The URL can be used to link to this page

01 - January 14, 2020 Budget Committee Agenda Package Council Budget Committee Meeting Elgin County Administration Building Council Chambers January 14, 2020 1:00 – 4:00 P.M. Agenda st 1Meeting Called to Order nd 2Approval of the Agenda rd 3 Confirmation of Minutes(Closed Session) th 4Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest th 5 Delegations – none th 6 Briefingsand Reports 1.Past Efficiencies 2.Homes Funding 3.Current Financial Pressures 4.Asset Management Plan (attached) 5.2020-2029 Capital Budget (attached) 6.Closed and Carry-Forward Capital Projects (attached) 7.Next Steps th 7Other Business th 8 Correspondence – none th 9 Closed Session Municipal Act Section 239 (2) (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;(d) labour relations or employee negotiations; (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board th 9 Date of Next Meeting th 10Adjournment 1 4:00 pm – 2 Budget Committee Meeting # 2 January 14, 2020 1:00 Elgin County 3 Forward Capital Projects - 2029 Capital Budget - Approval of MinutesPast EfficienciesHomes FundingCurrent Financial PressuresAsset Management Plan2020Closed and CarryNext Steps Agenda 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 4 Other Departments 2014 Efficiencies Achieved Homes 2013 $3.3 million achieved in last nine years 2012 2011 - 50,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 5 allenges major contributor to funding shortfall. nding shortfall. igher than funded. Nursing department accounts for the majority of the fuImprovements noted from 2017 to 2018.Wages are according to the collective agreement and are hOvertime costs related to recruitment and retention ch 2018 Capital Other Accommodation 2017 Nursing - Elgin County Homes Funding Shortfall 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 200 180 160 140 120 100 6 Number of Beds 80 60 40 2017 WOWC Total Funding Shortfall Per Bed Cost 20 0 0 70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000 Funding Shortfall ($) Debt Home (97-160) Average Medium Capital Terrace Lodge (100) Other Accommodation 7 Elgin Manor (96) Raw Food Average Small Home (up to 96) 2017 WOWC Total Funding Shortfall Per Bed Cost Program & Support Bobier (57) Nursing 0 5,000 35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000 Funding Shortfall ($) 1.6%0.4%0.1%0.9%2.0% 5.0% Tax Increase interest Avg Annual $1.3 million$0.2 million$0.2 million $ 4.7 million + increased loan 8 - ) 2029 projects added to support - phase Port Burwell Storm Sewer - Current Financial Pressures Asset Management Plan identifies needs beyond that previously planned (Bayham’s multiReplacement projectsProvincial funding impacts in Public Health, LongTerm Care, Social Services and AmbulanceAmbulance Service enhancements neededBenefit costs could potentially rise substantially Future unknown external impacts or service needsBase IncreasePreliminary Calculation of Total Annual Tax Increase for 2020 9 Review of Asset Management Report Asset Management Plan 10 2029 Capital Budget - 2020 Reserve $45.1 mil Surplus $1.0 mil 11 Progress $7.0 mil - date on projects that will remain open - In - forward into 2020 to -- Forward Capital Spend $19.5 milWork - forward report on the spending Included reports are preliminary and subject to minor changes as final invoices are received Budget $20.5 milBudget $52.1 mil 2019 invoices are still being received through January 15 Closed report on completed projects and the estimated amount of surplus being returnedCarry-and the amount of budget to be carry Closed and CarryProjects 12 Closed Capital Projects Report 13 Forward Capital Projects Report - Carry 14 PowerPoint presentation to Council and Capital Review (Jan 28)Budget Committee Review of Operating Budget and Tax Rates (Jan 28) Council approves budgets and tax rates (Feb 11) Budget Approval Steps REPORT TO FROM:Brian Lima, Director of Engineering Services Jim Bundschuh, Director of Financial Services DATE:January 7, 2020 SUBJECT:2019 Corporate Asset Management Plan – Transportation Network RECOMMENDATION: That the reporttitled “2019 Corporate Asset Management Plan – Transportation Network” dated January 7, 2020, be endorsedand that staff be directed to proceed with the Plan as outlinedin support of budget development. INTRODUCTION: Public infrastructure is central toour prosperity and our quality of life. The majority of public infrastructure in Canada is the responsibility of municipal government. Adequate municipal infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and underground water and sewage pipes are essential to economic development, citizen safety, and quality of life. Well maintained infrastructure is critical in sustaining a municipality as an attractive place to live and do business. Asset Management is the process of collecting a variety of data and information regarding municipality assets and infrastructure, and using all of that data and information to make the best long-term decisions in regards to building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing, and disposing of those assets. In December 2017, Ontariobecame the first Canadian province to pass regulation that requires municipalities to engage in asset management planning. Ontario Regulation 588/17 requires all municipalities prepare Council-endorsed Strategic Asset Management Policies by July 1, 2019, and implement Asset Management Plans using a phased approach from 2021–2024. The County is positioned well to comply with this regulation. The County is now in the midst of a multi-year comprehensive Corporate Asset Management Plan (CAMP) development approach to improve its asset management practices and processes. The County’s updated CAMPprepared by staff first focuses on the County’s transportationnetwork (roads, structures, and traffic), and is presented to Council for endorsement.Future Plan updates will also incorporate the remaining County assets (facilities, information technology, etc.). DISCUSSION: The Countyis responsible for the provision of a diverse array of transportation network services whichare dependent infrastructure assets valuedat approximately $831 million. An integral component of ensuringreliable service is creating an effective approach to managing existing and futuremunicipal assets. Effective asset management aims to manage assets in a way thatbalances levels of service, risk, and cost effectiveness throughout the entire assetlifecycle. Ultimately, adopting effective and comprehensive 15 asset managementstrategies across the organization will support the long-term sustainability andefficiency while maintaining levels of service. The Countyproduced its first CAMPin 2014, whichdetailed the County’s key objectives for asset managementand focused only onits transportation network, and established a baselinethat the Countyhas built upon in itslatest updated Plan. In2019 staff collected additional transportation focusedasset information in order to recommendthe best infrastructure investment decisions to Council. Ontario Regulation 588/17 has prescribed specific informationrequirementsto be included in a municipality’s asset management plan. Detailed inventory data, condition ratings and financial investment strategies previously approved by Council were compiled into thecomprehensive CAMP.The implementation of acentralized working software database and enterprise geographical information system (GIS) also forms part of the CAMP’s recommendationand is foundational tothe success of municipality asset management programs.Using asset location, staff will have the ability to centralize asset information intoa single authoritative database. Recognizing that asset location is the common denominator, implementation, administration, and use of an enterprise geographic information system by the County and its member municipalities is a natural choiceto optimallyand sustainably deliver on our service objectives through cost-effective lifecycle management of assets. 2019 Corporate Asset Management Plan Summary The updatedCAMPsets out how the County’s assets will bemanaged to meet levels of service consideringa full lifecycle approach, andensuring long-term financial sustainability. The CAMP representsa jumpforward in the County’s asset management journey, and will continually be improved and updatedas new data is collected, and as the field of asset management grows and develops.The CAMPcovers the County’s asset management program at a high-level, identifyinggaps and opportunities, and it outlines a work plan for continual improvement asthe program matures. The purpose of the CAMPis to: Ensure that the County is well-positioned for current and future grant programs and regulations, by meeting the requirements of Ontario Regulation 588/17. Establish a baseline of current asset management practices to inform a work plan for continually improving asset management. More accurately quantify the infrastructure deficit and investment gap. Demonstrate long-term asset care and sustainability. Support the development of improved practices that clarify and justify funding requirements. Provide increased transparency related to the County’s asset management practices, challenges and opportunities. 16 The CAMPis comprised of the following core sections: Executive Summary - providing a succinct overview of the plan. Introduction - describing the importance ofinfrastructure to municipalities, the relationship of the asset management plan to municipal planning and budget documents and the purpose of the asset management plan. State of Assets - summarizing the asset types, financial accounting and replacement cost valuation, asset age distribution and asset age as a proportion of expected life, and asset condition. Desired Levels of Service - defining levels of service through performance measures, targets and timeframes to achieve targets. Asset Management Strategy - summarizing planned actions including non- infrastructure solutions, maintenance activities, renewal/rehabilitation activities, replacement activities, disposal activities and expansion activities. Financing Strategy - showing yearly expenditure forecasts broken down for each of the planned actions in the strategy, along with actual expenditures from previous years and yearly revenues. State of Local Infrastructure The state of local infrastructure section provides a quantitative assessment of the asset portfolio in terms of overall replacement value and estimated remaining life. The following tableprovides an inventory and overview of the replacement value of the County’s transportation network assets.Overall, as detailed in the CAMP, the County’s transportation network asset portfolio is currently in good physical condition. Existing approved budget funding shortfalls in all asset groups will result in a degradation of all transportationassets over the next decade, and will increase the infrastructure gap to approximately $47 million,derived mainly by the roads which composes about 89% of the Infrastructure Gap. Asset TypeAssetInventoryUnitReplacement Value Major Arterial31.3km$ 26,300,606.30 Roads Minor Arterial274.94km$ 271,974,721.19 Collector354.24km$ 321,034,428.00 Local Road15.93km$ 12,188,701.29 Suburban Link12.34km$ 12,206,910.81 Bridges58Ea.$ 122,732,694.00 Structures Culverts (greater than 3m 84Ea.$ 56,496,425.00 span) Pedestrian Tunnel2Ea.$ 300,000.00 Retaining Walls4Ea.$ 3,500,000.00 Street Lighting36Ea.$ 140,883.84 Traffic Traffic Signs~7,725Ea.$ 1,737,112.49 Signals & Beacons33Ea.$ 2,200,000.00 TOTAL$ 830,812,482.92 For a full description of the results of the State of Local Infrastructure analysis, and procedures, please refer to a copy ofthe2019 Corporate Asset Management Plan 17 attached. Desired Levels of Service One of the objectives of asset management planning is to ensure that theperformance and service provided by the assets meet the needs and expectationsof the community. A level of service is a criteria set by the organization for thequality and performance of the services provided. Levels of service typically relateto quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental acceptability andcost. Well-defined levels of service are used to: Inform stakeholders ofthe current level of service provided and any proposed changes to level of service and associated costs; Measure performance against these defined levels of service; Identify the costs and benefits of services; and Enable stakeholders to consider the level of service provided within the context of affordability. Lifecycle Management Strategy Many Countydepartments and community stakeholders are involved in various aspectsof each asset’s lifecycle. Often those responsible for delivering the service will identify the need for new assets. An asset will be acquired or constructed. The assetthen is operated and maintained on an ongoing basis until rehabilitation and/or renewal isrequired. As the asset nears the end of its life, a plan is established to replace,remove or upgrade the asset to meet future needs. These activities collectivelyrepresent the asset’s lifecycle. In asset management, the focus is on using a fulllifecycle approach when planning. An asset lifecycle management strategy is the setofplanned actions throughout the asset’s lifecycle that allows the asset to providedesired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowestlifecycle cost. Section 5 of the CAMPhas regard for key initiatives for each asset system related to the following potential lifecycle activities: Non-infrastructure solutions: actions or policies that can lower costs or extend asset life (e.g. better integrated infrastructure planning and land use planning, demand management, insurance, process optimization, managed failures). Maintenance activities: including regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance, or more significant repair and activities associated with unexpected events. Renewal/rehabilitation activities: significant repairs designed to extend the life of the asset. For example, cold-in-place asphalt recycling. Replacement activities: activities that are expected to occur once an asset has reached the end of its useful life and renewal/rehabilitation is no longer an option. Disposal activities: the activities associated with disposing of an asset onceit has reached the end of its useful life, or is otherwise no longer needed bythe municipality. Expansion activities: planned activities required to extend services topreviously un- serviced areas, or to expand services to meet growthdemands. 18 Financing Strategy Long-term asset investment forecasts provide insight into prospective investment requirements which may fall outside of the 10-year planning period typically used in capital budgeting. Significant asset construction during a short time span, as seenin the 1960sand 1970s, will require equally as heavy investment once those assets reach the end of their service lives. If those investment requirements are not addressed appropriately, levels of service could potentially decline and operations andmaintenance costs could increase. The CAMPutilized a 10-year forecast. In future, the implementation of an asset management software focused enterprise database toolset utilizing a 100-year forecast whichcovers the entire lifecycle of the assets, will provide greater certaintyand identification of suchaforementioned trends. One of the key opportunities identified during the development of the strategy isthe requirement for evaluating funding scenarios to address the overall needs. Thisrequired a review of current infrastructure financing policies, reserve accountanalysis, and revenue sources to identify the optimal funding scenarios aligned withre-investment requirements. Updates are to be included in future reporting toCouncil. Improvement Monitoring and Next Steps One of the goals of the CAMPwas to re-establish a baseline ofcurrent asset management practices to inform a work plan for continuousimprovement of the asset management program. Any assumptions made andopportunities identified have been documented to serve as the basis for continuousimprovement. The Planpresents a proposed continuous improvement program interms of two components: 1.Actions related to improving future asset management plans; and 2.Actions to advance the County’s overall asset management capabilities. Consultation Consultation and communication are key elements of planned corporate asset management initiatives. The Asset Management Policy endorsed by Council in 2019 outlines annual reporting toCouncil on the Corporate Asset Management progress.In addition, an AssetManagement webpage on the County’s website will becreated providing access to a copy of the AMPandAsset Management Policy,provide an overview of assetmanagement fundamentals, andaccess to otherrelated documents. CONCLUSION: Asset management provides a mechanism for reliable, repeatable and transparent decision making. However, asset management is more than just a one-off project.To realize the full benefits of asset management, the principles should be systematically developed, embedded and integrated across all departments, and be continuously improved. Taking a holistic approach to asset management has clear benefits to thecommunity and the County, including: 19 Helping protect and enhance the quality of life in Elgin County by ensuring the best possible decisions regarding our assets. Aligning teams, processes and resources across the County towards common asset management objectives; Supporting evidence-based business cases for budgets and long-term financial forecasts; Driving longer term thinking and planning; and Supporting financial sustainability. Using consistent asset management guidelines and principles withan effort placedon continuous improvement will lead to an optimized balance between assetperformance and asset risks that will create real value for Elgin County and itsresidents. All of which is Respectfully SubmittedApproved for Submission Brian Lima Julie Gonyou Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundshuh Director of Financial Services 20 2019 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ES -i 21 Executive Summary 1.0Introduction Public infrastructure is central to our prosperity and our quality of life. The majority of public infrastructure in Canada is the responsibility of municipal government, and most people take for granted the important role of these assets. Adequate municipal infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and underground water and sewage pipes are essential to economic development, citizen safety, and quality of life. Well maintained infrastructure is critical in sustaining a municipality as an attractive place to live and do business. Asset Management is the process of collecting a variety of data and information regarding municipality assets and infrastructure, and using all of that data and information to make the best long-termdecisions in regards to building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing, and disposing of those assets. In December 2017, Ontario became the first Canadian province to pass regulation that requires municipalities to engage in asset management planning. Ontario Regulation 588/17 requires all municipalities prepare Council-endorsed Strategic Asset Management Policies by July 1, 2019, and implement Asset Management Plans using a phased approach from 2021–2024. The County of Elgin (County) is positioned well to comply with this regulation. The County is now in the midst ofa multi-step, multi-year approach to improve its asset management practices and processes. This document is the County’s updated Asset Management Plan (AMP)prepared by staff which first focused on the County’s road network and structure inventory. 1.1 Purpose ofAssetManagement Plan (AMP) The AMP plays an important part by communicating to residents and stakeholders the reasons why new assets, or modifications to existing assets, are required. The AMP also provides further details on why modifications are required, how the County intends on continuing to deliver the services by relying on safe and reliable assets, and how the County intends on funding the required investments in a manner so as to remain financially sustainable. The County has an array of strategic, long-term planning documents that complement each other and work together to direct Elgin County’s future. Some examples include the County’s Strategic Plan thatoutlines Council’s priorities, the Official Plan (OP) which sets the vision for the County’s future growth as detailed in such documents as the Elgin-St. Thomas Cycling Master Planand the County of Elgin Roads Plan and Policies. Historically, these master plans have dealt exclusively with future needs without considering their funding requirements, nor the rehabilitation needs for existing infrastructure. The AMP captures information prepared for various uses, by a number of different groups within the County, and transforms that information into asset-specific measures or actions that the County is actively taking or pursuing to provide residents, businesses, and visitors the services at levels that correspond to the fees and taxes they pay. Demonstrate responsible management of the asset portfolio; Communicate and justify funding requirements; ES -ii 22 Demonstrate how Levels of Service (LOS) are being met in an effective and efficient manner; Demonstrate that due regard is being given to the long-term stewardship and sustainability of the asset base; Demonstrate the commitment that assets will be maintained such that the services are following regulations; and Comply with Ontario’s Ministry of Infrastructure requirements as detailed in the ‘Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans’. 1.2 Core Service Areas The County of Elginis a complex service delivery organization with responsibility for managing public assets that support a very large array of different services. To fulfill its obligations of service delivery to the municipality, the County must ensure that the assets supporting these services are managed in a way that balances service levels, risk, and affordability. These assets require significant ongoing investment in operation, maintenance, and renewal activities to ensure they are kept safe, structurally sound, and fit-for-purpose to support the delivery of services. For the purpose of asset management, the County has identified 15different services provided to residents, businesses, and visitors. These services are well aligned to the provincially defined Financial Information Return (FIR) reporting requirements.The FIR reporting requirements have been established for comparable financial reporting across the province, whereas the services identified below are grouped to facilitate asset management from a service to client perspective. In several cases, the services identified in Table 1 below are further subdivided into more specific services but generally rely on similar asset types to support the delivery of that service. The existingCounty infrastructure within the road network includes 59 roads, which are further divided into a total of 248 unique road classification sections, totaling 689kilometers. The condition of the road network is important in determining the needs of the overall network. The County maintains a system to determine the condition of the road sections in their network, by means of a Structural Adequacy Rating (SAR) attributed to each road section within the network. An updated overall network condition was determined in the Spring through the consideration of the SAR rating attributed to each section in combination with the length of that section as a portion of the entire network. The generally good condition of the majority of the road sections results in an average current condition of the road network of approximately 14.9 out of 20. Thisvalue indicate that the road network currently provides a fairlevel of service to the residents. Bridge and culvert infrastructure in the County considered within the AMP arecomprised of those structures which arethree meters in size or larger. This included analysis of 58bridge structures, and 84 culvert structures. When a bridge is inspected in detail every 2 years, the trained inspector reviews and rates each bridge component. These ratings are used to determine the bridge's current value on the Bridge Condition Index(BCI).The County uses the BCIto plan maintenance and repairs. Approximately 62% of County’sbridge and culvertstructuresare in good condition. Alternatively,it can also be viewed that County structures have approximately 33% of their lifespan remaining. ES -iii 23 Without asset management tools, it is almost impossible to determine the long-termeffect of inadequate budget allocations. Yet, it is important for a municipality to determine if the current level of funding is appropriate to continue to provide an adequate level of service to its residents. It is also essential to allocate adequate funding to ensure sustainability of the assets in the future. For the County, the value of the road assets was estimated at approximately $831 million.The value of the bridge and culvert assets was estimated at approximately $122.7 million for bridges, and approximately $56.5 million for culverts, totaling over $179 million. Current Needs Summary The current needs for the County road network are mostly based on the condition of the road, or where it is deemed practical and cost-effective, in association with needsor additional requirements. It is estimated that an average annual capital investment of $16,591,976 (including an assumed 2% inflation)will be required to maintain the transportation network (roads, structure, and traffic) in good condition. This annual expenditure represents a total investment of approximately $166 million over the next 10 years (2020- 2029). The current needs for the bridges were determined having taken into consideration the rehabilitation and needs recommendations identified within a biennial OSIM report for each structure, in addition to the year of construction or last replacement of each structure and the life expectancy. It is estimated that $24,221,378 is required over the next 10 years to improve the overall County bridge inventory condition. Continuation of thebiennialOSIM inspection is anticipated toresult in spreading that amount over a number of years based on actual field inspection. The County has identified the following bridge projects to be undertaken in 2020. 2020 Bridge Projects NetworkProjectLocation Expenditure BridgesB01 –Bothwell Bridge Rehabilitation–Detailed DesignWest Elgin $100,000 (partnership with Middlesex Countyand Chatham-Kent) BridgesB18 –St. George Street Bridge Rehabilitation Central $310,000 Elgin (partnership with City of St. Thomas) BridgesB19 - Port Bruce Bridge ReplacementMalahide$5,150,000 (senior government funding in the amount of $4,166,500 has been announced). BridgesB24 –Meeks Bridge Replacement –Municipal Class Southwold$250,000 Environmental Assessment & Detailed Design BridgesB92 - Kimble Bridge ReplacementSouthwold$480,000 BridgesB99 –King George IV Lift Bridge RehabilitationCentral $6,070,000 Elgin Asset Management Strategy Road Network The road network asset management plan was developed using the information and strategies currently in place at the County. The plan provides detailed information regarding the projects planned for the upcoming ten years. The first 5 years of the plan include a breakdown of specific projects attributed to each year. ES -iv 24 The sixth to tenth years within the plan do not distinguish between individual project years, instead allotting a lump anticipated expenditure of $86,824,635 for selected projects.The following figure shows the anticipated expenditure anticipated for road rehabilitation for the 10-yearscenario, including an assumed even division of the lump expenditure over years 2025-2029, as blue colouredbars. The red colouredbars are representative of the budgeted expenditures by the County for bridge and culvert works. The total allocated budget is based on a summation of the two values. 10-Year Annual Estimated Expenditure for Transportation Network Rehabilitation $90,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 Bridges & Culverts $30,000,000 Road Network $20,000,000 YEARLY EXPENDITURE $10,000,000 $0 202020212022202320242025-2029 YEAR The budget allocated for bridges and culverts is shown for visualization of the entire budget breakdown. Further detail regarding the usage of the structures portion of this budget is given in Section 5.2. It is anticipated that in each of the upcoming ten years of projected infrastructure expenditures that approximately $11.5millionto $16.9 millionwill need to be spent to address needs on the transportation network. Using future asset managementplanning software, itwill bepossible to analyze the infrastructure needs into the future, and the impact of allocated funding on the overall network condition. In the interim, a projected capital plan was developed to ascertain a high-levelunderstanding of the anticipated expenditures and associated overall road network performance. Assumptions were made to simplify the County planning process to create a reasonable representation. Bridges and Culverts The short-term asset management plan developed by County staff for the bridges and culverts was done having consideredthe remaining life, replacement cost, and recommended rehabilitation actions for each structure; and developeda schedule and anticipated yearly expenditure for a ten-yeartimeframe. The figure below shows the capital expenditure anticipated for bridges and culverts based upon the age and ES -v 25 life and although replacement of these bridges is identified, the plan proposes to continue to rehabilitate as recommended in the OSIM report to extend their service lives rather than complete replacement at a significantly higher cost. 10-Year Annual Capital Expenditures for Bridges and Culverts $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 Culverts Bridges INVESTMENT $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- 202020212022202320242025-2029 YEAR Financing Strategy The County has identified revenue sources that will support the Asset Management Plan (AMP) developed through this report. The funding sources include: Property Tax Federal Gas Tax (FGT) and Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) base funding Grants and other one-time funding sources New TaxBase Reserve/Debt Financing The proposed 2020 ten-year plan is being modified to assume that $1.3 million in OCIF will continue in perpetuity, thereby increasing funding to the plan by $8 million. A one-time top-up of FGT of $1.6 million was received in July 2019 and will be applied to fund the infrastructure plan.The County, where applicable, will also seek Federal and Provincial funding through competitive grant programs, resulting in a potential funding source. The draft 2020 ten-year plan will allocate a quarter of the incremental tax revenue received from growth resulting in new property assessment (growth assumed to average a conservative 1% annually) to fund infrastructure, providing $1.1 million in funding. The $46 million increase in investment proposed in Asset Management Plan will only partially be funded by increases in the ten-year plan to OCIF, FGT and assessment growth net of interest payments, leaving a shortfall of approximately $40 million. A gradual increase of property tax by an incremental 1.6 % over ES -vi 26 ten years will provided the necessary funding. Debt will need to increase by an estimated $25 million to fund the upfront investment until gradual measured increases in property tax provide ongoing stable funding. These estimates will be refined as part of the development of the 2020 budget expected to be completed by February. ES -vii 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1.Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.Significance of Municipal Infrastructure .................................................................................... 4 1.2.Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O. Reg 588/17) .............................................................................. 5 1.3.County of Elgin.......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.Development and Continuous Improvement of the AMP .......................................................... 6 1.5.Corporate AMP Scope................................................................................................................ 6 1.6.AMPLimitations........................................................................................................................ 7 2.Project Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.InfrastructureData Inventory ..................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1.Linear Infrastructure Inventory –RoadNetwork........................................................... 9 2.1.2.Point Asset Inventory – Bridge and Culvert Assets....................................................... 9 2.1.3.Traffic Asset Inventory .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.Replacement Costs................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.Condition Assessment.............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1.Road Network Condition Assessment Process............................................................ 11 2.3.2.Bridge and Culvert Condition Assessment Process..................................................... 11 3.Desired LevelsofService................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.Municipality Objectives........................................................................................................... 12 3.2.O.Reg 588/17 Requirements .................................................................................................... 12 3.3.Determining Appropriate Levels of Service forElgin County ................................................. 24 4.State of LocalInfrastructure.......................................................................................................... 26 4.1RoadNetwork.......................................................................................................................... 26 4.1.1Asset Inventory ............................................................................................................ 26 4.1.2InfrastructureCondition ............................................................................................... 28 4.1.3EstimatedAssetValue................................................................................................. 29 4.1.4Current Needs Summary.............................................................................................. 29 4.2Bridges and Culverts................................................................................................................30 4.2.1Asset Inventory ............................................................................................................ 30 4.2.2Infrastructure Condition ............................................................................................... 31 4.2.3Estimated Asset Value ................................................................................................. 32 4.2.4Current Needs Summary .............................................................................................. 32 Page 1 28 5.AssetLifecycle Management Strategy ........................................................................................... 34 5.1.RoadNetwork.......................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.1.ConditionAssessment .................................................................................................. 34 5.1.2.Network Condition Lifecycle....................................................................................... 35 5.1.3.Lifecycle Management Approach ................................................................................ 35 5.1.4.Current Budget Condition Profile ................................................................................ 35 5.1.5.Optimum Budget Condition Profile ............................................................................. 36 5.2.Bridges and Culverts................................................................................................................ 37 5.3.AssetManagement Policies......................................................................................................38 5.3.1.Roads ........................................................................................................................... 38 5.3.2.Structures ..................................................................................................................... 38 5.4.AssetManagement Policies ...................................................................................................... 41 5.4.1.Approach to Data Assembly ........................................................................................ 41 5.4.2.Condition Assessment Strategy ................................................................................... 42 5.4.3.Maintenance Activities ................................................................................................ 42 5.5.AMP Update and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 42 6.FinancingStrategy........................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.County of Elgin Financing Strategy......................................................................................... 44 7.Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 46 References.................................................................................................................................................. 47 Page 2 29 LISTOF FIGURES Figure 1: County of Elgin – Location Map................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Deterioration Model and Threshold ofAcceptability.................................................................... 11 Figure 3.1: Images of Pavement Quality Index Inspections Compared to Asset Management Condition Rating .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.2: Map of County Road Network SAR Condition Rating and Level of Connectivity ................ 17 Figure 3.3: Images of Bridge Condition Inspections ................................................................................. 18 Figure 3.4: Images of Culvert Condition Inspections ................................................................................ 19 Figure 4.1: Age Distribution of Road Sections .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 4.2: Distribution of Road Surface Types ........................................................................................ 25 Figure 4.3: Road Network Condition ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.4: 2020 Planned Road Network Rehabilitation ........................................................................... 27 Figure4.5: Average Age of Bridges and Culverts ..................................................................................... 28 Figure 4.6: Percentage of Anticipated 10-Year Expenditures for Bridges and Culverts ........................... 30 Figure 5.1: Graphical Representation of Lifecycle of an Asset ................................................................. 33 Figure 5.4: Annual Budgeted Expenditures for Road Network ................................................................. 34 Figure 5.5: Annual Bridge and Culvert Capital Expenditures ................................................................... 35 Figure 5.6: Ad Hoc Environment ............................................................................................................... 39 Figure 5.7: Recommended “Enterprise” Environment .............................................................................. 39 Figure 7.1: Cumulative 10 Year Infrastructure Gap Visual (Transportation Services) ............................. 44 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Inventory and Valuation ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 3.1: O.Reg 588/17 Levels of Service Metrics and Structures Assets .............................................. 13 Table 3.2: O. Reg 588/17 Required Levels of Service Metrics (Transportation Services) ........................ 14 Table 3.2 (Continued) O. Reg 588/17 Required Levels of Service Metrics (Engineering Services) Performance Measure: Technical Focused ....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3.3: Levels of Service Metrics – Foundational and Advanced (Transportation) ............................. 20 Table 3.3 (Continued) Levels of Service Metrics – Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) Performance Measure: Technical Focused ....................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.3 (Continued) Levels of Service Metrics – Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) Performance Measure: Technical Focused ....................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3.3 (Continued) Levels of Service Metrics – Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) Performance Measure: Technical Focused ....................................................................................................................... 23 Table 4.1: 2020 Bridge Projects ................................................................................................................. 31 Table 5.1: Structural Adequacy Rating ...................................................................................................... 32 Table 5.4: County Structure Age Pro Page 3 30 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Elgin County Road Network Documents Page 4 31 1.0INTRODUCTION 1.2.Significance of MunicipalInfrastructure The Corporation of the County of Elgin (“County of Elgin” or “County”) infrastructure systems are the backbone of our communities. They support a range of municipal services that enable the quality of life experienced by residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. The County’s Asset Management Program is designed to enable management of infrastructure assets in a way that connects strategic Council and municipalityobjectives to day-to-day infrastructure investment decisions. The County’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) is a tactical outcome of the Program, setting out the current plan for the County to manage its $831 millionworth of coretransportationinfrastructure. This is accomplished by: Aligning with the Provincial regulatory landscape, meeting the requirements of O.Reg 588/17, and positioning the County for grant funding applications. Understanding the current state of the infrastructure systems. Measuring and monitoring Level of Service (LOS) metrics to quantify how well an infrastructure system is meeting expectations. Establishing asset lifecycle management activities (i.e. how infrastructure is operated, maintained, rehabilitated and replaced). Determining the optimal costs of the asset lifecycle activities required to ensure the infrastructure systems provide service levels that meet municipality expectations. Establishing a financial strategy to fund the expenditures that are required to complete the optimal lifecycle activities for Council’s approval. Prepare conclusions and provide recommendations resulting from the data analysis performed. Based on the existing County budget, the infrastructure gap based on existing asset condition of the road network, bridges, and culverts is expected to grow to $47 million within the Plan’s 10-yearperiod of analysis. The County’s proposed strategy is to mitigate the annual growth of the infrastructure gap. The strategy is to balance the affordability of municipal taxes with the needs of the County. Failing to address growing infrastructure needs will result in increased risk of infrastructurefailures that will negatively affect the quality of life through more frequent impacts likeroad closures, structure failures, etc. Failure to take care of a minor repair in the shortterm can lead to more costly solutions in the future. The County’s projected life cycle investmentplans currently do not meet the needs of our infrastructure. If nothing is done to address theprojected shortfall, the infrastructure gap will continue to grow, resulting in an untenable situation.The most efficient way to manage our assets is through well planned investments; making theright investment at the right time for the right amount. Page 5 32 The Program areas and services that are included in the scope of the 2019 AMP first focuses on the County Road Network and Structures. A future update to the AMP is required to incorporate the following additional County areas and services: Stormwater Corporate Facilities Long Term Care Cultural Facilities Information Technology Fleet 1.3.Ontario Regulation 588/17 (O. Reg 588/17) PRECURSOR In 2012, the Province of Ontario published ‘Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans’ (AMP) to encourage and support municipalities in Ontario to develop AMP(s) in a consistent manner. In 2015, Ontario passed the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act which affirmed the role that municipal infrastructure systems play in supporting the vitality of local economies. After a year-long industry review process, the Province created Ontario Regulation 588/17 –Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure under the Infrastructure for Jobs andProsperity Act. O.Reg. 588/17 further expands on the Building Together guide, mandating specific requirements for municipal Asset Management Policies and Asset Management Plans, phased in over a five-year period. O. Reg 588/17 has a phased approach with three deadlines of July 1, 2021, July 1, 2023, and July 1, 2024. The July 1, 2021 and July 1, 2023 deadline arewhere ‘Core’ assets (road, bridges, etc.) and all County infrastructure assets, respectively will have an asset management plan documenting current levels of service. The final deadline (July 1, 2024) is to document proposed levels of service and financial strategies to fund these expenditures. REQUIREMENTS ACHIEVED FOR THE 2019 AMP For directly-owned County infrastructure assets, this AMP is compliant with the July 1, 2021 and July 1, 2023 Regulation requirements. Furthermore, it also includes some componentsof the July 1, 2024 requirements. 1.4.County of Elgin The County is located in the Province of Ontario. It is an upper-tier municipality, subdivided into seven lower-tier municipalities. The County is located in Southwestern Ontario, south of the City of London, and borders Lake Erie on the south. The County is approximately 1,820 square kilometers in size, and has a population of nearly 50,000. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the County. Page 6 33 Figure 1: County of Elgin – Location Map 1.5.Development and Continuous Improvement of the AMP This AMP is the culmination of efforts from staff across our organization who areinvolved with managing infrastructure assets, including finance staff involved with funding capitalprojects and operating programs, technical staff involved with planning and executing theconstruction of infrastructure assets, and on-the- ground staff who operate and maintain infrastructure assets. Moving forward, their involvement will continue to ensure that future editions of the plan remain relevant and useful in properly managing the County’s infrastructure assets. 1.6.Corporate AMPScope This Corporate AMP first focuses on the County’s road network and structure infrastructure assets that provide services to our communities. The County’s approach is to take a service-focused perspective to the Corporate Asset Management Program, and therefore the transportation infrastructure systems are described as follows in terms of services & service areas rather than asset category: Roads & Structures - Roadways include those classified as major arterial, minor arterial, collector, local, or suburban links as defined in the County of Elgin Roads Plan and Policies (February 2009) with the inclusion of road base, asphalt, curb and gutter, storm sewers,and traffic islands. Road structures include bridges, major/minor culverts, pedestrian tunnels, and major retaining walls. The County is an upper tier municipality, subdivided into seven lower-tier municipalities. Responsibility for maintenance of infrastructure is divided between the upper- and lower-tier municipalities.The subdivided municipalities are responsible for the majority of the infrastructure within the County. It is the responsibility of the County to maintain major arterial and collector road network and structure Page 7 34 infrastructure belonging to the County. Roadand structure (bridges and culverts)infrastructure within the County includes: 689kilometers of pavedroads (601 asphalt + 88 surface treated); 58 bridge structures; 84culvert structures; 2 pedestrian tunnels; 4 retaining walls; 36 standalone street lights ~7,725 traffic signs; and, 33 traffic control signals and beacons. 1.7.AMPLimitations The AMP is a tool which is meant to be used to inform decision making. Other political, social, and environmental considerations should also be consideredin planning capital investments. However, the AMP should provide a foundation on which those decisions are made. In addition, the usefulness of the AMP is directly related to the quality of data used in its analysis. County Staff involved in this AMPwere committed to data accuracy, yet some assumptions had to be made in extenuating circumstances. Yet as a whole, the AMP provides an accurate approximation of the County’s current and future infrastructure needs. The following points summarize the assumptions and limitations of this AMP: The scope of this Plan covers the assets directly owned by the County. This AMP is compliant with the 2021 and 2023 requirement of O. Reg. 588/17 for directly owned County assets. Additional effort will be required by the County to establish the proposed Level of Services (and associated costs impacts) to meet the 2024 requirements. The County has not implemented an asset risk management strategy although one has been drafted and is planned for full implementation over the next few years. The County addresses condition information in three ways: i.Condition may be technically assessed and reported on in a quantifiable technique. This method is the most accurate and most expensive (e.g. Structural Adequacy Rating). ii.Condition may be assumed based on age and estimated useful life. iii.Finally, condition may be based on the expert opinion of staff using the asset. Unexpected events (e.g. climate change, weather patterns) will not disrupt infrastructure replacement and renewal projects over the period of analysis. Inorder to meet the investment requirements identified in this Asset Management Plan, a significant incremental increase in taxes will be required. The double-digitincrease, if implemented all within one year would place an undue burden on rate payers. To avoid this, an incremental 1.6% increase in each of the next 10 years is proposed. In the interim, while the gradual escalation of taxes occur, incremental debt will be required to provide the needed cashflow to fund the increased investment in our infrastructure. Page 8 35 2.PROJECTMETHODOLOGY The general methodology we have adopted has been to follow the best practices from the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (2002), also known as the InfraGuide. The approach is described in five steps and was designed to help asset managers assess the level of service currently provided by their tangible assets. It allows asset managers to make fact-supported infrastructure investments decisions, while maximizing the effectiveness of available funds. Indeveloping an AMP for the County, each of the five steps, and their key elements, as presented below, were addressed. Each step is described in detail in the sections below. 1.Infrastructure Data Inventory - What infrastructure do youown? Analysis of existing data and optimization of data sources; Transfer of physical characteristic information into databases; and Document inventory of all assets. 2.Replacement Costs - What is it worth? Define bench-marking unit prices for replacement; Calculate replacementcosts of all assets; and Input information in analytical tools. 3.Condition Assessment - What is its condition and remaining service life? Review of condition assessmentdata; Transfer of condition data to analytical tools; Computing condition assessment indices where appropriate; Statistical analysis of defects to assess lifeexpectancy; Determination of service life of all infrastructure assets; and Comparison with industry standards and definition of acceptable level of service. 4.State of Local Infrastructure Analysis- What needs to be done to rehabilitate, replace, operate and maintain theseassets? Upload condition data in asset management tools and process information; Review the effect of different repair alternatives; Consideration of lifecycle costs and extension of service life; and Determine financial requirements to address needsidentified. 5.Asset Management Strategy - What should be done first and how much will it cost? “what if”expenditure scenarios; and Consideration of selected Production of a prioritized short and long-termAMP. The final part of this report which could be incorporated as an additional question to the list above isHow will you finance your plan? To answer that question,we have reviewed a variety of financing strategies which could be implemented to address the needs of all assets while maintaining an acceptable level of service to the residents. Page 9 36 2.1.Infrastructure DataInventory The County already possesses a large amount of inventory and condition assessment data in a variety of formats.Table 2.1below summarizes the asset inventory and valuation for the roads, structures, and traffic assets. Asset TypeAssetInventoryUnitReplacement Value Major Arterial31.3km$ 26,300,606.30 Roads Minor Arterial274.94km$ 271,974,721.19 Collector354.24km$ 321,034,428.00 Local Road15.93km$ 12,188,701.29 Suburban Link12.34km$ 12,206,910.81 Bridges58Ea.$ 122,732,694.00 Structures Culverts (greater than 3m 84Ea.$ 56,496,425.00 span) Pedestrian Tunnel2Ea.$ 300,000.00 Retaining Walls4Ea.$ 3,500,000.00 Street Lighting36Ea.$ 140,883.84 Traffic Traffic Signs~7,725Ea.$ 1,737,112.49 Signals & Beacons33Ea.$ 2,200,000.00 TOTAL$ 830,812,482.92 Table 2.1:Inventory and Valuation 2.1.1.Road Network Inventory Prior to preparation of the AMP, County staff had created a digitized road network database. Information such as year of construction, surface type, and pavement widths were some of the attribute information that was required in the development of the AMP. 2.1.2.Structures Inventory The point assets considered within this AMP include bridge and culvert structures three meters or larger in span. The main source of information for these point assets were reports created to respond to Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) requirements. To meet the requirements set out in OSIM, all structures on Ontario highways must be inspected at systemic intervals, based on defined technical and material standards. Full reports were developed for the structures within the County, providing detail on condition, physical attributes and recommendations for future needs andrehabilitation. County staff, reviewed all OSIM and PSAB data and made appropriate adjustments to parameters such as service lives and replacement cost of an asset. The goal was to cater the existing information on current infrastructure conditions to the AMP development process. 2.1.3.Traffic Asset Inventory To meet transportation needs, the County owns and operates an extensive inventory of static, electrical and electronic Traffic infrastructure valued at over $4million. Assets range from street lighting units, to regulatory and informative signage, and road line markings. Table 2.1above summarizes the asset inventory and valuation for the Traffic assets. Page 10 37 Traffic infrastructure is broken down into three categories: Street Lighting, Signals& Beacons, and Traffic Signage. Maintenance and upkeep of Lighting and Signals assets are contracted out to a third party. However, operating activities are undertaken by County staff. The contracts and Provincial standards govern asset performance and the timing of work. The County also maintains road signage and line markings. Major and minor regulatory signage is governed by the Highway Traffic Act, and local bylaws, respectively. Guidance or Information signs are posted as defined in the Ontario Traffic Manual. 2.2.ReplacementCosts Calculating the replacement costs of infrastructure assets provides insight on the existing financial investments on municipal infrastructure networks. To calculate overall replacement costs, County staff utilized unit construction costs based on recent construction activities completed in the area. Calculation of replacement costs for point assets involved assigning an average unit cost per square meter of deck area to each bridge, and per meter of length for culverts. The replacement costs were dependent on the construction type and overall size of each structure. The replacement costs calculated by County staff were developed from previous project experience. 2.3.Condition Assessment The generation of condition indices, using consistent and repeatable techniques, is essential in comparing assets and identifying needs in all types of infrastructure. These indices are used to track improvements to the level of service in the condition of the asset network in the form of financial investment. The County already has performance data on their road network which was summarized using an index called Structural Adequacy Rating (SAR). That index was correlated to a Performance Index (PI) the roadnetwork ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 representing an asset in perfect condition. This conversion was required for processing of the data in the asset management tool. Once all assets were assigned a condition rating, knowledge of assets and technical expertise were used to determine rating level which represented the minimal level of service that can be provided to the residents. Any components of infrastructure rated below the minimal rating are considered in needs of repair to improve the level of service. The minimum rating, or level of service, is called the Threshold ofAcceptability of an asset. The following Figure 2 illustrates graphically an example of performance thresholds and deterioration model used for road networks. Page 11 38 Figure 2: Deterioration Model and Threshold of Acceptability 2.3.1.Road Network Condition AssessmentProcess The County has a highly developed Structural Adequacy Rating system which is used to summarize the results of condition assessment surveys carried out on all the roadway sections in the network on a regular basis. This survey provides a more accurate indication of the condition of the road surfaces, and better prediction of roadway deterioration. This information was used to analyze the road network over time. 2.3.2.Bridge and Culvert Condition AssessmentProcess Condition assessment surveys havebeen carried out on the bridge and culvert point assets earlier this year through the OSIM report program. The detailed condition assessment evaluated the condition of the elements of eachstructure, and identified elements requiring repair, however did not attribute condition indices to the structures. Therefore, it was decided to take an approach based on year of construction and remaining service life in determining condition indices. The OSIM and PSAB databases contained information on year of construction, service lives and replacement costs, which were used to approximate timing for rehabilitation and replacement of those assets. The approximations were reviewed and adjusted in some cases to better reflect actual condition of some assets. Page 12 39 3.DESIRED LEVELS OFSERVICE 3.1.MunicipalityObjectives Every municipalitymustdevelop objectives on the expected quality of life desired in their municipalityand a vision for the future. These are established either through a structured process (such as a comprehensive municipalityplan) or by other means. The objectives and vision usually include elements of health and safety, social wellbeing, economic and cultural development, and other factors. Municipalityobjectives rely heavily on the ability of the existing infrastructure to support such plans. In many instances, the objectives call for new infrastructure that the municipality will have to operate and maintain for generations. Levels of service have to be aligned to the strategic direction of the municipality. Appropriate levels of service must consider the municipality’s ability and willingness to tolerate risk. The costs associated with the levels of service need to be established and evaluated in view of the capacity of the municipalityto support them. Ideally, each municipalityshould use this process to define their acceptable level of service. Once determined, all assets would need to be reviewed and compared to the municipality’s expectations. Action plans on remedial measures would have to be developed to close the gap between expectations and reality, if physically and financially possible. 3.2.O.Reg 588/17 Requirements O. Reg. 588/17 requires legislated municipalitylevels of service for core assets. Municipalitylevels of service use qualitative descriptions to describe the scope or quality of service delivered by an asset category. Examples of legislated municipalitylevels of service include a map showing the different levels of road class pavement conditions or images that illustrate the different condition of bridges and how this would affect use of the bridges. O. Reg. 588/17 also requires legislated technical levels of service for core assets. Technical levels of service use metrics to measure the scope or quality of service being delivered by an asset category. Examples of technical levels of service include average surface condition for paved roads based on the Structural Adequacy Rating Value or the average bridges conditions based on Bridge Condition Index value. The following Table 3.1below lists the performance measures that are included in the O.Reg 588/17 requirements for Roads and Structures assets. References are provided to show where O. Reg 588/17 requirements have been attained: Page 13 40 Table 3.1O.Reg 588/17 Levels of Service Metrics for Roads and Structures Assets Customer Level of ServiceTechnical Level of Service Description or images that illustrate the Average surface condition (e.g. excellent, good, different levels of road class pavement fair or poor) for unpaved roads.(Table 3.2) condition. Description or images of the condition of For bridges in the County, average bridge bridges and how this would affect use of condition index value.(Table 3.2) the bridges.(Figure 3.3) Description or images of the condition of For structural culverts in the County, average culverts and how this would affect use of bridge condition index value.(Table 3.2) the culverts.(Figure 3.4) Description, which may include maps, of Average surface condition (e.g. excellent, good, the road network in the County and its fair or poor) for paved roads.(Table 3.2) level of connectivity.(Figure 3.1 and 3.2) # of lane-kilometresof major arterial roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of the County. (Table 3.2) # of lane-kilometres of minor arterial roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of Description of the traffic that is supported the County. (Table 3.2) by County bridges (e.g., heavy transport # of lane-kilometres of collector roads as a vehicles, motor vehicles, emergency proportion of square kilometres of land area of vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists).(Table 3.2) the County. (Table 3.2) # of lane-kilometres of local roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of the County. (Table 3.2) # of lane-kilometres of suburban link roads as a proportion of square kilometres of land area of the County. (Table 3.2) % of bridges and culverts in the County with loading or dimensional restrictions. (Table 3.2) Other level of service performance measures arerelated to Corporate Values of Cost Efficiency, Scope, Operational, Accessibility, and Environmental Stewardship. The metrics that go beyond the foundational or regulation required metrics are considered advanced. They indicate service areas have documented planned approaches for operation and maintenance of infrastructure, and have considered trending indicators if the result is planned to be decreased, increased, or to be approximately equal in future years. Foundational and advanced metrics are listed inTable 3.3. Page 14 41 CUSTOMER LOS TARGET Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable Not Applicable 4 2 in Figure ians, and and 3. 3 1 3.1 3. cyclists. PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER LOS Figures 3. County of Elgin bridges vehicles, emergency Maps are included in accordance with the Images included in 3. The bridges have been have been designed in designed to carry heavy transport vehicles, motor Images included Images included in Figure vehicles, pedestr of the Bridge Design Code The at the time of construction. standard and requirements 42 county and its level connectivity. would affect the use of the culverts. CUSTOMER LOS MEASURE levels of road class pavement condition. emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists). and how this would affect use of the bridges. and how this Description of the traffic that is supported by county Include description, which may include maps, of the road network in the bridges (e.g., heavy transport vehicles, motor vehicles, Include description or images that illustrate the different Include description or images of the condition of bridges Include description or images of the condition of culverts Positive Downward Table 3.2 O. Reg 588/17 Required Levels of Service Metrics (Transportation Services) level of connectivity. pedestrians and cyclists. Providing a transportation 8/17 Required Levels of Service metrics (Engineering Services) network with a reasonable Positive Upward 8 network that is safe for drivers, Providing an operational road CORPORATE LOS OBJECTIVE Scope Operational No Change CUSTOMER VALUE Table 3.2 O. Reg 5Performance Measure: Customer / Council Focused LOS TARGET TECHNICAL 0.330.25 3.5 % 0.34 km0.03 km 0.39 km SAR 14.9 (Good) PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL LOS roads as a roads as a value. lifecycle lifecycle (Engineering Services) roads as a proportion of value. 43 county. restrictions Collector Major and Minor Arterial Suburban Link and Local poor) for paved roads. of square kilometres of land area of the CUSTOMER LOS MEASURE kilometers of kilometers of - kilometers of - - square kilometres of land area of the county. ercentage For bridges in the county average p For structural culverts in the county, average % of bridges in the county with loading or dimensional Average surface condition (e.g. excellent, good, fair, or # of lane # of lane # of lane proportion of square kilometres of land area of the county. Positive Downward 8/17 Required Levels of Service metrics 8 of connectivity. pedestrians and cyclists. Providing a transportation network that is safe for drivers, Providing an operational road CORPORATE LOS OBJECTIVE network with a reasonable level Positive Upward Scope Operational No Change CUSTOMER VALUE Table 3.2 (Continued) O. Reg 5Performance Measure: Technical Focused 4 11 SAR = SAR = Quality Index Images that illustrate the different Pavement ConditionVery Poor Value 0-7) Condition (SAR 44 Poor Condition 4 (SAR Value 7-11) 201714 = SAR = SAR SAR = Quality Index Images that illustrate the different Pavement Figure 3.1 Images of Pavement Quality Index Inspections Compared to Asset Management Condition Rating 19) 14) Condition Very Good 1 (SAR Value 20) (SAR Value 12- Fair Condition 3 Good Condition 2 (SAR Value 15- and Level of Connectivity 45 SAR Condition Figure 3.2 Map of County Road Network Sparta Line (CR27) – None (BCI 42) B24 Meeks Bridge -29) (BCI 1 (BCI 30-65) Poor Condition Condition Inspections Very Poor Condition 46 Images of Bridge 3 Dunborough Road Willsie Bourne (CR34) – – Glen Colin Line (CR40) – Images of the condition of bridges and how this would affect use of the bridges (CR5) Figure 3. B43 Glen Colin (BCI 97) B03 Walkers Bridge (BCI 91) B32 Belmont West (BCI 66) Condition Very Good (BCI 80-99) (BCI 66-79) Fair Condition Good Condition Condition (BCI 100) Putnam Road – None (CR47) C61 Clapton Farrow (BCI 61) -29) (BCI 1 (BCI 30-65) Condition Inspections Poor Condition 47 Very Poor Condition Culvert Duff Line – Ron McNeil Images of – 4 Talbot Line (CR3) – (BCI 91) Images of the condition of culverts and how this would affect use of the culverts (CR9) Figure 3. Line (CR52) C08A Campbell West (BCI 100) C59 Pettman Moore C54 Baird Drain (BCI 73) Condition Very Good (BCI 80-99) (BCI 66-79) Fair Condition Good Condition Condition (BCI 100) N/A 100% 100%100%100% TARGET as practicable signage as soon CUSTOMER LOS Clear obstructed 41%98% 75% LOS 34 % 100%100% 167.50 10.75 9.97% $ CUSTOMER PERFORMANCE in condition good ) ($/household) 48 to adequate Signals Foundational and Advanced (Transportation) fair total in cycling master plan CUSTOMER LOS MEASURE – road maintenance timeline standardsroad maintenance timeline standards % of streetlights that are energy efficient % of signage with visibility that meets (check) of paved lane km where the condition is rated (Roadway, Structure, Street Lighting and Traffic Operating cost to provide transportation services Volume of salt tonnes applied to road per lane km % % of street light repairs that meet or exceed county % of paved lane km where the condition is rated as % of linear bike facility (i.e. bike lanes) completed vs % of traffic signal repairs that meet or exceed county provide Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) cyclists. all modes – To Provide an Levels of Service Metrics Positive Downward OBJECTIVE effective manner - network that is 3 network that is safe for pedestrian access CORPORATE LOS control, appropriate lighting, signage and Providing an efficient cost network and adequate drivers, pedestrians and needs of the public in a Providing an operational transportation network for Providing a transportation environmentally conscious safe and effective mobility pavement markings for the pedestrian/vehicular traffic adequate/accessible road road Table 3. Positive Upward Levels of Service Metrics Operational Accessibility Cost Efficient 3 CUSTOMER VALUE Environmental Stewardship No Change Table 3.Performance Measure: Customer / Council Focused 0 TBD 100%100% TARGET TECHNICAL LOS to % 4 90% LOS 1.6 3,350,000 quantify future Awaiting $ unredacted TECHNICAL CMMS to be established in ARIS approval PERFORMANCE ) site inspections oks W years Standards Lighting and Traffic Signals Approved 49 TECHNICAL LOS MEASURE ermitted Roadway and Structure Reinvestment Rate Structure, Street % of compliance with Minimum Maintenance % of P # of bridges and culverts with reduced load limits % of reduction in injury and fatality collisions over 5 Operating cost for transportation services (Roadway, Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) – cyclists. all modes Positive Downward OBJECTIVE CORPORATE LOS Providing an efficient drivers, pedestrians and Providing an operational transportation network for road network that is safe for Positive Upward (Continued) Levels of Service Metrics Operational Cost Efficient 3 CUSTOMER VALUE No Change Table 3.Performance Measure: Technical Focused 100% 100%100% TARGET TECHNICAL LOS 2% 25% LOS 8.4% 100% 100%100% TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE 50 maintenance standards. % of roads in poor condition TECHNICAL LOS MEASURE % of structures in poor condition patrol and maintenance standards. and plowing) with policies, road patrol and % compliance of spring/summer maintenance % compliance with Bridge Inspection Standard % compliance of winter maintenance (sand, salt % of signage assets in poor and critical conditions (sweeping and debris removal) with policies, road Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) – Downward cyclists. Positive OBJECTIVE CORPORATE LOS drivers, pedestrians and Providing an operational road network that is safe for Positive Upward (Continued) Levels of Service Metrics Operational CUSTOMER VALUE No Change Table 3.2Performance Measure: Technical Focused LOS 0%0% 99%N/A 100% 100% TARGET TECHNICAL % lectivity Test, 130 75% 9.97 practicable Pass Ref PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL LOS future to quantifyfuture to quantify ones that don’t are replaced as soon as 98% CMMS to be established in CMMS to be established in plan % Pass - fixtures county) 51 standards TECHNICAL LOS MEASURE Sign Reflectivity Testing county road maintenance timeline % of linear bike facility (i.e. bike lanes) road maintenance timeline standards % of streetlights with LED or low energy Volume of salt applied to road/lane km (just km that are salted, not all km in the % of street light repairs that do not meet completed vs total in cycling master % of traffic signal repairs that do not meet Foundational and Advanced (Engineering Services) – effective manner - Positive Downward conscious pedestrian access markings for the safe and Providing a transportation traffic control, appropriate road network and adequate effective mobility needs of the CORPORATE LOS OBJECTIVE network that is environmentally To provide pedestrian/vehicular lighting, signage and pavement Provide an adequate/accessible public in a cost Levels of Service Metrics Positive Upward (Continued) Operational Accessibility CUSTOMER VALUE No Change Environmental Stewardship Table 3.2 Performance Measure: Technical Focused 3.3.Determining Appropriate Levels of Service for Elgin County For this project, a full municipalityconsultation process for establishing levels of service has not yet been conducted. The process followed was mostly based on the Asset Understanding, which considered the physical and functional characteristics of an asset to define a measurable index that can be monitored over time. Condition indices were determined as described in Section 2.3: Condition Assessment. By combining this information with staff knowledge, it was possible to determineif the current levels of service provided to the residents were appropriate. Once acceptable levels of service were established, the information was used to identify current and future infrastructure investment requirements. Page 25 52 4.STATE OF LOCALINFRASTRUCTURE Transportation infrastructure is such a crucial part of daily life that it is often taken for granted. When somebody leaves their home, they use a transportation service. Good roads andstructures promote business, create employment, provide social opportunities, create markets,and save lives. When transportation infrastructure is deficient, congestion escalates, thefrequency of accidents increases, wear and tear on vehicles worsens, emergency responsedeteriorates, the environment is negatively impacted, business suffers and opportunities are lost. The importance of efficient transportation is essential to building a strong economy andimproving the quality of life for our citizens. The County contributes to the local economy and qualityof life by supporting the safe and efficient movement of people and goods using transportationinfrastructure, while managing the growing cost of transportation. Traffic assets are used to support reliable, efficient, and safe transportation throughpedestrian/vehicular traffic control, appropriate lighting, signage, and pavement markings. Each of the County of Elgin’s member municipalities operates and maintains County roadways, bridges and traffic infrastructurewithin their respective jurisdiction, thusenabling safe and effective travel. The County’s Engineering Services Department is responsible forplanning and operational management of this critical infrastructure. In addition, the County owns and maintainsdifferent types of cycling facilities whether they are shared, designated orseparated facilities. The County has a detailed infrastructure database, which was used to provide detail for the state of the local infrastructure. 4.1Road Network 4.1.1Asset Inventory The County road network includes 59roads, which are further divided into a total of 248unique road classificationsections, totaling 689kilometers. The characteristics of road sections within the network vary, including variations in the age of surface and surface type of each. The age of the surface for each section was determined using the date of last rehabilitation or resurfacing. The following Figure 4.1illustrates the distribution of the age of surfaces of the road sections within the network. Page 26 53 Figure 4.1: Age Distribution of Road Sections 160.00 20.8% 140.00 16.8% 120.00 100.00 12.5% 12.1% 11.8% 80.00 10.2% 10% 60.00 KILOMETERS 5.7% 40.00 20.00 0.00 (0 - 5)(6 - 10)(11 - 15)(16 - 20)(21 - 25)(26 - 30)(31 - 35)(36 - 55) AGE The road sections which make up the road network are varied in surface type. Some roads remain in their original constructed state, while others have been resurfaced, or entirely reconstructed. Based on the level of distress of the road surface, the County employs one of multiple available methods to rehabilitate the road segment, resulting in a network consisting of various surface types. Figure 4.2shows the distribution of road surface type of the County road network. Figure 4.2: Distribution of Road Surface Types 88km 601km Hot Mix RoadsSurface Treated Roads Page 27 54 4.1.2Infrastructure Condition The condition of the County’s road network is important in determining the needs of the overallnetwork and is evaluated based on condition on an annual basis utilizing a system to determine the condition of the road sections in their network, by means of a Structural Adequacy Rating (SAR) attributed to each road section within the network. The SAR is determined using a combination of visual rating with surface distress and longitudinal profile (wheel path roughness) data collection for each road section, and is defined on a scale from 1 to 20, with1 representing the highest level of distress, and 20 the lowest. The SAR is indicative of the necessity for rehabilitation of the road section and the anticipated remaining lifespan. Results are analyzed and used to establish the pavement quality for each road segment in the County. The overall network condition was determined through the consideration of the SAR rating attributed to each section in combination with the length of that section as a portion of the entire network. Figure 4.3 below illustrates the percentage of theroad network at each SAR, based on the combined section lengths for each rating. Figure 4.3: Road Network Condition 25.0% 19.2% 20.0% 14.7% 13.9% 15.0% 13.0% 11.2% 10.3% 10.0% 8.2% 5.4% 5.0% Road Network Length Percetnage 2.1% 1.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1234567891011121314151617181920 Structural Adquancy Rating The road network overall is relatively in fair condition, resulting in an average current condition of the road network of approximately 14.9out of 20.These values indicate that the road network currently provides an adequate level of service to theresidents. Page 28 55 Fair GoodPoor VeryVery GoodPoor Roadways Overall Condtion 4.1.3Estimated Asset Value Without asset management tools, it is almost impossible to determine the long-termeffect of inadequate budget allocations. Yet, it is important for a municipality to determine if the current level of funding is appropriate to continue to provide an adequate level of service to its residents. It is also essential to allocate adequate funding to ensure sustainability of the assets in the future. For the County, the replacement value of the road assets was estimated at over $643million. 4.1.4Current NeedsSummary The current needs for the County road network are mostly based on the condition of the road. In addition, there may be instances where a road section is considered for rehabilitation prior to incurring a needs-based requirement, where it is deemed practical and cost-effective, or additional requirements. In 2020, it is expected that $11,900,000 will be required for 14 road rehabilitationand reconstructionprojects. This road network improvement total is further organized into six categories of needs,including microsurfacing, single lift resurfacing (Asphalt R1), recycling then resurfacing (Recycling + R1), full reconstruction (Construction), and others. The distribution of needs for each of these categories is shown in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: 2020 Planned Road Network Rehabilitation 12.53km $1,950,000 Resurfacing 3.70km Surface Rehabilitation $5,045,000 Surface Treatment/ Microsurfacing Urban Reconstruction Double Microsurfacing 11.86km $2,840,000 Rural Reconstruction 5.89km 3.32km 18.42km $330,000 $350,000 $555,000 Page 29 56 The majority of the needs currently incurred by the road network can be remedied through resurfacing. The majority work required for 2020consists primarily of recycling then resurfacing the existing pavement surface. 4.2Bridges andCulverts Assets falling under the Structures category are classified based on purpose. Bridges and Culverts are vehicle crossing structures; Pedestrian Tunnels are underground structures that supportpedestrian movement under roadways; and Retaining Wallsare engineered structures used tostabilize large embankments. Bridges, Culverts and Pedestrian Tunnels areinspected in accordance with Provincial Legislation (Reg. 104/97 Public Transportation andHighway Improvement Act) and are maintained as needs dictate within budget allowances. In fulfilling this regulated requirement, the County retained the inspection services of Spriet Associates to prepare the most recent Bridge and Culvert 2019 Inspection and Assessment Report which contains the individual bridge and culvert inspection reports having following the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) format. Bridge and culvert inspections were completed fromMarch to August 2019 and were generally limited to ground level visual reviews, and do not include subsurface geotechnical investigations or any materials analysis of bridge components. 4.2.1Asset Inventory Bridge and culvert infrastructure in the County areconsidered within theAMP as being structuresthree meters in size or larger. This included analysis of 58 bridge structures, and 84 culvert structures. The County’s bridge infrastructure varies in construction type, but includes mostly concrete and steel I- beam structures. The average life expectancy for a concrete bridge structure is 75 years, and 50 years for steel.The following Figure 4.5illustrates the distribution of the age of bridge and culvert structures within the network. Figure 4.5: Average Age of Bridges & Culverts 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Amount of Structures 2 0 Age BridgesCulverts Page 30 57 4.2.2 Infrastructure Condition By law, the County conducts detailed inspections of all of their bridge and culvert structure every two years. Bridge inspectors are trained engineers and technicians with several years of bridge-related experience, and must also follow the guidelines in Ontario's Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). This manual provides inspectors with specific inspection procedures that must be followed during all structure inspections. When a structure is inspected in detail every 2 years, the trained inspector reviews and rates each structure component. These ratings are used to determine the structure's current value using the Ministry of Transportation’s Bridge Condition Index (BCI) weighted average simplified method. Such method for bridges only considers the deck, beams, barrier, and sub-structure elements, while for culverts simply considers barrel and the inlet/outlet treatment elements. The County uses the BCIto plan maintenance and repairs. The index does not indicate the safety of a structure.The average BCIrating of all County bridges is 86, thus meaning the bridge structure inventory is in good condition. Conversely, the County’s bridge inventory average age was determined onlyto have 33% of itslifespan remaining. Fair GoodPoor VeryVery GoodPoor Bridge Structures Overall Condtion The County’s culvert infrastructure includes structures typically constructed of steel and/or concrete. The network includes primarily precast box culverts and corrugated plate steel culverts. The average life expectancy for concrete culverts is 75 years, and 50 years for steel. The County uses the same BCI evaluation system to plan maintenance and repairsfor culverts. Through such process it was determined that the average BCI rating of all County culvertsis 92, thus meaning the bridge structure inventory is also in good condition. Here again conversely based on the County’s culvert inventory average age, it was determined that only 25% of its lifespan remains. Fair Fair GoodPoor GoodPoor VeryVery GoodPoor VeryVery GoodPoor Culvert Structures Overall Condtion Culvert Structures Overall Condtion Page 31 58 4.2.3 Estimated Asset Value Without the appropriate asset management toolsimplemented, it is almost impossible to determine the long- termeffect of inadequate budget allocations. Yet, it is important for a municipality to determine if the current level of funding is appropriate to continue to provide an adequate level of service to its residents. It is also essential to allocate adequate funding to ensure sustainability of the assets in the future. For the County, the value of the bridge and culvert assets was estimated at approximately $122.7 million for bridges, and approximately $56.5 million for culverts, totaling over $179 million. 4.2.4 Current NeedsSummary The current needs for County bridges was determined based on the rehabilitation and needs recommendations identified by Spriet Associates and detailed within the OSIM report for each structure, in addition to the year of construction or last replacement of each structure and the life expectancy. A full replacement of the structure is typically recommended at the end of a structures anticipated service life. Additional costs to be incurred prior to full replacement are rehabilitation items identified within the OSIM reports, each of which has a timeline for completion and associated costs. Based on the results of the current needs analysis, it’s estimated that bridge and culvert needs over the next 10 years (2020-2029) will total $25,017,284, broken down in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: Percentage of Anticipated 10-Year (2020-2029) Expenditures for Bridges and Culverts $795,906 3% Culverts Bridges $24,221,378 97% The large expenditure is mostly for assets that have theoretically reached the end of their service life. Continued biennial OSIM inspectionof structureswill likely result in spreading that amount over a number of years based on actual further field inspection. It is evident that the majority of expenditures anticipated over the next 10 years will be required to replace several bridge structures, whereas approximately only 3%of the cost for bridges will be required for culvert replacement and rehabilitation. Page 32 59 The results of the analysis for work required on bridges in 2020 identified 3rehabilitations and 1full bridge replacementas per OSIM surveys,in addition to ongoing efforts to replace both the Port Bruce Bridge (B19) and Meeks Bridge (B24). The total value of this capital investment is estimated at $10.1 million. The balance of rehabilitation work identified within the OSIM surveys for 2020generally consist of minor repairs, and do not carry high costs. The total work for culverts generally only involves minor repairs worksas per OSIM surveys. The total investment planned for culvert project over the next 10-years is $795,906. In addition to the analysis results presented above, the County has identified the following bridge projects to be undertaken in 2020.Table 4.1lists those projects: Table 4.1 - 2020 Bridge Projects NetworkProjectLocation Expenditure BridgesWest Elgin $100,000 B01 –Bothwell Bridge Rehabilitation –Detailed Design (partnership with Middlesex Countyand Chatham-Kent) BridgesCentral $310,000 B18 –St. George Street Bridge Rehabilitation Elgin (partnership with City of St. Thomas) BridgesB19 - Port Bruce Bridge ReplacementMalahide$5,150,000 (senior government funding in the amount of $4,166,500 has been announced). BridgesB24 –Meeks Bridge Replacement –Municipal Class Southwold$250,000 Environmental Assessment & Detailed Design BridgesB92 - Kimble Bridge ReplacementSouthwold$480,000 BridgesCentral $6,070,000 B99 –King George IV Lift Bridge Rehabilitation Elgin Page 33 60 5.ASSET LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENTSTRATEGY 5.1 Road Network 5.1.1. Condition Assessment The County currently maintains a comprehensive MS Excel-based asset road network segmented database. The database was used, in conjunction with details regarding the processes and requirements, for road network rehabilitation and replacement to develop a system through which road improvements are managed. The processes through which a road segment is selected for rehabilitation take into consideration factors in addition to the condition, including: Capacity /growth Drainagerequirements Roadside environment Construction history Planned work by others The most reproducible technique for determining which road segment requires rehabilitation is through analysis of the structural adequacy rating (SAR), which corresponds to a level of distress of the road surface, as described in Section 4.1.2. The County has defined a prioritized list of actions to be undertaken at varying degrees of distress, as detailed in Table5.1. Table 5.1 – Structural Adequacy Rating ValueDistressActions 20Distress <5%None 19-15Distress 5 -15 %Crack Sealing, Patching, Microsurfacing, R1, MR1 14-12Distress 16 -25%R1, MR1, PR1, CIREAM/R1 11-8Distress 26 -35%PR1, CIREAM/R1, MR2, PR2, Reconstruction 7-1Distress >35%Reconstruction, Surface Treated Roads Each SAR bracket is associated with a list of suggested actions. Additional factors, as listed above, are considered when determining the most appropriate action to be undertaken to a road segment, at the discretion of the County. Further details provided by the County regarding SAR ratings can be found in Appendix A. Because of the high level of intricacy in determining the timing and action type for maintenance of each road segment within the system, it is recommended that the short-term asset management planning, within a timeframe of 10 years from the present, continue in this manner. Retaining the County system to characterize the work to be done allows the system to be inter-connected with additional information and reference to rehabilitation guidelines easilyfeasible. The County compiles annualcost information associated with each rehabilitation method used. The cost information provides breakdowns of individual components for each rehabilitation method, and costs per kilometer of road being rehabilitated, details for which can be found in Appendix A. These values were used to determine the expenditures for road work in the plan. Page 34 61 5.1.2.Network Condition Lifecycle Using asset management software, it is possible to analyze the infrastructure needs into the future, and the impact of allocated funding on the overall network condition. Purchase and implementation of asset management software is recommended and will assist County staff in determining what funding levels are required to increase, decrease or maintain the current condition of the network. As noted in Section 5.1.1, the considerations used in the development of the asset management plan as used by the Countyare intricate and subjective in nature, and dependent on a range of variables. The typical lifecycle of a road segment within the County is illustrated by the grey solid line in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Graphical Representation of Lifecycle of an Asset The figure demonstrates a typical rehabilitation schedule for a road segment, using different rehabilitation options, and their rate of deterioration. As demonstrated in the figure, road network maintenance can be undertaken using a number of rehabilitation options, which are incurred at different road condition levels. The lifecycle presented is considered typical, and the type of rehabilitation, condition level trigger and sequencing of works are all subject to change at the discretion of the County. 5.1.3.Lifecycle Management Approach The general approach to forecasting the cost of the lifecycle activities that are required to maintain the current performance of the LOS metrics is to ensure that the proportion of assets in poor or very poor condition remains relatively stable. Staff then consider the optimal blend of each lifecycle activity to achieve the lowest lifecycle cost management strategy that balances costs with the forecasted change in the condition profile of each asset type. 5.1.4. Current Budget Condition Profile The condition profile expected from the current budget can beforecasted with asset management tools by using the same logic related to condition degradation rates and appropriate condition triggers for Page 35 62 rehabilitation/replacement activities, but the budget is constrained to the current level of planned expenditures. If there is insufficient budget in any particular year to complete a rehabilitation or replacement activity on an asset that has reached its condition trigger, then the asset remains in a Poor or Very Poor condition state until there is sufficient budget in a future year to complete the lifecycle activity. 5.1.5. Optimum Budget Condition Profile The approach to establishing the optimal budget is to forecast with the appropriate asset management tools the lifecycle activities that are required to maintain the current performance of the LOS metrics. Such analysis would consider the current condition of assets, the rate that the condition is expected to degrade, and appropriate condition triggers for rehabilitation/replacement activities to forecast the condition profile into the future. The variables in suchanalysis wouldadjusted until theforecasted condition profile meets the expectation of County staff involved with the management of the assets. The County currently provides a high level of service to its users of the road networkbased on the current good condition of the County road network. As a road network in good condition has become the standard for the County, it is recommended that efforts be made to continue to maintain this level of service for its residents. The AMP developed by County staff utilizedtheinformation and strategies currently in place at the County. The plan provides detailed information regarding the projects planned for the upcoming ten years. The first 5 years of the plan includes a breakdown of specific projects attributed to each year.The sixth to tenth years within the plan do not distinguish between individual project years, instead allotting a lump anticipated expenditure of approximately $86.8millionfor selected projects. The following Figure 5.4shows the anticipated expenditure for road rehabilitation for the 10-yearscenario, including an assumed even division of the lump expenditure over years 2025-2029, as blue colouredbars. The red coloured bars are representative of the budgeted expenditures for bridge and culvert works. Figure 5.4: Annual Budgeted Expenditures for Transportation Network $90,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 Bridges & Culverts $40,000,000 Road Network INVESTMENT $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 2019202020212022202320242025-2029 YEAR Page 36 63 The budget allocated for bridges and culverts is shown for visualization of the entire budget breakdown. Further detail regarding the usage of the structure portion of this budget is given in Section 5.3. The road network budget allocations for each year within the plan range from approximately $11.5million to $16.9 million(totaling approximately $145 million over a ten-year period), and were determined to address specific needs identified by the County in an effort to maintain the good quality of the road network. Documents supporting the short-term asset management strategy for the road network as used by the County can be found in Appendix A. 5.2.Bridges andCulverts Network condition indices were not developed for the bridges and culverts. In the case of these structures, a network condition rating is not an accurate way to qualify the condition. The structure network undergoes periodic inspection, through OSIM, which identifies required rehabilitation and condition of structures. Because there are multiple components to each bridge structure, an overall condition index is difficult to determine. Instead the AMP developed for the bridges and culverts was done having considered the remaining life, replacement cost, and recommended rehabilitation actions for each structure; and developed a schedule and anticipated yearly expenditure for a 10-year timeframe. The plan was developed having predominantly considered the rehabilitation requirements defined in the most recent OSIM reports completed for the structures. These recommendations were included in the plan using the anticipated timeline and cost for each. Figure 5.5shows the capital expenditure anticipated for bridges and culverts based upon the age and life expectancy of the structure. Some lower volume, town line structures have exceeded their service lives and although replacement of these bridges is identified, the plan proposes to continue to rehabilitate as recommended in the OSIMreport to extend their service lives rather than complete replacement at a significantly higher cost. Figure 5.5: Annual Bridge and Culvert Capital Expenditures $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 Culverts Bridges INVESTMENT $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- 202020212022202320242025-2029 YEAR Page 37 64 The initial year of the asset management plan indicates comparatively large expenditures from the remainder of the plan. These expenditures are primarily in response due to the backlog of rehabilitation and replacement workwhich exists, as well as the expiration of the 5-year period for repairs identified to be completed within the 1-5 yearperiod in the 2014OSIM surveys. It should be noted thatthe OSIM condition surveys have been legislated by the province and must be carried every 2 years. This is a good process to frequently update the plan and accelerate or delay rehabilitation based on the recommendations of the surveys. 5.3.Current and FutureChallenges Discussion 5.3.1. Roads Transportation infrastructure serves a variety of needs from active mobility by walking andcycling, to personal vehicle. Additionally, it supports the economy by enabling theefficient movement of goods and services. Anincreased transportation infrastructure gap canlower levels of service that are realized in a number of ways including pavement potholes,bridgeload reductions, illegible signs, less reliable streetlights and traffic signals,and other distresses. This can result in: Lower levels of customer satisfaction Lower levels of road safety Challenges to personal mobility Increased liability and claims Longer times to commute to work and school Impacts to quality of life The life expectancy of asphalt is 10-20 years. This is shortened when utility cuts occur. Theanticipated time to rehab an urban and rural road is now 37 and 48yearsrespectively,more thandouble the life expectancy of theasphalt. In extreme cases when pavement conditions deteriorate to very poor conditions, road closuresmay be necessary. Major roadways carrying heavy traffic volumes result in significant congestionand delays for motorists during times of construction and repair. While this work can be plannedduring off peak and night time hours, there is a cost premium associated with this approach 5.3.2.Structures Structures form a vital aspect of the County’s transportation network creating the connecting linksacross the various rivers, creeks and tributaries. Maintaining these assets in good, safe condition is important to the prosperityand mobility of our citizens. Between the late 1940’s and the early 1990’s, the County constructed 100 of its 143 structures or70% of its inventory. These structures now range in age from 25 to 75 years. Along with theadditional 17% of the inventory that is older than 75 years, the majority of our inventory hasreached half of its useful life. With regular routine inspection, regularmaintenance and ongoing repairs, the design useful life of these structures can be extended.Regular maintenance includes clearing deck drains and expansion joints, and spot deck delaminationrepairs. While regular repairs are understood to be majorrehabilitations which should be done approximately every 15 to 25 years. These rehabilitationstypicallymay include repairs to all necessary elements including the expansion joints abutments, piers, girders, deck,and parapet walls while ensuring that the structure meets current requirements of the CanadianBridge Design Code. Page 38 65 Structures are expensive for any municipalityto maintain. Replacement costs for a bridge run onaverage 22 $4,000/m, with major rehabilitation work running on average $2,175/mdepending onthe size of the structure and the scope of the required work. These figures do NOT includeallowances for service improvements such as widening for bike lanes or geometricimprovements, nor do these figures include costs for engineering, environmental assessments ortemporary support works necessary to complete the work; all of which are typical requirementsfor a major structural rehabilitation. These extras requirements 22 result in the above costs beingincreased by approximately 25%, or $5,000/m and $2725/m, respectively. In comparison, thecost to reconstruct a two-lane arterial road, including sewer and watermain replacement 2 andengineering runs in the order of $600/m. Funding levels have been increasing over the last decade but with the majority of the County’sstructures beyond the 50-year agerange and reaching the end of their expected useful life. Thesefunding levels are inadequate to fully address the inventory needs. This means that the need foremergency, temporary repairs (as well as closures) is becoming more prevalent. Theseemergency repairs normally requireunplanned lane closuresor posted load limitsand result in significant trafficdelays, disruption and/or detours. Examples of the County’s inventory of aging structures and recentrequired emergency repairs/replacement include: Port Bruce Bridge(B19) - Was constructed in 1964 and was a 3-span reinforced concrete structure. A suspended or “drop in” precast girder centre span (46.6m) was supported by 2 cast in place post-tensioned concrete cantilever spans (22.7m each) that extended from the abutments, over the pier and into the centre span. Total former bridge span was 92m between the centerlines of the abutment bearings, with a total width of 12.9m and total depth of 1.32m. On February 23, 2018, the bridge collapsed as a loaded dump truck was driving across. The structure has been subsequently removed entirely with exception of the south abutment, pier piles and north abutment footings. A temporary single lane panel bridge has been installed 150m downstream to provide vehicular and pedestrian access across Catfish Creek until a new, permanent bridge is constructed. Airport Culvert (C09) - Is a 3.1m diameter corrugated steel pipe, installed in 1971 and located on Quaker Road, just north of Elm Line in the Municipality of Central Elgin. During the spring of 2018 a depression formed on the asphalt road surface immediately over the culvert, indicative of a subsurface cavity. Quaker Road was immediately closed to ensure public safety and so that the area could excavated and investigated. It was subsequently determined that fill surrounding the culvert was being washed away from water infiltration at the culvert inlet and holes in the bottom of the culvert. In the fall of2018 repairs were made to install a concrete apron wall and concrete lining of the culvert floor to eliminate the possibility of water infiltration and fill removal around the culvert barrel. The age profile of County Structures itemized below in Table 5.4highlights that thisis just the start of a growing need. Page 39 66 Table 5.4 CountyStructure Age Profile Ages0- 2425- 4950– 74>75 (Years) Bridges9 14269 Culverts7 263417 Pedestrian 1 Tunnels TOTAL16416026 Structure projects are complex, multi-faceted, multi-year projects with many stakeholders.Bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction projects typically require environmental reviews andapprovals for water crossings, assessments for the impact to Species at Risk (SARS) andappropriate mitigation measures, railway approvals and flagging when working near CN or CPRail lines. If the structure is over 40 years old, it has to be evaluated for Cultural Heritage. Oftenexisting servicing and utilities (Bell, Hydro, etc.) are suspended below or attached to the side of a structure. Depending on the scope of work requiredon the structure, all of these issues require additional effort to coordinate and work around duringdesign and construction. While some structures are small, two lanebridges spanning a smallcreek, many others need a significant commitment to fund a major rehabilitation or replacement. B26 Jamestown Bridge – Deterioration and Delamination of Bearing Seat With current budget allocations and the timeit takes to complete the environmental assessments, detailed design and construction work required, multiple years of budget allocation are required to fund any one project. Another aspect of transportation structure rehabilitations or replacements that needs to be identified are the impacts to mobility. These structures provide a connecting link over or under a natural or manmade barrier. When it is necessary to close the structure to complete the work it often results in significant detours for traffic to find another route to traverse the barrier (river or rail line). With vehicles, this long detour is annoying but tolerable. For pedestrians or cyclists, this detour may be challenging or excessive. However, the cost of a temporary pedestrian/cyclist crossing can add $1millionto the cost of the project. On already tight budgets, these temporary costs, if not included, result in significant disruption to the active transportation corridors within Page 40 67 the County. Transportation structures that bridge naturaland manmade barriers within our County form the links between communities, support convenient and connected mobility choices, create beautiful places and spaces, and with our heritage structures acknowledge the County’s history. Continued strong investment in these assets is necessary to create a safe and accessible County that promotes a connected and vibrant municipality. 5.4.Asset Management Policies 5.4.1.Approach to Data Assembly The County currently manages a large amount of data and information stored in Excel databases. It is recommended to continue that practice but to incorporate additional information related to all other assets and create what is referred to as an enterprise database. This is critical for ongoing infrastructure management activities within the County organization. The database used in preparation of the AMP encompasses asset information that can support multiple business functions. Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 illustrate the concept of going from an ad-hoc data environment to a structured enterprise database. Figure 5.6: Ad Hoc Environment Figure 5.7: Recommended "Enterprise" Environment The recommendation to use the Corporate GIS as the enterprise database is common practice in many municipalities across Canada. Data is maintained in one environment, and accessible by many users. Page 41 68 Relevant information can be exported in external applications for processing of data. The results can then be imported back in the GIS database and accessed/displayed graphically which add value to the information stored in databases. An enterprise database system reduces data redundancy and increases access to information across the organization, and to County member municipalities. The County currently lacks the required in-house GIS technologyhardware and personnel expertise,but staff across the organization support the need to implement GIS more than ever before. 5.4.2.Condition Assessment Strategy In continuing to maintain a detailed AMP over time, it is highly recommended that the County acquire detailed condition assessment data on all components of their infrastructure assets. It is critical to ensure the datais current and accurate, in order to maintain a useful AMP. Roads should undergo a full condition assessment every 2-3 years. Given the shorter lifespan of road structures, and high variability in road construction and environment, pavement condition indices are more difficult to estimate over time. Therefore, their condition should be evaluated on a more frequent basis. The approach for condition assessment of point assets, including bridges and culverts, is to follow the mandated approach of inspection of the assets every 2 years. 5.4.3.MaintenanceActivities It should be understood that most infrastructure assets will usually reach their expected service lives if routine maintenance is carried out on those assets while in service. Maintenance activities suchas crack sealing or slurry sealing a roadway or flushing and cleaning a sewer pipe should be carried out on a regular basis depending on the condition and age of the assets. There are many very good Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) in the market that are very helpful and efficient in ensuring sustainability of infrastructure assets. Responsibility for maintenance of infrastructure is divided between the upper- and lower-tier municipalities by way of respective agreements.Each municipality isresponsible for the majority of the day-to-day maintenance of County infrastructure within its jurisdiction in accordance will all applicable provincial regulations. Documenting all maintenance activities associated with such infrastructure through the use of a single global CMMS is highly recommended for implementation. 5.5.AMP Update and Evaluation The present AMP has been designed for a time span of 10 years. However, as previously mentioned it should be treated as a living document, which is regularly updated to reflect changes in infrastructure condition. It is, therefore, recommended that the AMP be updated every year. This will include incorporating rehabilitations and their associated condition changes, adding newly constructed infrastructure, removing decommissioned infrastructure from the analysis, and updating unit prices for rehabilitation or reconstruction. The AMP should also be continuously evaluated and improved through clearly defined actions. It is recommended that the County generate a short-term action plan every 2 to 3 years including a timetable for implementation. These actions should include measures to insure data quality, and improve the AMP process. Page 42 69 6.FINANCINGSTRATEGY Financing infrastructure needs has become avery serious issue. We need to identify better practices and innovations in infrastructure financing if municipalities and other levels of government want to continue to provide an adequate level of service to tax payers in an affordable manner. It is often thought that municipal infrastructure should be financed, as far as possible, by the residents who benefit from it but, how do you determine who should pay for the rehabilitation of an arterial or collector road going from point A to point B in large cities throughout Canada. In addition, for many years, municipal accounting practices have failed to include replacement costs for depreciating assets, thereby assuring a fiscal shock when replacement time arrives. The Ontario Governmenthas changed that practice,requiring municipalities to realize the extent and magnitude of the infrastructure deficit. Asset managers need to come up with innovative solutions to address that infrastructure deficit. Asset management systems are part of the solution but innovative financing and finding alternate revenue sources are an even bigger part of thesolution. Most municipalities are familiar with a variety of internal and some external revenue sources. The following describes a few of those revenue sources currently being used by municipalities: Internal Revenue Sources: o Property Tax:Property tax will always be the largest source of funding for infrastructure. Although reserves and debt can address the infrastructure deficit in the short-term, infrastructure replacement is an ongoing cost that cannot be funded by ever increasing levels of debt. This means that revenue must ultimately increase to fund the ongoing cost of infrastructure replacement. Revenue increases must be pursued in all its forms: property tax, provincial and federal funding, as well as fees and charges. Even if significant increases in revenue are achieved in provincial/federal funding and in fees/charges, a significant increase in property tax will still be required to make up the shortfall. o Reserves: Recognizing that some infrastructure spending is unpredictableor outside of the normal required investments found within the ten-year capital plan, Council sets aside funds in Capital Reserves in order to have cash available when the need arises. To the extent that cash is not set aside in advance of the need, Council can also use debt as an externalfunding source. Typically for very large investments, a mix of reserves and debt is required. o Special Assessments and Local Improvement Charges: A special assessment is a specific charge added to the existing property tax to pay for improved capital facilities that border them. The charge is based on a specific capital expenditure in a particular year, but may be spread over a number of years. o Development Charges(DC):Most large municipalities and many smaller ones impose a specific dollar value per lot on developers to finance the off-site capital costs of new development. Developers are generally responsible for on-site services, such as local roads, sidewalks, and street lighting. Historically, development charges ha services, such as water supply, sewage treatment, trunk mains androads.Development Charges can be set by both the lower and upper-tier municipalities. In Elgin, only some lower- tier municipalities use Development Charges. Those that do not have DCs use the lack of such charges as an economic development incentive to attract developers. Those municipalities Page 43 70 without these charges have opposed implementing Development Charges as the county level in both of the two times that DCs have been proposed to County Council. External RevenueSources o Grants: Municipalities sometimes rely on provincial and federal government grants for infrastructure. Program such as the MIII is a good example. In the past capital assistance has also been made available for water, sewer, and transportation projects with all three levels of government participating. o Borrowing: Municipalities engage in both short-term and long-term borrowing. Short-term borrowing may be used to finance temporary cashflow shortfalls.For cashflow shortfalls that will extend for years, long-term borrowing is required. The cause of long-term cashflow shortfalls is typically caused by large investments in infrastructure. A good example would be the redevelopment of Terrace Lodge. Such alarge investment only happens every couple of decades. Forthese type of infrastructure investmentswhose benefits accrue to future residents, it can be argued that these projects should befinanced by borrowing with repayment coming from property tax revenues and user fees paid by futurebeneficiaries. In the case of an investment in roads, which should receive relatively consistent annual funding, debt financing makes sense if there werehistorical shortfalls in the required investment that require a large investment to address that shortfall. New Financing Instruments o A Dedicated Municipal Fuel Tax: Many American cities levy fuel taxes, but municipalities in Canada do not. In a few Canadian cities and city-regions (Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, and Montreal), provincial fuel tax revenues are shared between the province and the city or city-region. The federal government‘s recent initiative to provide grants to municipalities from federal gas tax revenue is a form of revenue sharing and not amunicipal fuel tax because the municipalities do not set fuel tax rates and have no say over the taxbase. o Public-Private Partnerships (P3): A P3 involves the direct participation of the private sector in a venture controlled by the public sector. The public sector role is to facilitate, regulate, and guarantee provision of an asset and the private sector‘s role is to design, finance, build and operate the asset in a formalized partnershipagreement. 6.1.County of Elgin Financing Strategy The County has identified revenue sources that will support the Asset Management Plan (AMP) developed through this report. The funding sources include: Property Tax Federal GasTax (FGT) and Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) base funding Grants and other one-time funding sources New TaxBase Reserve/Debt Financing Elgin receives $1.5 in FGT annually and a further $1.3 million in OCIF. Prior to 2016 OCIF funding was $0.3 million. When the provinceincreased funding in 2016, the increase was not deemed to be ongoing. Page 44 71 The three-year commitment has since been renewed, but the County’s 2019 ten-year plan assumed that funding would be reduced by $0.9 million in 2021. The proposed 2020 ten-year plan is being modified to assume that $1.3 million in OCIF will continue in perpetuity, thereby increasing funding to the plan by $8 million. Doing so will reduce the need to increase property taxes even further. However, if at some time in the future, the province announces that they will not be fully renewing this funding level, Council will need to reevaluate alternative solutions for funding. A one-time top-up of FGT of $1.6 million was received in July 2019 and will be applied to fund the infrastructure plan.The County, where applicable, will also seek Federal and Provincial funding through competitive grant programs, resulting in a potential funding source. The draft 2020 ten-year plan will allocate a quarterof the incremental tax revenue received from growth resulting in new property assessment (growth assumed to average a conservative 1% annually) to fund infrastructure, providing $1.1 million in funding. The remaining incremental tax revenue would be usedto fund increases in operating costs to fund the increased service demands of the growing population. Council could choose to vary the allocation amount or the assumed growth rate in order to reduce the proposed property tax increase, keeping in mind the potential future implications. The 2019 ten-year plan assumed that the County would undertake a $10 million loan finance portion of the redevelopment of Terrace Lodge that could not be covered by Reserves. The incremental $46 million of investment recommended in this Asset Management Plan will increase the debt by an estimated $25 million and will result in over $4 million in interest payments over ten years. The $46 million increase in investment proposed in Asset Management Plan will only partially be funded by increases in the ten-year plan to OCIF, FGT and assessment growth net of interest payments, leaving a shortfall of approximately $40 million. A gradual increase of property tax by an incremental 1.6 % over ten years will provided the necessary funding. The detailed financial model is being developed as part of the 2020 budgeting process and will be completed with budget approval, anticipated to take place in February. As the model continues to evolve during this time period, the above numbers will be refined as a higher level of accuracy is achieved through the new budget model. Page 45 72 7.CONCLUSION Valued at approximately $831 million, the County’s roads, structures, and traffic infrastructure assets are currently in overall good physical condition. Funding shortfalls in all asset groups will result in a degradation of such assets over the next decade. The infrastructure gap willbecome visible to County residents through rough roads, potholes, increased vehicle damage claims, reduced road safety, poor pedestrian facilities and increased operating costs, bridge load restrictions, potential closures, and reduced safety. County staffintends to deal with the infrastructure gap through long term strategic planning and continued efforts to lobby senior levels of government for infrastructure funding. As seen in Figure 7.1 below, the total infrastructure gap will grow to approximately $47 millionin the next decade derived mainly by the roads which composes about 89% of the Infrastructure Gap. ~ $47M $4,976,284 26.4% Infrastructure Gap Road Network Bridges & Culverts Optimal Expenditure (10 Year Budget) Current Funding $165.9M $41,978,476 (10 Year Budget) $119M Figure 7.1 Cumulative 10 Year Infrastructure Gap Visual (Transportation Services) Page 46 73 REFERENCES Canadian Federation of Municipalities. (2012). Canadian Infrastructure Report Card. Volume 1. <http://www.canadainfrastructure.ca/downloads/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_Card_EN.pdf> Canadian Federation of Municipalities and Infrastructure Canada. (2002). National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure \[InfraGuide\]. Ministry of Infrastructure of Ontario. (2012). Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. <http://www.moi.gov.on.ca/pdf/en/Municipal%20Strategy_English_Web.pdf> Department of Economics, Trent University (2006): A State of Disrepair: How to Fix the Financing of Municipal Infrastructure in Canada, No. 241 ISSN 0824 – 8001 Page 47 74 APPENDIX A Elgin County Road Network Documents 75 Structural Adequacy Rating Structural Adequacy Rating (SAR) ValueDistress***Actions* 20Distress <5%None 19-15Distress 5 -15 %Crack Sealing, Patching, Microsurfacing, R1, MR1 14-12Distress 16 -25%R1, MR1, PR1, CIREAM/R1 11-8Distress 26 -35%PR1, CIREAM/R1, MR2, PR2, Reconstruction 7-1Distress > 35%Reconstruction, Surface Treated Roads** Notes:* Actions -are a guide and must also take into account: -Capacity / Growth -Drainage Requirements -Roadside Environment -Construction History -Planned work by others ** Surface Treated Roads are posted at "half load" during spring thaw, and are therefore not "Structurally Adequate" at all times. ***Distresses are deterioration features that affect the pavement's ability to support traffic loads. Surface defects can become "structural distresses" if they are moderate or severe, allowing water to enter the base. Examples of Structural Distressesare: -Moderate to Severe Transverse Cracks -Aligator Cracks -Moderate to Severe Map/Random Cracks -Wheel Track Rutting -Moderate to Severe Longituduinal Cracks (CL) -Frost Heaving / Boils -Surface Ponding Culverts -Page 2of 2 -Pavement Edge Break up / Creep Actions to be scheduled before SAR worsens and changes proposed action. 76 NEEDS CODES 2019 Road Capital Improvement Cost / km Surface TreatmentMSingle Surface Treatment ($4/m2)$ 30,000.00 MicrosurfacingSingle Micro Surfacing w/tack ($4/m2) SST or Micro w/ShouleringMSSingle Micro/SST + 400t/km Shouldering at $25/t$ 40,000.00 Double MicrosurfacingM2Double Microsurfacing ($7/m2) + Shouldering$ 62,500.00 FibreMAT + Shouldering Bonded Wearing Course + Shouldering Pulverize Double Surface Tr.PDSTPulverize / Grade / Water / Compact$ 32,000.00 50mm Granular A$ 20,000.00 DST ($6/m2)$ 48,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Resurfacing R150mm Hot Mix Asphalt ($85/t)$ 95,000.00 MR1Granular Shouldering ($25/t)$ 30,000.00 $ 125,000.00 Pulverize + R1PR1Pulverize, Grade and Compact$ 10,000.00 50mm Granular A$ 20,000.00 50mm Hot Mix Asphalt ($85/t)$ 95,000.00 Minor Shouldering (1m wide)$ 10,000.00 $ 135,000.00 Surface RehabilitationR2Pulverize (milling) / Pack / Water ($3/m2)$ 35,000.00 MR2/PR2100mm Hot Mix Asphalt ($85/t)$ 175,000.00 CIP/R1Granular Shouldering ($25/t)$ 40,000.00 $ 250,000.00 Rural ReconstructionRRECGranular A (0.15mx14mx2.4x$20)$ 100,000.00 Granular B (0.45m x 14m x 2.4 x $20)$ 300,000.00 Drainage (culverts, ditching, drains)$ 250,000.00 Safety$ 25,000.00 150mm Hot Mix Asphalt ($85/t)$ 325,000.00 Granular Shouldering ($25/t)$ 50,000.00 Engineering (15%)$ 150,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 Urban ReconstructionURECExcavation / Road Base$ 450,000.00 *updated with Sparta Milling / Asphalt$ 450,000.00 tender results Nov. 2019 Drainage (Storm Sewers, Curb and Gutter)$ 650,000.00 Eng. / Restoration / Utilities / Misc.$ 400,000.00 Culverts -Page 3of 2 $ 1,950,000.00 CULVRoad Crossing Culvert Replacement/Lining$ 100,000.00 Widening Rural Recon.WRRECLand / Utilities$ 300,000.00 Granular A (0.15mx14mx2.4x$20)$ 100,000.00 Granular B (0.45m x 14m x 2.4 x $20)$ 300,000.00 Drainage (culverts, ditching, drains)$ 250,000.00 Safety$ 25,000.00 150mm Hot Mix Asphalt ($85/t)$ 325,000.00 Granular Shouldering ($25/t)$ 50,000.00 Engineering (15%)$ 200,000.00 $ 1,550,000.00 77 Desired Level of Service ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS Class 1Class 2Class 3Class 4 Lane Width (m)3.753.753.253 Shoulder Width (m)2.52.521* * farm entrances 45m wide upon reconstruction Horizontal and Vertical Curves Design Speed Over Posted Speed Limit20km/h20km/h10km/h0km/h Safe Stopping Sight Distance (speed over posted limit)20km/h20km/h20km/h0km/h Drainage -Flood Return100 year50 year50 year2 year Collision Rating1 (Collisions per million km driven) System Wide Condition Rating80% "Roads in Good to VeryGood Condition" -F.I.R. SAR > 15 Culverts -Page 4of 2 78 5,0005,000 73,643 94,620 25,000 17,000 250,000260,270175,000316,304271,950210,000190,000 7,680,0003,893,9803,717,6001,461,8003,778,5505,505,4755,449,095 46,832,697 165,919,760 199,300,047 152,467,350 Grand Total 2029 25,00010,00031,71220,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 700,000602,820449,600200,000398,335536,664718,755 6,045,661 18,427,800 22,215,569 16,169,908 2028 8,500 25,00010,00031,71216,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 350,000602,820449,600200,000435,479605,369560,522 5,603,504 18,066,470 21,456,355 15,852,851 2027 25,00010,00031,71214,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 350,000602,820449,600200,000382,792550,124454,627 3,564,548 15,941,000 19,106,559 15,542,011 2026 25,00038,64310,00031,71213,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 100,000602,820449,600200,000375,272512,769914,376 5,824,387 17,364,927 20,733,003 14,908,616 2025 25,00050,00010,00031,71213,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 364,300306,600156,800367,915629,306436,973 4,273,662 17,024,438 19,510,928 15,237,266 2024 25,00050,00010,00031,71213,00034,88420,00020,00020,000 297,900291,600140,000360,717440,028428,405 (933,895) 11,528,444 13,711,689 14,645,584 79 2023 5,0005,0005,0008,500 25,00010,00012,00052,00020,00020,00020,000 100,000387,000140,000398,674588,387638,234 1,780,000 3,652,923 13,969,172 18,183,967 14,531,044 2022 25,00010,00012,00020,00020,00020,00020,000 365,000135,000259,750150,000346,759497,780497,727 5,809,194 17,997,593 20,376,610 14,567,416 2021 25,00035,00015,00012,00015,00086,95020,00020,000 620,000135,000328,750339,979520,501403,696 3,772,330 16,274,916 18,851,792 15,079,462 2020 25,00034,62035,00050,00020,00075,00020,00025,00030,00010,000 450,500345,500372,628624,547395,780 3,315,000 9,220,383 19,325,000 25,153,575 15,933,192 II) Capital Corporate ActivitiesAgricultureAdministrative BuildingEngineering ServicesBobier Villa Building & PropertyBobier Villa DietaryBobier Villa HousekeepingBobier Villa Nursing & Personal CareElgin Manor Building & PropertyElgin Manor DietaryElgin Manor HousekeepingElgin Manor Nursing & Personal CareTerrace Lodge Building & PropertyTerrace Lodge HousekeepingTerrace Lodge Nursing & Personal CareArchivesMuseumLibrary ServicesInformation TechnologyAmbulanceEconomic Development 0) CORPORATE ACTIVITIES 2) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 5) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 7) ENGINEERING SERVICES 8) HOMES FOR SENIORS SERVICES 9) MUSEUM/ARCHIVES10) LIBRARY SERVICES11) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES14) AMBULANCE & EMERGENCY SERVICES15) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM Grand Total Prior Plan Increase/(Decrease) 250,000 250,000 Grand Total 2029 25,000 25,000 2028 25,000 25,000 2027 25,000 25,000 2026 25,000 25,000 2025 25,000 25,000 2024 25,000 25,000 2023 25,000 25,000 80 2022 25,000 25,000 2021 25,000 25,000 2020 25,000 25,000 Corporate ActivitiesII) Capital Column Labels 0000072 Ambulance Bldg R & M Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 73,643 73,643 81 Grand Total 2026 38,643 38,643 2021 35,000 35,000 AgricultureII) Capital Column Labels 0000005 Truck KCCA Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 75,00015,00035,00010,000 250,000150,000265,000125,000950,000230,000275,000120,000175,000100,000150,000100,000 2,580,0002,075,000 7,680,000 Grand Total 2029 75,00025,000 150,000350,000100,000 700,000 2028 50,00075,000 125,000100,000 350,000 2027 350,000 350,000 2026 50,00050,000 100,000 2025 50,000 50,000 2024 50,000 50,000 2023 50,000 15,000 60,000 30,000 125,000 1,500,000 1,780,000 2022 50,00015,00025,00035,000 240,000 365,000 82 2021 25,00050,00025,00035,00050,000 250,000185,000 620,000 2020 15,00015,00035,00060,00010,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 100,000 2,580,000 3,315,000 Administrative BuildingII) Capital Column Labels 0000021 Exterior Building Capital Repairs/Parking0000023 Building Automation System Upgrades - Admin0000024 Cooling Tower Replacement - Admin0000026 Window Replacement0000028 Roof Repairs0000029 Interior Renovations0000035 Building HVAC0000036 Elevator0000037 Accessibility/Major Capital Maintenance0000040 Building Envelope Repairs0000041 Roof Repairs - Admin0000042 Energy Savings - Electrical Upgrades0000043 Asbestos Removal0000044 Security Improvement - Card Access & Alarms0000045 Accessibility - Basement Hallway Handrails0000047 Electrical Upgrades0000048 Carpeting0000049 Landscaping Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 97,02064,99967,17473,746 746,646646,136823,217650,000314,184380,502230,000114,610248,116574,343790,000393,271347,546390,000122,400927,564287,171460,000400,554317,036585,866867,258540,600 3,021,6751,326,5102,473,9822,350,4981,524,8801,623,9542,288,7561,343,9622,883,2012,776,9481,119,9693,321,7121,669,0402,723,4422,543,7781,934,8471,223,3501,100,0001,033,7232,009,4002,293,0822,144,5505 ,045,0001,665,5941,063,159 Grand Total 2029 2028 2027 746,646646,136380,502248,116574,343927,564287,171867,258 3,021,6752,473,9822,350,4981,524,8801,623,9542,288,7561,343,9622,883,2012,776,9481,119,9693,321,7121,669,0401,223,3501,665,594 2026 2025 2024 585,866 2,617,3211,934,8471,033,723 2023 64,99967,174 314,184114,610106,121347,546317,036 1,326,510 2022 52,020 823,217393,271400,554 2,543,7782,191,0821,063,159 83 2021 73,746 122,400102,000540,600 2,009,4002,144,550 2020 45,000 650,000230,000790,000390,000460,000 1,100,0005,045,000 Engineering ServicesII) Capital Column Labels 0000038 Road 2 Reconstruction - (West Lorne)0000039 Road 2 Rehabilitation - (West Lorne to Rd 5)0000040 Road 2 Rehabilitation - (Rd 5 to Eckker Drain)0000041 Road 2 Rehabilitation (Ecker Drain to Rd 8)0000042 Road 3 Resurfacing (McPherson to Dunborough Rd)0000043 Road 3 Resurfacing (Dunborough Rd to Iona Rd)0000044 Road 3 Resurfacing (Iona Rd to Shedden)0000045 Road 3 Resurfacing (Shedden to Talbotville)0000046 Road 4 Resurfacing (St. Thomas to Carlow Road)0000047 Road 4 Rehabilitation (Hwy3/4 to City limits)0000048 Road 5 Surface Treatment0000050 Road 7 Resurfacing (50% with C/K)0000051 Road 8 Resurfacing - Dutton0000052 Road 8 Rehabilitation (Hwy 401 to Thames River)0000053 Road 9 Surface Treatment (Rd 103 to Rd 76)0000054 Road 9 Microsurfacing (Rd 76 to Rd 5)0000055 Road 9 Microsurfacing (Rd 5 to Rd 8)0000057 Road 11 Rehabilitation0000058 Road 13 Reconstruction (Dutton)0000059 Road 14 (Rd 16 to Rd 3) Rehabilitation + SLOPE at Iona Bridge0000060 Road 14 (Rd 3 to Thames River) Rehabilitation0000061 Road 16 - Port Talbot Hill Drainage Rehabilitation0000062 Road 16 Rehabilitation (8 to 14)0000063 Road 16 Rehabilitation (14 to Fingal)0000064 Fingal Reconstruction (16 and 20)0000065 Road 16 Rehabilitation (Fingal to City)0000067 Road 18 (Rd 20 to Rd 119) Rehabilitation0000068 Road 18 (Rd 119 To GL entrance)0000069 Road 19 Resurfacing - Straffordville0000070 Road 19 Resurfacing - Eden0000071 Road 20 Resurfacing (Rd 21 to Thomas Road)0000072 Road 20 (Thomas Rd to Fingal) Rehabilitation0000073 Road 20 (Shedden) Resurfacing0000074 Road 20 Rehabilitaiton (Shedden to Road 18)0000075 Road 22 Rehabilitation (Rd 24 to Rd 27)0000076 Road 24 Rehabilitation (East Road to 1km east)0000077 Road 24 (Rd 23 to Yarmouth Centre Road) Resurfacing (paved shoulders)0000078 Road 24 Rehabilitation (Yarmouth Centre to Quaker Road)0000079 Road 25 Rehabilitation (incl. 0.5m PPS)0000080 Road 26 (Rd 25 to RR Tracks) Reconstruction0000081 Road 27 Surface Treatment (20 to Townline)0000082 Road 27 Rehabilitation - Union to Sparta0000083 Road 28 (Rd 45 to Rd 56) Resurfacing0000084 Wonderland Road Reconstruction0000085 Road 31 Rehabilitation0000086 Road 32 Rehabilitation0000087 Road 35 Microsrufacing (45 to Hwy 3)0000088 Road 35 Resurfacing (Hwy 3 to Rd 52)0000089 Road 36 (Rd 24 to Sparta) Rehabilitation0000090 Road 36 Resurfacing (Sparta to Rd 45) - paved shoulders0000091 Road 36 Resurfacing (Rd 45 to Hwy 3) - paved shoulders0000092 Road 37 (Avon to Oxford) Microsurfacing Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow Labels 20,00085,00051,000 493,935336,600173,614530,604170,209304,317255,000574,343806,952390,553773,939430,757330,000930,435841,412366,741275,133157,944282,864729,415480,000150,000105,000234,090572,220416,160 1,907,6143,673,4971,530,7931,467,1593,822,2521,430,1141,846,5021,045,5001,044,5001,785,4821,124,3761,768,9761,523,5231,246,9501,400,0001,507,2872,779,8192,154,2527,251,0783,696,0211,658,4153,571,0801 ,780,4633,770,0003,279,059 Grand Total 2029 2028 2027 493,935574,343806,952390,553430,757930,435841,412275,133157,944282,864729,415 3,673,4971,467,1593,822,2521,430,1141,768,9762,779,8197,251,0781,658,4151,780,4631,723,029 2026 2025 2024 773,939270,608 1,124,3761,523,5231,507,287 2023 173,614530,604265,302 1,530,7931,846,5021,785,4822,154,252 2022 170,209304,317366,741312,120234,090572,220416,160 1,805,6143,696,021 84 2021 51,000 102,000336,600255,000994,500408,000 1,045,5001,246,9503,421,080 2020 50,00020,00085,000 330,000150,000480,000300,000150,000105,000 1,400,0003,770,000 Engineering ServicesII) Capital Column Labels 0000093 Road 38 Rehabilitation (Hwy 3 to Richmond)0000094 Richmond Reconstruction (Rd 38 and 43) - Eng. 20210000095 Road 38 Reconstruction (Straffordville)0000096 Road 39 Resurfacing0000097 Road 40 Microsurfacing (42 to 45)0000098 Road 40 Rehabilitation (Rd 45 to Hwy 3)0000099 Road 41 Reconstruction0000100 Road 42 Rehabilitation (73 to 43)+drainage at Silvercreek Hill0000101 Road 42 Rehabilitation (43 to Port Burwell)0000102 Road 19, 50 and 42 Resurfacing - Port Burwell0000103 Road 42 FDR/DST (Glen Erie Line 19 - 55) - Survey 20200000104 Road 43 Microsurfacing (42 to 45)0000105 Road 44 Rehabilitation (Rd 46 to Hwy #3)0000106 Road 44 Resurfacing (Murray Rd to Hwy 3)0000107 Road 44 Resurfacing (Murray Rd to 19)0000108 Road 45 Rehabilitation (3 to 16)0000109 Shaw Hill Drainage Improvements (rd 45)0000110 Road 45 (Rd 16 to Rd 4) Rehabilitation0000111 Road 45 (Rd 35 to Rd 73) Rehabilitation0000112 Road 45 (Rd 40 to Rd 43) Rehabilitation0000113 Road 45 (Rd 19 to 55) Resurfacing0000114 Road 47 Resurfacing (Rd 48 to Rd 52)0000115 Road 47 Rehabilitation (48 to 37) widen radius at 480000116 Road 48 FDR/ R1 (25 to 30)0000117 Road 48 FDR/R1 (Road 30 to Rd 74)0000118 Road 48 Rehabilitation (Rd 73 to Rd 47)0000119 Road 48 Rehabilitation (Rd 47 to Rd 54)0000120 Road 51 Rehabilitation (4 to Whites Station)0000121 Road 52 Rehabilitation (Highway #3 to 30) + Drainage at Kettle Creek0000122 Road 52 Microsurfacing (30 to 74)0000123 Road 52 Rehabilitation (74 to 73)0000124 Road 52 Rehabilitation (Rd 73 to Springfield)0000125 Springfield Reconstruction (Rd 52, 40, 49)0000126 Road 52 Rehabilitation (Rd 47 to Rd 54)0000127 Road 54 Rehabilitation (50% Oxford)0000128 Road 55 Microsurfacing (42 to 45)0000129 Road 57 Rehabilitation0000130 Port Bruce Resurfacing (MR1)0000131 Road 73 Rehabilitation (Aylmer to Avon Drive)0000132 Road 74 Resurfacing0000133 Road 74 Resurfacing (Belmont)0000134 Rodney Reconstruction (103 and 104)0000135 Road 104 Rehabilitation (Rodney to McPherson Rd)0000136 King George Lift Bridge Rehabilitation0000139 Kimble Bridge Replacement0000142 Culvert Rehabilitations0000144 Road 11 Shouldering0000145 Road 16 Shouldering0000147 Sunset at Talbotville Gore Turning Lanes (additional to Rehab. Project)0000148 Imperial Road Turning Lane (north of College Line)0000154 Wellington Road at McBain Line Traffic Signal Engineering0000156 Multiple Bridge and Culvert Repair Tender - Engineering and Admin.0000159 Elm Street at Centennial Road Intersection Imrpovements0000160 Wellington Road at McBain Line Traffic Signals DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow Labels 0 68,92145,94734,46111,48745,000 156,060260,100344,606287,171172,303172,303114,869172,303574,343172,303172,303918,949201,020574,343574,343574,343280,000999,090150,000156,953250,000402,040125,000 1,591,8121,837,8971,723,0291,148,6863,446,0571,525,0002,600,0001,120,5001,875,0971,246,4401,092,4201,326,5102,297,3711,780,463 165,919,760 Grand Total 2029 18,427,800 18,427,800 2028 18,066,470 18,066,470 2027 68,92145,94734,46111,487 344,606287,171172,303172,303114,869172,303574,343172,303172,303918,949201,020574,343574,343574,343402,040 1,837,8971,723,0291,148,6863,446,0571,768,9762,297,3711,780,463 15,941,000 (70,883,635) 2026 17,364,927 17,364,927 2025 17,024,438 17,024,438 2024 156,953 11,528,444 2023 106,121 1,591,8121,326,510 13,969,172 2022 156,060260,100 1,144,4401,092,420 17,997,593 85 2021 999,090102,000 1,275,0001,045,500 16,274,916 2020 75,00045,000 280,000150,000250,000250,000125,000 2,600,000 19,325,000 Engineering ServicesII) Capital Column Labels 0000161 Talbot Line (Talbotville) new development access0000162 Talbot Line and Sunset Road Traffic Signal Optimization (MTO)0000164 Multiple Bridge and Culvert Repair Tender0000168 Furnival Road and Hoskins Line Intersection Improvements0000169 Colborne and Warren Street Intersection Improvements0000170 Sunset Road at East Road Intersection Improvements0000171 East Road at Hill Street Intersection Improvements0000172 Sunset Road at Southdale Line Signal Optimization0000173 Sunset Road at Glenwood Avenue Left Turn Lane0000174 Sunset Road at Sparta Line Traffic Signals and Intersection Improvements0000175 Ron McNeil Line at Omemee Street Intersection Improvements0000176 Whittaker Road and Nelson Street Intersection Improvements0000177 Belmont West Bridge Replacement - B320000179 King Bridge Replacement - B380000180 Calton Bridge Rehabilitation - B470000183 Walkers Bridge Rehabilitation - B030000184 Willeys Bridge Repairs - B050000185 Gillets Bridge Repairs - B270000186 Lings Bridge Deck Repairs - B160000187 Dodds Creek Bridge Repairs - B600000188 Glen Erie West Bridge Removal and Culvert Installation0000189 Road Sign Replacements West Half0000190 Road Sign Replacements East Half0000191 Highbury Ave. Slope Rehabilitation0000193 Traffic Signal Replacements0000194 Road 9 Surface Treatment (Rd 8 to Rd 14)0000195 Road 18 (Rd 14 to Rd 20) Rehabilitation0000196 Sparta Reconstruction0000197 Road 34 Resurfacing0000230 Meeks Bridge Replacement0000233 Port Bruce Bridge Replacement0000259 Bothwell Bridge Rehabilitation0000260 Iona Road Replacement (EA and possible road realignment)0000261 St. George Street Bridge Rehabilitation0000264 Port Burwell Major Rehabilitation - B450000265 Eden Bridge Rehabilitation - B530000266 Wonderland Road and Talbot Line EA partnered with MTO0000267 Road Sign Replacements0000268 Capital Budget years 6-10 smoothing0000269 Port Burwell Storm Sewer Replacement (Phase 1C)0000270 Port Burwell Storm Sewer Replacement (Phase 1D)0000271 Port Burwell Storm Sewer Replacement (west of Chatham St.) - 20250000272 Port Burwell Storm Sewer Replacement (north of Wellington St) - 2027 DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 25,000 65,000 15,000 10,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 140,000 3,448,980 3,893,980 Grand Total 2029 602,820 602,820 2028 602,820 602,820 2027 602,820 602,820 2026 602,820 602,820 2025 364,300 364,300 2024 297,900 297,900 2023 100,000 100,000 2022 135,000 135,000 2021 135,000 135,000 86 2020 5,500 25,000 65,000 15,000 10,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 140,000 450,500 Bobier Villa Building & PropertyII) Capital Column Labels 0000018 Security/Resident Safety0000022 Misc Bldg0000030 Parking Lot Resurfacing0000031 Caulking/Weatherproofing Windows0000032 Flat Roof0000033 Energy Savings - Parking Lot Lighting Improvements0000034 Building Envelope & Eavestrough Repairs0000035 Building Automation System0000036 Flooring Replacement0000037 Energy Savings - Electrical Upgrades0000039 Tub Room Upgrades0000040 Landscaping Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ВЍͲЏЋЉ 94,620 Grand Total 2029 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2028 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2027 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2026 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2025 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 87 2024 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2020 ЌЍͲЏЋЉ 34,620 .ƚĬźĻƩ źƌƌğ 5źĻƷğƩǤLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊБ YźƷĭŷĻƓ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЎͲЉЉЉ 5,000 Grand Total 88 2023 ЎͲЉЉЉ 5,000 .ƚĬźĻƩ źƌƌğ IƚǒƭĻƉĻĻƦźƓŭLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊЋ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЊЌЉͲЉЉЉЊЌЉͲЋАЉ 260,270 Grand Total 2029 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2028 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2027 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2026 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2025 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2024 ЊЉͲЉЉЉЋЊͲАЊЋ 31,712 2023 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 2022 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 89 2021 ЊЎͲЉЉЉ 15,000 2020 ЌЎͲЉЉЉ 35,000 .ƚĬźĻƩ źƌƌğ bǒƩƭźƓŭ ε tĻƩƭƚƓğƌ /ğƩĻLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊВ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭЉЉЉЉЉЌА aźƭĭ bt/ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 15,00015,00010,00030,00025,00025,00010,00025,00020,00040,00025,000 100,000 3,377,600 3,717,600 Grand Total 2029 449,600 449,600 2028 449,600 449,600 2027 449,600 449,600 2026 449,600 449,600 2025 306,600 306,600 2024 291,600 291,600 2023 387,000 387,000 2022 259,750 259,750 2021 328,750 328,750 2020 90 5,500 15,000 15,000 10,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 10,000 25,000 20,000 40,000 25,000 100,000 345,500 Elgin Manor Building & PropertyII) Capital Column Labels 0000016 Pumps & Equipment (STP)0000022 HVAC0000025 Misc Bldg0000031 140 Hotwater Tank Re-lining0000032 Security Improvements - NVR Cameras0000033 Flat Roof Repairs0000034 Sidewalk Repairs0000035 Building Automation System0000036 Flooring Replacement0000037 Energy Savings - Electrical Upgrades0000038 Spa Renovation0000040 Refurbishment of Train #20000041 Misc. Maintenance, Calibration & Lifecycle Equipment Replacement Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЊАЎͲЉЉЉ 175,000 Grand Total 2029 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2028 ЊЏͲЉЉЉ 16,000 2027 ЊЍͲЉЉЉ 14,000 2026 ЊЌͲЉЉЉ 13,000 2025 ЊЌͲЉЉЉ 13,000 2024 ЊЌͲЉЉЉ 13,000 2023 ЊЋͲЉЉЉ 12,000 91 2022 ЊЋͲЉЉЉ 12,000 2021 ЊЋͲЉЉЉ 12,000 2020 ЎЉͲЉЉЉ 50,000 9ƌŭźƓ ağƓƚƩ 5źĻƷğƩǤLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊВ YźƷĭŷĻƓ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЎͲЉЉЉ 5,000 Grand Total 92 2023 ЎͲЉЉЉ 5,000 9ƌŭźƓ ağƓƚƩ IƚǒƭĻƉĻĻƦźƓŭLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊЋ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЊАЊͲЉЉЉЊЍЎͲЌЉЍ 316,304 Grand Total 2029 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2028 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2027 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2026 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2025 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2024 ЊЏͲЉЉЉЊБͲББЍ 34,884 2023 ЋЉͲЉЉЉЌЋͲЉЉЉ 52,000 2022 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 93 2021 ЊЎͲЉЉЉ 15,000 2020 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 9ƌŭźƓ ağƓƚƩ bǒƩƭźƓŭ ε tĻƩƭƚƓğƌ /ğƩĻLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊВ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭЉЉЉЉЉЌА aźƭĭ bt/ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total АЎͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЌБЏͲБЉЉ 1,461,800 Grand Total 2029 ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ 200,000 2028 ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ 200,000 2027 ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ 200,000 2026 ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ 200,000 2025 ЊЎЏͲБЉЉ 156,800 2024 ЊЍЉͲЉЉЉ 140,000 2023 ЊЍЉͲЉЉЉ 140,000 94 2022 ЊЎЉͲЉЉЉ 150,000 2020 АЎͲЉЉЉ 75,000 ĻƩƩğĭĻ \[ƚķŭĻ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ ε tƩƚƦĻƩƷǤLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊА aźƭĭ /ğƦźƷğƌЉЉЉЉЉЋЉ \[ğǞƓ {źŭƓ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЎͲЉЉЉ ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 25,000 Grand Total 2023 ЎͲЉЉЉ 5,000 95 2020 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 ĻƩƩğĭĻ \[ƚķŭĻ IƚǒƭĻƉĻĻƦźƓŭLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊЌ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒЉЉЉЉЉЊЍ IƚǒƭĻƉĻĻƦźƓŭ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЏЊͲВЎЉ ЋЊЉͲЉЉЉ 271,950 Grand Total 2029 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2028 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2027 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2026 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2025 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2024 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2023 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2022 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 96 2021 ЋЎͲЉЉЉЏЊͲВЎЉ 86,950 2020 ЋЎͲЉЉЉ 25,000 ĻƩƩğĭĻ \[ƚķŭĻ bǒƩƭźƓŭ ε tĻƩƭƚƓğƌ /ğƩĻLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЊВ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭЉЉЉЉЉЋЉ .Ļķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷƭ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 210,000 210,000 Grand Total 2029 20,000 20,000 2028 20,000 20,000 2027 20,000 20,000 2026 20,000 20,000 2025 20,000 20,000 2024 20,000 20,000 2023 20,000 20,000 97 2022 20,000 20,000 2021 20,000 20,000 2020 30,000 30,000 ArchivesII) Capital Column Labels 0000031 Misc Capital - Archives Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЊВЉͲЉЉЉ 190,000 Grand Total 2029 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2028 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2027 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2026 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2025 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2024 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2023 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 98 2022 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2021 ЋЉͲЉЉЉ 20,000 2020 ЊЉͲЉЉЉ 10,000 aǒƭĻǒƒLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЌЌ aǒƭĻǒƒ Ώ aźƭĭ /ğƦźƷğƌ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 39,29690,000 350,000 3,299,254 3,778,550 Grand Total 2029 35,000 363,335 398,335 2028 35,00045,000 355,479 435,479 2027 35,000 347,792 382,792 2026 35,000 340,272 375,272 2025 35,000 332,915 367,915 2024 35,000 325,717 360,717 2023 35,00045,000 318,674 398,674 99 2022 35,000 311,759 346,759 2021 35,000 304,979 339,979 2020 39,29635,000 298,332 372,628 Library ServicesII) Capital Column Labels 0000042 Aylmer Facility Improvements0000043 Accessibility Renos0000044 Library Van Replacement0000045 Book Purchases - Library Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 50,00055,87880,000 175,297145,928782,248210,000170,000250,000708,080241,178609,546 2,027,320 5,505,475 Grand Total 2029 6,047 47,80315,92785,37776,62628,59176,006 200,287 536,664 2028 5,940 15,61583,70375,27127,49273,792 213,556110,000 605,369 2027 5,835 15,30982,06273,94026,43471,64380,000 194,901 550,124 2026 5,732 45,04615,00880,45372,63325,41869,556 198,923 512,769 2025 5,630 14,71478,87690,00071,34924,44025,00067,531 251,766 629,306 2024 5,531 14,42677,32970,08723,50065,564 183,591 440,028 2023 5,433 42,44814,14375,81368,84822,59663,654 195,452100,000 588,387 100 2022 5,337 13,86574,32675,00067,63121,72761,800 178,094 497,780 2021 5,243 13,59472,86966,43520,89260,000 181,468100,000 520,501 2020 5,150 40,00013,32771,44080,00075,00065,26020,08825,000 229,282 624,547 Information TechnologyII) Capital Column Labels 0000022 Website Development0000023 Hardware Replacement0000025 Photocopiers0000026 Other Licenses0000027 Server Replacement0000028 Storage Replacement0000033 HCM System0000034 GIS - ESRI ELA0000035 Dietary Software0000038 Dietary Hardware0000039 GIS - GeoCortex0000040 GIS - CityWorks0000041 Phone System Replacement Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total 468,664369,176185,518547,486 2,003,898 1,874,354 5,449,095 Grand Total 2029 98,73998,26359,755 461,999 718,755 2028 96,80258,583 405,136 560,522 2027 57,434 397,193 454,627 2026 56,308 468,664389,404 914,376 2025 55,204 381,769 436,973 2024 54,122 374,283 428,405 2023 87,67787,25553,060 101 410,242 638,234 2022 85,95852,020 359,750 497,727 2021 51,000 352,696 403,696 2020 50,000 345,780 395,780 AmbulanceII) Capital Column Labels 0000034 Ambulance Proj A0000035 Defibs0000038 ERV Replacement0000039 Laptops0000041 Power Lifts0000044 Ambulance Proj B Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP DescriptionOpCap Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total ЊАͲЉЉЉ 17,000 Grand Total 102 2028 БͲЎЉЉ 8,500 2023 БͲЎЉЉ 8,500 9ĭƚƓƚƒźĭ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷLLΜ /ğƦźƷğƌ Column Labels ЉЉЉЉЉЍЊ ƚǒƩźƭƒ ğƓ Capital Assets - Work in Progress 5) Capital WIP 5ĻƭĭƩźƦƷźƚƓhƦ/ğƦ Sum of BudgetRow LabelsGrand Total Closed Capital Report for 2019 Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Administrative Building 4,975,341 4,962,005 13,336 7) ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineering Services 13,877,041 13,169,284 707,757 8) HOMES FOR SENIORS SERVICES Bobier Villa Building & Property 128,500 109,042 19,458 Bobier Villa Dietary 6,380 6,380 (0) Bobier Villa Nursing & Personal Care 43,234 42,803 431 Elgin Manor Building & Property 262,035 121,364 140,671 Elgin Manor Dietary 25,000 1,495 23,505 Elgin Manor Nursing & Personal Care 58,250 58,250 - Terrace Lodge Dietary 30,000 21,370 8,630 Terrace Lodge Nursing & Personal Care 51,880 50,162 1,718 9) MUSEUM/ARCHIVES Museum 60,704 60,704 (0) 10) LIBRARY SERVICES Library Services 364,631 348,590 16,041 11) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Information Technology 259,967 218,717 41,250 14) AMBULANCE & EMERGENCY SERVICES Ambulance 324,052 339,014 (14,962) Grand Total 20,467,015 19,509,181 957,834 103 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Administrative Building Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 26601407 POA Court Facility 4,850,341 4,850,341 (0) 26601910 Roof Repairs 125,000 111,664 13,336 Grand Total 4,975,341 4,962,005 13,336 104 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Engineering Services Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5)Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЏЉВЉЊАЉЍ źĻƓƓğ wĻĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ЋЉЎͲЉЉЉ ЋЊЍͲЋЉЌ ΛВͲЋЉЌΜ ЏЉВЉЊБЉЋ wƚğķ В ğƓķ ЍБ 5ƩğźƓğŭĻ {ǒƩǝĻǤАЎͲЉЉЉ АЎͲЉЉЉ ЏЉВЉЊБЉЌ 9ƌƒ {ƷƩĻĻƷ LƓƷĻƩƭĻĭƷźƚƓ LƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷƭЋЎͲЉЉЉ ЋЍͲВВЏ Ѝ ЏЉВЉЊБЉЎ .źĭǤĭƌĻ \[ğƓĻƭ ЌБАͲЉЍЊ ЋЊЎ ЌБЏͲБЋЏ ЏЋЉЉЊБЉЊ wƚğķ ЌБ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ ΛwźĭŷƒƚƓķ Ʒƚ {ğƓķǤƷƚǞƓ wƚğķΜ БЎЉͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЎЍЊͲАВБΛЏВЊͲАВБΜ ЏЋЉЉЊБЉЋ wƚğķ Ћ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ ΛЊЉЌ Ʒƚ ĻƭƷ \[ƚƩƓĻ t\[Μ ЊͲЌАЎͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЎЌБͲВЍЌΛЊЏЌͲВЍЌΜ ЏЋЉЉЊБЉЌ wƚğķ ЍБ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ ΛƚƓķĻƩƌğƓķ wƚğķ Ʒƚ ЋЎΜ ЏЉЉͲЉЉЉ ЎБЍͲЋЎЉ ЊЎͲАЎЉ ЏЋЉЉЊБЉЍ wƚğķ ЌЉ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ Λwķ ЎЋ Ʒƚ ĻĬĬĻƩ .ƚǒƩƓĻΜ ЊͲЍЌЉͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЍЏЌͲЎЉБ ΛЌЌͲЎЉБΜ ЏЋЉЉЊБЉЎ źĻƓƓğ wĻĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ΛtƌğƓƉ wƚğķΜ ЋͲЎАЉͲЉЉЉ ЋͲЎБВͲВЊЌ ΛЊВͲВЊЌΜ ЏЋЉЉЊВЉЋ wƚğķ ЋЋ ΛCğźƩǝźĻǞ wƚğķΜ Ώ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğźƷƚƓ Λwķ ЋА Λ{ƦğƩƷğ \[źƓĻΜƷƚ{ƚǒƷŷķğƌĻ\[źƓĻΜ ЊͲЊЍЉͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЊЊВͲЎЊБ ЋЉͲЍБЋ ЏЋЉЉЊВЉЌ wƚğķ ЌБ ΛIĻƩźƷğŭĻ \[źƓĻΜ Ώ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ Λ{ƷƩğƷŅƚƩķǝźƌƌĻ9t\[ Ʒƚwķ ЎЎΜ ЊͲЉЋЉͲЉЉЉ ЍЎЍͲЍЊЏ ЎЏЎͲЎБЍ ЏЋЉЉЊВЉЎ wƚğķ ЍВ ΛŷźƷƷğƉĻƩ wƚğķΜ Ώ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓ ΛC5wΉwЊΜ ЎБЉͲЉЉЉ ЍВБͲЍЊЏ БЊͲЎБЍ ЏЋЊЉЊВЉЊ \[ğƓķ tǒƩĭŷğƭĻЊЉͲЉЉЉ ЍͲЊБАЎͲБЊЌ ЏЋЋЉЊБЉЊ wƚğķ АЏ wĻƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ Λwķ Ќ Ʒƚ ağƩƭŷ \[źƓĻΜ њ tğǝĻķ {ŷƚǒƌķĻƩƭ ЏЌЉͲЉЉЉ ЏБЍͲБББ ΛЎЍͲБББΜ ЏЋЋЉЊБЉЋ wƚğķ ЍЏ wĻƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ ΛYƓƚƷƷƭ aźƌƌ .Ʃ͵ ƚ IǞǤ ЌΜ ЌЌЎͲЉЉЉ ЋВЋͲВЊБ ЍЋͲЉБЋ ЏЋЋЉЊВЉЊ wƚğķ Џ ΛWƚŷƓƭƷƚƓ \[źƓĻΜ Ώ wĻƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ Λwķ А Λ/ƌğĭŷğƓ wƚğķΜƷƚ.ƌğĭƉƭ wķΜ ЍЏЉͲЉЉЉ ЌЉВͲЋЌБ ЊЎЉͲАЏЋ ЏЋЋЉЊВЉЋ wƚğķ Б Λ/ǒƩƩźĻ wƚğķΜ Ώ wĻƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ Λwķ ЊЏ ΛCźƓŭğƌ \[źƓĻΜƷƚwķ Ќ ΛğƌĬƚƷ\[źƓĻΜΜ ЋЋЎͲЉЉЉ ЊЎЉͲЌЎЊ АЍͲЏЍВ ЏЋЋЉЊВЉЌ wƚğķ ЎЏ Λ9ƌƒ \[źƓĻΜ Ώ wĻƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ ΛЋБ Λ/ĻƓƷĻƓƓźğƌ wƚğķΜƷƚЌЏ ΛvǒğƉĻƩ wƚğķΜΜ ЎБЎͲЉЉЉ ЎЋАͲЋЎА ЎАͲАЍЌ ЏЋЎЉЊВЉЊ wƚğķ ЍЉ Λ{ƦƩźƓŭŅźĻƌķ wƚğķΜ Ώ aźĭƩƚƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ ΛDƌĻƓĭƚƌźƓƷƚ{ƦƩźƓŭŅźĻƌķ{t\[Μ ЊЋЎͲЉЉЉ ЊЊЌͲЋЏЎ ЊЊͲАЌЎ ЏЋЎЉЊВЉЋ wƚğķ ЍЌ ΛwźĭŷƒƚƓķ wƚğķΜ Ώ aźĭƩƚƭǒƩŅğĭźƓŭ ΛWƚŷƓ źƭĻ\[źƓĻƷƚwźĭŷƒƚƓķΜ ЊБЉͲЉЉЉ ЊЏЎͲЋАБ ЊЍͲАЋЋ ЏЋВЉЊБЉЋ /ǒƌǝĻƩƷ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓƭ . ЌАЎͲЉЉЉ ЋЊЏͲАЋЏ ЊЎБͲЋАЍ ЏЋВЉЊБЉЌ YźƓŭ DĻƚƩŭĻ \[źŅƷ .ƩźķŭĻ /ğƦźƷğƌ wĻƦğźƩƭАЎͲЉЉЉ БЎͲВЊЏ ΛЊЉͲВЊЏΜ ЏЋВЉЊВЉЊ /ǒƌǝĻƩƷ wĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓƭ ЌЍЎͲЉЉЉ ЌЍЋͲЋВАЋͲАЉЌ ЏЋВЉЊВЉЏ wğźƌƩƚğķ /ƩƚƭƭźƓŭ LƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷƭАЎͲЉЉЉ АЌͲАЋЎ ЊͲЋАЎ ЏЋВЉЊВЉА DǒźķĻƩğźƌ LƓƭƷğƌƌğƷźƚƓƭ ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ ЊАЌͲЉЏЍ ЋЏͲВЌЏ Grand Total 13,877,041 13,169,284 707,757 105 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Building & Property Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 45031851 Building Automation 35,000 2,681 32,319 45031853 Spa/Tub Room Carry-Over Project 27,000 38,480 (11,480) 45031854 Security/Resident Safety 36,500 37,995 (1,495) 45031855 Building Signage 30,000 29,887 113 Grand Total 128,500 109,042 19,458 106 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Dietary Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЊЉЌЊАЎЉ YźƷĭŷĻƓ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ ЏͲЌБЉ ЏͲЌБЉ ΛЉΜ Grand Total 6,380 6,380 (0) 107 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Nursing & Personal Care Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЋЉЌЊВЎЊ .Ļķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷƭ ЍЌͲЋЌЍ ЍЋͲБЉЌ ЍЌЊ Grand Total 43,234 42,803 431 108 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Building & Property Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 45011851 Pumps & Equipment (STP) 112,035 15,569 96,466 45011852 Landscaping 15,000 15,667 (667) 45011856 Building Signage 30,000 45,736 (15,736) 45011953 HVAC 20,000 20,000 45011955 EM Main Breaker Repair 50,000 30,400 19,600 45011961 Sprinkler Valve 35,000 13,992 21,008 Grand Total 262,035 121,364 140,671 109 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Dietary Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЊЉЊЊБЎЉ ЋЎͲЉЉЉ ЊͲЍВЎ ЋЌͲЎЉЎ Grand Total 25,000 1,495 23,505 110 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Nursing & Personal Care Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЋЉЊЊВЎЊ .Ļķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷƭ ЎБͲЋЎЉ ЎБͲЋЎЉ Ώ Grand Total 58,250 58,250 - 111 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Terrace Lodge Dietary Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЊЉЋЊВЎЉ YźƷĭŷĻƓ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ ЌЉͲЉЉЉ ЋЊͲЌАЉ БͲЏЌЉ Grand Total 30,000 21,370 8,630 112 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Terrace Lodge Nursing & Personal Care Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЋЉЋЊВЎЊ .Ļķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷƭ ЋЌͲЉЉЉ ЋЋͲЉЊА ВБЌ ЍЋЉЋЊВЎЋ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭ ЋБͲББЉ ЋБͲЊЍЎ АЌЎ Grand Total 51,880 50,162 1,718 113 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Museum Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 27901608 Museum Furnishings - From Library Aylmer 60,704 60,704 (0) Grand Total 60,704 60,704 (0) 114 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Library Services Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 58101804 Library Van Replacement 45,000 44,472 528 58101901 Book Purchases - Library 284,631 269,254 15,377 58101903 Accessibility Renos 35,000 34,865 135 Grand Total 364,631 348,590 16,041 115 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Information Technology Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЎАБЉЊВЉЊ IğƩķǞğƩĻ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ ВЋͲЌЉЉ ЏБͲЌЌЋ ЋЌͲВЏБ ЎАБЉЊВЉЋ a5{ wğź CǒƓķźƓŭ ЊЎͲЌЉЉ ЊЉͲБЍЎ ЍͲЍЎЎ ЎАБЉЊВЉЌ tŷƚƷƚĭƚƦźĻƩƭ ЊЌͲЌЋА ЊЏͲАЋБ ΛЌͲЍЉЊΜ ЎАБЉЊВЉЍ hƷŷĻƩ \[źĭĻƓƭĻƭ АЌͲЍЍЉ ЏБͲЊЉА ЎͲЌЌЌ ЎАБЉЊВЉЎ {ĻƩǝĻƩ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ ЏЉͲЉЉЉ ЎЋͲЉЌВ АͲВЏЊ ЎАБЉЊВЉБ źtğķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ Ώ \[ğƓķ 5źǝźƭźƚƓ ЎͲЏЉЉ ЋͲЏЏЎ ЋͲВЌЎ Grand Total 259,967 218,717 41,250 116 2019 Closed Capital Projects for Ambulance Costs to be Cum BudgetClosedSurplus 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 28001801 Ambulance Proj C 324,052 339,014 (14,962) Grand Total 324,052 339,014 (14,962) 117 Carry-Forward Capital Report for 2019 Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 0) CORPORATE ACTIVITIES Corporate Activities 50,000 50,000 5) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Administrative Building 2,253,849 353,169 1,900,680 7) ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineering Services 15,560,500 5,825,237 9,735,263 8) HOMES FOR SENIORS SERVICES Bobier Villa Building & Property 333,000 29,072 303,928 Bobier Villa Housekeeping 8,000 8,000 Bobier Villa Nursing & Personal Care 31,120 31,120 Elgin Manor Building & Property 295,000 122,620 172,380 Elgin Manor Housekeeping 10,000 10,000 Elgin Manor Laundry 45,530 - 45,530 Elgin Manor Nursing & Personal Care 53,730 779 52,951 Terrace Lodge Building & Property 32,561,000 657,172 31,903,828 Terrace Lodge Housekeeping 32,000 16,767 15,233 9) MUSEUM/ARCHIVES Archives 10,000 8,152 1,848 Museum 30,000 30,000 10) LIBRARY SERVICES Library Services 105,025 8,795 96,230 11) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Information Technology 47,510 1,136 46,374 14) AMBULANCE & EMERGENCY SERVICES Ambulance 729,300 729,300 Grand Total 52,155,564 7,022,900 45,132,664 118 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Corporate Activities Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 28001804 Ambulance Bldg R & M* 50,000 50,000 Grand Total 50,000 50,000 119 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Administrative Building Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 26601708 Window Replacement* 75,000 75,000 26601807 Cooling Tower Replacement - Admin* 50,000 50,000 26601808 Building Automation System Upgrades - Admin* 30,000 646 29,354 26601810 Renovations for GSE* 311,815 295,408 16,407 26601811 Exterior Building Capital Repairs/Parking* 1,128,799 1,128,799 26601908 POA/Museum Project Completion (Landscape/Drain/Other)* 408,235 57,115 351,120 26601909 Interior Renovations* 250,000 250,000 Grand Total 2,253,849 353,169 1,900,680 120 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Engineering Services Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 60901701 Wonderland Road Reconstruction* 1,180,000 232,012 947,988 60901702 Sparta Reconstruction* 1,825,000 115,181 1,709,819 60901801 Port Burwell Road Drainage Survey* 190,000 120,419 69,581 60901804 Asset Management Program* 100,000 100,000 60901917 Elm Street Intersection Improvements at Centennial Road* 500,000 12,505 487,495 60901918 Chatham Road Slope Stabilization* 1,000,000 65,594 934,406 62001904 Road 48 (Lyons Line) - Rehabilitation (Rd 74 (Belmont Road) to 73 (Imperial Road))* 1,615,000 1,529,506 85,494 62901801 Kimble Bridge Replacement* 85,000 77,683 7,317 62901804 Multiple Bridge Repair Tender* 425,000 369,863 55,137 62901805 Port Bruce Bridge Replacement* 5,515,500 2,801,790 2,713,710 62901902 King George Lift Bridge Rehabilitation* 2,300,000 471,399 1,828,601 62901903 St. George Street Bridge Engineering* 60,000 60,000 62901905 Bothwell Bridge Engineering* 25,000 25,000 62901908 Geotechnical Investigations - Roadway* 50,000 20,316 29,684 62901909 Elm Street Intersection Improvements at Oak Street* 60,000 60,000 62901910 Meeks Bridge Replacement* 500,000 8,968 491,032 62901911 Culvert Rehabilitations C* 130,000 130,000 Grand Total 15,560,500 5,825,237 9,735,263 121 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Building & Property Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 45031852 Building Envelope Repairs* 30,000 30,000 45031950 Door & Wall Protection* 10,000 6,313 3,687 45031952 Spa/Tub Room* 28,000 28,000 45031953 Lighting Upgrade* 50,000 577 49,423 45031954 Security/Resident Safety Carry Over Project* 7,500 2,831 4,669 45031955 Misc Bldg* 5,500 5,500 45031956 Floor Replacement - Resident Rooms* 22,000 22,000 45031957 HVAC Replacements* 90,000 4,272 85,728 45031958 Flat Roof Replacement* 60,000 60,000 45031959 Parking Lot Repair* 15,000 15,000 45031960 Business Office Flooring* 5,000 8,722 (3,722) 45031961 Smoking Area* 10,000 6,356 3,644 Grand Total 333,000 29,072 303,928 122 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Housekeeping Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЌЉЌЊВЎЊ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒΫ БͲЉЉЉ БͲЉЉЉ Grand Total 8,000 8,000 123 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Bobier Villa Nursing & Personal Care Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЋЉЌЊВЎЉ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭΫ ЌЊͲЊЋЉ ЌЊͲЊЋЉ Grand Total 31,120 31,120 124 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Building & Property Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 45011750 Building Automation* 10,000 10,000 45011853 Washroom Upgrades* 70,000 31,077 38,923 45011855 Security/Resident Safety* 10,000 4,470 5,530 45011952 Parking Lot Resurfacing* 110,000 78,659 31,341 45011954 Building Envelope Repairs* 20,000 1,695 18,305 45011956 Misc Bldg* 10,000 10,000 45011957 Business Office Flooring* 20,000 20,000 45011959 Door & Wall Protection* 5,000 5,000 45011960 Garbage Compactor* 25,000 25,000 45011962 Exterior Upgrades* 15,000 6,719 8,281 Grand Total 295,000 122,620 172,380 125 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Housekeeping Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЌЉЊЊВЎЉ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒΫ ЊЉͲЉЉЉ ЊЉͲЉЉЉ Grand Total 10,000 10,000 126 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Laundry Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЍЉЊЊБЎЉ \[ğǒƓķƩǤ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷΫ ЍЎͲЎЌЉ Ώ ЍЎͲЎЌЉ Grand Total 45,530 - 45,530 127 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Elgin Manor Nursing & Personal Care Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЋЉЊЊВЎЉ \[źŅƷƭ ε {ĭğƌĻƭΫ ЍВͲЉЉЉ ААВ ЍБͲЋЋЊ ЍЋЉЊЊВЎЋ .Ļķ wĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷƭ /ğƩƩǤ CƚƩǞğƩķΫ ЍͲАЌЉ ЍͲАЌЉ Grand Total 53,730 779 52,951 128 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Terrace Lodge Building & Property Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЎЉЋЊЋЉБ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ wĻƓƚǝğƷźƚƓΫ ЌЋͲЎЌЊͲЉЉЉ ЏЎАͲЊАЋ ЌЊͲБАЌͲБЋБ ЍЎЉЋЊВЎЉ 9ǣƷĻƩźƚƩ wĻƦğźƩƭΫ ЊЉͲЉЉЉ ЊЉͲЉЉЉ ЍЎЉЋЊВЎЊ tğƩƉźƓŭ \[ƚƷ wĻƦğźƩƭΫ ЊЎͲЉЉЉ ЊЎͲЉЉЉ ЍЎЉЋЊВЎЋ \[ƚǞĻƩ bƚƩƷŷ CƌƚƚƩ wĻƦğźƩΫ ЎͲЉЉЉ ЎͲЉЉЉ Grand Total 32,561,000 657,172 31,903,828 129 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Terrace Lodge Housekeeping Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЍЌЉЋЊВЎЉ IƚǒƭĻƉĻĻƦźƓŭ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷΫ ЋЉͲЉЉЉ ЊЏͲАЏА ЌͲЋЌЌ ЍЌЉЋЊВЎЊ aźĭƩƚŅźĬƩĻ /ƌĻğƓźƓŭ {ǤƭƷĻƒΫ ЊЋͲЉЉЉ ЊЋͲЉЉЉ Grand Total 32,000 16,767 15,233 130 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Archives Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 29401907 Misc Capital - Archives* 10,000 8,152 1,848 Grand Total 10,000 8,152 1,848 131 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Museum Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЋАВЉЊВЉЎ aǒƭĻǒƒ Ώ aźƭĭ /ğƦźƷğƌΫ ЌЉͲЉЉЉ ЌЉͲЉЉЉ Grand Total 30,000 30,000 132 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Library Services Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 58101402 Aylmer Facility Improvements* 105,025 8,795 96,230 Grand Total 105,025 8,795 96,230 133 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Information Technology Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress ЎАБЉЊАЊЉ ĻĬƭźƷĻ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷΫ ЊАͲЎЊЉ ЋЍЉ ЊАͲЋАЉ ЎАБЉЊВЉВ t// 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷğƷźƚƓ IğƩķǞğƩĻΫ ЌЉͲЉЉЉ БВА ЋВͲЊЉЌ Grand Total 47,510 1,136 46,374 134 2019 Carry-Forward Capital Projects for Ambulance Actual Carry- Forward Work-Carry-Forward Cum BudgetIn-ProgressBudget Reserve 5) Capital WIP Capital Assets - Work in Progress 28001901 Ambulance Proj A* 321,300 321,300 28001902 Defibs* 408,000 408,000 Grand Total 729,300 729,300 135