Town of Oakville - Asset Management Plan - town hall... · strategic goals and organizational plan align with the asset management policies, strategy and objectives or better known

Town of Oakville - Asset Management Plan

Town of Oakville Asset Management Plan

December 2017


1. Executive Summary

The Town of Oakville has been on the Asset Management journey since 2008 when the town made a choice to further leverage the PSAB 3150 initiative to embark on developing a comprehensive Asset Management plan. In 2013, the need for asset management plans was further enhanced by the announcement from the Ministry of Infrastructure stipulating that in order to qualify for future higher level government funding Municipalities must have an asset management plan. At this time the Province published a document “Building Together – Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans” that set out the minimum requirements to be include in an Asset Management Plan. In order to meet this requirement staff responded by submitting a report for council November 18, 2013 and including an Asset Management Plan section in the 2014 10 Year Capital Forecast which outlined how the Town met the various elements and identified areas where additional refinement would be recommended over the coming years. Since that time, staff became aware of the Asset Management standard set out by ISO 55000 and set out specific goals to further enhance the town’s Asset Management plan. Going forward, the Asset Management Plan will be adjusted to meet the recent O. Reg. 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure (formerly, Bill 6: Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015). Therefore, next steps were established to refresh the asset management strategy, policy and governance structure to include:

An Asset Management Roadmap from 2016 to 2021 An enterprise approach to Asset Management; Consistent with the organization’s strategic goals Fully integrated with the organization’s sustainability goals Follow ISO 55000 guidelines Develop a Levels of Service framework for all asset classes Establish clear linkage between asset-specific performance and both customer service

and sustainability goals

History of Asset Management Practices

1950 – Fix it when it

breaks 1970 – Asset Life

Cycle/Maintenance Planning

1980 – True Cost of Service; Timing of Asset Replacement, Australia

2000 – International Infrastructure Management Manual 2000, New Zealand

2009 – PSAB 3150 Tangible Capital Asset Accounting

2014 – ISO 55000 Asset Management System

2017/20018 ‐ O. Reg. 588/17 (formerly, Bill 6, Asset Management Planning Regulation)


As a result, staff have been working with an outside consulting firm CH2M to accomplish these goals and are pleased to report that the following has been accomplished to date and will be presented to Council along with the 2018 long-term forecast in February 2018:

a. Approved Asset Management Policy approved by Council – Appendix A b. Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) - Appendix B c. Revised State of Local Infrastructure Report (SOIR) for all Asset Classes – Appendix C and D

In addition to the above accomplishments, CH2M also conducted an assessment of the town’s asset management practices, policies and plans to determine the current level of maturity compared to ISO 55000 guidelines and then develop a work plan with short-term, medium term and long term goals. Based on the Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) completed by CH2M, the town is currently a Level 2 asset management maturity, with some aspects being a Level 3 as illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. Further details have been included in sections 3.4 and 5 of the SAMP.

Figure 1.1: Town of Oakville Asset Management Maturity

By implementing the initiatives in the asset management roadmap provided in Appendix A of the SAMP, the Town will move towards a maturity level of 3-4 over the next 5 years.


2. What is an Asset Management Plan (AMP)

The purpose of an AMP is to provide a comprehensive document that will guide corporate decision-making in regards to the construction (new and existing), operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement, capacity expansion, and disposal of the Town’s assets while minimizing risk and costs to the Town and its taxpayers and maximizing service delivery. Good asset management means making decisions based on the lowest long-term cost over the entire lifecycle of the asset, rather than short-term savings, and managing assets in a way that balances service levels, risk and costs in a sustainable manner.

One of the most important objectives of an AMP is to demonstrate how the town’s overarching strategic goals and organizational plan align with the asset management policies, strategy and objectives or better known as “line of sight” in ISO 55000. Figure 1-2 below demonstrates what is meant by “line of sight” by illustrating the link between organizational goals, policy, AM strategy and AMP’s.

How the Town’s assets are managed, including the financial sustainability over their life and how they are operated plays a key role in achieving the town’s strategic goals and objectives. Many of these goals and objectives are reliant on the long-term sustainability of the Town’s infrastructure; therefore, one of the aims of a SAMP is to put in place a clear line of sight between those high-level objectives and the day-to-day activities carried out on the assets, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Asset Management is a coordinated activity of an organization to realize value from assets. Asset management involves the balancing of costs, opportunities and risks against the desired performance of assets, to achieve the organizational objectives. Source: ISO 55000


Figure 2.1: Asset Management – Line of Sight

In conjunction with CH2M, staff have developed a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) which sets out the asset management strategy for the Town of Oakville (the Town) and focuses on creating a line of sight between the Town’s organizational objectives, asset management objectives, and day-to-day asset management activities. In addition, an Asset Management Policy (A-BMG-004) was prepared and approved by Council in September 2017 which clearly defines the key principles and expectations for asset management. Details of the town’s Asset Management Policy and SAMP can be found in Appendix A and B respectively.


3. Introduction

In 2008, the Town of Oakville made a decision to leverage the PSAB 3150 initiative into developing comprehensive asset management processes and systems. Asset management assists in protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Oakville by leveraging the best possible asset information leading to better decisions about our assets—pipes, buildings, roads and parks—in a way that maintains the levels of service and manages risk in a cost-effective manner.

The town will manage our infrastructure assets in a strategic, comprehensive, enterprise‐wide manner through an integrated business approach that relies on well‐devised strategies, trained knowledgeable staff, and good communication with all stakeholders to achieve desired levels of service. This requires that all assets be treated as interrelated components in a unified system, rather than as isolated parts. The Town of Oakville’s asset management system incorporates the following asset management principles:

Forward-Looking and Sustainable: The town will incorporate social, legislative, environmental and financial considerations into decisions, taking into account present and future service commitments, giving due attention to the long-term stewardship of assets. Sound Asset Information: The town will collect, collate, control, and circulate the right asset information, at the right time, informing the right asset management decision-making.

Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision Making: The town will utilize a formal but scalable, consistent, and repeatable approach to manage infrastructure assets, enabling services to be provided in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

Whole Life Cycle Cost Perspective: The town will consider the combined impact of all aspects of the asset life-cycle – acquiring, operating, maintaining, renewing, and retiring assets. No new assets will be constructed/acquired without considering future operating and maintenance costs. Asset performance will be monitored throughout the asset life cycle and will be used to inform recommendations on future asset acquisition.

Risk-Based Perspective: The town will direct resources, expenditures, and priorities to achieve the agreed service outcomes and benefits, at acceptable levels of risk.


People-Focused (Customers and Staff): The town will adopt a serviceability-based approach to managing our assets and will only accommodate additional demand for services without detriment to current levels of service. The town will recruit, train, and retain the right staff.

The Town of Oakville since 2008 has maintained a complete inventory of all the town’s assets in the town’s Corporate Information System (CIS). Our CIS inventory currently is integrated to the Town’s GIS system which will facilitate spatial analysis and provide an ability to confirm physical inventory for audit purposes. This will give the town an ability to coordinate capital spending among asset types. An example of this is Road Replacement with Storm System Replacement. As well this will provide an easier avenue to share our information with our regional level of government for better coordination. The current Asset Management Plan (AMP) has been developed following the Provincial requirements as outlined in Building Together – Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, as well as guidance provided in the International Infrastructure Management Manual. Going forward, the Asset Management Plan will be adjusted to meet O. Reg. 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure (formerly, Bill 6: Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015) and ISO 55000 standards for Asset Management and will be a component of the ten year financial plan. Currently the plan includes the following sections listed below but will be expanded to include a maintenance strategy and more thorough whole life costing component:

State of Local Infrastructure Expected Levels of Service Asset Management Strategy Financing Strategy Plan Improvement and Monitoring Asset management is important because it helps protect the quality of life in Oakville by ensuring the best possible decisions regarding our assets. The plan supports evidence-based businesses cases for budgets and long-term financial forecasts. It is the foundation for longer term thinking and planning to support financial sustainability.


4. State of Local Infrastructure The Town of Oakville owns a sizable portfolio of assets, which vary significantly in terms of their function, age, durability, and many other factors. The purpose of the State of Infrastructure Report (SOIR) is to provide a summary of the key physical attributes and current physical state of the asset portfolio. The SOIR only provides information about the physical asset and not whether it is meeting service provision. This section of the plan identifies asset types, accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation, asset age distribution and asset age as a proportion of expected useful life and asset condition. This information is supported by the town’s Corporate Information System (CIS) which forms the database for all town assets. This system holds asset records for individual assets and groups of assets and contains details such as asset type, class, description, location, useful life, historical cost, replacement cost, depreciation and condition. This SOIR also provides background on the Town’s Quality Rating System (QRS) for parks and park assets.


5. Expected Levels of Service The Town’s Asset Management Program focuses on three fundamental goals:

Providing sustainable, high quality service to customers Optimizing asset value while minimizing life cycle costs and ensuring that assets are financially sustainable over the life of the

assets Managing risks to the delivery of established service levels

An important objective to meeting these fundamental goals is to have well defined Customer Levels of Service (LOS). ISO 55000 best practices indicate that asset management objectives should be in the form of Level of Service (LOS) measures, which cascade vertically from Corporate measures to Technical measures. Figure 5.1 below shows how LOS measures can be aligned from the corporate performance vision, down to day‐to‐day asset management decision‐making (at the Technical LOS level), ultimately enabling customers to assess the suitability, affordability, and equity of services offered.

(draft Strategic Asset Management Plan)

Figure 5.1: Asset Management – Line of Sight


Currently the Town has well defined Corporate LOS which have been set out in Council’s Strategic Plan 2015-2018 and Vision 2057. The key principles and objectives in these plans have cascaded down and been embedded into all other various strategic plans which set out Customer LOS and targets within each of them. For example, the Fire Master Plan sets out the service delivery standards for fire response times and recommends new stations or relocations to make improvements to those times or to service new growth areas. A list of the various Master Plans and strategic documents can be found in section 3.1.1 of the SAMP.

In addition, through work on the town’s program based performance based budget (PB2), key performance indicators (KPI’s) were created for all town programs in order to measure actual program results against expected outcomes and monitor trends over time. These KPI’s serve for the most part as Technical LOS for the town’s programs and services and have been reported in the annual Operating Budget books since 2008. Many of these KPI’s are directly related to how infrastructure will be maintained and how service will be delivered, but others may be linked indirectly as well maintained infrastructure leads to effective delivery of service. Specific examples are:

Number of winter storm events that met town standard for snow clearing – 2017: projecting 4 (100%) – trending 100% for

the past 5 years, therefore meeting targets Transit ridership – 2017: projecting 2,933,900 – trending and increase the last 3 years, therefore meeting targets Square metres of public indoor recreation space per capita - 2017: 0.41m2/capita – trending constant for last 5 years,

therefore meeting targets. Percent of deficient pavement with the network – 2017: 8.5 – trending down, therefore meeting targets

KPI’s for each specific program area can be found in within the 2018 Operating Budget and 2019-2020 Forecast document; each Program Business Plan provides key performance indicators specific to program practices and operations including past results and expected outcomes. Next steps in the asset management work plan are to clearly define Customer LOS and consolidate them into one document in order to establish clear linkages between the Corporate LOS. Work completed to date through the SAMP has established a qualitative overview of the Level of Service delivered for each network of assets, as assessed against a set of core Customer Values including: Accessibility; Quality; Availability; Reliability; Safety; and Shine (aesthetics).


6. Asset Management Strategy

The asset management strategy is the set of planned actions that will enable the assets to provide the desired service in a sustainable way, while managing risk and at the lowest lifecycle cost. The asset management strategy outlines plans for renewal/rehab activities, maintenance activities, replacements, disposals and expansion to service. The strategy should also address actions or policies that can lower costs or extend asset life.

6.1 Strategic Asset Management Plan and Policy

The Town’s asset management approach is to align their asset-related activities to the desired customer LOS and to meet their asset management vision to “create customer value through enhancing community asset management”. There are a number of corporate documents that guide and direct the planning and management of assets and these go some way towards translating organizational goals into asset management objectives. The Town’s Asset Management Policy and SAMP form the framework for establishing a clear line of sight between the corporate objectives and strategies and the overall Asset Management Program. The Town’s asset management-related strategic documents include:

Asset Management Policy Capital and Operating Budget Policies Asset Management General Policy (for Tangible Capital Assets) Asset-Specific Policies Procedures Strategic Plan 2015-2018 To put in place the necessary line of sight between organizational goals and asset management objectives, the Town has developed an Asset Management Policy that includes a set of asset management principles, which support delivery of the Town’s strategic goals and objectives. As stated in the Town’s Asset Management Policy, the Town intends to manage infrastructure assets in a strategic, comprehensive, enterprise‐wide manner through an integrated business approach that relies on well‐devised strategies, trained knowledgeable staff, and good communication with all stakeholders to achieve desired LOS. This requires that all assets be treated as interrelated components in a unified system, rather than as isolated parts.


Figure 6.1 shows a high-level, best practice model AMS from the Institute of Asset Management (IAM) that the Town will work on detailing and customizing for the next version of this SAMP, once more of the Town’s asset management processes have been developed.

Figure 6.1: General AMS Model


The town’s SAMP is the basis for delivery of the Asset Management Policy, efficient compliance with the business needs, and achievement of corporate goals. Some of the key corporate strategic planning documents include:

Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Vision 2057 Livable Oakville Official Plan Let's Be Livable Community Sustainability Plan Cultural Plan 2016-2021 Environmental Strategic Plan Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities Master Plan Fire Master Plan Switching Gears Transportation Master Plan Active Transportation Master Plan Transit 5 Year Review Development Charges Background Study

Many of these documents not only set out the Corporate Strategic goals, but also set the service standards for the delivery of various programs and services and outline the asset requirements necessary to meet changing demand as a result of population and employment growth, changing demographics, legislation and changes in demand and/or popularity of services. More information can be found in sections 2 and 3 of the SAMP.

6.2 Asset Management Planning Practices and Procedures

The Town’s Long-term Capital Forecast and Financing Strategy has been built on the foundation of Council’s strategic goals resulting from many of the studies undertaken under Vision 2057 and the 2015-2018 Strategic Workplan. In addition, the town’s Annual Budget Policy (F-FPC-002) states “that the town is committed to accountable and fiscally responsible financial management. Decisions made with regards to the operating budget, capital budget, staff complement and reserve management are consistent with the goals set out by Council in its Strategic Plan and ensure that budget plans support economic growth, maintain ageing infrastructure, respond to changing needs and are fiscally responsible.” This policy includes key budget principles such as Affordability, Sustainability, Interdependancy, Multi-year budgeting and Performance Based.


Overall, the annual update of the Long-term capital plan identifies the capital needs necessary to ensure current service levels are maintained for the various programs offered across the town. The town’s capital forecast not only plans for renewal and replacement of existing infrastructure used to support town services, but also takes into consideration future needs. The Executive Summary portion of the Long-term Capital Forecast explains the strategies on how to evaluate or prioritize capital projects within the town have been developed which consider the benefit of the project to the community, health and safety or legislative requirements and alignment of the project with council’s strategic goals.

In general, the Long-term Capital Forecast is built on a framework based on “drivers” in which to review and assess capital project needs.

Infrastructure Renewal - The information stored in the Corporate Information System (CIS) is used to prepare the Infrastructure Renewal Capital Plan based on life cycle replacement and scheduled maintenance programs. Condition of assets is then evaluated at the beginning of each budget cycle to optimize the life of the assets while balancing risk of unanticipated failures. It is the town’s practice that as replacement of assets are executed, existing assets are disposed and any salvage value is transferred into the capital reserves. Capital projects included in this section address renewal/rehab activities, major repairs and replacements for all asset types.

Maintenance activities, including regularly scheduled inspections, preventative maintenance, and minor repairs are planned for in the town’s work order management system and are funded from the town’s operating budget. A repair and maintenance budget for each program has been included as part of the 2018 Operating Budget. This budget is also used to address unplanned repairs where emergency repairs are dealt with through the town’s emergency repair policy. Currently, many policies and/or practices exist to establish best practices, process for usage optimization and procedures in managing failures within each of the departments. For example, in order to extend the useful life of a conventional bus it is the town’s practice to complete a major refurbishment of each bus after 7-9 years which increases the life expectancy of the bus on average by 4 years. Over the next few years staff plans to consolidate all of these best practices and procedures into one document as part of the Asset Management strategy. Growth – every 5 years a Development Charges Background Study is undertaken which outlines in detail the infrastructure required in order to maintain service levels as the town’s population and employment grows. Detailed projects are included for the various asset classifications that would be required to meet program needs for Fire, Library, Recreation, Parks, Parking, Roads, Road Operations and Transit which have been identified through various Master Plan needs assessments. On an annual basis project needs are re-evaluated based on actual population and employment growth development.


One of the key budget principles included in the Annual Budget Policy it the need to address “Interdependency” in which the operating and capital budgets must be reviewed with a coordinated effort as capital expenditures and financing decisions will impact future operating budgets. As well as the need for “Multi-Year Budgets” – multi-year budgets will be developed for operating and capital expenditures according to an approved guideline. Multi-year budgets will incorporate the operating impacts of capital initiatives. As such it is the town’s practice to include all anticipated operational costs in the detailed sheet for each capital project in particular for growth. These operating impacts include additional personnel, materials and supplies, utilities, contracted services, transfers to reserve for future replacement of assets and any revenues associated with fees for service. As a result, the Long-term Forecast not only outlines 10 Year capital requirements but also a 10 year forecast of the operating cost required to support those assets.

Community Enhancement and Strategic Priorities - projects for planned expansion activities that support infrastructure requirements to meet various community needs as identified through Master Plan updates and to meet Council’s strategic goals. Enterprise Initiatives – projects to maintain and enhance the town’s three self-supporting programs; Harbours, Cemeteries and Parking. Master plans for each area are completed on a re-occuring basis to review operations and identify improvements. Capital and Operating costs are funded from revenues generated by each area with residual surplus or deficit transferred to individual reserves set up for each. 6.3 Organizational Opportunities and Challenges

The town’s suite of strategic planning documents sets out the environmental and business context of the town. In developing the SAMP the town identified several opportunities and challenges that may arise along the asset management journey and with the various objectives set out. These have been discussed in section 3.2 and 3.3 of the SAMP.


7. Financing Strategy

This section contains the financial plan for putting the asset management plan into action. The financial information discussed in this section is based on the best available information to date. For current period, the 2017 Capital Budget and 2018 Base Operating Budget are used; both of which are currently available on the town’s website. Please note that the development of the 2018 Capital Budget is currently underway and expected to be released in February 2018 which will incorporate changes identified in the recent update of the Development Charges Background Study underway. Plans for the ongoing improvement of information quality and the planning process will be an integral part of the Town’s Corporate Asset Management Program going forward. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the AMP, it is important that it is integrated with the Town’s financial planning and long-term budgeting process as well as departmental master plans. The development of a comprehensive financial plan that reflects the timely rehabilitation and maintenance of assets will allow the town to identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based on long term asset needs, agreed LOS, legislative requirements, and projected growth requirements.

Having a financial plan is critical for putting the AMP into action. In addition, by having a strong financial plan, the town can demonstrate that they have made a concerted effort to integrate asset management planning with financial planning and budgeting and to make full use of all available infrastructure financing tools.

This section of the AMP contains information related to the historical and forecast capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) required to deliver the agreed LOS and ensure an appropriate level of asset stewardship.

7.1 Historical Capital and Operating Expenditures

Capital expenditures are defined as expenditures that are of sufficient monetary value to warrant capitalization and the resulting assets have a useful economic life of more than 1 year. The Town’s accounting guidelines state that a purchase will be considered a capital expenditure if it has physical substance and meets the following criteria: is held for use in the production or supply of goods and services, for rental to others, for administrative purposes or for the development, construction, maintenance, or repair of other capital assets has been acquired, constructed or developed to be used on a continuing basis has a useful economic life extending beyond 1 year is not intended for sale in the ordinary course of business it is of sufficient monetary value to warrant capitalization


The Town has chosen to present budget information rather than expenditure information in order to align with other financial reports. Budget information contains the full cost of the project even though the project expenditure may occur over more than one year. From an asset management perspective, it is important to understand what the drivers for investment have been over recent years and to understand how expenditure has changed year on year (if that is the case) as this will have an effect on how the asset base behaves in the future along with the associated future funding requirements. The capital forecast is built on a framework based on drivers in which to review and assess capital project needs. As some financing sources are specific for only certain types of projects, all financial tools available to the town need to be managed as a whole with the overall fiscal picture in mind. Therefore, the capital forecast is built on a framework based on the five classification drivers shown in Figure 7.1 below.

Figure 7.1: Capital Forecast Framework

The operating budget is prepared using the performance based program based budgeting (PB2) methodology.

7.1.1 Historical Capital Expenditure Based on the best available information to date, for current period, the 2017 Capital Budget is used. As such, historical capital budget information is provided for 2015 and 2016. Please note that the development of the 2018 Capital Budget is currently underway and expected to be released in February 2018.


Capital projects add value to the Town’s physical assets or significantly increase their useful life. The total value of town capital projects was $73.5 million in 2015 and $99.8 million in 2016. Figure 7.2 below provides a breakdown of the historical capital budgets by classification. For further information, please refer to the 2015 Capital Budget and 2016 Capital Budget documents.

Figure 7.2: 2015 and 2016 Capital Budget by Classification (in millions)

7.1.2 Historical Operating Expenditure

Based on the best available information to date, for current period, the 2018 Operating Budget is used. As such, historical operating budget information is provided for 2016 and 2017. The total operating budget was $297.7 million in 2016 and $308.5 million in 2017. Figure 7.3 below provides a breakdown of the operating budgets by cost component. For further information, please refer to the 2016 Operating Budget and 2017 Operating Budget documents which are available on the town’s website.


2016 Operating Budget: $297.7 million 2017 Operating Budget: $308.5 million

Figure 7.3: 2016 and 2017 Operating Budget by Cost Component (in millions)

7.2 Budget Forecasts

Long range financial planning is an important exercise for ensuring funds are available in the future, as required, to meet anticipated needs. Annually, Town staff prepare a one year adopted capital budget and nine year forecast and a one year adopted operating budget and two year forecast.


7.2.1 Capital Expenditure Forecast Typically, a current year budget and the following nine year capital forecast is prepared and presented to Council as part of the annual budget process. Council approves the current year capital budget and, in some instances, approves the budget for projects where construction will span multiple years. Council also approves, in principle, the following nine years.

The approved capital budget represents a significant investment in the development and rehabilitation of capital infrastructure and associated studies to support the provision of services to the current and future citizens of the Town. The budget considers the capital requirements of growth alongside maintaining existing infrastructure. In the preparation of the budget, consideration is given to actual costs incurred in the past for similar projects, current priorities, the impact on future operating budgets, feedback gathered through the public input process, availability of staff resources to undertake and properly manage the program, and the available sources of revenue to fund the program. The 2017-2026 capital forecast and financial plan implement objectives set out in the various master plans and strategic goals while maintaining fiscal sustainability and ensuring fiscal policies are adhered to. The 2017-2026 capital forecast totals $1,040 million over 10 years of which $122.8 million in gross expenditures was approved for 2017. Figure 7.4 below illustrates a breakdown of the 2017 to 2026 capital program by classification. For further information, please refer to the 2017 Capital Budget document.

Figure 7.4: 2017‐2026 (10 year total) Capital Program by Classification


Figure 7.5 below illustrates the ten year (2017 to 2026) capital program for each classification by year.

Figure 7.5: 2017‐2026 Capital Program by Classification by Year

7.2.2 Operating Expenditure Forecast

The 2018 base operating budget totals $321.5 million. The base operating budget also includes the operating costs for new infrastructure and programs completed as part of the capital budget as well as infrastructure assumed by the town as new developments are completed. Figure 7.6 below provides a breakdown of the 2018 operating budget by cost component. For further information, please refer to the 2018 Operating Budget document.


Figure 7.6: 2018 Operating Budget by Cost Component

7.3 Sources of Funding

The capital investment program is funded from a wide range of sources. Broadly speaking there are five main sources:

Cash to capital – revenue received in the financial year that is allocated to the capital program Debt – external borrowing within strict limits Reserves – the Town maintains several reserve funds that are built up and drawn down to cover peak in expenditure Other levels of government – Provincial and Federal grants, subsidies and programs that may be ongoing or time limited Other third party funds – such as developer charges


The following table provides an outline of the sources of funding that may be available to the Town; not all are currently utilized.


7.3.1 Capital Funding Forecast

The primary sources of funding for the $1,040 million proposed 2017-2026 capital plan is the capital levy at $332.0 million, development charges at $260.1 million, building maintenance and equipment reserves at $140.0 million, and capital reserves at $139.1 million. Other significant funding sources are the gas tax reserve funds. Figure 7.8 below illustrates a breakdown of the 2017 to 2026 capital program by funding source. For further information, please refer to the 2017 Capital Budget document.


Figure 7.7: 2017‐2026 (10 year total) Capital Program by Funding Source

7.3.2 Operating Funding Forecast

Figure 7.8 below illustrates the funding sources for the 2018 operating budget. Taxation revenues provide 58% of the funding. Fees and charges are the next largest source of funding at $71.5 million or 22%. Included in the fees and charges are increases to maintain cost recovery ratios for all programs. The 2018 budget includes a $5.5 million dividend from Oakville Hydro of which $1.9 million is included in the base budget. The balance of the dividend is transferred to the hydro reserve which supports the hospital debt charges. For further information, please refer to the 2018 Operating Budget document.


Figure 7.8: 2018 Operating Budget Funding Sources

7.4 Capital Financing Policies and Assumptions

The 2017-2026 capital forecast and financing plan has been developed with the following financing policies and assumptions. These financial strategies form the basis of the town’s strong financial position and are monitored to ensure the town’s long-term financial position is sustained into the future:


Debt re-payment levels including the hospital commitment remain within the council approved policy limits; Outstanding debt to reserve levels do not exceed the 1:1 ratio required to maintain AAA credit rating; The 1% Capital levy increase is maintained over the 10 year period; Timing of Growth projects aligns with anticipated residential and non-residential development; Development Charge reserve funds return to a surplus position; Capital reserves are maintained at sufficient levels to minimize risk, support future initiatives and provide for unknown

contingencies; Equipment reserves are maintained at sufficient levels to support on-going life cycle replacements; Building replacement reserve contributions are maintained and as new facilities are built contributions are increased phased

over 5 years;

7.5 Funding Shortfall

The town’s approved 2018 Operating and 2017-2026 Capital Forecast budgets have identified the financial needs required to support current level of services established and include plans to support existing infrastructure, expansion activities as well as various enhancements. Both budget have been fully financed as noted above, therefore the town does not have a funding shortfall. As work continues over the few years to further refine Customer LOS and established associated cost to deliver Customer LOS the financing strategy will be revised to address changes in priority and/or alternative financing tools explored as required.


8. Plan Improvement and Monitoring

This Asset Management Plan is a living document that will continue to reflect the evolution of asset management practices within the Town. The Town has embedded continual improvement into its Mission Statement and its Strategic Plan. From the Town’s Mission Statement:

We create and preserve Canada’s most livable community that enhances the natural, cultural, social and economic environments. We achieve this by continuously improving programs and services that are both accessible and environmentally and fiscally sustainable.

From the Town’s Strategic Plan (2015-2018):

The Town’s strategic plan is a continual work in progress. Over time, new priorities, new opportunities, new demands and new challenges will emerge, and incorporating annual business plans into the Town’s strategic planning process ensures us the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to these changing directions.

In order to continually evaluate, review, and enhance its asset management practices, the Town is adopting a number of continual improvement activities and will promote a culture of continual improvement through disciplined performance management, performance benchmarking, and collection of customer feedback. The asset management improvement roadmap and improvement initiatives described in the SAMP are aligned with the Town’s Strategic Plan and succeed in meeting the Town’s mission, through continual improvement of the asset management system. Throughout implementation of the asset management improvement roadmap, annual reviews of the performance of the program will be conducted. The review will consist of internal evaluation, together with the results of benchmarking, audit results, and assessments of current and best practices. Furthermore, the Town’s asset management plan will be adjusted to meet the requirements, including reporting requirements, of O. Reg. 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure (formerly, Bill 6: Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015), within the prescribed timelines.

Appendix A Asset Management Policy

Asset Management

Policy Number A-BMG-004

Page: 1 of 2

Author: Financial Operations Authority: Council

Section: Administration Sub-Section: Business Management

Effective Date: Council/CAO Approval Date

Replaces/Last Modified:

Review by Date: 5 yrs from Approval Date

Policy Statement The Town of Oakville will protect and enhance the quality of life in Oakville by making the best possible decisions regarding Town of Oakville (town) assets in a way that provides targeted levels of service and manages risk in a cost-effective manner throughout the entire asset life cycle in order to create customer value through enhancing community asset management. The town will manage infrastructure assets in a strategic, comprehensive, enterprise‐wide manner through an integrated business approach that relies on well‐devised strategies, trained knowledgeable staff, and good communication with all stakeholders to achieve desired levels of service. This requires that all assets be treated as interrelated components in a unified system, rather than as isolated parts. Purpose This policy supports the town’s four Key Strategic Directions. This policy defines the principles by which the town will develop asset management capability, ensuring asset needs are understood and effective solutions are developed. Successfully delivering these principles will drive the required service and value from town assets, meeting or exceeding our customer expectations. Scope This policy covers the management of the town’s asset portfolio. The principles below have been established in line with leading practices. Forward-Looking and Sustainable: The town will incorporate social, legislative, environmental and financial considerations into decisions, taking into account present and future service commitments, giving due attention to the long-term stewardship of assets.

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville Page 2 of 2 Policy A-BMG-004, Asset Management

Sound Asset Information: The town will collect, collate, control, and circulate the right asset information, at the right time. Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision Making: The town will utilize a formal but scalable, consistent, and repeatable approach to manage infrastructure assets, enabling services to be provided in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Whole Life Cycle Cost Perspective: The town will consider the combined impact of all aspects of the asset life-cycle – acquiring, operating, maintaining, renewing, and retiring assets. No new assets will be constructed/acquired without considering future operating and maintenance costs. Asset performance will be monitored throughout the asset life cycle and will be used to make recommendations on future asset acquisition. Risk-Based Perspective: The town will direct resources, expenditures, and priorities to achieve the agreed service outcomes and benefits, at acceptable levels of risk. People-Focused (Customers and Staff): The town will adopt a service-based approach to managing assets and will only accommodate additional demand for services without detriment to current levels of service. References and Related Documents Town of Oakville Strategic Plan Definitions Asset: an asset is an item, thing or entity that has potential or actual value to an organization. The value can be tangible or intangible and financial or non-financial. Asset management: asset management is an integrated approach, involving all Town departments, to effectively manage existing and new assets. The intent is to maximize benefits, reduce risks, and provide satisfactory levels of service to the community in a sustainable manner. Good asset management practices are fundamental to achieving sustainable communities. Levels of service: describes the outputs or objectives that the Town intends to deliver; includes measures at the corporate, customer, and asset levels of the organization. Life cycle cost: sum of all recurring and one-time (non-recurring) costs over the full life span or a specified period of a good, service, structure, or system. It includes purchase price, installation cost, operating costs, maintenance and upgrade costs, and remaining (residual or salvage) value at the end of ownership or useful life, and disposal costs, if appropriate.

Appendix B Strategic Asset Management

Plan (SAMP)

Strategic Asset Management Plan

Prepared for

Town of Oakville

December 2017

CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road Suite 400 Toronto, ON M2J 1R3 CA

SL0711170958TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY i

Contents Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1‐1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Need and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 2‐1 2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.3 Related Corporate Documents ........................................................................................ 2‐2 2.4 Asset Management System ............................................................................................. 2‐3

Organizational Context .................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Strategic Alignment ......................................................................................................... 3‐2

3.1.1 Alignment with Corporate Strategic Plans .......................................................... 3‐2 3.1.2 Integrated Asset Management Planning ............................................................ 3‐5

3.2 Organizational Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................. 3‐6 3.3 Needs and Expectations of Stakeholders ........................................................................ 3‐7 3.4 Asset Management Maturity ........................................................................................... 3‐8 3.5 People Skills and Competencies ...................................................................................... 3‐8

Asset Management Objectives and Decision‐Making Criteria ........................................................... 4‐1 4.1 Asset Management Objectives ........................................................................................ 4‐1 4.2 Asset Management Decision‐Making Criteria ................................................................. 4‐2

Strategic Asset Management Initiatives ........................................................................................... 5‐1 5.1 CAMRA Results ................................................................................................................. 5‐1 5.2 Priority Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 5‐1

5.2.1 Asset Management Policy & Strategic Asset Management Plan (S1) ................ 5‐4 5.2.2 Asset Management Leadership & Governance (S2) ........................................... 5‐4 5.2.3 Change Management & Communication Strategies (S3) ................................... 5‐4 5.2.4 Levels of Service & Performance Metrics (S4) .................................................... 5‐4 5.2.5 Asset Management Plan (S5) .............................................................................. 5‐4 5.2.6 Asset Information Strategy, Standards, Improvement Plan (S6) ........................ 5‐4 5.2.7 Asset Management Risk Framework (S7) ........................................................... 5‐5 5.2.8 Capital Investment Plan Development & Governance (S8) ................................ 5‐5 5.2.9 Asset Management Awareness Training (S9) ..................................................... 5‐6

Risks and Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 6‐1 6.1 Risks ................................................................................................................................. 6‐1 6.2 Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 6‐1

Continual Improvement and Monitoring .......................................................................................... 7‐1

Appendix A Asset Management Roadmap

CONTENTS

Section Page

ii CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY SL0711170958TOR

Tables

Table 1‐1. Summary of Priority Initiatives ................................................................................................. 1‐1 Table 5‐1. Summary of CAMRA Assessments ............................................................................................ 5‐1 Table 5‐2. Summary of Priority Initiatives ................................................................................................. 5‐1 Figures

Figure 2‐1. General AMS Model ................................................................................................................. 2‐3 Figure 3‐1. Asset Management – Line of Sight .......................................................................................... 3‐2 Figure 3‐2. Vision and Key Strategic Plans ................................................................................................. 3‐4 Figure 3‐3. Relationship of Asset Management Principles to Strategic Plan ............................................. 3‐5 Figure 3‐4. Town of Oakville Strategic Decision‐Making Process .............................................................. 3‐6 Figure 3‐5. Town of Oakville Asset Management Maturity ....................................................................... 3‐8 Figure 4‐1. Alignment of Levels of Service to Corporate Strategy ............................................................. 4‐1 Figure 5‐1. Current and Forecasted Maturity for each Asset Management Themes for the Roads, Land Improvement, and Environment Networks ............................................................................................... 5‐2 Figure 5‐3. Phasing of Asset Management Improvement Initiatives ........................................................ 5‐1

SL0711170958TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations AMP Asset Management Plan

AMS Asset Management System

CAMRA Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment

IAM Institute of Asset Management

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LOS Levels of Service

SAMP Strategic Asset Management Plan

TBL Triple Bottom Line

the Town Town of Oakville

SECTION 1

SL0711170958TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐1

Executive Summary This Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) sets out the asset management strategy for the Town of Oakville (the Town) and focuses on creating alignment between the Town’s organizational objectives, asset management objectives, and day‐to‐day asset management activities. The purpose of this SAMP is to document the translation of organizational objectives into asset management objectives, describe the Asset Management System (AMS) and its use to support achievement of asset management objectives, and identify strategic asset management initiatives that the Town will implement to develop the AMS. The AMS demonstrates that the Town’s assets are financially sustainable over the life of the assets.

This SAMP covers all physical assets that are owned, operated, or maintained by the Town and managed through the AMS. Within the AMS assets are managed in a strategic, comprehensive, enterprise‐wide manner through an integrated business approach that relies on strategies, trained knowledgeable staff, and communication with stakeholders to achieve desired LOS. To put in place the necessary alignment the Town has developed an Asset Management Policy that includes principles that support delivery of the Town’s strategic goals. The Town’s asset management principles are summarized in Section 3.1.

The Town staff completed a Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) with CH2M for assets that provide services for Road, Land Improvement, Environmental Networks, Facilities, Transit and Fleet. These results are provided in Section 5. The CAMRA sessions informed the current asset management maturity, as shown in Section 3.4. The Town is currently a Level 2, with some aspects being a Level 3. By implementing the initiatives in the asset management roadmap provided in Appendix A, the Town will move towards a maturity level of 3‐4 over the next 5 years.

To achieve the goal of increasing the asset management maturity levels, Town staff have determined an Asset Management Program. This program focuses on three fundamental goals: providing sustainable, high quality service to customers; optimizing asset value while minimizing life cycle costs, and; managing risks to the delivery of established service levels. The Asset Management Program will ensure the sound stewardship of the Town’s assets to meet present and future asset management objectives. The Town’s asset management objectives are in the form of levels of service (LOS) measures, which cascade vertically from Corporate LOS measures to Technical LOS measures. Further information on asset management objectives, and the Town’s asset management decision‐making criteria, is provided in Section 4.

Within the Town’s Asset Management Program there are eight priority, short‐term, initiatives. The aim of each priority initiative is summarized in Table 1‐2. Further information is provided in Section 5.2.

Table 1‐1. Summary of Priority Initiatives # Theme Aim description

S1 Asset Management Policy & Strategic Asset Management Plan

Aims: Put in place a concise Asset Management Policy. Develop the associated strategy document that details how the Policy will be implemented.

S2 Asset Management Leadership & Governance

Aims: Develop asset management governance structure and process Develop roles and responsibilities for individuals and teams:

Asset management sponsor Asset management steering committee Asset management lead Asset management committee/network

Develop reporting requirements ‐ progress, benefits, frequency of meetings

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY SL0711170958TOR

Table 1‐1. Summary of Priority Initiatives # Theme Aim description

S3 Change Management & Communication Strategies

Aims: Develop the communications strategy and change management strategy Proactive approach to change management and communications Make change sustainable

S4 Levels of Service & Performance Metrics

Aim: Develop Customer and Asset LOS Framework and associated measures

S5 Asset Management Plans Aims: Define the AMP Framework Develop the AMP

S6 Asset Information Strategy, Standards, Improvement Plan

Aims: Develop Asset Information Strategy

Documents the approach to the definition, collection, management, reporting, archive, deletion, and overall governance of Asset Information

Develop Data Standards and Information Management Develop consistent approach to creating/managing data

Develop the Information Management Improvement Plan

S7 Asset Management Risk Framework

Aims: Develop a Town‐wide approach to risk Pilot enterprise risk assessments Pilot asset risk assessments

S8 Capital Investment Plan Development & Governance

Aims: Develop a more consistent approach to business cases, with better definition and

justification of the “business need” through data collection and analysis More robust and transparent approach to investment prioritization

Section 5.2 further describes these asset management improvement initiatives. It provides further description of each priority short‐term initiative, and (if applicable) the current progress of the initiative.

The Town has identified risks and opportunities associated with implementing this SAMP and the strategic asset management improvement initiatives. A list of risks and opportunities identified by the Town is provided in Section 6.

This SAMP, along with the asset management roadmap in Appendix A, are living documents that reflect the evolution of asset management practices within the Town. The Town has embedded continual improvement into its Mission Statement and Strategic Plan. To continually evaluate, review, and enhance its asset management practices, the Town is adopting continual improvement activities and promote a culture of continual improvement through disciplined performance management, performance benchmarking, and collection of customer feedback. The asset management improvement roadmap in Appendix A, and the improvement initiatives described in Section 5.2, are aligned with the Town’s Strategic Plan and succeed in meeting the Town’s mission, through continual improvement of the asset management system.


Introduction This Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) sets out the asset management strategy for the Town of Oakville (the Town) and focuses on creating a line of sight between the Town’s organizational objectives, asset management objectives, and day‐to‐day asset management activities. The SAMP should be used to guide the setting of asset management objectives, and to describe the role of the asset management system in meeting these objectives. This includes the structures, roles, and responsibilities necessary to establish the asset management system and to operate it effectively. Effective asset management requires guidance from top management and delivery by empowered and competent employees.

This SAMP is the overarching document that sets out the long‐term approach to asset management at the Town, along with the further development of the Town’s asset management practices, derived from the Asset Management Policy. The Asset Management Policy defines expectations for the management of the Town’s physical assets. The SAMP documents senior management commitment to implementing the Asset Management Policy, including commitment to allocate resources, roles, and responsibilities for its implementation. It is anticipated that the Asset Management Policy will remain constant over time, whereas the SAMP will evolve in response to internal and external changes faced by the Town.

2.1 Need and Purpose The Town is a complex service delivery organization with responsibility for managing a broad range of physical assets. To fulfill its obligations to deliver services to the community, the Town must ensure that assets supporting these services are managed in a way that balances service‐level delivery/performance, risk, and affordability. The majority of these assets are long‐lived, with useful lives measured in decades. The asset portfolio requires significant ongoing investment with operation, maintenance, renewal, and enhancement activities to ensure asset performance is supporting the delivery of services now and into the future.

The Town’s assets are essential to the well‐being of the community and have significant budget implications and, therefore, they need to form an integral part of the Town’s long‐term financial and service delivery planning. The Town of Oakville, like many other municipalities, operates in an environment of budget constraints, resulting in an increasing risk of failing to maintain the existing infrastructure and the levels of service provided. Funding pressures are being created by having to balance capital investments between growth and renewal.

This SAMP is a high‐level document aimed at supporting the delivery of the Asset Management Policy, which, in turn, supports delivery of the Town’s corporate strategic goals and provides oversight for the asset life cycle activities required to support these goals. This approach provides a clear line of sight between Council’s priorities and the day‐to‐day activities required to support service delivery.

The overall purpose of this SAMP is to:

Document information that specifies how organizational objectives have been translated into asset management objectives.

Describe the asset management system (AMS) and its use to support achievement of asset management objectives, including delivery of appropriate levels of service (LOS) cost‐effectively, while meeting legislative requirements and having regard for the long‐term stewardship of the asset portfolio.

Identify strategic asset management improvement initiatives that the Town will implement to develop the AMS.

SECTION 2 – INTRODUCTION


The establishment of asset management objectives should take into account the requirements of relevant stakeholders and of other financial, technical, legal, regulatory, and organizational requirements. These should be derived as part of the SAMP to provide the essential link between the organizational objectives and the Asset Management Plans (AMPs) that describe how those objectives are going to be achieved. The asset management objectives should be consistent and aligned with the organizational objectives, as well as the Asset Management Policy.

This version of the SAMP focuses primarily on providing a roadmap to deliver the Town’s asset management objectives. The Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) tool was used to provide a review of the current status of asset management maturity at the Town, as a baseline for identifying future asset management improvements. This SAMP also documents the existing situation, along with initiatives to further develop the Town’s asset management objectives.

2.2 Scope This SAMP covers all physical assets that are owned, operated, or maintained by the Town including all assets that are funded through development charges. This SAMP does not include the strategy to maintain and enhance assets, which is covered separately in the Town’s AMPs.

2.3 Related Corporate Documents There are a number of corporate documents that guide and direct the planning and management of assets and these go some way towards translating organizational goals into asset management objectives (e.g., the linkages between active healthy populations to the number of kilometers of active transportation network).

The Town’s asset management‐related strategic documents include:

Asset Management Policy (pending Council approval) Asset Management General Policy (for Tangible Capital Assets) Asset‐Specific Policies:

– Land – Land Improvement – Buildings – Equipment – Vehicles – Road Network – Environmental Network – Communications & Technology

Procedures Strategic Plan 2015‐2018


2.4 Asset Management System An AMS has various components in place to develop and govern asset management activities within an organization. Figure 2‐1 shows a high‐level, best practice model AMS from the Institute of Asset Management (IAM) that the Town will work on detailing and customizing for the next version of this SAMP, once more of the Town’s asset management processes have been developed.

Figure 2‐1. General AMS Model


Organizational Context The Town’s asset management approach is to align their asset‐related activities to the desired customer LOS and to meet their asset management vision to “create customer value through enhancing community asset management”.

As stated in the Town’s Asset Management Policy, the Town intends to manage infrastructure assets in a strategic, comprehensive, enterprise‐wide manner through an integrated business approach that relies on well‐devised strategies, trained knowledgeable staff, and good communication with all stakeholders to achieve desired LOS. This requires that all assets be treated as interrelated components in a unified system, rather than as isolated parts.

Asset management at the Town, therefore, relies on four key organizational components being integrated together to achieve the desired service outcomes:

Well‐planned strategies Good physical assets Highly‐trained professionals, with respect to practices and procedures Integrated business processes

These components, supported by appropriate technologies, provide a robust foundation for efficient service delivery.

The Town’s Asset Management Policy and SAMP form the framework for establishing a clear line of sight between the corporate objectives and strategies and the overall Asset Management Program.

The Asset Management Program encompasses all aspects of the management of each asset through its life cycle by integrating with Council’s Strategic Plan, Vision 2057, and other corporate strategic plans to align with the strategic objectives of the Town, as well as with other key business systems, legislation, and regulations. The philosophy is that asset management decisions will be based on:

The triple bottom line (TBL) pillars of sustainability, that ensure economic, environmental, and social outcomes support the Town’s long‐term goals.

Applying “the right intervention, to the right asset, at the right time” recognizing risk and the Town’s fiscal constraints.

A whole‐life approach, ensuring that increases or enhancements to the Town’s asset base consider impacts on the Town’s ability to fund an asset’s future maintenance and renewal.

SECTION 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT


3.1 Strategic Alignment How the Town’s assets are managed and operated plays a key role in achieving the Town’s strategic goals and objectives. Many of these goals and objectives are reliant on the long‐term sustainability of the Town’s infrastructure; therefore, one of the aims of this SAMP is to put in place a clear line of sight between those high‐level objectives and the day‐to‐day activities carried out on the assets, as shown in Figure 3‐1.

Figure 3‐1. Asset Management – Line of Sight

3.1.1 Alignment with Corporate Strategic Plans To put in place the necessary line of sight, the Town has developed an Asset Management Policy that includes a set of asset management principles, which support delivery of the Town’s strategic goals and objectives. The Town’s asset management principles are as follows:

Forward‐Looking and Sustainable Sound Asset Information Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision‐Making Whole Life‐Cycle Cost Perspective Risk‐Based Perspective People‐Focused (Customers and Staff)

This SAMP is the basis for delivery of the Asset Management Policy, efficient compliance with the business needs, and achievement of corporate goals. Key corporate strategic planning documents include:

Strategic Plan 2015‐2018 – sets out the strategic direction for the Town over the term of Council. It serves as the framework to help guide Council’s decision‐making and resource allocation during the four‐year term of office. It includes five key areas of focus for 2015‐2018: (1) Good governance, (2) Environmental leadership, (3) Economic growth, (4) Fiscal sustainability, and (5) Outstanding service to residents. The focus areas are connected to specific action items, key measures, and targets, which drive the plan towards Council’s vision “to be the most livable town in Canada”.


Vision 2057 – brings together all of the Town’s master plans and other key planning initiatives. It includes four key Strategic Directions:

– Create it! How we will create our community – Live it! How we will live in our community – Preserve it! How we will preserve our environment – Afford it! How we will afford our future

Livable Oakville Official Plan – sets out Council’s policies on how Town lands should be used and growth should be managed through to 2031, in order to achieve the Town’s vision and mission.

Let's Be Livable Community Sustainability Plan – encompasses the four pillars of sustainability: economic, cultural, environmental, and social. It is part of the Vision 2057 framework that integrates the Town’s master plans and is linked to Council's Strategic Plan.

Cultural Plan 2016‐2021 – builds on the significant progress of the Town’s original cultural plan developed in 2009, “Enabling Culture to Thrive in Oakville: Oakville Strategic Directions for Culture”. The Plan vision is to “be a community where culture inspires, engages and thrives”.

Environmental Strategic Plan – provides opportunities for residents, environmental groups, commercial interests, industry, community associations, educators, and other community stakeholders to identify what they can do to protect and improve their environment, along with the Town of Oakville. Progress on the implementation of the Plan is reported annually to Council. The Plan vision is to “prioritize energy management in all Town departments, optimize energy usage in facilities, provide access to energy information to all employees responsible for energy management, and minimize the impact of increases in energy costs”.

Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities Master Plan – ensures that the provision of community parks and recreational and library facilities continues to meet the needs of Town residents. The Plan’s vision is to “ensure the wellbeing of the Town’s residents, and the cohesive development of communities through parks, recreation and library facilities and amenities, advancing overall quality of life”.

Switching Gears Transportation Master Plan – addresses the short and long‐term opportunities and challenges of getting around the Town through to 2031. Considers all modes of transportation including public transit, walking, cycling, and ride‐sharing, as well as strategic roadway improvements to ensure the safe, convenient, and efficient movement of people and goods. The Plan’s vision is to “create a more balanced transportation system that provides a variety of sustainable travel options in Oakville”.

Active Transportation Master Plan – recommends an extensive network of facilities composed of on‐road and off‐road paths designed to respond to the needs of a range of active transportation users, age, and skill level. The Plan was introduced in 2009 and is currently being updated to assess current conditions and develop an improved implementation plan to expand the network, and promote cycling and walking in Oakville.

Other key strategic planning documents include the Development Charges Background study, Fire Master Plan and Oakville Transit Service Review.

Figure 3‐2 shows the correlation between the Town’s vision and key strategic plans.



Figure 3‐2. Vision and Key Strategic Plans

Figure 3‐3 shows how the Town’s asset management principles can be linked to the Town’s strategic directions and focus areas, as described in Council’s Strategic Plan 2015‐2018, as well as the linkages to the sustainable foundation principles in the Vision 2057 – Community Building Framework (shown in Figure 3‐2).


Figure 3‐3. Relationship of Asset Management Principles to Strategic Plan

3.1.2 Integrated Asset Management Planning Future service planning will increasingly need to balance the social, environmental, and economic interests of the community with their capacity and preparedness to pay for services, both now and into the future. This SAMP is a key component of that process.

Along with the Asset Management Policy, the SAMP is a key component of the planning integration process. Important to the success of the integrated planning process is the development of department‐level AMPs. These plans include information related to all key physical assets required to support the delivery of agreed LOS, along with the associated funding requirements. These plans will also need to be revised periodically in light of the service decisions resulting from the integrated planning process. As such, future strategic decisions can be made having the full understanding of the assets needed to support the delivery of the service.

Figure 3‐4 outlines the process designed for Council and Town staff to integrate strategic planning into their daily activities and decision‐making, as presented in Council’s Strategic Plan 2015‐2018. This process can be adapted to asset management decision‐making, in order to ensure alignment with corporate strategic objectives.

How

we will create our community

How

we will live in

our com

munity

How

we will preserve our environm

ent

How

we will afford our future

Good governance

Environm

ental Leadership

Econom

ic Growth

Fiscal Sustainability

Outstanding

service to

residents

Public engagem

ent

Performance standards and

measurement

Inform

ation system

s and data

managem

ent

Employee

engagem

ent

1 Forward‐Looking & Sustainable

2 Sound Asset Information

3 Robust, Repeatable & Transparent Decision‐Making

4 Whole Life‐Cycle Cost Perspective

5 Risk‐Based Perspective

6People‐Focused (Customers & Staff)

Key Asset Management Principles Key Focus AreasKey Strategic DirectionsSustainable Foundation for the

Future

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada



Figure 3‐4. Town of Oakville Strategic Decision‐Making Process

3.2 Organizational Opportunities and Challenges The Town’s suite of strategic planning documents sets out the environmental and business context of the Town and identifies several opportunities and challenges. In developing asset management objectives and decision‐making criteria, the Town will aim to focus its asset management approach on realizing those objectives and mitigating potential challenges.

Key opportunities include:

Capitalizing on growth while making sure the Town stays livable, affordable, and desirable Retaining and expanding businesses, maintaining the Town’s competitive position in the marketplace Building on local cultural trends and connecting the arts community to economic development,

downtown revitalization, cultural tourism, workforce development and retention, creative place‐making, and multiculturalism


Key challenges include:

Developing corporate key performance measures Ensuring that people in every community have what they need to lead healthy lives Supporting and enhancing active transportation Expanding the community engagement program Promoting environmental best practices in Town capital projects and private development Managing the Town’s land supply in a way that contributes to customer values Ensuring the Town is resilient to climate change; being able to protect Town assets from extreme

rain events, flood events, freeze‐thaw cycles, change in mean temperatures, etc.

The Town will continue to develop its asset management objectives and decision‐making criteria so they align with the opportunities and challenges facing the Town.

3.3 Needs and Expectations of Stakeholders A number of stakeholders, both internal and external, will be affected by, and have an interest in, the operational and service changes that can occur from implementation of the SAMP. Their needs (and the risks that will arise, if their needs are not met) must be understood and addressed in order for the SAMP to be successfully implemented.

The Town has identified a high‐level list of internal and external stakeholders (see below), which will be further developed as the Town progresses its Asset Management Program.

Internal Stakeholders:

Town Council Senior Management Team Finance Department Planning Department Engineering Department

External Stakeholders:

Residents General public Private groups and sports associations Industrial, commercial, and institutional users Developers Provincial Government Federal Government

For all identified internal and external stakeholders, the Town is committed to clear, consistent, and timely communications, and to incorporating their priorities in the development and implementation of the SAMP and related plans.



3.4 Asset Management Maturity CH2M conducted CAMRA assessments with the Town the results of which are provided in Section 5. These CAMRA assessments informed the determination of the Town’s current asset management maturity, as shown in Figure 3‐5. The Town is currently at Level 2, with some aspects leaning towards Level 3.

Figure 3‐5. Town of Oakville Asset Management Maturity

By implementing the initiatives in the asset management roadmap provided in Appendix A, the Town will move towards a maturity level of 3‐4 over the next 5 years.

3.5 People Skills and Competencies The Town’s AMS requires a systematic approach to defining, developing, and assuring the competence of its people and teams. Proactive management of competencies enables managers and staff to deliver the line of sight needed between community outcomes, organizational strategies, plans and work activities.

The Town already has in place an Asset Management Training Program that has enabled staff to acquire a consistent level of understanding of asset management approaches and practices, which has benefited a wide range of staff. The Town’s Asset Management Office maintains a list of all Town staff that have attended CH2M’s 2‐Day Asset Management Training Course. The Town’s Asset Management Office and Human Resources Department have reviewed a complete list of Town staff and identified those individuals requiring no asset management training, 1‐day training, 2‐day training without an exam, and 2‐day training with an exam. The next step is the creation of an Asset Management Competency Framework that will enable competency requirements to be identified and planned for individuals.

Development of an Asset Management Competency Framework is part of a continual improvement cycle to achieve the right asset management skills and experience in the Town departments. It will enable the departments to identify generic asset management development needs and to report these needs to the corporate asset management team in a structured way, such that the information can be aggregated across all departments. From this understanding of development needs, the corporate asset management team will be able to develop/acquire/update asset management training packages that are made available across the Town. Use of this approach can then be applied at three levels:

Individual: as part of annual review and career development planning with individuals

Team (within departments): as part of the identification of recruitment requirements to fill major gaps in team capability

Organization (corporate): to help to clarify and rationalize roles and responsibilities across teams


The Town will improve the competencies of its asset management staff by:

Developing an Asset Management Competency Framework. Assessing the required competencies and levels of competencies for all asset management roles. Mapping staff to asset management roles and determining individual competency requirements. Developing training programs aimed at providing staff with the required competencies.


Asset Management Objectives and Decision‐Making Criteria The following subsections describe the Town’s asset management objectives and decision‐making criteria.

4.1 Asset Management Objectives The Town’s Asset Management Program focuses on three fundamental goals:

Providing sustainable, high quality service to customers Optimizing asset value while minimizing life cycle costs and ensuring that assets are financially

sustainable over the life of the assets

Managing risks to the delivery of established service levels

The Asset Management Program will ensure the sound stewardship of the Town’s assets in order to meet present and future customer service commitments in the most effective and efficient manner.

A key role of the SAMP is the translation of organizational objectives into measurable asset management objectives and these asset management objectives are then delivered through the AMPs.

The Town’s asset management objectives are in the form of LOS measures, which cascade vertically from Corporate LOS measures to Technical LOS measures. Figure 4‐1 shows how LOS measures can be aligned from the corporate performance vision, down to day‐to‐day asset management decision‐making (at the Technical LOS level), ultimately enabling customers to assess the suitability, affordability, and equity of services offered.

Figure 4‐1. Alignment of Levels of Service to Corporate Strategy

With regard to the development of the Customer and Technical LOS measures, the Town has been making good progress and further work is planned, as per the Priority Initiatives outlined in Section 5. The LOS Framework for each asset class will be included in the AMP.

SECTION 4 – ASSET MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND DECISION‐MAKING CRITERIA


The AMP includes a qualitative overview of the LOS delivered for each network of assets, as assessed against a set of core values including:

Accessibility Quality Availability Reliability Safety Shine (aesthetics)

4.2 Asset Management Decision‐Making Criteria The Town’s asset management decision‐making criteria, along with their relative weightings, are provided in Table 4‐1.

Category Criteria Definition Weight

Maintain Service Maintaining Regulated Service Outputs

Maintains the aspects of service as set down in existing legislation/regulation or with regard to public health.

25%

Maintaining Discretionary Service Outputs

Maintains the aspects of service as directed by current Town Policies, Strategies, etc.

Maintaining Aesthetic Service Outputs

Maintains aesthetic aspects of a service.

Growth & Service Enhancements

Growth Either supports business development or enables growth of the Town.

17%

Enhance Aesthetic Service Outputs

Enhances aesthetic aspects of a service.

Enhance Discretionary Service Outputs

Enhances the aspects of service as directed by new Town Policies, Strategies, etc.

Safety & Regulatory

Maintaining Safety Maintains the safety aspects of a service. 38%

Safety Improvement Improves the safety aspects of a service.

New Regulations Makes changes to the service to meet new regulatory requirements.

Sustainability Environmental Improvement

Makes changes to the service to improve environmental/sustainability aspects. May include changes staff working environment.

20%

Financial

Sustainability

Replaces existing infrastructure to improve operational efficiency. Eg ( Spend to Save )

Resilience Hardens the assets against natural or man‐made threats or improves resiliency.


Strategic Asset Management Initiatives Achieving the goals of the Asset Management Policy will require improved asset management practices, competencies, and capabilities both within the individual departments and across the Town as a whole.

Achieving consistency in the application of asset management practices across the organization requires a well‐defined approach. This approach must be structured and clearly communicated so that everyone is aware of their roles and all are working toward a common purpose – the delivery of services and achieving the Town’s objectives.

Accomplishment of this goal will require the following activities:

Adhering to good asset management practices.

Continually improving asset management tools and procedures and fostering the sharing of information across Town departments so that everyone can use the best information available as part of their decision‐making.

Developing business processes and procedures for key business activities.

To advance the state of asset management practice, an asset management assessment (using the CAMRA tool) was carried out as part of development of this SAMP.

5.1 CAMRA Results To date, the Town has conducted CAMRA workshops for the Road, Land Improvement, and Environmental Networks, and assets managed by Facilities, Transit and Fleet. This section reports on these asset groups for which CAMRA workshops have been completed. Table 5‐1 shows a summary of CAMRA workshops that have been conducted with the Town.

Table 5‐1. Summary of CAMRA Assessments

Asset Category CAMRA Assessment Status

Road Network Completed – January 20, 2016

Land Improvement Network Completed – January 19, 2016

Environmental Network Completed – January 20, 2016

Facilities Completed – September 18th, 2017

Transit Completed – September 25th, 2017

Fleet Completed – September 28th, 2017

There were 32 questions posed to Town staff during the CAMRA workshops conducted on January 19, 2016 (Land Improvement Network), January 20, 2016 (Road Network and Environmental Network), September 18th 2017 (Facilities Services), September 25th 2017 (Transit Services), and September 28th 2017 (Fleet Services).

Figures 5‐1 and 5‐2 show the current and forecasted maturity levels of the Town for each theme over the short, medium, and long‐terms.

SECTION 5 – STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES


Figure 5‐1. Current and Forecasted Maturity for each Asset Management Themes for the Roads, Land Improvement,

and Environment Networks

Environm

ent

Land

Improvem

ent

Roads

Environm

ent

Land

Improvem

ent

Roads

Environm

ent

Land

Improvem

ent

Roads

Environm

ent

Land

Improvem

ent

Roads

1 Organizational Strategic Plans

2 Monitoring Performance Against The Organizational Strategic Plans

3 Scope of the Management System

4 Asset Management Policy & Strategic Asset Management Plan 15 Asset Management Leadership & Governance 1.56 Asset Management Roles & Responsibilities 27 Master Plan For Dev. Of Asset Mgt Bus. Processes & Procedures 2.58 Master Plan for Dev. of Asset Mgt Skills & Competences 39 Master Plan For Dev. of Asset Mgt Information Technology 3.510 Service Performance Measures/ Levels of Service 411 Future Trends (Impact Of Growth) 512 Legal, Regulatory & Statutory Requirements

13 Asset Inventory

14 Asset Information

15 Information Management

16 Business Applications

17 Risk Framework ‐ Strategic Level & Asset Level

18 Optimized Asset Intervention Planning

19 Asset Management Plans 20 Capital Investment Plan Development & Governance

21 Capital Projects ‐ Planning, Design & Construction

22 Operations Management

23 Maintenance Management

24 Investigation & Recording Of Routine Asset Failures & Reactive Work

25 Materials Management

26 Emergency Preparedness & Response27 Control of Documented Information28 Learning & Development

29 Knowledge Retention & Succession Planning

30 Asset Management Quality Assurance & Management Review

31 Continual Improvement Culture 32 Communication & Change Management

Theme

Current Short Medium Long


Figure 5‐2 Current and Forecasted Maturity for each Asset Management Theme for the Facilities, Transit, and Fleet

Assets

Figure 5‐3 shows the general phasing of asset management improvement initiatives. Short‐term initiatives are identified as mid‐2018, medium‐term as mid‐2019, and long‐term as the end of 2022. The actual timescales for delivery for the medium and long‐term initiatives will be subject to review, following the completion of short‐term initiatives.


Figure 5‐3. Phasing of Asset Management Improvement Initiatives


A draft implementation roadmap (Appendix A) has been developed that considers overall phasing of the initiatives to close the gaps identified for the Town.

5.2 Priority Initiatives There were eight priority (short‐term) initiatives identified in the March 22, 2016 workshop, which are summarized in Table 5‐2, along with a high‐level description of the intended aims/outputs.

Table 5‐2. Summary of Priority Initiatives # Initiative Description

S1 Asset Management Policy & Strategic Asset Management Plan

Aims: Put in place a concise Asset Management Policy Develop the associated strategy document that details how the Policy will be

implemented Outputs: Strategy detailing:

Asset management alignment with corporate plans and goals Asset management performance targets The required asset management practices required to achieve the future vision High‐level overview of resources, roles and responsibilities, timescales for

implementation Description key initiatives that support delivery of the Policy

S2 Asset Management Leadership & Governance

Aims: Develop asset management governance structure and process Roles and responsibilities for individuals and teams:

Asset management sponsor Asset management steering committee Asset management lead Asset management committee/network

Reporting requirements ‐ progress, benefits, frequency of meetings Outputs: Agreed approach to the resourcing and governance of the Asset Management

Program

S3 Change Management & Communication Strategies

Aims: Develop the communications strategy and change management strategy Proactive approach to change management and communications Making change sustainable Outputs: Communications Plan

What? Who? When? How?

Change Management Plan

S4 Levels of Service & Performance Metrics

Aims: Develop Customer and Asset LOS Framework and associated measures Outputs: Agreed performance reporting framework for use at the corporate, department, and

divisional levels LOS framework agreed and piloted for a range of asset types




S5 Asset Management Plans Aims: Define the AMP Framework Develop the AMP Outputs: Demonstrate that:

LOS are being met in the most effective and efficient manner Due regard is being given to the long‐term stewardship of the asset base

Show how regulatory compliance will be achieved and growth accommodated while maintaining the asset stock

Communicate and justify funding requirements

S6 Asset Information Strategy, Standards, Improvement Plan

Asset Information Strategy Documents the approach to the definition, collection, management, reporting,

archive, deletion, and overall governance of Asset Information Appropriate hierarchy Appropriate attributes Understand informational needs Planning (Corporate, Strategic, etc.) Operational (Operations, Maintenance, etc.) Customer (Requests, Performance, etc.) Assess current and future practices Balance life cycle costs and benefits Aim is to sustain levels of data quality required to support asset management

activities Data Standards and Information Management

Need to ensure that asset information is collected, categorized, and provided to agreed levels and timescales

Consistent approach to creating/managing data Data entry standards Processes for the management and governance of data and information

Information Management Improvement Plan Costs, benefits, and timescales for improvements Prioritized plan for the collection/refresh of data Risk‐based

S7 Asset Management Risk Framework

Aims: Develop a Town‐wide approach to risk Pilot enterprise risk assessments Pilot asset risk assessments (aligned to Corporate Risk Framework) Outputs: Corporate Risk Framework Asset Risk Frameworks Will feed into maintenance planning, vulnerability assessments, capital planning,

condition assessments, etc.



S8 Capital Investment Plan Development & Governance

Aims: Better definition and justification of the “business need” – data driven Consistent approach to business cases More robust and transparent approach to investment prioritization Benefits‐based approach Build on existing approaches Outputs: Evidence‐based business cases (risk and LOS) Whole life costs approach to option selection Town‐wide approach to investment prioritization

The following subsections describe initiatives S1 to S8, along with an additional initiative (S9) for asset management awareness training. The subsections provide further description of each priority short‐term initiative, and (if applicable) the current progress of the initiative.



5.2.1 Asset Management Policy & Strategic Asset Management Plan (S1) The Town’s Asset Management Policy (A‐BMG‐004) was approved by Council in September 2017.

This document serves as the Town’s preliminary SAMP.

5.2.2 Asset Management Leadership & Governance (S2) The aim of this initiative is to develop an asset management governance structure and process that will clearly outlined roles and responsibilities for individuals and teams, as well as reporting requirements.

This initiative aligns with the following principles in the Asset Management Policy: “Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision‐Making” and “People‐Focused (Customers and Staff)”.

This initiative has been set up through recent asset management improvement initiatives, and will continue through regular, quarterly meetings of the asset management working group.

5.2.3 Change Management & Communication Strategies (S3) The aim of this initiative is to develop strategies for a proactive approach to change management and communications – to make change sustainable.

This initiative aligns with the following principle in the Asset Management Policy: “Forward‐Looking and Sustainable”.

This initiative has been initiated through recent asset management improvement initiatives, and will be continued through regular, quarterly meetings of the asset management working group.

5.2.4 Levels of Service & Performance Metrics (S4) The aim of this initiative is to develop customer and technical LOS frameworks and associated measures.

This initiative aligns with the following principle in the Asset Management Policy: “People‐Focused (Customers and Staff)”.

At the writing of this SAMP, the initial version of LOS and performance metrics has been drafted. The next phase is to set targets and objectives, and link the LOS and performance metrics to a separate corporate initiative, which will drive efficiencies from the LOS.

This initiative is planned to be completed by Q1 of 2019, in parallel with the second phase of development of the AMP and alongside the separate corporate initiative to drive efficiencies from the LOS.

5.2.5 Asset Management Plan (S5) The first version of the Town’s AMP is underway .

This initiative aligns with the following principles in the Asset Management Policy: “Sound Asset Information”, “Whole Life‐Cycle Cost Perspective”, and “Risk‐Based Perspective”.

5.2.6 Asset Information Strategy, Standards, Improvement Plan (S6) The aim of this initiative is to develop and document strategies to ensure that data quality is sufficient to support asset management activities, to improve data and information management processes, and to identify and document appropriate data entry standards.

This initiative aligns with the following principles in the Asset Management Policy: “Sound Asset Information” and “Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision‐Making”.


The key tasks for the delivery of this initiative are to:

Identify the core asset management processes currently in place such as LOS, AMPs, Business Cases and their primary data and information needs for the asset portfolio.

Conduct a gap analysis and determine the major data quality issues affecting the decision‐making processes, for example, lack of O&M data for life cycle expenditure calculations.

Create asset data and information strategies that set out a multi‐year improvement program.

With improved data and information management, future asset management decision‐making will be able to evolve into information‐driven methodologies.

Estimated external consultant resources: $50,000

5.2.7 Asset Management Risk Framework (S7) The aim of this initiative is to develop a Town‐wide approach to risk and, in so doing, develop both corporate and asset risk frameworks.

This initiative aligns with the following principle in the Asset Management Policy: “Risk‐Based Perspective”.

The key tasks for the delivery of this initiative are:

Create a simple, concise risk management standard for the Town that sets out basic risk approaches and terminology to be applied to all assets within the portfolio.

Develop risk framework, and risk criteria (likelihood and consequence matrices) for each asset network that are aligned to customer LOS.

Conduct pilot risk assessments on a range of asset‐related issues to test and validate the risk management processes and equip staff to conduct risk assessments in a consistent manner.

Define an implementation plan for each asset network.

An organization‐wide risk management process will enable the evolution to risk‐based decision‐making.


5.2.8 Capital Investment Plan Development & Governance (S8) The aim of this initiative is to test and validate the Town’s business cases and ensure a consistent, robust, and transparent approach to prioritizing investments, to meet the Town’s LOS requirements.

This initiative aligns with the following principles in the Asset Management Policy: “Forward‐Looking and Sustainable”, “Robust, Repeatable and Transparent Decision‐Making”, “Whole Life‐Cycle Cost Perspective”, and “Risk‐Based Perspective”.

The key tasks for the delivery of this initiative are:

Test the business case methodology to ensure risk‐based, information‐driven decision‐making. Conduct pilot business case challenge sessions on a range of projects across the asset networks. Test and refine the investment prioritization criteria for each of the asset networks. Test and refine the investment prioritization methodology to apply across all asset networks.

Implementing a robust and transparent business case methodology will provide senior management with confidence that people are consistent in their decision‐making, and that it is information‐driven and based on risk.




5.2.9 Asset Management Awareness Training (S9) Asset management training has been integral to developing competence within a core group of asset management practitioners. Future training will raise awareness of asset management for staff across multiple departments, including how their work contributes to successfully meeting LOS and achieving the Town’s asset management objectives.

The following asset management awareness training will be provided to Town staff in various departments, with the intent to raise awareness of good practice asset management:

Module 1 ‐ Introduction to Asset Management Module 2 – Asset‐Related Risk Module 3 ‐ Asset Management Life Cycle Module 4 ‐ Asset Information Module 5 ‐ Financial and Business Impacts (including AMPs)

Training forms a part of the overall learning model, where on‐the‐job experiences, mentoring and formal learning are required for staff development. The model is representative of the following:

Development from on‐the‐job experiences that include challenging assignments and other opportunities to build skills through applying them at work.

Development from learning from others, including mentoring relationships and experiences, as well as coaching and management feedback.

Development from formal learning, including online and classroom courses, reading professional books/articles, and attending webinars.

Asset management awareness training will contribute to the formal learning requirements of staff.



Risks and Opportunities The Town has identified risks and opportunities associated with implementing this SAMP and the strategic asset management initiatives described herein. The following subsections summarize the identified risks and opportunities.

6.1 Risks The main risks that the Town will manage during implementation of this SAMP and the strategic asset management initiatives are as follows:

The ongoing financial sustainability of the strategic initiatives will be managed within the program’s set limits, to 2023 and beyond.

Training, education, and knowledge development will be provided to ensure staff competencies are maintained during the process of change that is required during implementation.

Communications will be planned to ensure that they permeate through to staff at the Town who are affected by the changes required during implementation.

Staff will be engaged to ensure they understand their contribution to asset management, and how their activities for the Town can positively influence the intent of this SAMP.

Town leaders and management will be consulted and informed, to ensure that acceptance for strategic asset management initiatives is understood.

The strategic initiatives will achieve the Town’s objectives, notably affordability, sustainability, resiliency, and maximizing value from assets.

The improved processes and procedures implemented for the strategic initiatives will be adaptable to possible changes to legislation and regulations.

6.2 Opportunities The main opportunities that the Town will leverage during implementation of this SAMP and the strategic asset management initiatives are as follows:

The approved program, until 2023, will allow federal funding sources to be applied for and obtained, to benefit citizens.

Forward‐planning of the strategic asset management initiatives will allow for coordination with other Town programs.

Town leaders, management, and staff will be viewed as leaders in good asset management practice amongst other Ontario municipalities.

Implementation of the strategic asset management initiatives will improve procedural efficiencies through implementation of good asset management practice.

Staff morale will be increased through an understanding that the asset management system will be improved during the program’s implementation.

Changes to the way in which asset management is conducted at the Town will enact an organizational culture change.

The SAMP and these strategic initiatives will be used to implement global asset management good‐practice, and progress towards compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 55001).


Continual Improvement and Monitoring This SAMP, along with the asset management roadmap (Appendix A), are living documents that will continue to reflect the evolution of asset management practices within the Town. The Town has embedded continual improvement into its Mission Statement and its Strategic Plan.

From the Town’s Mission Statement:

We create and preserve Canada’s most livable community that enhances the natural, cultural, social and economic environments. We achieve this by continuously improving programs and services that are both accessible and environmentally and fiscally sustainable.

From the Town’s Strategic Plan (2015‐2018):

The Town’s strategic plan is a continual work in progress. Over time, new priorities, new opportunities, new demands and new challenges will emerge, and incorporating annual business plans into the Town’s strategic planning process ensures us the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to these changing directions.

In order to continually evaluate, review, and enhance its asset management practices, the Town is adopting a number of continual improvement activities and will promote a culture of continual improvement through disciplined performance management, performance benchmarking, and collection of customer feedback.

The asset management improvement roadmap (Appendix A), and improvement initiatives described in Section 5.2, are aligned with the Town’s Strategic Plan and succeed in meeting the Town’s mission, through continual improvement of the asset management system.

Throughout implementation of the asset management improvement roadmap, annual reviews of the performance of the program will be conducted. The review will consist of internal evaluation, together with the results of benchmarking, audit results, and assessments of current and best practices.

Appendix A Asset Management Roadmap

APPENDIX A ASSET MANAGEMENT ROADMAP

SL0711170958TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY A‐1

Appendix C State of Infrastructure Report for Roads, Land Improvement, and

Environmental Networks

State of Infrastructure Report for the Road, Land Improvement, and Environmental Networks

Prepared for

Town of Oakville

July 2017

CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road, Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario M2J 1R3 T: 416.499.9000 F: 416.499.4687

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY III


Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1‐1

2 Data Sources and Data Confidence ....................................................................................... 2‐1

3 State of Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Asset Inventory ................................................................................................................ 3‐1

3.1.1 Road Network ..................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.2 Land Improvement Network ............................................................................... 3‐2 3.1.3 Environmental Network ...................................................................................... 3‐5

3.2 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................ 3‐7 3.2.1 Road Network ..................................................................................................... 3‐8 3.2.2 Land Improvement Network ............................................................................. 3‐10 3.2.3 Environmental Network .................................................................................... 3‐13

3.3 Asset Age and Useful Life ............................................................................................... 3‐15 3.3.1 Road Network ................................................................................................... 3‐15 3.3.2 Land Improvement Network ............................................................................. 3‐18 3.3.3 Environmental Network .................................................................................... 3‐21

3.4 Asset Condition .............................................................................................................. 3‐24 3.4.1 Road Network ................................................................................................... 3‐26 3.4.2 Land Improvement Network ............................................................................. 3‐31 3.4.3 Environmental Network .................................................................................... 3‐37 3.4.4 Summary Asset Condition ................................................................................. 3‐42

4 Parks Quality Rating System ................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1.1 Classification Scheme ......................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.2 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐2 4.1.3 Standardized Condition Rating Scale .................................................................. 4‐2 4.1.4 Evaluation Categories and Criteria ..................................................................... 4‐3 4.1.5 Evaluation Weightings ...................................................................................... 4‐10

4.2 Parks QRS Benchmarking Figures .................................................................................. 4‐11

Appendix

Appendix A Condition Grade Descriptions

Tables

Table 2‐1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 2‐1

Table 2‐2. Data Confidence Scale .............................................................................................................. 2‐2

Table 4‐1. Park Classification Scheme ........................................................................................................ 4‐1

Table 4‐2. Condition Rating Scale .............................................................................................................. 4‐2

Table 4‐3. Evaluation Categories and Criteria ............................................................................................ 4‐4

CONTENTS

Section Page

IV CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY

Table 4‐4. Evaluation Weightings ............................................................................................................ 4‐10

Table A‐1. Condition Grade Scale for Roads ................................................................................................. 1

Table A‐2. Condition Grade Scale for Structures .......................................................................................... 2

Table A‐3. Condition Grade Scale for Building Interiors ............................................................................... 2

Table A‐4. Condition Grade Scale for a Library Facility ................................................................................. 3

Table A‐5. Condition Grade Scale for Sports Fields .................................................................................... 11

Table A‐6. Condition Grade Scale for Physical, Demand, and Functional Condition .................................. 11

Table A‐7. Condition Grade Scale for Performance Criteria ....................................................................... 12

Figures

Figure 2‐1. Data Confidence Bar Example ................................................................................................. 2‐2

Figure 4‐1. Example of Quality Rating for a Single Park ........................................................................... 4‐11

Figure 4‐2. Active Community Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ................................................. 4‐12

Figure 4‐3. Passive Community Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ............................................... 4‐12

Figure 4‐4. Community Link Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating .................................................... 4‐13

Figure 4‐5. Major Valley Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating .......................................................... 4‐14

Figure 4‐6. Minor Valley Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating .......................................................... 4‐15

Figure 4‐7. Tableland Woodlot Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ................................................ 4‐16

Figure 4‐8. Active Neighbourhood Parks, SE & SW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating .......................... 4‐17

Figure 4‐9. Active Neighbourhood Parks, NE & NW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ......................... 4‐18

Figure 4‐10. Passive Neighbourhood Parks, SE & SW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ....................... 4‐19

Figure 4‐11. Passive Neighbourhood Parks, NE & NW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ..................... 4‐20

Figure 4‐12. Neighbourhood Parks, North of Dundas – Current Rating vs. Target Rating ...................... 4‐21

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY V

Acronyms and Abbreviations CIS Corporate Information System

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities

GIS Geographical Information System

JDE J.D. Edwards (work management system)

NIRC National Infrastructure Report Card

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PSAB Public Sector Accounting Board

QRS Quality Rating System

SOIR State of Infrastructure Report

TCA Tangible Capital Assets


SECTION 1

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐1

Introduction The Town of Oakville owns a sizable portfolio of assets, which vary significantly in terms of their function, age, durability, and many other factors. The purpose of the State of Infrastructure Report (SOIR) is to provide a summary of the key physical attributes and current physical state of the asset portfolio. The SOIR only provides information about the physical asset and not whether it is meeting service provision. This section of the plan identifies asset types, accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation, asset age distribution and asset age as a proportion of expected useful life and asset condition. This information is supported by the town’s Corporate Information System (CIS) which forms the database for all town assets. This system holds asset records for individual assets and groups of assets and contains details such as asset type, class, description, location, useful life, historical cost, replacement cost, depreciation and condition. This SOIR also provides background on the Town’s Quality Rating System (QRS) for parks and park assets.

SECTION 2


Data Sources and Data Confidence Table 2‐1 summarizes the data sources/IT systems that were used for the basis of this SOIR.

Table 2‐1. Data Sources

Information System Types of Asset Data Limitations of Data Use of Data in SOIR

Capital Asset Management System (CIS, ERP System)

Tag Number

Type/Size

Age

Expected Service Life

Replacement Value

Work Order History

Replacement Year Planned Budget Year Condition Preventative Maintenance Schedule Maintainability Index

All operational maintenance tasks are captured in CIS, with the following exceptions: capital maintenance is not entirely captured ( Future discussion are required to capture capital maintenance and rehabilitation/Replacement to fully understand whole life cost cycles as detailed in the Infrastructure and Job Prosperity Act) ;; and failure mode is not consistently and accurately utilized and captured. Pooled assets need to be componentized into individual assets in CIS. Componentizing pooled assets is currently underway and is expected to be completed by 2019.. This is expected to be completed by 2019. Work order history and cost need to support the asset life cycle cost strategy. Collection of consistent work order data is necessary, including:

On selected assets, tracking all hours and material costs associated with work order;

Indicating cause of failure on corrective work orders; and

Documenting resolution/intervention applied.

CAM data was used and only limited work order data was utilized in this SOIR.

Condition Assessment (CIS, CAM)

Age


Condition

Risk

Remediation Cost

Certain Assets ( Bridge and Major Culverts, Storm Water Mains, Roadway Pavement ) have asset specific software that details the asset conditions. Selected information is brought into CIS to have all decision making attributes in one corporate accessible system. Limited data on storm assets (e.g., pipes and valve chambers). A condition review was completed using CCTV and Zoom camera on aged storm water assets to better understand the conditions these older assets are. Captures a full inventory of assets, their condition and expected service life; however, some asset subclasses do not have a physical condition assessment completed (e.g., acoustic walls).

Condition data was used, where available.

SECTION 2 – DATA SOURCES AND DATA CONFIDENCE

2‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY



Financial System (CIS)

Depreciated Value for Tangible Capital Assets (TCA)

Depreciated value of assets is not directly used for infrastructure renewal planning since many long‐lived assets will have been fully depreciated, yet remain in use across the system. Rather, replacement value is used.

2016 replacement costs were used.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

All Spatial related assets are in GIS.

A fully integrated system from GIS/CIS (CAM) is available, however, pooled assets do not have the integration (e.g., storm mains). Pooled assets will be unpooled in 2019.

The Town has a single asset registry (i.e., CIS) that is integrated with GIS data.

The quality of data used in this SOIR varies depending on the source(s) for the data. To aid in the interpretation of this SOIR, a data confidence rating (in terms of reliability and accuracy of the data used) is used throughout.

The data confidence rating scales, defined in Table 2‐2, are used to support the rating, with confidence based on the lower of the reliability and accuracy ratings.

Table 2‐2. Data Confidence Scale

Measure Description

Rating

High Moderate Low

Reliability Can be trusted to be accurate or to provide a correct result

Based upon sound records, procedures, or analyses that have been acceptably documented and are recognized as the best method of assessment

Based upon known reasonable procedures or analyses that have been acceptably documented

Based upon expert verbal opinion or cursory inspections/ observations

Accuracy Probable difference between a recorded parameter and its true value

+/− 1% +/− 10% +/− 50%

Figure 2‐1 shows an example of a data confidence bar used in this SOIR, where accuracy is denoted on the top of the bar and reliability is denoted on the bottom.

Figure 2‐1. Data Confidence Bar Example

SECTION 3


State of Infrastructure The Town of Oakville owns a sizable portfolio of assets, which vary significantly in terms of their function, age, durability, and many other factors. This report provides a summary of the key physical attributes and current physical state of three classes of the Town’s assets: a) the Road Network, b) the Land Improvement Network, and c) the Environmental Network.

3.1 Asset Inventory Table 3.1‐1 includes a summary breakdown of the asset types in the three asset networks covered by this SOIR.

Table 3.1‐1. Asset Classification in the Three Networks

Network Asset Types Data

Confidence

Road Network Roads (incl. various sub‐types), bridges, sidewalks, major culverts, traffic signaling, street lights, transit shelters, acoustic walls, multi‐use trails/walkways, guiderails, retaining walls

High

Land Improvement Network Parks, sports fields and courts, trails, walkways, parking lots, minor buildings, minor structures, lighting, stairs, irrigation, retaining walls, bus terminal

High

Environmental Network Erosion control structures, catchbasins, foundation drain collectors, house connections, outlet structures, laterals, maintenance holes, minor culverts, pond retaining walls, storm mains, water quality control devices, pond in/outfalls, underground storage

High

The overall data confidence for the asset inventory used in the SOIR is considered to be “high” since the asset inventory has been fully articulated for TCA reporting purposes and has been audited.

The Land Improvement Network has the most granular inventory of assets due to a variety of different types of sports fields (e.g., soccer, cricket, tennis, etc.). Where appropriate, the different asset sub‐categories are rolled‐up into broader groups.

3.1.1 Road Network The Town has arranged the asset inventory in the Road Network into 15 asset types. These are summarized in Table 3.1‐2. The Town has additional asset identification numbering system that corresponds with each segment of road or count of each asset in the Road Network. The method of quantity takeoff for the Road Network data is the Town’s CIS.

Table 3.1‐2. Asset Inventory in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Segment Count

RN.1 Roads, Arterial Sq. Metres 981,772 362

RN.2 Roads, Collector Residential Sq. Metres 1,046,439 709

RN.3 Roads, Collector Commercial/Industrial Sq. Metres 369,569 96

RN.4 Roads, Local Residential Sq. Metres 3,823,450 3,136

SECTION 3 – STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE


Table 3.1‐2. Asset Inventory in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Segment Count

RN.5 Roads, Local Commercial/Industrial Sq. Metres 136,016 64

RN.6 Sidewalks Sq. Metres 1,365,789 ‐‐

RN.7 Bridges Each 46 ‐‐

RN.8 Street Lights1 Each 9,467 ‐‐

RN.9 Traffic Intersection Signals Each 319 ‐‐

RN.10 Transit Shelters Each 189 ‐‐

RN.11 Culverts, Major2 Each 68 ‐‐

RN.12 Acoustic Walls Metres 7,181 150

RN.13 Multi‐Use Trails/Walkways3 Each 1 ‐‐

RN.14 Guiderails3 Metres 90 2

RN.15 Retaining Wall3 Each 1 ‐‐

Note:

1. Street lights are currently pooled, however, the Town is in the process of unpooling and itemizing individual street lights as part of the LED Replacement Program, as well as when new subdivision assets are constructed.

2. Minor culverts are inventoried with the Environmental Network assets.

3. It should be noted that the inventory for Multi‐Use Trails/Walkways, Guiderails, and Retaining Walls only includes assets acquired after 2015. It is anticipated that all assets of these types will eventually be inventoried and included in the asset registry.

Confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the Road Network asset inventory is considered to be “high”, particularly since the 4,367 road segments have been individually itemized along with counts of traffic intersection signals.

3.1.2 Land Improvement Network Table 3.1‐3 provides a list of the 25 asset types that are captured in the Town’s asset inventory for the Land Improvement Network. The Town has an additional asset identification numbering system that corresponds with each individual sports field and park. The method of quantity takeoff for the Land Improvement Network data is the Town’s CIS.

Table 3.1‐3. Asset Inventory in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Segment Count

Buildings and Structures

LN.1 Buildings, Minor1 Each 18 ‐‐

LN.2 Structures, Minor2 Each 86 ‐‐

Parks, Fields, and Courts

LN.3 Parks Each Hectares

286 762.89 ‐‐



Table 3.1‐3. Asset Inventory in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Segment Count

LN.4 Ball Diamonds Each 46 ‐‐

LN.5 Ball Hockey Each 1 ‐‐

LN.6 Basketball Courts Each 10 ‐‐

LN.7 Bocce Ball Court Each 1 ‐‐

LN.8 Cricket Pitch Each 1 ‐‐

LN.9 Field Hockey Each 1 ‐‐

LN.10 Playgrounds Each 170 ‐‐

LN.11 Skateboard Parks Each 4 ‐‐

LN.12 Soccer Fields Each 57 ‐‐

LN.13 Splash Pads Each 15 ‐‐

LN.14 Tennis Courts Each 75 ‐‐

Other, Miscellaneous

LN.15 Trails Hectares 14,083 149

LN.16 Trail Parks Hectares 539 100

LN.17 Walkways Metres 4,688 49

LN.18 Park Stairs Each 52 ‐‐

LN.19 Park Lighting Each 8 ‐‐

LN.20 Park Irrigation Each 2 ‐‐

LN.21 Park Bridges Each 122 ‐‐

LN.22 Park Parking Lots Each Sq. Metres

65 122,304

‐‐ ‐‐

LN.23 Municipal Parking Lots Each Sq. Metres

14 18,314

‐‐ ‐‐

LN.24 Retaining Wall Each 1 ‐‐

LN.25 Bus Terminal Each 1 ‐‐

Note:

1. Minor buildings include assets such as washrooms, storage, and utility buildings.

2. Minor structures include assets such as pavilions, gazebos, shelters, fountains, signs, and other features.

As a result of the individual itemized lists of parks and sports fields, confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the asset inventory in the Land Improvement Network is considered to be “high”.

Below are some photographs of assets in the Land Improvement Network.



Photo 3‐1. Centennial Park

Photo 3‐2. Town Square



Photo 3‐3. Neyagawa Park

3.1.3 Environmental Network Table 3.1‐4 provides a list of the 13 asset types that are captured in the Town’s asset inventory for the Environmental Network. The method of quantity takeoff for the Environmental Network data is the Town’s CIS and GIS.

Table 3.1‐4. Asset Inventory in the Environmental Network

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016)

Erosion Control

EN.1 Erosion Control Structures Each 15 ‐‐

Stormwater Management

EN.2 Catchbasins Each 21,725 ‐‐

EN.3 Foundation Drain Collectors Each 181 ‐‐

EN.4 House Connections Ln. Metres 17,849 ‐‐

EN.5 Outlet Structures Each 351 ‐‐

EN.6 Laterals Ln. Metres 161,549

EN.7 Maintenance Holes Each 13,277 ‐‐

EN.8 Culverts, Minor Each 154 ‐‐

EN.9 Pond Retaining Walls Each 3 ‐‐

EN.10 Storm Mains Ln. Metres 29,944 ‐‐

EN.11 Water Quality Control Devices Each 29 ‐‐

EN.12 Pond In/Outfalls Each 2 ‐‐



Table 3.1‐4. Asset Inventory in the Environmental Network


EN.13 Underground Storage Sq. Metres 59 ‐‐

Due to the high granularity of the data, confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the asset inventory for the Environmental Network is considered to be “high”. Below are some photographs of assets in the Environmental Network.

Photo 3‐4. Dingle Park



Photo 3‐5. Bronte Outer Harbour

3.2 Asset Valuation Under the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Standard PS 3150, local governments are required to summarize and present information regarding their tangible capital assets (TCA) and amortization in financial statements based on historical costs.

While the depreciated value does provide an indicator of the extent to which an asset life has been consumed, it is typically not used for asset management planning purposes as it is not representative for all asset types, specifically long‐lived assets, which will have fully depreciated yet remain in use across the system.

All replacement values are based on the cost to replace the asset with an asset of the same functionality and capacity. Therefore, no growth, technology change, or enhancement assumptions are included in the costs. Replacement values are based on the cost of the material and the cost to install. Replacement values include mark‐ups such as engineering, contingency, etc. Actual project costs to replace these assets may vary from the replacement values used, based on technology changes, but also variables such as land acquisition, legal fees, etc.

The total replacement value of all assets covered within this SOIR is estimated at $3,002,743,780 (2016), with the distribution across the three asset classes summarized in Table 3.2‐1.



Table 3.2‐1. 2016 Replacement Value of Assets in the Three Networks

Network Replacement Value

(TCA, 2016) % of Total Replacement

Value Data Confidence

Road Network $1,193,528,230 39.7% Moderate

Land Improvement Network1 $78,071,509 2.6% Moderate

Environmental Network $1,731,144,041 57.7% Moderate

Note:

1. Replacement value for Land Improvement Network assets excludes value of land (i.e., Parks [LN.3], Trails [LN.15] and Trail Parks [LN.16]).

The Environmental Network has the largest replacement value ($1.7 billion) and represents more than half (57.7%) of all the asset value in this SOIR. On the other hand, the Land Improvement Network has the lowest replacement value ($78 million) and represents only 2.6% of the asset value in this SOIR.

Figure 3.2‐1 provides a graphical representation of the relative values of the assets in the three asset networks covered in this SOIR.

Figure 3.2‐1. Distribution of Asset Values across the Three Networks

3.2.1 Road Network The estimated replacement value of the Road Network assets owned by the Town is $1,193,528,230 (2016). The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐2.

Table 3.2‐2. Road Network Asset Valuation

Asset ID Asset Type

Unit of Measure

Quantity (2016)

Replacement Value (TCA, 2016)

% of Total RN Value

RN.1 Roads, Arterial Sq. Metres 981,772 $120,259,514 10.08%

RN.2 Roads, Collector Residential Sq. Metres 1,046,439 $117,886,406 9.88%

RN.3 Roads, Collector Commercial/Industrial Sq. Metres 369,569 $44,891,099 3.76%



Table 3.2‐2. Road Network Asset Valuation

Asset ID Asset Type

Unit of Measure

Quantity (2016)


% of Total RN Value

RN.4 Roads, Local Residential Sq. Metres 3,823,450 $464,433,295 38.91%

RN.5 Roads, Local Commercial/Industrial Sq. Metres 136,016 $15,833,819 1.33%

RN.6 Sidewalks Sq. Metres 1,365,789 $156,475,669 13.11%

RN.7 Bridges Each 46 $124,485,523 10.43%

RN.8 Street Lights Each 9,467 $48,751,756 4.08%

RN.9 Traffic Intersection Signals Each 319 $17,300,557 1.45%

RN.10 Transit Shelters Each 189 $23,106,049 1.94%

RN.11 Culverts, Major1 Each 68 $56,055,166 4.70%

RN.12 Acoustic Walls Metres 7,181 $2,333,975 0.20%

RN.13 Multi‐Use Trails/Walkways Each 1 $1,309,966 0.11%

RN.14 Guiderails Metres 90 $107,225 0.01%

RN.15 Retaining Wall Each 1 $298,210 0.02%

Total ‐‐ ‐‐ $1,193,528,230 100%

Data Confidence ‐‐‐ High High ‐‐

The reliability of the replacement value data is currently considered “high”, since the replacement values represent up‐to‐date cost estimates based on current market conditions (i.e., values are not based on inflated historical costs).

Local residential roads represent the largest value (38.9%) in the Road Network, whereas guiderails have the lowest value (0.01%). In order to illustrate the range of values, Figure 3.2‐1 provides a graphical summary of the distribution of replacement values of the asset types in the Road Network class.



Figure 3.2‐1. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in the Road Network

3.2.2 Land Improvement Network The estimated replacement value of the Land Improvement Network assets owned by the Town is $78,071,509 (2016). The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐3. Replacement value is not presented for Parks (LN.3), Trails (LN.15), and Trail Parks (LN.16), as value of land has been excluded from this SOIR.

Table 3.2‐3. Land Improvement Network Asset Valuation

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Replacement Value

(TCA, 2016) % of Total LN Value


LN.1 Buildings, Minor Each 18 $6,710,852 8.60%

LN.2 Structures, Minor Each 86 $5,897,217 7.55%


LN.4 Ball Diamonds Each 46 $8,062,915 10.33%

LN.5 Ball Hockey Each 1 $11,339 0.01%

LN.6 Basketball Courts Each 10 $466,124 0.60%

LN.7 Bocce Ball Court Each 1 $12,357 0.02%

LN.8 Cricket Pitch Each 1 $76,530 0.10%

LN.9 Field Hockey Each 1 $195,992 0.25%

LN.10 Playgrounds Each 170 $9,749,802 12.49%

LN.11 Skateboard Parks Each 4 $716,876 0.92%

LN.12 Soccer Fields Each 57 $12,448,607 15.95%



Table 3.2‐3. Land Improvement Network Asset Valuation

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016) Replacement Value

(TCA, 2016) % of Total LN Value

LN.13 Splash Pads Each 15 $4,966,184 6.36%

LN.14 Tennis Courts Each 75 $3,267,130 4.18%


LN.17 Walkways Metres 4,688 $1,187,275 1.52%

LN.18 Park Stairs Each 52 $2,816,367 3.61%

LN.19 Park Lighting Each 8 $712,323 0.91%

LN.20 Park Irrigation Each 2 $30,028 0.04%

LN.21 Park Bridges Each 122 $8,903,775 11.40%

LN.22 Park Parking Lots Each Sq. Metres

65 122,304 $9,117,506 11.68%

LN.23 Municipal Parking Lots Each Sq. Metres

14 18,314 $1,697,445 2.17%

LN.24 Retaining Wall Each 1 $133,028 0.17%

LN.25 Bus Terminal Each 1 $891,835 1.14%

Total ‐‐ ‐‐ $78,071,509 100%

Data Confidence ‐‐ High High ‐‐


Soccer fields represent the single largest portion (15.95%) of the asset replacement value in the Land Improvement Network, whereas the ball hockey field represents the smallest portion (0.01%). In order to illustrate the range of values, Figure 3.2‐2 provides a graphical summary of the distribution of replacement values of the asset types in the Land Improvement Network class.



Figure 3.2‐2. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in the Land Improvement Network

The Land Improvement Network includes a wide variety of sports fields and courts. Figure 3.2‐3 provides a graphical summary of the replacement value of the Town’s different types of sports fields and courts.

Figure 3.2‐3. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values for Sports Fields and Courts



3.2.3 Environmental Network The estimated replacement value of the Environmental Network assets owned by the Town is approximately $1,731,144,041 (2016). The Environmental Network represents more than half of all the asset value in this SOIR. The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐4.

Table 3.2‐4. Environmental Network Asset Valuation

Asset ID Asset Type

Unit of Measure

Quantity (2016)


% of Total EN Value

Erosion Control

EN.1 Erosion Control Structures Each 15 $10,342,026 0.60%


EN.2 Catchbasins Each 21,725 $58,085,941 3.36%

EN.3 Foundation Drain Collectors Each 181 $2,963,937 0.17%

EN.4 House Connections Ln. Metres 17,849 $10,654,241 0.62%

EN.5 Outlet Structures Each 351 $6,855,504 0.40%

EN.6 Laterals Ln. Metres 161,549 $47,588,657 2.75%

EN.7 Maintenance Holes Each 13,277 $69,975,226 4.04%

EN.8 Culverts, Minor Each 154 $6,811,218 0.39%

EN.9 Pond Retaining Walls Each 3 $2,118,737 0.12%

EN.10 Storm Mains Ln. Metres 29,944 $1,511,064,603 87.29%

EN.11 Water Quality Control Devices Each 29 $2,021,765 0.12%

EN.12 Pond In/Outfalls Each 2 $590,238 0.03%

EN.13 Underground Storage Sq. Metres 59 $2,071,949 0.12%

Total ‐‐ ‐‐ $1,731,144,041 100%

Data Confidence ‐‐ High High ‐‐


The storm mains represent the single largest portion (87.29%) of the asset replacement value in the Environmental Network. In order to illustrate the range of values, Figure 3.2‐4 provides a graphical summary of the distribution of replacement values of the asset types in the Environmental Network class.



Figure 3.2‐4. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in the Environmental Network

Since the storm mains represent such as significant portion of the total value of the Environmental Network, Figure 3.2‐5 provides a graphical summary that excludes this category in order to better visualize the range of values.

Figure 3.2‐5. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in the Environmental Network Excluding Storm Mains



3.3 Asset Age and Useful Life For many assets, the estimated remaining useful life, based on the age of the asset, is considered a good starting point to estimate the overall well‐being of an asset pool. However, in many cases, the percentage of useful life consumed, based purely on age, may not be the most suitable indicator of current asset condition. Infrastructure assets, in particular, undergo a continual process of repair and rehabilitation in order to maintain their intended purpose. For example, pumps may undergo a rehabilitation or major overhaul every 20 years with the replacement of specific parts and hence the overall age of the pump may not be the most suitable indicator to use for asset management planning purposes. Accordingly, in many cases, asset useful life needs to be augmented with other information such as actual asset condition rating, history of asset upgrades, and expert judgment.

Estimated useful lives based purely on age can sometimes provide a misleading view of the replacement timing for assets. In many cases, assets that are properly constructed and maintained may outlive their estimated useful life and continue providing valued service. In other cases, due to incorrectly specified equipment, poor workmanship and/or lack of proactive maintenance, assets may fail before they fulfill their estimated useful life.

Typically, a hybrid approach is used that relies on asset age, assumed useful life, actual asset condition rating, where available, and expert judgment in order to evaluate the condition state of the various asset types. For this SOIR, these assumed useful life estimates have been used as a starting point and validated based on the history of asset upgrades and expert judgment. The determination of life of an asset for TCA purposes is typically a combination of useful life and design life.

This SOIR includes a variety of assets of different functions, design, and durability. Table 3.3‐1 provides a summary of the average useful lives and average age of the assets in the three networks.

Table 3.3‐1. Useful Life and Age of Assets in the Three Networks

Network Average Useful Life

(Years) Average Asset Age

(Years) Average % of Life

Lived Data Confidence

Road Network 35.5 24.3 69.7% Moderate

Land Improvement Network 22 14.3 75.7% Moderate

Environmental Network 70 23.8 34.0% Moderate

It is observed that the Environmental Network generally has the most durable assets (average useful life of 70 years), whereas the Land Improvement Network has the least durable assets (average useful life of 22 years). The Road Network has the highest average asset age (24 years), whereas the Land Improvement Network has the youngest average asset age (14 years).

3.3.1 Road Network Asset useful lives (or economic lives) for the Road Network were developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project and are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐2 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the asset types in the Road Network.

Table 3.3‐2. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Estimated Useful Life1 (Years)

Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)

Avg. % of Life Lived1, 2016

Average Condition Score2

RN.1 Roads, Arterial2 30 59 33.66 112% 2.49



Table 3.3‐2. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type


Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)



RN.2 Roads, Collector Residential2 30‐40 59 28.25 94% 2.04

RN.3 Roads, Collector Commercial/Industrial2 30 59 35.07 117% 2.86

RN.4 Roads, Local Residential2 40 59 24.10 60% 1.67

RN.5 Roads, Local Commercial/Industrial2 40 59 39.22 98% 3.00

RN.6 Sidewalks2 30‐40 46 15.01 44% 2.33

RN.7 Bridges2 60‐70 100 39.07 60% 1.80

RN.8 Street Lights2 25 31 13.07 53.5% 2.67

RN.9 Traffic Intersection Signals2 7‐40 48 11.87 61% 2.69

RN.10 Transit Shelters2 20 14 7.85 39% 2.02

RN.11 Culverts, Major12 60‐70 106 33.01 55% 1.79

RN.12 Acoustic Walls3 20‐35 56 21.10 94% 4.44

RN.13 Multi‐Use Trails/Walkways3 20 1 1.00 5% 1.00

RN.14 Guiderails3 40 1 1.00 2.5% 1.00

RN.15 Retaining Wall3 40 1 1.00 2.5% 1.00

Overall Averages 35.5 ‐‐ 24.28 70% 1.99

Data Confidence Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Notes:

1. Estimated useful life and average % of life lived based on PSAB 3150.

2. Condition score is evidence‐based.

3. Condition score is age based.

Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐1 ranks the assets from those with the shortest useful lives to those with the longest. This is helpful to illustrate the significant variability in useful life amongst the assets in the same network.



Figure 3.3‐1. Ranked Useful Lives of Assets in the Road Network

Within the Road Network, the traffic intersection signals are considered to have the shortest useful lives (on average, 18 years), whereas bridges are considered have the longest useful lives (on average, 65 years). Most of the assets in the Road Network are estimated to have useful lives between 30‐40 years.

Figure 3.3‐2 provides a graphical summary of the average ages of each asset type in the Road Network, as of 2016, compared to the oldest asset ages.

Figure 3.3‐2. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for each Asset Type in the Road Network

The local commercial/industrial roads and the bridges have the highest average age (39 years), whereas the multi‐use trails/walkways, guiderails, and retaining wall have the lowest average age (1 year).



Table 3.3‐3 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Road Network useful life data.

Table 3.3‐3. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for the Road Network

Measure Confidence Bars Comments

Accuracy of useful life data in the Road Network

Low – Data that is accurate to +/‐ 50%

High – Data that is accurate to +/‐ 1%

Reliability of useful life data in the Road Network

Low – Based only upon unconfirmed verbal reports or cursory inspections/analysis

High – Sound textual records, procedures or analysis that has been properly document, and is recognized as the best method of assessment.

The correlation of the useful life data to the asset condition data is provided in Section 3.4.

3.3.2 Land Improvement Network Asset useful lives (or economic lives) developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐4 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the asset types in the Land Improvement Network. Age is not presented for Parks (LN.3), Trails (LN.15), and Trail Parks (LN.16), as age is not considered a meaningful metric for land assets.

Table 3.3‐4. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type


Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)




LN.1 Buildings, Minor 30‐50 57 35.5 82.5% 3.17

LN.2 Structures, Minor 20‐50 66 13.83 55% 2.63


LN.4 Ball Diamonds 20 36 12.78 64% 2.67

LN.5 Ball Hockey 15 2 2 13% 1.00

LN.6 Basketball Courts 15 18 11.5 77% 2.40

LN.7 Bocce Ball Court 15 2 2 13% 1.00

LN.8 Cricket Pitch 20 2 2 10% 1.00

LN.9 Field Hockey 20 27 27 135% 3.00

LN.10 Playgrounds 18‐20 22 10.49 52.5% 2.90

LN.11 Skateboard Parks 20 17 9.75 49% 1.50

LN.12 Soccer Fields 10‐20 45 16.16 161% 2.86

LN.13 Splash Pads 20 21 7.47 37% 2.33

LN.14 Tennis Courts 15 53 13.97 93% 2.34

Low High

Low High



Table 3.3‐4. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type


Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)




LN.17 Walkways 15‐25 3 1.53 8% 1.00

LN.18 Park Stairs 15‐25 66 19.19 127% 2.79

LN.19 Park Lighting 20 2 1.5 7.5% 1.00

LN.20 Park Irrigation 10 2 2 20% 1.00

LN.21 Park Bridges 15‐25 56 18.48 122% 2.97

LN.22 Park Parking Lots 20‐50 89 18.6 38.5% 2.03

LN.23 Municipal Parking Lots 50 56 28.64 57% 2.79

LN.24 Retaining Wall 20 1 1 5% 1.00

LN.25 Bus Terminal 20 8 8 40% 2.00

Overall Averages 22 ‐‐ 14.31 75.7% 2.58


Notes:


2. Condition score is a combination of evidence and age‐based analysis, depending on available data.

Based on the current data, the field hockey, soccer fields, park stairs, and park bridges have all far exceeded their useful service lives. This is a simplification and based on the TCA service lives being overly conservative. Adjustments to useful service lives should be considered in the next iteration of this SOIR. Currently, the Town is in the process of breaking out the components of the major sports fields in order to reflect the diversity of useful lives and to better reflect replacement planning processes.

Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐3 ranks the assets from those with the shortest useful lives to those with the longest. This is helpful to illustrate the significant variability in useful lives amongst the assets in the Land Improvement Network.



Figure 3.3‐3. Ranked Useful Lives of Assets in the Land Improvement Network

Park irrigation systems are estimated to have the shortest useful lives (10 years), while municipal parking lots have the longest useful lives (50 years).

Figure 3.3‐4 provides a graphical summary of the average ages of each asset type in the Land Improvement Network, as of 2016, compared to the oldest asset ages.



Figure 3.3‐4. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for each Asset Type in the Land Improvement Network

The minor buildings have the highest average age (35.5 years), whereas the retaining wall has the lowest average age (1 year).

Table 3.3‐5 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Land Improvement Network useful life data.

Table 3.3‐5. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for the Land Improvement Network


Accuracy of useful life data in land improvement network



Reliability of useful life data in the land improvement network




3.3.3 Environmental Network Asset useful lives (or economic lives) for the Environmental Network developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐6 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the asset types in the Environmental Network.

Low High

Low High



Table 3.3‐6. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Environmental Network

Asset ID Asset Type


Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)



Erosion Control

EN.1 Erosion Control Structures 40‐70 69 15.33 35% 1.53


EN.2 Catchbasins 70 69 23.89 34% 1.84

EN.3 Foundation Drain Collectors 70 37 18.20 26% 1.13

EN.4 House Connections 70 46 20.87 30% 1.58

EN.5 Outlet Structures 70 66 33.02 47% 2.52

EN.6 Laterals 30‐70 67 22.82 33% 1.99

EN.7 Maintenance Holes 70 69 22.63 32% 1.79

EN.8 Culverts, Minor 30‐70 60 28.95 58% 3.03

EN.9 Pond Retaining Walls 70 3 1.67 2% 1.00

EN.10 Storm Mains 70 70 24.23 35% 2.13

EN.11 Water Quality Control Devices 70 40 13.06 19% 1.18

EN.12 Pond In/Outfalls 70 1 1.00 1% 1.00

EN.13 Underground Storage 70 1 1.00 1% 1.00

Overall Averages 70 ‐‐ 23.79 34% 1.97


Notes:


2. Condition score is a combination of evidence and age‐based analysis, depending on available data.

Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐5 ranks the assets from those with the shortest useful lives to those with the longest. This is helpful to illustrate the low variability in useful lives amongst the assets in the Environmental Network.



Figure 3.3‐5. Ranked Useful Lives of Assets in the Environmental Network

Erosion control structures have the shortest average useful lives (49 years), while most of the assets have useful lives of 70 years.

Figure 3.3‐6 provides a graphical summary of the average ages of each asset type in the Environmental Network, as of 2016, compared to the oldest asset ages.

Figure 3.3‐6. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for each Asset Type in the Environmental Network

The outlet structures have the highest average age (33 years), whereas the underground storage and pond in/outfalls have the lowest average age (1 year).

Table 3.3‐7 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Environmental Network useful life data.



Table 3.3‐7. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for the Environmental Network


Accuracy of useful life data in the environmental network



Reliability of useful life data in the environmental network

Low ‐ Based only upon unconfirmed verbal reports or cursory inspections/analysis



3.4 Asset Condition A 5‐point rating scale that aligns with the CIRC, produced by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Public Works Association and Canadian Society for Civil Engineering was used to determine the state of the Town’s assets. The use of this 5‐point rating scale allows the Town’s asset base to be described using a common approach and will enable benchmarking against other municipalities. The rating scale ranges from “Very Good” to “Very Poor”, as described in Table 3.4‐1 and reflects the physical condition of the given assets. It should be noted that the condition grades reported in this SOIR do not consider asset performance. That is, the condition grade represents the physical condition of the asset without taking into account whether the asset is meeting the desired LOS in terms of capacity and/or function.

Table 3.4‐1. CIRC 5‐Point Scale for Rating Asset Condition

1 Very Good The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention.

2 Good The infrastructure in the system or network is in good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

3 Fair The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

4 Poor The infrastructure in the system or network is in poor condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration.

5 Very Poor The infrastructure in the system or network is in unacceptable condition with widespread signs of advanced deterioration. Many components in the system exhibit signs of imminent failure, which is affecting service.

For vertical assets and observable linear assets (e.g., roads), the physical condition grades are objective and are based on visual observations and engineering standards.

Roads are inspected every 3 to 4 years using a specialized vehicle that captures many quality conditions criteria of the roadway and roadside. This information is utilized to determine pavement quality index, as well as for developing a degradation curve until the next driven inspection. Bridges are inspected every 2 years by a third‐party engineering firm, providing a bridge condition index.

Low High

Low High



For buried linear assets (e.g., pipes), the physical condition grades are based on typical deterioration curves for pipes, and have been supplemented with information from engineering condition assessments.

Where no physical condition data is available, an age‐based rating has been applied based on remaining useful life as described in Section 3.3. It is recommended that the Town develop a regular condition inspection program for those assets whose condition grades are currently derived from age‐based calculations.

Overall, the condition of the three asset networks covered in this SOIR is “Very Good” to “Good”, with an average overall condition grade score of 1.97, as shown in Figure 3.4‐1.

Figure 3.4‐1. Average Overall Condition of the Three Asset Networks on the NIRC Scale

Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the average condition scores for each of the three asset networks covered in this SOIR.

Figure 3.4‐2. Average Condition of each of the Three Asset Networks on the NIRC Scale

Table 3.4‐2 provides a summary of the distribution of condition grades in each of the three asset networks.

Table 3.4‐2. Summary of the Distribution of the Condition Grades within each of the Three Networks

Network Average Overall Condition Grade

% Very Good (1)

% Good (2) % Fair (3)

% Poor (4)

% Very Poor (5)

Data Confidence

Road Network 1.99 42% 28% 10% 8% 11% Moderate

Land Improvement Network 2.58 22% 5% 67% 3% 3% Moderate to

High

Environmental Network 1.97 27% 42% 26% 3% 3% Low to

Moderate

It should be noted that the Parks inspections process reflected in this version of the SOIR is mainly based on a 3‐point grading scale (Excellent/Fair/Poor), which is evidenced by the high percentage of assets in the “Fair” condition category. The Town recently transitioned the Park inspections process to a 5‐point



condition grading system and the results of this transition will be reflected in future iterations of this SOIR, as more of the asset inventory is assessed using this 5‐point scale.

3.4.1 Road Network The overall condition of the various assets that comprise the Road Network is estimated to be 1.99 on the NIRC scale (i.e., “Very Good” to “Good” condition). Figure 3.4‐3 provides a summary of the condition of the Road Network assets.



Figure 3.4‐3. Overall Condition of the Assets in the Road Network



Figure 3.4‐4 shows the distribution of condition grades for the Road Network as a whole.

Figure 3.4‐4. Distribution of Condition Grades in the Road Network

Table 3.4‐3 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each asset type in the Road Network.

Table 3.4‐3. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment

% of Assets in Condition Grade by Replacement Value Average Condition Score 1 2 3 4 5

RN.1 Roads, Arterial Physical 31% 26% 20% 11% 12% 2.49

RN.2 Roads, Collector Residential Physical 39% 33% 11% 10% 7% 2.04

RN.3 Roads, Collector Commercial/Industrial Physical 32% 18% 17% 14% 19% 2.86

RN.4 Roads, Local Residential Physical 68% 13% 9% 6% 4% 1.67

RN.5 Roads, Local Commercial/Industrial Physical 26% 20% 9% 18% 27% 3.00

RN.6 Sidewalks Age‐based 20% 21% 9% 15% 34% 2.33

RN.7 Bridges Physical 22% 69% 2% 7% 0% 1.80

RN.8 Street Lights Age‐based 10% 23% 16% 8% 43% 2.67

RN.9 Traffic Intersection Signals Age‐based 37% 15% 8% 2% 38% 2.69

RN.10 Transit Shelters Age‐based 22% 73% 4% 0% 0% 2.02

RN.11 Culverts, Major Physical 13% 86% 2% 0% 0% 1.79

RN.12 Acoustic Walls Age‐based 25% 1% 6% 8% 60% 4.44

RN.13 Multi‐Use Trails and Walkways Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00



Table 3.4‐3. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment


RN.14 Guiderails Physical 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

RN.15 Retaining Wall Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

Averages 43% 26% 8% 7% 16% 1.99

Data Confidence Moderate

Figure 3.4‐5 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the NIRC condition grades across the asset types in the Road Network. This information is useful for developing asset management strategies.

Figure 3.4‐5. Distribution of the NIRC Condition Grades in the Road Network

Table 3.4‐4 provides the replacement value of the assets within each of the CIRC condition grades in the Road Network.

Table 3.4‐4. Replacement Value of Assets Across the CIRC Condition Grades in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Asset Replacement Values within each Condition Grade

Very Good (1) Good (2) Fair (3) Poor (4) Very Poor (5)

RN.1 Roads, Arterial $36,897,547 $31,138,998 $24,428,453 $13,468,405 $14,326,112

RN.2 Roads, Collector Residential $46,071,946 $39,191,992 $13,236,212 $11,410,889 $7,975,367



Table 3.4‐4. Replacement Value of Assets Across the CIRC Condition Grades in the Road Network

Asset ID Asset Type



RN.3 Roads, Collector Commercial/Industrial $14,357,311 $7,961,332 $7,764,246 $6,359,940 $8,448,271

RN.4 Roads, Local Residential $316,069,966 $58,393,595 $42,107,713 $27,603,497 $20,258,525

RN.5 Roads, Local Commercial/Industrial $4,193,768 $3,155,330 $1,448,553 $2,839,277 $4,196,891

RN.6 Sidewalks $31,546,574 $33,478,971 $14,504,845 $24,137,306 $52,807,972

RN.7 Bridges $27,715,554 $85,660,650 $2,182,719 $8,926,600 ‐‐

RN.8 Street Lights $4,909,370 $11,098,365 $7,969,656 $3,891,939 $20,882,426

RN.9 Traffic Intersection Signals $6,381,612 $2,540,026 $1,332,788 $424,442 $6,621,688

RN.10 Transit Shelters $5,162,866 $16,861,046 $979,077 $103,061 ‐‐

RN.11 Culverts, Major $7,136,454 $47,998,096 $920,616 ‐‐ ‐‐

RN.12 Acoustic Walls $577,436 $34,095 $142,965 $186,186 $1,393,294

RN.13 Multi‐Use Trails and Walkways $1,309,966 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

RN.14 Guiderails $107,225 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

RN.15 Retaining Wall $298,210 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Total $502,735,805 $337,512,495 $117,017,843 $99,351,541 $136,910,546

Data Confidence Moderate

Figure 3.4‐6 shows a ranked list of replacement values associated with assets that are identified as falling within CIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that sidewalks and local residential roads require the largest capital reinvestment over the 10‐year planning horizon (2016‐2025).



Figure 3.4‐6. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in the Road Network

Table 3.4‐5 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Road Network assets.

Table 3.4‐5. Data Confidence in Road Network Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Road Network condition data



Reliability of Road Network condition data



3.4.2 Land Improvement Network The overall condition of the various assets that comprise the Land Improvement Network is estimated to be 2.57 on the NIRC scale (i.e., “Good” to “Fair” condition). Condition grades are not provided for Parks (LN.3), Trails (LN.15), and Trail Parks (LN.16), as these are land assets that have not been physically assessed and, for which, age‐based condition analysis is not meaningful. Figure 3.4‐7 provides a summary of the condition of the Land Improvement Network assets.

Low High

Low High



Figure 3.4‐7. Overall Condition of the Assets in the Land Improvement Network



Figure 3.4‐8 shows the distribution of condition grades for the Land Improvement Network, not including Parks (LN.3), Trails (LN.15), and Trail Parks (LN.16), as previously noted.

Figure 3.4‐8. Distribution of Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

As noted previously, the Parks inspections process reflected in this version of the SOIR is mainly based on a 3‐point grading scale (Excellent/Fair/Poor), which is evidenced by the high percentage of assets in the “Fair” condition category. The Town recently transitioned the Park inspections process to a 5‐point condition grading system and the results of this transition will be reflected in future iterations of this SOIR, as more of the asset inventory is assessed using this 5‐point scale.

Table 3.4‐6 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each asset type in the Land Improvement Network.

Table 3.4‐6. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment



LN.1 Buildings, Minor Physical 3% 1% 80% 13% 3% 3.17

LN.2 Structures, Minor Physical 27% 0% 73% 0% 0% 2.63


LN.4 Ball Diamonds Physical 19% 4% 77% 0% 0% 2.67

LN.5 Ball Hockey Physical 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.6 Basketball Courts Physical 41% 0% 39% 20% 0% 2.40

LN.7 Bocce Ball Court Physical 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.8 Cricket Pitch Physical 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.9 Field Hockey Physical 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 3.00

LN.10 Playgrounds Physical 6% 0% 94% 0% 0% 2.90

LN.11 Skateboard Parks Physical 68% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1.50



Table 3.4‐6. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment


LN.12 Soccer Fields Physical 7% 0% 93% 0% 0% 2.86

LN.13 Splash Pads Physical 30% 0% 70% 0% 0% 2.33

LN.14 Tennis Courts Physical 56% 5% 21% 19% 0% 2.34


LN.17 Walkways Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.18 Park Stairs Physical 11% 0% 88% 1% 0% 2.79

LN.19 Park Lighting Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.20 Park Irrigation Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.21 Park Bridges Physical 5% 0% 94% 1% 0% 2.97

LN.22 Park Parking Lots Age‐based 61% 16% 2% 1% 19% 2.03

LN.23 Municipal Parking Lots Age‐based 12% 30% 10% 13% 35% 2.79

LN.24 Retaining Wall Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

LN.25 Bus Terminal Age‐based 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.00

Averages 47% 9% 38% 3% 3% 2.58

Data Confidence Moderate to High

Since many of the assets have been subject to visual inspections as part of the Parks Quality Rating System (QRS), the data confidence is deemed to be “moderate” to “high”.

Figure 3.4‐9 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the CIRC condition grades across the asset types in the Land Improvement Network. This information is useful for developing asset management strategies.



Figure 3.4‐9. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

Table 3.4‐7 provides the replacement value of the assets within each of the CIRC condition grades in the Land Improvement Network.

Table 3.4‐7. Replacement Value of Assets Across the CIRC Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type




LN.1 Buildings, Minor $176,684 $34,733 $5,384,642 $891,835 $222,959

LN.2 Structures, Minor $1,566,693 ‐‐ $4,330,524 ‐‐ ‐‐


LN.4 Ball Diamonds $1,509,462 $338,591 $6,214,863 ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.5 Ball Hockey $11,339 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.6 Basketball Courts $189,603 ‐‐ $181,522 $95,000 ‐‐

LN.7 Bocce Ball Court $12,357 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.8 Cricket Pitch $76,530 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.9 Field Hockey ‐‐ ‐‐ $195,992 ‐‐ ‐‐



Table 3.4‐7. Replacement Value of Assets Across the CIRC Condition Grades in the Land Improvement Network

Asset ID Asset Type



LN.10 Playgrounds $546,303 $27,182 $9,176,317 ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.11 Skateboard Parks $489,711 $227,165 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.12 Soccer Fields $825,550 ‐‐ $11,623,057 ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.13 Splash Pads $1,497,438 ‐‐ $3,468,746 ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.14 Tennis Courts $1,831,040 $150,000 $671,090 $615,000 ‐‐


LN.17 Walkways $1,187,275 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.18 Park Stairs $321,950 ‐‐ $2,468,206 $26,211 ‐‐

LN.19 Park Lighting $712,323 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.20 Park Irrigation $30,028 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.21 Park Bridges $410,613 $26,966 $8,388,101 $78,095 ‐‐

LN.22 Park Parking Lots $5,538,115 $1,470,797 $221,940 $125,000 $1,761,654

LN.23 Municipal Parking Lots $211,917 $513,226 $171,399 $213,790 $587,114

LN.24 Retaining Wall $133,028 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

LN.25 Bus Terminal ‐‐ $891,835 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Total $17,277,959 $3,680,495 $52,496,397 $2,044,931 $2,571,727

Data Confidence Moderate to High

Figure 3.4‐10 shows a ranked list of replacement values associated with assets that are identified as falling within NIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that park parking lots and minor buildings require the largest capital reinvestment over the 10‐year planning horizon (2016‐2025).



Figure 3.4‐10. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in the Land Improvement Network

Table 3.4‐8 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Land Improvement Network assets.

Table 3.4‐8. Data Confidence in Land Improvement Network Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Land Improvement Network condition data



Reliability of Land Improvement Network condition data



3.4.3 Environmental Network The overall condition of the various assets that comprise the Environmental Network is estimated to be 1.97 on the NIRC scale (i.e., “Very Good” to “Good” condition). Figure 3.4‐11 provides a summary of the condition of the Environmental Network assets.

Low High

Low High



Figure 3.4‐11. Overall Condition of the Assets in the Environmental Network



Figure 3.4‐12 shows the distribution of condition grades for the Environmental Network as a whole.

Figure 3.4‐12. Distribution of Condition Grades in the Environmental Network

It is apparent that the most of the assets in the Environmental Network are in “Very Good” (27%) and “Good” (41%) condition. However, it should be noted that the condition grades have been inferred primarily from an age‐based analysis.

Table 3.4‐9 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each asset type in the Environmental Network.

Table 3.4‐9. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Environmental Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment


Erosion Control

EN.1 Erosion Control Structures Physical and Age‐based 61% 13% 26% 0% 0% 1.53


EN.2 Catchbasins Age‐based 52% 28% 10% 7% 3% 1.84

EN.3 Foundation Drain Collectors Age‐based 94% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1.13

EN.4 House Connections Age‐based 70% 27% 3% 0% 0% 1.58

EN.5 Outlet Structures Age‐based 24% 37% 14% 13% 13% 2.52

EN.6 Laterals Age‐based 42% 33% 12% 9% 4% 1.99

EN.7 Maintenance Holes Age‐based 56% 24% 9% 7% 4% 1.79

EN.8 Culverts, Minor Age‐based 21% 42% 7% 14% 16% 3.03

EN.9 Pond Retaining Walls Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

EN.10 Storm Mains Physical and Age‐based 23% 44% 28% 3% 3% 2.13



Table 3.4‐9. Distribution of Asset Condition Grades in the Environmental Network

Asset ID Asset Type

Type of Assessment


EN.11 Water Quality Control Devices Age‐based 89% 3% 9% 0% 0% 1.18

EN.12 Pond In/Outfalls Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

EN.13 Underground Storage Age‐based 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.00

Averages 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1.97

Data Confidence Low to Moderate

The data confidence in the condition scores for the Environmental Network is considered to be “low” to “moderate”, since condition has mainly been inferred from asset age. The physical condition of storm mains south of the QEW was assessed in 2015 using zoom cameras. This condition data, once analyzed, will be used to update the storm main condition data in the SOIR.

Figure 3.4‐13 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the NIRC condition grades across the asset types in the Environmental Network. This information is useful for developing asset management strategies, but should be used with caution, since the condition scores are based mainly on age and not on physical inspections.

Figure 3.4‐13. Distribution of the NIRC Condition Grades in the Environmental Network



Table 3.4‐10 provides the replacement value of the assets within each of the NIRC condition grades in the Environmental Network.

Table 3.4‐10. Replacement Value of Assets Across the NIRC Condition Grades in the Environmental Network

Asset ID Asset Type



Erosion Control

EN.1 Erosion Control Structures $6,341,066 $1,348,754 $2,652,205 $0 $0


EN.2 Catchbasins $29,936,787 $16,334,598 $5,849,321 $4,001,050 $1,964,184

EN.3 Foundation Drain Collectors $2,777,437 $186,500 $0 $0 $0

EN.4 House Connections $7,462,490 $2,849,815 $331,148 $10,787 $0

EN.5 Outlet Structures $1,613,116 $2,511,332 $976,833 $897,012 $857,210

EN.6 Laterals $20,172,721 $15,630,838 $5,517,661 $4,182,174 $2,085,262

EN.7 Maintenance Holes $39,392,601 $17,056,622 $6,263,776 $4,557,285 $2,704,943

EN.8 Culverts, Minor $1,450,610 $2,836,871 $484,857 $963,350 $1,075,530

EN.9 Pond Retaining Walls $2,118,737 $0 $0 $0 $0

EN.10 Storm Mains $345,747,034 $661,691,723 $426,691,977 $38,661,585 $38,272,285

EN.11 Water Quality Control Devices $1,792,550 $53,825 $175,390 $0 $0

EN.12 Pond In/Outfalls $590,238 $0 $0 $0 $0

EN.13 Underground Storage $2,071,949 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $461,467,336 $720,500,879 $448,943,168 $53,273,243 $46,959,414

Data Confidence Low to Moderate

Figure 3.4‐14 shows a ranked list of replacement values associated with assets that are identified as falling within NIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that storm mains require the largest capital reinvestment over the 10‐year planning horizon (2016‐2025).



Figure 3.4‐14. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in the Environmental Network

Table 3.4‐11 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Environmental Network assets. As noted previously, the condition scores for most of the assets in the Environmental Network were inferred from asset age and, therefore, the confidence bars reflect the relative accuracy and reliability of this dataset.

Table 3.4‐11. Data Confidence in Environmental Network Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Environmental Network condition data



Reliability of Environmental Network condition data



3.4.4 Summary Asset Condition When drawing a conclusion regarding the condition of the assets, several key factors must be taken into account, as the complexity of the various assets and the degree to which they are objectively or subjectively rated can lead to misinterpretation when looking at the three asset networks as a whole.

Future iterations of the SOIR will continue to incorporate the most up‐to‐date objective information available.

3.4.4.1 Benchmarking Oakville to NIRC This subsection of the SOIR endeavors to make some preliminary benchmarking comparisons of the physical condition of the Town’s assets relative to some of the asset classes that are included in the NIRC. The purpose of this exercise is to put the Town’s infrastructure deficit into a national context and to determine whether any of the Town’s asset classes are outliers that may warrant special consideration.

Low High

Low High



Road Network

Figure 3.4‐17 provides a simple benchmark comparison of the average physical condition of the Town’s road assets against the average physical condition in the “Roads” category of the 2016 NIRC.

Figure 3.4‐17. Benchmarking Oakville against the NIRC 2016 Results for Road Assets

Figure 3.4‐18 shows a benchmark comparison of the Town’s bridge assets against the “Bridges” category of the 2016 NIRC.

Figure 3.4‐18. Benchmarking Oakville against the NIRC 2016 Results for Bridge Assets

From this preliminary analysis, it appears that the Town’s road assets are in similar condition to the average of the municipalities that were included in the 2016 NIRC, while the Town’s bridge assets are in slightly better condition. It is worth noting that there are no statistical outliers suggesting that extraordinary measures are required.

Land Improvement Network

Figure 3.4‐19 provides a preliminary benchmark comparison of the average physical condition of the Town’s sports fields and courts against the average physical condition in the “Sports and Recreation” category of the 2016 NIRC.

Figure 3.4‐19. Benchmarking Oakville against the NIRC 2016 Results for Sports and Recreation Assets

From this preliminary analysis, it appears that the Town’s sports fields and courts are in similar condition to the average of the municipalities that were included in the 2016 NIRC. It is worth noting that there are no statistical outliers suggesting that extraordinary measures are required.



Environmental Network

Figure 3.4‐20 provides a preliminary benchmark comparison of the average physical condition of the Town’s stormwater management assets against the average physical condition in the “Stormwater” category of the 2016 NIRC.

Figure 3.4‐20. Benchmarking Oakville against the NIRC 2016 Results for Stormwater Assets

From this preliminary analysis, it appears that the Town’s stormwater assets are in similar condition to the average of the municipalities that were included in the 2016 NIRC. It is worth noting that there are no statistical outliers suggesting that extraordinary measures are required.

SECTION 4 – PARKS QUALITY RATING SYSTEM


Parks Quality Rating System 4.1 Methodology The Town’s park QRS rating methodology includes the following key steps:

1. Establish a park classification scheme

2. Determine an appropriate data collection procedure for each park

3. Apply the standardized condition rating scales and quality scores developed by CH2M

4. Apply the evaluation categories and criteria

5. Apply the evaluation weightings

6. Conduct assessments using the GIS method and/or rated methods

7. Compile the data into an Excel workbook

8. Generate graphs to benchmark each park against the targets

4.1.1 Classification Scheme The Town has a park asset classification system that includes 6 park types, as well as 2 categories for undeveloped land. The Town’s 6 park types include:

Community Parks;

Neighbourhood Parks;

Major Valley Parks;

Minor Valley Parks;

Tableland Woodlot Parks; and

Community Link Parks.

The Community and Neighbourhood parks have been further classified as either “Active” or “Passive”, depending on whether the park includes recreational amenities such as sports fields and courts. Undeveloped land is categorized as either “Buffer Block” or “Undeveloped Parkland” in the Town’s asset database.

Table 4‐1 lists the different types/models of parks that are used as the classification scheme for the QRS, accompanied by a few examples of representative parks from the Town’s inventory.

Table 4‐1. Park Classification Scheme

Rating Classification1 Park Type Target2 Park Type Description

Representative Parks (Examples)

PC Passive Community Park 2.9 Parks without sports fields/courts Bronte Harbour Park

Towne Square

AC Active Community Park 3.3 Parks with sports fields/courts Bronte Athletic Park

Trafalgar Park



Table 4‐1. Park Classification Scheme

Rating Classification1 Park Type Target2 Park Type Description

Representative Parks (Examples)

PN Passive Neighbourhood Park 2.6 Parks without sports fields/courts Market Square

North Ridge Trail Park

AN Active Neighbourhood Park 2.5 Parks with sports fields/courts Kingsford Gardens

Sunningdale Park

NR Not Rated ‐‐ Parks without amenities – only open space or trail system

Fourteen Mile Creek Trail

Kings Park Woods

Note:

1. Minor Valley, Major Valley, Tableland Woodlot, and Community Link parks with amenities were assigned a model target from either the Neighbourhood or Community park categories.

2. More information on the QRS scale is provided in Section 4.

4.1.2 Data Collection Procedures Parks were assessed for the QRS using one of two methods:

GIS (desktop study); or

visual assessments (site visits).

Site visits were conducted by non‐technical staff and are not based upon any detailed technical or engineering assessments.

4.1.3 Standardized Condition Rating Scale Table 4‐2 provides a description of the condition rating scale used for the Town’s QRS.

Table 4‐2. Condition Rating Scale

Condition/ Quality Rating Description Action

5 Very Good Condition

Only normal maintenance required.

Well‐secured and operational, sound of function and appearance.

No customer concerns.

Regular maintenance

4 Good Condition

Minor defects only – minor maintenance required (10%).

Operational and functional, minor wear and tear.


Minor repairs/maintenance

3 Moderate Condition

Repairs required to return to accepted level of service – significant maintenance required (10‐30%).

Generally operational, with minor break‐downs.

Minor customer complaints.

Significant repairs/maintenance



Table 4‐2. Condition Rating Scale

Condition/ Quality Rating Description Action

2 Poor Condition

Significant renewal/upgrade required (30‐50%).

Poor quality and appearance, often inoperable and damaged.

Regular customer complaints.

Renew/replace

1 Very Poor Condition

Asset unserviceable – requires replacement (>50%).

Inoperable or damaged.

Not suitable for use by customer.

Replace

4.1.4 Evaluation Categories and Criteria Table 4‐3 provides a summary of the 10 service categories and 23 criteria that were used to evaluate each park, along with the descriptors for each of the 5 quality ratings.



Table 4‐3. Evaluation Categories and Criteria

Service Category Criteria

Quality Rating

1‐star 2‐star 3‐star 4‐star 5‐star

Park Access Parking Model: PN, AN

No parking

On‐site parking unpaved

Nearby parking paved

Model: PC, AC

Lot, paved, on‐site

Lot, paved, lit, on‐site

ATP Connectivity No connectivity N/A Model: PN, AN

Close proximity to ATP (does not touch Park Boundary) (e.g., Carol PK ‐ multi‐use pathway on Ford)

N/A Model: AC, PC

Multiple access points

Park Signage Park Signage None Park ID

Not all required regulatory sign types present or up‐to‐date

No bylaw #, address

May not be up‐to‐date

Park ID

All entrances not signed (regulatory & Park ID)

Existing signs are up‐to‐date

N/A Model: PN, AN, PC, AC

Park ID

All types of regulatory signs

All up‐to‐date

All entrances (all types)

Park Aesthetics – Soft

Tree Canopy None Limited trees

Provide limited shade cover

Model: AC, AN

Randomly placed

Limited canopy

Model: PN, PC

Appropriately placed

Sufficient canopy for use of park

Diversity of species and age

Large canopy cover





Quality Rating


Park Aesthetics – Soft (cont’d)

Horticulture None Model: PN, AN, AC

Shrub bed, no floral

Floral and shrub bed display

N/A Model: PC

Multiple floral and shrub beds

Turf CONDITION ONLY

Park Aesthetics – Hard

Furniture None Inadequate provision Model: PN, AN

Limited provision

Model: PC, AC

Meets provision

Multiple elements

Functional placement

Inconsistent standard

Meets provision Multiple elements

Functional placement

Consistent standard

Decorative Features Model: PN, AN, AC

None

N/A Model: PC

1 or 2 elements

N/A Multiple (more than 2 elements)

Functionality – Activities

Unprogrammed Space

N/A N/A Model: AC, PN, AN

Limited area size (limited or low ratio between open space vs. amenity/activity area)

Model: PC

Large area size(high area ratio between open space vs. amenity/activity area)

No conflict with other amenities or landscape forms

Abundant volume/size (very high area ratio between open space vs. amenity/activity area)

Spacious

No overlap with surroundings


A‐4‐6 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY



Quality Rating


Functionality – Activities (cont’d)

Sports Fields & Courts

Model: PC, PN

None

Model: AN

1 field or court

Not irrigated

Not Lit

Multiple fields (same type) or court

Not all irrigated

Not Lit

Model: AC


All irrigated or artificial turf

Some Lit


All irrigated

May have artificial turf

All Lit

Playgrounds and Splash Pads

Model: PC

None

1 element

Not fully accessible

Sand or pea gravel surfacing

Variety of equipment

Not fully accessible

Sand or pea gravel surfacing

Model: PN, AN, AC


Fully accessible

Upgraded surface


Fully accessible

Upgraded surface

Extras and/or unique features

Functionality – Amenities

Picnic Areas Model: PN, AN, AC

None

Randomly placed picnic tables (not picnic areas)

Model: PC

Multiple picnic tables

Possible universally accessible

Possible BBQ pits available

Permitted picnic areas

Not all picnic areas are sheltered


BBQ pits available

Fully accessible

Permitted picnic areas

Sheltered picnic areas


BBQ pits available

Universally accessible

Hydro availability

Washrooms Model: PN, AN, PC

None

Port‐a‐potties/ outhouses

Seasonal building

May not be universally accessible

Daytime use only

Model: AC

Seasonal building


Daytime use only

All season building


Close proximity to amenities

Extended hours





Quality Rating


Functionality – Amenities (cont’d)

Shelters and Shade Structures

None but has an amenity/activity area that requires it

N/A Model: PN, AN, PC

None but no amenity/activity area that requires it

Model: AC

1 shade structure

Multiple shade structures

Unique Amenities Skate Parks, Stage/Band Shell

Model: PN, AN, PC, AC

None

N/A N/A N/A At least 1 of these elements

Dog Parks Model: PN, AN, PC, AC

None

N/A Designated area

Small in size

Close to other park amenities

Designated area

Small in size

May have shelter

Not close to other park amenities

Water available

Designated area

Large in size

Not close to other park amenities

Has shelter

Puppy area

Water available

Variety of Sports Fields & Courts (more than 1 type)

Model: PN, AN, PC, AC

No variety

N/A N/A N/A Variety (more than 1 type)





Quality Rating


Unique Amenities (cont’d)

Outdoor Rinks Model: PN, AN, PC, AC

None

N/A N/A N/A Outdoor rink

Pathways Pathways None Stone dust/limestone

Not lit

No rest stations

Model: AN, PN, PC, AC

Stone dust/limestone

Not lit

Rest stations

Paved

Not Lit

Rest stations

Paved

Lit throughout

Rest stations

Biodiversity Natural Areas Model: PN, AN, AC

None

N/A Natural areas present

Not signed

N/A Model: PC

Natural areas present

Signed

Service Impact Functionality – Activities

High priority N/A Moderate priority N/A Model: AN, PN, PC, AC

No to low Priority

Functionality – Amenities

High priority N/A Moderate priority N/A Model: AN, PN, PC, AC

No to low Priority





Quality Rating


Service Impact (cont’d)

Shine High shine issue N/A Moderate shine issue N/A Model: AN, PN, PC, AC

No shine issue



4.1.5 Evaluation Weightings Table 4‐4 provides a summary of the weightings attached to the 10 service categories and the 23 criteria.

Table 4‐4. Evaluation Weightings

Service Category Category Weight Criteria

Criteria Weight

Park Access 0.12 Parking 0.65

ATP Connectivity 0.35

Park Signage 0.02 Park Signage 1

Park Aesthetics – Soft 0.07 Tree Canopy 0.3

Horticulture 0.3

Turf 0.4

Park Aesthetics – Hard 0.05 Furniture 0.5

Decorative Features 0.5

Functionality – Activities 0.29 Unprogrammed Space 0.3

Sports Fields & Courts 0.3

Playgrounds and Splash Pads 0.4

Functionality – Amenities 0.22 Picnic Areas 0.3

Washrooms 0.4

Shelters and Shade Structures 0.3

Unique Amenities 0.05 Skate Parks, Stage/Band Shell 0.15

Dog Parks 0.3

Variety of Sports Fields & Courts (more than 1 type)

0.4

Outdoor Rinks 0.15

Pathways 0.16 Pathways 1

Biodiversity 0.02 Natural Areas 1

Service Impact ‐0.2 Functionality – Activities 0.475

Functionality – Amenities 0.475

Shine 0.05



4.2 Parks QRS Benchmarking Figures Figure 4‐1 provides an example of how the 23 evaluation criteria were applied to a single park to derive an overall park quality rating.

Aspen Forest Park, Neighbourhood Park, Zone SE Criteria Provision

Score Condition Score Current Quality Rating = 3.49; Target Quality Rating = 2.64

Parking 4 5

ATP Connectivity 5 ‐‐

Park Signage 3 5

Tree Canopy 5 5

Horticulture 3 ‐‐

Turf ‐‐ 5

Furniture 5 5

Decorative Features 3 5

Unprogrammed Space 3 ‐‐

Sports Fields & Courts 4 5

Playgrounds & Splash Pads 4 5

Picnic Areas 1 1

Washrooms 2 4

Shelters & Shade Structures 1 1

Skate Parks, Stage/Band Shell 1 1

Dog Parks 1 1

Variety of Sports Fields & Courts 1 1

Outdoor Rinks 1 ‐‐

Pathways 3 5

Natural Areas 3 5

Functionality – Activities 5 ‐‐

Functionality – Amenities 5 ‐‐

Shine 3 ‐‐

Figure 4‐1. Example of Quality Rating for a Single Park

Figures 4‐2 to 4‐12 provide a graphical summary of the QRS results for each type of park benchmarked against the target values.



Figure 4‐2. Active Community Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating

Figure 4‐3. Passive Community Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating


CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY A‐4‐13

Figure 4‐4. Community Link Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐5. Major Valley Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐6. Minor Valley Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐7. Tableland Woodlot Parks – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐8. Active Neighbourhood Parks, SE & SW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐9. Active Neighbourhood Parks, NE & NW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐10. Passive Neighbourhood Parks, SE & SW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐11. Passive Neighbourhood Parks, NE & NW – Current Rating vs. Target Rating



Figure 4‐12. Neighbourhood Parks, North of Dundas – Current Rating vs. Target Rating

Appendix A Condition Grade Descriptions

APPENDIX A – CONDITION GRADE DESCRIPTIONS

CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY A‐1

Appendix A – Condition Grade Descriptions Table A‐1 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for roads.

Table A‐1. Condition Grade Scale for Roads

Condition Grade Description

Customer Impact Action

1 Very Good

New construction or recent overlay like new. No longitudinal cracks except minor reflection of paving joints. Occasional transverse cracks (40 feet or greater). All cracks sealed or tight (open less than ¼‐inch)


Only normal maintenance required

2 Good

Very slight or no raveling (loss of fines). Surface shows some traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open ¼‐inch) due to reflection or paving joints. Transverse cracks (open ¼‐inch) spaced 10 or more feet apart, light or slight crack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition.


Routine maintenance, crack sealing and minor patching

3 Fair

Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open ¼‐inch to ½‐inch). Transverse cracks (open ¼‐inch to ½‐inch), some spaced less than 10 feet. First sign of block cracking. Sight to moderate flushing or polishing. Occasional patching in good condition.

Customer is inconvenienced.

Surface repairs, partial‐depth patching

Preservative treatments (sealcoating)

4 Poor

Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate). Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open ½‐inch or more) show first signs of slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracks near pavement edge. Block cracking up to 50% of surface. Extensive to severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging in good condition.

Extensive slab or joint rehabilitation

Structural improvement and leveling (overlay or recycling)

5 Very Poor

Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking with slight raveling. Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Block cracking (over 50% of surface). Patching in fair condition. Slight rutting or distortions (½‐inch deep or less). Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing raveling and crack erosion. Severe block cracking. Some alligator cracking (less than 25% of surface). Patches in fair to poor condition. Moderate rutting or distortion (greater than ½‐inch but less than 2 inches deep). Occasional potholes. Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface). Severe rutting or distortions (2 or more inches deep). Extensive patching in poor condition. Potholes. Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity."

Reconstruction


A‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY

Table A‐2 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for structures.

Table A‐2. Condition Grade Scale for Structures

Condition Grade Description Customer Impact Action

1 Very Good Sound structure. No customer concerns.

Regular maintenance of asset

2 Good Functionally sound structure. Minor maintenance required (10%).


Regular maintenance/repair of asset

3 Fair Adequate structure, some evidence of foundation movement, minor cracking. Significant maintenance required (10‐30%).

No customer concerns OR only minor complaints

Inspect, repair asset

4 Poor Structure functioning but with problem due to foundation movement. Some significant cracking. Significant renewal/upgrade required (30‐50%).

Customer complaints or concerns.

Inspect, repair, replace asset

5 Very Poor Structure has some serious problems and concern is held for the integrity of the structure. Asset requires replacement (50%+).


Replace asset

Table A‐3 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for building interiors.

Table A‐3. Condition Grade Scale for Building Interiors

Condition Grade Description Customer Impact Action

1 Very Good All components operate and are well‐maintained. Sound of function and appearance. Clean. True to line. No evidence of deterioration or discoloration.



2 Good

All components operate. Operational and functional, minor wear and tear. Increased maintenance inspection required. Sound of function. Showing minor wear and tear and minor deterioration of surfaces.

Deterioration causes minimal influence on occupational uses.


3 Fair

Appearance affected by minor cracking, staining or minor leakage. Minor damage to coatings. Some dampness/ mildew. Minor damage to wall/ceiling finishes. Minor breakdowns. Regular programmed maintenance inspections essential.

Some deteriorations may be reflected in minor restrictions on operational uses during minor repairs.


4 Poor Fabric damaged. Weakened or displaced. Appearance affected by cracking, staining or breakdowns. Finishes of poor quality and appearance often damaged.



5 Very Poor

Fabric/finishes badly damaged. Weakened or displaced. Appearance affected by cracking, staining or breakdowns. Finishes badly damaged, marked. Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical components inoperable or unsafe or safety issues that cannot be mitigated.


Replace asset



Table A‐4 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for multiple aspects of a library facility.

Table A‐4. Condition Grade Scale for a Library Facility

Building Aspect Service Criteria

Condition Grade/Description

5 ‐ Very Poor 4 ‐ Poor 3 ‐ Fair 2 ‐ Good 1 ‐ Very Good

Entry and exit Parking – provision and condition

No or severely limited onsite parking and/or widespread physical deterioration of parking lot surface.

The parking lot is typically close to 100% full in off peak hours and users are occasionally required to find offsite parking and/or patches of deterioration of parking lot surface.

Parking lot is typically 80% full in off peak hours. Offsite parking may be required in peak hours. and/or isolated minor deficiency/ deterioration of parking lot surface.

Parking lot is typically 50% full in off peak hours. Offsite parking is seldom required in peak hours. Parking lot surface is generally in good condition with only minor aesthetic deterioration.

There is sufficient parking for all expected users of the facility during peak hours. Users never require to find offsite parking unless in exceptional circumstances. Parking lot surface is in "as new" condition.

Lighting – provision and condition

No lighting in parking lot or entrances or widespread lighting deficiencies.

Lighting only near the entrance of the facility and not throughout the parking areas or patches of lighting deficiencies.

Most of the parking area is illuminated but some areas may rely on external lighting (i.e., from adjacent streets) for lighting. Walkways and entrances have lighting. Only isolated minor lighting deficiency/ deterioration

The vast majority of the parking lot is illuminated by internal and perimeter lighting. Entrance and walkways have lighting. All lighting is fully functional with only minor aesthetic deterioration.

All areas of the parking lot, including walkways and entrances are well illuminated up to best current standards. All lights are fully functional.

Sidewalks/ pathways – provision and condition

Pathways have widespread cracking and uneven areas; and/or Water frequently restricts access; and/or Weeds are growing up through pavement.

Pathways have patches of cracking/uneven areas. Access is sometimes affected by water.

Pathways have some isolated minor deterioration and are only subject to access difficulties during excessive rainfall events.

Pathways are generally in good condition with only minor aesthetic deterioration. Generally free from standing water.

Pathway surfaces are "as new" and are well drained with no standing water.







Curb appeal Landscaping – provision and condition

No landscaping, or >50% of gardens and lawn are taken over by weeds and/or vines; >50% of the turf is damaged or dead; grass is growing over the sidewalks; 50% of shrubs, gardens, ground cover are damaged or dead; trees or shrubs are blocking pathways, access, and/or lines of sight.

Litter is heavily scattered and may include needles, condoms, broken glass, or feces.

More than 40% of the gardens and lawn are free of weeds and vines; 40% or more of the turf is green and free of damage or brown spots; 40% or more of shrubs, gardens, ground cover show no sign of death or damage.

Landscaping impedes pathways or blocks lines of sight.

Litter is heavily scattered but does not include needles, condoms, broken glass or feces.

Landscaping adequate for setting: or 60% of the gardens and lawn are free of weeds and vines; 60% of the turf is green and free of damage or brown spots; 60% of shrubs, gardens, ground cover show no sign of death or damage. 60% of turf area is free of standing water 2 days after a rain or irrigation.

Landscaping does not impede pathways or block lines of sight.

Litter and debris is lightly scattered and limited to 5 pieces visible in a 10 m x 10 m area or 50 m line (no needles, condoms, broken glass, or feces).

80% of the gardens and lawn are free of weeds and vines; 80% of the turf is green and free of damage or brown spots; 80% of shrubs, gardens, ground cover show no sign of death or damage. 80% of turf area is free of standing water 2 days after a rain or irrigation.


Litter and debris is lightly scattered and limited to 5 pieces visible in a 10 m x 10 m area or 50 m line (no needles, condoms, broken glass, or feces).

Landscaping exceeds typical landscaping in similar setting; or gardens and lawn are free of weeds and vines; turf is green and free of brown spots and standing water; shrubs, gardens, ground cover show no sign of death or damage.


Turf is free of litter and debris.







Curb appeal (cont’d)

Visual design/ architecture

No defined entrance way (just a doorway) with no architectural details; no landscaping (no flower beds, shrubs, or planters).

Building is concrete or steel with no paint or brick/stonework; no benches or seating areas.

N/A Building fits in with the surrounding environment; defined entrance way with pathways leading towards it.

Landscaping provides year‐round cover and colour.

Paint or brick/stone work used on the front of the building.

N/A Building fits in with the surrounding environment (i.e., residential area vs downtown). Large, open main entrance; architectural details at the entrance way (archways, columns); creative hardware (hand railings, door handles) and light standards; paint colours are not faded.

Landscaping (use of planters and flower gardens).

Use of different building materials (stones, bricks); landscaped pathways (flagstone); seating areas (picnic tables and benches).

Exterior visual condition

All exterior walls have exterior paint that is fading and peeling; building envelope is damaged (i.e., broken brick or stone work); graffiti covering over 50% of the walls.

Front facade is free of vandalism and graffiti; paint is fading; graffiti is covering over 50% of the remaining exterior walls.

Front facade is free of vandalism and graffiti, and paint is uniform and not chipping or fading, and there is no damage to the envelope. 60% of remaining exterior is free of vandalism and graffiti, and paint chipping.

Front facade is free of vandalism and graffiti, and paint is uniform and not chipping or fading. 80% of remaining exterior is free of vandalism and graffiti, and paint chipping.

All exterior walls: exterior paint is uniform and not chipping or fading. Exterior of building is free of vandalism and graffiti.







General facility condition

Outside of main functional space

Widespread, visible and/or major leaks, drafts or mold.

Some visible areas of significant leaking, drafts, or mold.

Some isolated and relatively minor leaks, drafts or mold. Remainder of envelope is sound.

Only minor deterioration evident with minimal impact on customers.

Envelope is in "as new" condition.

Bldg service – functionality, reliability of air, water and HVAC and electrical

Water and/or air temperature functionality is extremely limited and/or obsolete and/or unpredictable (always at extreme cold or hot); continual hot water issues. Poor electrical connections (inadequate outlets, etc) or broadband and wireless connections significantly hinder service provision.

Water and air temperature functionality is limited and/or aging and can frequently be unreliable. Electrical outlet placement limits space use and broadband and wireless connections are unreliable.

Basic functionality is provided. Water and/or air temp is controllable and reasonably constant; air temp is generally appropriate for each individual room. Electrical outlet placement is adequate and broadband and wireless connections are typically reliable.

Relatively modern system with good functionality. Water and/or air temp is controllable and constant with only minor deficiencies. Air temp is reliably appropriate for each room. Electrical outlet placement does not hinder space use and broadband and wireless connections always reliable.

Top of the range functionality is provided. Water and/or air temperature is controllable and highly reliable; electrical outlets are provided for flexible space use and at desks for laptop users. Broadband and wireless connections are always reliable and perform consistently at high speed

Customer focus Reception areas, foyer

No or minimal foyer. Graffiti on the walls; paint is peeling and chipping.

N/A Smaller foyer with limited seating. Paint is fading but not chipping; no graffiti.

N/A Large well defined foyer; Paint is not fading or chipping; seating is available and clean.

Signage Absent or confusing signage.

There is limited signage but key signs are absent or confusing.

Some signage throughout the library but not clear or consistent.

Signage is adequate throughout the library.

Signage is plentiful, visible, and clear throughout the library. Maps and diagrams are provided where relevant.







Customer focus (cont’d)

Circulation services

Line ups are lengthy or desk is unmanned for extended periods of time. Hold services are not easily accessible; there is no afterhours book return option.

N/A Line ups may form during peak periods but move quickly. Hold pickups are sorted but the pickup area is not easily identifiable or accessible. There is an afterhours book return option available.

N/A Lines are minimal even during peak periods and desks are manned at all times. Self‐checkout options are available. Outside hours return slot is easily accessible. Holds are sorted and readily available for pickup.

Collection way finding

Books are very crowded, layout is confusing, and there are no signs. No information desk is available.

Books are somewhat crowded and signage is inadequate or missing. An information desk is provided but is frequently unmanned for periods greater than 15 minutes.

Basic signage directs users to a general location. Sections of the shelves may be crowded, or the bottom shelf is used (difficult to view). A simple information desk is available and is staffed the majority of the time.

Directional signage is ample and clear. Shelves are full but there are some books displayed that assist with locating certain topics. An information desk is available and staffed.

Way finding signs are present throughout the library, including intermediate signs on shelves. Shelves are not crowded, books are displayed to assist with locating specific topics, and the bottom shelf is not used. An information desk is available and staffed during all open hours.

Functional space Main space – condition

Severe deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Moderate deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Some limited deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Only minor deterioration evident.

“As new” condition.

Main space – size and layout

Space is extremely crowded or undersized for the expected demand based on location, or layout significantly hinders the use of the space.

Space is somewhat crowded and limits the services or collection that can be offered and/or layout is confusing and somewhat restrictive to use of the space.

The variety of services offered is not limited by size; but the size of the collection or scope of the services may be limited by the size or layout of the facility.

The variety and scope of services is not limited by the size or layout of the facility.

Areas are spacious and comfortable and there is purpose dedicated space available for various services.







Functional space (cont’d)

Main space – lighting

Lighting is poor and inconsistent throughout the facility and/or the majority of light fixtures are burnt out or damaged.

Lighting is consistent but dim. Some light fixtures may be burnt out or damaged.

Level of lighting is adequate and very few fixtures are burnt out or broken.

Light level is bright and is enhanced with natural light. None of the light fixtures are damaged and burnt out lights are replaced quickly.

Overall light level is as per Grade 2, with the additional option of user controlled lights in work spaces

Functional amenities

Furniture – provision

Very little to no furniture provided.

Some very basic furniture provided; or furniture is inadequate for demand.

Minimum amount of furniture provided for expected use. Amount of furniture may not satisfy

Furniture meets demands including during peak periods. Furniture is fit for purpose and a variety of furniture is available.

Furniture is provided that meets all the capacity and service demands of the facility.

Furniture – condition

Condition significantly hinders use of furniture.

Furniture is in poor visible condition (tears, cracks, graffiti, significant chipping paint) but condition does not hinder use.

Furniture is in adequate condition. Some signs of wear but no significant damage visible.

Furniture appears to be in good condition.

Furniture is “as new”.

Computers and connectivity

Computers are not provided or are not in working condition.

Limited computers available and/or age and condition of computers hinders service provision.

Some computers are available for catalogue and internet services. Computers are operational.

A reasonable number of computers are provided to meet demand for internet and catalogue services. Computers are in good condition and run well.

Computers are provided for internet, catalogue services, and other creation services such as PrintShop, PhotoShop, MS Office, etc. Computers are “as new”.







Additional amenities and services

Provision No additional amenities. Core function only.

Some ancillary services but predominantly core function (e.g., basic print services, micro media services, or vending machines/catering).

A limited set of additional amenities with focus still remaining on the core function.

A varied set of additional amenities with balance between core and other functions.

A comprehensive suite of different amenities (concessions, meeting rooms, micro media services, play/game areas, etc.); each amenity with its own clearly designated space; large space that can accommodate groups.

Condition Severe deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Moderate deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Some limited deterioration of paintwork, flooring and equipment.

Only minor deterioration evident.

"As new" condition.

Green space No green space provided. N/A Some green space provided.

N/A Outdoor use spaces catering to several uses (e.g., picnic areas, play areas, etc.)

Public washrooms

Provision No or severely limited public washroom provision (e.g., one small common use washroom).

Limited separate washroom facilities (e.g., one small mens and one small ladies washroom). Wait times can be significant during peak hours.

Generally adequate washrooms; separate washrooms for men and women but no family washrooms or dedicated disabled washrooms. Wait times are minimal with only occasional peak hours waiting.

Washrooms are generally more than adequate. Separate multiple stalls for men, women and families/disabled. Seldom have to wait.

Separate and spacious mens, ladies, family and disabled washrooms. Waits are very rare.

Condition Toilets, urinals, and sinks are stained, aged and/or dirty. Widespread graffiti on the walls and facilities; paint is badly faded and chipping.

Toilets, urinals and sinks show some staining and aging. Paint is moderately faded and chipping/ peeling. Patches of graffiti.

Toilets, urinals, sinks, diaper changing facilities are generally clean but aged. No significant graffiti. Paint is faded but not chipping or peeling.

Washrooms only show minor deterioration.

Washrooms are “as new”.







Shine/ impressions

General aesthetics The overall visual impression is of a facility that is "long past its sell by date".

The overall visual impression is of a facility that is "in its twilight years".

The overall visual impression is of a facility that is "nothing special" or "adequate".

The overall visual impression is of a facility that is "smart and relatively modern".

The overall visual impression is of a facility that is "modern, vibrant and welcoming".

General cleanliness

Cleanliness regularly falls below the minimum acceptable standards.

Cleanliness sometimes falls below minimum acceptable standards.

Cleanliness consistently meets minimum acceptable standards.

Cleanliness is frequently above minimum acceptable standards.

Cleanliness is consistently above minimum acceptable standards.

Provision of art, plants, displays, etc.

No additional decorations provided or decorations in very poor condition.

N/A Some plants, art pieces, and other decorations improve the ambiance of the room.

N/A Inside of the facility is well‐decorated and decorations are in excellent condition. Decorations contribute significantly to the ambiance of the room.

Ambient noise Ambient noise significantly detracts from the experience in each of the purpose areas. This includes loud noises from adjoining areas, mechanical equipment, or poor sound insulation.

N/A Some undesirable ambient noise is noticeable but it does not detract from the overall experience.

N/A Rooms are well insulated and the ambient noise is appropriate for the use of the room.



Table A‐5 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for sports fields.

Table A‐5. Condition Grade Scale for Sports Fields

Condition Grade Description

Customer Impact Action

1 Very Good Well‐maintained sports field meeting standard requirements, visible signs of physical treatment and no signs of usage, good drainage not limiting usage. No work required.



2 Good

Sports field showing slight signs of defects and deterioration, 70% of field shows visible signs of physical treatment and limited signs of usage with limited drainage problems infrequently affecting use. Deterioration has no significant impact on the field’s appearance, user comfort or safety. No work required.



3 Fair

Sports field generally sound but showing minor defects with 50% of field showing visible signs of physical treatment, minor signs of usage and water ponding temporarily but frequently. Some deterioration beginning to affect the field’s appearance, user comfort or safety. Some work required.

Periodic customer complaints.


4 Poor

Sports field has significant defects, with 40% of field showing visible signs of physical treatment, significant signs of usage and poor drainage limiting use for extended periods. Defects likely to cause a marked deterioration in the field’s appearance, user comfort or safety. Some renovation needed within 1 year.



5 Very Poor

Sports field has serious defects, with no visible signs of physical treatment, obvious signs of usage and water ponding over >30% of surface which precludes use. Defects resulting in unacceptable appearance, user comfort and safety. Urgent renovation and/or upgrading required.


Replace asset

Table A‐6 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale interpreted for three types of condition including physical condition, demand condition, and functional condition.

Table A‐6. Condition Grade Scale for Physical, Demand, and Functional Condition

Condition Grade

Description

Physical Condition Demand Condition Functional Condition

1 Very Good

The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention.

Demand corresponds well with actual capacity and no operational problems experienced.

The infrastructure in the system or network meets all program/service delivery needs in a fully efficient and effective manner.

2 Good

The infrastructure in the system or network is in good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

Demand is within actual capacity and occasional operational problems experienced.

The infrastructure in the system or network meets program/service delivery needs in an acceptable manner.



Table A‐6. Condition Grade Scale for Physical, Demand, and Functional Condition

Condition Grade

Description

Physical Condition Demand Condition Functional Condition

3 Fair

The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

Demand is approaching actual capacity and/or operational problems occur frequently.

The infrastructure in the system or network meets program/service delivery needs with some inefficiencies and ineffectiveness present.

4 Poor

The infrastructure in the system or network is in poor condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration.

Demand exceeds actual capacity and/or significant operational problems are evident.

The infrastructure in the system or network has a limited ability to meet program/service delivery needs.

5 Very Poor

The infrastructure in the system or network is in unacceptable condition with widespread signs of advanced deterioration. Many components in the system exhibit signs of imminent failure, which is affecting service.

Demand exceeds actual capacity and/or operational problems are serious and ongoing.

The infrastructure in the system or network is seriously deficient and does not meet program/service delivery needs and is neither efficient nor effective.

Table A‐7 shows the NIRC 5‐point condition scale adapted for three general asset performance criteria: capacity, functionality, and efficiency.

Table A‐7. Condition Grade Scale for Performance Criteria

Criteria Sub‐Criteria 1 ‐ Very Good 2 ‐ Good 3 ‐ Fair 4 ‐ Poor 5 ‐ Very Poor

Capacity Capacity Meets current and future capacity needs within planning horizon.

N/A Meets current capacity needs but not future without modifications.

Some capacity issues evident (e.g., operating at >80% rated capacity).

Does not meet current capacity requirements (e.g., operating at >90% rated capacity).

Reliability

100% (no days out of service).

99% (up to 7 days out of service per year).

96‐99% (up to 14 days out of service per year).

92‐96% (up to 30 days out of service per year).

Less than 92% (over 30 days out of service per year).

Functionality Obsolescence Best available technology.

Industry standard technology.

Technology considered appropriate.

Technology nearing obsolescence (no vendor support or OEM parts available).

Technology obsolete (replacement parts unavailable).

Resource consumption

100% of baseline efficiency.

91‐100% of baseline efficiency.



Less than 50% of baseline efficiency.



Table A‐7. Condition Grade Scale for Performance Criteria

Criteria Sub‐Criteria 1 ‐ Very Good 2 ‐ Good 3 ‐ Fair 4 ‐ Poor 5 ‐ Very Poor

Efficiency O&M uses Rarely (annual or less).

Very infrequently (quarterly).

Infrequent (monthly).

Frequent (weekly).

Very frequent (>weekly).

Maintenance Minimal reactive maintenance costs (e.g., <25% of replacement costs in previous 24 months).

Moderate reactive maintenance costs (e.g., 25% of replacement costs in previous 12 months).

Significant reactive maintenance costs (e.g., 25‐50% of replacement costs in previous 12 months).

Substantial reactive maintenance costs (e.g., >50% of replacement costs in previous 24 months).

Excessive reactive maintenance costs (e.g., >50% of replacement costs in previous 12 months).

Appendix D State of Infrastructure Report for Facilities, Fleet and Equipment

State of Infrastructure Report for the Facilities, Fleet and Equipment Asset Classes

Prepared for

Town of Oakville

December 2017

CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road, Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario M2J 1R3 T: 416.499.9000 F: 416.499.4687

SL1128171045TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY III


Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1‐1

Data Sources and Data Confidence ........................................................................................................... 2‐1

State of Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Asset Inventory ................................................................................................................ 3‐1

3.1.1 Facilities and Related Equipment ....................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.2 Transit ................................................................................................................. 3‐2 3.1.3 Fleet .................................................................................................................... 3‐3

3.2 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.2.1 Facilities and related Equipment ........................................................................ 3‐5 3.2.2 Transit and related equipment including Facilities............................................. 3‐8 3.2.3 Fleet Services .................................................................................................... 3‐10

3.3 Asset Age and Useful Life ............................................................................................... 3‐15 3.3.1 Facilities ............................................................................................................ 3‐16 3.3.2 Transit ............................................................................................................... 3‐16 3.3.3 Fleet .................................................................................................................. 3‐21

3.4 Asset Condition .............................................................................................................. 3‐25 3.4.1 Facilities ............................................................................................................ 3‐27 3.4.2 Transit ............................................................................................................... 3‐30 3.4.3 Fleet .................................................................................................................. 3‐33 3.4.4 Summary Asset Condition ................................................................................. 3‐37

Tables

Table 2‐1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 2‐1

Table 2‐2. Data Confidence Scale .............................................................................................................. 2‐2

Table 3.1‐1. Types of Assets in the Three Asset Classes ............................................................................ 3‐1

Table 3.1‐2. Asset Inventory for Facilities Assets and Equipment Asset Classes ....................................... 3‐1

Table 3.1‐3. Asset Inventory in Transit ...................................................................................................... 3‐2

Table 3.1‐4. Asset Inventory for Fleet ........................................................................................................ 3‐3

Table 3.2‐1. Asset Inventory in Facilities ................................................................................................... 3‐5

Table 3.2‐2. Asset Inventory for Transit ..................................................................................................... 3‐8

Table 3.3‐1. Facilities Assets by Condition Rating .................................................................................... 3‐16

Table 3.3‐2. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for Facilities Assets ........................................................... 3‐18

Table 3.3‐3. Age and Useful Life of Assets for Transit ............................................................................. 3‐19

Table 3.3‐4. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for Transit Assets .............................................................. 3‐20

Table 3.3‐5. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Fleet ............................................................................ 3‐21

CONTENTS

Section Page

IV CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY

Table 3.3‐6. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for the Fleet Assets ........................................................... 3‐25

Table 3.4‐1 CIRC 5‐ Point Scale for Rating Asset Condition ..................................................................... 3‐25

Table 3.4‐2. Summary of the Distribution of the Condition Grades within each of the Three Asset Classes ......................................................................................................................................... 3‐27

Table 3.4‐4. Data Confidence in Facilities Asset Condition Data ............................................................. 3‐29

Table 3.4‐5. Transit Assets by Condition .................................................................................................. 3‐30

Table 3.4‐6. Data Confidence in Transit Asset Condition Data ................................................................ 3‐32

Table 3.4‐7. Fleet Assets Condition Summary ......................................................................................... 3‐33

Table 3.4‐13. Data Confidence in Fleet Asset Condition Data ................................................................. 3‐37

Figures

Figure 2‐1. Data Confidence Bar Example ................................................................................................. 2‐2

Figure 3.2‐1. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values Facilities Network excluding Parks, Recreation and Libraries Major Buildings. ...................................................................................................... 3‐7

Figure 3.2‐2. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values Facilities and related equipment by Customer type. .............................................................................................................................................. 3‐8

Figure 3.2‐3. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in Transit ........................................................... 3‐9

Figure 3.2‐4. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in Transit ......................................................... 3‐10

Figure 3.2‐5. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets ................................................. 3‐13

Figure 3.2‐6. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets Excluding Heavy Trucks ......... 3‐14

Figure 3.2‐7. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets by Customer. .......................... 3‐15

Figure 3.3‐1. Ranked Useful Lives of Facilities Assets. ............................................................................ 3‐17

Figure 3.3‐2. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for Facilities. ..................................... 3‐18

Figure 3.3‐3. Ranked Useful Lives of Transit Assets ................................................................................. 3‐20

Figure 3.3‐4. Ranked Useful Lives of Fleet Assets .................................................................................... 3‐23

Figure 3.3‐5. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for Fleet Assets .................................. 3‐24

Figure 3.4‐1. Average Overall Condition of the Three Asset Networks on the CIRC Scale ...................... 3‐26

3‐26

Figure 3.4‐2. Average Condition of each of the Three Asset Classes on the CIRC Scale .......................... 3‐26

Figure 3.4‐3. Distribution of Condition Grades by TCA Replacement Value of Facilities Assets ............. 3‐27

Figure 3.4‐4. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for Facilities by Customer Level. ..................... 3‐28

Figure 3.4‐5. Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in Facilities ..................................... 3‐29

CONTENTS

Section Page

SL1128171045TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY V

Figure 3.4‐6. Distribution of Condition Grades in Transit ........................................................................ 3‐30

Figure 3.4‐7. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for the Transit Assets. ..................................... 3‐31

Figure 3.4‐8. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition for Transit Assets .............. 3‐31

Figure 3.4‐9. Distribution of Condition Grades in for Fleet Assets .......................................................... 3‐33

Figure 3.4‐10. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for Fleet by Customer ................................... 3‐35

Figure 3.4‐11 Distribution of Condition Grades in for Fleet Assets by Customer Type ........................... 3‐36

Figure 3.4‐12. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition for Fleet .......................... 3‐36

Figure 3.4‐14. Relative Value of Assets in Overall “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in Each Asset Network ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3.4‐15. Benchmarking Oakville against the CIRC 2016 Results for Recreation, Culture, and Library Assets .......................................................................................................................................... 3‐37

Figure 3.4‐16. Benchmarking Oakville against the CIRC 2016 Results for Sports and Recreation Assets ... 3‐38

SL1128171045TOR CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY VII

Acronyms and Abbreviations ATV All‐Terrain Vehicle

CIRC Canadian Infrastructure Report Card

CIS Corporate Information System

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities

GIS Geographical Information System

JDE J.D. Edwards (work management system)

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PSAB Public Sector Accounting Board

QRS Quality Rating System

SOIR State of Infrastructure Report

TCA Tangible Capital Assets



Introduction The Town of Oakville (the Town) owns a sizable portfolio of assets, which vary significantly in terms of their function, age, durability, and many other factors. The purpose of this State of Infrastructure Report (SOIR) is to provide a summary of the key physical attributes and current physical state of the asset portfolio relating to three of the following three asset classes ‐ Facilities, Equipment and Fleet (with a breakdown on Transit). Please keep in mind that this only provides information about the physical asset and not whether it is meeting service provision.

The following sections present the Town’s available data on the assets within the Facilities, Equipment and Fleet (with a breakdown on Transit) including data of asset inventory, asset valuation, asset age and useful life, and asset condition. The data presented represents a snapshot in time and is current to 2016.


Data Sources and Data Confidence Table 2‐1 summarizes the data sources/IT systems that were used for the basis of this SOIR.



Capital Asset Management System (CIS, ERP System)

Tag Number

Type/Size

Age


Replacement Value

Work Order History

All operational maintenance tasks are captured in the CIS, with the following exceptions: capital maintenance is not entirely captured; and failure mode is not consistently and accurately utilized and captured. Pooled assets need to be componentized into individual assets in both GIS and CAM systems. The Asset Management Office is currently in the process of componentizing pooled assets. The Towns’s current Work Order practice varies by asset groups. Fleet including Transit have Work order history and cost is available to support the asset whole life cycle. This includes

On selected assets, tracking all hours and material costs associated with work order;

Indicating cause of failure on corrective work orders; and

Documenting resolution/intervention applied.

CAM data was used and selected work order data was utilized in this SOIR.

Condition Assessment (CIS, CAM)

Age


Condition

Risk

Remediation Cost

Captures a full inventory of assets, their condition and expected service life; some asset subclasses do not have a physical condition assessment completed so in this case the condition was calculated using remaining useful life. The goal is to have physical conditions completed on all assets that are within the 5 to 7 year forecast.

Condition data was used, where available.

Financial System (CIS)

Depreciated Value for Tangible Capital Assets (TCA)

Depreciated value of assets is not directly used for infrastructure renewal planning since many long‐lived assets will have been fully depreciated, yet remain in use across the system. Rather, market replacement value is used.

2016 market replacement costs were used.

The quality of data used in this SOIR varies depending on the source(s) for the data. To aid in the interpretation of this SOIR, a data confidence rating in terms of reliability and accuracy of the data is used throughout.

The data confidence rating scales, defined in Table 2‐2, are used to support the rating, with confidence based on the lower of the reliability and accuracy ratings.


Table 2‐2. Data Confidence Scale

Measure Description

Rating

High Moderate Low

Reliability Can be trusted to be accurate or to provide a correct result

Based upon sound records, procedures, or analyses that have been acceptably documented and are recognized as the best method of assessment

Based upon known reasonable procedures or analyses that have been acceptably documented

Based upon expert verbal opinion or cursory inspections/ observations

Accuracy Probable difference between a recorded parameter and its true value

+/− 1% +/− 10% +/− 50%

Figure 2‐1 shows an example of a data confidence bar used in this SOIR, where accuracy is denoted on the top of the bar and reliability is denoted on the bottom.

Figure 2‐1. Data Confidence Bar Example


State of Infrastructure The Town of Oakville owns a sizable portfolio of assets, which vary significantly in terms of their function, attributes, age, durability, and condition. This report provides a summary of the key attributes and current physical state of the Town’s assets for Facilities, Transit, and Fleet.

3.1 Asset Inventory Table 3.1‐1 includes a summary breakdown of the asset types covered by this SOIR.

Table 3.1‐1. Types of Assets in the Three Asset Classes

Asset Classes Asset Types Data

Confidence

Facilities and Related Equipment Asset Class

Major and Minor Buildings and Services, fitness equipment, library collections, large, generators, and small equipment.

Medium ‐ High

Transit Assets Transit equipment, transit service vehicles, heavy trucks, care‐a‐vans, and conventional busses, bus shelters, and transit facilities.

High

Fleet Asset Class Fire Trucks, Heavy Trucks, All Terrain Vehicles (ATV), Tractor, Light Auto/ Trucks, Heavy Trucks, Ice Resurfacers, boats, small tools small equipment, heavy construction equipment, specialized municipal equipment, blowers and vacuums, sanders, portable generators, trailers, small equipment, vehicle attachments, road sweepers, chippers, mowers, trailers, and cranes.

High

The overall data confidence for the asset inventory used in the SOIR is considered to be “high” since the asset inventory has been fully articulated for TCA reporting purposes and has been audited.

Facilities and fleet have the most variety of assets, providing services for different departments within the Town of Oakville. Because of this the asset types are summarized into service categories.

3.1.1 Facilities and Related Equipment Facilities and related equipment include 23 different asset types, with five different customer categories; Fire, Support Facilities (Operation Depots, Town hall), Parking, Parks and Open Spaces, and Recreation, Culture, and Libraries. Parks and Open Spaces include the Town of Oakville’s Greenhouses and Harbours. Recreation, Culture, and Libraries include the Town’s arenas, community centers, art galleries, museums, heritage facilities, pools, and recreation complexes.

Table 3.1‐2. Asset Inventory for Facilities Assets and Equipment Asset Classes

Category Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016)

Fire Services

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 5,708

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 69,530

Fire Equipment Each 564

Bunker Gear Each 757

Other Equipment Each 48

Small Tools Pooled 10

Support and Operations Facilities



Table 3.1‐2. Asset Inventory for Facilities Assets and Equipment Asset Classes



Hoists and Cranes Each 7

Parking Services


Pay and Display Machines Each 44

Parks and Open Spaces (including Harbours)

Dockage and Ramp System 2 Pooled 8



Hoists and Cranes Each 2

Recreation, Culture, and Libraries

Fitness Equipment Mixed units 110

Library Collections 2 Pooled 10

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 1,204,533

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 33,675.00

Performing Arts Equipment Each 30

Facility Maintenance Equipment Each 9

Note: 1 Minor Buildings are classified as any buildings under 12,000 feet. 2 All Pooled items are pooled on a yearly basis

3.1.2 Transit Table 3.1‐3 provides a list of the 9 different asset types, with 4 categories.

Table 3.1‐3. Asset Inventory in Transit Category Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016)

Passenger Vehicles

Care‐A‐Van Each 18

Conventional Bus Each 97

Support Vehicles

Transit Supervisor Vehicle Each 2

Transit Service Vehicle Each 4

Heavy Truck Each 3

Equipment

Fitness Equipment Mix unit 14

Transit Equipment Each 100

Structures



Table 3.1‐3. Asset Inventory in Transit Category Asset Type Unit of Measure Quantity (2016)

Transit Shelters Each 189

3.1.3 Fleet Table 3.1‐4 provides a list of the 63 asset types that are captured in the Town’s asset inventory for Fleet, categorized by the department who uses the asset. Fleet customers include; Fire Services, Parking Services, Parks and Open Spaces, Recreation, Culture, and Libraries, and Works Operations.

Table 3.1‐4. Asset Inventory for Fleet


Fire Services

ATVs Each 2

Generators Each 1

Heavy Trucks Each 7

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment Each 17

Light Auto/Trucks Each 27

Mowers Each 1

Small Equipment Each 2

Small Tools Each 4

Tractors Each 4

Trailers Each 1

Parking

Light Auto/Truck Each 2

Small Tools Each 1

Parks and Open Spaces

ATVs Each 12

Blower or Vacuum Each 6

Boats Each 5

Chippers Each 10

Cranes Each 1

Generators Each 7

Heavy Equipment Each 13

Heavy Trucks Each 13


Heavy Truck Specialized Each 33

Light Auto/Trucks Each 32

Mowers Each 50

Sanders Each 1


Small Tools Each 285


Table 3.1‐4. Asset Inventory for Fleet Specialized Municipal Each 4 Tractors Each 19

Trailers Each 84

Vehicle Attachments Each 47

Recreation Culture and Libraries

Scissor Lifts Each 1

Small Tools Each 6

Ice Edger Each 14

Trailers Each 3

Ice Resurfacers Each 13

Roads and Works Operations

ATV Each 3

Blower or Vacuum Each 11

Chippers Each 1

Cranes Each 2

Generator Each 17

Heavy Equipment Each 18

Heavy Truck Each 15


Heavy Truck Specialized Each 20

Light Auto/Truck Each 34

Sanders Each 10


Small Tools Each 100

Specialized Municipal Each 11

Sweepers, Road Each 3

Tractor Each 2

Trailers Each 27

Vehicle Attachments Each 36


3.2 Asset Valuation Under the Public‐Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Standard PS 3150, local governments are required to summarize and present information regarding their tangible capital assets (TCA) and amortization in financial statements based on historical costs.

While the depreciated value does provide an indicator of the extent to which an asset life has been consumed, it is typically not used for asset management planning purposes as it is not representative for all asset types, particularly long‐lived assets.

All replacement values are based on the cost to replace the asset with an asset of the same functionality and capacity. Therefore, no growth, technology change, or enhancement assumptions are included in the costs. Market values are based on the cost of the material and the cost to design, build and install. Replacement values include mark‐ups such as engineering design and contingency. Actual costs to replace assets may vary from the replacement values used, based on variables such as land acquisition, legal fees and technology changes.

The total replacement value of all assets covered within this SOIR is estimated at $710,681,694 (2016).

The Facilities and related equipment has the largest replacement value ($530 million) and represents nearly 75% of the asset value in this SOIR. The replacement value for transit and fleet assets are 18% and 7% respectively.

3.2.1 Facilities and related Equipment The estimated replacement value of the Facilities and related equipment assets owned by the Town is $530,001,491 (2016). The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐2.

Table 3.2‐1. Asset Inventory in Facilities

Asset ID Asset Type Unit of Measure

Quantity (2016)

Replacement Value

% of Facilities Services

Replacement Value

Fire Services

Fire Equipment Each 482 $1,981,040 0.37%

Other Equipment Each 48 $2,170,771 0.04%

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 5708 $1,730,915 0.33%

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 69,530.70 $16,753,941 3.16%

Small Tools Each 10 $164,121 0.03%

Support and Operations Facilities

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 136,008 $65,605,024 12.35%

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 41138 $5,535,057 1.04%

Hoists and Cranes Each 7 $554,602 0.10%

Parking

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 89,165 $2,487,408 0.47%

Pay and Display Machines Each 44 $491,212 0.09%


Table 3.2‐1. Asset Inventory in Facilities


Quantity (2016)

Replacement Value

% of Facilities Services

Replacement Value


Dockage and Ramp System Each 8 $1,281,825 0.24%

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 13,589 $2,412,883 0.45%

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 32017 $9,565,262 1.80%

Hoists and Cranes Each 2 $15,475 0.00%


Fitness Equipment Each 110 $754,961 0.14%

Library Collections Pool/Each 10 $7,776,480 1.46%

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 1,204,533 $401,372,107 75.59%

Minor Buildings and Services sq. ft. 33,675.00 $10,212,277 1.92%

Performing Arts Equipment Each 30 $ 733,334 0.14%

Small Equipment Each 37 $ 106,263 0.02%


Major buildings for the Recreation, Culture and Libraries Facilities represent the greatest replacement cost at over $400 million dollars. Figure 3.2.1 shows the distribution of assets excluding the Recreation, Culture, and Libraries Facilities to better represent the value of the other assets.



Figure 3.2‐1. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values Facilities Network excluding Parks, Recreation and Libraries Major Buildings.

$(1,000,000)

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$7,000,000

$9,000,000

$11,000,000

$13,000,000

$15,000,000

$17,000,000

Fire Equipment Other Equipment Major Buildings Minor Buildings Small Equipment Small Tools Minor Buildings Hoists andCranes

Minor Buildings Pay and DisplayMachines

Dockage andRamp System

Major Buildings Minor Buildings Hoists andCranes

FitnessEquipment

LibraryCollections

Minor Buildings Performing ArtsEquipment

Small Equipment

Fire Support and Operations Facilities Parking Parks and Open Spaces Recreation, Culture, and Libraries



Figure 3.2.2 Identifies the asset replacement value by customer type. As illustrated Recreation, Culture, and Library Facilities represent the largest replacement cost for Facilities.

Figure 3.2‐2. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values Facilities and related equipment by Customer type.

3.2.2 Transit and related equipment including Facilities The estimated replacement value of assets in Transit owned by the Town is $127,885,191 (2016). The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐2.

Table 3.2‐2. Asset Inventory for Transit


Replacement Value

% of Transit Assets Replacement Value

Passenger Vehicles

Care‐A‐Van Each 18 $4,041,396 3.16%

Conventional Bus Each 97 $49,201,213 38.47%

Support Vehicles

Transit Supervisor Vehicle Each 2 $61,160 0.05%

Transit Service Vehicle Each 4 $237,000 0.19%

Fire , $20,817,848

Support and Operations Facilities,

$72,207,310 Parking, $2,978,621

Parks and Open Spaces,

$13,275,445

Recreation, Culture, and Libraries, $374,410,769


Table 3.2‐2. Asset Inventory for Transit


Replacement Value

% of Transit Assets Replacement Value

Heavy Truck 3 $225,000 0.18%

Equipment

Fitness Equipment Each 14 $58,287 0.05%

Transit Equipment Each 100 $3,214,666 2.51%

Structures

Major Buildings and Services sq. ft. 265,109 $47,740,417$ 37.33%

Transit Shelters Each 189 $23,106,049 18.07%


Conventional buses and major transit facilities represent the greatest portion of Transit’s asset replacement value at 38% and 37% respectively.

Figure 3.2‐3. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in Transit

$‐

$10,000,000.00

$20,000,000.00

$30,000,000.00

$40,000,000.00

$50,000,000.00

$60,000,000.00

Care‐A‐Van ConventionalBus

TransitSupervisorVehicle

TransitServiceVehicle

Heavy Truck FitnessEquipment

TransitEquipment

MajorBuildings

TransitShelters

Passenger Vehicles Support Vehicles Equipment Structures


Figure 3.2‐4. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values in Transit

3.2.3 Fleet Services The estimated replacement value of the Fleet assets owned by the Town is $52,795,012 (2016). The breakdown is summarized in Table 3.2‐4.

Table 3.2‐3. Asset Inventory and Replacement Value for Fleet and equipment


Current Quantity Replacement Value % of Fleet Services

Replacement Value Fire Services

Special All‐Terrain Vehicle Each 2 $ 89,000.00 0.17%

Generator Each 1 $ 15,135.00 0.03%

Heavy Truck Each 7 $ 1,553,413.42 2.94%

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment Each 17 $ 14,521,856.14 27.51%

Light Auto/Truck 27 $ 933,911.26 1.77%

Small Equipment Each 2 $ 7,225.45 0.01%

Small Tools Pool/Each $ 755,956.90 1.43%

Tractor Each 1 $ 15,000.00 0.03%

Trailers Each 2 $ 16,923.12 0.03%

Parking

Light Auto/Truck Each 6 $ 179,833.56 0.34%

Small Tools Each 1 $ 500.00 0.00%


Passenger Vehicles, $53,242,610

Support Vehicles, $523,161 Equipment,

$3,272,955

Structures, $70,846,466


ATV Each 12 $ 463,538.06 0.88%

Blower or Vacuum Each 6 $ 18,984.90 0.04%

Boat Each 5 $ 224,893.30 0.43%

Chippers Each 10 $ 657,107.34 1.24%

Cranes Each 1 $ 270,000.00 0.51%

Generator Each 7 $ 15,595.93 0.03%

Heavy Equipment Each 13 $ 1,013,569.68 1.92%

Heavy Truck Each 13 $ 933,000.00 1.77%

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachments 6 $ 1,609,000.00 3.05%

Heavy Truck Specialized Each 33 $ 2,843,572.29 5.39%

Light Auto/Truck 32 $ 1,351,193.66 2.56%

Mower Each 50 $ 2,181,803.90 4.13%

Sanders Each 1 $ 27,933.12 0.05%


Small Tools Each 285 $ 166,808.14 0.32%

Specialized Municipal Each 4 $ 125,605.65 0.24%

Tractor Each 19 $ 1,369,590.57 2.59%

Trailers Each 84 $ 1,303,154.77 2.47%

Vehicle Attachments Each 47 $ 479,895.52 0.91%


Scissor Lift Each 1 $ 14,163.53 0.03%

Small Tools Each 6 $ 9,953.39 0.02%

Ice Edger Each 14 $ 75,651.90 0.14%

Trailers Each 3 $ 88,738.80 0.17%

Ice Resurfacer Each 13 $ 1,285,646.80 2.44%


ATV Each 3 $ 56,000.00 0.11%

Blower or Vacuum Each 11 $ 893,832.12 1.69%

Chippers Each 1 $ 89,425.86 0.17%

Cranes Each 2 $ 157,091.37 0.30%

Generator Each 17 $ 29,865.94 0.06%

Heavy Equipment Each 18 $ 2,705,887.97 5.13%

Heavy Truck Each 15 $ 1,985,575.19 3.76%

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachments Each 17 $ 4,434,837.95 8.40%

Heavy Truck Specialized Each 20 $ 1,766,424.31 3.35%

Light Auto/Truck Each 34 $ 886,894.41 1.68%

Sanders Each 10 $ 739,866.34 1.40%


Small Tools Each 100 $ 70,963.15 0.13%

Specialized Municipal Each 11 $ 1,167,219.89 2.21%

Sweepers, Road Each 3 $ 1,149,668.81 2.18%

Tractor Each 2 $ 306,000.00 0.58%

Trailers Each 26 $ 771,391.36 1.46%


Vehicle Attachments Each 36 $ 393,149.89 0.74%


The fire trucks represent the single largest portion (27.51%) of the asset replacement value in Fleet. In order to illustrate the range of values, Figure 3.2‐7 provides a graphical summary of the distribution of replacement values of the asset types in Fleet. Figure 3.2‐8 shows the same summary excluding the fire trucks for a better illustration of how the other assets are distributed.



Figure 3.2‐5. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets

$‐

$2,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$12,000,000.00

$14,000,000.00

ATV

Generator

Heavy Truck

Heavy Truck with

Spe

cialized

Attachm

ent

Light A

uto/Truck

Mow

erSm

all Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsTractor

Trailers

Light A

uto/Truck

Small Too

lsAT

VBlow

er or V

acuu

mBo

atCh

ippe

rsCranes

Generator

Heavy Eq

uipm

ent

Heavy Truck

Heavy Truck with

Spe

cialized

Attachm

ent

Heavy Truck Specialized

Light A

uto/Truck

Mow

erSand

ers

Small Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsSpecialized

Mun

icipal

Tractor

Trailers

Vehicle Attachmen

tsScissor Lift

Small Too

lsIce Ed

ger

Trailers

Ice Re

surfacer

ATV

Blow

er or V

acuu

mCh

ippe

rsCranes

Generator

Heavy Eq

uipm

ent

Heavy Truck

Heavy Truck with

Spe

cialized

Attachm

ent


Light A

uto/Truck

Sand

ers

Small Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsSpecialized

Mun

icipal

Sweepers, Road

Tractor

Trailers

Vehicle Attachmen

ts

Fire Services Parking Parks and Open Spaces Recreation Culture and Libraries Works Operations


Figure 3.2‐6. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets Excluding Heavy Trucks

$‐

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$3,500,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$4,500,000.00

ATV

Generator

Heavy Truck

Light A

uto/Truck

Mow

erSm

all Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsTractor

Trailers

Light A

uto/Truck

Small Too

lsAT

VBlow

er or V

acuu

mBo

atCh

ippe

rsCranes

Generator

Heavy Eq

uipm

ent

Heavy Truck

Heavy Truck with

Spe

cialized

Attachm

ent


Light A

uto/Truck

Mow

erSand

ers

Small Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsSpecialized

Mun

icipal

Tractor

Trailers

Vehicle Attachmen

tsScissor Lift

Small Too

lsIce Ed

ger

Trailers

Ice Re

surfacer

ATV

Blow

er or V

acuu

mCh

ippe

rsCranes

Generator

Heavy Eq

uipm

ent

Heavy Truck

Heavy Truck with

Spe

cialized

Attachm

ent


Light A

uto/Truck

Sand

ers

Small Equ

ipment

Small Too

lsSpecialized

Mun

icipal

Sweepers, Road

Tractor

Trailers

Vehicle Attachmen

ts

Fire Services Parking Parks and Open Spaces Recreation Culture and Libraries Works Operations


Figure 3.2‐9 below outlines the distribution of asset replacement costs for Fleet according to customer type. As illustrated below the customers with the greatest asset value are Fire and Roads and Works Operations.

Figure 3.2‐7. Distribution of Asset Replacement Values of Fleet Assets by Customer.

3.3 Asset Age and Useful Life For many assets, the estimated remaining useful life is considered a good starting point to estimate the overall condition of an asset portfolio. However, in many cases, the percentage of useful life consumed, based purely on age, may not be the most suitable indicator of current asset condition. Physical assets undergo a continual process of repair and rehabilitation to achieve their intended level of service (LOS). For example, pumps may undergo a rehabilitation or major overhaul every 20 years with the replacement of specific parts and hence the pump installation date will not be a suitable indicator to use for asset management planning purposes. Accordingly, in many cases, the remaining useful life should be assessed through other information such as physical condition, asset failures, and/or history of refurbishment.

Estimating remaining life through the assets design life and asset age may provide a misleading view of the replacement timing for assets. In many cases, assets that are properly constructed and maintained may outlast their estimated design life and continue providing valuable services. In other cases, due to poor workmanship or lack of proactive maintenance, assets may fail before they fulfill their design life.

For this report a hybrid approach is used that relies on asset age, asset design life, and asset condition rating (where available) to evaluate the condition of the asset types, and therefore their remaining life. For this SOIR, the design life vs. age estimates have been used as a starting point, superseded if there is a condition assessment, and validated based on the history of asset refurbishment. The determination of life of an asset for TCA purposes is the useful life based on the design life.

This SOIR includes a variety of assets of different functions, design and durability. It provides a summary of the average useful life (based on design life) and the average age of the asset portfolio.

It is observed that the Facilities assets are generally the longest‐lived assets with an average life span of 17.4 years, whereas the Transit and Fleet assets are under 15 years.

Fire, $17,908,421

Parking, $180,334

Parks and Open Spaces,

$15,535,085 Recreation Culture and Libraries, $1,474,154

Roads and Works Operations, $17,697,018


3.3.1 Facilities Asset useful lives for the Facilities assets were developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project and are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐1 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the asset types in Facilities.

Table 3.3‐1. Facilities Assets by Condition Rating

Category Asset Type Estimated Useful Life

Oldest Age

(Years) Average

Age (Years) Avg % of Life Lived

Average Condition Score

Fire Services

Fire Equipment 13.9 14 6.0 45% 1.2

Other Equipment 11.0 18 10.1 88% 2.4

Major Buildings 30 30 14.3 55% 2.0

Minor Buildings 42.85 51 16.8 67% 2.6

Small Equipment 5.6 4 1.1 18% 1.5

Small Tools 9.3 10 5.1 57% 1.2

Support and Operations Depots

Major Buildings 37.35 117 1.0 10% 1.6

Major Building Services 27 52 13.0 49% 2.2

Minor Buildings 45 47 3.0 12% 2.0

Minor Building Services 29 47 25.1 102% 2.6

Hoists and Cranes 23.6 16 7.3 60% 2.7

Parking Services

Minor Buildings 45 32 20.0 69% 2.0

Minor Buildings Services 34 32 19.8 69% 2.6

Pay and Display Machines 12.0 14 4.6 39% 1.1


Dockage and Ramp System 10.0 15 8.1 81% 3.0

Major Buildings 44.4 117 43.1 96% 1.6

Major Building Services 45 5 5 11% 1.0

Minor Buildings 39.8 117 21.5 70% 2.0


Hoists and Cranes 41 87 61 141% 4.0


Fitness Equipment 12.2 22 5.0 41% 1.7

Library Collections 9.0 9 4.5 50% 1.5





Oldest Age

(Years) Average

Age (Years) Avg % of Life Lived



Minor Buildings 46.25 94 22.8 82% 2.4


Performing Arts Equipment 7.0 7 7.0 100% 1.8


Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐1 ranks the assets from those with the longest useful lives to those with the shortest useful lives. This is helpful to illustrate the significant variability in useful life amongst the assets in the same asset class and by customer. As seen in Figure 3.3.1 Major and Minor Buildings have the longest average useful life across all customer levels.

Figure 3.3‐1. Ranked Useful Lives of Facilities Assets.

‐ 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Small ToolsOther EquipmentSmall EquipmentFire EquipmentMinor BuildingsMajor BuildingsMinor Buildings

Hoists and CranesGenerators

Major BuildingsMinor Buildings

Pay and Display MachinesMinor Buildings

Dockage and Ramp SystemMinor Buildings

Hoists and CranesMajor Buildings

Library CollectionsFitness EquipmentSmall Equipment

Performing Arts EquipmentMajor BuildingsMinor Buildings

Fire Services

Operatio

nsDe

pots

Parkin

gParks a

ndOpen Spaces

Recreatio

n, Culture,

and Libraries

Average Useful Life (Years)


Figure 3.3‐2. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for Facilities.

Figure 3.3‐2 provides a graphical summary of the average ages of each asset type in Facilities, as of 2016, compared to the oldest asset ages.

Table 3.3‐2 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Facilities useful life data. The data confidence for facilities is not high due to the amount of assets with age based condition ratings which is not a suitable determination of useful life for most of the facilities assets.

Table 3.3‐2. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for Facilities Assets


Accuracy of useful life data in the Facilities



Reliability of useful life data in the Facilities




‐ 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

Minor Buildings

Major Buildings

Minor Buildings

Fire Equipment

Other Equipment

Small Equipment

Small Tools

Minor Buildings

Major Buildings

Generators

Hoists and Cranes

Minor Buildings

Pay and Display Machines

Major Buildings

Minor Buildings

Dockage and Ramp System

Hoists and Cranes

Minor Buildings

Major Buildings

Small Equipment

Fitness Equipment

Library Collections

Performing Arts EquipmentFire Services

Operatio

nsDe

pots

Parking

Parks a

ndOpen Spaces

Recreatio

n, Culture,

and Libraries


Oldest Age

Average Useful Life

Low High

Low High


3.3.2 Transit Asset useful lives developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐3 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the Transit asset types.

Table 3.3‐3. Age and Useful Life of Assets for Transit


Oldest Age (Years)

Average Age (Years)

Avg % of Life Lived


Passenger Vehicles

Care‐A‐Van 7.00 8 3.22 46% 1.4

Conventional Bus 12.54 13 6.68 54% 1.5

Support Vehicles

Transit Supervisor Vehicle 7.00 7 1.00 14% 1.0

Transit Service Vehicle 7.00 10 6.25 89% 2.3

Heavy Truck 7.00 5.33 76% 1.3

Equipment

Fitness Equipment 11.79 6 6.00 53% 1.0

Transit Equipment 18.57 16 6.83 48% 1.9

Structures



Transit Shelters 20 14 7.85 39% 2.0

Based on the current data, the transit assets are within well within their useful service life and are in good condition.

Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐3 ranks the assets from those with the longest useful lives to those with the shortest.


Figure 3.3‐3. Ranked Useful Lives of Transit Assets

All assets within Transit have relatively short life spans in comparison to the other asset classes and have low variability excluding major buildings which has the longest lifespan of 45 years.

Table 3.3‐4 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Transit Assets. The Transit assets are inspected on a regular basis for condition and the useful life of the transit assets are well known.

Table 3.3‐4. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for Transit Assets


Accuracy of useful life data in Transit



Reliability of useful life data in the Transit




0 10 20 30 40 50

Care‐A‐Van

Transit Supervisor Vehicle

Transit Service Vehicle

Heavy Truck

Fitness Equipment

Conventional Bus

Transit Equipment

Transit Shelters

Major Buildings


Low High

Low High


3.3.3 Fleet Asset useful lives for the Fleet developed as part of the PSAB 3150 TCA project are used in this version of the SOIR. Table 3.3‐5 provides a summary of the useful life estimates and average age for the asset types for Fleet.

Table 3.3‐5. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Fleet

Asset ID Asset Type Estimated Useful Life

Oldest Age

(Years)

Average Age

(Years)

Avg % of Life Lived


Fire Services

ATV 8.50 7 7.0 83% 2.0

Generator 15.00 7 7.0 47% 1.0

Heavy Truck 9.14 6 6.0 70% 1.4

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment 11.00 8.4 8.4 78% 1.6

Light Auto/Truck 7.74 5.1 5.1 71% 1.7

Mower 10.00 3 3.0 30% 1.00

Small Equipment 8.50 9 8.5 102% 3.00

Small Tools 5.75 15 10.5 220% 4.00

Tractor 10.00 5 5.0 50% 2.00

Trailers 15.00 6.5 6.5 43% 1.00

Parking

Light Auto/Truck 4.17 6 1.8 41% 1.00

Small Tools 3.00 4 4.0 133% 1.00


ATV 10.00 13 4.8 48% 1.8

Blower or Vacuum 5.33 2 0.3 3% 1.0

Boat 16.00 27 11.0 60% 1.8

Chippers 9.40 7 3.6 45% 1.9

Cranes 25.00 12 12.0 48% 2.0

Generator 10.00 24 14.4 144% 3.9

Heavy Equipment 11.92 17 7.5 63% 1.9

Heavy Truck 8.08 9 6.7 85% 1.7

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment 10.00 12 8.2 82% 1.7

Heavy Truck Specialized 8.00 10 4.4 55% 1.6

Light Auto/Truck 7.72 9 2.5 32% 1.2

Mower 6.84 8 3.7 54% 1.8

Sanders 9.00 1 1.0 11% 1.0

Small Equipment 6.47 27 6.3 141% 2.6

Small Tools 3.08 31 6.4 206% 3.6

Specialized Municipal 8.75 10 3.8 40% 1.8

Tractor 13.95 13 8.1 56% 1.6

Trailers 14.75 34 9.6 68% 1.9

Vehicle Attachments 11.35 30 11.3 98% 2.7


Table 3.3‐5. Age and Useful Life of Assets in the Fleet

Asset ID Asset Type Estimated Useful Life

Oldest Age

(Years)

Average Age

(Years)

Avg % of Life Lived



Scissor Lift 10.00 11 11.0 110% 3.0

Small Equipment 6.80 19 6.7 149% 2.6

Small Tools 5.00 6 3.7 120% 3.7


Trailers 15.00 21 9.5 80% 2.0

Ice Resurfacer 10.62 9 5.0 49% 1.9

Road and Works Operations

ATV 10.00 11 7.7 77% 2.3

Blower or Vacuum 9.82 13 6.6 70% 1.9

Chippers 8.00 0 0.0 0% 1.0

Cranes 10.00 21 11.5 100% 3.0

Generator 10.00 37 19.2 192% 4.3

Heavy Equipment 11.56 17 5.4 45% 2.0

Heavy Truck 8.00 6 2.5 40% 1.2

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment 9.88 9 5.9 59% 1.8

Heavy Truck Specialized 8.20 10 4.3 53% 1.7

Light Auto/Truck 7.24 9 4.3 61% 1.5

Sanders 9.20 10 4.0 42% 1.4


Small Tools 3.46 28 6.8 207% 4.2


Sweepers, Road 8.00 0 0.0 0% 1.0

Tractor 8.00 2 2.0 25% 1.0

Trailers 14.31 37 8.9 62% 1.9

Vehicle Attachments 9.27 22 7.7 81% 2.7

Based upon the useful lives in the TCA register, Figure 3.3‐4 ranks the assets from those with the shortest useful lives to those with the longest. This is helpful to illustrate the low variability in useful lives amongst the assets in the Fleet.


Figure 3.3‐4. Ranked Useful Lives of Fleet Assets

As seen in Figure 3.3‐4 Cranes, Trailers, and Tractors have the longest services lives.

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Small ToolsLight Auto/Truck

ATVSmall Equipment

Heavy TruckMowerTractor

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentGenerator

TrailersSmall Tools

Light Auto/TruckSmall Tools

Blower or VacuumSmall Equipment

MowerLight Auto/Truck

Heavy Truck SpecializedHeavy Truck

Specialized MunicipalSandersChippers

ATVGenerator

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentVehicle Attachments

Heavy EquipmentTractorTrailers

BoatCranes

Small ToolsSmall Equipment

Ice EdgerScissor Lift

Ice ResurfacerTrailers

Small ToolsLight Auto/TruckSmall Equipment

ChippersHeavy Truck

Sweepers, RoadTractor

Heavy Truck SpecializedSpecialized Municipal

SandersVehicle AttachmentsBlower or Vacuum

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentATV

CranesGenerator

Heavy EquipmentTrailers

Fire Services

Parking

Parks a

nd Open Spaces

Recreatio

n Cu

lture

and Libraries

Road

s and

Works Operatio

ns


Figure 3.3‐5 provides a graphical summary of the average ages of each Fleet asset type as of 2016, compared to the oldest asset ages.

Figure 3.3‐5. Distribution of Average Age relative to Oldest Age for Fleet Assets

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Small ToolsLight Auto/Truck

ATVSmall Equipment

Heavy TruckMowerTractor

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentGenerator

TrailersSmall Tools

Light Auto/TruckSmall Tools

Blower or VacuumSmall Equipment

MowerLight Auto/Truck

Heavy Truck SpecializedHeavy Truck

Specialized MunicipalSandersChippers

ATVGenerator

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentVehicle Attachments

Heavy EquipmentTractorTrailers

BoatCranes

Small ToolsSmall Equipment

Ice EdgerScissor Lift

Ice ResurfacerTrailers

Small ToolsLight Auto/TruckSmall Equipment

ChippersHeavy Truck

Sweepers, RoadTractor

Heavy Truck SpecializedSpecialized Municipal

SandersVehicle AttachmentsBlower or Vacuum

Heavy Truck with Specialized AttachmentATV

CranesGenerator

Heavy EquipmentTrailers

Fire Services

Parkin

gParks a

nd Open Spaces

Recreatio

n Cu

lture

and Libraries

Road

s and

Works Operatio

ns

Average Age Average Useful Life


The Heavy Trucks have the highest average age (18 years), whereas the blowers and vacuums have the lowest average age (1 year).

Table 3.3‐6 shows the data confidence bars reflecting the reliability and accuracy of the Fleet useful life data. The Data confidence for fleet assets is considered high for both reliability and accuracy as the majority of fleet assets’ useful lives are based on the asset condition.

Table 3.3‐6. Data Confidence in Useful Lives for the Fleet Assets


Accuracy of useful life data in Fleet



Reliability of useful life data in Fleet

Low ‐ Based only upon unconfirmed verbal reports or cursory inspections/analysis



3.4 Asset Condition A 5‐point rating scale that aligns with the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (CIRC), produced by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Public Works Association and the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering is used to represent the physical condition of the Town’s assets. The use of this rating scale allows the Town’s asset portfolio to be described using a common approach and enables benchmarking with other municipalities. The rating scale ranges from “Very Good” to “Very Poor”, as described in Table 3.4‐1 and reflects the physical condition of the asset.

Table 3.4‐1 CIRC 5‐ Point Scale for Rating Asset Condition

Number Rating Rating Description

1 Very Good The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention.

2 Good The infrastructure in the system or network is in good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

3 Fair The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

4 Poor The infrastructure in the system or network is in poor condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration.

5 Very Poor The infrastructure in the system or network is in unacceptable condition with widespread signs of advanced deterioration. Many components in the system exhibit signs of imminent failure, which is affecting service.

Low High

Low High


Note within Table 3.4‐1 that the condition grades do not consider asset performance. The condition grade represents the physical condition of the asset without considering whether the asset is meeting the required levels of service, capacity and/or function.

The inspection regime of the asset types throughout the different service areas vary for each. Facilities assets are not assessed for their condition on a regular basis, either visually, or through non‐destructive testing (NDT). The approach taken is to access the condition of the asset through visual inspection when the asset is on the 10 year forecast. Therefore many assets do not have condition ratings for them. Because of this the condition of the asset has been assessed based on the remaining useful life (and based on design life). Facilities assets are also inspected on an ad‐hoc basis following the reporting through work orders of major service interruption events: multiple failure prompting investigation or leading to the asset’s budget replacement year (that is identified on an age basis). In either case an inspection is completed to determine the assets condition, to re‐evaluate the year for asset replacement.

The condition of fleet and transit assets are assessed during annual safety inspections. Mechanics inspect the assets and provide a condition rating consistent with the CIRC 5‐point scale in Table 3.4‐1. Where no physical condition data is available, an age‐based rating has been applied based on remaining useful life as described in Section 3.3.

Overall, the condition of the three assets classes covered in this SOIR is “Very Good” to “Good”, with an average overall condition grade score of 2.26, as shown in Figure 3.4‐1.

Figure 3.4‐1. Average Overall Condition of the Three Asset Networks on the CIRC Scale

Figure 3.4‐2 illustrates the average condition scores for each of the three asset classes covered in this SOIR.

Figure 3.4‐2. Average Condition of each of the Three Asset Classes on the CIRC Scale


Table 3.4‐2 provides a summary of the distribution of condition grades in each of the three asset networks.

Table 3.4‐2. Summary of the Distribution of the Condition Grades within each of the Three Asset Classes

Asset Class

Average Overall Condition Grade

% Very Good (1)

% Good (2) % Fair (3) % Poor (4)

% Very Poor (5) Data Confidence

Facilities 2.36 33.72% 60.80% 6.09% 0.18% 0.20% Moderate

Fleet 2.49 44.15% 49.01% 5.34% 1.19% 0.30% High

Transit 1.83 83.10% 8.93% 5.82% 2.12% 0.03% Moderate to High

3.4.1 Facilities The average condition score of the various assets that comprise the Facilities is estimated to be 2.37 on the CIRC scale (i.e., “Very Good” to “Good” condition). Figure 3.4‐3 provides a summary of the condition of the Facilities Assets.

Figure 3.4‐3. Distribution of Condition Grades by TCA Replacement Value of Facilities Assets

Table 3.4‐3 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each asset type in Facilities.


Asset ID Asset Type % of Assets in Condition Grade by Replacement Value Average

Condition Score 1 2 3 4 5

Fire Services

Fire Equipment 47% 20% 22% 0% 10% 1.2

Other Equipment 51% 0% 13% 16% 21% 2.4

Major Buildings 0% 1000% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Minor Buildings 16% 56% 28% 0% 0% 2.6


Small Equipment 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% 1.1

Small Tools 53% 35% 12% 0% 0% 1.5

Operations Depots

Major Buildings 48% 34% 18% 0% 0% 1.6

Minor Buildings 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Hoists and Cranes 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 2.7

Parking

Minor Buildings 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Pay and Display Machines 95% 0% 2% 3% 0% 1.1


Dockage and Ramp System 44% 0% 0% 0% 56% 3.0

Major Buildings 16% 71% 12% 0% 0% 1.7

Minor Buildings 21% 55% 24% 0% 0% 2.0

Hoists and Cranes 0% 0% 83% 0% 17% 4.0


Fitness Equipment 61% 8% 20% 9% 2% 1.7

Library Collections 46% 35% 19% 0% 0% 1.5

Major Buildings 33% 59% 8% 0% 0% 1.9

Minor Buildings 2% 92% 0% 7% 0% 2.4

Performing Arts Equipment 60% 18% 18% 4% 0% 1.8

Small Equipment 39% 39% 19% 3% 0% 2.5

Figure 3.4‐4 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the CIRC condition grades across the asset types in Facilities. This information is useful for developing asset management strategies.

Figure 3.4‐4. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for Facilities by Customer Level.

Figure 3.4‐5 shows a ranked list of replacement values associated with assets that are identified as falling within CIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that Recreation, Culture and


Library Facilities will require additional investigations to determine the true capital investment requirements over the next 10 year period.

Figure 3.4‐5. Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition in Facilities

Table 3.4‐4 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Facilities assets.

The condition scores for most of the assets in the Facilities were inferred from asset age and, therefore, the confidence bars reflect the relative accuracy and reliability of this dataset.

Table 3.4‐4. Data Confidence in Facilities Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Facilities condition data



Reliability of Facilities condition data



Because condition scores for most of the assets in the Facilities were inferred from asset age, and this is not an appropriate representation for these asset types, it has been noted that an improvement in the data collection for asset management analysis is required. A condition based rating should be applied for these asset types and there will be a recommendation in the AMP. This data has been summarised in the SOIR in this way because it is the current data within the asset register, however it is recommended to conduct asset condition assessments prior to documentation of the AMP, and share the updated grades within the publicly available AMP.

Low High

Low High


3.4.2 Transit The average condition score of the various assets that comprise Transit is estimated to be 1.83 identifying that nearly all of the transit assets are in good to very good condition. Figure 3.4‐6 outlines the distribution of condition grades for Transit assets.

Figure 3.4‐6. Distribution of Condition Grades in Transit

All Assets are evaluated on a 5‐point scale consistent with the CIRC 1‐5 rating system. Table 3.4‐5 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each Transit asset type.

Table 3.4‐5. Transit Assets by Condition

Category Asset Type


Passenger Vehicles

Care‐A‐Van 67% 22% 11% 0% 0% 1.4

Conventional Bus 71% 14% 11% 4% 0% 1.4

Support Vehicles

Transit Supervisor Vehicle 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Transit Service Vehicle 25% 51% 0% 24% 0% 2.2

Heavy Truck 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 1.3

Equipment

Fitness Equipment 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Transit Equipment 42% 46% 11% 0% 1% 1.8

Structures

Major Buildings and Services 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Transit Shelters 22% 73% 4% 0% 0% 2.0


Figure 3.4‐7 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the CIRC condition grades across the asset types in Transit. This information is useful for developing asset management strategies.

Figure 3.4‐7. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for the Transit Assets.

Figure 3.4‐8 shows a ranked list of replacement values associated with assets that are identified as failing within CIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that conventional busses require the largest capital reinvestment over the 10‐year planning horizon (2016‐2025).

Figure 3.4‐8. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition for Transit Assets

Table 3.4‐6 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Transit assets. The transit assets condition is considered to be high due to regular inspections and updates of the condition ratings for the majority of assets.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FITNESS EQ

MAJOR BUILDING

Transit Equipment

CARE‐A‐VAN

CONVENTIONAL BUS

HEAVY TRUCK

TRANSIT SERVICE VEHICLE

TRANSIT SUPERVISOR VEHICLE


$31,815

$2,160,000

$57,000

Transit Equipment

CONVENTIONAL BUS

TRANSIT SERVICE VEHICLE


Table 3.4‐6. Data Confidence in Transit Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Transit condition data



Reliability of Transit condition data



Low High

Low High


3.4.3 Fleet The average condition score of the various assets that comprise Fleet is estimated to be 2.49 on the CIRC scale (i.e., “Very Good” to “Good” condition). Figure 3.4‐9 shows the distribution of condition grades for Fleet Assets as whole.

Figure 3.4‐9. Distribution of Condition Grades in for Fleet Assets

The majority of the assets in Fleet are in “Very Good” (27%) and “Good” (41%) condition.

Table 3.4‐7 provides a summary of the condition data associated with each Fleet asset type.

Table 3.4‐7. Fleet Assets Condition Summary

Asset ID Asset Type % of Assets in Condition Grade by Replacement Value

Average Condition Score 1 2 3 4 5

Fire Services

ATV 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Generator 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Heavy Truck 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 1.4

Heavy Truck with Specialized Attachment

35% 65% 0% 0% 0% 1.6

Light Auto/Truck 66% 30% 4% 0% 0% 1.7

Small Equipment 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 3.0

Tractor 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 4.0

Trailers 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Parking


Light Auto/Truck 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0


ATV 24% 76% 0% 0% 0% 1.8

Blower or Vacuum 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Boat 96% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1.8

Chippers 2% 87% 11% 0% 0% 1.9

Cranes 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 2.0

Generator 38% 0% 0% 0% 62% 3.9

Heavy Equipment 24% 57% 19% 0% 0% 1.9

Heavy Truck 58% 28% 14% 0% 0% 1.7


25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 1.7

Heavy Truck Specialized 54% 42% 5% 0% 0% 1.6

Light Auto/Truck 81% 19% 0% 0% 0% 1.2

Mower 24% 66% 9% 0% 0% 1.8

Sanders 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Small Equipment 27% 55% 8% 3% 7% 2.6

Small Tools 28% 4% 8% 13% 48% 3.6

Specialized Municipal 47% 39% 14% 0% 0% 1.8

Tractor 29% 39% 32% 0% 0% 1.6

Trailers 38% 43% 17% 0% 2% 1.9

Vehicle Attachments 55% 15% 13% 1% 16% 2.7


Scissor Lift 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 3.0

Small Equipment 0% 0% 0% 54% 46% 2.6

Small Tools 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.7

Ice Edger 25% 30% 36% 9% 0% 2.4

Trailers 93% 0% 7% 0% 0% 2.0

Ice Resurfacer 38% 62% 0% 0% 0% 1.9


ATV 34% 0% 66% 0% 0% 2.3

Blower or Vacuum 40% 31% 17% 12% 0% 1.9

Chippers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Cranes 89% 0% 0% 0% 11% 3.0

Generator 0% 3% 4% 31% 62% 4.3

Heavy Equipment 60% 31% 9% 0% 0% 2.0

Heavy Truck 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 1.2


36% 52% 6% 6% 0% 1.8

Heavy Truck Specialized 45% 50% 4% 0% 0% 1.7

Light Auto/Truck 55% 42% 4% 0% 0% 1.5

Sanders 73% 0% 27% 0% 0% 1.4


Small Equipment 25% 0% 1% 30% 44% 2.5

Small Tools 10% 18% 5% 12% 55% 4.2

Specialized Municipal 9% 80% 11% 0% 0% 2.0

Sweepers, Road 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Tractor 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0

Trailers 55% 37% 6% 0% 2% 1.9

Vehicle Attachments 27% 7% 14% 50% 2% 2.7

Figure 3.4‐10 shows a graphical summary of the distribution of the CIRC condition grades across the asset types for Fleet. .

Figure 3.4‐10. Distribution of the CIRC Condition Grades for Fleet by Customer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fire

Parking

Parks and Open Space





Figure 3.4‐11 Distribution of Condition Grades in for Fleet Assets by Customer Type

Figure 3.4‐12 shows the replacement values associated with assets that are identified as failing within CIRC condition grades 4 (“Poor”) and 5 (“Very Poor”). This indicates that road and works operations equipment and vehicles require the largest capital reinvestment over the 10‐year planning horizon (2016‐2025).

Figure 3.4‐12. Ranked Value of Assets in “Poor” and “Very Poor” Condition for Fleet

Table 3.4‐13 provides a summary of the data confidence for the condition of the Fleet assets. The transit assets condition is considered to be high due to regular inspections and updates of the condition ratings for the majority of assets

Very Good (1)39.0%

Good (2)60.8%

Fair (3)0.2% Poor (4)

0.0%

Very Poor (5)0.0%

Fire Services

Very Good (1)53.2%

Good (2)36.0%

Fair (3)7.0%

Poor (4)3.4% Very Poor (5)

0.4%


$78,651

$25,131

$678,579

Parks and Open Space

Recreation, Cluture, and Libraries

Works Operations


Table 3.4‐13. Data Confidence in Fleet Asset Condition Data


Accuracy of Fleet condition data



Reliability of Fleet condition data



3.4.4 Summary Asset Condition Drawing a conclusion about the condition of an asset based on useful life can lead to misinterpretation of the replacement time because of the complexity of asset deterioration and the correlation between asset age and asset condition. Furthermore, when drawing a conclusion of asset condition based on visual assessment, the degree to which they are objectively or subjectively rated also leads to misinterpretation of the replacement time. Future iterations of the SOIR will continue to incorporate the most up‐to‐date objective information available.

3.4.4.1 Benchmarking Oakville to CIRC This section endeavours to make preliminary benchmarking comparisons of the physical condition of the Town’s assets relative to the asset classes included in the CIRC. The purpose of this is to put the Town’s infrastructure deficit into a national context and to determine whether any of the Town’s asset classes are outliers that may warrant special consideration. Please note that the Town is using the CIRC rating scale in in Table 3.4‐1 to allow the Town’s asset portfolio to be described using this common approach. The specific rating scales for each asset type, described within the CIRC, are not being used.

Facilities

Figure 3.4‐15 provides a comparison of the average physical condition of the Town’s facilities assets against the average physical condition in the “Recreation and Libraries” category of the 2016 CIRC.

Figure 3.4‐15. Benchmarking Oakville against the CIRC 2016 Results for Recreation, Culture, and Library Assets

From this comparison, the Town’s “Recreation Culture and Libraries” assets are in similar condition to the average of the municipalities that were included in the 2016 CIRC.

Low High

Low High


Transit

Figure 3.4‐16 provides a preliminary benchmark comparison of the average physical condition of the Town’s Transit assets to the Transit category of the 2016 CIRC.

Figure 3.4‐16. Benchmarking Oakville against the CIRC 2016 Results for Sports and Recreation Assets

From this comparison, the Town’s transit assets are in similar condition to the average of the municipalities that were included in the 2016 CIRC. It is worth noting that there are no statistical outliers suggesting that extraordinary measures are required.

Fleet

The CIRC does not evaluate fleet assets therefore no benchmarking was able to be established for the Fleet assets.