HomeMy WebLinkAboutMunicipality of Bayham - Asset Management Plan - 2016SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST INC. (PSD)
WWW.PUBLICSECTORDIGEST.COM
DECEMBER 2017
The 2016 Asset Management Plan for the
Municipality of Bayham
w w w . pu b l ics e ct o rd ig e st .c o m
AMP2016
w w w . p u b l i c s e c t o r d i g e s t . c o m
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
I. Introduction & Context................................................................................................................................................ 8
II. Asset Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
1. Overarching Principles ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
III. AMP Objectives and Content ................................................................................................................................... 11
IV. Data and Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 12
1. Condition Data ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
2. Financial Data ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
3. Infrastructure Report Card ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Limitations and Assumptions .................................................................................................................................................. 15
5. Process ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
6. Data Confidence Rating .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
V. Summary Statistics...................................................................................................................................................... 18
1. Asset Valuation............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
2. Source of Condition Data by Asset Class ............................................................................................................................. 21
3. Historical Investment in Infrastructure – All Asset Classes ....................................................................................... 22
4. Useful Life Consumption – All Asset Classes ..................................................................................................................... 23
5. Overall Condition – All Asset Classes ................................................................................................................................... 24
6. Financial Profile ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
7. Replacement Profile – All Asset Classes .............................................................................................................................. 26
8. Data Confidence ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
VI. State of Local Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 29
1. Road Network ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
2. Bridges & Culverts ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
3. Water System .................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
4. Wastewater Systems ................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5. Storm Network ............................................................................................................................................................................... 59
6. Buildings & Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 66
7. Machinery & Equipment ............................................................................................................................................................ 73
8. Land Improvements ..................................................................................................................................................................... 81
9. Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 89
VII. Levels of Service ............................................................................................................................................................. 96
1. Guiding Principles for Developing LOS ............................................................................................................................... 96
2. Key Performance Indicators and Targets ........................................................................................................................... 97
3. Future Performance .................................................................................................................................................................. 101
4. Monitoring, Updating and Actions ...................................................................................................................................... 102
VIII. Asset Management Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 103
1. Non-Infrastructure Solutions & Requirements ............................................................................................................ 104
2. Condition Assessment Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 104
3. Lifecycle Analysis Framework ............................................................................................................................................. 110
4. Growth and Demand ................................................................................................................................................................. 116
5. Project Prioritization and Risk Management................................................................................................................. 116
IX. Financial Strategy ..................................................................................................................................................... 126
1. General Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 126
2. Financial Profile: Tax Funded Assets ................................................................................................................................ 129
3. Financial Profile: Rate Funded Assets ............................................................................................................................... 133
4. Use of Debt .................................................................................................................................................................................... 137
5. Use of Reserves ........................................................................................................................................................................... 140
X. 2016 Infrastructure Report Card ....................................................................................................................... 141
XI. Appendix: Grading and Conversion Scales ..................................................................................................... 142
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
List of Figures
Figure 1 Distribution of Net Stock of Core Public Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Developing the AMP – Work Flow and Process ............................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3 Asset Valuation by Class .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4 2016 Ownership Per Household .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5 Historical Investment in Infrastructure – All Asset Classes ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 6 Useful Life Remaining as of 2015 – All Asset Classes ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 7 Asset Condition Distribution by Replacement C ost as of 2015 – All Asset Classes ....................................... 24
Figure 8 Annual Requirements by Asset Class ................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 9 Infrastructure Backlog – All Asset Classes ....................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 10 Replacement Profile – All Asset Classes ......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 11 Asset Valuation – Road Network ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 12 Historical Investment – Road Network .......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 13 Useful Life Consumption - Road Network ..................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 14 Asset Condition – Road Network (Primarily Assessed) .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 15 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Road Network .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 16 Asset Valuation – Bridges & Culverts .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 17 Historical Investment – Bridges & Culverts ................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 18 Useful Life Consumption – Bridges & Culverts ........................................................................................................... 40
Figure 19 Asset Condition – Bridges & Culverts (Age-based) ................................................................................................... 41
Figure 20 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Bridges & Culverts ............................................................................................ 42
Figure 21 Asset Valuation – Water System ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 22 Historical Investment – Water System ........................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 23 Useful Life Consumption – Water System ..................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 24 Asset Condition – Water System (Assessed) ................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 25 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Water System ..................................................................................................... 49
Figure 26 Asset Valuation – Wastewater System ........................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 27 Historical Investment – Wastewater System ............................................................................................................... 53
Figure 28 Useful Life Consumption – Wastewater System ......................................................................................................... 54
Figure 29 Asset Condition – Wastewater System (Assessed) ................................................................................................... 55
Figure 30 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Wastewater System ......................................................................................... 56
Figure 31 Asset Valuation – Storm Network ..................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 32 Historical Investment – Storm Network ........................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 33 Useful Life Consumption – Storm Network .................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 34 Asset Condition – Storm Network (Age-based) .......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 35 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Storm Network .................................................................................................. 64
Figure 36 Asset Valuation – Buildings & Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 37 Historical Investment – Buildings & Facilities ............................................................................................................ 68
Figure 38 Useful Life Consumption – Buildings & Facilities ...................................................................................................... 69
Figure 39 Asset Condition – Buildings & Facilities (Primarily Assessed) ............................................................................ 70
Figure 40 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Buildings & Facilities....................................................................................... 71
Figure 41 Asset Valuation – Machinery & Equipment .................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 42 Historical Investment – Machinery & Equipment ..................................................................................................... 75
Figure 43 Useful Life Consumption – Machinery & Equipment ............................................................................................... 76
Figure 44 Asset Condition – Machinery & Equipment (Assessed and Age-based) .......................................................... 77
Figure 45 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Machinery & Equipment ................................................................................ 78
Figure 46 Asset Valuation – Land Improvements........................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 47 Historical Investment – Land Improvements .............................................................................................................. 83
Figure 48 Useful Life Consumption – Land Improvements ........................................................................................................ 84
Figure 49 Asset Condition - Land Improvements (Primarily Assessed) .............................................................................. 85
Figure 50 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Land Improvements ........................................................................................ 86
Figure 51 Asset Valuation – Vehicles.................................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 52 Historical Investment – Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 53 Useful Life Consumption – Vehicles ................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 54 Asset Condition – Vehicles (Assessed and Age-based) ............................................................................................ 93
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
Figure 55 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 94
Figure 56 Comparing Age-based and Assessed Condition Data ............................................................................................ 105
Figure 57 Paved Road General Deterioration Profile ................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 58 Sewer Main General Deterioration ................................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 59 Water Main General Deterioration ................................................................................................................................ 114
Figure 60 Bow Tie Risk Model .............................................................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 61 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – All Asset Classes ..................................................................................... 121
Figure 62 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Road Network ......................................................................................... 121
Figure 63 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Bridges & Culverts ................................................................................ 122
Figure 64 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Water System .......................................................................................... 122
Figure 65 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Sanitary Services ................................................................................... 123
Figure 66 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Buildings & Facilities ........................................................................... 124
Figure 67 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Machinery & Equipment .................................................................... 124
Figure 68 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Land Improvements ............................................................................. 125
Figure 69 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 125
Figure 70 Cost Elements ......................................................................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 71 Historical Prime Business Interest Rates ................................................................................................................... 138
List of Tables
Table 1 Objectives of Asset Management ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2 Principles of Asset Management ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Table 3 Infrastructure Report Card Description ............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 4 Source of Condition Data by Asset Class ............................................................................................................................ 21
Table 5 Data Confidence Ratings ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
Table 6 Key Asset Attributes – Road Network ................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 7 Key Asset Attributes – Bridges & Culverts ........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 8 Key Asset Attributes – Water .................................................................................................................................................. 44
Table 9 Asset Inventory – Wastewater Systems ............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 10 Asset Inventory – Storm Network ...................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 11 Key Asset Attributes – Buildings & Facilities................................................................................................................. 66
Table 12 Asset Inventory – Machinery & Equipment ................................................................................................................... 73
Table 13 Asset Inventory – Land Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 81
Table 14 Asset Inventory – Vehicles ..................................................................................................................................................... 89
Table 15 LOS Categories ............................................................................................................................................................................ 96
Table 16 Key Performance Indicators – Road Network and Bridges & Culverts .............................................................. 97
Table 17 Key Performance Indicators – Buildings & Facilities ................................................................................................. 98
Table 18 Key Performance Indicators – Vehicles ........................................................................................................................... 98
Table 19 Key Performance Indicators – Water, Sanitary and Storm Networks ................................................................ 99
Table 20 Key Performance Indicators – Machinery & Equipment ....................................................................................... 100
Table 21 Key Performance Indicators – Land Improvements ............................................................................................... 100
Table 22 Asset Condition and Related Work Activity for Paved Roads ............................................................................. 111
Table 23 Asset Condition and Related Work Activity for Sewer Mains ............................................................................. 113
Table 24 Asset Condition and Related Work Activity for Water Mains ............................................................................. 115
Table 25 Probability of Failure – All Assets .................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 26 Consequence of Failure – Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 27 Consequence of Failure – Bridges & Culverts ............................................................................................................. 118
Table 28 Consequence of Failure – Water Mains ......................................................................................................................... 119
Table 29 Consequence of Failure – Sanitary Sewers .................................................................................................................. 119
Table 30 Consequence of Failure – Storm Sewers....................................................................................................................... 119
Table 31 Consequence of Failure – Buildings & Facilities........................................................................................................ 119
Table 32 Consequence of Failure – Machinery & Equipment ................................................................................................. 120
Table 33 Consequence of Failure – Land Improvements ......................................................................................................... 120
Table 34 Consequence of Failure – Vehicles .................................................................................................................................. 120
Table 35 Infrastructure Requirements and Current Funding Available: Tax Funded Assets .................................. 129
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
Table 36 Tax Change Required for Full Funding .......................................................................................................................... 130
Table 37 Effect of Changes in OCIF Funding and Reallocating Decreases in Debt Costs ............................................ 131
Table 38 Summary of Infrastructure Requirements and Current Funding Available ................................................. 133
Table 39 Rate Change Required for Full Funding ........................................................................................................................ 134
Table 40 Without Change in Debt Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 135
Table 41 With Change in Debt Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 135
Table 42 Total Interest Paid as a Percentage of Project Costs ............................................................................................... 137
Table 43 Overview of Use of Debt ....................................................................................................................................................... 139
Table 44 Overview of Debt Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 139
Table 45 Summary of Reserves Available ....................................................................................................................................... 140
Table 46 2016 Infrastructure Report Card ..................................................................................................................................... 141
Table 47 Asset Health Scale ................................................................................................................................................................... 142
Table 48 Financial Capacity Scale ....................................................................................................................................................... 143
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
Executive Summary
Infrastructure is inextricably linked to the economic, social and environmental advancement of a
community. Municipalities own and manage nearly 60% of the public infrastructure stock in
Canada. As analyzed in this asset management plan (AMP), the Municipality of Bayham’s
infrastructure portfolio comprises the following asset classes: road network, bridges & culverts,
buildings, storm, water, sanitary, machinery & equipment, land improvements, vehicles and natural
resources. The asset classes analyzed in this asset management plan for the municipality had a total
2016 valuation of $104 million, of which roads comprised 31%.
Strategic asset management is critical in extracting the highest total value from public assets at the
lowest lifecycle cost. This AMP, the municipality’s second following the completion of its first
edition in 2013, details the state of infrastructure of the municipality’s service areas and provides
asset management and financial strategies designed to facilitate its pursuit of developing an
advanced asset management program and mitigate long-term funding gaps.
In addition to observed field conditions, historical capital expenditures can assist the municipality
in identifying impending infrastructure needs, and guide its medium- and long-term capital
programs. The municipality has continuously invested into its infrastructure over the decades.
Investments fluctuated during the early 1990s and then peaked in the early 1970 and early 2000s.
In the 1970s $25.5 million was invested with $14 million put into the storm network. Since 2000,
$49 million has been invested with a focus on roads, the sanitary sewer network and vehicles.
Based on 2016 replacement cost, and condition data, over 33% of assets, with a valuation of $35
million, are in good to very good condition; 46% are in poor to very poor condition. The
municipality has provided condition information for 100% of assets based on 2016 replacement
cost. In total, 55% of the assets analyzed in this AMP have at least 10 years of useful life remaining.
However, 27%, with a valuation of $28 million, remain in operation beyond their established useful
life. An additional 8% will reach the end of their useful life within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
6
In order for an AMP to be effective, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-term
budgeting. The development of a comprehensive financial plan will allow the municipality to
identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based on existing asset
inventories, desired levels of service, and projected growth requirements.
The average annual investment requirement for the above categories is $2,250,000. Annual
revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $922,000 leaving an annual
deficit of $1,328,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at
41% of their long-term requirements. In 2016, Bayham has annual tax revenues of $3,956,000. Our
strategy includes full funding being achieved over 20 years by:
increasing tax revenues by 1.5% each year for the next 20 years solely for the purpose of
phasing in full funding to the asset categories covered in this section of the AMP.
allocating the current gas tax and OCIF revenue as outlined in table 1.
allocating the scheduled OCIF grant increases to the infrastructure deficit as they occur.
reallocating appropriate revenue from categories in a surplus position to those in a deficit
position.
increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an
annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in.
The average annual investment requirement for sanitary sewer services and water services is
$556,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $596,000
leaving an annual surplus of $40,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are
currently funded at 107% of their long-term requirements. In 2016, Bayham has annual
wastewater revenues of $863,000 and annual water revenues of $712,000.
To achieve financial sustainability for its rate-based assets, we recommend rate changes for capital
purposes be implemented over time with at least three factors being quantified:
There is a pent up investment demand of $457,000 for sanitary services and $0 for water
services. As a result, rates should not be changed until a detailed work plan is developed for
these projects. A corresponding financial plan can then be developed taking into account that
there are $2,283,000 of reserves available for sanitary infrastructure and $536,000 of reserves
for water infrastructure.
51% of sanitary revenues and 76% of water revenues are currently allocated to operations as
opposed to capital. Overall rates should not be changed until longer term operational
requirements are determined and taken into account. This will avoid the complications of
changing rates for capital purposes and then possibly increasing them for operational
requirements.
Bayham will be updating their detailed rate study in 2019. Any change in capital rates should be
delayed until that study is available.
Considering all of the above information:
Rate changes for capital purposes for both sanitary services and water services be postponed
until the work on the above factors are completed.
If the work required for the above factors is delayed, and inflation increases are greater than
the reduction available, implementing net increases to existing and future infrastructure
budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
7
Although our financial strategies allow the municipalities to meet its long-term funding
requirements and reach fiscal sustainability, injection of additional revenues will be required to
mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
A critical aspect of this asset management plan is the level of confidence the municipality has in the
data used to develop the state of the infrastructure and form the appropriate financial strategies.
The municipality has indicated a high degree of confidence in the accuracy, validity and
completeness of the asset data for all categories analyzed in this asset management plan.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
8
I. Introduction & Context
Across Canada, municipal share of public infrastructure increased from 22% in 1955 to nearly 60%
in 2013. The federal government’s share of critical infrastructure stock, including roads, water and
wastewater, declined by nearly 80% in value since 1963.1
Figure 1 Distribution of Net Stock of Core Public Infrastructure
Ontario’s municipalities own more of the province’s infrastructure assets than both the provincial
and federal government. The asset portfolios managed by Ontario’s municipalities are also highly
diverse. The Municipality of Bayham’s capital assets portfolio, as analyzed in this asset management
plan (AMP) is valued at $104 million using 2016 replacement costs. The municipality relies on
these assets to provide residents, businesses, employees and visitors with safe access to important
services, such as transportation, recreation, culture, economic development and much more. As
such, it is critical that the municipality manage these assets optimally in order to produce the
highest total value for taxpayers. This asset management plan, (AMP) will assist the municipality in
the pursuit of judicious asset management for its capital assets.
1 Larry Miller, Updating Infrastructure In Canada: An Examination of Needs And Investments Report of the Standing Committee on
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, June 2015
Municipal $216.9B
57%
Provincial $158.4B
41%
Federal
$6.7B
2%
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
9
II. Asset Management
Asset management can be best defined as an integrated business approach within an organization
with the aim to minimize the lifecycle costs of owning, operating, and maintaining assets, at an
acceptable level of risk, while continuously delivering established levels of service for present and
future customers. It includes the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of
infrastructure used to provide services. By implementing asset management processes,
infrastructure needs can be prioritized over time, while ensuring timely investments to minimize
repair and rehabilitation costs and maintain municipal assets.
Table 1 Objectives of Asset Management
Inventory Capture all asset types, inventories and historical data.
Current Valuation Calculate current condition ratings and replacement values.
Lifecycle Analysis Identify Maintenance and Renewal Strategies & Lifecycle Costs.
Service Level Targets Define measurable Levels of Service Targets.
Risk & Prioritization Integrates all asset classes through risk and prioritization strategies.
Sustainable Financing Identify sustainable Financing Strategies for all asset classes.
Continuous Processes Provide continuous processes to ensure asset information is kept current and
accurate.
Decision Making &
Transparency
Integrate asset management information into all corporate purchases, acquisitions
and assumptions.
Monitoring & Reporting At defined intervals, assess the assets and report on progress and performance.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
10
1. Overarching Principles
The Institute of Asset Management (IAM) recommends the adoption of seven key principles for a
sustainable asset management program. According to IAM, asset management must be:2
Table 2 Principles of Asset Management
Holistic Asset management must be cross-disciplinary, total value focused.
Systematic Rigorously applied in a structured management system.
Systemic Looking at assets in their systems context, again for net, total value.
Risk-based Incorporating risk appropriately into all decision-making.
Optimal Seeking the best compromise between conflicting objectives, such as
costs versus performance versus risks etc.
Sustainable Plans must deliver optimal asset lifecycles, ongoing systems
performance, environmental and other long term consequences.
Integrated
At the heart of good asset management lies the need to be joined-up. The
total jigsaw puzzle needs to work as a whole - and this is not just the
sum of the parts.
2 “Key Principles”, The Institute of Asset Management, www.iam.org
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
11
III. AMP Objectives and Content
This AMP is one component of Bayham’s overarching corporate strategy. It was developed to
support the municipality’s vision for its asset management practice and programs. It provides key
asset attribute data, including current composition of the municipality’s infrastructure portfolio,
inventory, replacement costs, useful life etc., summarizes the physical health of the capital assets,
enumerates the municipality’s current capital spending framework, and outlines financial strategies
to achieve fiscal sustainability in the long-term while reducing and eventually eliminating funding
gaps.
As with the first edition of the municipality’s asset management plan in 2013, this AMP is developed
in accordance with provincial standards and guidelines, and new requirements under the Federal
Gas Tax Fund (GTF) stipulating the inclusion of all eligible asset classes. The following asset classes
are analysed in this document: road network; bridges & culverts; water; wastewater; storm;
buildings; machinery & equipment; land improvements; and vehicles.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
12
IV. Data and Methodology
The municipality’s dataset for the asset classes analyzed in this AMP are maintained in PSD’s
CityWide® Tangible Assets module. This dataset includes key asset attributes and PSAB 3150 data,
such as historical costs, in-service dates, field inspection data (as available), asset health, and
replacement costs.
1. Condition Data
Municipalities implement a straight-line amortization schedule approach to depreciate their capital
assets. In general, this approach may not be reflective of an asset’s actual condition and the true
nature of its deterioration, which tends to accelerate toward the end of the asset’s lifecycle.
However, it is a useful approximation in the absence of standardized decay models and actual field
condition data and can provide a benchmark for future requirements. We analyze each asset
individually prior to aggregation and reporting; therefore, many imprecisions that may be
highlighted at the individual asset level are attenuated at the class level.
As available, actual field condition data was used to make recommendations more meaningful and
representative of the municipality’s state of infrastructure. The value of condition data cannot be
overstated as they provide a more accurate representation of the state of infrastructure. The type of
condition data used for each class is indicated in Chapter V, Section 2.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
13
2. Financial Data
In this AMP, the average annual requirement is the amount, based on current replacement costs,
that municipalities should set aside annually for each infrastructure class so that assets can be
replaced upon reaching the end of their lifecycle.
To determine current funding capacity, all existing sources of funding are identified and combined
to enumerate the total available funding; funding for the previous three years is analyzed as data is
available. These figures are then assessed against the average annual requirements, and are used to
calculate the annual funding shortfall (surplus) and for forming the financial strategies.
In addition to the annual shortfall, the majority of municipalities face significant infrastructure
backlogs. The infrastructure backlog is the accrued financial investment needed in the short-term
to bring the assets to a state of good repair. This amount is identified for each asset class.
Only predictable sources of funding are used, e.g., tax and rate revenues, user fees, and other
streams of income the municipality can rely on with a high degree of certainty. Government grants
and other ad-hoc injections of capital are not included in this asset management plan given their
unpredictability. As senior governments make greater, more predictable and permanent
commitments to funding municipal infrastructure programs, e.g., the Federal Gas Tax Fund, future
iterations of this asset management plan will account for such funding sources.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
14
3. Infrastructure Report Card
The asset management plan is a complex document, but one with direct implications on the public, a group with varying degrees of
technical knowledge. To make communications more meaningful and the AMP more accessible, we’ve developed an Infrastructure Report
Card that summarizes our findings in common language that municipalities can use for internal and external distribution. The report card
is developed using two key, equally weighted factors: Financial Capacity and Asset Health.
Table 3 Infrastructure Report Card Description
Financial Capacity
A municipality’s financial capacity grade is determined by the level of funding available (0-100%) for each asset class for the purpose of
meeting the average annual investment requirements.
Asset Health
Using either field inspection data as available or age-based data, the asset health component of the report card uses condition (0-100%)
to estimate how capable assets are in performing their required functions. We use replacement cost to determine the weight of each
condition group within the asset class.
Letter
Grade Rating Description
A Very Good The asset is functioning and performing well; only normal preventative maintenance is required. The municipality is fully prepared for
its long-term replacement needs based on its existing infrastructure portfolio.
B Good The municipality is well prepared to fund its long-term replacement needs but requires additional funding strategies in the short-term
to begin to increase its reserves.
C Fair
The asset’s performance or function has started to degrade and repair/rehabilitation is required to minimize lifecycle cost. The
municipality is underpreparing to fund its long-term infrastructure needs. The replacement of assets in the short- and medium-term
will likely be deferred to future years.
D Poor
The asset’s performance and function is below the desired level and immediate repair/rehabilitation is required. The municipality is
not well prepared to fund its replacement needs in the short-, medium- or long-term. Asset replacements will be deferred and levels of
service may be reduced.
F Very Poor
The municipality is significantly underfunding its short-term, medium-term, and long-term infrastructure requirements based on
existing funds allocation. Asset replacements will be deferred indefinitely. The municipality may have to divest some of its assets (e.g.,
bridge closures, arena closures) and levels of service will be reduced significantly.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
15
4. Limitations and Assumptions
Several limitations continue to persist as municipalities advance their asset management practices.
As available, we use field condition assessment data to illustrate the state of infrastructure and
develop the requisite financial strategies. However, in the absence of observed data, we rely on
the age of assets to estimate their physical condition.
A second limitation is the use of inflation measures, for example using CPI/NRBCPI to inflate
historical costs in the absence of actual replacement costs. While a reasonable approximation,
the use of such multipliers may not be reflective of market prices and may over- or understate
the value of a municipality’s infrastructure portfolio and the resulting capital requirements.
Our calculations and recommendations will reflect the best available data at the time this AMP
was developed.
The focus of this plan is restricted to capital expenditures and does not capture O&M
expenditures on infrastructure.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
16
GAP ANALYSIS: CITYWIDE TA
Review client database and
assess against benchmark
municipalities
DATA VALIDATION 1
Collaborate with Engineering
and Finance to validate and
refine data
GAP ANALYSIS: CITYWIDE CPA
Review client database and
assess against benchmark
municipalities
DATA VALIDATION 2
Collaborate with Finance to
validate and refine data prior
to the developing financial
strategy
DATA APPROVAL
Client approves all asset and
financial data before PSD can
develop financial strategy
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
PSD submits financial strategy to
client for review
IS STRATEGY
APPROVED?
AMEND FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Collaborate with client to
redevelop financial strategy
YES
IS DRAFT
APPROVED?
AMEND DRAFT
Incorporate client feedback
and resubmit draft
NO
SUBMIT FINAL AMP DRAFT
PSD develops report card and
submits final draft for client
approval and project sign-off
YES
FIRST DRAFT
PSD submits first complete
draft of the AMP
5. Process
High data quality is the foundation of intelligent decision-making. Generally, there are two primary causes of poor decisions: inaccurate or
incomplete data, and the misinterpretation of data used. The figure below illustrates an abbreviated version of our work order/work flow
process between PSD and municipal staff. It is designed to ensure maximum confidence in the raw data used to develop the AMP, the
interpretation of the AMP by all stakeholders, and ultimately, the application of the strategies outlined in this AMP.
Figure 2 Developing the AMP – Work Flow and Process
NO
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
17
6. Data Confidence Rating
Staff confidence in the data used to develop the AMP can determine the extent to which
recommendations are applied. Low confidence suggests uncertainty about the data and can
undermine the validity of the analysis. High data confidence endorses the findings and strategies,
and the AMP can become an important, reliable reference guide for interdepartmental
communication as well as a manual for long-term corporate decision-making. Having a numerical
rating for confidence also allows the municipality to track its progress over time and eliminate data
gaps.
Data confidence in this AMP is determined using five key factors and is based on the City of
Brantford’s approach. Municipal staff provide their level of confidence (score) in each factor for
major asset classes along a spectrum, ranging from 0, suggesting low confidence in the data, to 100
indicative of high certainty regarding inputs. The five factors used to calculate the municipality’s
data confidence ratings are:
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
The data is up to date. The data is complete
and uniform.
The data comes from
an authoritative
source
The data is error free.
The data is
verified by an
authoritative
source.
The municipality’s self-assessed score in each factor is then used to calculate data confidence in
each asset class using Equation 1 below.
𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑟 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐶𝑛𝑛𝑐�ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑛𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛𝑐=∑(𝑅𝑐𝑛𝑟𝑐 �ℎ𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑐� 𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑛𝑟) × (1
5)
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
18
V. Summary Statistics
In this section, we aggregate technical and financial data across all asset classes analyzed in this
AMP, and summarize the state of the infrastructure using key indicators, including asset condition,
useful life consumption, and important financial measurements.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
19
1. Asset Valuation
The asset classes analyzed in this asset management plan for the municipality had a total 2016 valuation of $104.6 million, of which roads
comprised 31%, followed the sanitary sewer network at 26%. The ownership per household (Figure 4) totaled $60,000 based on 2557
households for all asset categories except for water services with 832 households and wastewater services with 1228 households.
Figure 3 Asset Valuation by Class
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
20
Figure 4 2016 Ownership Per Household
$59,552
$11,093
$2,296
$21,772
$12,509
$7,431
$2,108
$547
$1,349
$448
Total
Water Services
Buildings
Sanitary Services
Road Network
Storm Water
Vehicles
Land Improvements
Bridges & Culverts
Machinery & Equipment
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
21
2. Source of Condition Data by Asset Class
Observed data will provide the most precise indication of an asset’s physical health. In the absence
of such information, the age of capital assets can be used as a meaningful approximation of the
asset’s condition. Table 4 indicates the source of condition data used for the various asset classes in
this AMP. The municipality has condition data for 100% of all assets based on 2016 replacement
cost.
Table 4 Source of Condition Data by Asset Class
Asset class Component Source of Condition Data
Roads Network All 100% Assessed – 2016
Bridges & Culverts All 100% Assessed – 2016
Water System All 100% Assessed – 2016
Sanitary Services All 100% Assessed – 2016
Storm All 100% Assessed – 2016
Buildings All 100% Assessed – 2016
Machinery & Equipment All 100% Assessed – 2016
Land Improvements All 100% Assessed – 2016
Vehicles All 100% Assessed – 2016
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
22
3. Historical Investment in Infrastructure – All Asset Classes
In conjunction with condition data, two other measurements can augment staff understanding of the state of infrastructure and
impending and long-term infrastucture needs: installation year profile, and useful life remaining. Using 2016 replacement costs, Figure 5
illustrates the historical invesments made in the asset classes analyzed in this AMP since 1950. Often, investment in critical infrastructure
parallels population growth or other significant shifts in demographics; they can also fluctuate with provincial and federal stimuls
programs. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of December 31, 2016.
Figure 5 Historical Investment in Infrastructure – All Asset Classes
The municipality has continuously invested into its infrastructure over the decades. Investments fluctuated during the early 1990s and
then peaked in the early 1970 and early 2000s. In the 1970s $25.5 million was invested with $14 million put into the storm network. Since
2000, $49 million has been invested with a focus on roads, the sanitary sewer network and vehicles.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
23
4. Useful Life Consumption – All Asset Classes
While age is not a precise indicator of an asset’s health, in the absence of observed condition
assessment data, it can serve as a high-level, meaningful approxmiation and help guide replacement
needs and facilitate strategic budgeting. Figure 6 shows the distibution of assets based on the
percentage of useful life already consumed.
Figure 6 Useful Life Remaining as of 2016 – All Asset Classes
In total, 55% of the assets analyzed in this AMP have at least 10 years of useful life remaining.
However, 27%, with a valuation of $28 million, remain in operation beyond their established useful
life. An additional 8% will reach the end of their useful life within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
24
5. Overall Condition – All Asset Classes
Based on 2016 replacement cost, and condition data, over 33% of assets, with a valuation of $35
million, are in good to very good condition; 46% are in poor to very poor condition. The
municipality has provided condition information for 100% of assets based on 2016 replacement
cost.
Figure 7 Asset Condition Distribution by Replacement Cost as of 2016 – All Asset Classes
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
25
6. Financial Profile
This section details key high-level financial indicators for the municipality’s asset classes.
Figure 8 Annual Requirements by Asset Class
The annual requirements represent the amount the municipality should allocate annually to each of
its asset classes to meet replacement needs as they arise, prevent infrastructure backlogs and
achieve long-term sustainability. In total, the municipality must allocate $2.8 million annually for
the assets covered in this AMP.
Figure 9 Infrastructure Backlog – All Asset Classes
The municipality has a combined infrastructure backlog of $28.7 million, with storm water network
comprising 49%. The backlog represents the investment needed today to meet previously deferred
replacement needs. In the absence of assessed data, the backlog represents the value of assets still
in operation beyond their established useful life.
$2,795,479
$172,600
$1,000,401
$419,782
$124,453
$379,383
$475,000
$55,408
$82,227
$86,225
Total
Buildings
Road Network
Sanitary Services
Water Services
Vehicles
Storm Water
Land Improvements
Machinery &…
Bridges & Culverts
$28,753,265
$456,932
$350,000
$0
$11,230,674
$865,357
$82,000
$1,530,000
$238,302
$14,000,000
Total
Sanitary Services
Vehicles
Water Services
Road Network
Buildings
Machinery &…
Bridges & Culverts
Land Improvements
Storm Water
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
26
7. Replacement Profile – All Asset Classes
In this section, we illustrate the aggregate short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for
the municipality’s asset classes. The backlog is the total investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or decades. In
the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 10 Replacement Profile – All Asset Classes
Based on condition data, the municipality has a combined backlog of $28.7 million, of which storm water network comprises $14 million.
Aggregate replacement needs will total $1.9 million over the next five years. An additional $10.7 million will be required between 2021
and 2025. The municipality’s aggregate annual requirements (indicated by the black line) total $2.8 million. At this funding level, the
municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet the replacement needs for its various asset classes as they
arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits. Currently, the municipality is funding 41% of the
annual requirements for tax-funded assets and 110% for rate-funded assets. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ chapter for achieving a more
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
27
optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to meet its future
replacement needs, injection of additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
28
8. Data Confidence
The municipality has a high degree of confidence in the data used to develop this AMP, receiving a weighted confidence rating of 82%.
This is indicative of significant effort in collecting and refining its data set.
Table 5 Data Confidence Ratings
Asset Class
The data is up-
to-date.
The data is
complete and
uniform.
The data comes
from an
authoritative
source.
The data is error
free.
The data is
verified by an
authoritative
source.
Average
Confidence
Rating
Weighted
Confidence
Rating
Road Network 100% 90% 80% 50% 60% 76% N/A
Bridges & Culverts 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 72% N/A
Water Services 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% N/A
Sanitary Services 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% N/A
Storm Water 60% 60% 80% 60% 80% 68% N/A
Buildings 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 86% N/A
Machinery & Equipment 80% 80% 80% 80% 90% 82% N/A
Land Improvements 90% 90% 70% 70% 70% 78% N/A
Vehicles 100% 100% 80% 90% 80% 90% N/A
Overall Weighted Average Data Confidence Rating 81% N/A
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
29
VI. State of Local Infrastructure
The state of local infrastructure includes the full inventory, condition ratings, useful life
consumption data and the backlog and upcoming infrastructure needs for each asset class. As
available, assessed condition data was used to inform the discussion and recommendations; in the
absence of such information, age-based data was used as the next best alternative.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
30
1. Road Network
1.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 6 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s road network, including quantities of various assets, their useful life, their
replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s roads assets are
valued at $32 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was assigned by the
municipality.
Table 6 Key Asset Attributes – Road Network
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life (Years) 2016 Unit Replacement Cost 2016 Overall
Replacement Cost
Road Network
Road Base 190.3km 50 Cost/Unit $17,769,263
Road Surface - Asphalt 37.7km 25 Cost/Unit $3,520,238
Road Surface - Gravel 44.1km 20 Cost/Unit $4,117,838
Road Surface - Tar & Chip 97.5km 15, 25, 50 Cost/Unit $3,517,313
Roads Guardrail 0.7km 20 Cost/Unit $28,000
Sidewalks 17958m 50 Cost/Unit $2,691,006
Streetlights 428 20 Cost/Unit $342,400
Total $31,986,056
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
31
Figure 11 Asset Valuation – Road Network
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
32
1.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 12 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its road network since 1950. While observed condition data will provide
superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such inf ormation,
understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 1.3) can inform the forecasting and planning
of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of
December 31, 2016.
Figure 12 Historical Investment – Road Network
Investments in the municipality’s road network have grown since 1960 with a large increase in the 1970s. In the early 2000s, the period
of largest investment, $5 million was invested with over $2 million put into road bases.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
33
1.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 13 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s road network.
Figure 13 Useful Life Consumption - Road Network
While 44% of the municipality’s road network has at least 10 years of useful life remaining, 35%,
with a valuation of $11 million, remain in operation beyond their useful life. An additional 4% will
reach the end of their useful life within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
34
1.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s road
network as of 2016. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In
the absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided
condition data for 100% of all road assets.
Figure 14 Asset Condition – Road Network (Condition-based)
Based on assessed condition data, 10% of assets are in good to very good condition while 69% are
in poor to very poor condition with a valuation of $22 million.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
35
1.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s road network assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or
decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 15 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Road Network
In addition to a backlog of $11.2 million, replacement needs are forecasted to be $1.1 million in the next five years; an additional $1.5
million is forecasted in replacement needs between 2022-2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black line) for
its road network total $1 million. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet
replacement needs as they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits. However, the
municipality is currently allocating $630,000, leaving an annual deficit of $370,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a
more optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to meet its
future replacement needs, injection of additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
36
1.6 Recommendations – Road Network
Primarily assessed condition data indicates a backlog of $11.2 million and significant 10-year
replacement needs of $2.6 million. The municipality should continue its condition assessments
of road surfaces (asphalt, gravel, tar & chip), and expand the program to incorporate all assets
in order to more precisely estimate its actual financial requirements and field needs. See
Section 2, ‘Condition Assessment Programs’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
The data collected through condition assessment programs should be integrated into a risk
management framework which will guide prioritization of the backlog as well as short, medium,
and long-term replacement needs. See Section 4, ‘Risk’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’
chapter for more information.
In addition to the above, a tailored lifecycle activity framework should also be developed to
promote standard lifecycle management of the road network as outlined further within the
“Asset Management Strategy” section of this AMP.
Road network key performance indicators should be established and tracked annually as part of
an overall level of service model. See Section 7 ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality is funding 63% of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
37
2. Bridges & Culverts
2.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 7 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s bridges & culverts, including quantities of various assets, their useful life,
their replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s bridges &
culverts assets are valued at $3.4 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was
assigned by the municipality.
Table 7 Key Asset Attributes – Bridges & Culverts
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life (Years) 2016 Unit Replacement Cost 2016 Overall
Replacement Cost
Bridges & Culverts
Bridges 7 40 User-Defined Cost $3,175,000
Culverts 9 40 User-Defined Cost $274,000
Total $3,449,000
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
38
Figure 16 Asset Valuation – Bridges & Culverts
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
39
2.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 17 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its bridges & culverts since 1950. While observed condition data will provide
superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such inf ormation,
understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 2.3) can inform the forecasting and planning
of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of
December 31, 2016.
Figure 17 Historical Investment – Bridges & Culverts
The municipality has invested sporadically in its bridges and culverts since 1950. In the early 2000s, the period of largest investment, $1.3
million was invested with $1.25 million put into bridges.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
40
2.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 18 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s bridges & culverts.
Figure 18 Useful Life Consumption – Bridges & Culverts
40% of the assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining while 44%, with a valuation of $1.5
million, remain in operation beyond their useful life. An additional 15% will reach the end of their
useful life within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
41
2.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s bridges &
culverts as of 2016. By default, we rely on observed field data adapted from OSIM inspections as
provided by the municipality. In the absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy.
All assets are based on assessed data.
Figure 19 Asset Condition – Bridges & Culverts (Condition-based)
Age-based data indicates that while 40% of the municipality’s bridges & culverts are in good to very
good condition, 60%, with a valuation of $2 million, are in poor to very poor condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
42
2.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s bridges & culverts. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or
decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 20 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Bridges & Culverts
In addition to a backlog of $1.5 million, replacement needs will total zero in the next five years, however $535,000 will be required
between 2022 and 2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black line) for its bridges & culverts total $86,000. At
this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet replacement needs as they arise
without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits. The municipality is currently allocating zero funds,
leaving an annual deficit of $86,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level.
Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to meet its future replacement needs, injection of
additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
43
2.6 Recommendations – Bridges & Culverts
Assessed-based data indicates a significant backlog of $1.5 million and 10-year replacement
needs of $535,000. The results and recommendations from the OSIM inspections should be
incorporated into the AMP analysis and used to generate the short-and long-term capital and
maintenance budgets for the bridge and large culvert structures. See Section VIII, ‘Asset
Management Strategies’.
Bridge & culvert structure key performance indicators should be established and tracked
annually as part of an overall level of service model. See Section VII ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality is funding 0% of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
44
3. Water System
3.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 8 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s water system, including quantities of various assets, their useful life,
replacement costs, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s water system
assets are valued at $9.6 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was assigned by the
municipality.
Table 8 Key Asset Attributes – Water
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life (Years) 2016 Unit Replacement
Cost
2016 Overall
Replacement Cost
Water System
Curb Stops 750 35 User-Defined Cost $600,037
Fire Hydrants 83 35 User-Defined Cost $361,868
Water Mains (38mm) 0.05km 100 User-Defined Cost $10,951
Water Mains (50mm) 0.65km 100 User-Defined Cost $188,653
Water Mains (150mm) 16.5km 100 User-Defined Cost $3,290,295
Water Mains (200mm) 3.8km 100 User-Defined Cost $1,074,705
Water Mains (250mm) 10.82km 100 User-Defined Cost $3,067,598
Water Treatment Plant 23 20, 50, 70 User-Defined Cost $277,658
Water Valves 119 35 User-Defined Cost $277,183
Water Facilities 2 70 User-Defined Cost $80,805
Water Meters 832 35 User-Defined Cost 402,000
Total $9,631,753
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
45
Figure 21 Asset Valuation – Water System
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
46
3.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 22 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its water system since 1950. While observed condition data will provide
superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such inf ormation,
understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 3.3) can inform the forecasting and planning
of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of
December 31, 2016.
Figure 22 Historical Investment – Water System
Investments in the water system have been sporadic since the 1950s. In the 1970s, the period of largest investment, $7 million was
invested in the water systems with the whole amount put into watermains.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
47
3.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 23 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s water system.
Figure 23 Useful Life Consumption – Water System
100% of assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
48
3.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s water
services. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In the absence
of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided condition
data for all of its water assets.
Figure 24 Asset Condition – Water System (Condition-based)
Based on assessed data, 27% of assets are in good to very good condition while 73%, with a
valuation of $7 million, are in fair condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
49
3.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s water system assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or
decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 25 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Water System
Assessed condition data shows no backlog and no replacement needs for the next 15 years. The municipality’s annual requirements
(indicated by the black line) for its water system total $136,000. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds
on an annual basis to meet replacement needs as they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure
deficits. However, the municipality is currently allocating $173,000 toward the water network leaving an annual surplus of $37,000. See
the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
50
3.6 Recommendations – Water System
Condition data shows no backlog and minimal 15-year replacement needs. The municipality
should continue its condition assessment program of its water assets to precisely estimate its
financial requirements and field needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition Assessment Programs’ in the
‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
The data collected through condition assessment programs should be integrated into a risk
management framework which will guide prioritization of short, medium, and long term
replacement needs. See Section 4, ‘Risk’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter for more
information.
In addition to the above, a tailored lifecycle activity framework should be developed to promote
standard lifecycle management of the water system as outlined further within the “Asset
Management Strategy” section of this AMP.
Water distribution system key performance indicators should be established and tracked
annually as part of an overall level of service model. See Section VII ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term capital, and operations and
maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
The municipality is funding all of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
51
4. Wastewater Systems
4.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 9 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s wastewater system portfolio, including quantities of various assets, their
useful life, replacement costs, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s
wastewater system assets are valued at $26.7 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below
was assigned by the municipality.
Table 9 Asset Inventory – Wastewater Systems
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life (Years) 2016 Unit Replacement
Cost
2016 Overall
Replacement Cost
Wastewater
Systems
Sanitary Sewer Mains (50mm) 1.2km 100 User-Defined Cost $516,923
Sanitary Sewer Mains (100mm) 5.05km 100 User-Defined Cost $2,143,808
Sanitary Sewer Mains (150mm) 0.8km 100 User-Defined Cost $296,091
Sanitary Sewer Mains (200mm) 23.19km 100 User-Defined Cost $9,794,749
Sanitary Sewer Mains (250mm) 9.8km 100 User-Defined Cost $4,474,112
Sanitary Sewer Mains (300mm) 0.26km 100 User-Defined Cost $94,193
Sanitary Sewer Mains (350mm) 4.35km 100 User-Defined Cost $1,466,750
Sanitary Sewer Valves 42 35 User-Defined Cost $138,617
Wastewater Equipment 35 15, 20, 25 User-Defined Cost $392,289
Wastewater Facilities 29 20, 25, 40, 50, 75 User-Defined Cost $7,348,044
Wastewater Vehicles 2 10 User-Defined Cost $70,000
Total $26,735,576
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
52
Figure 26 Asset Valuation – Wastewater System
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
53
4.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 27 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its wastewater system since 1950. While observed condition data will
provide superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such
information, understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 4.3) can inform the forecasting
and planning of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset
inventory as of December 31, 2016.
Figure 27 Historical Investment – Wastewater System
Major investments into the municipality’s wastewater assets began in the late 1980s. Investments then fluctuated and peaked in the early
2000s at $22 million. During this time $15.8 million was put into sanitary sewer mains.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
54
4.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 28 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s wastewater system.
Figure 28 Useful Life Consumption – Wastewater System
91% of assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining while 1%, with a valuation of $264,000,
remain in operation beyond their useful life.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
55
4.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s sanitary
services as of 2016. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In
the absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided
condition data for all wastewater system assets.
Figure 29 Asset Condition – Wastewater System (Condition-based)
Assessed data indicates that 69% of the assets are in good to good to very good condition, while
11%, with a valuation of $3 million, are in poor to very poor condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
56
4.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s wastewater system assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years
or decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 30 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Wastewater System
In addition to a backlog of $456,000, replacement needs are forecasted to be $444,000 in the next five years, and an additional $1.2
million will be required from 2022 to 2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black line) for its wastewater assets
total $420,000. At this level, funding would be sustainable and replacement needs could be met as they arise without the need for
deferring projects. The municipality is currently allocating $423,000 towards the Sanitary Sewer Network creating an annual surplus of
$3000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, while fulfilling the annual
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
57
requirements will position the municipality to meet its future replacement needs, injection of additional revenues will be needed to
mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
58
4.6 Recommendations – Wastewater System
Condition data indicates a backlog of $465,000 and 10-year replacement needs of $1.6 million.
The municipality should continue its condition assessment program of its wastewater assets to
precisely estimate its financial requirements and field needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition
Assessment Programs’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
The data collected through condition assessment programs should be integrated into a risk
management framework which will guide prioritization of short, medium, and long term
replacement needs. See Section 4, ‘Risk’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter for more
information.
In addition to the above, a tailored lifecycle activity framework should be developed to promote
standard lifecycle management of the wastewater system as outlined further within the “Asset
Management Strategy” section of this AMP.
Wastewater collection system key performance indicators should be established and tracked
annually as part of an overall level of service model. See Section VII ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term operations and maintenance
needs. An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
The municipality is funding all of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
59
5. Storm Network
5.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 10 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s storm network, including quantities of various assets, their useful life, their
replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s storm network
assets are valued at $19 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was assigned by the
municipality.
Table 10 Asset Inventory – Storm Network
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life in Years Valuation Method 2016
Replacement Cost
Storm Network Storm Water Network 2 40 User-Defined Cost $19,000,000
Total $19,000,000
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
60
Figure 31 Asset Valuation – Storm Network
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
61
5.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 32 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its storm network since 1950. While observed condition data will provide
superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such inf ormation,
understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 5.3) can inform the forecasting and planning
of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of
December 31, 2016.
Figure 32 Historical Investment – Storm Network
The storm water network was installed before 1985 with the largest investment taking place in the early 1970s with a valuation of $14
million with a focus on storm mains.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
62
5.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 33 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s storm assets.
Figure 33 Useful Life Consumption – Storm Network
26% of the assets have up to 5 years of useful life remaining while 74%, with a valuation of $14
million, remain in operation beyond their useful life.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
63
5.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s storm
services. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In the absence
of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided 100%
condition data for its storm network assets.
Figure 34 Asset Condition – Storm Network (Condition-based)
Based on assessed data, all the storm network assets are in very poor condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
64
5.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s storm assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or decades.
In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 35 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Storm Network
Assessed data shows a backlog of $14 million and ten-year replacement needs of $5 million. The municipality’s annual requirements
(indicated by the black line) for storm assets total $475,000. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on
an annual basis to meet replacement needs as they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure
deficits. The municipality is currently allocating $75,000 towards the storm network leaving an annual deficit of $400,000. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements
will position the municipality to meet its future replacement needs, injection of additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing
infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
65
5.6 Recommendations – Storm Network
Condition data indicates a backlog of $14 million and 10-year replacement needs of $5 million.
The municipality should continue its condition assessment program of its storm assets to
precisely estimate its financial requirements and field needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition
Assessment Programs’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
Using the above information, the municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term
capital, and operations and maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement value of the assets should then be allocated for
the municipality’s O&M requirements.
Storm network key performance indicators should be established and tracked annually as part
of an overall level of service model. See Section VII ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality is funding 16% of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
66
6. Buildings & Facilities
6.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 11 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s buildings & facilities, including quantities of various assets, their useful life,
their replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s buildings
assets are valued at $5.8 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was assigned by the
municipality.
Table 11 Key Asset Attributes – Buildings & Facilities
Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Useful Life in Years Valuation Method 2016 Replacement Cost
Buildings
HVAC 14 20 User Defined Cost $643,999
Interior 8 35 User Defined Cost $1,668,118
Roof 7 15 User Defined Cost $418,864
Services 8 30 User Defined Cost $990,158
Shell 8 55 User Defined Cost $1,200,929
Substructure 9 95 User Defined Cost $947,649
Total $5,869,717
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
67
Figure 36 Asset Valuation – Buildings & Facilities
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
68
6.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 37 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its buildings & facilities since 1950. While observed condition data will
provide superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such
information, understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 6.3) can inform the forecasting
and planning of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset
inventory as of December 31, 2016.
Figure 37 Historical Investment – Buildings & Facilities
The municipality’s investments into its building assets has fluctuated starting in 1980. In 2016, the period of largest investment, $2.2
million was invested into the building assets with a focus on interiors.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
69
6.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 38 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s buildings assets.
Figure 38 Useful Life Consumption – Buildings & Facilities
80% of buildings assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining; 10%, with a valuation of
$612,000 remain in operation beyond their established useful life.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
70
6.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s buildings
assets. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In the absence of
such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided condition data
for 100% of its structures.
Figure 39 Asset Condition – Buildings & Facilities (Condition-based)
63% of buildings assets, with a valuation of $3.7 million, are in good to very good condition; 17%
are in poor to very poor condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
71
6.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s buildings assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or
decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 40 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Buildings & Facilities
Condition data indicates a backlog of $865,000 and minimal ten-year replacement needs of $153,000. The municipality’s annual
requirements (indicated by the black line) for its buildings total $173,000. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating
sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet replacement needs as they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual
infrastructure deficits. The municipality is currently allocating $200,000, leaving an annual surplus of $27,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’
section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, injection of additional revenues will be needed to mitigate
existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
72
6.6 Recommendations – Buildings & Facilities
The municipality should continue its condition inspection program for its buildings & facilities
to precisely estimate future financial needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition Assessment Programs’ in
the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
The data collected through condition assessment programs should be integrated into a risk
management framework which will guide prioritization of short, medium, and long term
replacement needs. See Section 4, ‘Risk’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter for more
information.
In addition to the above, a tailored lifecycle activity framework should be developed to promote
standard lifecycle management of buildings & facilities as outlined further within the “Asset
Management Strategy” section of this AMP.
Using the above information, the municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term
capital, and operations and maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
Facility key performance indicators should be established and tracked annually as part of an
overall level of service model. See Chapter VII, ‘Levels of Service’.
The municipality is funding all of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
73
7. Machinery & Equipment
7.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 12 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s machinery & equipment, including quantities of various assets, their useful
life, their replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s machinery
& equipment assets are valued at $1.1 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was
assigned by the municipality.
Table 12 Asset Inventory – Machinery & Equipment
Asset Type Components Quantity Useful Life in Years Valuation Method 2016
Replacement Cost
Machinery &
Equipment
Facility Equipment 5 20 User Defined $42,000
Fire Equipment 304 10, 15, 20, 25 User Defined $532,600
IT 31 5, 10 User Defined $199,000
Public Works Equipment 161 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 User Defined $372,600
Total $1,146,200
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
74
Figure 41 Asset Valuation – Machinery & Equipment
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
75
7.2 Historical Investment in Machinery & Equipment
Figure 42 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its machinery & equipment since 1950. While observed condition data will
provide superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such
information, understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 7.3) can inform the forecasting
and planning of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset
inventory as of December 31, 2016.
Figure 42 Historical Investment – Machinery & Equipment
The municipality rapidly expanded its machinery & equipment portfolio beginning in the early 2000s. Between 2005 and 2016, the period
of largest investment, $942,000 was invested in the machinery and equipment category.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
76
7.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 43 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s machinery & equipment assets.
Figure 43 Useful Life Consumption – Machinery & Equipment
While 43% of assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining, 6%, with a valuation of $65,000,
remain in operation beyond their useful life. An additional 13% will reach the end of their useful life
within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
77
7.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s machinery
& equipment assets as of 2016. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the
municipality. In the absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The
municipality has provided condition data for 100% of its machinery & equipment assets
Figure 44 Asset Condition – Machinery & Equipment (Condition-based)
Based on assessed data, 12% of assets, with a valuation of $138,000, are in poor to very poor
condition; 59% are in good to very good condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
78
7.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s machinery & equipment assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous
years or decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful
life.
Figure 45 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Machinery & Equipment
In addition to a backlog of $82,000, the municipality’s replacement needs total $137,000 in the next five years. An additional $536,000 will
be required between 2022-2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black line) for its machinery & equipment
total $82,000. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet replacement needs as
they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits. However, the municipality is currently
allocating $10,000, leaving an annual deficit of $72,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for maintaining a sustainable funding level.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
79
Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to meet its future replacement needs, injection of
additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
80
7.6 Recommendations – Machinery & Equipment
Condition data indicates a backlog of $82,000 and 10-year replacement needs of $673,000. The
municipality should continue its condition assessment program of its machinery & equipment
assets to precisely estimate its financial requirements and field needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition
Assessment Programs’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
Using the above information, the municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term
capital, and operations and maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
The municipality is funding 12% of its long-term requirements on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to maintain sustainable and optimal funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
81
8. Land Improvements
8.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 13 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s land improvements, including quantities of various assets, their useful life,
their replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s land
improvements assets are valued at $1.4 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was
assigned by the municipality.
Table 13 Asset Inventory – Land Improvements
Asset Type Components Quantity Useful Life in Years Valuation Method 2016
Replacement Cost
Land
Improvements
Ball Diamonds 1 20 User-Defined Cost $89,236
Fencing 2 20 User-Defined Cost $11,076
Lighting 2 20 User-Defined Cost $62,819
Parking Lot 6 20 User-Defined Cost $141,921
Pavilion 2 20 User-Defined Cost $24,495
Pier 2 20 User-Defined Cost $482,571
Playground Equipment 8 20 User-Defined Cost $466,017
Recycling Amenities 30 20 User-Defined Cost $30,355
Skatepark 1 20 User-Defined Cost $55,400
Stairs 1 20 User-Defined Cost $11,207
Tennis Court 1 20 User-Defined Cost $15,092
Well 1 20 User-Defined Cost $7,507
Total $1,397,696
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
82
Figure 46 Asset Valuation – Land Improvements
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
83
8.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 47 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its land improvements since 1950. While observed condition data will
provide superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such
information, understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 8.3) can inform the forecasting
and planning of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset
inventory as of December 31, 2016.
Figure 47 Historical Investment – Land Improvements
Expenditures in land improvements have fluctuated across the decades. Between 2005 and 2014, the period of largest investment, $1
million was invested with a focus on piers and playground equipment.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
84
8.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 48 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s land improvement assets.
Figure 48 Useful Life Consumption – Land Improvements
71% of the municipality’s land improvement assets, with a valuation of $994,000, have at least 10
years of useful life remaining. An additional 17% will remain in operation beyond their established
useful life.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
85
8.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section we summarize the condition of the municipality’s land
improvement assets. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In
the absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided
condition data for all land improvement assets.
Figure 49 Asset Condition - Land Improvements (Condition-based)
Based on assessed data, 71% of the municipality’s land improvement assets, with a valuation of
$994,000, are in good to very good condition; 20% are in poor to very poor condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
86
8.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s land improvements assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years
or decades. In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 50 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Land Improvements
Based on assessed data there is a backlog $238,000 and the municipality’s replacement needs total $45,000 in the next five years.
Additionally, replacement needs will total $120,000 between 2022-2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black
line) for its land improvements total $55,000. At this funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual
basis to meet replacement needs as they arise without the need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits.
However, the municipality is currently allocating $10,000, leaving an annual deficit of $45,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
87
achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding level. Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to
meet its future replacement needs, injection of additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
88
8.6 Recommendations – Land Improvements
The municipality should continue its condition assessment program for its land improvement
assets to precisely estimate financial needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition Assessment Programs’ in
the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter.
The data collected through condition assessment programs should be integrated into a risk
management framework which will guide prioritization of short, medium, and long term
replacement needs. See Section 4, ‘Risk’ in the ‘Asset Management Strategies’ chapter for more
information.
Using the above information, the municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term
capital and operations and maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
The municipality is funding 18% of its long-term replacement needs on an annual basis. See the
‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal funding levels
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
89
9. Vehicles
9.1 Asset Portfolio: Quantity, Useful Life and Replacement Cost
Table 14 illustrates key asset attributes for the municipality’s vehicles portfolio, including quantities of various assets, their useful life,
their replacement cost, and the valuation method by which the replacement costs were derived. In total, the municipality’s vehicles assets
are valued at $5.4 million based on 2016 replacement costs. The useful life indicated for each asset type below was assigned by the
municipality.
Table 14 Asset Inventory – Vehicles
Asset Type Components Quantity Useful Life in Years Valuation Method 2016
Replacement Cost
Vehicles
Construction 6 15, 20 User-Defined Cost $1,620,000
Fire Truck 6 20 User-Defined Cost $2,081,000
Pick Up Truck 7 10 User-Defined Cost $290,000
Tandem Truck 4 10 User-Defined Cost $1,400,000
Total $5,391,000
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
90
Figure 51 Asset Valuation – Vehicles
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
91
9.2 Historical Investment in Infrastructure
Figure 52 shows the municipality’s historical investments in its vehicles portfolio since 1950. While observed condition data will provide
superior accuracy in estimating replacement needs and should be incorporated into strategic plans, in the absence of such inf ormation,
understanding past expenditure patterns and current useful life consumption levels (Section 9.3) can inform the forecasting and planning
of infrastructure needs and in the development of a capital program. Note that this graph only includes the active asset inventory as of
December 31, 2016.
Figure 52 Historical Investment – Vehicles
Investments in vehicles began in the early 2000s. In 2005-2009, the period of largest investment, $2.7 million was invested with $1.7
million put into fire trucks.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
92
9.3 Useful Life Consumption
In conjunction with historical spending patterns and observed condition data, understanding the
consumption rate of assets based on industry established useful life standards provides a more
complete profile of the state of a community’s infrastructure. Figure 53 illustrates the useful life
consumption levels as of 2016 for the municipality’s vehicles.
Figure 53 Useful Life Consumption – Vehicles
50% of assets have at least 10 years of useful life remaining. An additional 9% will reach the end of
their useful life within the next five years.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
93
9.4 Current Asset Condition
Using replacement cost, in this section, we summarize the condition of the municipality’s vehicles
assets as of 2015. By default, we rely on observed field data as provided by the municipality. In the
absence of such information, age-based data is used as a proxy. The municipality has provided
condition data for 100% of all its vehicles.
Figure 54 Asset Condition – Vehicles (Condition-based)
Condition data shows that 8% of the municipality’s vehicle assets are in poor to very poor
condition; 81%, with a valuation of $4.4 million are in good to very good condition.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
94
9.5 Forecasting Replacement Needs
In this section, we illustrate the short-, medium- and long-term infrastructure spending requirements (replacement only) for the
municipality’s vehicles assets. The backlog is the aggregate investment in infrastructure that was deferred over previous years or decades.
In the absence of observed data, the backlog represents the value of assets that remain in operation beyond their useful life.
Figure 55 Forecasting Replacement Needs – Vehicles
In addition to a backlog of $350,000, replacement needs will total over $140,000 over the next five years; an additional $1.7 million will be
required between 2022-2026. The municipality’s annual requirements (indicated by the black line) for its vehicles total $379,000. At this
funding level, the municipality would be allocating sufficient funds on an annual basis to meet replacement needs as they arise without the
need for deferring projects and accruing annual infrastructure deficits. However, the municipality is not allocating any funds to this
category, leaving an annual deficit of $379,000. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section for achieving a more optimal and sustainable funding
level. Further, while fulfilling the annual requirements will position the municipality to meet its future replacement needs, injection of
additional revenues will be needed to mitigate existing infrastructure backlogs.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
95
9.6 Recommendations – Vehicles
The municipality should continue its condition assessment program for its vehicle assets to
precisely estimate financial needs. See Section 2, ‘Condition Assessment Programs’ in the ‘Asset
Management Strategies’ chapter.
Using the above information, the municipality should assess its short-, medium- and long-term
capital and operations and maintenance needs.
An appropriate percentage of the replacement costs should then be allocated for the
municipality’s O&M requirements.
The municipality is not currently allocating any funding to replacement needs on an annual
basis. See the ‘Financial Strategy’ section on how to achieve more sustainable and optimal
funding levels.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
96
VII. Levels of Service
The two primary risks to a municipality’s financial sustainability are the total lifecycle costs of
infrastructure, and establishing levels of service (LOS) that exceed its financial capacity. In this
regard, municipalities face a choice: overpromise and underdeliver; under promise and overdeliver;
or promise only that which can be delivered efficiently without placing inequitable burden on
taxpayers. In general, there is often a trade-off between political expedience and judicious, long-
term fiscal stewardship.
Developing realistic LOS using meaningful key performance indicators (KPIs) can be instrumental
in managing citizen expectations, identifying areas requiring higher investments, driving
organizational performance and securing the highest value for money from public assets. However,
municipalities face diminishing returns with greater granularity in their LOS and KPI framework.
That is, the objective should be to track only those KPIs that are relevant and insightful and reflect
the priorities of the municipality.
1. Guiding Principles for Developing LOS
Beyond meeting regulatory requirements, levels of service established should support the intended
purpose of the asset and its anticipated impact on the community and the municipality. LOS
generally have an overarching corporate description, a customer oriented description, and a
technical measurement. Many types of LOS, e.g., availability, reliability, safety, responsiveness and
cost effectiveness, are applicable across all service areas in a municipality. The following LOS
categories are established as guiding principles for the LOS that each service area in the
municipality should strive to provide internally to the municipality and to residents/customers.
These are derived from the Town of Whitby’s Guide to Developing Service Area Asset Management
Plans.
Table 15 LOS Categories
LOS Category Description
Reliable Services are predictable and continuous; services of sufficient capacity are convenient and
accessible to the entire community.
Cost Effective Services are provided at the lowest possible cost for both current and future customers, for a
required level of service, and are affordable.
Responsive
Opportunities for community involvement in decision making are provided; and customers are
treated fairly and consistently, within acceptable timeframes, demonstrating respect, empathy and
integrity.
Safe Services are delivered such that they minimize health, safety and security risks.
Suitable Services are suitable for the intended function (fit for purpose).
Sustainable Services preserve and protect the natural and heritage environment.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
97
2. Key Performance Indicators and Targets
In this section, we identify industry standard KPIs for major infrastructure classes that the
municipality can incorporate into its performance measurement and for tracking its progress over
future iterations of its AMPs. The municipality should develop appropriate and achievable targets
that reflect evolving demand on infrastructure, its fiscal capacity and the overall corporate
objectives.
Table 16 Key Performance Indicators – Road Network and Bridges & Culverts
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic
Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to roads, and bridges & culverts)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Cost per capita for roads, and bridges & culverts
Maintenance cost per square metre
Revenue required to maintain annual network growth
Total cost of borrowing vs. total cost of service
Tactical
Overall Bridge Condition Index (BCI) as a percentage of desired BCI
Percentage of road network rehabilitated/reconstructed
Percentage of paved road lane kilometres rated as poor to very poor
Percentage of bridges and large culverts rated as poor to very poor
Percentage of asset class value spent on O&M
Operational
Indicators
Percentage of roads inspected within the last five years
Percentage of bridges and large culverts inspected within the last two years
Operating costs for paved lane per kilometres
Operating costs for bridge and large culverts per square metre
Percentage of customer requests with a 24-hour response rate
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
98
Table 17 Key Performance Indicators – Buildings & Facilities
Table 18 Key Performance Indicators – Vehicles
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic
Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to buildings & facilities)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Revenue required to meet growth related demand
Repair and maintenance costs per square metre
Energy, utility and water cost per square metre
Tactical
Percentage of component value replaced
Percent of facilities rated poor or critical
Percentage of facilities replacement value spent on O&M
Facility utilization rate
𝑈𝑟�ℎ𝑙�ℎ𝑧𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑐=𝑂𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑖𝑎𝑎 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑈𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑎 𝐴𝑟𝑎𝑎
Operational
Indicators
Percentage of facilities inspected within the last five years
Number/type of service requests
Percentage of customer requests addressed within 24 hours
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic
Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to vehicles)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Cost per capita for vehicles
Revenue required to maintain annual fleet portfolio growth
Total cost of borrowing vs. total cost of service
Tactical
Percentage of all vehicles replaced
Average age of vehicles
Percent of vehicles rated poor or critical
Percentage of vehicles replacement value spent on O&M
Operational
Indicators
Average downtime per vehicles category
Average utilization per vehicles category and/or each vehicle
Ratio of preventative maintenance repairs vs. reactive repairs
Percent of vehicles that received preventative maintenance
Number/type of service requests
Percentage of customer requests addressed within 24 hours
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
99
Table 19 Key Performance Indicators – Water, Sanitary and Storm Networks
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to water, sanitary and storm)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Total cost of borrowing compared to total cost of service
Revenue required to maintain annual network growth
Tactical
Percentage of water, sanitary and storm network rehabilitated/reconstructed
Annual percentage of growth in water, sanitary and storm network
Percentage of mains where the condition is rated poor or critical for each network
Percentage of water, sanitary and storm network replacement value spent on O&M
Operational
Indicators
Percentage of water, sanitary and storm network inspected
Operating costs for the collection of wastewater per kilometre of main
Number of wastewater main backups per 100 kilometres of main
Operating costs for storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal) per
kilometre of drainage system.
Operating costs for the distribution/transmission of drinking water per kilometre of water
distribution pipe
Number of days when a boil water advisory issued by the medical officer of health, applicable
to a municipal water supply, was in effect
Number of water main breaks per 100 kilometres of water distribution pipe in a year
Number of customer requests received annually per water, sanitary and storm
Percentage of customer requests addressed within 24 hours per water, sanitary and storm
network
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
100
Table 20 Key Performance Indicators – Machinery & Equipment
Table 21 Key Performance Indicators – Land Improvements
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic
Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to machinery & equipment)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Cost per capita for machinery & equipment
Revenue required to maintain annual portfolio growth
Total cost of borrowing vs. total cost of service
Tactical
Percentage of all machinery & equipment replaced
Average age of machinery & equipment assets
Percent of machinery & equipment rated poor or critical
Percentage of vehicles replacement value spent on O&M
Operational
Indicators
Average downtime per machinery & equipment asset
Ratio of preventative maintenance repairs vs. reactive repairs
Percent of machinery & equipment that received preventative maintenance
Number/type of service requests
Level KPI (Reported Annually)
Strategic Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value
Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to land improvements)
Financial
Indicators
Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures
Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures
Cost per capita for supplying parks, playgrounds, etc.
Repair and maintenance costs per square metre
Tactical
Percent of land improvements rated poor or critical
Percentage of replacement value spent on O&M
Parkland per capita
Operational
Indicators
Percentage of land improvements inspected within the last five years
Number/type of service requests
Percentage of customer requests addressed within 24 hours
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
101
3. Future Performance
In addition to a municipality’s financial capacity and legislative requirements, many factors,
internal and external, can influence the establishment of LOS and their associated KPI. These can
include the municipality’s overarching mission as an organization, the current state of its
infrastructure and the wider social, political and macroeconomic context. The following factors
should inform the development of most levels of service targets and their associated KPIs:
Strategic Objectives and Corporate Goals
The municipality’s long-term direction is outlined in its corporate and strategic plans. This
direction will dictate the types of services it aims to deliver to its residents and the quality of those
services. These high-level goals are vital in identifying strategic (long-term) infrastructure
priorities and as a result, the investments needed to produce desired levels of service.
State of the Infrastructure
The current state of capital assets will determine the quality of services the municipality can deliver
to its residents. As such, levels of service should reflect the existing capacity of assets to deliver
those services, and may vary (increase) with planned maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement
activities and timelines.
Community Expectations
The general public will often have qualitative and quantitative insights regarding the levels of
service a particular asset or a network of assets should deliver, e.g., what a road in ‘good’ condition
should look like or the travel time between destinations. The public should be consulted in
establishing LOS; however, the discussions should be centered on clearly outlining the lifecycle
costs associated with delivering any improvements in LOS.
Economic Trends
Macroeconomic trends will have a direct impact on the LOS for most infrastructure services. Fuel
costs, fluctuations in interest rates and the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar can impede or
accelerate any planned growth in infrastructure services.
Demographic Changes
The composition of residents in a municipality can also serve as an infrastructure demand driver,
and as a result, can change how a municipality allocates its resources (e.g., an aging population may
require diversion of resources from parks and sports facilities to additional wellbeing centers).
Population growth is also a significant demand driver for existing assets (lowering LOS), and may
require the municipality to construct new infrastructure to parallel community expectations.
Environmental Change
Forecasting for infrastructure needs based on climate change remains an imprecise science.
However, broader environmental and weather patterns have a direct impact on the reliability of
critical infrastructure services.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
102
4. Monitoring, Updating and Actions
The municipality should collect data on its current performance against the KPIs listed and
establish targets that reflect the current fiscal capacity of the municipality, its corporate and
strategic goals, and as feasible, changes in demographics that may place additional demand on its
various asset classes. For some asset classes, e.g., minor equipment, furniture, etc., cursory levels of
service and their respective KPIs will suffice. For major infrastructure classes, detailed technical
and customer-oriented KPIs can be critical. Once this data is collected and targets are established,
the progress of the municipality should be tracked annually.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
103
VIII. Asset Management Strategies
The asset management strategy section will outline an implementation process that can be used to
identify and prioritize renewal, rehabilitation and maintenance activities. This will assist in the
development of a 10-year capital plan, including growth projections, to ensure the best overall
health and performance of the municipality’s infrastructure. This section includes an overview of
condition assessment, the lifecycle interventions required, and prioritization techniques, including
risk, to determine which capital projects should move forward into the budget first.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
104
1. Non-Infrastructure Solutions & Requirements
The municipality should explore, as requested through the provincial requirements, which non-
infrastructure solutions should be incorporated into the budgets for its infrastructure services.
Non-infrastructure solutions are such items as studies, policies, condition assessments,
consultation exercises, etc., that could potentially extend the life of assets or lower total asset
program costs in the future without a direct investment into the infrastructure.
Typical solutions for a municipality include linking the asset management plan to the strategic plan,
growth and demand management studies, infrastructure master plans, better integrated
infrastructure and land use planning, public consultation on levels of service and condition
assessment programs. As part of future asset management plans, a review of these requirements
should take place, and a portion of the capital budget should be dedicated for these items in each
programs budget.
It is recommended, under this category of solutions, that the municipality should develop and
implement holistic condition assessment programs for all asset classes. This will advance the
understanding of infrastructure needs, improve budget prioritization methodologies and provide a
clearer path of what is required to achieve sustainable infrastructure programs.
2. Condition Assessment Programs
The foundation of an intelligent asset management practice is based on having comprehensive and
reliable information on the current condition of the infrastructure. Municipalities need to have a
clear understanding regarding the performance and condition of their assets, as all management
decisions regarding future expenditures and field activities should be based on this knowledge. An
incomplete understanding of an asset may lead to its untimely failure or premature replacement.
Some benefits of holistic condition assessment programs within the overall asset management
process are listed below:
understanding of overall network condition leads to better management practices
allows for the establishment of rehabilitation programs
prevents future failures and provides liability protection
potential reduction in operation/maintenance costs
accurate current asset valuation
allows for the establishment of risk assessment programs
establishes proactive repair schedules and preventive maintenance programs
avoids unnecessary expenditures
extends asset service life therefore improving level of service
improves financial transparency and accountability
enables accurate asset reporting which, in turn, enables better decision making
Condition assessment can involve different forms of analysis such as subjective opinion,
mathematical models, or variations thereof, and can be completed through a very detailed or very
cursory approach. When establishing the condition assessment for an entire asset class, a cursory
approach (metrics such as good, fair, poor, very poor) is used. This is an economical strategy that
will still provide up to date information, and will allow for detailed assessment or follow-up
inspections on those assets captured as poor or critical condition later.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
105
The Impact of Condition Assessments
In 2015, PSD published a study in partnership with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
(AMO). The report, The State of Ontario’s Roads and Bridges: An Analysis of 93 Municipalities,
enumerated the infrastructure deficits, annual investment gaps, and the physical state of roads,
bridges and culverts with a 2013 replacement value of $28 billion.
A critical finding of the report was the dramatic difference in the condition profile of the assets
when comparing age-based estimates and actual field inspection observations. For each asset
group, field data based condition ratings were significantly higher than age-based condition ratings,
with paved roads, culverts, and bridges showing an increase in score (0-100) of +29, +30, and +23
points respectively. In other words, age-based measurements maybe underestimating the condition
of assets by as much as 30%.
Figure 56 Comparing Age-based and Assessed Condition Data
36
32
40
59
62
69
Bridges (Structure)
Culverts (Structure)
Paved Roads
Assessed Age-Based
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
106
2.1 Pavement Network
Typical industry pavement inspections are performed by consulting firms using specialized
assessment vehicles equipped with various electronic sensors and data capture equipment. The
vehicles will drive the entire road network and typically collect two different types of inspection
data: surface distress data and roughness data.
Surface distress data involves the collection of multiple industry standard surface distresses, which
are captured either electronically using sensing detection equipment mounted on the van, or
visually by the van's inspection crew. Roughness data capture involves the measurement of the
roughness of the road, measured by lasers that are mounted on the inspection van's bumper,
calibrated to an international roughness index.
Another option for a cursory level of condition assessment is for municipal road crews to perform
simple windshield surveys as part of their regular patrol. Many municipalities have created data
collection inspection forms to assist this process and to standardize what presence of defects would
constitute a good, fair, poor, or critical score. Lacking any other data for the complete road network,
this can still be seen as a good method and will assist greatly with the overall management of the
road network.
It is recommended that the municipality continue its pavement condition assessment program and
that a portion of capital funding is dedicated to this. We also recommend expansion of this program
to incorporate additional components.
2.2 Bridges & Culverts
Ontario municipalities are mandated by the Ministry of Transportation to inspect all structures that
have a span of 3 metres or more, according to the OSIM (Ontario Structure Inspection Manual).
Structure inspections must be performed by, or under the guidance of, a structural engineer, must
be performed on a biennial basis (once every two years), and include such information as structure
type, number of spans, span lengths, other key attribute data, detailed photo images, and structure
element by element inspection, rating and recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement.
The best approach to develop a 10-year needs list for the municipality’s structure portfolio relies on
the structural engineer who performs the inspections to also produce a maintenance requirements
report, and rehabilitation & replacement requirements report as part of the overall assignment. In
addition to defining the overall needs requirements, the structural engineer should identify those
structures that will require more detailed investigations and non-destructive testing techniques.
Examples of these investigations are:
Detailed deck condition survey
Non-destructive delamination survey of asphalt covered decks
Substructure condition survey
Detailed coating condition survey
Underwater investigation
Fatigue investigation
Structure evaluation
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
107
Through the OSIM recommendations and additional detailed investigations, a 10-year needs list can
be developed for the municipality’s bridges.
2.3 Buildings & Facilities
The most popular and practical type of buildings & facilities assessment involves qualified groups of
trained industry professionals (engineers or architects) performing an analysis of the condition of a
group of facilities and their components, that may vary in terms of age, design, construction
methods and materials. This analysis can be done by walk-through inspection (the most accurate
approach), mathematical modeling or a combination of both. The following asset classifications are
typically inspected:
Site Components – property around the facility and outdoor components such as utilities,
signs, stairways, walkways, parking lots, fencing, courtyards and landscaping
Structural Components – physical components such as the foundations, walls, doors,
windows, roofs
Electrical Components – all components that use or conduct electricity such as wiring,
lighting, electric heaters, and fire alarm systems
Mechanical Components – components that convey and utilize all non-electrical utilities
within a facility such as gas pipes, furnaces, boilers, plumbing, ventilation, and fire extinguishing
systems
Vertical Movement – components used for moving people between floors of buildings such as
elevators, escalators and stair lifts
Once collected, this information can be uploaded into the CityWide®, the municipality’s asset
management and asset registry software database in order for short- and long-term repair,
rehabilitation and replacement reports to be generated to assist with programming the short- and
long-term maintenance and capital budgets.
It is recommended that the municipality continue its inspection of structures and expand its
condition assessment program for other segments. It is also recommended that a portion of capital
funding is dedicated to this.
2.4 Vehicles and Machinery & Equipment
The typical approach to optimizing the maintenance expenditures of vehicles and machinery &
equipment, is through routine vehicle and component inspections, routine servicing, and a routine
preventative maintenance program. Most makes and models of vehicles and machinery assets are
supplied with maintenance manuals that define the appropriate schedules and routines for typical
maintenance and servicing, and also more detailed restoration or rehabilitation protocols.
The primary goal of sound maintenance is to avoid or mitigate the consequence of failure of
equipment or parts. An established preventative maintenance program serves to ensure this, as it
will consist of scheduled inspections and follow up repairs of vehicles and machinery & equipment
in order to decrease breakdowns and excessive downtimes.
A good preventative maintenance program will include partial or complete overhauls of equipment
at specific periods, including oil changes, lubrications, fluid changes and so on. In addition, workers
can record equipment or part deterioration so they can schedule to replace or repair worn parts
before they fail.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
108
The ideal preventative maintenance program would move progressively further away from reactive
repairs and instead towards the prevention of all equipment failure before it occurs.
It is recommended that a preventative maintenance routine is defined and established for all
vehicles and machinery & equipment assets, and that a software application is utilized for the
overall management of the program.
2.5 Water System
Unlike sewer mains, it is often prohibitively difficult to inspect water mains from the inside due to
the constant and high-pressure flow of water. A physical inspection requires a disruption of service
to residents, can be an expensive exercise and is time consuming to set up. It is recommended
practice that physical inspection of water mains typically occurs only for high-risk, large
transmission mains within the system, and only when there is a requirement. There are a number
of high tech inspection techniques in the industry for large diameter pipes but these should be
researched first for applicability as they are quite expensive. Examples include remote eddy field
current (RFEC), ultrasonic and acoustic techniques, impact echo (IE), and Georadar.
For the majority of pipes within the distribution network, gathering key information in regards to
the main and its environment can supply the best method to determine a general condition. Key
data that may be used, along with weighting factors, to determine an overall condition score include
age, material type, breaks, hydrant flow inspections and soil condition.
It is recommended that the municipality continue its watermain assessment program, and that
funds are budgeted for this.
2.6 Sewer Network Inspection (Sanitary and Storm)
The most popular and practical type of sanitary and storm sewer assessment is the use of Closed
Circuit Television Video (CCTV). The process involves a small robotic crawler vehicle with a CCTV
camera attached that is lowered down a maintenance hole into the sewer main to be inspected.
The vehicle and camera then travel the length of the pipe, providing a live video feed to a truck on
the road above where a technician/inspector records defects and information regarding the pipe. A
wide range of construction or deterioration problems can be captured, including open/displaced
joints, presence of roots, infiltration & inflow, cracking, fracturing, exfiltration, collapse,
deformation of pipe and more. Therefore, sewer CCTV inspection is an effective tool for locating
and evaluating structural defects and general condition of underground pipes.
Even though CCTV is an excellent option for inspection of sewers, it is a fairly costly process and
does take significant time to inspect a large volume of pipes.
Another option in the industry today is the use of Zoom Camera equipment. This is very similar to
traditional CCTV, however, a crawler vehicle is not used. Rather, in its place, a camera is lowered
down a maintenance hole attached to a pole like piece of equipment. The camera is then rotated
towards each connecting pipe and the operator above progressively zooms in to record all defects
and information about each pipe. The downside to this technique is the further down the pipe the
image is zoomed, the less clarity is available to accurately record defects and measurement. The
upside is the process is far quicker and significantly less expensive and an assessment of the
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
109
manhole can be provided as well. Also, it is important to note that 80% of pipe deficiencies
generally occur within 20 metres of each manhole.
It is recommended that the municipality continue its wastewater main assessment program expend
it to include storm sewer mains. A portion of capital funding should be dedicated to this.
2.7 Parks and Land Improvements
CSA standards provide guidance on the process and protocols in regards to the inspection of parks
and their associated assets, e.g., play spaces and equipment. The land improvements inspection will
involve qualified groups of trained industry professionals (operational staff or landscape
architects) performing an analysis of the condition of a group of land improvement assets and their
components. The most accurate way of determining the condition requires a walk-through to
collect baseline data. The following key asset classifications are typically inspected:
Physical Site Components – physical components on the site of the park such as fences,
utilities, stairways, walkways, parking lots, irrigation systems, monuments, fountains
Recreation Components – physical components such as playgrounds, bleachers, back stops,
splash pads, and benches
Land Site Components – land components on the site of the park such as landscaping, sports
fields, trails, natural areas, and associated drainage systems
Minor Park Facilities – small facilities within the park site such as: sun shelters, washrooms,
concession stands, change rooms, storage sheds
It is recommended that the municipality continue its parks condition assessment program and that
a portion of capital funding is dedicated to this.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
110
3. Lifecycle Analysis Framework
An industry review was conducted to determine which lifecycle activities can be applied at the
appropriate time in an asset’s life, to provide the greatest additional life at the lowest cost. In the
asset management industry, this is simply put as doing the right thing to the right asset at the right
time. If these techniques are applied across entire asset networks or portfolios (e.g., the entire road
network), the municipality can gain the best overall asset condition while expending the lowest
total cost for those programs.
3.1 Paved Roads
The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities
and costs for paved roads. With future updates of this asset management strategy, the municipality
may wish to run the same analysis with a detailed review of municipality activities used for roads
and the associated local costs for those work activities. All of this information can be entered into
the CityWide® software suite in order to perform updated financial analysis as more detailed
information becomes available. The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a
road with a 30-year life.
Figure 57 Paved Road General Deterioration Profile
As shown above, during the road’s lifecycle, there are various windows available for work activity
that will maintain or extend the life of the asset. These windows are: maintenance; preventative
maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction.
Excellent: Maintenance
Good: Preventative Maintenance
Fair: Rehabilitation
Poor: Replace
100
75
50
25
0
Years in Service 30 Years
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
111
The windows or thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied to also coincide
approximately with the condition state of the asset as shown below:
Table 22 Asset Condition and Related Work Activity for Paved Roads
Condition Condition Range Work Activity
Very Good
(Maintenance only phase) 81-100 Maintenance only
Good
(Preventative maintenance phase) 61-80 Crack sealing
Emulsions
Fair
(Rehabilitation phase) 41-60
Resurface - mill & pave
Resurface - asphalt overlay
Single & double surface treatment (for rural roads)
Poor
(Reconstruction phase) 21-40 Reconstruct - pulverize and pave
Reconstruct - full surface and base reconstruction
Very Poor
(Reconstruction phase)
0-20
Critical includes assets beyond their useful lives
which make up the backlog. They require the same
interventions as the ‘poor’ category above.
With future updates of this asset management strategy, the municipality may wish to review the
above condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to
better suit the municipality’s work program. Also note: when adjusting these thresholds, it actually
adjusts the level of service provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required. These
thresholds and condition ranges can be updated and a revised financial analysis can be calculated.
These adjustments will be an important component of future asset management plans, as the
province requires each municipality to present various management options within the financing
plan.
It is recommended that the municipality establish a lifecycle activity framework for the various
classes of paved road within their transportation network.
3.2 Bridges & Culverts
The best approach to develop a 10-year needs list for the municipality’s bridge structure portfolio
relies on the structural engineer who performs the inspections to develop a maintenance
requirements report, a rehabilitation and replacement requirements report and identify additional
detailed inspections as required.
3.3 Buildings & Facilities
The best approach to develop a 10-year needs list for the municipality’s facilities portfolio would be
to have the engineers, operational staff or architects who perform the facility inspections to also
develop a complete portfolio maintenance requirements report and rehabilitation and replacement
requirements report, and also identify additional detailed inspections and follow up studies as
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
112
required. This may be performed as a separate assignment once all individual facility
audits/inspections are complete.
The above reports could be considered the beginning of a 10-year maintenance and capital plan;
however, within the facilities industry, there are other key factors that should be considered to
determine over all priorities and future expenditures. Some examples would be functional and
legislative requirements, energy conservation programs and upgrades, customer complaints and
health and safety concerns, and customer expectations balanced with willingness-to-pay initiatives.
It is recommended that the municipality establish a prioritization framework for the facilities asset
class that incorporates the key components outlined above.
3.4 Vehicles and Machinery & Equipment
The best approach to develop a 10-year needs list for the municipality’s vehicles and machinery &
equipment portfolio would first be through a defined preventative maintenance program, and
secondly, through an optimized lifecycle vehicle replacement schedule. The preventative
maintenance program would serve to determine budget requirements for operating and minor
capital expenditures for renewal of parts, and major refurbishments and rehabilitations. An
optimized replacement program will ensure a vehicle or equipment asset is replaced at the correct
point in time in order to minimize overall cost of ownership, minimize costly repairs and downtime,
while maximizing potential re-sale value. There is significant benchmarking information available
within the vehicles industry in regard to vehicle lifecycles which can be used to assist in this
process. Once appropriate replacement schedules are established, the short- and long-term budgets
can be funded accordingly.
There are, of course, functional aspects of vehicles management that should also be examined in
further detail as part of the long-term management plan, such as vehicles utilization and
incorporating green vehicles, etc. It is recommended that the municipality establish a prioritization
framework for the vehicles asset class that incorporates the key components outlined above.
3.5 Sanitary and Storm Sewers
The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities
and costs for sanitary and storm sewer rehabilitation and replacement. With future updates of this
asset management strategy, the municipality may wish to run the same analysis with a detailed
review of activities used for sewer mains and the associated local costs for those work activities .
This information can be input into the CityWide® software suite in order to perform updated
financial analysis as more detailed information becomes available. The following diagram depicts a
general deterioration profile of a sewer main with a 100-year life.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
113
Figure 58 Sewer Main General Deterioration
As shown above, during the sewer main’s lifecycle there are various windows available for work
activity that will maintain or extend the life of the asset. These windows are: maintenance; major
maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction. The windows or thresholds for
when certain work activities should be applied also coincide approximately with the condition state
of the asset as shown below:
Table 23 Asset Condition and Related Work Activity for Sewer Mains
Condition Condition Range Work Activity
Very Good
(Maintenance only phase) 81-100 Maintenance only (cleaning & flushing etc.)
Good
(Preventative maintenance phase) 61-80 Mahhole repairs
Small pipe section repairs
Fair
(Rehabilitation phase) 41-60 Structural relining
Poor
(Reconstruction phase) 21-40 Pipe replacement
Very Poor
(Reconstruction phase)
0-20
Critical includes assets beyond their useful lives
which make up the backlog. They require the same
interventions as the “poor” category above.
Excellent: Maintenance
Good: Preventative Maintenance
Fair: Rehabilitation
Poor: Replace
100
75
50
25
0
Years in Service 100 Years
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
114
With future updates of this asset management strategy the municipality may wish to review the
above condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to
better suit the municipality’s work program. Also note: when adjusting these thresholds, it actually
adjusts the level of service provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required. These
adjustments will be an important component of future asset management plans, as the province
requires each municipality to present various management options within the financing plan.
3.6 Water System
As with roads and sewers, the following analysis has been conducted at a high level, using industry
standard activities and costs for water main rehabilitation and replacement. The following diagram
depicts a general deterioration profile of a water main with an 80-year life.
Figure 59 Water Main General Deterioration
As shown above, during the water main’s lifecycle, there are various windows available for work
activity that will maintain or extend the life of the asset. These windows are: maintenance; major
maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction. The windows or thresholds for
when certain work activities should be applied also coincide approximately with the condition state
of the asset as shown in Table 24.
Excellent: Maintenance
Good: Preventative Maintenance
Fair: Rehabilitation
Poor: Replace
100
75
50
25
0
Years in Service 80 Years
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
115
Table 24 Asset Condition and Related W ork Activity for Water Mains
Condition Condition
Range Work Activity
Very Good
(Maintenance only phase) 81-100 Maintenance only (cleaning & flushing etc.)
Good
(Preventative maintenance phase) 61-80 Water main break repairs
Small pipe section repairs
Fair
(Rehabilitation phase) 41-60 Structural water main relining
Poor
(Reconstruction phase) 21-40 Pipe replacement
Very Poor
(Reconstruction phase) 0-20
Critical includes assets beyond their useful lives which
make up the backlog. They require the same
interventions as the “poor” category above.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
116
4. Growth and Demand
Growth is a critical infrastructure demand driver for most infrastructure services. As such, the
municipality must not only account for the lifecycle cost for its existing asset portfolio, but those of
any anticipated and forecasted capital projects associated specifically with growth. Based on the
2016 census, the population for Bayham has increased 5.8% since 2011 to reach 7396. Population
changes will require the municipality to determine the impact to expected levels of service and if
any changes to the existing asset inventory may be required.
5. Project Prioritization and Risk Management
Generally, infrastructure needs exceed municipal capacity. As such, municipalities rely heavily on
provincial and federal programs and grants to finance important capital projects. Fund scarcity
means projects and investments must be carefully selected based on the state of infrastructure,
economic development goals, and the needs of an evolving and growing community. These factors,
along with social and environmental considerations will form the basis of a robust risk
management framework.
5.1 Defining Risk Management
From an asset management perspective, risk is a function of the consequences of failure (e.g., the
negative economic, financial, and social consequences of an asset in the event of a failure); and, the
probability of failure (e.g., how likely is the asset to fail in the short- or long-term). The
consequences of failure are typically reflective of:
An asset’s importance in an overall system:
For example, the failure of an individual computer workstation for which there are readily
available substitutes is much less consequential and detrimental than the failure of a network
server or telephone exchange system.
The criticality of the function performed:
For example, a mechanical failure on a road construction equipment may delay the progress of
a project, but a mechanical failure on a fire pumper truck may lead to immediate life safety
concerns for fire fighters, and the public, as well as significant property damage.
The exposure of the public and/or staff to injury or loss of life:
For example, a single sidewalk asset may demand little consideration and carry minimum
importance to the municipality’s overall pedestrian network and performs a modest function.
However, members of the public interact directly with the asset daily and are exposed to
potential injury due to any trip hazards or other structural deficiencies that may exist.
The probability of failure is generally a function of an asset’s physical condition, which is heavily
influenced by the asset’s age and the amount of investment that has been made in the maintenance
and renewal of the asset throughout its life.
Risk mitigation is traditionally thought of in terms of safety and liability factors. In asset
management, the definition of risk should heavily emphasize these factors but should be expanded
to consider the risks to the municipality’s ability to deliver targeted levels of service
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
117
The impact that actions (or inaction) on one asset will have on other related assets
The opportunities for economic efficiency (realized or lost) relative to the actions taken
5.2 Risk Matrices
Using the logic above, a risk matrix will illustrate each asset’s overall risk, determined by
multiplying the probability of failure (PoF) scores with the consequence of failure (CoF) score, as
illustrated in the table that follow. This can be completed as a holistic exercise against any data set
by determining which factors (or attributes) are available and will contribute to the PoF or CoF of
an asset. Figure 60 (known as a bowtie model in the risk industry) illustrates this concept. The
probability of failure is increased as more and more factors collude to cause asset failure.
Figure 60 Bow Tie Risk Model
Failure
Event
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
Includes immediate and long-
term economic, social and
environmental
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE
Increased by fundamental and
immediate causes such as age,
or observed condition
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
118
Probability of Failure
In this AMP, the probability of a failure event is predicted by the condition of the asset.
Table 25 Probability of Failure – All Assets
Asset Classes Condition Rating Probability of Failure
ALL
0-20 Very Poor 5 – Very High
21-40 Poor 4 – High
41-60 Fair 3 – Moderate
61-80 Good 2 – Low
81-100 Excellent 1 – Very Low
Consequence of Failure
The consequence of failure for the asset classes analyzed in this AMP will be determined either by
the replacement costs of assets, or other attributes as relevant. These attributes include material
types, classifications, or size. Asset classes for which replacement cost is used include: bridges &
culverts, buildings & facilities, land improvements, vehicles, and machinery & equipment. This
approach is premised on the assumption that the higher the replacement cost, the larger (and likely
more important) the asset, requiring a higher risk scoring.
Assets for which other attributes are used include: water, wastewater, and roads. Attributes are
selected based on their impact on service delivery. For linear infrastructure, pipe diameter is used
to estimate a suitable consequence of failure score as it reflects the potential upstream service area
affected. Scoring for roads, the risk is based on classification as it reflects the traffic volumes and
number of people affected.
Table 26 Consequence of Failure – Roads
Table 27 Consequence of Failure – Bridges & Culverts
Road Classification Consequence of failure
Surface – Gravel Score of 1
Surface – Tar & Chip Score of 3
Surface – Asphalt Score of 4
Replacement Value Consequence of failure
Up to $200k Score of 1
$350k and below Score of 2
$450k and below Score of 3
$750k and below Score of 4
Over $750k Score of 5
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
119
Table 28 Consequence of Failure – Water Mains
Table 29 Consequence of Failure – Sanitary Sewers
Table 30 Consequence of Failure – Storm Sewers
Table 31 Consequence of Failure – Buildings & Facilities
Pipe Diameter Consequence of Failure
Less than 100mm Score of 1
100mm–149mm Score of 2
150mm–199mm Score of 3
200mm–249mm Score of 4
250mm and over Score of 5
Pipe Diameter Consequence of failure
Less than 200mm Score of 1
200-300mm Score of 2
301-400mm Score of 3
401-600mm Score of 4
601mm and over Score of 5
Pipe Diameter Consequence of Failure
Less than 200mm Score of 1
200mm-249mm Score of 2
250mm-299mm Score of 3
300mm-399mm Score of 4
350mm and over Score of 5
Replacement Value Consequence of failure
Up to $100k Score of 1
$200k and below Score of 2
$350k and below Score of 3
$750k and below Score of 4
Over $750k Score of 5
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
120
Table 32 Consequence of Failure – Machinery & Equipment
Table 33 Consequence of Failure – Land Improvements
Table 34 Consequence of Failure – Vehicles
The risk matrices that follow show the distribution of assets within each asset class according to the
probability and likelihood of failure scores as discussed above.
Replacement Value Consequence of failure
Up to $15k Score of 1
$25k and below Score of 2
$50k and below Score of 3
$75k and below Score of 4
Over $75k Score of 5
Replacement Value Consequence of failure
Up to $25k Score of 1
$50k and below Score of 2
$65k and below Score of 3
$350k and below Score of 4
Over $350k Score of 5
Replacement Value Consequence of failure
Up to $200k Score of 1
$350k and below Score of 2
$400k and below Score of 3
$500k and below Score of 4
Over $500k Score of 5
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
121
Figure 61 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – All Asset Classes
Figure 62 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Road Network
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
122
Figure 63 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Bridges & Culverts
Figure 64 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Water System
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
123
Figure 65 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Sanitary Services
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
124
Figure 66 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Buildings
Figure 67 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Machinery & Equipment
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
125
Figure 68 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Land Improvements
Figure 69 Distribution of Assets Based on Risk – Vehicles
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
126
IX. Financial Strategy
1. General Overview
In order for an AMP to be effective and meaningful, it must be integrated with financial planning
and long-term budgeting. The development of a comprehensive financial plan will allow the
municipality to identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based
on existing asset inventories, desired levels of service and projected growth requirements.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
127
Figure 70 Cost Elements
Growth
Requirements
Service
Enhancements
Inflation Requirements
Renewal Requirements
Amortization of Historical Cost of
Investment
Principal & Interest Payments
Operations and Maintenance Costs
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
128
Figure depicts the various cost elements and resulting funding levels that should be incorporated
into AMPs that are based on best practices. Municipalities meeting their operational and
maintenance needs, and debt obligations are funding only their cash cost. Funding at this level is
severely deficient in terms of lifecycle costs.
Meeting the annual amortization expense based on the historical cost of investment will ensure
municipalities adhere to accounting rules implemented in 2009; however, funding is still deficient
for long-term needs. As municipalities graduate to the next level and meet renewal requirements,
funding at this level ensures that need and cost of full replacement is deferred. If municipalities
meet inflation requirements, they’re positioning themselves to meet replacement needs at existing
levels of service. In the final level, municipalities that are funding for service enhancement and
growth requirements are fiscally sustainable and cover future investment needs.
This report develops a financial plan by presenting several scenarios for consideration and
culminating with final recommendations. It includes recommendations that avoid long-term
funding deficits. As outlined below, the scenarios presented model different combinations of the
following components:
the financial requirements (as documented in the SOTI section of this report) for existing assets,
existing service levels, requirements of contemplated changes in service levels (none identified
for this plan), and requirements of anticipated growth (none identified for this plan)
use of traditional sources of municipal funds including tax levies, user fees, reserves, debt, and
development charges
use of non-traditional sources of municipal funds, e.g., reallocated budgets
use of senior government funds, such as the federal Gas Tax Fund, Ontario Community
Infrastructure Fund (OCIF)
If the financial plan component of an AMP results in a funding shortfall, the province requires the
inclusion of a specific plan as to how the impact of the shortfall will be managed. In determining the
legitimacy of a funding shortfall, the province may evaluate a municipality’s approach to the
following:
In order to reduce financial requirements, consideration has been given to revising service
levels downward.
All asset management and financial strategies have been considered. For example:
• If a zero debt policy is in place, is it warranted? If not, the use of debt should be
considered.
• Do user fees reflect the cost of the applicable service? If not, increased user fees should
be considered.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
129
2. Financial Profile: Tax Funded Assets
2.1 Funding Objective
We have developed scenarios that would enable the municipality to achieve full funding within five to 20 years for the following assets:
road network; bridges & culverts; storm network; buildings & facilities; machinery & equipment; land improvement; and vehicles. For
each scenario developed, we have included strategies, where applicable, regarding the use of tax revenues, user fees, reserves and debt.
2.2 Current Funding Position
Table 35 and Table 36 outline, by asset class, the municipality’s average annual asset investment requirements, current funding positions,
and funding increases required to achieve full funding on assets funded by taxes.
Table 35 Infrastructure Requirements and Current Funding Available: Tax Funded Assets
Asset class
Average
Annual
Investment
Required
Total Funding Available in 2017
Annual
Deficit/Surplus Taxes Gas Tax OCIF
Taxes to
Reserves
Total Funding
Available
Road Network 1,000,000 258,000 212,000 157,000 0 627,000 373,000
Bridges & Culverts 86,000 0 0 0 0 0 86,000
Storm Sewer System 475,000 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 400,000
Machinery & Equipment 82,000 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 72,000
Buildings 173,000 50,000 0 0 150,000 200,000 27,000
Land Improvements 55,000 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 45,000
Vehicles 379,000 0 0 0 0 0 379,000
Total 2,250,000 393,000 212,000 157,000 160,000 922,000 1,328,000
Note: For the purposes of this AMP, we have excluded the category of gravel roads since gravel roads are a perpetual maintenance asset
and end of life replacement calculations do not normally apply. If gravel roads are maintained properly, they, in essence, could last
forever.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
130
2.3 Recommendations for Full Funding
The average annual investment requirement for tax funded categories is $2,250,000. Annual
revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $922,000, leaving an annual
deficit of $1,328,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at
41% of their long-term requirements.
In 2016, the municipality had annual tax revenues of $3,956,000. As illustrated in Table 36, without
consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would require the following tax change
over time:
Table 36 Tax Change Required for Full Funding
Asset class Tax Change Required for Full Funding
Road Network 9.4%
Bridges & Culverts 2.2%
Storm Sewer System 10.1%
Machinery & Equipment 1.8%
Buildings -0.7%
Land Improvements 1.1%
Vehicles 9.6%
Total 33.5%
The following changes in costs and/or revenues over the next number of years should also be
considered in the financial strategy:
Bayham’s formula based OCIF grant is scheduled to grow from $157,000 in 2017 to $334,000 in
2019.
Normally our recommendations include allocating any decrease in debt costs to the
infrastructure deficit. As illustrated in table 9, Bayham’s debt payments for these asset
categories is $0 so this option is not available.
Our recommendations include capturing the above changes and allocating them to the
infrastructure deficit. Table 37 outlines this concept and presents a number of options.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
131
Table 37 Effect of Changes in OCIF Funding and Reallocating Decreases in Debt Costs
Considering all of the above information, we recommend the 20 year option that includes capturing the changes. This involves full funding
being achieved over 20 years by:
Increasing tax revenues by 1.5% each year for the next 20 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to the asset categories
covered in this section of the AMP.
Allocating the current gas tax and OCIF revenue as outlined in Table 36.
Allocating the scheduled OCIF grant increases to the infrastructure deficit as they occur.
Reallocating appropriate revenue from categories in a surplus position to those in a deficit position.
Increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit
phase-in.
Without Capturing Changes With Capturing Changes
5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years
Infrastructure Deficit 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000
Change in OCIF Grant N/A N/A N/A N/A -177,000 -177,000 -177,000 -177,000
Changes in Debt Costs N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Resulting Infrastructure Deficit 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,328,000 1,151,000 1,151,000 1,151,000 1,151,000
Resulting Tax Increase Required:
Total Over Time 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Annually 6.7% 3.4% 2.2% 1.7% 5.8% 2.9% 1.9% 1.5%
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
132
Notes:
As in the past, periodic senior government infrastructure funding will most likely be available
during the phase-in period. By Provincial AMP rules, this periodic funding cannot be
incorporated into an AMP unless there are firm commitments in place. We have included OCIF
formula based funding, if applicable, since this funding is a multi-year commitment.
We realize that raising tax revenues by the amounts recommended above for infrastructure
purposes will be very difficult to do. However, considering a longer phase-in window may have
even greater consequences in terms of infrastructure failure.
Although this option achieves full funding on an annual basis in 20 years and provides financial
sustainability over the period modeled, the recommendations do require prioritizing capital
projects to fit the resulting annual funding available. Current data shows a pent-up investment
demand of $11,231,000 for paved roads, $1,530,000 for bridges & culverts, $14,000,000 for storm
sewers, $82,000 for machinery & equipment, $865,000 for facilities, $238,000 for land
improvements and $350,000 for vehicles.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
133
3. Financial Profile: Rate Funded Assets
3.1 Funding Objective
We have developed scenarios that would enable the municipality to achieve full funding within five to 20 years for the following assets:
water, and sanitary sewer network. For each scenario developed we have included strategies, where applicable, regarding the use of tax
revenues, user fees, reserves and debt.
3.2 Current Funding Position
Table 38 and Table 39 outline, by asset class, the municipality’s average annual asset investment requirements, current funding positions,
and funding increases required to achieve full funding on assets funded by rates.
Table 38 Summary of Infrastructure Requirements and Current Funding Available
Asset class Average Annual
Investment
Required
Total Funding Available in 2017
Annual
Deficit/Surplus Rates To Operations Other
Total Funding
Available
Sanitary Sewer Network 420,000 863,000 -440,000 0 423,000 -3,000
Water Network 136,000 712,000 -539,000 0 173,000 -37,000
Total 556,000 1,575,000 -979,000 0 596,000 -40,000
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
134
3.3 Recommendations for Full Funding
The average annual investment requirement for sanitary services and water services is $556,000.
Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $596,000 resulting in an
annual surplus of $40,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently
funded at 107% of their long-term requirements.
In 2016, Bayham had annual sanitary revenues of $863,000 and annual water revenues of 712,000.
As illustrated in Table 39, without consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would
require the following increases over time:
Table 39 Rate Change Required for Full Funding
Asset class Rate Change Required for Full Funding
Wastewater Network -0.3%
Water Network -5.2%
At least three factors need to be quantified before implementing the above changes:
There is a pent up investment demand of $457,000 for sanitary services and $0 for water
services. As a result, rates should not be changed until a detailed work plan is developed for
these projects. A corresponding financial plan can then be developed taking into account that
there are $2,283,000 of reserves available for sanitary infrastructure and $536,000 of reserves
for water infrastructure (as noted in Table 46).
51% of sanitary revenues and 76% of water revenues are currently allocated to operations as
opposed to capital. Overall rates should not be decreased until longer term operational
requirements are determined and taken into account. This will avoid the complications of
lowering rates for capital purposes and then possibly increasing them for operational
requirements.
Bayham will be updating their detailed rate study in 2019. Any change in capital rates should be
delayed until that study is available.
We recommend that the required work for the three factors above be completed in order to
determine what rate changes can be achieved and over what period those changes can be
implemented.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
135
Table 40 Without Change in Debt Costs
Table 41 With Change in Debt Costs
Wastewater Network Water Network
5 Years 15 Years 20 Years 5 Years 15 Years 20 Years
Infrastructure Deficit -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -37,000 -37,000 -37,000
Change in Debt Costs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resulting Infrastructure Deficit/Surplus -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -37,000 -37,000 -37,000
Resulting Rate Change Required:
Total Over Time -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -5.2% -5.2% -5.2%
Annually -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -1.0% -0.3% -0.3%
Wastewater Network Water System
5 Years 15 Years 20 Years 5 Years 15 Years 20 Years
Infrastructure Deficit -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -37,000 -37,000 -37,000
Change in Debt Costs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resulting Infrastructure Deficit/Surplus -3,000 -3,000 -3,000 -37,000 -37,000 -37,000
Resulting Rate Change Required:
Total Over Time -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -5.2% -5.2% -5.2%
Annually -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -1.0% -0.3% -0.3%
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
136
Considering all of the above information we recommend the following:
Rate changes for capital purposes for both sanitary service and water services be postponed
until the work on the three factors above are completed.
If the work required for the above factors is delayed, and inflation increases are greater than
the reduction available, implementing net increases to existing and future infrastructure
budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis.
Notes:
As in the past, periodic senior government infrastructure funding will most likely be available
during the phase-in period. By Provincial AMP rules, this periodic funding cannot be
incorporated into an AMP unless there are firm commitments in place. We have included OCIF
formula based funding, if applicable, since this funding is a multi-year commitment.
Any increase in rates required for operations would be in addition to the above
recommendations.
Although this option maintains full funding on an annual basis and provides financial sustainability
over the period modeled, the recommendations do require prioritizing capital projects to fit the
resulting annual funding available. Current data shows a pent-up investment demand of $457,000
for sanitary services and $0 for water services.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
137
4. Use of Debt
For reference purposes, Table 42 outlines the premium paid on a project if financed by debt. For
example, a $1M project financed at 3.0%3 over 15 years would result in a 26% premium or
$260,000 of increased costs due to interest payments. For simplicity, the table does not take into
account the time value of money or the effect of inflation on delayed projects.
Table 42 Total Interest Paid as a Percentage of Project Costs
Interest Rate
Number of Years Financed
5 10 15 20 25 30
7.0% 22% 42% 65% 89% 115% 142%
6.5% 20% 39% 60% 82% 105% 130%
6.0% 19% 36% 54% 74% 96% 118%
5.5% 17% 33% 49% 67% 86% 106%
5.0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 77% 95%
4.5% 14% 26% 40% 54% 69% 84%
4.0% 12% 23% 35% 47% 60% 73%
3.5% 11% 20% 30% 41% 52% 63%
3.0% 9% 17% 26% 34% 44% 53%
2.5% 8% 14% 21% 28% 36% 43%
2.0% 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 34%
1.5% 5% 8% 12% 16% 21% 25%
1.0% 3% 6% 8% 11% 14% 16%
0.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8%
0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3 Current municipal Infrastructure Ontario rates for 15 year money is 2.8%.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
138
It should be noted that current interest rates are near all-time lows. Sustainable funding models
that include debt need to incorporate the risk of rising interest rates. The following graph shows
where historical lending rates have been:
Figure 71 Historical Prime Business Interest Rates
As illustrated in Table 42 , a change in 15 year rates from 3% to 6% would change the premium
from 26% to 54%. Such a change would have a significant impact on a financial plan.
2.70%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
139
Table 43 and Table 44 outline how Bayham has historically used debt for investing in the asset
categories as listed. There is currently $0 of debt outstanding for the assets covered by this AMP
with corresponding principal and interest payments of $0, well within its provincially prescribed
maximum of $1,519,000.
Table 43 Overview of Use of Debt
Asset class
Debt at
December
31st, 2016
Use of Debt in Last Five Years
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Road Network 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges & Culverts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storm Sewer System 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machinery & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Tax Funded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wastewater Network 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Network 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Rate Funded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 44 Overview of Debt Costs
The revenue options outlined in this plan allow Bayham to fully fund its long-term infrastructure
requirements without further use of debt.
Asset class Principal & Interest Payments in Next Ten Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2027
Road Network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges & Culverts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storm Sewer System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machinery & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Tax Funded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wastewater Network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Rate Funded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
140
5. Use of Reserves
5.1 Available Reserves
Reserves play a critical role in long-term financial planning. The benefits of having reserves
available for infrastructure planning include: the ability to stabilize tax rates when dealing with
variable and sometimes uncontrollable factors; financing one-time or short-term investments;
accumulating the funding for significant future infrastructure investments; managing the use of
debt; and, normalizing infrastructure funding requirements. By infrastructure class, Table 45
outlines the details of the reserves currently available to Bayham.
Table 45 Summary of Reserves Available
Asset class Balance at December 31st, 2016
Road Network 459,000
Bridges & Culverts 13,000
Storm Sewer System 13,000
Machinery & Equipment 223,000
Buildings 101,000
Land Improvements 377,000
Vehicles 115,000
Total Tax Funded 1,301,000
Water System 536,000
Sanitary Sewer Network 2,283,000
Total Rate Funded 2,819,000
There is considerable debate in the municipal sector as to the appropriate level of reserves that a
municipality should have on hand. There is no clear guideline that has gained wide acceptance.
Factors that municipalities should take into account when determining their capital reserve
requirements include: breadth of services provided, age and condition of infrastructure, use and
level of debt, economic conditions and outlook, and internal reserve and debt policies.
The reserves in Table 45 are available for use by applicable asset classes during the phase-in period
to full funding. This, coupled with Bayham judicious use of debt in the past, allows the scenarios to
assume that, if required, available reserves and debt capacity can be used for high priority and
emergency infrastructure investments in the short to medium-term.
5.2 Recommendation
As Bayham updates its AMP and expands it to include other asset categories, we recommend that
future planning should include determining what its long -term reserve balance requirements are
and a plan to achieve such balances.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
141
X. 2016 Infrastructure Report Card
The following infrastructure report card illustrates the municipality’s performance on the two key factors: Asset Health and Financial
Capacity. Appendix 1 provides the full grading scale and conversion chart, as well as detailed descriptions, for each grading level.
Table 46 2016 Infrastructure Report Card
Asset class Asset Health
Grade
Funding
Percentage
Financial Capacity
Grade
Average
Asset Class Grade Comments
Roads F 63% F D
Based on 2016 replacement cost,
and condition data, 34% of assets,
with a valuation of $35 million, are
in good to very good condition; 46%
are in poor to very poor condition.
The municipality is underfunding
most of its assets. Tax-funded
categories are funded at 41% while
rate-funded categories are funded at
107%.
Bridges & Culverts C 0% A F
Water System C 127% A B
Wastewater Services C 101% A B
Storm F 16% F F
Buildings C 116% C B
Machinery & Equipment C 12% F F
Land Improvements C 18% F F
Vehicles C 0% F F
Average Asset Health Grade D
Average Financial Capacity Grade D
Overall Grade for the Municipality D
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
142
XI. Appendix: Grading and Conversion Scales
Table 47 Asset Health Scale
Letter Grade Rating Description
A Excellent Asset is new or recently rehabilitated
B Good Asset is no longer new, but is fulfilling its function. Preventative maintenance is beneficial at this stage.
C Fair Deterioration is evident but asset continues to full its function. Preventative maintenance is beneficial
at this stage.
D Poor Significant deterioration is evident and service is at risk.
F Very Poor Asset is beyond expected life and has deteriorated to the point that it may no longer be fit to fulfill its
function.
bayham_amp2_d2_1205
143
Table 48 Financial Capacity Scale
Letter Grade Rating Funding percent Timing Requirements Description
A Excellent 90-100 percent
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
The municipality is fully prepared for its short-, medium- and long-term
replacement needs based on existing infrastructure portfolio.
B Good 70-89 percent
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
The municipality is well prepared to fund its short-term and medium-term
replacement needs but requires additional funding strategies in the long-term
to begin to increase its reserves.
C Fair 60-69 percent
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
The municipality is underprepared to fund its medium- to long-term
infrastructure needs. The replacement of assets in the medium-term will likely
be deferred to future years.
D Poor 40-59 percent
/ Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
The municipality is not well prepared to fund its replacement needs in the
short-, medium- or long-term. Asset replacements will be deferred and levels
of service may be reduced.
F Very Poor 0-39 percent
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
The municipality is significantly underfunding its short-term, medium-term,
and long-term infrastructure requirements based on existing funds allocation.
Asset replacements will be deferred indefinitely. The municipality may have to
divest some of its assets (e.g., bridge closures, arena closures) and levels of
service will be reduced significantly.