ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PUSLINCH

FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE GAMSBY AND MANNEROW LIMITED CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS GUELPH OWEN SOUND LISTOWEL KITCHENER EXETER December 2013 Our File: 113006-2

File No. 113006-2 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY...3 2.1 IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE... 3 2.2 MUNICIPAL GOALS... 3 2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE... 4 2.4 PURPOSE OF THE... 5 2.5 SCOPE OF... 5 2.6 RESOURCES USED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE... 7 2.7 REVIEW AND UPDATE OF... 7 3.0 CURRENT STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE...7 3.1 OBJECTIVE... 7 3.2 OVERVIEW... 7 3.3 BRIDGES... 10 3.4 CULVERTS... 11 3.5 ROADS... 12 3.6 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES... 13 3.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES... 14 3.8 FIRE RESERVOIRS... 14 3.9 STREETLIGHTS... 15 3.10 SIDEWALKS... 15 3.11 TRAFFIC SIGNS... 16 3.12 DATA VERIFICATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT POLICY... 16 3.12.1 Bridges and Culverts... 17 3.12.2 Roads... 17 3.12.3 Township Facilities... 17 3.12.4 Stormwater Management Facilities... 17 3.12.5 Fire Reservoirs... 18 3.12.6 Sidewalks, Streetlights and Traffic Signs... 18 4.0 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE...18 4.1 BRIDGES/CULVERTS... 18 4.2 ROADS... 19 4.3 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES... 19 4.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES... 19 4.5 FIRE RESERVOIRS... 20 4.6 STREETLIGHTS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS... 20 4.7 CURRENT PERFORMANCE OF ASSETS... 20 5.0 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY...20 5.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE... 20 5.2 NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS... 21 5.3 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS... 21 PUSLINCH TOWNSHIP, ONTARIO

File No. 113006-2 Page ii 5.4 ROADS... 22 5.4.1 Hardtop Roads... 22 5.4.2 Gravel Surfaced Roads... 22 5.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES... 23 5.6 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES... 23 5.7 STREETLIGHTS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS... 23 5.8 FIRE RESERVOIRS... 23 5.9 PROCUREMENT... 24 5.10 RISK OVERVIEW... 24 6.0 FINANCING STRATEGY...24 6.1 YEARLY EXPENDITURE FORECASTS... 24 6.2 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS... 25 6.3 YEARLY REVENUES... 25 6.4 FUNDING SHORTFALL... 26 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Overview of Current Performance of Assets... 1 Table 2: Current State of Bridges... 10 Table 3: Current State of Culverts... 11 Table 4: Current State of Roads... 12 Table 5: Current State of Stormwater Management Facilities... 14 Table 6: Current State of Streetlights... 15 Table 7: Current State of Traffic Signs... 16 Table 8: Current Performance of Assets... 20 Table 9: Yearly Expenditure Forecasts... 25 Table 10: 2011/2012 Yearly Infrastructure Expenditures... 25 Table 11: Summary of Revenues... 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Asset Management Plan Methodology... 6 Figure 2: Township of Puslinch Assets - 2012 Net Book Value... 8 Figure 3: Township of Puslinch Assets - 2013 Replacement Values... 8 Figure 4: Expected Remaining Service Life of Township Assets... 9 Figure 5: Condition of Township Assets (2013)... 10 Figure 6: Current Condition of Bridges... 11 Figure 7: Condition of Culverts... 12 Figure 8: Condition of Hardtop Road Sections... 13 Figure 9: Condition of Township Facilities... 14 Figure 10: Condition of Sidewalks... 16 Figure 11: Comparison of Capital Costs vs. Available Funding... 26

File No. 113006-2 Page iii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Asset Information and Condition Tables Detailed Breakdown of Yearly Expenditures

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE CORPORATION OF THE December 13, 2013 Our File: 113006-2 The Township is responsible for the care and maintenance of Township owned infrastructure assets, including the road network, bridges and culverts, Township owned facilities, stormwater drainage areas, fire reservoirs, sidewalks, streetlights and street signs. The total net 2012 book value of these assets is $18,522,176 and the total calculated replacement cost is approximately $121,412,680. This Asset Management Plan was developed to assist the Township with planning and financial management of their capital assets, ensuring that Township (public) owned assets are maintained to provide satisfactory levels of service and lifecycle costs at the lowest level of risk. The plan will also serve to satisfy the provincial requirement that each Municipality prepare an Asset Management Plan in order to be eligible for future grants and funding. Of the Township assets included in the plan, 68.8% are considered in good condition, 16.9% are considered as being in fair condition and 14.3% are considered to be in poor (or fair poor) condition. Service targets were defined for each asset type based on legislative requirements and industry best practices. Current asset condition was compared to required service targets in order to assess maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement requirements for each asset. Overall, 78% of Township assets meet their service targets. Current performance of each asset type with respect to targets is summarized as follows. Table 1: Overview of Current Performance of Assets Asset Type Percentage of Assets Meeting Service Target Bridges 71% Culverts 94% Hardtop Roads 59% Non Paved Roads 100% Stormwater Facilities 100% Township Facilities 87% Streetlights 100% Sidewalks 86% Traffic Signs 100% Fire Reservoirs 100%

File No. 113006-2 Page 2 A ten year forecast of asset maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement expenditures necessary to uphold Township assets was developed and assessed against the available financial resources of the Township. Consistent with the trend being experienced by most other municipalities in the province, funding shortfalls in the Township of Puslinch are anticipated. The average annual expenditure over the ten year timeframe of the plan is $2,259,260. Average estimated available revenues are $1,678,401 corresponding to an estimated funding shortfall of approximately $5,808,593, or $580,859 per year, over the plan duration.

File No. 113006-2 Page 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Gamsby and Mannerow Limited (G&M) were retained by the Township of Puslinch (Township) to complete a comprehensive Asset Management Plan. This report summarizes the work that G&M has completed and documents key findings. The Township of Puslinch is part of Wellington County and is located directly south of the City of Guelph and east of the City of Cambridge with Highway 401 running through the centre of the Township from east to west. The Township was incorporated on January 1, 1850. Villages in Puslinch include Aberfoyle, Aikensville, Arkell, Badenoch, Crieff, Glen Christie, Killean, Paddock s Corners, Morriston, Corwhin, Downey, Puslinch and Puslinch Lake. According to a Statistics Canada 2011 report, the population of the Township of Puslinch is 7,029 with 2,619 private dwellings. The Township is responsible for the care and maintenance of Township owned assets, including the road network, bridges and culverts, Township owned facilities, stormwater drainage areas, fire reservoirs, sidewalks, streetlights and street signs. 2.1 IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE The performance of a community s infrastructure provides the foundation of economic development, competitiveness, prosperity, image, and overall quality of life for that community. The reliability and availability of infrastructure assets are essential for the delivery of necessary services that the Municipality provides. The Township is experiencing ongoing development, as the Cities of Cambridge and Guelph expand, and Puslinch continues to be a desirable location to reside and work. As such, increased reliance on existing infrastructure and increased need for new infrastructure will be an ongoing condition of Municipal Asset Management going forward. 2.2 MUNICIPAL GOALS Major objectives of the County of Wellington Official Plan include sustainable development, land stewardship and healthy communities. The County aims to work with local municipal governments to ensure wise management of resources and the betterment of communities. The following are specific goals of the Official Plan, which apply to rural Townships: Direct growth to urban areas and in particular to those with municipal sewer and water services; Provide opportunities for jobs, commerce and services that are based on population growth; Provide opportunities for housing which accommodate a wide range of need and affordability; Ensure that County residents have convenient access to commercial uses and services; Maintain strong main streets in towns and villages as a focus for commerce and services; Develop communities, which are efficient and livable; Ensure cost effective development and land use patterns; Maintain the small town and rural character of the County; Protect the agricultural land base for farming; Ensure that farmers, following normal farming practices, are not hindered by conflicting development; Require development to pay its fair share of growth related costs and to demonstrate its compliance with the County s planning policies; Provide the infrastructure required to accommodate growth in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner;

File No. 113006-2 Page 4 Maintain clean water, clean air and healthy plant, fish and wildlife; Protect and where reasonable enhance features and functions within natural heritage areas such as wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, streams and valley lands, woodlands, areas of natural and scientific interest, discharge and recharge areas and other open space areas; Support the creation of partnerships among landowners, community groups and government which promote or undertake land stewardship activities; Protect people and property from natural hazards; Protect County resources such as farmland, minerals, mineral aggregates and forests, and provide for wise management practices; Ensure that County residents continue to have convenient access to health care, education and cultural facilities; Develop a safe and efficient transportation system for people, goods and services; Broaden recreational and leisure opportunities; Promote energy efficient land use and servicing decisions; Ensure responsible waste management practices, which emphasize waste reduction, reuse and recycling; Ensure the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water are protected as an essential resource for urban and rural water supplies, agricultural production, the maintenance of the Greenland system, and future growth; The County recognizes the need for increased energy supply to be promoted by providing opportunities for energy generation facilities, and supports the use of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems, where feasible and appropriate. The County of Wellington Official Plan projects that the population of Puslinch will increase to 9,920 by the year 2031. During this time total employment is projected to increase from 4,510 to 5,760. The Villages of Aberfoyle and Morriston are considered to be urban centres for the purpose of the Official Plan. Many of the County s goals are dependent on infrastructure, specifically the intention to provide the infrastructure required to accommodate growth in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner. With the population of the Township of Puslinch projected to increase by over 30%, and employment projected to increase by almost the same percentage over the next 20 years, management of infrastructure and other resources is important to ensure responsible growth and development. 2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE The Asset Management Plan (AMP) is a document that will be used in conjunction with other municipal planning and financial documents. In particular, the AMP will assist the Township in guiding annual budgets, development charges and ongoing long-term planning for capital works projects. The AMP will both utilize and influence financial forecasts within long term financial planning. The plan will be subject to regulations, standards and policies from municipal, provincial and federal government levels. Previously the Township completed an Asset Valuation Report in 2008 which included an inventory and valuation, including life cycle expectations and costs, of all tangible capital assets for reporting in financial statements, as required by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) 3150. Existing efforts were built upon to develop this AMP.

File No. 113006-2 Page 5 2.4 PURPOSE OF THE A comprehensive AMP will assist the Township with planning and financial management of their capital assets, ensuring that Township (public) owned assets are maintained to provide satisfactory levels of service and lifecycle costs at the lowest level of risk. The management strategy identified in the AMP aims to streamline inspections, maintenance and renewal and rehabilitation of Township owned assets and enable efficient prioritization of investments to ensure the best overall health and performance of municipal assets. The AMP strategy utilizes a life-cycle based approach to asset management, which incorporates use of regularly planned strategic maintenance to extend the life of an individual asset at less capital expense than if the asset were allowed to deteriorate with no maintenance and replaced at the end of its useful life, which is known as reactive run-to-failure asset management. Further, the Provincial funding authority has indicated that any municipality requesting future provincial funding assistance for capital works projects must complete an AMP and demonstrate how a proposed project fits within it. 2.5 SCOPE OF The Township s AMP has been completed in accordance with the Ministry of Infrastructure- Ontario (MOI) document Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. The AMP includes all key elements required by the guide including: report of the current state of infrastructure, desired levels of service for the infrastructure, proposed strategy to retain or meet those levels going forward and forecast of available financial resources compared to anticipated expenditures. The plan focuses on infrastructure assets including bridges, culverts, roads, drainage, Township buildings and recreational facilities and other assets including streetlights, fire reservoirs, traffic signs and sidewalks. The AMP forecasts asset expenditures over a ten year timeframe in accordance with MOI requirements, and includes a strategy for ongoing evaluation and verification. Figure 1 illustrates the methodology utilized in preparing the AMP. Going forward the process will be iterative, with asset condition and desired levels of service re-assessed regularly to ensure they continue to meet Township goals and requirements. Based on the existing and desired levels of service identified through discussions with Township staff and the current assessment of state of Township assets and infrastructure, the asset management and financial strategies can easily be updated as required.

File No. 113006-2 Page 6 Figure 1: Asset Management Plan Methodology Current State of Infrastructure Accumulation and review of most recently available condition assessment and financial information for all assets Evaluation of information, including estimation of depreciation of assets since the last asset assessment in order to determine its current condition Assessment of current needs and requirements Desired Levels of Service Determination of key performance indicators and measures Identification of gaps in current condition assessment practices Asset Management Strategy Identification of actions and policies to help achieve the targeted levels of service at the lowest lifecycle costs (e.g. demand management, maintenance activities, renewal activities) Development of an asset management strategy identifying and prioritizing capital projects necessary to achieve the service targets Financial Strategy Forecast of yearly expenditures (10-yr timeframe) Comparison with forecasted yearly revenues, reserves, gas tax transfers, borrowing limits, funding opportunities, etc. Evaluation of forecasts and recommendations to ensure funding is available for capital projects

File No. 113006-2 Page 7 2.6 RESOURCES USED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE The following is a list of references and resources used in the development of the AMP: 1. Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, Ministry of Infrastructure-Ontario. 2. 2008 Asset Valuation Report, Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, August 2008. 3. 2007 Road and Bridge Inventory, Report A, Road Sections, Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, January 2008. 4. Hardtop Road Evaluation, Township of Puslinch, 2011. 5. Township of Puslinch Detailed Bridge and Culvert Inspections Summary Report, Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, November 2013. 6. Keystone Fixed Asset Report, Township of Puslinch, December 31, 2012. 7. Township of Puslinch Bylaw 30/13, Approved 2013 Budget, April 2013. 8. Township of Puslinch Fixed Asset Acquisition Listings for 2011 and 2012. 2.7 REVIEW AND UPDATE OF The AMP should be considered as a living document and be reviewed and updated with regular frequency to ensure the plan reflects current conditions as they evolve in order to improve upon the information and recommendations contained herein. Asset information and condition data needs be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as per the Data Verification and Condition Assessment Policy outlined in Section 3.12 below. Desired levels of service, asset management strategies and expenditure and revenue forecasts should be updated within the plan calculations when new or additional information is recorded as it becomes available during routine updates of asset information. A detailed review and update of the AMP should be conducted at a minimum frequency of every five years. 3.0 CURRENT STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE 3.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of this section of the plan is to document the current condition of municipal assets, using the best available information regarding physical condition, age and financial value. Where current condition information was not available, the most recent available condition information was adjusted to reflect current conditions based on documented use assumptions to determine deterioration rates. Replacement values were assigned to each asset based on historical unit pricing generated from a review of recent construction projects of a similar nature. Information sources, assumptions and asset specific information are discussed in subsequent sections, with an overview provided in the section below. 3.2 OVERVIEW The Township of Puslinch is responsible for the care and maintenance of Township owned infrastructure assets with a net 2012 book value of $18,522,176. These assets include the road network, bridges and culverts, Township facilities, stormwater drainage areas, sidewalks, streetlights, and fire reservoirs. The total calculated replacement cost of the assets is approximately $121,412,680. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the 2012 net book value of each of these asset types. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of replacement values excluding Township Facilities for which replacement values are not currently available.

File No. 113006-2 Page 8 Figure 2: Township of Puslinch Assets - 2012 Net Book Value Figure 3: Township of Puslinch Assets - 2013 Replacement Values

File No. 113006-2 Page 9 The date of installation of assets within the Township ranges from 1920 to 2013 with an average age of approximately twenty-five years for listed assets. Of the listed assets, approximately 15% have less than 25% of their expected remaining service years. 26% of all assets have between 25 and 50% of their expected remaining service years remaining. The remaining 59% have greater than 50% of the expected service life remaining in 2013. This breakdown is illustrated in Figure 4 below. Figure 4: Expected Remaining Service Life of Township Assets Of assets included in the plan, 68.8% are considered in good condition, 16.9% are considered as being in fair condition and 14.3% are considered to be in poor (or fair poor) condition. The asset condition breakdown is illustrated in Figure 5 below.

File No. 113006-2 Page 10 Figure 5: Condition of Township Assets (2013) Detailed information regarding the condition of each of the Township s assets can be found in the tables provided in Appendix A. The current state of individual asset groups is summarized in the following sections. 3.3 BRIDGES The Township of Puslinch owns a total of seven bridges with a net value of $180,238 and an approximate replacement value of $3,441,620. Table 2 provides a summary of information available regarding bridge assets. Table 2: Current State of Bridges Bridge Construction Number of Structures Span Length (m) Asset Value (2012) Replacement Value I-Beam 2 14.10 $88,835 $892,190 Rigid Frame 2 15.60 $12,781 $899,340 Girder 1 6.10 $76,760 $495,040 Rectangular Culvert 2 6.75 $1,862 $1,155,050 Total: 7 -- $180,238 $3,441,620 Bridge condition data was obtained from the Township of Puslinch Detailed Bridge and Culvert Inspections Summary Report (September 2013). Of the seven bridges owned by the Township four (57%) are considered to be in good condition, one (14%) bridge is in fair condition and two (29%) bridges are in fair to poor condition (French s Bridge and Little s Bridge). One bridge (Cook s Mill Bridge) was not assessed at the time of the 2013 inspections, as it was scheduled to undertake major rehabilitation work in less than one week. Cook s Mill Bridge will be inspected next in 2015. It is assumed that post-rehabilitation the Cook s Mill Bridge will be in good condition. Figure 6 illustrates the number of bridges assessed to be in each condition (fair to poor, fair and good).

File No. 113006-2 Page 11 Figure 6: Current Condition of Bridges 3.4 CULVERTS The Township of Puslinch owns a total of sixteen culverts with a net value of $117,058 and an approximate replacement value of $3,955,397. Table 3 summarizes available data for the culverts. Table 3: Current State of Culverts Culvert Type Number of Span Length Asset Value Replacement Structures (m) (2012) Value Ellipse CSP 4 5.5 - $526,181 Box Culvert 1 1.8 - $236,115 Rectangular 10 31.2 $117,058 $2,930,013 Rigid Frame 1 4.8 - $263,088 Total: 16 -- $117,058 $3,955,397 Culvert condition data was obtained from the Township of Puslinch Detailed Bridge and Culvert Inspections Summary Report (September 2013). Of the sixteen culverts owned by the Township ten (63%) are considered to be in good condition, five culverts (31%) are in fair condition and one (6%) culvert (Gore Road Culvert) is in poor condition. One culvert was not inspected (Culvert of Cook s Mill Race); as it was due to undergo rehabilitation work in less than a week. This culvert is now assumed to be in good condition. Figure 7 illustrates the number of culverts that were assessed to be in each condition.

File No. 113006-2 Page 12 Figure 7: Condition of Culverts 3.5 ROADS The Township of Puslinch has a total of 130 hardtop road sections totalling approximately 136 kilometres of roadways. Hardtop road sections have a net value of $11,270,065 and an approximate replacement value of $101,967,900. The Township also owns 48 gravel road sections totalling approximately 53 kilometres of road. Gravel road sections have a net value of $263,736 and an approximate replacement value of $6,848,260. Table 4 summarizes the available information regarding road assets. Table 4: Current State of Roads Road Construction Number of Total Length Asset Value Replacement Road Segments (km) (2012) Value Hardtop 130 136 $11,270,065 $101,967,900 Granular 48 53 $263,736 $6,848,260 Total: 178 189 $11,533,801 $108,816,160 The most recent road condition data (Pavement Condition Index - PCI) were obtained from the 2007 Road and Bridge Inventory, Report A, Road Sections (January 2008). PCI values were reduced by two points per year to reflect condition deterioration since 2007. The 2013 estimated PCI values were effectively compared to condition data available from the Hardtop Road Evaluation completed by Township staff in 2011, validating the assumed depreciation of two points per year. The Hardtop Roads Evaluation provided an assessment of the road conditions (good, fair or poor) and a timeline to expected replacement of the asphalt surfacing. The 2013 estimated PCI values were manipulated for several road sections, based on updated reconstruction/rehabilitation information provided by Township staff. For this assessment, hardtop roads with a PCI of less than 55 are considered to be in poor condition, roads with a PCI of 55-70 are considered to be in fair condition and roads with a PCI of greater than 70 are considered in good condition. Based on this, of the 130 hardtop road sections, 24% were found to be in poor condition, 26% in fair condition and 50% were found to be in good condition. Figure 8 illustrates the breakdown of condition of hardtop road sections. The categorization of road condition based on PCI values should be updated as required in the

File No. 113006-2 Page 13 future in order to meet the Township s goals and requirements. Figure 8: Condition of Hardtop Road Sections Due to their nature, gravel roads require regular routine maintenance in the form of grading and gravel addition in order to maintain suitable road profile and driving surface. If properly maintained, gravel roads are considered to have nearly unlimited service life. Although maintenance requirements can be considered onerous, the result is that a properly maintained gravel road is consistently maintained in good to fair condition. All Township owned gravel roads are regularly maintained and are considered to be in good to fair condition. 3.6 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES The Township of Puslinch has a total of 31 facilities with net value of $3,228,144. There are no current condition reports or replacement value data available for the Township owned facilities, however the Township has allocated funding to undertake a structural condition assessment audit in 2014. For this assessment, condition was determined based on the age and life expectancy. Best available data on sidewalks was taken from the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. Good condition was defined as greater than ten years useful service life remaining, fair condition was defined as between five and ten years useful service life remaining, and poor condition was defined as less than five years useful service life remaining. The life expectancy of Township facilities is estimated at 40 years. Based solely on age, 26 facilities (84%) are considered to be in good condition, one facility (3%) is considered to be in fair condition, and four facilities (13%) are considered to be in poor condition. The condition of Township Facilities is illustrated in Figure 9.

File No. 113006-2 Page 14 Figure 9: Condition of Township Facilities 3.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The Township of Puslinch has a total of 35 drainage assets with a net book value of $3,220,338 and a total replacement cost of approximately $4,217,359. Of these assets, ten are stormwater management ponds, and the remaining 25 assets are pipes. Table 5 summarizes known information about the stormwater management assets. Table 5: Current State of Stormwater Management Facilities Total Number Known Length SWM Facility of Assets Pond Areas (m) (m 2 ) Asset Value (2012) Replacement Value Ponds 10 16,029 - $2,860,851 $3,533,849 Pipes 25 - Unknown $359,487 $683,510 Total: 35 16,029 -- $3,220,338 $4,217,359 For this assessment, condition was determined based on the age and life expectancy of the facility. Best available data on drainage facilities was taken from the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. Good condition was defined as greater than ten years useful service life remaining, fair condition was defined as between five and ten years useful service life remaining, and poor condition was defined as less than five years useful service life remaining. The life expectancy of drainage facilities is estimated at 50 years and all facilities are considered to have significant useful life remaining and to be in good condition. 3.8 FIRE RESERVOIRS The Township of Puslinch owns five fire reservoirs. The current asset value of the fire reservoirs totals $66,426, while the replacement value is calculated as $112,145. For this assessment, condition was determined based on the age and life expectancy. Best

File No. 113006-2 Page 15 available data on fire reservoirs was taken from the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. Good condition was defined as greater than ten years useful service life remaining, fair condition was defined as between five and ten years useful service life remaining, and poor condition was defined as less than five years useful service life remaining. The life expectancy of fire reservoirs is estimated at 50 years and all reservoirs are considered to have significant useful life remaining and to be in good condition. 3.9 STREETLIGHTS The Township of Puslinch owns several types of streetlights, including standard, decorative and floodlight towers. The net value of these assets is $115,704 and the total replacement value is $622,200. Table 6 summarizes available information regarding streetlights. Table 6: Current State of Streetlights Streetlight Type Quantity Asset Value (2012) Replacement Value Standard Unknown $40,392 $217,508 Decorative Unknown $59,322 $318,587 Floodlight Tower Unknown $15,990 $86,105 Total: -- $115,704 $622,200 For this assessment, streetlights were considered as an asset pool and condition was determined based on the age and life expectancy. Best available data on streetlights was taken from the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. Good condition was defined as greater than ten years useful service life remaining, fair condition was defined as between five and ten years useful service life remaining, and poor condition was defined as less than five years useful service life remaining. The life expectancy of streetlights is estimated at 20 years and the asset pool is considered to have 25% of the estimated expected service life remaining and be in fair condition. 3.10 SIDEWALKS The Township owns seven sections of sidewalk, with a total current value of $14,446 and an estimated replacement value of $52,767. For this assessment, condition was determined based on observations by the Township during annual inspections. Best available data on sidewalks was taken from the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. Good condition was defined as greater than ten years useful service life remaining, fair condition was defined as between five and ten years useful service life remaining, and poor condition was defined as less than five years useful service life remaining. The life expectancy of sidewalks is estimated at 20 years. Based solely on age, one section (14%) of sidewalk is considered to be in good condition, five sections (71%) are considered to be in fair condition and one section (14%) is considered to have exceeded its expected service life and be in poor condition. The condition of sidewalks is illustrated in Figure 10.

File No. 113006-2 Page 16 Figure 10: Condition of Sidewalks 3.11 TRAFFIC SIGNS The net value of the Townships traffic signs is $46,022 and the replacement value is estimated at $195,034. Table 7 summarizes available information regarding traffic signs, the majority of which was taken from the 2008 Township Asset Inventory. Table 7: Current State of Traffic Signs Traffic Sign Status Quantity Asset Value (2012) Replacement Value In-Use Unknown $33,812 $182,076 Stored Unknown $12,210 $12,957 Total: -- $46,022 $195,034 Traffic signs were considered as an asset pool for the purpose of the 2008 Asset Valuation Report. The life expectancy of installed traffic signs is estimated at 20 years and the asset pool is considered to have 25% of the estimated expected service life remaining and be in fair condition. All stored signs are assumed to be in good condition. 3.12 DATA VERIFICATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT POLICY The Township utilizes the Fixed Asset module of the Keystone system as an inventory database of infrastructure assets covered by the AMP. This database includes basic asset information such as the asset type, class, physical description, location, expected useful life, etc. The Township s AMP includes information that requires regular updates such as replacement costs, conditions, etc. The following describes the Township s policy regarding how asset information will be verified and when and how assets will be assessed to document current condition.

File No. 113006-2 Page 17 3.12.1 Bridges and Culverts Inspections are completed every second calendar year on bridges and culverts owned by the Township as mandated by Ontario Regulation 104-97 Standards for Bridges. Information is gathered visually on an element-by-element inspection for each structure in order to assess any material defects, performance deficiencies or maintenance needs. Quantities for each element are categorized by four condition states (poor, fair, good and excellent), which are utilized in the calculation of the Bridge Condition Index (BCI). The BCI can be utilized to describe the overall condition of a structure in a single value. Essentially, the BCI is a weighted average of the condition of all elements of a structure. The BCI for a structure starts at a value of 100 when the structure is newly constructed, and over time theoretically becomes zero as all elements deteriorate to a poor condition state. In actuality, the BCI for a structure should never reach zero, as rehabilitation works will be performed before all elements reach a poor condition state. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through regular assessments. 3.12.2 Roads Condition of Township roads is assessed in terms of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) values. PCI values are numerical indicators between 0 and 100 which are generated based on manual assessment of pavement ride quality and distress manifestations in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation Manual for Condition Rating of Flexible Pavements (1989). PCI values start at 100 for a newly constructed road, and over time theoretically becomes zero as the asset deteriorates. In actuality, the PCI for a structure should never reach zero, as rehabilitation works will be performed prior to this. For the purposes of this plan, PCI values generated during preparation of the Township s 2007 Roads Needs Study were used and depreciated by an accepted annual value of two PCI points per year to establish current condition ratings. The Township will endeavour to undertake a detailed assessment of the current condition of Township Roads, including update of PCI values, in 2015 and at a recurring frequency of every five years. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through regular assessments. It is noted that Township roads are also routinely patrolled in accordance with Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. These patrols will not include assessment of PCI values; however will serve to identify condition issues which may arise in between detailed assessments. 3.12.3 Township Facilities Information regarding current condition of Township facilities was not available at the time the plan was prepared. The Township has budgeted to retain the services of an outside consultant to undertake a structural condition assessment audit of Township buildings and recreational facilities in 2014 and will endeavour to update condition assessments at a regular frequency of every five years. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through regular assessments. 3.12.4 Stormwater Management Facilities Typically, new stormwater management facilities have an Inspection and Maintenance plan, which can usually be found in the Professional Consulting Engineer s Stormwater Management Report. If such a plan is available for a facility, the facility should be inspected as outlined in the

File No. 113006-2 Page 18 plan. In the absence of such a plan, the facility should be inspected in accordance with the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003). The MOE manual recommends that stormwater management facilities are inspected annually to ensure inlets and outlets are free from obstructing debris and assess maintenance requirements. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through annual inspections. 3.12.5 Fire Reservoirs National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Publication 25 - Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems recommends that concrete fire water reservoirs are inspected at a minimum frequency of every five years. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through completed inspections. 3.12.6 Sidewalks, Streetlights and Traffic Signs Sidewalks, streetlights and traffic signs are inspected by the Township at a minimum frequency of once per calendar year as required by Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Asset information and condition will be reviewed for accuracy and updated in the plan as this information becomes available through mandated inspections. 4.0 DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE Desired levels of service are high level indicators that establish defined quality thresholds at which municipal services should be offered. They support the Township s strategic goals and are based on customer expectations, statutory requirements, standards, and the financial capacity of the Township to deliver those levels of service. The following factors typically influence desired levels of service: Municipal goals Legislative requirements and standards for best management practice Expected asset performance Public expectations Availability of finances Through clearly defining desired levels of service required to meet the Township s goals, a plan can be formulated to ensure that infrastructure is managed adequately to meet these targets. Desired levels of service are outlined in the sections below. In some instances, these performance indicators are not currently measured, and part of the AMP includes measuring these parameters going forward. It should be noted that desired levels of service will evolve over time, both as the Township s goals change and based on external influences such as new legislation and standards. 4.1 BRIDGES/CULVERTS The primary goal with regards to bridge and culvert structures is to span physical barriers or obstacles in a safe and efficient manner. Examples of physical barriers or obstacles include waterways, roadways, pedestrian paths, railways and valleys. It is also important to minimize maintenance and rehabilitation costs as much as possible through strategic planning and efficient scheduling. Legislative requirements are also a key consideration for this asset group.

File No. 113006-2 Page 19 The Township will strive to maintain all structures with a good to fair condition rating to extend the service life of individual assets. This approximately corresponds to a BCI rating of 65 or greater. 4.2 ROADS The primary goals with regards to roads are to maintain required access, optimize public safety and meet or exceed all legislative requirements. Road maintenance and rehabilitation is a major expense for the Township, with the road network constituting the Township s most valuable asset. Is also therefore important to minimize maintenance and rehabilitation costs as much as possible through strategic planning and efficient scheduling. Maintenance of roads is governed under Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. At a minimum, all roads and associated infrastructure (ditches, sidewalks, signage, lighting, etc.) within the Township are patrolled and maintained in accordance with this standard. The Township will further strive to maintain all hardtop and non-paved roads in a good to fair condition. For hardtop roads this will approximately correspond to a PCI value of 65 or greater. 4.3 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES The category of Township Facilities includes a broad range of assets, each with different uses. As a result the desired levels of service for each facility differ. From an overall perspective however, key considerations include meeting public expectations, ensuring adequate accessibility, ensuring optimal public safety, meeting legislative requirements and minimizing maintenance and rehabilitation costs. The Township will strive to maintain all Township facilities in good to fair condition. Good to fair condition is defined as functioning as designed or for its intended use with minimal maintenance required for at least five years. In general, this will entail maintenance and improvements to prevent accelerated deterioration of interior building systems/components, allow facilities to be used for their intended function and meet current building, fire and accessibility codes and standards. 4.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES Stormwater management facilities are in place to manage stormwater runoff from developed roads and lands to reduce impacts to property, infrastructure and the public as a result of storm events. Often these facilities serve to control the rate at which runoff from developed lands is released to preserve the natural water balance. They may also provide quality control to prevent release of sediment or other contaminants to the receiving water body. The Township will strive to maintain stormwater facilities in good to fair operating condition. Good to fair condition is defined as functioning as designed or for its intended use with minimal maintenance required for at least five years. Typically, new stormwater management facilities have an Inspection and Maintenance plan, which can usually be found in the Professional Consulting Engineer s Stormwater Management Report. If such a plan is available for a facility, the facility will be maintained to the levels outlined in the plan. In the absence of such a plan, a facility will be maintained in accordance with the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003).

File No. 113006-2 Page 20 4.5 FIRE RESERVOIRS Fire reservoirs are in place to meet fire-fighting demands for subdivisions and industrial developments. Primary goals therefore involve ensuring water supply is available when required for fire-fighting purposes. Fire reservoirs should be maintained in good to fair condition. Good to fair condition is defined as functioning as designed or for its intended use with minimal maintenance required for at least five years. Recommended maintenance practices for fire water storage tanks are included under NFPA Publication 25 - Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. 4.6 STREETLIGHTS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS Key considerations for streetlights, sidewalk and traffic signs primarily involve public safety and legislative requirements. Maintenance of these assets is governed under Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Assets will be maintained in good to fair condition according to this standard. 4.7 CURRENT PERFORMANCE OF ASSETS Table 8 summarizes current performance of assets, based on best available condition data, relative to the defined service targets. Table 8: Current Performance of Assets Asset Type Number of Assets Service Target Number of Assets Meeting Target Percentage of Assets Meeting Target Bridges 7 -good to fair condition -BCI ~>65 5 71% Culverts 16 -good to fair condition -BCI ~>65 15 94% Hardtop Roads 130 -good to fair condition -PCI ~>65 77 59% Non Paved Roads 48 -good to fair condition 48 100% Stormwater Facilities 35 -good to fair condition 35 100% Township Facilities 31 -good to fair condition 27 87% Streetlights pool -good to fair condition pool 100% Sidewalks 7 -good to fair condition 6 86% Traffic Signs pool -good to fair condition pool 100% Fire Reservoirs 5 -good to fair condition 5 100% 5.0 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 5.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The ultimate goal of the Asset Management Strategy is to maintain Township assets that currently meet their desired level of service and to improve those assets that do not currently meet their desired level of service, as defined in Section 4.0. The asset management strategy strives to minimize maintenance and rehabilitation costs, while managing risk without diminishing function, through strategic planning and efficient scheduling.

File No. 113006-2 Page 21 This will serve to maximize the useful life of each asset before replacement is ultimately required. Legislative requirements or opportunities may also influence maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement alternatives for bridges and culverts. Through regularly planned strategic maintenance and rehabilitation, the individual asset life can be extended and for less capital expense than if the asset were allowed to deteriorate with no maintenance and replaced at the end of its useful life. In general, maintenance activities ensure continued performance of an asset and prevent premature deterioration; rehabilitation extends the life of an asset for a period of time; and replacement renews the life of an asset. In some circumstances, it may be more efficient and cost effective for the Township to accelerate or delay identified capital improvement needs to a time when maintenance/rehabilitation/replacement of similar adjacent or related infrastructure is required. By documenting asset maintenance/rehabilitation/replacement needs into the AMP the Township will be better positioned to allocate appropriate levels of capital expenditures in annual budgets. 5.2 NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS Non-infrastructure solutions are items such as studies, policies and consultation exercises which could potentially extend the life of assets or lower total asset program costs in the future. The Township intends to undertake a review of the Township s Development Charges By-Law in the near future which will serve to ensure that appropriate proportions of costs associated with growth are funded, at least in part, by development. Additionally, Township staff will strive to remain up-to-date with current management technologies and trends through interaction with other Municipal staff and officials, attendance at select industry events and review of industry publications. 5.3 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS Maintenance requirements for bridges and culverts are specific to each structure and are determined on a case-by-case basis considering a number of factors including type, use and nature of wear or failure observed. The overall condition of each bridge and culvert structure is described in terms of a BCI value, generated during biennial inspections. For purposes of maintenance/rehabilitation/replacement needs, comparing BCI values between structures may be useful; however, they should be considered along with a number of other factors when determining prioritization of capital work projects. Such factors can include Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) values, posted speed limits, economic impacts of structure and barrier/obstacle necessitating structure. Where feasible, consideration will be given to coinciding asset maintenance/rehabilitation with adjacent road maintenance to capitalize on efficiencies gained through economies of scale. In general, bridges and culverts are replaced when at such a time that proposed maintenance costs near proposed replacement costs. Based on the 2013 OSIM reports, two bridges (French s Bridge and Little s Bridge) are considered to be in fair to poor condition and do not meet current service targets defined in this plan. One bridge (Galt Creek Bridge Gore Road Lot 2) is considered to be in fair condition and requires attention in the near future to maintain condition such that it continues to meet its service target. All three bridges are recommended for maintenance and rehabilitation work within the next 1-5 years. French s Bridge is considered the highest priority for rehabilitation work as it is considered to present the greatest liability to the Township due to higher AADT and

File No. 113006-2 Page 22 higher posted speed limits. One culvert (Gore Road Culvert) is considered to be in poor condition and does not meet current service targets defined in this plan. Eight additional culverts are considered to be in fair to good condition, but require attention in the near future to maintain condition such that the assets continue to meet their service targets. Of these, one culvert is recommended for maintenance and rehabilitation work within one year, five culverts are recommended for maintenance and rehabilitation work within a 1-5 year timeframe and two culverts are recommended for maintenance and rehabilitation work within a 6-10 year timeframe. 5.4 ROADS Road maintenance and rehabilitation is a major expense for the Township, with the road network constituting the Township s most valuable asset. It is therefore important to ensure that systems are in place to maximize useful life and minimize risk and road-related expenditures, where opportunity permits. The asset management strategies for hardtop and non-paved roads are described below. The proposed strategies aim to minimize life cycle costs while minimizing risk and ensuring that PCI values remain within the tolerance of the desired level of service. 5.4.1 Hardtop Roads The Township is responsible for a total of 136 km of hardtop roads. Of these, approximately 18 km are finished with two lifts of asphalt while the remaining 118 km are finished with a single lift of asphalt. In general, roads which experience high traffic volumes and/or heavy truck traffic as well as newer roads in residential subdivision developments are completed with two lifts. Separate maintenance strategies are proposed for hardtop roads with single and double lift asphalt surfaces. The general maintenance strategy for hardtop roads finished with two lifts of asphalt is to complete crack sealing after approximately five years (roughly corresponding to a PCI value of 85) and to complete resurfacing of one lift of asphalt after approximately 15-20 years (roughly corresponding to a PCI of 65). Crack sealing will serve to protect the base and preserve the condition of the road preventing further deterioration and holding the PCI value for a period of two years. Resurfacing will serve to restore the condition of the road to near new condition, increasing the PCI value for the road to 95. The general maintenance strategy for hardtop roads finished with a single lift of asphalt is to complete resurfacing of one lift of asphalt after approximately 15-20 years (roughly corresponding to a PCI of 65). A detailed summary of proposed maintenance and rehabilitation projects is provided in Appendix B. The forecasts represent requirements for maintenance or rehabilitation work based solely on the numerical PCI value with respect to the service targets defined. It is recognized that it is not practical for the Township to undertake all of this work in one year and in reality the work will be prioritized and completed based on the criticality of the risk/need and available funding. 5.4.2 Gravel Surfaced Roads The gravel road network is 52 km in length and comprises approximately 27% of the total road

File No. 113006-2 Page 23 network within the Township. Gravel roads require regular routine maintenance in the form of grading and gravel addition in order to maintain suitable road profile and driving surface. However, if properly maintained gravel roads are considered to have nearly unlimited service life. The current practice for maintaining the gravel road system is that one-half of the gravel road system (divided by Brock Road) receives a fresh application of gravel each year with grading being conducted on the other half of the gravel roads within the Township that year. Dust control is completed on an as needed basis. 5.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The Township s stormwater drainage network consists of several stormwater retention and infiltration ponds with a limited amount of Township roads containing storm sewer infrastructure. Routine maintenance of stormwater facilities includes removal of blockages and debris and occasional removal of accumulated sediment. The frequency at which maintenance is required is typically site specific. Typically, new stormwater management facilities have an Inspection and Maintenance plan, which can usually be found in the Professional Consulting Engineer s Stormwater Management Report. If such a plan is available for a facility, the facility will be maintained to the levels outlined in the plan. In the absence of such a plan, a facility should be maintained in accordance with the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003). The MOE manual recommends that stormwater facilitates are maintained to ensure no greater than 5% reduction in total suspended solids removal efficiency due to sediment accumulation. The sediment depth and frequency at which this will occur will vary depending on the size/type of facility and type of development and may be determined according to the methods outlined in the manual. All stormwater facilities are currently believed to be in good condition at this time. Minor rehabilitation work is required to repair the outlet structure for Aberfoyle Business Park SWM Block 3 in 2014. 5.6 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES Township facilities are maintained, repaired and upgraded on an as needed basis as issues are identified by staff. Current documentation regarding condition data of Township facilities was not available at the time this report was prepared. The Township will be undertaking a building structural condition assessment audit in 2014 to assist with forecasting future maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement requirements. Maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement work for facilities over the timeframe of this plan were obtained from recreation budget forecasts provided by the Township. Forecasts will be updated and a more detailed maintenance strategy will be documented following completion of the condition audit. 5.7 STREETLIGHTS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS Streetlights, sidewalks and traffic signs are routinely inspected by the Township as required under Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. These assets are maintained and repaired on an as needed basis according to this standard. 5.8 FIRE RESERVOIRS Fire reservoirs are maintained and repaired on an as needed basis as problems are identified through routine use or inspection. Based on best available current condition data, no major

File No. 113006-2 Page 24 maintenance or rehabilitation work is predicted for the timeframe of this plan. 5.9 PROCUREMENT The Township has a procurement By-law to guide staff and Council in the most efficient, effective, fair and publicly transparent way to obtain goods and services. While Township forces are used to the maximum extent to reduce or minimize externally-sourced capital projects (such as, for example replacing culverts or reconstructing gravel roads), larger or more complex projects beyond the Township s in-house capacity (such as bridge rehabilitations or asphalt paving) are typically awarded through a public tendering process. It is the Township s general goal to adhere to these policies and continue to look for opportunities to improve procurement methods accordingly to ensure not just low prices but also the best value in all the goods and services received. For the assets included in this plan, the Townships typical procurement process follows a design, tender, build approach which has proven to be effective locally as well as throughout the province. Considering the nature, relatively limited scope, available contracting industry basis and flexible schedule associated with the proposed 10-yr planned capital projects, an alternative design-build or private-public partnership approach does not appear to be feasible, appropriate or beneficial, however future consideration will be given if the circumstances arise. 5.10 RISK OVERVIEW There are risks associated with the implementation of the AMP. For a relatively small municipality such as the Township of Puslinch, most risks are associated with lack of resources. Time and financial resources should be carefully budgeted to not only undertake required inspections, evaluation and maintenance of infrastructure, as required by the AMP, but also to record this information and ensure that the asset management inventory is updated. In addition, it will be necessary to budget time and financial resources to evaluate and update the AMP itself on a regular basis, to ensure that desired levels of service and the strategy to meet those levels is up to date and relevant. If the AMP and associated inventory are not updated over time, their usefulness will decrease with time. 6.0 FINANCING STRATEGY Having a strong financial plan in place is critical for putting an AMP into action. It also allows for the plan to be integrated into the Township s financial planning and budgeting, ensuring that the planning tool is utilized as fully as possible. 6.1 YEARLY EXPENDITURE FORECASTS Yearly expenditure forecasts for each asset type over the ten year timeframe of the AMP are summarized in Table 9. A detailed breakdown of expenditures is provided in Appendix B.

File No. 113006-2 Page 25 Asset Type Table 9: Yearly Expenditure Forecasts Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Bridges $129,000 $0 $195,000 $177,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Culverts $132,000 $237,500 $15,000 $15,000 $191,000 $145,000 $80,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Hardtop Roads $11,589,118 $709,375 $520,275 $228,200 $1,041,775 $1,587,385 $1,506,540 $257,775 $209,300 $719,083 Gravel Roads $100,046 $134,309 $100,046 $134,309 $100,046 $134,309 $100,046 $134,309 $100,046 $134,309 Township Facilities $45,000 $445,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stormwater Facilities $130,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fire Reservoirs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Street lighting $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $145,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Sidewalks $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Traffic Signs $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 Total $12,199,163 $1,600,184 $904,321 $629,009 $1,736,821 $1,940,694 $1,760,586 $481,084 $398,346 $942,392 6.2 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS A summary of yearly expenditures on infrastructure assets for the years 2011 and 2012 was developed based on the Fixed Asset Acquisitions Listings provided by the Township. Table 10 shows the annual infrastructure expenditures for each asset type for 2011 and 2012. Table 10: 2011/2012 Yearly Infrastructure Expenditures Asset Type 2011 Expenditures 2012 Expenditures Bridges - $77,536.75 Culverts - $6,407.51 Roads $244,023.18 $509,697.99 Drainage $8,063.46 - Township Facilities $11,151.37 $50,515.62 Other - Sidewalk - $8,659.11 Total: $263,238.01 $652,816.98 6.3 YEARLY REVENUES The 2014 budget was not available at the time of completion of this report; therefore the 2013 approved budget has been utilized for discussion of annual revenues. The total estimated revenue for capital expenditures on infrastructure assets in the 2013 approved budget was $1,678,400.52. Table 11 outlines sources of revenue in the 2013 budget.

File No. 113006-2 Page 26 Table 11: Summary of Revenues Revenue Source 2012 (Actual) 2013 (Budgeted) Transfers to Capital - Admin $12,211.20 - - Roads $506,690.31 $667,815.00 - Recreation $38,304.42 $365,000.00 - Fire - $45,000.00 Roads Maintenance Allowance $180,567.52 $215,400.00 Gas Tax $205,185.52 $205,185.52 Aggregate Levy $189,357.26 $180,000.00 Total $1,132,316.23 $1,678,400.52 6.4 FUNDING SHORTFALL Figure 11 illustrates estimated annual capital project costs in comparison to anticipated funding sources. The chart illustrates that, as is being experienced by most other municipalities in the province, funding shortfalls are anticipated. The average annual expenditure over the ten year timeframe of the plan is $2,259,260. Average estimated available revenues are $1,678,401 corresponding to an estimated funding shortfall of approximately $5,808,593, or $580,859 per year, over the plan duration. Figure 11: Comparison of Capital Costs vs. Available Funding In an effort to address the potential funding shortfall, the Township is endeavoring to establish and utilize working reserves for funding these infrastructure projects. The Township will aim to contribute to these working reserves at budget time in order to spread the costs of significant infrastructure projects over the longer term. The Township will also be undertaking a review of

File No. 113006-2 Page 27 its development charges commencing in 2014. Therefore, the Township will aim to utilize these funds for future infrastructure projects. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The AMP as presented in this report is a systematic process that allows for the maintenance, upgrading and the operating of the Township s physical assets in a cost effective manner. The implementation of this AMP provides the Township with a decision making tool to analyze demands and deliver fiscally responsible options in a sustainable framework. Through the financial planning presented in this document, it is important to recognize that the amount of funds currently projected to be available through traditional sources over the next 10 years for capital works projects may not be sufficient to sustain the current desired or expected levels of service. Staff and Council are therefore encouraged to take advantage of any applicable grant funding programs that may be available. All of which is respectfully submitted. GAMSBY AND MANNEROW LIMITED Per: Amanda Pepping, P.Eng. Steve Conway, C.E.T.

PUSLINCH, ONTARIO APPENDIX A Asset Information and Condition Tables

Bridges Asset Number Description Acquisition Date Structure Type Length of Deck (m) Deck Area (sq m) Span Length 1001 Cook's Mill Bridge 1992 I-Beam 16.90 90.40 7.55 160 $38,082.58 $587,600.00 Good 1003 Little's Bridge 1960 Rigid Frame 6.90 33.81 6.10 29 $0.00 $219,765.00 Fair - Poor 1005 Leslie Road West Between Lots 35/36 1965 Rectangular Culvert 7.00 63.70 3.10 149 $1,861.90 $414,050.00 Good 1006 Concession 1, Lots 9/10, West Of SR 10S 1970 Rigid Frame 12.30 104.55 9.50 692 $12,780.91 $679,575.00 Good 1007 French's Bridge 1984 I-Beam 8.15 46.86 6.55 39 $50,752.47 $304,590.00 Fair - Poor 1008 Galt Creek Bridge Gore Road Lot 2 1948 Rectangular Culvert 8.45 114.00 3.65 700 $0.00 $741,000.00 Fair 1009 Moyer's Bridge 1960 Girder 6.80 76.16 6.10 916 $76,759.79 $495,040.00 Good Total $180,237.65 $3,441,620.00 AADT Net Book Value (2012) Replacement Value Condition (2013 OSIM)

Culverts Asset Number Description Acquisition Date Type AADT Span Length (m) Deck Area (m2) Net Book Value (2012) Replacement Value 2002 Culvert Of Cook's Mill Race 2013 Elipse CSP 160 1.9 17 $0.00 $160,650.00 Good 2004 McFarlane's Culvert 2005 Rectangular 147 2.4 28 $0.00 $222,750.00 Good 2006 Victoria Road Culvert Over Galt Creek 1960 Rectangular 557 3.7 50 $0.00 $268,974.00 Good 2007 Irish Creek Culvert On Townline Road 1936 Rectangular 1239 2.6 53 $0.00 $287,280.00 Fair 2008 7th Concession Culvert 2012 Elipse CSP 132 1.3 12 $0.00 $117,180.00 Good 2009 Gilmour Rd Culvert Over Aberfoyle Creek 1930 Rectangular & Elipse CSP 145 2.0 30 $0.00 $162,000.00 Fair 2010 Ellis Road Culvert Over Puslinch Lake Irish Creek 1920 Rectangular 549 4.3 63 $0.00 $340,200.00 Good 2011 Ellis Road Culvert At Lot 10 Conc 2 2010 Box Culvert 378 1.8 29 $0.00 $236,115.00 Good 2012 Concession 2 Bridge/Culvert Over Mill Creek 1994 Rectangular 402 5.9 123 $110,714.73 $661,500.00 Good 2013 Victoria Road Culvert North Of Leslie 1960 Rectangular 387 2.5 39 $0.00 $313,794.00 Fair 2014 Leslie Road Culvert West Of Victoria 1945 Rectangular 196 2.4 38 $0.00 $307,395.00 Fair 2015 Culvert Of Flamborough T/L West Of Victoria 2010 Rectangular 159 4.2 59 $0.00 $317,520.00 Good 2016 Flamborough T/L Bridge/Culvert East Of Macpherson Ln 2010 Rigid Frame 159 4.8 49 $0.00 $263,088.00 Good 2017 Gore Road Culvert 1960 Elipse CSP 311 1.6 18 $0.00 $179,820.00 Poor 2018 Gore Road Dual Culvert 1950 Elipse CSP 311 0.7 7 $0.00 $68,531.40 Fair 2019 7th Concession Culvert 2012 Rectangular - 1.2 9 $6,343.30 $48,600.00 Good Total $117,058.03 $3,955,397.40 Condition (2013 OSIM)

Hardtop Roads Asset Number Street Name From Street To Street Acquisition Date Net Book Value (2012) Replacement Value Surface Width (m) Single Lift of Asphalt 1 Gore Road Townline Road Sideroad 10 1995 $92,212.21 $1,113,750.00 6.8 1.485 4 593 59.68 47.68 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 2 Gore Road Sideroad 10 South County Road 52 (Cooper Road) 1996 $50,773.11 $1,113,750.00 6.5 1.485 4 264 64.35 52.35 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 3 Gore Road County Road 35 Foreman Road 1992 $0.00 $1,474,500.00 6.6 1.966 4 311 48.71 95.00 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 4 Gore Road Sideroad 20 South Valens Road 2004 $427,685.65 $2,085,000.00 6.8 2.780 4 311 91.24 79.24 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 5 Gore Road Valens Road Concession 7 1990 $162,085.57 $1,154,250.00 6.9 1.539 4 552 80.43 68.43 66 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 6 Gore Road Concession 7 Lennon Road 2002 $117,797.92 $726,750.00 6.9 0.969 4 794 83.4 71.40 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 7 Gore Road Maddaugh Road Lennon Road 1999 $29,316.18 $1,875,000.00 6.6 2.500 347 62.86 50.86 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 9 Puslinch-Flamborough Townline Victoria Road South Maddaugh Road 2003 $141,288.72 $802,500.00 6.6 1.070 135 88.94 76.94 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 10 Puslinch-Flamborough Townline 14th Concession East Victoria Road South 2002 $158,522.69 $978,000.00 6.9 1.304 135 82.94 70.94 69 67 65 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 12 Concession 1 transition Townline Road 1999 $37,065.97 $285,000.00 6.8 0.380 4 1374 74.61 62.61 61 59 57 55 53 51 95 93 91 89 13A Concession 1 transition transition 2007 $280,182.60 $2,516,250.00 6.9 3.355 4 587 99.23 87.23 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 13B Concession 1 Sideroad 10 South transition 1999 $24,593.73 $247,500.00 6.8 0.330 4 587 75.3 63.30 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 14 Concession 1 Sideroad 10 South County Road 35 2000 $180,268.11 $1,551,750.00 6.7 2.069 4 516 78.6 66.60 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 15_SURFACE Concession 1 County Road 35 Sideroad 20 South 1996 $172,668.26 $1,543,500.00 7.3 2.058 4 680 67.98 55.98 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 16 Concession 1 Sideroad 20 South Sideroad 25 South 1999 $146,102.60 $1,449,000.00 6.9 1.932 4 511 75.18 63.18 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 17 Concession 1 Sideroad 25 South Concession 7 1997 $92,510.47 $1,431,750.00 6.8 1.909 4 429 67.66 55.66 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 18 Concession 1/Leslie Rd W 1999 $174,615.54 $1,757,250.00 6.8 2.343 4 697 73.81 61.81 95 93 91 89 87 95 93 91 89 87 19 Concession 1 Leslie Road W Highway 6 2001 $56,463.06 $408,000.00 6.8 0.544 4 453 80.77 68.77 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 20 Leslie Road W Highway 6 Victoria Road South 1993 $0.00 $1,530,000.00 6.9 2.040 4 166 51.76 39.76 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 21 Leslie Road West Victoria Road South Watson Road South 2003 $272,918.09 $1,527,000.00 6.7 2.036 4 111 88.7 76.70 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 22 Leslie Road West Watson Road South Bridge 5 (Mountsberg) 2003 $72,653.06 $406,500.00 6.7 0.542 4 127 88.21 76.21 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 23 Leslie Road West Mountsberg Bridge Curve at Hwy 401 2003 $164,828.83 $895,500.00 6.9 1.194 4 127 87 75.00 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 25 Leslie Road West Curve at Highway 401 Puslinch-Flamborough Townline 2004 $157,667.22 $757,500.00 6.9 1.010 4 127 90.39 78.39 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 27C Calfass Road Hwy 6 Settlers Court 2011 $30,013.45 $44,400.00 7.0 0.059 158 95.00 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 30 Main St And Back 2011 $23,942.74 $252,750.00 7.0 0.337 5 96.00 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 32 Concession 2 Sideroad 10 South County Road 32 1997 $101,911.75 $1,577,250.00 6.8 2.103 4 327 65.84 53.84 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 33 Concession 2 Sideroad 10 South County Road 35 1996 $76,145.20 $1,551,000.00 7.0 2.068 4 388 62.22 50.22 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 34,35 Concession 2 County Road 35 Sideroad 25 South 2010 $166,062.39 $3,069,000.00 7.0 4.092 94.00 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 35 Concession 2 Sideroad 20 South Sideroad 25 South 1994 $12,588.83 $1,554,750.00 7.1 2.073 3 297 56.88 44.88 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 37 Concession 2A Concession 2 Concession 7 2000 $0.00 $160,500.00 7.1 0.214 3 127 51.46 75.00 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 38 Mason Road Concession 7 dead end 2000 $19,844.41 $163,500.00 7.0 0.218 5 10 76.44 64.44 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 40_SURFACE McLean Road East - WRONG SL County Road 46 (Brock Road) Concession 7 2007 $174,514.89 $1,428,000.00 8.4 1.904 3 631 40.17 85.00 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 44 Ellis Road County Road 32 County Road 33 1999 $149,127.51 $1,479,000.00 6.9 1.972 4 466 46.9 34.90 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 45A Ellis Road Sideroad 10 North 6725 Ellis Road 2010 $400,306.21 $465,000.00 7.0 0.620 94.00 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 45B Ellis Road transition County Road 32 1995 $0.00 $1,352,250.00 6.5 1.803 4 321 46.36 34.36 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 46_ODD Gilmour Road 2007 $72,804.88 $1,352,250.00 7.0 1.803 4 85.00 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 46_SURFACE Gilmour Road County Road 46 (Brock Road) subdivision entrance 2007 $38,991.61 $179,250.00 7.1 0.239 4 123 100 88.00 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 48 Smith Road Concession 7 County Road 34 1990 $0.00 $234,750.00 6.2 0.313 5 19 34.45 22.45 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 49 Cockburn Street County Road 46 dead end 2004 $3,990.89 $15,750.00 8.4 0.021 65 92.86 80.86 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 50_SURFACE Cockburn Street Country Road 46 Old Brock Road 2000 $22,076.82 $87,750.00 7.1 0.117 199 88.14 76.14 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 51_SURFACE Old Brock Road County Road 46 dead end 2000 $62,834.09 $247,500.00 7.1 0.330 5 310 73.57 61.57 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 52 Maple Leaf Lane County Road 46 dead end 2000 $22,146.16 $196,500.00 6.5 0.262 5 122 78.7 66.70 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 54C Roszell Road 2013 Concession 4 Townline Road 2012 $103,895.01 $1,008,750.00 6.6 1.345 4 483 98.00 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 55 Concession 4 Forestell Road County Road 32 2010 $78,205.30 $922,500.00 7.0 1.230 94.00 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 56_SURFACE 2 Concession 4 County Road 32 Sideroad 10 North 2012 $967,251.43 $1,526,250.00 6.1 2.035 4 295 54.57 93.00 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 57 Concession 4 Sideroad 10 North Sideroad 12 North 2004 $130,020.61 $615,750.00 7.0 0.821 4 316 90.63 78.63 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 58 Concession 4 Sideroad 12 North County Road 35 2003 $167,589.77 $910,500.00 6.9 1.214 4 228 87.61 75.61 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 59 Concession 4 County Road 35 Sideroad 20 North 2003 $288,927.63 $1,525,500.00 7.1 2.034 4 228 86.16 74.16 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 85 63A_SURFACE Maltby Road East 2011 $140,003.63 $933,750.00 6.5 1.245 4 139 96.00 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 63C Maltby Road East-Top Coat 2012 $112,132.14 $633,750.00 7.0 0.845 4 139 98.00 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 66 Forestell Road County Road 32 Roszell Road 2000 $103,549.85 $878,250.00 6.8 1.171 4 638 76.55 64.55 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 67 Forestell Road Sideroad 10 North County Road 32 1999 $151,810.45 $1,527,750.00 6.8 2.037 4 455 71.08 59.08 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 68 Forestell Road Sideroad 12 North Sideroad 10 North 1999 $61,329.82 $608,250.00 6.9 0.811 4 410 77.2 65.20 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 69 Forestell Road County Road 35 Sideroad 12 North 1999 $91,654.43 $909,000.00 6.9 1.212 4 455 68.22 56.22 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 77 Hume Road Nassagaweya-Puslinch Townline Watson Road South 1996 $ 441,589.27 $1,730,250.00 6.7 2.307 4 718 49.09 89.00 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 78 Niska Road Bailey Bridge Whitelaw Road 1994 $7,554.17 $0.00 6.9 3 671 56.77 93.00 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 78B Niska Road Surface River Whitelaw Road 2012 $57,199.72 $470,250.00 7.0 0.627 671 93.00 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 80 Section 80 County Road 37 (Arkell Road) end 2004 $2,164.66 $30,000.00 4.5 0.040 10 89.44 77.44 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 82 Cooks Mill Road Bridge County Road 41 2013 $53,415.43 $324,750.00 4.9 0.433 4 136 57.5 95.00 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 83 Glenholm Drive County Road 41 (Watson Road South) Dead end 2004 $30,361.52 $165,000.00 6.1 0.220 136 91.58 79.58 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 88 Townline Road Roszell Road County Road 34 1990 $0.00 $1,072,500.00 8.2 1.430 10 46.25 34.25 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 90 Roszell Road Forestell Road Concession 4 1990 $0.00 $755,250.00 6.9 1.007 636 100 88.00 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 94 Sideroad 10 North County Road 34 Ellis Road 2000 $0.00 $573,750.00 7.0 0.765 4 322 49.57 92.00 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 94A SR 10 Whitelaw Road end 2011 $19,164.42 $237,750.00 7.0 0.317 4 322 96.00 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 SECTION SR 10 2010 $116,451.97 $0.00 7.0 92.00 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 97 Sideroad 10 North Forestell Road Laird Road West 1998 $65,690.49 $756,000.00 7.2 1.008 4 256 70.16 58.16 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 99A Sideroad 10 North Niska Road transition 2003 $0.00 $134,250.00 5.1 0.179 4 68 39.13 27.13 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 108 Sideroad 20 North County Road 34 Concession 4 2004 $308,771.21 $1,527,750.00 6.7 2.037 4 417 90.15 78.15 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 113 Concession 7 Concession 1 Gore Road 1990 $0.00 $1,297,500.00 7.0 1.730 3 218 31.95 19.95 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 114 Concession 7 Concession 2A Concession 1 1990 $0.00 $1,797,000.00 7.0 2.396 3 128 35.96 23.96 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 120 Maddaugh Road Highway 6 Gore Road 1997 $0.00 $690,750.00 6.2 0.921 108 55.13 43.13 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 121A Maddaugh Road 14th Concession East Highway 6 2004 $64,252.39 $300,000.00 7.1 0.400 182 91.48 79.48 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 121B Maddaugh Road Puslinch-Flamborough Townline 14th Concession East 2003 $68,975.77 $380,250.00 6.8 0.507 182 88.33 76.33 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 122 Victoria Road South Leslie Road West Flamborough Puslinch Townline 1999 $59,621.19 $600,000.00 6.8 0.800 3 101 72.1 60.10 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 123 Victoria Road South Leslie Road West County Road 36 1993 $0.00 $1,657,500.00 6.8 2.210 3 328 62.32 50.32 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 124 Victoria Road South County Road 36 (Badenoch Street) Gilmour Road 1995 $65,353.42 $0.00 6.9 0.000 3 199 60.17 48.17 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 124B Victoria Road-Skin Pave 2012 $47,742.97 $2,070,750.00 7.0 2.761 3 199 93.00 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 125A Victoria Road South Gilmour Road entrance to Aberfoyle Pit #2 2000 $64,630.87 $525,000.00 7.1 0.700 3 242 78.83 66.83 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 Length (km) Road Class 2007 Forecast AADT 2007 PCI 2013 PCI (Estimated) 2014 PCI (Estimated) 2015 PCI (Estimated) 2016 PCI (Estimated) 2017 PCI (Estimated) 2018 PCI (Estimated) 2019 PCI (Estimated) 2020 PCI (Estimated) 2021 PCI (Estimated) 2022 PCI (Estimated) 2023 PCI (Estimated)

125B Victoria Road South entrance to Aberfoyle Pit #2 County Road 34 1990 $0.00 $369,750.00 7.4 0.493 3 242 43.47 31.47 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 126 Victoria Road South County Road 34 Maltby Road East 2013 $55,127.88 $1,746,750.00 6.9 2.329 3 472 61.15 95.00 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 132 McRae Station Road Watson Road South Concession 14 East 1996 $0.00 $560,250.00 5.8 0.747 90 50.39 38.39 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 133 Watson Road South Leslie Road West McRae Station Road 1997 $43,129.55 $667,500.00 6.8 0.890 3 90 66.97 54.97 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 134 Watson Road South bridge Leslie Road West 1996 $32,120.80 $663,750.00 6.9 0.885 3 228 62.54 50.54 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 135 Watson Road South bridge bridge 1990 $0.00 $240,750.00 7.0 0.321 3 228 32.11 20.11 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 136 Watson Road South County Road 36 (Badenoch Street) Bridge 1998 $42,068.49 $513,000.00 6.8 0.684 3 228 70.73 58.73 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 137 Watson Road South County Road 34 County Road 36 1996 $142,838.54 $3,039,750.00 6.7 4.053 3 228 64.88 52.88 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 138 Watson Road South Maltby Road East County Road 34 1994 $23,885.27 $1,563,000.00 6.7 2.084 3 319 56.02 44.02 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 139 Watson Road South Hume Road Maltby Road East 2001 $211,058.78 $1,503,000.00 6.9 2.004 3 388 81.91 69.91 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 140 Watson Road South County Road 37 (Arkell Road) Hume Road 2001 $168,455.06 $1,217,250.00 6.8 1.623 1040 81 69.00 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 148 Puslinch-Flamborough Townline Leslie Road West Township Limits 2003 $36,460.58 $201,000.00 6.8 0.268 127 87.49 75.49 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 149 Nassagaweya-Puslinch Townline Leslie Road East Sideroad 10 Nassagaweya 1997 $8,162.69 $103,500.00 7.0 0.138 16 68 56.00 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 158 McLean Road East Brock Road South Brock Road South 1996 $25,958.60 $493,500.00 7.5 0.658 8 64.67 52.67 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 160 Concession 4 Sideroad 20 North curve in road 2004 $69,623.36 $334,500.00 6.9 0.446 171 92.21 80.21 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 161 Concession 4 Curve in Road Highway 6 2004 $56,053.42 $244,500.00 7.6 0.326 171 92.09 80.09 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 166 Sideroad 20 North Concession 4 Forestell Road 2003 $148,291.13 $817,500.00 6.8 1.090 633 88.94 76.94 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 180 Currie Drive County Road 36 (Badenoch Street) Highway 6 (Queen Street) 1993 $0.00 $621,750.00 7.0 0.829 5 190 53.04 41.04 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 181 Ochs Drive Currie Drive County Road 36 (Badenoch Street) 1998 $35,164.19 $416,250.00 7.0 0.555 162 69.94 57.94 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 208_SURFACE Boreham Drive County Road 37 (Arkell Road) County Road 41 (Watson Road South) 1999 $59,259.41 $322,500.00 7.7 0.430 5 181 91.45 79.45 77 75 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 210 Lang Court Currie Drive dead end 1995 $2,603.72 $82,500.00 6.9 0.110 38 58.27 46.27 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 Subtotal $9,419,092.43 $87,859,650.00 117.1 TWO LIFTS OF ASPHALT 27B Calfass Road Victoria Street Queen Street (Highway 6) 1995 $2,284.69 $67,500.00 7.4 0.090 158 59.67 47.67 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 28_SURFACE Victoria Street And Church Street Calfass Road Queen Street (Highway 6) 2000 $67,067.81 $202,500.00 7.1 0.270 5 79 71.87 59.87 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 36 Concession 2/2A Sideroad 25 South Concession 7 1999 $67,153.86 $647,250.00 7.1 0.863 3 340 74.73 75.00 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 72_SURFACE Laird Road West County Road 32 Sideroad 10 North 1999 $54,345.06 $1,511,250.00 8.5 2.015 278 72.33 60.33 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 73_SURFACE Laird Road West Sideroad 10 North Pioneer Trail 1999 $21,738.02 $609,750.00 7.1 0.813 278 70.22 58.22 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 74_SURFACE Laird Road West Pioneer Trail County Road 3 1999 $32,607.04 $901,500.00 7.2 1.202 4 278 68.83 56.83 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 162_SURFACE Nicholas Beaver Road 2007 $227,641.56 $1,737,000.00 11.2 2.316 4 79 88.00 86 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 164_SURFACE McLean Road/Concession 7 - SURFACE 2004 $129,013.71 $807,750.00 7.5 1.077 776 86.52 74.52 73 71 69 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 165_SURFACE McLean Road/Concession 7 - SURFACE Sideroad 25 North County Road 34 2004 $97,326.13 $621,750.00 7.5 0.829 776 82.00 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 185_SURFACE Bridle Path 1990 $38,510.73 $327,000.00 15.9 0.436 105-12.00 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 190 Telfer Glen Queen Street (Highway 6) dead end 1996 $24,000.26 $510,750.00 6.7 0.681 5 190 63.65 51.65 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 191 Settler's Road Calfass Road Telfer Glen 1995 $7,033.13 $229,500.00 6.7 0.306 5 172 60.35 48.35 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 195 Deer View Ridge Hammersley Drive Fox Run Drive 2004 $106,016.43 $495,000.00 7.1 0.660 5 172 89.54 77.54 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 196 Fox Run Drive Deer View Ridge Fox Run Drive transition to curb 2004 $181,834.28 $849,000.00 7.1 1.132 5 80 98.98 86.98 85 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 198 Kerr Crescent McLean Road West McLean Road West 1995 $207,909.84 $607,500.00 6.9 0.810 4 2164 58.27 89.00 87 85 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 201_SURFACE Carriage Lane Bridle Path dead end 2000 $112,702.78 $498,750.00 8.0 0.665 5 239 74.00 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 202_SURFACE Cassin Court Daymond Drive dead end 2007 $32,462.93 $93,000.00 8.1 0.124 5 5 97.7 85.70 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 203_SURFACE Daymond Drive County Road 46 dead end 2007 $94,332.28 $277,500.00 8.2 0.370 5 5 84.00 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 204_SURFACE Bridle Path Bridle Path Bridle Path 1990 $99,027.58 $822,000.00 7.9 1.096 5 306 77.35 65.35 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 205_EVEN Fox Run Drive 2000 $3,090.24 $129,750.00 7.0 0.173 5 48 74.00 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 85 205 Fox Run Drive Fox Run Drive transition to curb Fox Run Drive transition to median 2000 $9,594.49 $89,250.00 6.2 0.119 5 48 78.29 66.29 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 206 Fox Run Drive Fox Run Drive transition to median County Road 41 2000 $17,110.92 $96,750.00 10.2 0.129 5 38 75.51 63.51 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 206_EVEN Fox Run Drive 2000 $3,349.92 $97,500.00 7.0 0.130 5 38 74.00 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 87 85 207_EVEN Fox Run Drive 2004 $3,885.34 $510,000.00 7.0 0.680 5 29 80.00 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 207 Fox Run Drive Fox Run Drive Fox Run Drive 2000 $8,418.85 $64,500.00 6.8 0.086 5 29 90.43 78.43 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 91 89 209 Winer Court Ochs Drive dead end 1998 $4,677.70 $57,000.00 6.8 0.076 19 70.55 58.55 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 212A Winer Road McLean Road pavement transition 2000 $58,409.66 $443,250.00 7.3 0.591 4 723 77.32 65.32 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 79 212B_SURFACE Winer Road pavement transition dead end 2007 $89,951.02 $252,000.00 7.6 0.336 4 359 80.59 68.59 67 95 93 91 89 87 85 85 83 81 213_SURFACE Tawse Place Nicholas Beaver Road Crown Cemetery 1990 $9,957.01 $147,000.00 8.8 0.196 4 16 100 88.00 86 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 214_EVEN Beiber Road Nicholas Beaver Road dead end 2004 $7,815.90 $275,250.00 7.0 0.367 132 82.00 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 95 93 214 Beiber Road Nicholas Beaver Road private property 2004 $31,703.13 $129,750.00 8.1 0.173 132 100 88.00 86 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 Subtotal $1,850,972.30 $14,108,250.00 18.8 Total $11,270,064.73 $101,967,900.00 136.0