95.86 2 2023 3103 Centre Road 0.85km South of Ball Road to 0.18km South of Ball Road GRR2 $ 28,443 65.7 85.7 2023 2112 Ashworth Road Uxbridge/East Gwillimbury T/L to 3rd Conc. Road CRK $ 8,316 97 97 2 2023 1035 Lapier Street Highway 47 to 0.24m North CRK $ 475 97 97 2 2023 1088 Silver Spring Cresent 6th Conc. Road to Silver Spring Crescent CRK $ 2,376 97 97 2 2023 2044 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to Ashworth Road GRR2 $ 84,324 65.7 85.7 2023 1058 4th Conc. Road Wagg Road to OBeirn Road R1 $ 186,870 69.47 97 2023 3122 Third Street Jonathan Street to Young Street R1 $ 13,967 69.47 97 2023 2067 Bagshaw Crescent Durham Regional 1 to 140m West R1 $ 13,977 69.47 97 2023 2021 Taylor Drive 4th Conc. Road to Lundy Drive R1 $ 71,984 69.47 97 2023 2025 Lundy Drive Taylor Drive to Regional Road 11 R1 $ 51,707 69.47 97 2023 1192 Old Stouffville Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.3km East GRR $ 9,421 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2126 Weirs Road 6th Conc. Road to 0.6 km West GRR $ 10,039 80.43 80.43 3 2023 3130A Jonathan Street ( to ) Carmody Lane to West End MICRO $ 2,295 74.48 74.48 3 2023 3154 King Street East Spruce Street to Toronto Street North R1 $ 19,475 69.47 97 2023 3224 Wheler Court Widdlefield Drive to South End MICRO $ 4,080 74.48 74.48 3 2023 1008 Yake Crescent Regional Road 30 to Regional Road 30 GRR $ 8,494 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1204 Anderson Boulevard Sangster Road to Paisley Road R1 $ 313,223 69.47 97 2023 1118 Pickering/Uxbridge T/L ( to ) Regional Rd 23 Lakeridge Road to West end GRR $ 16,216 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2007 2nd Conc. Road Ashworth Road to North End GRR $ 16,216 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2072 8th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 2.3 km North GRR $ 42,625 80.43 80.43 3 2023 3247 Herrema Boulevard Barton Lane to Bolster Lane R1 $ 89,477 69.47 97 2023 1127 Chalk Lake Road 7th Conc. Rd. to 1.5 km East GRR $ 28,185 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2052 5th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR $ 37,580 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2110 Sandford Road Regional Road 1 to 1.1 km East GRR $ 20,669 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2093 Kydd Rd. Fowlers Road to 0.28km South GRR $ 5,333 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1073 6th Conc. Road ( to ) 1.35km North of the Pickering/Uxbridge T/L to 3.1km North GRR $ 31,853 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1176 Wagg Road 7th Conc. Road to 0.9 km East GRR $ 17,375 80.43 80.43 3

Township of Uxbridge 10 Year Performance Model based on Preservation Budget Funding Level Best ROI Year Asset ID Street Name Description Imp. Type Cost Start Cond End Cond Yrs Hold 2023 1184 Wees Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.1 km West GRR $ 1,931 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1186 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 0.8 km West GRR $ 15,444 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1190 Old Stouffville Road Hwy. 47 to 6th Conc. Road GRR $ 48,263 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1218 8th Conc. Road Foxfire Chase to 0.2 km North GRR $ 3,861 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2092 Kydd Rd. Regional Road 23 to Kydd Rd. GRR $ 28,958 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2124 Hollingers Road 2nd Conc. Road to 3rd Conc. Road GRR $ 38,610 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1144 Old Mill Lane Regional Road 21 to Hwy. 47 BS $ 57,782 36.9 95 2023 1071 Owen Road 0.1 km North of Hwy. 47 to Regional Road 8 GRR $ 44,170 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2118 Ashworth Road 5th Conc. Road to 6th Conc. Road GRR $ 40,154 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2176 Fowlers Road Regional Road 1 to Kydd Rd. GRR $ 46,178 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2156 Zephyr Road 2nd Conc. Road to West Limit of Zephyr GRR $ 24,402 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1188 OBeirn Road 4th Conc. Road to 5th Conc. Road GRR $ 47,362 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2042 5th Conc. Road Davis Drive to 1.85km North of Davis Drive GRR $ 38,095 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2172 Brewster Road 5th Conc. Road to 4th Conc. Road GRR $ 39,125 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1140 Prouse Road 2nd Concession Road to 0.2 km West GRR $ 4,221 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2038 4th Conc. Road Regional Road 13 to Brewester Road GRR $ 42,214 80.43 80.43 3 2023 3174 First Avenue Brock Street East to Dominion Street RNS $ 178,238 34.97 100 2023 3094 Colby Road Regional Road 1 to 0.5 km East BS $ 93,470 43.36 95 2023 2006 2nd Conc. Road Regional Road 11 to 0.6 km North GRR $ 9,266 80.43 80.43 3 2023 1161 Wagg Road 3rd Conc. Road to 0.36 km East BS $ 80,178 48.82 95 2023 2166 Zephyr Road Regional Road 1 to 0.9 km East GRR $ 17,375 70.21 70.21 3 2023 1152 Higgin's Lane 7th Conc. Road to 0.3 km East GRR $ 5,637 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2040 4th Conc. Road Brewester Road to 0.1 km North GRR $ 2,008 80.43 80.43 3 2023 2029 Moore Street 4th Conc. Road to Smith Drive MICRO $ 3,216 74.49 74.49 3 $ 2,105,292