Appendix A:

2021 State of the Local

Infrastructure Report
Table of Contents

Glossary of Terms
Introduction
1 Asset Management Maturity Assessment 1
2 State of Local Infrastructure (SOLI) 9
3 Financing Strategy 29
4 Future Improvements 41

Appendix I – Individual Service Area Report Cards 44

Appendix II – Provisions for Repair & Replacement Lifecycle Activities 93
Appendix III – Revenue Analysis Assumptions 95
Acknowledgements
The development of the 2021 State of the Local Infrastructure Report was a significant
undertaking with contributions from staff across the organization. The Corporate Asset
Management Office would like to acknowledge the efforts of the City of Brampton staff and
sincerely thank everyone, including the Subject Matter Experts from the City’s service areas,
for their continued support and guidance throughout the development of this Report.

Consultant
Hemson Consulting Ltd.

Corporate Asset Management Office

Amit Gupta, Manager
Marina Khinich-Kreynin, Project Manager
Dima Al-Eisawi, Project Advisor
Pankaj Sallh, Project Advisor
Jinesh Patel, Project Advisor
Glossary of Terms
AM Asset Management
AMP Asset Management Plan
BCA Building Condition Assessment
BCI Bridge Condition Index
BDC Building Design and Construction
BTE Benefit to Existing
CAM Corporate Asset Management
CIP Capital Investment Program
City The City of Brampton
Corporate AMP Corporate Asset Management Plan
Departmental Plan Departmental Asset Management Plan
DC Development Charges
EUL Estimated Useful Life
FCI Facilities Condition Index
FDC Foundation Drain Collector
FOM Facilities Operation and Maintenance
ICIP Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program
IT Information Technology
LOS Levels of Service
Ministry Guide Ministry of Infrastructure’s Guide for Municipal AMPs
NBV Net Book Value
PCI Pavement Condition Index
PSAB Public Sector Accounting Board
PTIF Public Transit Infrastructure Fund
R&R Repair & Replacement
Replacement Value Valuation of the Asset Base
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RUL Remaining Useful Life
SOLI State of Local Infrastructure
SW Stormwater
TCA Tangible Capital Asset
UL Useful Life
Introduction
As the fourth largest City in the province and one of the fastest growing communities in
Ontario, the City of Brampton owns and operates a substantial portfolio of assets across
different service areas. These assets are essential to the well-being of the community and
form an integral part of the City’s long-term financial and service delivery planning.
In June 2022, the City of Brampton adopted its second Corporate Asset Management Plan at
the City-wide level that formed a comprehensive update to the City’s first Corporate AMP
completed in 2016. Importantly, this 2021 SOLI Report maintains most of the key assumptions
and methodology derived through the recent Corporate AMP process.
The intention of this 2021 State of the Local Infrastructure Report is to act as a supporting
document to the City’s budgeting process and provides an overview of the following:
1) Asset Management Maturity Assessment: The overall maturity of the City’s asset
management data and program;
2) State of the Local Infrastructure: Estimated value and condition of the City’s
infrastructure to provide various services;
3) Financing Strategy: Assessment of the lifecycle costs required to maintain assets
over their life. This section will also provide some context to the infrastructure funding
gap identified and strategies to mitigate the gap; and
4) Future Improvements: An overview of future improvements and initiatives that will
improve data quality and confidence while driving corporate change.
The City’s total assets replacement cost is estimated at $7.7 billion. This value is comprised
of the major infrastructure service areas of Transportation, Stormwater, Transit, Parks,
Recreation, Cultural Services, Facilities, Information Technology, Fire Services, Library,
Animal Services and City Support Fleet. Transportation services represent the largest share
at 43%, or $3.3 billion, of the total $7.7 billion replacement value. The total asset replacement
value identified in this report represents an increase in value of $557.0 million, or 8%, over
the $7.1 billion (inflated to $2022 from $7.0 billion in $2021) City-wide asset replacement value
reported in the 2020 SOLI analysis1. This increase is due to refined costing information and
inflation, revised inventories and the inclusion of new assets not captured previously. A
comprehensive description, and comparative analysis regarding the change in valuation from
the previous year for each service category, is in the service area report cards in Appendix I
of this report.
The majority of the $7.7 billion in assets currently owned and operated by the City are in Good
condition. The overall “Good” condition rating is attributed to the City’s infrastructure being
relatively new in age combined with the sound asset management practices the City has
employed to date. It is important to note that the current City-wide data confidence presented
in this report is assessed as “Low-Medium” (Age and Condition Based). It is an overall goal
to improve the reliability and accuracy of all information moving forward.

1 The 2020 SOLI Report was prepared as part of the 2021 Corporate Asset Management Plan. As a result, the specific SOLI
Analysis can be found in both the 2021 Summary Report (November 2022) used for budget deliberations and the Final Corporate
Asset Management Plan, June 2022. These documents replaced the traditional annual State of the Local Infrastructure Reports.
1 Asset Management Maturity Assessment
This report presents the City of Brampton’s current asset management data, frameworks and
progress to ensure consistent documentation and measurement of progress going forward.
The results of this assessment are to further inform the Asset Management Roadmap and
guide the City towards best practices in asset management. The assessment considers a few
key components:
1) The City’s current position relative to the requirements of the legislation;
2) Existing data confidence and reliability; and
3) Overall asset management data and programs.

Please note, as the City recently adopted the Corporate AMP in June 2022, this maturity
level is still relevant for the purposes of this 2021 SOLI Report.

1.1.1 Overview of Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for

Municipal Infrastructure
Asset management planning is an essential framework to develop in each municipality to
ensure proper infrastructure management in the most sustainable way over the long term.
The proclamation of The Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 on May 1, 2016 and
includes an authority for the province to regulate municipal asset management planning.
Municipal asset management planning regulation O. Reg. 588/17 under the Infrastructure for
Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 came into effect on January 01, 2018. Building on Ontario’s
2012 Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, the regulation sets
out new requirements for undertaking asset management planning.
The goal of the regulation is to promote continuous improvement in infrastructure asset
management planning by requiring Ontario municipalities to develop a Strategic Asset
Management Policy aligned with their strategic goals, official plan, master plans, financial
planning framework, and the levels of service they intend to provide to their residents.
Municipalities are also required to develop a comprehensive Asset Management Plan in
multiple phases (2022-2025) that includes inventory of all assets they own, incorporates the
current and proposed levels of service, identifies investment activities and costs to maintain
current service levels, and a supporting financial strategy. The following table presents the
requirements along with the timelines prescribed in the regulation:

1
Table 1 – Asset Management regulatory timelines for compliance

Phased Strategic Asset Asset Management Plan Progress

Requirements Management Policy Review

Timeline July 1, 2019 July 1, 2022: Core infrastructure assets July 1,

with costs to maintain current levels of 2025
service

July 1, 2024: All infrastructure assets

with costs to maintain current levels of
service

July 1, 2025: All infrastructure assets

with proposed levels of service and a
financial strategy
Reporting Cycle Every five years Every five years Every
Year

1.1.2 Data Confidence

To aid interpretation of the information presented, there is an assignment of a data confidence
rating to the condition summaries by service area in the report cards of this plan (Appendix I).
The data confidence rating scales outlined in Table 2 define the various measures used to
qualify the accuracy and reliability of the information used to develop this report, specifically
as it relates to condition charts which then relates to the projection of investment needs for
asset repair and replacement. It is an overall goal to improve the reliability and accuracy of all
information through future reporting. While the City should move to a risk-based approach
over time, age-based assessments may still be appropriate for some assets. The current City-
wide Data Confidence is assessed as Low-Medium (Age and Condition Based).
For this SOLI report, the following condition assessments methodologies were implemented:
 Facilities – Facility Condition Index
 Roads – Pavement Condition Index
 Bridges – Bridge Condition Index
 Software and Some Other IT Assets – Adequate Functionality to Provide Service
 All other assets – Age and Condition Based Assessment

2
Table 2 – Data Confidence Rating Scales

High
Measure Description Moderate (Condition) Low (Age)
(Risk Based)
A standard industry
benchmark that is used
Based on full
Approach undertaken to objectively assess the The age-based
understanding of
to qualify the current current and projected condition was
Risks, and a
Approach state of the assets as it condition of the asset. evaluated by
balanced correlation
relates to industry (i.e. FCI- Facilities comparing the age of
of the asset’s
benchmarks and best condition index, PCI- the asset to its
(technical) levels of
practices Pavement Condition expected useful life
service
Index, BCI- Bridge
Condition Index)
Based upon sound
Based upon known
records, procedures,
reasonable procedures,
or analyses that Based upon expert
or analyses that have
Can be trusted to be have been verbal opinion or
Reliability been acceptably
accurate or to provide acceptably manufacturer
documented or expert
a correct result documented, and recommendations on
opinion about condition
are recognized as useful life
based on inspection and
the best method of
usage
assessment
Probable difference
Accuracy between a recorded
+/- 1% +/- 10% +/- 50%
parameter and its true
value
Source: 2016 Corporate AMP developed based on best practices and asset management frameworks

Based on a weighted replacement value of all services and their condition assessments, about
78% of assets have a data confidence rating based on condition. This represents an increase
of 2% from the 2020 SOLI Report in which 76% of the assets ratings were based on condition.
The scale below provides a visual representation of the City’s reliability and accuracy for
condition data based on the criteria listed in Table 2. As the City further moves towards a
condition and risk based approach, the reliability and accuracy of data will continue to
increase. For certain asset classes, inspection programs with full condition assessments is
not feasible, therefore the City will not be targeting a 100% data confidence rating based on
condition assessments. When considering assets that will continue to use an age-based
approach, the City is targeting a maturity rating based on condition assessments of
approximately 91%. Table 3 below provides a detailed outline of the assessment of each
service category’s assets. Please note the basis of the assets classified on condition are in
many instances subject to the input received from individual service area experts.

RELIABILITY
Reliability and Accuracy Scale

Age Condition Risk

ACCURACY

3
Table 3 – Condition Assessment Approach

% of Asset
Service Area (1) Age Condition Risk
Portfolio (2)
Transportation 42.93% ✓ ✓
Roads (Includes Islands) 22.92% ✓
Roadway Bridges & Pedestrian Bridges 5.13% ✓
Roadway Culverts 5.39% ✓
Gateway Features 0.19% ✓
Noise Walls 0.37% ✓
Retaining Walls on Walkways 0.25% ✓
Fences 0.05% ✓
Guiderails 0.07% ✓
Handrails 0.01% ✓
Steps 0.01% ✓
Sidewalks 3.40% ✓
Walkways 0.07% ✓
Multi-Use Paths 0.18% ✓
Street Lighting 3.52% ✓ ✓
Traffic Signals 1.36% ✓
Traffic Signs 0.02% ✓
Stormwater 18.17% ✓ ✓
Stormwater Management Ponds 1.29% ✓
FDC-WTC 0.96% ✓
Storm Sewers 11.64% ✓
Catchbasins 1.69% ✓
Manholes 2.20% ✓
FDC-WTC Manholes 0.29% ✓
Water Quality Units 0.10% ✓
Facilities 19.68% ✓
Facilities 19.68% ✓
Transit 7.21% ✓ ✓
Heavy Duty Vehicles (Buses) 5.70% ✓
Fleet Support 0.02% ✓
Shelters – Conventional 0.10% ✓
Shelters – Zum 0.42% ✓
Shelters – Bike 0.004% ✓
Stops 0.21% ✓
Sandalwood Transit Loop 0.01% ✓
Video Walls 0.001% ✓
Smart Bus Systems 0.03% ✓
True Credential Identification Card
0.0004%
Application Hardware ✓
Conveyance Systems 0.14% ✓
Communication Control 0.20% ✓
Fare Systems 0.12% ✓
Presto 0.07% ✓

4
 % of Asset
Service Area (1) Age Condition Risk
Portfolio (2)
Maintenance/Admin Small Equipment 0.01% ✓
Signage 0.04% ✓
Fueling 0.02% ✓
Stock Room 0.04% ✓
Electric Chargers 0.09% ✓
Information Technology 1.64% ✓
Computers 0.08% ✓
Monitors 0.01% ✓
Mobile Phones 0.01% ✓
Audio Visual Equipment 0.003% ✓
Servers 0.03% ✓
Storage And Back-Up 0.05% ✓
Wireless 0.03% ✓
Cable Plants 0.40% ✓
Network Infrastructure 0.08% ✓
Communication System 0.05% ✓
Software 0.91% ✓
City Support Fleet 0.07% ✓ ✓
Licensed Fleet 0.43% ✓ ✓
Off-Road Vehicles 0.21% ✓
Fleet Equipment 0.01% ✓
Fire 0.48% ✓
Front Line Licensed Vehicles & Apparatus 0.26% ✓
Support Vehicles & Equipment 0.09% ✓
Spare Vehicles 0.09% ✓
Personal Fire Equipment 0.04% ✓
Specialty Equipment 0.01% ✓
Parks 8.12% ✓ ✓
Parking Lots 0.57% ✓
Small Engine Equipment 0.04% ✓ ✓
Parks 1.50% ✓
Natural Heritage Lands 0.00% ✓
Park Furnishing 0.05% ✓
Playgrounds 1.32% ✓
Shade Structures 0.45% ✓
Splash Pads & Outdoor Pools 0.04% ✓
Fitness Equipment 0.01% ✓
Skate Parks 0.02% ✓
Sports Facilities 1.66% ✓ ✓
Pathways 0.55% ✓
Trees 1.86% ✓
Flower Beds 0.05% ✓
Recreation 0.60% ✓ ✓
General Equipment 0.17% ✓
Major Equipment 0.07% ✓

5
 % of Asset
Service Area (1) Age Condition Risk
Portfolio (2)
Splash Pads & Pools 0.06% ✓
Tennis Courts 0.03% ✓
Fitness Equipment 0.04% ✓
Outdoor Fitness Equipment 0.002% ✓
Skateboard Parks 0.04% ✓
Artificial Rinks & Tracks 0.03% ✓
Furniture 0.15% ✓
Cultural Services 0.24% ✓ ✓
Outdoor Equipment 0.11% ✓
Specialty Equipment 0.08% ✓
Furniture 0.003% ✓
Public Art 0.06% ✓
Library 0.27% ✓
Computer Equipment 0.03% ✓
Furniture 0.04% ✓
RFID 0.01% ✓
Shelving 0.01% ✓
Telecommunications Equipment 0.002% ✓
Electronic Media 0.03% ✓
Print Media 0.13% ✓
Library Software 0.004% ✓
Animal Services 0.004% ✓
Equipment 0.004% ✓
Note 1: Services are structured under the responsibility view (see section 2.2 for more details)
Note 2: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding

1.1.3 Assessment of Overall Asset Management Data and Programs

Figure 1 below provides a snapshot of the progress and overall maturity of the City’s asset
management data and program relative to 2016 when the City first launched its Corporate
AMP as well as the recent 2021 Corporate AMP adopted by Council. With the recent adoption
of the Corporate AMP in June 2022, this maturity level is still relevant for the purposes of this
2021 SOLI Report. The ISO 55000 assessment framework, MFOA Maturity level framework,
2016 Corporate AMP, and a series of discussions with the CAMO team and various service
areas inform the maturity evaluation to qualify the progress the City has made.
The major premise of comprehensive corporate asset management is that an organization
will seldom have perfect processes and data with which to manage the asset portfolio.
Instead, the underlying culture of continuous improvement and reliability is its key to success.
These improvements will be part of the continuation of the Corporate Asset Management
program and the implementation of the CAM Roadmap moving forward.
The City’s overall confidence level rating is approximately three (3), which correlates to a
medium (“competent”) State of Asset Management maturity. The scores are reflective of the
quality and type of data available, current processes and management strategies. The figure
indicates two important points:

6
 1) The City has made significant progress in further developing various components of
their Asset Management program since the completion of the 2016 Corporate AMP.
The level of advancement varies by different areas;
2) Despite the progress made, further work is currently underway and planned to be
undertaken over the next few years that will move the City towards the targeted “level
5” assessment in all categories. Some of these activities include but are not limited to:
a. Completion of the Departmental Asset Management Plans for non-core assets;
b. Update to the City’s Long-term Financial Master Plan;
c. Updated Condition assessments and replacement valuations;
d. Level of Service tracking and consultation regarding proposed/target levels of
service; and
e. Improved understanding of advanced asset management strategies including
asset risk, full lifecycle activities, etc.
f. Integration of various AM strategies to inform investment needs
Importantly, the target identified in Figure 1 below is anticipated to occur sometime following
full implementation of the regulatory requirements in July 2025. Section 4 of this report
identifies a series of future improvements and initiatives that will improve data quality and
confidence while driving corporate change. Aside from the regulatory requirement for
municipalities to mature their asset management processes, the City can realize outcomes
that are more tangible:
1) Evidence based decision making and prioritized investment needs to provide expected
levels of service at the lowest cost;
2) Integration with Budgeting process, the Long-term Financial Master Plan and other
key initiatives;
3) Increased coordination with departmental capital plans and corporate funding
strategies; and
4) Better infrastructure coordination with region and within and other levels of
governments and agencies.

7
Figure 1 – Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2016 vs. 2021

Capitalization
threshold
CAM
5 Linkage to Other
RoadMap/Improvem
Key Documents
ent and Initiatives
4 Asset Hierarchy
Financing Options
(ownership)

3
Linkage to Opex Asset Inventory
2

1
Linkage to Capex Replacement Costs
0

Infrastructure Gap Condition

Lifecycle Cost Performance

Model Measurements

Asset (Technical)
AM Strategies
LOS
Corporate LOS Customer LOS

2016 CAMP 2021 CAMP Target

Note: Current maturity continues to be in line with the 2021 Corporate AMP.

8
2 State of Local Infrastructure (SOLI)
2.1 Purpose
This section of the report seeks to establish an understanding of the current state of
Brampton’s estimated $7.7 billion ($2022) in infrastructure assets. The estimated valuation is
based on an inventory of capital assets as of year-end 2021. This baseline snapshot of
Brampton’s assets will help decision-makers prioritize investments in the future; improving
their ability to efficiently manage assets and deliver services.
The State of Local Infrastructure (SOLI) is a key building block for Brampton’s future
management of its infrastructure assets. This section intends to provide the following
information:
 Details of the Asset Inventory – What do we own?
 Valuation of the Asset Base (Replacement Value) – What is it worth?
 Condition of the Asset Base – What Condition is it in?
This State of the Local Infrastructure analysis will lay the foundation for ongoing assessment,
reporting, benchmarking of the City’s infrastructure assets while also publicly communicating
the current state of assets. In this iteration of the report, the focus was on the “major service
areas”, described generally, as the infrastructure owned and directly managed by the City.
However, this report does include assets managed by Brampton Library, which is a governing
board with the authority to make policy and govern the Library's affairs under the authority of
the Public Libraries Act. Future iterations of this report will look to include all assets directly
and indirectly owned or managed by the City, including those owned or managed by municipal
boards and agencies in addition to Brampton Library.
Despite the major service area categories being consistent with the 2021 Corporate AMP and
2020 SOLI Report, the City has made significant improvements to the datasets, key inputs,
assumptions, and reporting views. The updated financing strategy is more reflective of a full
lifecycle cost of service approach as required by the regulation and remains consistent with
the approach used in the Corporate AMP. The condition of the majority of assets reported is
based on actual condition assessments estimated at 78% as weighted by replacement value.
Please note that further updates to the replacement values will continue in future years with
more recent data that may better reflect the cost pressures that the City is currently
experiencing.

9
2.2 City-wide Asset Representation: User View and Responsibility View
As part of the 2021 Corporate Asset Management Plan, the state of the City infrastructure
was reported under two different asset representation perspectives: a “Responsibility View”
and a “User View” representation. These two views are defined as follows:
Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for
managing them.
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them.
To remain consistent with the 2021 Corporate AMP state of the local infrastructure
representation, the responsibility and user view is also illustrated in this 2021 SOLI Report.
The responsibility view:
 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental
initiatives.
The most significant adjustment that can be observed under the responsibility view versus the
user view pertains to Facilities, City Support Fleet and Software. The assets all form a
fundamental component to how services are delivered and therefore “used” by each service
area, although, the department that manages the infrastructure is different from those who
use it.
The table below goes through each service area’s assets and their Current Replacement
Value (CRV), detailing the differences in reporting based on these two views (differences in
highlighted in grey). As illustrated in the total replacement value below, both views result in
the same valuation of $7.7 billion:
Table 4 – Replacement Value Comparison: Assets under User view and Responsibility View

Assets Under Responsibility View Assets Under User View

Service Area
Asset Type CRV ($M) Asset Type CRV ($M)
Roads (Includes Roads (Includes
$1,758.4 $1,758.4
Islands) Islands)
Structures (Bridges & Structures (Bridges &
$807.0 $807.0
Culverts) Culverts)
Structures (Other)* $73.4 Structures (Other) $73.4
Transportation
Walkways & Paths $279.3 Walkways & Paths $279.3
Traffic Services $375.3 Traffic Services $375.3
Facilities $74.8
Fleet $16.7
Software $7.4
Total Transportation $3,293.3 $3,392.1
*Note: Structures (Other) includes gateway features, noise walls, retaining walls, fences, guiderails, handrails
and steps
Stormwater Stormwater
$98.7 $98.7
Management Ponds Management Ponds
Stormwater Storm Sewer Storm Sewer
$1,287.8 $1,287.8
Systems Systems
Water Quality Units $7.5 Water Quality Units $7.5

10
 Assets Under Responsibility View Assets Under User View
Service Area
Asset Type CRV ($M) Asset Type CRV ($M)
Total Stormwater $1,393.9 $1,393.9
Corporate Facilities $310.4 Corporate Facilities $310.4
Animal Services
$9.4 Software $3.6
Facilities
Cultural Services
$90.9 Fleet $1.7
Facilities
Recreation Facilities $626.9
Facilities
Parks Facilities $20.7
Transit Facilities $170.1
Library Facilities $88.7
Fire Facilities $118.1
Work Operations
$74.8
Facilities
Total Facilities $1,510.1 $315.8
Licensed Vehicle Licensed Vehicle
$438.9 $438.9
Assets Assets
Transit Facilities (On Transit Facilities (On
$56.8 $56.8
Road) Road)
Transit Transit IT Transit IT
$2.1 $2.1
Infrastructure Infrastructure
Specialty Equipment $55.2 Specialty Equipment $55.2
Facilities $170.1
Software $1.2
Total Transit $552.9 $724.2
End User IT $7.5 End User IT $7.5
Infrastructure Assets $48.8 Infrastructure Assets $48.8
Information Software (Shared Software (Shared
$53.1 $53.1
Technology (IT) Corporate Software) Corporate Software)
Software (Used by
$16.7
Other Service Areas)
Total IT $126.1 $109.4
Licensed Fleet Licensed Fleet
(Corporate Services $4.1 (Corporate Services $4.1
Fleet) Fleet)
Off-Road Vehicles Off-Road Vehicles
(Corporate Services $0.9 (Corporate Services $0.9
Fleet) Fleet)
Fleet Equipment Fleet Equipment
(Corporate Services $0.01 (Corporate Services $0.01
Fleet) Fleet)
City Support Fleet
Licensed Fleet (Used
by Other Service $28.8 Software $0.8
Areas)
Off-Road Vehicles
(Used by Other $15.1
Service Areas)
Fleet Equipment
(Used by Other $0.4
Service Areas)
Total City Support
$49.3 $5.8
Fleet
Front Line Licensed Front Line Licensed
Fire $19.6 $19.6
Vehicles & Apparatus Vehicles & Apparatus

11
 Assets Under Responsibility View Assets Under User View
Service Area
Asset Type CRV ($M) Asset Type CRV ($M)
Support Vehicles & Support Vehicles &
$6.6 $6.6
Equipment Equipment
Spare Vehicles $7.1 Spare Vehicles $7.1
Personal Fire Personal Fire
$3.0 $3.0
Equipment Equipment
Specialty Equipment $0.5 Specialty Equipment $0.5
Facilities $118.1
Software $3.2
Total Fire $36.9 $158.2
Parking Lots $43.6 Parking Lots $43.6
Small Engine Small Engine
$2.8 $2.8
Equipment Equipment
Parks $115.4 Parks $115.4
Natural Heritage Natural Heritage
$0.0 $0.0
Lands Lands
Park Furnishing $3.6 Park Furnishing $3.6
Playgrounds $101.3 Playgrounds $101.3
Shade Structures $34.4 Shade Structures $34.4
Splash Pads & Splash Pads &
Parks $3.2 $3.2
Outdoor Pools Outdoor Pools
Fitness Equipment $0.8 Fitness Equipment $0.8
Skate Parks $1.7 Skate Parks $1.7
Sports Facilities $127.4 Sports Facilities $127.4
Pathways $42.3 Pathways $42.3
Trees $142.9 Trees $142.9
Flower Beds $3.9 Flower Beds $3.9
Facilities $20.7
Fleet $20.4
Software $0.0
Total Parks $623.2 $664.3
Equipment $34.5 Equipment $34.5
Furniture $11.8 Furniture $11.8
Recreation Facilities $626.9
Fleet $3.8
Software $0.3
Total Recreation $46.3 $677.3
Outdoor Equipment $8.1 Outdoor Equipment $8.1
Specialty Equipment $5.8 Specialty Equipment $5.8
Furniture $0.2 Furniture $0.2
Cultural Services Public Art $4.6 Public Art $4.6
Facilities $90.9
Fleet $0.5
Software $0.0
Total Cultural Services $18.7 $110.1
Furniture and Furniture and
$7.8 $7.8
Equipment Equipment
Media Collections $12.4 Media Collections $12.4
Library
Library Software $0.3 Library Software $0.3
Facilities $88.7
Fleet $0.1
Total Library $20.5 $109.4
Animal Services Equipment $0.3 Equipment $0.3

12
 Assets Under Responsibility View Assets Under User View
Service Area
Asset Type CRV ($M) Asset Type CRV ($M)
Facilities $9.4
Fleet $1.0
Software $0.2
Total Animal Services $0.3 $11.0
Total CRV ($M) $7,671.6 $7,671.6
Note: Numbers in the table above may not add exactly due to rounding

2.3 Asset Inventory and Valuation

As specified in the Ministry Guide, the value of the City’s assets is in two different formats:
‘Net Book Value’ and ‘Replacement Value’.
Net Book Value is consistent with the financial accounting practices defined by the Public
Sector Accounting Board and is reported on the City’s financial statements. The City of
Brampton’s reported Net Book Value covers the full scope of the City’s Tangible Capital
Assets, including land. This differs from the scope of assets considered under the Corporate
Asset Management program and the State of the Local Infrastructure.
The Net Book Value is the original acquisition cost less accumulated depreciation, depletion
or amortization. It is reported annually in accordance with reporting standards established by
the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants. As shown on Table 5 below, the City’s 2020 Consolidated Financial Statement
reported the Net Book Value of the City’s Tangible Capital Assets as of December 31, 2021
at $3.9 billion, inclusive of land. Under the financial accounting approach many assets may
be fully depreciated yet remain in use across the City. Therefore, Net Book Value is not the
appropriate methodology to be employed for infrastructure renewal planning.

13
Table 5 – City of Brampton Net Book Value ($000)

FIR Functional Net Book Value Net Additions/ Net Amortization Net Book Value
Classification Jan 1, 2021 Disposals Expense Dec 31, 2021

General Government $359,187 $6,530 $11,246 $354,470

Protection $66,029 $1,339 $5,057 $62,311

Transportation $1,932,179 $71,497 ($11,357) $2,015,033

Environmental $546,906 $53,830 $18,075 $582,660

Health $751 $36 $95 $692

Social and Family $3,760 $0 $239 $3,522

Recreation and
$899,377 $26,708 $14,184 $911,901
Cultural Services

Planning and
$7,637 $288 $256 $7,669
Development

TOTAL $3,815,826 $160,228 $37,796 $3,938,258

Note: Categories/information derived from the 2021 Financial Information Return. The net amortization figure
tends to vary from year-to-year pending on in-year asset disposals.

Replacement Values are used as the basis to estimate the cost of replacing an asset when
it reaches the end of its engineered design life. The total replacement cost of all assets
covered within this Report is estimated at $7.7 billion.
2.3.1 Replacement Cost Valuation
The City uses three basic methods to estimate replacement costs needed for infrastructure
renewal planning:
1. Local price indices: This is the most accurate method. The City has collected recent
acquisition data demonstrating similar replacement activities.
2. Published price indices: Where local indices are not available, the City uses
published indices, which, although appropriate and standardized, may not be as
relevant to City assets as local indices.
3. Purchasing estimates: When assets cannot be estimated against either index, the
City uses historic cost, asset age and inflationary effects to determine the current
replacement value.
The total replacement value of all assets covered under this report is illustrated by service in
Figure 2 below. Transportation services represents the largest share at 43%, or $3.29 billion,

14
of the total $7.7 billion replacement value. The replacement value reported in the below figure
is represented under the “Responsibility view” framework.
Figure 2 – Total Replacement Value of City Infrastructure = $7.7 Billion

Total Asset Replacement Value - $7.7 Billion

In Millions ($2022)

Fleet , $49 , 1% Recreation, $46 , Other, $76 , 1%

0.6%
IT, $126 , 2%

Parks,
$623 , 8%
Transit ,
$553 , 7%

Transportation,
$3,293 , 43%
Stormwater,
$1,394 , 18%

Facilities, $1,510 ,
20%

Note: Other category includes Fire, Library, Culture and Animal Services

Although Figure 2 provides a general overview of the replacement value by service area,
Tables 6 to 17 below provide a more detailed overview of the service area valuations at the
sub-asset level and the inventories of assets (as of year-end 2021) that attribute to the total
valuation identified. The tables have been adjusted to represent the valuation under both the
user view and responsibility framework.

15
Table 6 – Detailed Asset Inventory Replacement Value – Transportation Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Transportation 1. Assets Managed by Transportation
Roadway Roads (Includes
Network 3,765 Lane KM $1,758,353
Islands)
Structures
Bridges 3,931 Metres $393,588
Culverts 1,180 Metres $413,366
Gateway Features 2,799 Metres $14,580
Noise Walls 12,333 Metres $28,478
Retaining Walls 8,268 Metres $19,321
Fences 35,383 Metres $4,218
Guiderails 31,909 Metres $5,187
Handrails 3,277 Metres $553
Steps 80 Metres $1,067
Walkways & Sidewalks 1,939 KM $260,601
Path Walkways 14 KM $5,000
Multi-Use Paths 126 KM $13,688
Traffic Street Lighting 43,843 Each $269,877
Services Traffic Signals 817 Each $104,029
Traffic Signs 50,912 Each $1,349
Subtotal Assets Managed by Transportation -
$3,293,254
Responsibility View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Operations Facilities 9 Each $74,769
Fleet Licensed Fleet 97 Each $11,718
Off-Road Equipment 66 Each $4,968
Fleet Equipment 4 Each $20
Software 20 Each $7,351
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $98,825
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $3,392,079
Note: There are 73 roadway bridges, 115 pedestrian bridges.
There are 156 culverts.
There are 293 gateway features.
There are 45 noise walls and 145 retaining walls.
There are 574 guiderails and 92 handrails.

16
Table 7 – Detailed Replacement Values – Stormwater Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Stormwater Stormwater Management Ponds 186 Each $98,692
Storm FDC-WTC 252,916 Metres $73,609
Sewer Storm Sewers 1,649,208 Metres $893,198
System Catchbasins 38,657 Each $129,872
Manholes 22,389 Each $168,548
FDC-WTC Manholes 4,013 Each $22,557
Oil & Grit Separators 128 Units $7,472
TOTAL - USER & RESPONSIBILITY VIEW $1,393,948
Table 8 – Detailed Replacement Values – Facilities

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Facilities 1. Assets Used by the Corporation and Managed by Facilities

Corporate Facilities 26 Each $310,435

Subtotal Assets Used by the Corporation and Managed by

$310,435
Facilities
2. Assets Used by Facilities and Managed by Other Service Areas
Software 1 Each $1,719
Fleet 66 Each $3,638
Subtotal Assets Used by Facilities and Managed by Other
$5,357
Service Areas
Subtotal – User View (1+2) $315,792
3. Assets Managed by Facilities and Used by Other Service Areas
Animal Services 2 Each $9,445
Cultural Services 1 Each $90,903
Recreation 68 Each $626,924
Parks 18 Each $20,723
Transit 8 Each $170,065
Library 6 Each $88,728
Fire 16 Each $118,124
Work Operations 9 Each $74,769
Subtotal Assets Managed by Facilities and Used by Other
$1,199,681
Service Areas
TOTAL - RESPONSIBILITY VIEW1 (1+3) $1,510,115
Note 1: Does not include software and fleet

17
Table 9 – Detailed Replacement Values – Transit Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Transit 1. Assets Managed by Transit
Licensed Heavy Duty Vehicles 473 Each $437,435
Vehicle Light Duty Vehicles 28 Each $1,485
Assets
Transit Shelters – Conventional 869 Each $7,425
Facilities Shelters – Züm 130 Each $32,113
(On Road) Shelters – Bike 23 Each $269
Stops 2,328 Each $15,927
Sandalwood Transit Loop 1 Each $1,040
Transit IT Video Walls 1 Each $66
Infrastructure Smart Bus Systems 1 Each $1,977
True Credential ID Card 41 Each $31
Application Hardware
Specialty Conveyance Systems 34 Each $10,455
Equipment Comm. Control 4 Each $15,158
Fare Systems 498 Each $9,089
PRESTO 1,082 Each $5,241
Maintenance/Admin Small 7 Each $479
Equipment
Signage 3,093 Each $3,102
Fueling 5 Each $1,404
Stock Room 2 Each $2,978
Electric Charger 5 Each $7,260
Subtotal Assets Managed by Transit - Responsibility View $552,934
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities All Transit Facilities 8 Each $170,065
Transit IT
Software 2 Each $1,222
Infrastructure
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $171,287
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $724,221

18
Table 10 – Detailed Replacement Values – IT Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Information 1. Assets Used by Information Technology (IT)
Technology End User IT Computers 3,700 Each $6,112
Monitors 2,843 Each $725
Mobile Phones 1,249 Each $456
Audio Visual Equipment 144 Each $229
Infrastructure Servers 83 Each $2,407
Assets Storage and Back-Up 22 Each $4,093
Wireless 806 Each $1,939
Cable Plants 284,723 Metres $30,416
Network Infrastructure 671 Each $6,111
Communication System 4,127 Each $3,865
Software 63 Each $53,078
Subtotal Assets Used by IT - User View $109,433
2. Assets Used by Other Service Areas and Managed by IT
Software 39 Each $16,689
Subtotal Assets Used by Other Service Areas $16,689
TOTAL - RESPONSIBILITY VIEW (1+2) $126,121

Table 11 – Detailed Replacement Values – City Support Fleet

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
City Support 1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas and Used by City Support Fleet
Fleet Software 2 Each $791
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas and Used by
$791
City Support Fleet
2. Assets Managed and Used by City Support Fleet
Licensed Vehicles 111 Each $4,133
Off-Road Equipment 24 Each $880
Fleet Equipment 4 Each $9
Subtotal Assets Managed and Used by the Corporation $5,022
Subtotal Replacement Value - User View (1+2) $5,813
3. Assets Managed by Fleet and Used by Other Service Areas
Licensed Vehicles 389 Each $28,796
Off-Road Equipment 271 Each $15,112
Fleet Equipment 84 Each $362
Subtotal Assets Managed by Fleet and Used by Other Service
$44,271
Areas
TOTAL - RESPONSIBILITY VIEW1 (2+3) $49,293
Note 1: Does not include software

19
Table 12 – Detailed Replacement Values – Fire Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Fire 1. Assets Managed by Fire Services
Services Front Line Licensed Vehicles &
21 Each $19,649
Apparatus
Support Vehicles & Equipment 65 Each $6,641
Spare Vehicles 31 Each $7,056
Personal Fire Equipment 1,078 Each $3,019
Specialty Equipment 6 Each $502
Subtotal Assets Managed by Fire Services - Responsibility
$36,867
View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities 16 Each $118,124
Software 5 Each $3,165
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $121,288
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $158,155

Table 13 – Detailed Replacement Values – Parks Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Parks 1. Assets Managed by Parks Services
Park Assets Parks* 1,119 Ha. $115,371
Natural Heritage 1,645 Ha. $0
Lands
Park Furnishing 4,898 Each $3,558
Playgrounds 340 Each $101,288
Shade Structures 290 Each $34,382
Splash Pads/Pools 8 Each $3,237
Fitness Equipment 18 Each $796
Skate Parks 4 Each $1,698
Sports Facilities 1,181 Each $127,426
Pathways 278,379 Metres $42,271
Other Assets Parking Lots 333 Each $43,647
Trees 249,749 Each $142,911
Flower Beds 1,200 Each $3,870
Small Equipment 892 Each $2,762
Subtotal Assets Managed by Park Services - Responsibility
$623,217
View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities 18 Each $20,723
Fleet 357 Each $20,350
Software 1 Each $0
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $41,074
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $664,291
*Note: Parks sub-asset category excludes pathways, sports fields, playgrounds and other sub-asset classes
reported separately as stated in the table

20
Table 14 – Detailed Replacement Values – Recreation Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Recreation 1. Assets Managed by Recreation Services
Recreation General Equipment 2,198 Each $13,000
Equipment Major Equipment 195 Each $5,091
Splash Pads & 9 Each $4,902
Pools
Tennis Courts 13 Each $2,069
Fitness Equipment 572 Each $3,310
Outdoor Fitness 10 Each $159
Equipment
Skateboard Parks 7 Each $3,396
Artificial Rinks &
Tracks 8 Each $2,621
Furniture 303 Each $11,760
Subtotal Assets Managed by Recreation Services -
$46,308
Responsibility View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities 68 Each $626,924
Fleet 129 Each $3,753
Software 3 Each $310
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $630,987
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $677,295

Table 15 – Detailed Replacement Values – Cultural Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Cultural 1. Assets Managed and Used by Cultural Services
Services Outdoor Equipment Pooled N/A $8,107
Specialty Equipment 5,283 Each $5,803
Furniture 614 Each $219
Public Art 28 Each $4,571
Subtotal Assets Managed by Cultural Services - Responsibility
$18,701
View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities 1 Each $90,903
Fleet 7 Each $542
Software 1 Each $0
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $91,445
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $110,145

21
Table 16 – Detailed Replacement Values – Library Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Library 1. Assets Managed by Library Services
Furniture and Computer 1,614 Each $2,250
Equipment Equipment
Furniture 3,936 Each $3,385
RFID 92 Each $1,066
Shelving 1,196 Each $956
Telecommunications 4 Each $138
Equipment
Media Collections Electronic Media Pooled N/A $2,661
Print Media Pooled N/A $9,746
Library Software 18 Each $305
Subtotal Assets Managed by Library Services - Responsibility
$20,507
View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities (Moved to Facilities) 6 Each $88,728
Fleet (Moved to City Support Fleet) 4 Each $138
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $88,867
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $109,373

Table 17 – Detailed Replacement Values – Animal Services

Total
Service Asset Inventory Unit Replacement
Value ($000)
Animal 1. Assets Managed by Animal Services
Services Equipment 143 Each $300
Subtotal Assets Managed and Used by Animal Services -
$300
Responsibility View
2. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Facilities 2 Each $9,445
Fleet 13 Each $1,018
Software 1 Each $213
Subtotal Managed by Other Service Areas $10,676
TOTAL - USER VIEW (1+2) $10,977

2.3.2 Asset Condition

Consistent with the Canadian National Infrastructure Report Card as well as other major
organizations and institutions reporting formats, a five-point rating scale, as shown in Table
18, was used to assign a condition to all assets. The City aims to continuously improve its
assets condition assessment protocols to bring them in line with industry best practices to
better reflect reliability and adequacy of the assets to provide service.

22
Table 18 – Five Point Infrastructure Rating Scale

Rank Condition Definition

The infrastructure in the system is in generally good condition, typically new or recently
1 Very Good
rehabilitated. A few elements show signs of deterioration that require attention.
The infrastructure in the system is in good condition; some elements show signs of
2 Good
deterioration that require attention. A few elements show sign of significant deficiencies

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

The infrastructure in the system or network is in poor condition and mostly below
4 Poor standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion
of the system exhibits significant deterioration.
The infrastructure in the system or network is in unacceptable condition with
5 Very Poor widespread signs of advanced deterioration. Many components in the system exhibit
signs of imminent failure, which is affecting service.

The 2021 SOLI uses the following approaches assess the asset condition to the State of the
Local Infrastructure:
 Existing Rating System: Facility Condition Index (FCI) - The FCI is a standard facility
management benchmark that objectively assesses the current condition of a building
asset. This 2021 SOLI continued the use of the Facility Condition Index (FCI)
calculation as the primary method to determine the overall condition of each facility.
The facilities Condition grade (very good to very poor ratings) goes hand-in-hand with
FCI, and is an industry standard way of evaluating asset condition in a way that is
understandable to the public and Council. Building Condition Assessment (BCA) data
determined the overall condition of facility assets. Table 19 below indicates the
Facilities Condition Grading System used in this SOLI Report.
Table 19 Facilities General Condition Grading System

Grade Description Condition (Criteria)

VG Very Good Only normal maintenance required (0-2%)

G Good Minor Defects only - Minor maintenance required (2%-5%)

Maintenance required to return to accepted Level of Service -

F Fair
Significant maintenance required (5% - 10%)

P Poor Requires Renewal - Significant renewal/upgrade required (10-30%)

VP Very Poor Over 30% of asset requires replacement

 Existing Rating System: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) – The PCI is an industry
standard benchmark used to indicate the general condition of pavement. The method
to calculate the PCI is based on a technical inspection of the number and types of
distresses in a pavement. Pavement distress includes low ride quality, cracking,
bleeding, bumps and sags, depressions, potholes, etc. The result of the analysis is a

23
 numerical value between 0 and 10, with 10 representing the best possible condition
and 0 representing the worst possible condition.
 Existing Rating System: Bridge Condition Index (BCI) – The BCI is a commonly used
benchmark that rates the condition of a bridge by evaluating and rating its sub-
components, such as foundations, piers, deck structure, sidewalks/curbs/median,
abutments or sidewalls, railings, etc. Each element of the bridge is rated from 1 (the
element is on the verge of failure) to 100 (condition as new). An overall measure for
the bridge is based on the rating of its elements. All bridges with a span greater than
3 Metres are inspected every two years as per the Provincial mandate.
4. Estimated Rating: Age and Expected Useful Life – When no formal condition
assessment was available, the Age of the asset and its Expected Useful Life (EUL)
were used to estimate the current condition. The EUL is the average amount of time
in years that an asset is estimated to function when installed new and assuming routine
maintenance is practiced.
For most assets, the general deterioration curve presented in Table 20 has been
applied to derive the condition from the remaining assets useful life and vice versa.
However, for some other asset types, such as storm sewers and fleet, a more refined
deterioration curve was applied which better represented the lifecycle needs of those
assets. The estimated engineered useful life of an asset is the period of time the asset
is expected to provide service. The use of an asset ultimately influences the life of the
infrastructure and its ability to provide service.
Table 20 – Overall City’s Condition Grading Standard Framework

Grade Condition % of RUL

Grade 1 Very Good 80-100

Grade 2 Good 60-80

Grade 3 Fair 40-60

Grade 4 Poor 20-40

Grade 5 Very Poor 0-20

 Projected Rating: Expert Opinion – Where formal condition assessment, reliable age
data, or the results of the Age & EUL analysis failed to represent actual condition
observed by Staff, expert opinion of the City of Brampton service area experts were
used to estimate asset condition. For example, all software incorporated into this report
is considered to be in very good condition despite the age of the asset. The data would
say some software is in poor or very poor condition, relative to the year it may have
been acquired, while the expert knows the asset is overall in good condition. The
opinion of the expert would override age and useful life in this circumstance. The
expert opinion condition was evaluated by comparing Staff experience to the definition
as noted above.
Based on the inputs described above, Figure 3 below provides a snapshot of the overall
condition of municipal infrastructure in the City of Brampton. In general, the assets considered

24
in this report are assessed in “Good” condition with roughly 6% of the asset base measuring
“Very Poor” to “Poor” indicating some assets in these categories may require more immediate
renewal/replacement considerations. The overall “Good” condition rating can largely be
attributed to the City’s infrastructure being relatively new in age combined with the sound
asset management practices the City has employed to date.
The conditions illustrated in the figure below represent the cumulative value of assets
categorized in the five condition areas. As Transportation and Facilities Infrastructure
represent about 63% of the City’s total replacement value, the condition of these specific
assets provide a greater influence to the overall condition rating identified. Another key
consideration is the quantum of assets in Very Poor condition, and with the current data
presented; this share represents only about 1% of the total.
Figure 3 – Summary of Brampton’s Asset by Condition ($ Millions)

Very Poor, Poor,

$82.0 , 1% $347.1 , 5%
Fair,
$1,090.9 , 14%

Very Good,
$2,387.8 , 31%

Good,
$3,763.8 , 49%

Total Value = $7.7 Billion

As indicated earlier, the available replacement value and condition assessment information
specific to the service areas considered are presented in individual report cards. Each report
card presents a comparison of the capital asset inventory and replacement values from the
2020 SOLI Report with the results of this analysis. All costs incorporated within the report
cards are represented in constant $2022. Figure 4 below provides a more detailed review of
the condition assessment by service area. A few notes for consideration:
 The service areas identified below are under the responsibility view framework which
means that all assets related to Facilities, Fleet and IT reside under the respective
service area below (i.e. Recreation Service below would not include the recreation
centres themselves – the centres would be reported under Facilities).
 The majority of assets in Very Poor condition are mostly attributed to the fact that the
conditions were evaluated based on the “age” of the asset relative to the useful life
and does not necessarily reflect actual asset condition. The assets continue to remain

25
 in service and functional. In addition, those service areas represent a small share of
the City’s overall asset valuation.
 Specifically, for Fleet, the evaluation of condition is considered “age based”; however,
the service area experts do perform some condition-based protocols to evaluate the
asset replacement needs. The Fleet vehicles and equipment in Very Poor condition
are safe, operational and intended to be replaced in the near future.
 Other service areas where there are assets in Very Poor condition based on actual
condition assessments, those assets are being reviewed and addressed through the
City’s regular capital budget process.
 Please note, the service area report cards in Appendix I only illustrate the overall asset
conditions and does not differentiate Very Poor assets between age and condition
based.
Figure 4 – Summary of Asset Condition by Service Area ($ Millions)

$3,293 $1,510 $1,394 $553 $623 $126 $49 $46 $37 $21 $19 $0.3
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Very Poor - Age Based Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Note: Values identified at the top of each bar represents the replacement value of infrastructure under the “Responsibility View”
for each service area (in Millions). The red-hashed sections reflect age based Very Poor assets and does not truly reflect the
condition of the asset – as the City matures its practices, progress is expected in better reporting of these assets.

Table 21 below provides qualifications, by service area, of the assets within each service
areas that are in Very Poor Condition.

26
Table 21 – Qualification of Very Poor Assets

Service Area Description Action Plan

 Only 11 lane KM of roadway,  Very poor assets are either being
some fences, walkways and renewed or will be addressed through
traffic services the upcoming budget
Transportation
 Mostly condition based
($10.7M)
assessments
 Very Poor assets represent a
small portion of the total base
 Related to storm sewer  Condition is evaluated based on “age”
network and represents only a relative to the useful life of the asset and
very small share of total does not necessarily reflect the actual
Stormwater stormwater assets asset condition. CCTV condition
($0.1M)  Age based assessment assessment is currently underway to
confirm and validate asset condition
 No safety issue or effect on levels of
service
 8 Recreation facilities, 2  None of the facilities represent a safety
Corporate facilities and 5 Park issue or preclude Facilities from
facilities in Very Poor condition delivering services
Facilities  Conditions developed using an  Future budgets to address the condition
($19.0M) FCI based calculation through individual repair or replacement
 BDC/FOM identified facilities to
be addressed in upcoming
budgets
 Largely related to fleet support  Condition is evaluated based on “age”
vehicles, and Specialty relative to the useful life of the asset and
Equipment(includes does not necessarily reflect the actual
Transit ($5.7M) Communication Control and asset condition
Conveyance System), where  Most Very Poor assets are monitored by
conditions are based on age the Transit staff and addressed through
the budget
 Related to end-user  Condition of majority of the IT assets is
information technology and evaluated based on “age” relative to the
infrastructure assets useful life of the asset and does not
 Frequent replacements due to necessarily reflect the actual asset
short asset UL and to keep condition
IT ($2.9M)
pace with emerging technology  Very poor IT assets will be upgraded
through the future budgets
 Some assets (i.e. monitors) are replaced
upon their failure

 Based on vehicle useful life,  Due to budgetary pressures, some very

high mileage and engine hours poor assets will be replaced through the
 Maintained in good and safe upcoming budget and the remaining will
working order with increased receive enhanced maintenance to
City Support
maintenance costs provide delivery of services.
Fleet ($7.2M)
 Very poor assets are replaced through
the multi-year capital budgeting and in
line with the recommendations of the
Brampton Sustainable Fleet Strategy.
 Very Poor assets represent a  Condition of the majority of the Park
small portion of the total base assets is evaluated based on “age”
Parks ($20.3M)  None of the playgrounds, relative to the useful life of the asset and
shade structures or fitness does not necessarily reflect the actual
equipment are in VP condition asset condition

27
 Service Area Description Action Plan
 Mostly age based  Trees in very poor condition continue to
assessments with limited data be monitored by our Forestry staff and
on actual asset upgrades. All are either already removed or will be
assets are safe and working removed when required.
condition.
 Related to furniture and  Condition reporting of Very Poor assets
general equipment (no fitness is based on best available information
equipment is in the Very Poor and needs to be matured for
condition) completeness and accuracy
 Very Poor condition is based  Assets continue to be replaced through
Recreation
on estimated age and useful multi-year capital budgeting
($13.7M)
life of category, not necessarily
reflective of the actual asset
condition
 No safety issues or effect on
levels of service
 Majority related to  No safety issue or effect on levels of
furniture/equipment and media service
collections  VP assets are either being replaced or
Library ($2.3M)
 Frequent replacements due to will be addressed through the upcoming
short asset UL. All assets are budget
in safe and working order.
Note: Numbers may not add exactly to the very poor total due to rounding. For consistency, the order of service
area is listed in the same order as reporting tables. Above table shows the very poor assets under the service
area responsible for managing them.

28
3 Financing Strategy
Like many municipalities across Canada, the results of the 2021 State of the Local
Infrastructure Report indicates that the current levels of financial contributions fall short of the
optimal level of capital requirements identified over the next ten years. The concern over an
infrastructure gap is not so much that it exists, but how this gap changes over the long-term
and if the change affects levels of service, asset conditions and the delivery of services. In
fact, maintaining a controlled “gap” is likely indicative of prudent financial management,
however, there is no standard to evaluate what is an acceptable municipal infrastructure gap
and would generally vary by jurisdiction.
This section describes the forecast asset management funding requirements over the 2022-
2031 period while highlighting some key approaches to close the funding gap.

3.1 Overview of Fiscal Position: City of Brampton

The City of Brampton is uniquely positioned to continue to deliver high quality services with
an infrastructure base that is in good condition. The City’s extensive public and private
services and its prime location within the Greater Golden Horseshoe have made Brampton a
desirable spot to reside or locate a business. This secure assessment base helps the City
address the identified deficiencies. Council has also been proactive by increasing the annual
tax supported contribution to the asset replacement reserve by 2 per cent of the tax levy each
year2, implementing a dedicated 1 per cent levy to bolster transit service and introducing a
dedicated stormwater user fee to provide a sustainable funding source for capital
infrastructure that is typically underfunded. All of which has been done earlier on in the asset
maturity stage than other municipalities that have previously experienced a fast growth phase.
Overview of Reserves:
Municipalities use reserves to set aside funds for future spending. This practice can help to
stabilize any annual fluctuations in funding requirements, plan for any major long-term
infrastructure investments, and prevent sudden spikes in property taxes, rates, and debt
levels.
As of year-end 2021, about $658 million in reserve and reserve funds were on hand, although,
a portion of this includes obligatory funds (such as DCs) which the city is collecting for specific
purposes. Reserve 4 represents the City’s most utilized asset replacement reserve, with net
tax contributions of $76 million in 2022.
Corporate Debt Overview:
Tax and rate supported external debt can be used to fund growth, replacement, and
enhancement projects. For equity purposes, debt is best used for projects that provide
benefits over a longer timeframe so that the burden of capital cost is distributed between the
current taxpayer and future ratepayers.
The amount of debt a City can carry is set by provincial regulations to ensure municipalities
continue to operate in a fiscally sound environment. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs

2 With the exception of 2021 and 2022 which the levies were reduced to manage the impacts of COVID-19.

29
mandates that a municipality’s annual debt repayment must not exceed 25 per cent of annual
own-source revenues. For 2022, the City’s total debt charges are estimated at $17.2 million;
a very small number given the City’s size. This equates to about 11 per cent (out of 100 per
cent) of the total allowable annual repayment limit of $158.2 million as identified by the
Ministry. Importantly, the annual debt charges are also substantially lower than the City’s self-
imposed limitation at 15 per cent of annual own-source revenues.
The City’s current practice of not using tax supported debt for replacement projects has been
continued in the SOLI analysis. This would allow the City to use its debt capacity for strategic
projects that increase service levels or growth-related projects that are ineligible for
development charges funding. Strategic projects typically provide a return on investment such
as reduction in operating costs. Capacity would also be available for unforeseen critical asset
failures, should the need arise. The City’s Long-Term Financial Plan will consider this and this
policy can be revisited if the infrastructure gap persists after other measures have been taken.

3.2 Cost Analysis: Overview of the Full Life Cycle Model Approach
As part of the Corporate Asset Management Plan, the City, along with Hemson, have identified
the total full life cycle costs of an asset that corresponds to the requirements of the regulation.
This would entail a cost estimation throughout the assets’ life including planning, design,
construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, renewal, replacement (and disposal). In
addition, the analysis also takes into consideration the inclusion of expansion related
infrastructure into the lifecycle management strategy. This approach ensures that the
additional lifecycle costs associated with newly constructed/acquired assets are accounted
for in the long-term forecast. The initial first round capital to acquire the asset is not considered
in the asset management provision (see Table 22).
A “lifecycle management approach” in asset management planning not only includes
estimating future lifecycle costs, but also embeds the process of monitoring how the asset
performs over its life while providing affordable services.
These lifecycle activities can be segmented into six (6) categories: non-infrastructure
solutions, operations/maintenance, renewal/rehabilitation, replacement, disposal, and
expansion activities. It is important to recognize that as the maturity level increases, the costs
associated with each lifecycle activity will strengthen and improve the expenditure outlook.
The table below provides a description of each lifecycle category and the specific approach
used to forecast expenditures in this 2021 SOLI Report, which the methodology remains
consistent with the 2021 Corporate AMP. Please note that the outputs of both the 2021
Transportation and Stormwater Departmental Asset Management Plans were used to inform
the full lifecycle cost model.
It is important to recognize that there are some limitations with the cost analysis:
 The contributions for asset replacement includes the replacement of assets of a similar
function and style. For service areas such as Transit, Fleet or IT for example, the
infrastructure that supports these services are very dynamic and the capital lifecycle
requirements of these assets are continuing to evolve. Therefore, this report does not
include for the consideration of electrification of the City’s fleet (or supporting
infrastructure) to upgrade existing technologies. It is expected that this level of detail
will be contemplated through future departmental and corporate plans.

30
 The cost analysis is intended to be used for information purposes outlining a level of
optimal investment to support the existing asset base and future lifecycle needs as the
City matures.
 The investment requirements for asset renewal and replacement identified might
exceed the City’s existing internal capacity to deliver these infrastructure projects.
However, as the City matures its practices and with the funding help of upper-levels of
government, the City will be able to properly plan for service enhancements and
replacements.

31
Table 22 – Overview of the Full Lifecycle Cost Activities and SOLI Approach

Category Description SOLI APPROACH

Non-  Actions or policies that can  Based on average 3-year (2018-
infrastructure lower costs or extend asset life 2020) budget by service area and
Solutions (e.g., better integrated adjusted to current dollars
infrastructure planning,
demand management, process
optimization, etc.).
Operations &  Servicing assets on a regular  Budgeted 2020 maintenance
Maintenance basis in order to fully realize activities by service area
Activities the original service potential. considered (adjusted to current
(capital  Regular maintenance will not dollars)
maintenance extend the life of an asset or  Maintains relationship of average
related) add to its value. Not expenditures relative to
performing regular replacement value of existing
maintenance may reduce an assets
asset’s useful life.  In most instances, does not
include general operating costs
associated with the new asset
acquisition (example: new staff to
carry out programming in a new
facility)
Renewal/  Mostly associated to significant  Renewal expenditures calculated
Rehabilitation repairs designed to extend the based on discussions with
Activities useful life of an asset. individual service areas relative to
 These types of activities are the asset type considered
typically undertaken at key
points in the lifecycle of an
asset to ensure the asset
reaches its designed useful
life.
Replacement  Activities that are expected to  Incorporating the average annual
Activities occur once an asset has investment required to replace
reached the end of its useful assets when they reach the end of
life and renewal/ rehabilitation their useful life (age/condition
is no longer an option. replacement schedule)
 Average need for all assets
(except transportation) are based
on a 25-Year cost model.
Transportation was set relative to
each sub-asset useful life.

Disposal  The activities associated with  Analysis assumes any costs

Activities disposing of an asset once it associated with “disposal” is
has reached the end of its included for in the replacement
useful life, or is otherwise no value and captured in the capital
longer needed. Typically, replacement requirements

32
 Category Description SOLI APPROACH
disposal costs are accounted
under replacement activities.
Expansion  Planned activities required to  New “first-round” capital
Activities extend or expand municipal expenditures are excluded from
services to accommodate the the calculation as the cost is
demands of growth. funded through development
charges or other sources.
 Only Asset Management
requirements associated with
expansion activities are considered
 DC study and 3-year budget
average, as well as known
federally or provincially funded
projects, used to inform new
acquisitions to base Asset
Management requirements
 For new acquisitions, O&M costs
are maintained at the relationship
of average expenditures relative to
replacement value of assets.

3.3 Summary of the Cumulative Full Life Cycle Costs

Over the next decade, the analysis indicates a spending need of about $5.8 billion3. Figure 5
below summarizes the cumulative 10-year investment needs across the service areas based
on a 25-year average lifecycle cost4. A few notes:
 Transportation services represents the most significant share of the total 10-year
needs accounting for 36%, or $2.1 billion, of the total $5.8 billion need.
 Interestingly, the investment needs over the 10-year period for Transit is higher than
the replacement value of existing Transit assets, which represents approximately 30%
of the total $5.8 billion need and is second to the cumulative needs for Transportation
services despite Transit having a replacement value significantly lower than
Transportation service assets (as identified in Figure 2). This is because Transit fleet
is required to be replaced more frequently with higher turnover rates and requires
frequent and significant mid-life refurbishments costs to ensure proper service
delivery.
 A similar observation can be made with IT, as the cumulative investment needs over
the 10-year period for services is higher than the entire replacement value of existing
IT assets (valued at $126.1 million as identified in Figure 2) as IT infrastructure is
replaced more frequently with higher turnover rates than other assets with a longer

3 The analysis does not consider expenditures required to provide proposed the levels of service or inflation.
4 25-year average cost approach was used for all service areas with the exception of transportation infrastructure which was
based relative to the useful life of each asset to remain consistent with the assumptions used in the departmental Transportation
AMP,

33
 useful life. As a result, IT represents about 5% of the total $5.8 billion 10-year
investment needs required for all service categories while only representing 2% of the
total $7.7 billion city-wide asset valuation.
 Conversely, despite stormwater services representing nearly 20% of the total City
asset replacement value, the full lifecycle costs represent a proportionately smaller
share of the total as the linear storm sewer network have a design life of 100 years
allowing for ample time to save for replacement. In addition, the City has undertaken
a financing strategy study (e.g. Stormwater Rate Study) to quantify the operating,
capital renewal and rehabilitation needs that yield a more accurate representation of
the total asset requirements relative to the user fees generated each year.
Figure 5 – Total Life Cycle Cost Over the Next 10-Years

Information Other, $222.4 , 4% Total 10-Year Cost = $5.8 Billion

Technology,
$266.1 , 5% Fleet, $121.4 , 2%

Stormwater, $243.1 ,
4%
Transportation,
Parks, $506.1 , 9% $2,130.8 , 36%

Facilities, $609.9 ,
10%

Transit, $1,738.5 ,
30%

1. All cost estimates are in 2022 dollars; and

2. For the calculation of annual needs, earning rates assumed to equal inflation, consistent with a straight-line
approach

3.3.1 Allocating the Lifecycle Costs between Existing Assets and Expansion
Activities
The cumulative costs identified above can be further delineated between the different lifecycle
activities, by service area, and how the activities relate to both existing and expansion related
activities. As outlined in the Table 23, the asset management activities associated with the
existing assets still represents the majority of the cumulative $5.8 billion in costs. The lifecycle
costs associated with the newly acquired assets (i.e. expansion activities) include annual
savings for asset replacement that will occur outside the planning period.

34
Table 23 – Summary of Total 10‐Year Lifecycle Costs by Service Area

Lifecycle Costs: Lifecycle Costs:

Service Area Total Lifecycle Costs
Existing Assets Expansion Assets
Transportation $1,817,283,000 $313,530,000 $2,130,813,000
Transit $1,105,583,000 $632,922,000 $1,738,505,000
Facilities $521,399,000 $88,517,000 $609,916,000
Parks $409,061,000 $96,999,000 $506,060,000
IT $241,634,000 $24,430,000 $266,064,000
Stormwater $234,306,000 $8,802,000 $243,108,000
Fleet $112,132,000 $9,270,000 $121,402,000
Fire $77,270,000 $9,089,000 $86,359,000
Library $41,473,000 $19,932,000 $61,405,000
Recreation $52,894,000 $4,983,000 $57,877,000
Cultural Services $12,852,000 $3,603,000 $16,455,000
Animal Services $281,000 $- $281,000
Total $4,626,168,000 $1,212,077,000 $5,838,245,000
Note: All figures are rounded

The total lifecycle costs between existing assets and expansion activities can be further
allocated between the different lifecycle activities. The table below summarizes the key
lifecycle events between existing and expansion activities but also illustrating how much the
capital related operation and maintenance costs represent of the total lifecycle costs. The
table indicates that about $1.7 billion of the $5.8 billion cumulative 10-year costs are
associated with capital-related maintenance costs to ensure assets continue to perform at the
expected level. However, as the costs to maintain existing assets are built into the City’s
regularly approved budget, the revenues are also included in the analysis and equates to a
revenue neutral position in this analysis. A similar assumption is made for expansion related
operation and maintenance expenditures.
Table 24 – Summary of Total 10-Year Lifecycle Costs by Activities and Actions (In $Millions)

Operations and Replacement/ Operations and Replacement &

Maintenance - Renwal/Non-Inf. - Maintenance - Renewal - Total Lifecycle
Service Category Existing Assets Existing Assets Expansion Related Expansion Related Costs
TOTAL INVESTMENT $ 1,714.5 $ 2,911.7 $ 606.8 $ 605.3 $ 5,838.2

3.4 Revenue Analysis

The City uses a wide range of funding and financing tools to address the identified capital
requirements. Generally, the type of capital project aligns to its funding source. In this regard,
growth related projects receive most of their funding through development charges; the
predominant funding for replacement projects are through tax-based contributions (primarily
through Reserve 4 and Reserve 119). Once the new asset is acquired, although the first round
capital may be DC funded, the ongoing maintenance (rehabilitation and replacement) of the
infrastructure is not growth-related and therefore would not receive funding through

35
development charges. When assets require rehabilitation or are due for replacement, the
source of funds are essentially limited to reserves or contributions from the operating budget.
Over the past number of years, the City’s tax based capital contributions continually represent
the largest share of capital funding sources for asset repair and replacement activities. The
figure below summarizes the breakdown of assumed revenues over the planning period. A
detailed overview of the key revenue assumptions used to support the analysis is in Appendix
III.
Figure 6 – Summary of Funding Sources (Cumulative 10-Year)

Stormwater User Fee Property Taxation - Other, $133.9 , 3%

Revenue, $243.1 , 5% Assessment Growth,
$196.2 , 4%
Transit Dedicated
Infrastructure
Levy, $179.9 , 4%

Federal Gas Tax Existing Tax Funding

Funds , $378.4 , 8% Share (for O&M),
$1,663.2 , 36%

Assumed Tax
Funding Share (for
O&M Exp.), $598.0 ,
13%

Dedicated 2% Levy,
$1,270.2 , 27%

Note: Other represents available reserves (for asset management) and estimated share of transit
funding stream for replacement projects.

A few key observations:

 The dedicated levies are the most significant source of revenue generated and
directed to capital asset repair and replacement activities. Both levies amount to $1.5
billion and is comprised of:
o $1.3 billion is associated with the dedicated 2% infrastructure levy which is
assumed to be continued from 2023 onward
o $180 million is derived from the dedicated 1% transit levy. Please note that the
share included only represents the portion allocated to asset replacement
activities while the remaining funds generated are used to help fund new
Transit infrastructure;
 About $1.7 billion relates to existing taxation and user fee support for capital related
O&M costs at similar levels to recent years (status quo budget and set equal to costs
for existing assets).
 Note that capital related O&M costs for new expansion related assets (set equal to
costs). It is expected that this figure continues to be reviewed and updated with

36
 detailed business plans, budget reviews and operational reviews, as new capital is
acquired.
Other key considerations:
 Unspent funds in capital replacement work in progress accounts have not been
considered.
 Federal gas tax funds are assumed to be allocated toward asset replacement projects;
 Provincial gas taxes have not been considered, as it is assumed that these funds will
continue to be used for transit operating costs; and
 Other unconfirmed one-time Federal and Provincial grants have not been considered.

3.5 Estimated City-wide Infrastructure Gap

Based on the preceding analysis, the infrastructure gap has been calculated for both existing
and expansion asset requirements independently. For the purposes of this analysis, the
infrastructure gap is defined as the difference between the total full-life cycle costs and the
projected revenues over the 10-year period.
Existing Assets:
Based on the preceding analysis, a notional infrastructure gap of $809 million is identified
(Figure 7) for existing assets. However, the gap is reduced to $561 million (i.e. unfunded
share) once the additional revenues that would be generated from new growth are considered
in the calculation - those additional revenues are assumed to be prioritized to existing assets,
although, the specific allocations will be further determined through future budgets as growth
occurs.
Figure 7 – City-wide: Summary of 10-Year Lifecycle Costs and Projected Revenues: Existing Assets

Unfunded:
$0.56B Total = $0.81B
(or $81.4M per annum)
Projected Growth Revenue:
$0.25B (1)

Total Expenditures:
$4.63 Billion
Total Revenues:
$3.82 Billion

Note 1: Additional revenue from assessment growth increases in Federal Gas Tax allocation with population
change, increase in special purpose levies and stormwater fees. Excludes DC revenue to fund first round capital.

37
The chart above displays the following information:
 Full-Life Cycle Costs (Expenditures): this bar represents the total full-lifecycle costs
required to maintain the City’s existing assets and accounts for the money required to
repair and replace assets within the 10-year period while also saving for asset repair
and replacements required beyond 2031. Importantly, as noted in the previous
sections, the full life-cycle costs also include the costs maintain the assets over their
life, which is a new element added to the cost analysis as part of the 2021 Corporate
AMP and maintained in this 2021 SOLI Report.
 Revenues: The bar represents the total projected revenues based on existing funding
commitments over the 10-year period while also including an estimation of revenues
that can be derived from new growth coming online. This additional funding availability
is assumed to be used towards existing assets, which in general is consistent with the
City’s existing budget practice.
Expansion Activities:
A similar infrastructure gap analysis has been prepared for expansion related activities that
have been quantified in this plan to comply with the requirements of the asset management
regulation. Based on the total 10-year full lifecycle cost and revenue analysis, a notional
infrastructure gap of $605 million is identified. The infrastructure gap is defined for the
purposes of this analysis as the difference between the total full-life cycle costs (associated
with expansion activities) and the projected revenues over the 10-year period. A couple of
notes:
 The total estimated costs represent the full lifecycle asset management requirements
the City would need to consider with the acquisition of new assets over the forthcoming
planning period. This $1.2 billion does not represent the first round capital expenditure
the City would incur to acquire new assets or emplace the infrastructure.
 The $607 million in assumed revenue is estimated to support capital related O&M
costs for new expansion related assets (set equal to costs and revenue neutral). It is
expected that this figure continues to be reviewed and updated with detailed business
plans, budget reviews and operational reviews, as new capital is required and these
costs become known.
 Additional revenues generated from new growth are considered into the calculation,
although for the purposes of this analysis, those additional revenues are assumed to
be prioritized to existing assets. The specific allocations will be further determined
though future budgets as growth occurs. Importantly, the gap will always continue to
be reevaluated and self-adjusted with the new assets and revenues.

38
Figure 8 – City-wide: Summary of 10-Year Lifecycle Costs and Projected Revenues: Expansion Activity Assets

10-Year Notional Gap:

$0.61 Billion

Total Estimated
Expenditures:
$1.21 Billion
Assumed
Revenues:
$0.61 Billion

When considering the asset requirements for both the existing and expansion activities
combined, a cumulative infrastructure gap exists. A few important considerations:
1) The asset management requirements associated with the expansion activities have
been quantified to correspond to the requirements of the asset management regulation
(Ontario Regulation 588/17). As depicted above, much of the overall gap (between
existing and expansion assets) can be related to the inclusion of “expansion related
activities” into the full-life cycle cost model even after considering the increased
revenues that could be derived from growth. Importantly, these asset repair and
replacement expenditures would in large part only be required outside of the planning
period, the City has the benefit of planning for these activities as development
proceeds, and as corresponding non-growth revenues materialize over time.
2) It is evident that the City requires additional funding and support from all levels of
government to continue to manage both the existing asset base and new assets that
will be acquired in the future to ensure services are adequately maintained.
3) The inclusion of capital related operation and maintenance costs is a new element
added to the cost analysis as part of the 2021 Corporate AMP and maintained in this
2021 SOLI Report. However, as the costs to maintain existing assets are already built
into the City’s regularly approved operating budget, the revenues are also included in
the analysis and equate to a revenue neutral position. A similar approach has been
taken for new maintenance costs associated with the expansion activities.
4) The introduction of both the dedicated Transit Levy and Stormwater Management User
Fee Program has assisted the City to manage the investment requirements associated
with this existing infrastructure while also ensuring a stable funding source to manage
new asset expansion related acquisitions is available;
5) This information illustrated above does reinstate the need for the City to continue the
utilization of these funding programs to maintain existing service levels over the long-
term. However, as the City’s asset management program further advances, it can be

39
 expected that the cost analysis be improved to better reflect asset risks, levels of
service and a more fulsome understanding of the condition of the City’s infrastructure.

3.6 Approaches to Close the Funding Gap

There are several ways the City can address the current funding gap. The table below outlines
the various strategies that the City has available to them in order to close the gap. The
strategies combine both qualitative data improvements and other financial solutions.
Table 25 – Summary of Total Lifecycle Costs by Service Area

Strategy Approach
Maintain 2% To continue bridging the funding gap and improve financial sustainability, the
Infrastructure City should maintain their existing infrastructure levy dedicated towards asset
Levy management and monitor the revenues derived.
Maintain 1% The City of Brampton has placed great importance on creating a reliable and
Transit Levy well-operated transit system, as it is vital to a thriving City. Having a strong
transit infrastructure is important to reducing road congestion, attracting
businesses and investments and helping to connect people and jobs. The City
should continue to implement this levy, which will help strengthen new
services, but it will also ensure existing transit assets are well maintained.
Improved Data As the City matures its asset management practices, additional assessment of
Quality asset condition can be achieved through better data.
Further, some assets are currently assessed on an age-based approach that
does not necessarily reflect the actual condition of the asset.
Levels of Service As part of the Corporate AMP, level of service measures by service area have
Measures been established. These assessments help to track asset performance,
condition ratings, and identification of where funding needs could be recalibrated
based on performance. This could result in reductions in current funding needs
for the short term.
Develop Annual Targets should be set for various assets to determine if the current
Capital reinvestment rates are reasonable and allow new targets to be developed in
Reinvestment order to meet current or planned levels of service.
Targets
Implement a A standardized risk framework for asset classes would help to establish the
Standardized tolerance level of individual asset classes in order to help prioritize investment
Risk Framework needs and levels of service, with the potential for reduced funding needs.
Seek Funding The City of Brampton is demonstrating a significant commitment to asset
Support from management and developing a set of renewal practices to ensure that services
Upper Levels of are delivered in the most cost-efficient manner.
Government Despite the efforts, an upper level of government support is required to
supplement the City’s practices to balance affordability.
Continued In exploring opportunities with the Region and Utility service providers, overall
Project Co- cost efficiencies may be achieved during linear asset rehabilitation and
ordination with replacement (e.g. storm sewers, roads, bridges, culverts) by better aligning
Region of Peel capital ventures.
and Utility
Companies

40
4 Future Improvements
Moving forward, the City’s Corporate Asset Management Office aims to continue to improve
upon a number of different areas in collaboration with the stakeholders, with initiatives that
will improve data quality and confidence while driving corporate change:
1) Data Confidence and Reliability: The basis of the information contained within this
report is a series of data inputs such as asset conditions, useful life, replacement
valuations and asset in-service dates. Over the past number of years, the City has
made significant progress in further refining the database of existing assets to annually
prepare the SOLI Reports and help facilitate capital budget discussions. As part of the
2021 Corporate AMP, the City developed an Asset Information Strategy (AIMS) that
aims to improve asset information used to support AM practices in the City. An AIMS
implementation plan that identifies a detailed action plan to advance Asset Information
Maturity for each service area is in development. The following describes data
confidence improvement areas for the four main data input categories as it relates to
SOLI reporting:
a. Asset Conditions: Based on a weighted replacement value of all services and
their condition assessments, approximately 78% of assets have a data
confidence rating based on condition while most of the remaining assets use
an age-based approach. The City has increased the confidence in condition
data by 2% from the 2020 report. The City intends to continue improving upon
condition assessment methodologies to increase the share of assets based on
condition over the coming years. This will include improvements to the
condition grading standards and further development of specific asset
deterioration curves as data becomes available from Operations, work orders
and other information systems. Improved condition data will provide a
foundation for the City to transition to a risk based approach to asset
management over the long-term, specifically for the financing strategy. As
previously stated, for certain asset classes, inspection programs with full
condition assessments is not feasible, therefore the City will not be targeting a
100% data confidence rating based on condition assessments. When
considering assets that will continue to use an age-based approach, the City
is targeting a maturity rating based on condition of approximately 91%.
b. Useful Life: The basis of the useful life of the assets is benchmarking,
manufacturer recommendations, and history of the City’s owned assets and/or
expert opinion. The City plans to improve useful life data reliability in the future
by continuing to validate useful life assumptions against the City’s specific data
for similar assets.
c. Replacement Valuations: The following improvements are identified for
refining the current replacement value of the City’s assets:
i. Desegregation of the larger complex assets and increasing granularity
of inventories and costing;

41
 ii. Inclusion of new asset categories into the City’s overall asset
replacement valuation process while continuously improving asset
inventories and building upon existing data collection systems;
iii. Further benchmarking against local (City) price indices based on the
improved Asset Information Systems and minimizing use of an asset’s
inflated purchase price and expert opinions;
iv. Inclusion of whole life cycle costs as opposed to straight forward
replacement costs;
v. Improving methodologies for perpetual asset valuation; and
vi. Where applicable, introduce functionality criteria in order to meet
desired levels of service into the replacement valuation as opposed to
the replacement of assets like-for-like.
d. Asset In-Service Dates: The in-service date of an asset is very important in
estimating the timing of investment needs. While the in-service date for most
of the newly acquired, installed or built assets is properly recorded, this
information is lacking for some older asset categories. As the City’s asset
database is renewed, the share of assets missing an in-service date will
naturally decline. Data collection processes should be improved to properly
capture the acquisition, renewal, disposal and other dates related to life cycle
interventions. This includes further improving the City’s Asset Information
Systems and processes to include unique asset identification for all assets.
e. Monitoring: Continue to monitor and investigate the estimated infrastructure
gap at the service area level, this tracking may help facilitate a more mature
level of integrated infrastructure planning and financial sustainability.
2) Knowledge Transfer: Effective communication is an essential aspect of
comprehensive asset management. The City implemented robust asset information
processes and systems that will improve through the development of the Asset
Information Management Strategy. However, asset data maturity varies between
Service Areas. It will be important that the City continues to work on improving this
area and engage key subject matter experts to facilitate data and key inputs transfer
into a computerized database to better inform future iterations of this report.
Completeness of centralized asset inventories residing in the overall Enterprise
solution will enable access to accurate asset information. This includes continuous
enhancement of communication and data transparency.
3) Leading Change: Comprehensive asset management across the City is about
introducing new corporate practices and behaviours, coordination and consolidation
of efforts, and standardization in order to aid informed decision making at the corporate
level. It is therefore important that City staff within the Corporate Asset Management
office lead this process of change.
4) Continue to Develop Service Area Specific Asset Management Plans in Line with
O.Reg 588/17: The City of Brampton has prepared departmental AMPs for core
infrastructure and is actively preparing departmental plans for the remaining service
areas. Departmental plans review the full life cycle activities and policies, specific to
that service area, in more detail than what is included in the Corporate AMP and, by

42
 extension, the SOLI Reports. The departmental plans are extremely important as they
are intended to be more “forward looking” to consider the service level changes and
different service delivery models or each area. Furthermore, the departmental plans
and future Corporate AMP iterations (and by extension SOLI Reports) will continue to
explore the proper accounting of shared facilities between city boards (Library) and
facilities as well as leasehold improvement expenditures undertaken that have not
traditionally accounted for within previous SOLI Reports.
5) Continue to Enhance Annual Reports: Annual review of the data gaps can be
undertaken as it relates to the four main data categories included in the SOLI report;
namely asset inventory, replacement value, useful life and condition. This review will
continue to address overall data gaps, asset-related lifecycle information and resulting
financing strategy for an accurate estimation of the infrastructure deficit. Additional
enhancement measures can be achieved through the analysis of any gaps in data and
collection processes specific to each service area annually. This may include internal
staff evaluation processes, benchmarking, audit results and assessments of current
and best practices. These assessments can be carried out independently or integrated
within this annual report.

43
Appendix I – Report Cards

44
 Total Asset
$3.3 Billion
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
$3.4 Billion
Including Facilities,
Fleet and Software:

Future Condition Trend Declining - As assets age they may

(Next 10 Years): require attention in the future

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility
View" and "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Transportation Services
Roadway Network (Includes Islands) $1,758.4 3,756 Lane KMs
Structures (Bridges & Culverts) $807.0 5* KM
Structures (Other) $73.4 94 KM
Walkways & Paths $279.3 2,079 KM
Traffic Services $375.3 95,578 Each
Subtotal Assets Managed by Transportation Services
$3,293.3 -
(Responsibility View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Operations Facilities $74.8 9
Fleet $16.7 167
Software $7.4 20
Total Replacement Value (User View) $3,392.1 -
*Other structures include: gateway features, noise walls, retaining walls on walkways, fences, guiderails, handrails
and steps

45
Major Types of Assets within Transportation Services - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Transportation Services assets under the responsibility view.
Under this view, the total replacement value of assets is $3.3 billion. Of this total, roughly 53% is related to the roadway network
(including islands). About 77% of the assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good condition. Approximately 5% of assets
are in Poor condition and less than 1% of assets are in Very Poor condition - of which a portion of the assets belongs to traffic
services which the condition is assessed relative to the age and design life of the asset.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET TRANSPORTATION ASSETS CONDITION ($M)
Poor, $149.4
CATEGORY ($M) Very Poor, , 5%
$10.7 , 0.3%
Traffic Services,
Walkways & $375.3 , 11%
Paths,
$279.3 , 9% Very Good, Fair, $602.7 ,
$890.0 , 27% 18%

Roadway
Network,
$1,758.4 ,
53% Good,
$1,640.5 ,
50%

Structures, $880.4
, 27%

Data Source: Pavement and Bridge Management System, Departmental Inventories, dTIMS BA, GIS (Geographical
Information System), PSAB, Parametric Estimating Guide of MTO 2016, City Works, Infor

Major Types of Assets within Transportation Services - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Transportation Services assets under the user view. Under
the user view illustration which also captures facilities, fleet and software, the replacement value is about $3.4 billion.
Approximately 78% of the assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET TRANSPORTATION ASSET CONDITION
CATEGORY ($M) ($M)
Poor, $151.7
Traffic Very Poor, , 4%
Services, $14.5 , 0.4%
$375.3 , 11% Operations Fleet , $16.7
Facilities, , 1%
Walkways & $74.8 , 2% Software ,
Very Good, Fair,…
Paths, $7.4 , 0%
$970.9 , 29%
$279.3 , 8%
Roadway
Structures
Network Good,
(Other)**,
Structures (Includes $1,651.2 ,
$73.4 , 2%
(Bridges & Islands), 49%
Culverts), $1,758.4 ,
$807.0 , 24% 52%

46
The figure below illustrates the condition of the seven sub-component assets of Transportation Services. The majority of assets
are in Good to Very Good condition, although, a small portion of assets pertaining to the Roadway Network, Structures,
Walkways & Paths, Traffic Services and Fleet are in Poor and Very Poor condition.

100%

13%
16%
90%
24%
31%
80%
47%

70%

41%
60%

35% 95%
50% 100%
80% 57%

40% 6%

40%
30% 14%

20% 27%

13% 23%
10%
11%
7% 6% 5% 5%
0% 0.3% 1% 1% 1%
Roadway Structures Walkways & Traffic Services Facilities Fleet Software
Network Paths

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

47
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (All Costs in 2022$)

The tables below outlines the difference in Transportation Services assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while
considering reporting under the two different views. All values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the value of Transportation Services assets has increased by 12% from approximately
$2.9 billion to $3.3 billion. This increase is attributed to the growth of asset base, and better asset and cost information. For both
operations facilities and fleet, there has been a decrease in the overall asset base from 2020 to 2021 due to updated
information. Software assets have decreased in count but have increased in overall value due to updated costing. As part of the
2021 SOLI, Islands are now captured under roads.

When considering the Transportation Services Facilities, Fleet and Software, the total asset value for Transportation Services
has increased proportionately with the inclusion of these assets. Furthermore, the total value of Transportation Services assets
represents an increase of 11% (or $342.8 million) from the value reported in 2020 after inflationary adjustments.

Please note, the Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT report cards will include additional information on those assets used by
Transportation Services but maintained and managed by a different City department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Roadway Network (Includes Islands) 3,650 Lane KM 3,756 Lane KM
Structures (Bridges & Culverts) 10 KM 5* KM
Structures (Other)** 93 KM 94 KM
Walkways & Paths 2,004 KM 2,079 KM
Traffic Services 90,565 Each 95,578 Each
Operations Facilities 13 Each 9 Each
Fleet 223 Each 167 Each
Software 22 Each 20 Each
Asset 2020 SOLI ($2022) 2021 SOLI ($2022) Difference
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas***
Operations Facilities $ 83,005,082 $ 74,768,505 $ (8,236,577) -10%

Fleet $ 18,359,341 $ 16,706,591 $ (1,652,750) -9%

Software $ 2,381,108 $ 7,350,537 $ 4,969,429 209%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 103,745,531 $ 98,825,633 $ (4,919,898) -5%

2. Assets Managed by Transportation Services

Roadway Network (Includes Islands) $ 1,501,008,090 $ 1,758,353,151 $ 257,345,061 17%
Structures (Bridges & Culverts) $ 754,557,799 $ 806,954,248 $ 52,396,449 7%

Structures (Other)** $ 67,610,218 $ 73,402,882 $ 5,792,664 9%

Walkways & Paths $ 257,228,414 $ 279,289,233 $ 22,060,819 9%

Traffic Services $ 365,100,075 $ 375,254,352 $ 10,154,277 3%
Subtotal Assets Managed by Transportation
$ 2,945,504,596 $ 3,293,253,865 $ 347,749,269 12%
Services (Responsibility View)
Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 3,049,250,127 $ 3,392,079,498 $ 342,829,372 11%

* Road culvert structures were updated from the previous SOLI where the length and width dimensions were swapped. This change
does not affect cost because both length and width are used to calculate structural cost and only affects reporting

** Other structures include: gateway features, noise walls, retaining walls on walkways, fences, guiderails, handrails and steps
*** Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Transportation

48
 Asset Replacement
$1.4 Billion
Value:

Improving - City employs a

Future Condition
dedicated User Fee to fund
Trend (Next 10
operational and asset renewal
Years):
expenditures.

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based*
Reliability:
* The City is undertaking a fulsome assessment of all stormwater assets which will be used to update the state of repair, valuations, and
lifecycle costs over time

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and "User View"

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them .
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them .

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

As the two different asset representations have no effect on the overall asset portfolio for Stormwater Services, the table
below outlines the assets under both the User and Responsibility View:

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Stormwater
Stormwater Management Ponds $98.7 186
Storm Sewer Systems $1,287.8 Pooled
Water Quality Units $7.5 128
Total Replacement Value (User or Responsibility
$1,393.9 -
View )

49
Major Types of Assets within Stormwater Services - User & Responsibility View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Stormwater Service assets under the user and
responsibility view. Under these views, the total replacement value of assets is $1.4 billion. About 92% of this total is
related to the City's storm sewer system with the remaining value largely associated with stormwater management
ponds. About 95% of the City's stormwater assets are Good to Very Good condition with the remaining assets in Fair or
Poor condition. The increased future condition trend is attributable to the recently introduced dedicated stormwater user
fee, which transfers funding from property taxes to a user-fee program. Revenues derived from the user fees will be used
exclusively towards Stormwater-related costs and investments, which will in turn help relieve some pressue on the
capital budget, and allow funds to be re-allocated towards other service areas.

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET STORMWATER ASSET CONDITION

CATEGORY ($M) ($M)*
Stormwater Very Very Poor, Poor, $6.9 ,
Water Quality Units, Fair,
Management Good, $0.1 , 0% 0%
$7.5 , 1% $65.7 , 5%
Ponds, $208.6 ,
$98.7 , 7% 15%

Good,
Storm Sewer Systems, $1,112.6 ,
$1,287.8 , 92% 80%

*The City is undertaking a fulsome assessment of all

stormwater assets which will be used to update the
state of repair, valuations, and lifecycle costs over time

Data Source: GIS database, Departmental Inventory for Water Quality Units (Excel based tracking), Manufacturer
pipe price lists and City contracts (cost model)

50
The figure below illustrates the condition of the three sub-component assets of Stormwater services. All sub-
components are generally in Good to Very Good Condition, however, about 7% of Stormwater Management Ponds are
in Poor condition.

100%

14%
90%
24%
28%
80%

70%

60%

50%
81%
40% 69%
72%
30%

20%

10%

7% 5%
0%
Stormwater Management Ponds Storm Sewer Systems Water Quality Units

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

*The City is undertaking a fulsome assessment of all stormwater assets which will be used to update the state of repair, valuations,
and lifecycle costs over time

51
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)
The tables below outline the difference in Stormwater assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI. Please note, all
values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the user and responsibility view framework, the total value of Stormwater assets has increased by 2%. This
increase can generally be attributed to an increase in stormwater assets in this 2021 SOLI report.
Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI
Stormwater Management Ponds 184 Each 186 Each
Storm Sewer Systems - Linear 1,846,411 Meters 1,902,124 Meters
Storm Sewer Systems - MH/CB 63,045 Each 65,059 Each
Water Quality Units 92 Each 128 Each

Asset 2020 SOLI ($2022) 2021 SOLI ($2022) Difference

Stormwater Management Ponds $ 96,569,928 $ 98,692,344 $ 2,122,416 2%
Storm Sewer Systems - Linear & MH/CB $ 1,265,778,955 $ 1,287,783,826 $ 22,004,871 2%

Water Quality Units $ 7,227,761 $ 7,471,680 $ 243,919 3%

Subtotal Assets Considered in 2021 SOLI $ 1,369,576,644 $ 1,393,947,850 $ 24,371,206 2%

52
 Total Asset
Replacement Value
$314.1 Million
(Corporate Facilities
and Software):

Total Asset
Replacement Value (All $1.5 Billion
Facilities):

Stable - Assets are renewed as

Future Condition Trend
needed and therefore remain in
(Next 10 Years):
stable condition

Data Confidence &

Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility
View" and a "User View"

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
1. Assets Used by Facilities and Managed by Other
Service Areas
Software $3.6 1
Fleet $1.7 66
2. Assets Used by the Corporation and Managed
by Facilities
Corporate Facilities $310.4 26
Subtotal Assets Used by the Corporation and
$314.1 -
Managed by Facilities (User View = 1+2)
3. Assets Used by Other Service Areas and
Managed by Facilities
Animal Services Facilities $9.4 2
Cultural Services Facilities $90.9 1
Recreation Facilities $626.9 68
Parks Facilities $20.7 18
Transit Facilities $170.1 8
Library Facilities* $88.7 6
Fire Facilities $118.1 16
Work Operations Facilities* $74.8 9
Subtotal Assets Used by Other Service Areas and
$1,199.7 128
Managed by Facilities
Total Replacement Value (Responsibility View = 2+
$1,510.1 154
3)
* Work Operations include facilities associated with Fleet, Stormwater and Transportation
* Four (4) library facilities are standalone buildings while two (2) of the Library facilities are shared facilities with Recreation

53
Major Types of Assets within Facilities - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Facilities assets under the responsibility view. Under this
view, the total replacement value of assets is $1.5 billion. This includes all facilities used across various service areas in
addition to Corporate Facilities. As depicted in the figure below, Recreation Facilities are the largest portion representing
41% (or $626.9 million) of the total facilities replacement value. Overall, the facilities are in Good condition, with 85% of
assets classified to be in Good or Very Good condition. Approximately 10% of assets are in Poor or Very Poor condition, with
only 1% of that representing Very Poor assets. The facilities condition reporting is set on an FCI calculation basis which
considers the cost of immediate repair work required at each facility relative to the replacement value of the facility. Poor and
Very Poor condition reporting does not represent a safety issue or preclude service areas from delivering services to meet
the needs of residents.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY SERVICE AREA FACILITIES ASSET CONDITION ($M)
($M) Very Poor,
Corporate
Work Operations, Poor, $19.0 , 1%
Fire, $118.1 , $74.8 , 5% Facilities,
$310.4 , 21%
$132.9 , 9%
8%
Animal
Services, $9.4
Fair, $74.0 ,
Library, $88.7 5%
, 6% , 1%
Cultural
Services,
Transit, $170.1 , $90.9 , 6% Good,
11% $340.1 ,
22% Very Good,
$944.2 ,
Parks, 63%
$20.7 , 1%
Recreation,
$626.9 , 41%

Source: Building Condition Assessments, Suncorp Valuation Report

Major Types of Assets within Facilities - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Facilities assets under the user view. The user view for
Facilities captures Corporate Facilities, Software and Fleet, with a total replacement value of $310.6 million. Nearly 70% of
Corporate Facilities assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition with 2% of assets in Very Poor condition
and a further 29% of assets in Poor condition. The poor condition assets mainly related to the Civic Centre as significant
renewal costs are identified in the short-term. As mentioned in the section above, these facilities do not represent a safety
issue or preclude the delivery of services to meet resident needs. Further to this, the City is actively addressing immediate
needs through the regular capital budgeting process which will in turn improve asset condition.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY SERVICE AREA CORPORATE FACILITIES ASSET
($M)
Fleet, CONDITION ($M)
$1.7 , 1% Software , $3.6 , 1% Very Poor, $7.4 ,
2%
Very Good,
Poor, $68.2 , 22%
$90.2 ,
29%

Corporate Good,
Facilities, Fair, $1.7 $146.5 ,
$310.4 , 98% , 0% 47%

54
The figure below illustrates the condition of all facilities assets by service area based on the responsibility view. While the
assets are generally in Good to Very Good condition, the overall condition makeup varies by service area. Corporate
Facilities, Animal Services, Recreation, Parks and Transit all have a portion of facilities in Poor or Very Poor condition. Again,
the condition assessment are determined on an FCI calculation basis which considers the cost of immediate repair works
required at a facility relative to the replacement value of the facility. Poor and Very Poor condition reporting does not
represent a safety issue or preclude service areas from delivering services to meet the needs of residents.

100%

90% 21%

80% 42%

70%
64%
72% 72%
60%
47%
93% 95%
50% 100% 100%
30%
40%

30% 1%
5%
25% 10%
20% 17%
29% 12%
10% 5% 18%
11% 11%
5% 6% 5%
0% 2% 1%
Corporate Animal Cultural Recreation Parks Transit Library Fire Work
Facilities Services Services Operations

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

55
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (All Costs in 2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Facilities assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while considering
reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the user view framework, which only considers Corporate Facilities, Software and Fleet, the total value of assets
modestly decreases by $3.1 million to $312.4 million in this 2021 SOLI. The decrease can be attributed to both a general
reduction in the number corporate facilities as well as the valuation of each asset using the new data.

When considering all Facilities under the responsibility view, the total asset value for Facilities has increased proportionately
with the inclusion of these assets. In total, the value of Facilities assets increased by 3% (or $38.6 million) from the value in
2020 after inflationary adjustments. This increase can be attributed to better information surrounding the City's facilities. The
valuations used in this SOLI Report are largely based on the 2021 valuation report prepared by Suncorp1, with some
adjustments to each facility value to better capture soft costs excluded from Suncorp reports. It is expected that a new study
will be initiated in the near term to update the facility values used for this report. Note the reduction in "Work Operations"
value is generally related to excluding the original Williams Parkway Facilities from the inventory.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Corporate Facilities 29 Each 26 Each
Animal Services 2 Each 2 Each
Cultural Services 1 Each 1 Each
Recreation 73 Each 68 Each
Parks 16 Each 18 Each
Transit 8 Each 8 Each
Library 6 Each 6 Each
Fire 19 Each 16 Each
Work Operations 13 Each 9 Each
Software 4 Each 1 Each
Fleet Included Under Corporate In 2020 66 Each

Asset 2020 SOLI ($2022) 2021 SOLI ($2022) Difference

1. Assets Used by Facilities and Managed by Other Service Areas*
Software $ 498,350 $ 3,637,626 $ 3,139,276 630%

Fleet $ - $ 1,719,259 $ 1,719,259 N/A

Subtotal Assets Used by Facilities and Managed by Other Service Areas $ 498,350 $ 5,356,885 $ 4,858,536 975%

2. Assets Used by the Corporation and Managed by Facilities

Corporate Facilities $ 315,036,824 $ 310,434,809 $ (4,602,015) -1%

Subtotal Assets Used by the Corporation and Managed by Facilities $ 315,036,824 $ 310,434,809 $ (4,602,015) -1%

Subtotal Assets Used by Facilities - User View (1+2) $ 315,535,174 $ 315,791,695 $ 256,521 0%

3. Assets Used by Other Service Areas and Managed by Facilities

Animal Services $ 9,428,661 $ 9,444,949 $ 16,289 0%

Cultural Services $ 90,274,280 $ 90,902,704 $ 628,424 1%

Recreation $ 584,875,990 $ 626,924,411 $ 42,048,421 7%

Parks $ 18,108,553 $ 20,723,422 $ 2,614,868 14%

Transit $ 168,917,319 $ 170,064,733 $ 1,147,413 1%

Library $ 83,528,891 $ 88,728,313 $ 5,199,421 6%

Fire $ 118,298,781 $ 118,123,549 $ (175,231) 0%

Work Operations $ 83,005,082 $ 74,768,505 $ (8,236,577) -10%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Facilities and Used by Other Service Areas $ 1,156,437,557 $ 1,199,680,585 $ 43,243,028 4%

Total Replacement Value of Facilities - Responsibility View (2+3) $ 1,471,474,382 $ 1,510,115,394 $ 38,641,013 3%

Note 1: valuations for service areas of Animal and Fire are based on staff discussions which reflect costing from
more recent tenders
*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Facilities

56
 Asset Replacement
$552.9 Million
Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
$724.2 Million
Including Facilities
and Software:

Future Condition
Trend (Next 10 Stable
Years):

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis is being reported under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility
View" and "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them .
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them .

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Transit Services
Licensed Vehicle Assets $438.9 501
Transit Facilities (On Road)* $56.8 3,351
Transit IT Infrastructure $2.1 43
Specialty Equipment $55.2 4,730
Subtotal Assets Managed by Transit (Responsibility
$552.9 -
View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Transit Facilities $170.1 8
Software Used by Transit** $1.2 2
Total Replacement Value (User View) $724.2 -
* Transit Facilities (On Road) include Conventional Shelters, Bike Shelters, Zum Shelters, Bus Stops (with Concrete Pads),
and Sandalwood Loop

57
Major Types of Assets within Transit Services - Responsibility View
The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Transit Service assets under the responsibility view.
Under this view, the total replacement value of assets is $552.9 million. As part of the 2021 SOLI, only Transit licensed
vehicle assets, on road transit facilities, Transit IT infrastructure and specialty equipment are considered under the
management of this service area. Overall, the Transit assets are in Good condition with only about 2% ($10.6 million)
of the total asset base rated in Poor condition and a further 1% ($5.7 million) in Very Poor condition. It is important to
note that assets classified in “Poor” and Very Poor” condition are not considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates
only that assets are nearing the end of an engineered UL and may need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance
costs.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET TRANSIT ASSET CONDITION ($M)
CATEGORY ($M)
Very Good,
Specialty $109.3 , Very Poor,
Transit IT
Equipment, 20% $5.7 , 1% Poor, $10.6
Transit Infrastructure, $55.2 , 10%
$2.1 , <1% , 2%
Facilities
(On Road),
$56.8 , 10% Fair, $149.5
, 27%

Licensed
Good,
Vehicle Assets,
$277.9 ,
$438.9 , 80%
50%

Data Source: Departmental Inventory and Asset Works (M5)

Major Types of Assets within Transit Services - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Transit assets under the user view. Under the user
view illustration which also captures transit facilities and software, the replacement value is about $724.2 million. Of this
total, licensed vehicles continue to represent the largest share at $438.9 million. Approximately 75% of the assets are
considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition. Only 3% of assets are in Poor and Very Poor condition. As above,
assets classified in “Poor” and Very Poor” condition are not considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates only that
assets are nearing the end of an engineered UL and may need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance costs.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET TRANSIT ASSET CONDITION ($M)
CATEGORY ($M) Very Poor, Poor, $11.1
Facilities, $5.7 , 1% , 2%
Software, $1.2 , <1% Very Good,
$170.1 , 23%
$268.6 , 37%
Fair,
Specialty $160.2 , 22%
Equipment,
$55.2 , 8%

Licensed Vehicle
Assets, $438.9 ,
61%

Transit
Information
Technology Good,
Infrastructure, Transit Facilities (On $278.7 , 38%
$2.1 , <1% Road), $56.8 , 8%

58
The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Transit assets by key sub-component areas based on the
user view. While the assets are generally in Good to Very Good condition, specialty equipment has about 8% of
assets in Very Poor condition and a further 18% in Poor condition. Much of these assets relate to Smart Bus on-board
equipment, and although these assets continue to be operational and in working order, they are anticipated to be
serviced over the short-term which will improve the condition of the assets. The Very Poor assets under Licensed
Vehicle Assets pertain to Fleet Support vehicles which are not public facing assets and are safe and in working order.

100% 2%
14%
90%
32%
80%

54%
70%

60% 55%
93% 29%
50% 100% 98%

40%

13%
30%
39%
20%
31% 18%

10%
6% 6% 8%
0% 0.3% 0.1% 1%
Facilities Software Licensed Vehicle Transit Facilities Transit IT Specialty
Assets (On Road) Infrastructure Equipment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

59
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Transit assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while considering
reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Transit assets has increased by 3% from approximately
$538.5 million to $552.9 million. This increase can generally be attributed to updated costing information as part of the
2021 SOLI, updated inventory information and recent acquisitions.

When considering the Transit Facilities and Software, the total asset value for Transit increases proportionately with the
inclusion of these assets. In total, the value of Transit assets increased by 2% (or $15.6 million) from the value reported
in 2020 after inflationary adjustments. This increase is due to better information surrounding the City's facilities related
to transit services.

Please note, the Facilities and IT report cards include additional information on those assets used by Transit Services
but maintained and managed by a different City department. Also note, future Transit SOLI reports will continue to
transform as the City transitions to a more green based fleet which will impact the total value of infrastructre and
number of assets required to deliver services.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Licensed Vehicle Assets 498 Each 501 Each
Transit Facilities (On Road) 3,294 Eacg 3,351 Each
Transit Information Technology Infrastructure 27 Each 43 Each
Specialty Equipment
Conveyance Systems 34 Each 34 Each
Communication Control 4 4 Each
Fare Systems 470 Each 498 Each
Presto 1,459 Each 1,082 Each
Maintenance/Admin Small Equipment 7 7 Each
Signage 3,093 Each 3,093 Each
Fueling 5 Each 5 Each
Stock Room N/A N/A
Electric Chargers Not Included in 2020 SOLI Analysis 5 Each
Facilities 8 Each 8 Each
Software* 1 Each 2 Each

2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)

1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*

Facilities $ 168,917,319 $ 170,064,733 $ 1,147,413 1%

Software $ 1,170,450 $ 1,222,470 $ 52,020 4%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 170,087,769 $ 171,287,203 $ 1,199,433 1%

2. Assets Managed by Transit Services

Licensed Vehicle Assets $ 438,253,934 $ 438,919,651 $ 665,716 0%

Transit Facilities (On Road) $ 54,726,647 $ 56,774,260 $ 2,047,613 4%

Transit Information Technology Infrastructure $ 1,078,874 $ 2,074,231 $ 995,356 92%

Specialty Equipment
Conveyance Systems $ 6,632,550 $ 10,455,000 $ 3,822,450 58%
Communication Control $ 15,017,460 $ 15,158,000 $ 140,540 1%

Fare Systems $ 8,843,400 $ 9,088,674 $ 245,274 3%

Presto $ 6,580,020 $ 5,241,000 $ (1,339,020) -20%

Maintenance/Admin Small Equipment $ 478,584 $ 478,584 $ - 0%

Signage $ 3,102,473 $ 3,102,473 $ - 0%

Fueling $ 1,231,140 $ 1,404,000 $ 172,860 14%

Stock Room $ 2,593,860 $ 2,977,722 $ 383,862 15%

Electric Chargers $ - $ 7,260,000 $ 7,260,000 N/A

Subtotal Assets Managed by Transit Services (Responsibility View) $ 538,538,943 $ 552,933,594 $ 14,394,652 3%

Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 708,626,712 $ 724,220,797 $ 15,594,085 2%

* Software included are Hastus and AssetWorks. AssetWorks was not included under Transit in the 2020 SOLI
** Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Transit

60
 Asset Replacement
$109.4 Million
Value:

Asset Replacement
Value including
$126.1 Million
software from other
service areas

Future Condition Stable - Assets are replaced

Trend (Next 10 frequently and therefore remain
Years): in stable condition

Data Confidence &

Medium (Condition Based)
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility
View" and a "User View"

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$).

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Used by IT
End User Information Technology $7.5 7,936
Infrastructure Assets $48.8 Pooled
Software (Shared Corporate Software) $53.1 63
Subtotal Assets Used by IT (User View) $109.4 -
IT Assets Used by Other Service Areas
Software $16.7 39
Total Replacement Value (Responsibility View) $126.1 -

61
Major Types of Assets within IT - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of IT services under the responsibility view. Under this view,
the total replacement value of IT assets is $126.1 million, of which, nearly 40% of the total value is related to the City's IT
infrastructure assets. Over 90% of IT assets are in Good or Very Good condition, with only 3% of assets in Poor to Very Poor
condition. As IT assets are replaced and serviced frequently, their condition will remain stable. Overall, the Corporate IT
assets are in Good condition and are meeting current needs.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET IT ASSET CONDITION ($M)
CATEGORY ($M)
Poor,
End User Information Very Poor, $1.1 , 1%
Technology, $7.5, 6% $2.9 , 2%
Software (Used by Fair, $6.8 ,
Other Service Areas), 5%
$16.7, 13%
Infrastructure Assets,
$48.8, 39%

Good,
Very Good, $78.9 $36.4 , 29%
Software (Shared , 63%
Corporate Software),
$53.1, 42%

Data Source: Departmental Inventory

Major Types of Assets within IT - User View
The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of IT assets under the user view. IT is an internal service
provider that manages assets on behalf of many other service areas. However, under the user view, IT accounts for
Software assets used exclusively by IT services. The replacement value under the user view amounts to about $109.4
million. The difference beween the user view and responsibility view is entirely attributed to software assets used by various
service areas. The overall condition assessment of IT assets generally does not change under the user view as all software
assets are considered to be in "Very Good" condition.

USER VIEW:
USER VIEW:
REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY ($M)
IT ASSET CONDITION ($M)
Very Poor, Poor, $1.1,
End User Information Technology, $2.9, 3% 1%
$7.5, 7% Fair,
$6.8, 6%

Software (Shared Corporate Good, $36.4,

Software), $53.1, 48% 33%
Infrastructure Assets, $48.8, 45% Very Good,
$62.2, 57%

62
The figure below illustrates the condition of the three sub-component assets of Information Technology services under the
responsibility view. All sub-component asset categories are mostly in Good to Very Good Condition. With this said about
41% of End User IT assets are in Fair condition. This amount mostly relates to computers, monitors and mobile phones
which have been considered in Fair condition, however assets continually receive regular maintenance and continue to be in
good working condition.

100%

12%
90%

80%
42%

70%

60%

6%

50% 74%
100%

40%

41%
30%

20%

10% 8%
4%
2%
6% 5%
0%
End User Information Technology Infrastructure Assets Software

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

63
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in IT assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI, while considering reporting
under the two different views. All values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Looking only at those assets included under the responsibility view framework, the total value of IT has increased from
approximately $99.0 million to $126.1 million, the increase can largely be attributed to comprehensive costing information in
the 2021 SOLI associated to software. The inclusion of a more robust valuation for software (i.e. the workforce (employment
scheduling, time/attendance, etc.) and other software accounts for much of the variance. There is also a decrease in cable
plant valuation as a result of updated costing for a sepcific segment of outdoor fibre cables.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

End User Information Technology
Computers 2,915 Each 3,700 Each
Monitors 2,843 Each 2,843 Each
Mobile Phones 1,141 Each 1,249 Each
Audio Visual Equipment 115 Each 144 Each
Infrastructure Assets
Servers 84 Each 83 Each
Storage And Back-Up 29 Each 22 Each
Wireless 806 Each 806 Each
Cable Plants 286,977 Meters 284,723 Meters
Network Infrastructure 671 Each 671 Each
Communication System 4,141 Each 4,127 Each
Software 109 Each 102 Each

Asset 2020 SOLI (2022$) 2021 SOLI (2022$) Difference

Assets Used and Managed by IT
End User Information Technology

Computers $ 4,711,686 $ 6,112,146 $ 1,400,460 30%

Monitors $ 724,965 $ 724,965 $ - 0%

Mobile Phones $ 414,025 $ 456,106 $ 42,081 10%

Audio Visual Equipment $ 191,250 $ 228,588 $ 37,338 20%

Infrastructure Assets

Servers $ 2,432,844 $ 2,407,491 $ (25,353) -1%

Storage And Back-Up $ 4,295,801 $ 4,093,406 $ (202,395) -5%

Wireless $ 1,939,127 $ 1,939,127 $ (0) 0%

Cable Plants $ 37,844,811 $ 30,415,876 $ (7,428,936) -20%

Network Infrastructure $ 6,111,292 $ 6,111,292 $ - 0%

Communication System $ 4,118,647 $ 3,865,483 $ (253,164) -6%

Software (Shared Corporate Software) $ 27,787,039 $ 53,078,030 $ 25,290,991 91%

Subtotal Assets Managed by IT (User View) $ 90,571,488 $ 109,432,510 $ 18,861,022 21%

Assets Used By Other Service Areas but Managed by IT

Software $ 8,470,785 $ 16,688,733 $ 8,217,948 97%

Total Replacement Value - Responsibility View $ 99,042,273 $ 126,121,243 $ 27,078,970 27%

64
 City Support Fleet

Total Asset
Replacement Value $49.3 Million
(excl. Software):

Future Condition Stable - Assets are replaced

Trend (Next 10 frequently and therefore remain
Years): in stable condition

Data Confidence & Low-Medium (Age and

Reliability: Condition Based)

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility
View" and "User View"

Responsibility View: Shows the asset under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas but used by
City Support Fleet
Software (Moved to IT) $0.8 2
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas and
$0.8 -
Used by City Support Fleet
2. Assets Managed and Used by City Support Fleet
Licensed Fleet $4.1 111
Off-Road Vehicles $0.9 24
Fleet Equipment $0.0 4
Subtotal Assets Managed and Used by City Support Fleet $5.0 139

Total Replacement Value - User View (1+2) $5.8 -

3. Assets Managed by Fleet and Used by Other Service

Areas
Licensed Fleet $28.8 389
Off-Road Vehicles $15.1 271
Fleet Equipment $0.4 84
Subtotal Assets Managed by Fleet and Used by Other
$44.3 744
Service Areas

Total Replacement Value - Responsibility View (2+3) $49.3 883

City Support Fleet excludes Transit and Fire Assets and Parks Fleet Equipment which are managed by respective service areas.

65
 CitySupport
City SupportFleet
Fleet

Major Types of Assets within City Support Fleet - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of City Support Fleet assets under the responsibility view.
Under this view, the total replacement value of assets is $49.3 million. Approximately 67% of the total value is related to the
City's licensed fleet. About 54% of assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good condition. However, about 32% remain
in Poor to Very Poor condition. The condition of City Support Fleet assets for the most part is based on age and/or vehicle
mileage and not necessarily always reflective of the comprehensive asset condition. Assets classified in "Poor" and "Very
Poor" condition are not considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates only that assets are nearing the end of an engineered
UL (with higher mileage) and may need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance costs.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY CITY SUPPORT FLEET ASSET
($M) Fleet CONDITION ($M)
Equipment,
$0.4 , 1% Very Poor,
Very Good,
$7.2 , 15%
$10.3 , 21%
Off-Road Poor, $8.4 ,
Vehicles, 17%
$16.0 , 32%
Fair, $7.1 ,
Good, 14%
Licensed $16.3 , 33%
Fleet, $32.9 ,
67%

Assets classified in "Poor" and "Very Poor" condition are not

considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates only that assets are
nearing the end of an engineered UL (with higher mileage) and may
need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance costs.

Data Source: Assetworks M5-Fleet Management Solution

Major Types of Assets within City Support Fleet - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of City Support Fleet assets under the user view. Under the
user view illustration which also captures software, the replacement value is about $5.8 million. This view only includes City
Support Fleet assets, as those assets used by other service areas under the user view are reported under each area
respectively.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CITY SUPPORT FLEET ASSET
Very
CATEGORY ($M) CONDITION ($M) Poor,
$0.4 ,
6%
Licensed
Fleet, $4.1 ,
71% Very Good, Poor, $1.1 ,
$2.1 , 35% 20%

Fair, $1.4 ,
Off-Road Good, $0.8 25%
Vehicles, , 14%
Software, $0.9 , 15%
$0.8 , 14%

Assets classified in "Poor" and "Very Poor" condition are not

Fleet considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates only that assets
Equipment, are nearing the end of an engineered UL (with higher mileage)
$0.0 , 0% and may need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance
costs

66
 City Support Fleet

The figure below illustrates the condition of the various City Support Fleet assets by key sub-component areas based on the
user view. While a portion of the assets are in Good to Very Good condition, a share of the Licensed Fleet, Off-Road Vehicles
and Fleet Equipment are in Poor or Very Poor condition. It is important to note that assets classified in "Poor" and "Very Poor"
condition are not considered to be unsafe; the condition indicates only that assets are nearing the end of an engineered UL
(with higher mileage) and may need to be replaced to avoid inflated maintenance costs.

100%

90% 19%
25% 27%
80%

70%
12%
37% 25%
60% 4%

50% 100%

14%
40%
15%

30% 53%
15%

20% 18%

10% 21%
12%
5%
0%
Licensed Fleet Off-Road Vehicles Fleet Equipment Software

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

67
 City Support Fleet

Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in City Support Fleet assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while
considering reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of City Support Fleet assets has increased by 1% from approximately
$49.0 million to $49.3 million. This increase can generally be attributed to updated costing information and revised license fleet
inventories as part of the 2021 SOLI. Conversely, when considering assets only used by City Support Fleet, inclusive of
software, the total asset value is $5.8 million, which does represent a decrease of 22% when compared to 2020. This variance
can be attributed to a reclassification of assets used and managed by city support fleet assets managed with those assets
used by other service areas.

Please note the IT report card will include additional information on those assets used by City Support Fleet but maintained
and managed by a different City department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Licensed Fleet 517 Each 500 Each
Off-Road Vehicles 284 Each 295 Each
Fleet Equipment* 123 Each 88 Each
Software 2 Each 2 Each
Asset 2020 SOLI ($2022) 2021 SOLI ($2022) Difference

1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas and Used by City Support Fleet*

Software $ 790,704 $ 790,704 $ - 0%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas and Used by City Support Fleet $ 790,704 $ 790,704 $ - 0%

2. Assets Used and Managed by City Support Fleet

Licensed Fleet $ 5,194,012 $ 4,132,523 $ (1,061,488) -20%

Off-Road Vehicles $ 1,396,147 $ 880,347 $ (515,801) -37%

Fleet Equipment* $ 42,954 $ 9,102 $ (33,852) -79%

Subtotal Assets Used and Managed by City Support Fleet $ 6,633,113 $ 5,021,972 $ (1,611,141) -24%
Subtotal Replacement Value - User View (1+2) $ 7,423,817 $ 5,812,676 $ (1,611,141) -22%

3. Assets Managed by City Support Fleet and Used by Other Service Areas
Licensed Fleet $ 27,655,177 $ 28,796,031 $ 1,140,855 4%
Off-Road Vehicles $ 14,403,354 $ 15,112,369 $ 709,015 5%

Fleet Equipment* $ 345,490 $ 362,433 $ 16,943 5%

Subtotal Assets Managed by City Support Fleet and Used by Other Service Areas $ 42,404,020 $ 44,270,833 $ 1,866,813 4%
Subtotal Replacement Value - Responsbility View (2+3) $ 49,037,133 $ 49,292,805 $ 255,672 1%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by City Support Fleet

68
 Total Asset
$36.9 Million
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value $158.2 Million
Including Facilities:

Declining - As assets age they

Future Condition Trend
may require attention in the
(Next 10 Years):
future

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis is being reported under two different asset representation perspectives: "Responsibility View"
and "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

The responsibility view is also being illustrated in this 2021 SOLI as it is an important viewpoint from an Asset
Management Planning perspective. The responsibility view:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Fire Services
Front Line Licensed Vehicles & Apparatus $19.6 21
Support Vehicles & Equipment $6.6 65
Spare Vehicles $7.1 31
Personal Fire Equipment $3.0 1,078
Specialty Equipment $0.5 6
Subtotal Assets Managed by Fire Services
$36.9 -
(Responsibility View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Fire Services Facilities $118.1 16
Fire Services Software $3.2 5
Total Replacement Value (User View) $158.2 -

69
Major Types of Assets within Fire Services - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Fire Services assets under the responsibility view. Under
this view, the total replacement value of assets is $36.9 million. Of this total, roughly 90% is related to the Fire fleet
(including front line licensed vehicles & apparatus, support vehicles & equipment and spare vehicles). About 51% of the
assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good condition, with the majority of the remaining assets in fair condition. No
assets for Fire Services are in Very Poor condition.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY FIRE ASSET CONDITION ($M)
Very Poor,
($M) Poor, $0.3 , 1%
Specialty $- , 0%
Personal Equipment,
Fire $0.5 , 2% Very Good,
Equipment, $8.6 , 23%
$3.0 , 8%
Spare Front Line
Vehicles, Licensed Fair,
$7.1 , 19% Vehicles & $17.8 , 48%
Apparatus,
Support $19.6 , 53%
Vehicles &
Equipment,
$6.6 , 18%
Good, $10.2
, 28%

Data Source: M5 and City Databases

Major Types of Assets within Fire Services - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Fire Services assets under the user view. Under the
user view illustration which also captures facilities, the replacement value is about $158.2 million. Approximately 80% of the
assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition. No assets for Fire Services are in Very Poor condition.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY FIRE ASSET CONDITION ($M)
($M) Support Poor,
Front Line Licensed Vehicles & $0.3 , 0%
Software, $3.2 , 2% Fair, $31.1 ,
Vehicles & Equipment,
$6.6 , 4% 20%
Apparatus, $19.6 ,
12%
Spare
Vehicles,
$7.1 , 5%
Specialty Good, $30.1
Equipment, , 19%
Very Good,
$0.5 , 0% $96.6 , 61%
Facilities,
$118.1 , 75%
Personal
Fire
Equipment,
$3.0 , 2%

Data Source: M5, City Databases, Suncorp valuations report and recent tenders (for facility)

70
The figure below illustrates the condition of the five sub-component assets of Fire Services. Facilities are generally in Good
to Very Good condition. There are no assets in any sub-area that are in Very Poor condition. Assets in Poor condition are
generally associated with a limited number of support vehicles and does not represent a safety issue or preclude fire from
delivering services to meet the needs of residents.

100%
10%
15%
90%
3%
28%
34%
80%

70% 59%
35%
72%
60%
29%

50% 100%

87%
40%
56%

30%
45%

20% 42% 41% 17%

10%
9% 11%
5%
0%
Front Line Support Vehicles Spare Vehicles Personal Fire Specialty Facilities Software
Licensed & Equipment Equipment Equipment
Vehicles &
Apparatus

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

71
Comparison of 2020 vs. 2021 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outlines the difference in Fire Services assets in the 2020 SOLI relative to the 2021 SOLI, while
considering reporting under the two different views. All values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the value of Fire Services assets has increased by about 1% from approximately
$36.3 million to $36.9 million. This increase can be attributed to better asset data, costing information and increased
confidence in the City's special equipment inventory (which is new for 2021).

When considering the Fire Services Facilities and Software, the total asset value for Fire Services increases proportionately
with the inclusion of these assets. Furthermore, the total value of Fire Services assets represents an increase of less than
1% (or $351,000) from the value reported in 2020 after inflationary adjustments.

Please note, the Facilities and IT report cards will include additional information on those assets used by Fire Services but
maintained and managed by a different City department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Front Line Licensed Vehicles & Apparatus 21 Each 21 Each
Support Vehicles & Equipment 63 Each 65 Each
Spare Vehicles 31 Each 31 Each
Personal Fire Equipment 1,026 Each 1,078 Each
Specialty Equipment - Each 6 Each
Facilities 19 Each 16 Each
Software 5 Each 5 Each
Note: the reduction in facility is related to the exclusion of station 203 paint shop and storage portables
Asset 2020 SOLI ($2022) 2021 SOLI ($2022) Difference
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*
Facilities $ 118,298,781 $ 118,123,549 $ (175,231) -0.1%
Software $ 3,164,595 $ 3,164,595 $ - 0%
Subtotal Asssets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 121,463,375 $ 121,288,144 $ (175,231) 0%

2. Assets Managed by Fire Services

Front Line Licensed Vehicles & Apparatus $ 19,648,682 $ 19,648,682 $ - 0%
Support Vehicles & Equipment $ 6,573,430 $ 6,640,669 $ 67,239 1%
Spare Vehicles $ 7,056,097 $ 7,056,097 $ - 0%
Personal Fire Equipment $ 3,062,150 $ 3,019,328 $ (42,822) -1%
Specialty Equipment $ - $ 501,840 $ 501,840 N/A
Subtotal Assets Managed by Fire Services (Responsibility View) $ 36,340,359 $ 36,866,616 $ 526,257 1%

Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 157,803,734 $ 158,154,760 $ 351,025 0%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Fire Services

72
 Total Asset
$623.2 Million
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
Including Facilities, $664.3 Million
City Support Fleet
and Software

Future Condition Declining - As assets age they

Trend (Next 10 may require attention in the
Years): future

Data Confidence &

Age & Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and a "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Parks Services
Parking Lots $43.6 333
Small Engine Equipment $2.8 892
Trees $142.9 249,749
Flower Beds $3.9 1,200
Park Assets
Parks $115.4 1,119 Hectares
Natural Heritage Lands $0.0 1,645 Hectares
Park Furnishing $3.6 4,898
Playgrounds $101.3 340
Shade Structures $34.4 290
Splash Pads & Outdoor Pools $3.2 8
Fitness Equipment $0.8 18
Skate Parks $1.7 4
Sports Facilities $127.4 1,181
Pathways $42.3 278,379 Metres
Subtotal Assets Managed by Parks (Responsibility View) $623.2 -

Assets Managed by Other Service Areas

Parks Facilities $20.7 18
City Support Fleet Used by Parks $20.4 357
Software Used by Parks $0.0 1
Total Replacement Value (User View) $664.3 -

73
Major Types of Assets within Parks - Responsibility View
The figure on the below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Parks assets under the responsibility view.
Under the responsibility view, the total replacement value of the Parks assets is $623.2 million. Of the $623.2 million
replacement value, about 70%, or $430.0 million, is attributed to park assets, which include sports facilities
infrastructure, parkland, playgrounds, etc. Furthermore, about 23%, or $142.9 million is attributed to trees. The
remaining assets are valued as detailed below. As the Parks infrastructure is in overall Good condition, the
infrastructure is meeting current needs, however, these assets may require attention as they age over time. Only about
8% of assets are considered to be in Poor and Very Poor Condition.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY ($M) PARKS ASSET CONDITION ($M)
Small Very Poor,
Flower Beds, Equipment, $20.3 , 3% Poor, $30.8 ,
$3.9 , 1% $2.8 , 0% 5%
Parking Lots, Very Good,
$43.6 , 7% $119.4 , 19%
Trees, $142.9
, 23%
Fair, $145.9 ,
24%

Good, $306.7
, 49%
Park Assets,
$430.0 , 69%

Data Source: Departmental Inventories, GIS database, City of Brampton 2019 DC Background Study

Major Types of Assets within Parks - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Parks assets under the user view. Under the user
view illustration which also captures facilities, fleet and software, the replacement value is about $663.1 million. Of this
total, the Park Assets continue to represent the largest share at $430.0 million of the assets considered. Facilities
assets add $20.7 million to the total replacement value while Fleet adds $20.4 million. Approximately 68% of the assets
used by Parks are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition. Only 3% of assets are in Very Poor condition,
largely related to walls, curbs and fences in parks, trees and fleet. This condition assessment does not mean the
assets are unsafe.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CATEGORY ($M) PARKS ASSET CONDITION ($M)
Small
Equipment, Facilities,
$2.8 , 0% $20.7 , 3% Fleet, $20.4 , Very Poor, Poor, $35.9 ,
3% $25.6 , 4% 5%

Flower Beds, $3.9 ,

1% Parking Lots,
$43.6 , 7% Very Good,
$131.5 , 20%
Fair, $150.8 ,
Trees, $142.9 23%
, 21%

Good, $320.5
, 48%
Park Assets,
$430.0 , 65%

74
The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Parks assets by key sub-component areas based on the user
view. While the assets are generally in Good to Very Good condition, a small portion of Park Assets, Trees, Small
Engine Equipment, Park Assets and Fleet are in Very Poor condition. These condition assessments do not indicate
that the assets are unsafe; generally these assets are nearing the end of their useful life and are due for replacement
in the near future. Poor and Very Poor condition assessments do not represent a safety issue or preclude service
areas from delivering services to meet the needs of residents and will be addressed through the budget.

100%
10% 11%
90% 18% 17%
24%

80% 42%

70% 41% 39%

37%
60% 33%
56%
50% 100%

30%
40%
18%
35%
30% 40%
5%
41% 12%
20%
16% 12%

10% 13%
6% 15%
9% 11%
2% 4% 1%
0% 1%
Parking Lots Small Engine Park Assets Trees Flower Beds Facilities Fleet
Equipment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

75
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Parks assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while considering
reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Parks assets has increased by 18% from approximately
$527.8 million to $623.2 million. This increase can generally be attributed to better costing information as part of the
2021 SOLI as well as better asset data (especially as it pertains to Parkland, which is more accurately reflected as part
of this analysis relative to 2020).

When considering the facilities, fleet and IT assets, the total value has increased by $95.4 million from the value
reported in 2020 after inflationary adjustments. This again is attributed to better asset information for various categories
included as part of the 2021 SOLI.

Please note that Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT report cards include additional information on those assets used
by Parks but maintained and managed by different City departments.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Parking Lots 333 Pooled 333 Pooled
Small Equipment 716 Each 892 Each
Trees 249,749 Each 249,749 Each
Flower Beds 1,200 Each 1,200 Each
Park Assets
Parkland (Excluding Natural Heritage Lands)** 676 Hectares 1,119 Hectares
Natural Heritage Lands 1,653 Hectares 1,645 Hectares
Park Furnishing 4,405 Each 4,898 Each
Playgrounds 332 Each 340 Each
Shade Structures 310 Each 290 Each
Splash Pads & Outdoor Pools 8 Each 8 Each
Fitness Equipment 18 Each 18 Each
Skate Parks 4 Each 4 Each
Sports Facilities 1,180 Each 1,181 Each
Pathways 278,379 Metres 278,379 Metres
Facilities 16 Each 18 Each
Fleet 319 Each 357 Each
Software 1 Each 1 Each

2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*
Facilities $ 18,108,553 $ 20,723,422 $ 2,614,868 14%
Fleet $ 17,689,064 $ 20,350,325 $ 2,661,262 15%
Software $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 35,797,617 $ 41,073,747 $ 5,276,130 15%

2. Assets Managed by Parks Services

Parking Lots $ 15,331,786 $ 43,646,809 $ 28,315,023 185%
Small Equipment $ 2,354,799 $ 2,761,877 $ 407,078 17%
Trees $ 132,517,818 $ 142,911,373 $ 10,393,554 8%
Flower Beds $ 3,870,288 $ 3,870,288 $ - 0%
Park Assets
Parkland (Excluding Natural Heritage Lands)** $ 69,758,543 $ 115,371,049 $ 45,612,506 65%
Natural Heritage Lands $ - $ - $ - 0%
Park Furnishing $ 3,091,132 $ 3,557,856 $ 466,723 15%
Playgrounds $ 87,496,600 $ 101,288,280 $ 13,791,680 16%
Shade Structures $ 37,067,253 $ 34,382,396 $ (2,684,856) -7%
Splash Pads & Outdoor Pools $ 3,236,684 $ 3,236,684 $ - 0%
Fitness Equipment $ 691,597 $ 795,906 $ 104,309 15%
Skate Parks $ 1,697,933 $ 1,697,933 $ - 0%
Sports Facilities $ 122,524,527 $ 127,425,724 $ 4,901,197 4%
Pathways $ 48,209,718 $ 42,270,713 $ (5,939,006) -12%
Subtotal Assets Managed by Parks Services
$ 527,848,678 $ 623,216,887 $ 95,368,209 18%
(Responsibility View)
Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 563,646,295 $ 664,290,634 $ 100,644,339 18%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Parks
** 2020 SOLI did not fully capture all Parkland and has been updated to reflect actual values as part of the 2021 SOLI

76
 Total Asset
$46.30 Million
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
Including Facilities, $677.3 Million
City Support Fleet
and Software:

Future Condition Declining - As assets age

Trend (Next 10 they may require attention in
Years): the future

Data Confidence &

Age & Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:
 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Recreation
Equipment $34.5 3,012
Furniture $11.8 303
Subtotal Assets Managed by Recreation
$46.3 3,315
(Responsibility View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Recreation Facilities $626.9 68
City Support Fleet Used by Recreation $3.8 129
Software Used by Recreation $0.3 3
Total Replacement Value (User View) $677.3 -

77
Major Types of Assets within Recreation - Responsibility View
The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Recreation assets under the responsibility view.
Under this view, the total replacement value of assets is $46.3 million. As part of the 2021 SOLI, only equipment and
furniture are considered under the management of this service area. Overall, the Recreation assets are in Fair
condition, although, about 44% of the total asset base is rated in Poor to Very Poor condition. The determination of
condition for recreation assets is mainly "age based" meaning the condition is set relative to the remaining useful life
of the asset. It is expected that future iterations of the SOLI will look to further incorporate condition based
assessments which may improve the overall confidence and reliability of the identified condition ratings.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET RECREATION ASSET CONDITION
CATEGORY ($M) ($M)

Very Good, Very Poor,

$6.4 , 14% $13.7 , 30%
Furniture, $11.8 ,
25%

Good,
$13.9 , 30%
Equipment,
$34.5 , 75% Fair, $6.2 ,
13%

Poor, $6.0
, 13%

Data Source: PSAB data and historical budgets

Major Types of Assets within Recreation - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Recreation assets under the user view. Under the
user view illustration, which also captures facilities, fleet and software, the replacement value is about $676.9 million.
Of this total, the Recreation facilities represent the largest share at $626.9 million. Approximately 85% of the assets
are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition. Only 3% of assets are in Very Poor condition.

It is important to note, that the proportion of assets considered to be in Poor condition can be attributed to some of
the Recreation facilities, although, the facilities continue to be operational and safe for use and these facilities will be
addressed through the budget as required.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET RECREATION ASSET CONDITION ($M)
CATEGORY ($M) Very Poor, Poor,
Equipment, $34.5 , $23.1 , 3% $37.5 , 6%
Fleet , $3.8 , 1% 5% Fair, $37.9
Furniture, , 6%
$11.8 , 2%
Software ,
$0.3 , 0%
Good,
$168.9 ,
Very Good,
25%
$409.9 ,
60%

Facilities , $626.9
, 92%

78
The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Recreation assets by key sub-component areas based on
the user view. While the assets are generally in Good to Very Good condition, Equipment & Furniture have assets
in Poor and Very Poor condition based on age. Approximately 37% of Fleet are also in Poor or Very Poor condition.
Assets that are reported in Very Poor condition are based on the age of the asset and not necessarily reflect the
actual asset condtion. The City is implementing Asset Information Management Strategy (AIMS) project which will
advance its asset management practices and improve confidence and reliability in data including condition.

100% 1%

90% 18% 18%

29%
80%

13%
70%
64%
34%
60%
26%

30%
50% 100%

40% 9% 13%

30% 7%

25%
20% 38%
36%
27%
10% 5%
5%
0% 1% 1%
Facilities Fleet IT Equipment Furniture

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

79
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Recreation assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI, while
considering reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Recreation assets has increased by 4% from
approximately $44.1 million to $46.0 million.

When considering the Recreation Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT assets, the total asset value for Recreation has
increased proportionately with the inclusion of these assets. In total, the value of Recreation managed assets
increased by 7% (or $43.4 million) from the value reported in 2020 after inflationary adjustments.

Please note, the Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT report cards will include additional information on those assets
used by Recreation but maintained and managed by these different City departments.

Asset 2020 SOLI* 2021 SOLI

Facilities Each 73 Each 68 Each
Fleet Each 135 Each 129 Each
Software Each 3 Each 3 Each
Equipment Each 3,002 Each 3,012 Each
Furniture 303 Each 303 Each
*2020 SOLI Software and Facility count has been corrected for comparison

2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*
Facilities $ 584,875,990 $ 626,924,411 $ 42,048,421 7%
Fleet $ 4,315,855 $ 3,752,966 $ (562,889) -13%

Software $ 309,519 $ 309,519 $ - 0%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 589,501,364 $ 630,986,896 $ 41,485,532 8%

2. Assets Managed by Recreation

Equipment $ 32,292,556 $ 34,190,648 $ 1,898,092 6%

Furniture $ 11,759,592 $ 11,759,592 $ - 0%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Recreation - Responsibility View $ 44,052,148 $ 45,950,239 $ 1,898,092 4%

Total Replacement Value - User View (1+2) $ 633,553,511 $ 676,937,135 $ 43,383,624 7%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Recreation

80
 Cultural Services

Total Asset
$18.7 Million
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
Including Facilities, $110.1 Million
City Support Fleet and
Software:

Declining - As assets age they

Future Condition Trend
may require attention in the
(Next 10 Years):
future

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and a "User View".

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Cultural Services
Outdoor Equipment $8.1 Pooled
Specialty Equipment $5.8 5,283
Furniture $0.2 614
Public Art $4.6 28
Subtotal Assets Managed by Cultural Services
$18.7 -
(Responsibility View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Cultural Services Facilities $90.9 2
City Support Fleet Used by Cultural Services $0.5 14
Total Replacement Value (User View) $110.1 -

81
 Cultural Services

Major Types of Assets within Cultural Services - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Cultural Services assets under the responsibility
view. Under this responsibility view, the total replacement value of assets is $18.7 million. Of this total, approximately
43% is associated with outdoor equipment with a further 31% related to speciality equipment. About 85% of assets
are considered to be in Good to Very Good condition, with the remaining assets in Fair condition. As the City's
Cultural Services assets are overall in Good condition, these assets are meeting current needs.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CULTURAL SERVICES ASSET
CATEGORY ($M) CONDITION ($M)
Very Poor, Poor, $0.0 ,
Public Art, 0%
$4.6 , 25% $- , 0%
Fair, $2.8 ,
15%

Outdoor
Equipment,
Specialty $8.1 , 43%
Very Good, Good, $6.2 ,
Equipment,
$9.7 , 52% 33%
$5.8 , 31%

Furniture,
$0.2 , 1%

Data Source: Departmental Inventory

Major Types of Assets within Cultural Services - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Cultural Services assets under the user view.
Under the user view illustration, which also captures facilities, City support fleet and software, the replacement value
is about $110.1 million. Of this total, the Cultural Services facilities represent the largest share at $90.9 million.
Approximately 97% of the assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition. No assets are in Very Poor
condition.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET CULTURAL SERVICES ASSET
CATEGORY CONDITION ($M)
Outdoor Specialty
Equipment, Equipment, Furniture,
$0.2 , 0% Public Art, Poor, $0.1 , 0% Fair, $3.1 ,
$8.1 , 7% $5.8 , 5%
$4.6 , 4% Very Poor, 3%
$- , 0% Good, $6.2
City Support Fleet, , 6%
$0.5 , 1%

Facilities,
$90.9 , 83% Very Good, $100.7 ,
91%

82
 Cultural Services

The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Cultural Services assets by key sub-component areas
based on the user view. Most asset categories are all generally considered to be in Good or Very Good Condition.
About 13% of Fleet assets are considered to be in Poor condition as they reach the end of their service life and will
be replaced.

100%
4% 7%

90% 20%
28%

80% 1%

70%

60% 70%
33%
96%
50% 100%
90%
66%
40%

30%

20% 39%

25%
10%
13%
4% 3%
0%
Outdoor Specialty Furniture Public Art Facilities Fleet
Equipment Equipment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

83
 Cultural Services

Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (All Costs in 2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Cultural Services assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI, while
considering reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Cultural Services assets has increased by 40% from
approximately $13.4 million to $18.7 million. This increase can be attributed to better asset data within outdoor
equipment and public art. Pleae note, the replacement value reduction in specialty equipment can generally be
attributed to a recategorization of specific assets from specialty equipment to outdoor equipment.

When considering the Cultural Services Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT assets, the total asset value for Cultural
Services has increased proportionately with the inclusion of these assets. Furthermore, the total value of Cultural
Services assets increased by about 6% from the value reported in 2020.

Please note, the Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT report cards will include additional information on those assets
used by Cultural Services but maintained and managed by a different City department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Outdoor Equipment Pooled Pooled
Specialty Equipment 2,699 Each 5,283 Each
Furniture 424 Each 614 Each
Public Art 25 Each 28 Each
Facilities 1 Each 1 Each
Fleet 9 Each 7 Each
Software 1 Each 1 Each
2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI
Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*
Facilities $ 90,274,280 $ 90,902,704 628,424 1%

City Support Fleet $ 668,449 $ 542,048 (126,401) -19%

IT $ - $ - - N/A

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 90,942,729 $ 91,444,752 502,023 1%

2. Assets Managed by Cultural Services

Outdoor Equipment $ 1,780,601 $ 8,107,462 $ 6,326,861 355%
Specialty Equipment $ 10,527,689 $ 5,803,313 $ (4,724,377) -45%
Furniture $ 211,101 $ 219,203 $ 8,102 4%
Public Art $ 862,204 $ 4,570,582 $ 3,708,378 430%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Cultural Services (Responsibility View) $ 13,381,595 $ 18,700,559 $ 5,318,964 40%
Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 104,324,324 $ 110,145,311 $ 5,820,987 6%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Cultural Services

84
 Asset Replacement
$20.5 Million
Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
including Facilities $109.4 Million
and City-Support
Fleet:
Future Condition Declining – As assets age they
Trend (Next 10 may require attention in the
Years): future

Data Confidence &

Age and Condition Based
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and "User View"
Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View:

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.
The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.
Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Library
Furniture and Equipment $7.8 6,842
Media Collections $12.4 Pooled
Library Software $0.3 18
Subtotal Assets Managed by Library (Responsibility
$20.5 -
View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Library Facilities $88.7 6
City Support Fleet Used by Library $0.1 4
Total Replacement Value (User View) $109.4 -

The Library facility figure reported includes the four (4) standalone library branches as well as two (2) libraries located
within Recreation Facilities (Gore Meadows Community Centre and Susan Fennel Sportslex (formerly South Fletchers
Sports Complex)). The library portion of those shared facilities are included in the above facilities total of $88.7 million.

85
Major Types of Assets within Brampton Library - Responsibility View
The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Library service assets under the responsibility view.
Under the responsibility view, the total replacement value of the Library assets is $20.5 million. Of the $20.5 million
replacement value, about 61%, or $12.4 million, is attributed to Media Collections. Furthermore, about 38%, or $7.8
million is attributed to Furniture and Equipment, while the remaining $305,000 is related to Library Software. 14% of the
total assets managed by Library services are identified in Very Poor or Poor condition. This condition of a small subset
of the total Library assets does not represent a safety issue or preclude Brampton Library from delivering services to
meet the needs of residents

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET LIBRARY ASSET CONDITION ($M)
CATEGORY ($M)
Very Poor,
Very Good, $2.3 , 11% Poor, $0.6 ,
Good, $2.8… $2.3 , 11% 3%
Media
Collections,
Furniture & $12.4 , 61%
Equipment, $7.8 ,
38%

Fair, $12.5 ,
61%

Library
Software,
$0.3 , 1%

Data Source: PSAB data and consultation with Library staff

Major Types of Assets within Brampton Library - User View

The figures below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Library service assets under the user view. Under
the user view illustration which captures facilities and city support fleet, the replacement value increases to $109.4
million from $20.5 million reported under the responsibility view framework. Of this total $109.4 million, the Library
facilities represent the largest component at $88.7 million. Over 70% of the Library's assets are considered to be in
Good to Very Good condition, with the remaining assets close to, or past, the end of their service life.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE U ASSET
CATEGORY($M) CATEGORY($M)
Furniture & Media Poor, $0.60
Equipment, Collections, Very Poor,
, 0%
$7.8 , 7% $12.4 , 12% $2.30 , 2%
Fleet, $0.1 , <1%
Library Fair, $28.37
Software, , 26%
$0.3 , 0%

Very Good,
Facilities, $66.51 ,
$88.7 , 81% 61%

Good,
$11.60 ,
11%

86
The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Library service assets by key sub-component areas. While the
assets are cumulatively in Good condition, Furniture and Equipment have a significant component of assets in Poor or
Very Poor condition. Lastly, all Library Software assets and most facilities are in Very Good Condition.

100%
8%
11%
90%

17% 12%
80% 40%

70%

72%
60%
37%

50% 100%

40%
77%

8%
30% 57%

10%
20%

30%
10% 18%

0% 2%
Furniture & Media Collections Library Software Facilities City Support Fleet
Equipment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

87
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (All Costs in $2022)

The tables below outline the difference in Library assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI while considering
reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Looking only at those assets included under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Library Services has
increased by 6% from approximately $19.4 million to $20.5 million. This increase can generally be attributed to media
collections.

Including the Library Facility and City Support Fleet assets, the total asset value for Library Services has increased
proportionately with those assets. In total, the value of library assets has increased by 6% (or $6.3 million) from 2020.
This increase can largely be attributed to the valuations of City Library facilities.

Please note, the Facilities and City Support Fleet report cards will include additional information on those assets used
by Library but maintained and managed by a different city department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Furniture & Equipment 6,882 Each 6,842 Each
Media Collections Pooled Pooled
Library Software 19 Each 18 Each
Facilities 6 Each 6 Each
Fleet 5 Each 4 Each
2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI
Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*
Facilities $ 83,528,891 $ 88,728,313 $ 5,199,421 6%
Fleet $ 174,448 $ 138,459 $ (35,989) -21%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 83,703,339 $ 88,866,771 $ 5,163,432 6%

2. Assets Managed by Library

Furniture & Equipment $ 8,165,843 $ 7,794,516 $ (371,327) -5%

Media Collections $ 10,878,949 $ 12,406,648 $ 1,527,698 14%

Library Software $ 352,617 $ 305,420 $ (47,197) -13%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Library (Resposibility View) $ 19,397,409 $ 20,506,584 $ 1,109,175 6%

Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 103,100,748 $ 109,373,355 $ 6,272,607 6%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Library Services

88
 Total Asset
$300,400
Replacement Value:

Total Asset
Replacement Value
Including Facilities, City $11.0 Million
Support Fleet and
Software

Declining - As assets age they

Future Condition Trend
may require attention in the
(Next 10 Years):
future

Data Confidence &

Medium (Condition Based)
Reliability:

The 2021 SOLI analysis continues to report assets under two different asset representation perspectives:
"Responsibility View" and a "User View" representation

Responsibility View: Shows the assets under the service area that is responsible for managing them
User View: Shows the assets under the service area that is using them

While the User View shows the use of assets, the Responsibility View

 provides a direct line of sight to those assets managed by the service area;
 will help prioritize lifecycle activities managed by the service area;
 aligns with industry best practices; and
 provides guidance to future asset management planning practice and departmental initiatives.

The table below illustrates the replacement value (in 2022$) under the two different views.

Replacement Value
Asset Type Asset Inventory
($Millions)
Assets Managed by Animal Services
Equipment $0.3 143
Subtotal Assets Managed by Animal Services
$0.3 143
(Responsibility View)
Assets Managed by Other Service Areas
Animal Services Facilities (1) $9.4 2
City Support Fleet Used by Animal Services $1.0 13
Software Used by Animal Services $0.2 1
Total Replacement Value (User View) $11.0 -

89
Major Types of Assets within Animal Services - Responsibility View

The figure below illustrates the replacement value and condition of Animal Services assets under the responsibility view.
Under this view, the total replacement value of assets is $300,400. As part of the 2021 SOLI, only Animal Services
equipment is considered under the management of the service area and therefore makes up the entire replacement value.
Overall, the Animal Services assets are in Very Good condition with about 1% of the total asset rated in Poor condition.

RESPONSIBILITY VIEW: RESPONSIBILITY VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET ANIMAL SERVICES ASSET CONDITION
CATEGORY ($M) ($M)
Poor, $0.0 Fair,
, 1% $0.0 , 2%

Good,
Equipment,
$0.1 , 39%
$0.3 , 100% Very Good,
$0.2 , 58%

Data Source: Departmental Inventory, PSAB data as of year-end 2021

Major Types of Assets within Animal Services - User View

The figures below illustrate the replacement value and condition of Animal Services assets under the user view. Under the
user view illustration, which also captures facilities, City support fleet and software, the replacement value is about $11.0
million. Of this total, the Animal Services facilities represent the largest share at $9.4 million. Approximately 14% of the
City's assets are considered to be in Good to Very Good Condition with the remaining value in poor condition.

It is important to note that although the animal facilities are considered to be in Poor condition based on the City's condition
threshold methodology, the facility continues to be in good working order. It is expected that detailed condition
assessments of the animal facilities will be developed in the next iteration of the City's facilities asset management plan.

USER VIEW: USER VIEW:

REPLACEMENT VALUE BY ASSET ANIMAL SERVICES ASSET
CATEGORY ($M) CONDITION ($M)
Equipment ,
Software, $0.2 Very
$0.3 , 3%
, 2% Good,
Fleet,
Good, $1.3 , 12%
$1.0 , 9%
$0.2 , 2%
Fair,
$0.0 ,
0%
Poor, $9.5 ,
Facilities, 86%
$9.4 , 86%

90
The figure below illustrates the condition of the various Animal Services assets by key sub-component areas based on
the user view. While the assets are generally in Good to Very Good condition, Facilities are in generally Poor condition
and approximately 3% of Fleet is in Poor condition.

100%

90%

80%

70% 58%

60%
93%
50% 100% 100%

40%

30%

39%
20%

10%
4%
0% 2% 3%
Equipment Facilities Software Fleet

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

91
Comparison of 2021 vs. 2020 Inventory and Replacement Value (2022$)

The tables below outline the difference in Animal Services assets in the 2021 SOLI relative to the 2020 SOLI, while
considering reporting under the two different views. Please note, all values are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Under the responsibility view framework, the total value of Animal Services assets has increased from $280,400 to
$300,400. This increase can generally be attributed to updated costing information as part of the 2021 SOLI.

When considering the Animal Services Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT assets, the total asset value for Animal
Services increased proportionately with the inclusion of these assets. In total, the value of Animal Services assets has
remained relatively constant from the value reported in 2020 after inflationary adjustments.

Please note, the Facilities, City Support Fleet and IT report cards include additional information on those assets used by
Animal Services but maintained and managed by a different City department.

Asset 2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI

Facilities 2 Each 2 Each
Fleet 14 Each 13 Each
Software 1 Each 1 Each
Equipment 124 Each 143 Each
2020 SOLI 2021 SOLI
Asset Difference
($2022) ($2022)
1. Assets Managed by Other Service Areas*

Facilities $ 9,428,661 $ 9,444,949 $ 16,289 0%

Fleet $ 1,153,913 $ 1,018,233 $ (135,680) -12%

Software $ 159,181 $ 213,282 $ 54,101 34%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Other Service Areas $ 10,741,755 $ 10,676,464 $ (65,291) -1%

2. Assets Managed by Animal Services

Equipment $ 280,443 $ 300,353 $ 19,910 7%

Subtotal Assets Managed by Animal Services (Responsibility View) $ 280,443 $ 300,353 $ 19,910 7%

Total Replacement Value: User View (1+2) $ 11,022,197 $ 10,976,817 $ (45,380) 0%

*Responsibility of managing the assets lies with another service area, but assets are used by Animal Services

92
Appendix II – Provisions for Repair &
Replacement Lifecycle Activities
Service Methodology
Transportation Roads: Annual provision accounts for the asset renewal needs to maintain
assets above PCI thresholds by road type (2 interventions per road). In addition,
the annual provision also accounts for road replacement activities over a 50-year
timeframe.
Bridges: Annual provision accounts for both Bridge/Culvert Reconstruction
costs and regular asset rehabilitation expenditures over the planning period.
Street Lighting: Annual provision accounts for the rehabilitation and
replacement of both Poles and Brackets over the planning period.
Sidewalks, Traffic Signals: Annual provision accounts for the rehabilitation and
replacement of assets over an asset’s useful life.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets over
the planning period based on reconstruction cost.
Stormwater Stormwater Management Ponds: Average annual provision based on the total
replacement value of ponds spread equally over the estimated useful life.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at
the end of their UL over the planning period based on the age of the asset.
Note: A discount was applied to the annual provisions associated with Sewer
conveyance systems to align with the SW revenue identified in the SW Rate
Study that is currently implemented. The City undertakes a condition
assessment program (CCTV) for the sewer conveyance system that will allow
for refinement of useful life assumptions and replacement needs of the SW
system in the future.
Facilities Annual provision is based on asset renewal needs and considers two parts to
the calculation:
1. The first 10 years are based on the adjusted BCAs (2019-2021) with
forecast information from 2022 to 2030, annualized for 10 years.
2. “Sherman-Dergis” formula for estimating capital funding requirements for
a facility for the next 15 years or where BCAs are not available
The total investment over the 25-year period is illustrated on an annual basis.
Complete asset replacement is not considered in the calculation model.
Transit Heavy Duty Vehicles (Buses): Annual provision accounts for both regular Bus
Refurbishment costs and regular asset replacement (at 18 years) over the
planning period. The refurbishments include engine replacements, transmission
changes, general refurbishments, etc.
Stops (excluding Shelters), IT Infrastructure, Fare Systems, Signage, and
Stock Room: Average annual provision based on the total replacement value of
assets spread equally over their estimated useful life.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at
the end of their UL over the planning period based on the age or condition of the
asset. When condition is used, the UL of assets are adjusted relative to the
condition applied.
IT All Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at the end
of their UL over the planning period based on the age of the asset.

93
 Service Methodology
City Support Licensed Fleet: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets over
Fleet the planning period based on the age and mileage of the asset.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at
the end of their UL over the planning period based on the age of the asset.
Fire Licensed Vehicles & Apparatus: Annual provision accounts for the
replacement of assets over the planning period based on the age of the asset
irrespective of condition to meet regulatory requirements.
Specialty Equipment: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets
over the planning period based on the condition of the asset.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets over
the planning period based on the age of the asset.
Parks Playgrounds: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of playgrounds at
the end of the useful life (20 years).
Sports Fields: Annual provision accounts largely for the replacement of the
fields’ main components such as artificial turf, irrigation system and lights at the
end of their useful life.
Pathways: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of each pathway at
the end of its useful life. Replacement schedule is based on condition, so the UL
of assets are extended relative to the condition applied.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at
the end of their UL over the planning period based on the age or condition of the
asset. When condition is used, the UL of assets are extended relative to the
condition applied.
Recreation All Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at the end
of their UL over the planning period based on the age or condition of the asset.
When condition is used, the UL of assets are extended relative to the condition
applied.
Cultural Public Art: Replacement provisions for permanent public art have been included
Services in this analysis, while temporary installations are not being replaced and are
therefore excluded from the replacement analysis. Replacement values are based
on the recent appraisals.
Outdoor Equipment: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at
the end of their UL over the planning period based on the condition of the asset.
Average annual provision for some assets is based on the total replacement value
of outdoor equipment spread equally over the estimated useful life.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at the
end of their UL over the planning period based on the condition of the asset. When
condition is used, the UL of assets are extended relative to the condition applied.
Library Library Software: Average annual provision based on the total replacement
value of software spread equally over the estimated useful life.
All Other Assets: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at the
end of their UL over the planning period based on the age of the asset.
Animal Equipment: Annual provision accounts for the replacement of assets at the end
Services of their UL over the planning period based on the condition of the asset. When
condition is used, the UL of assets are extended relative to the condition applied.

94
Appendix III – Revenue Analysis Assumptions
Revenue
Analysis Assumptions
Source
 Levy maintained over the planning period. This means the dedicated 2% levy
is calculated each year on the previous year’s taxation revenue.
 2022 Total Contribution = $76 Million
Infrastructure  Assumption beyond 2022 = the base reserve contribution of $76 Million in
Levy (2%) 2022 will increase each year the 2% dedicated levy continues to be in force
throughout the period.
 The increase in contribution will be relative to how much the 2% levy adds to
the base (Example: 2023 estimated increase over the 2022 base is
approximately $10 million)
 Levy maintained over the planning period. This means the dedicated 1% levy
is calculated each year on the previous years’ taxation revenue.
 2022 Total Contribution = $11.2 Million
 Assumption beyond 2022 = the base of $11.2 Million will increase each year
Transit Levy the 1% dedicated levy continues to be in force throughout the period.
(1%)  The increase in contribution will be relative to how much the 1% levy adds to
the base (Example: 2022 estimated increase over the 2022 base is
approximately $5 million)
 It is not assumed that the entire transit Levy is allocated to R&R activities.
Approximately 50% of the annual levy is directed to fund the BTE share of net
new growth-related busses)
 The forecast assumes a net growth in tax levy revenues (net of special
Growth in Tax purpose levies) at 1% each year to account for general growth in the base from
Levy Base new residential and non-residential development.
 Revenues are in constant $2022 and does not make consideration for a
change in reassessment or inflation.
 Average annual revenues from the dedicated user fees are assumed at $24.3
million per annum based on currently budgeted SW fee collection and
Stormwater allowance for annual revenue growth of 2.2% due to new billing units
User Fees associated with growth.
 This amount is set equal to average annual costs and therefore considered to
be revenue neutral with costs.
 2022 = Equal to $34.5 Million and generally consistent with 5-year average
(net of any top-up amounts).
Federal Gas  Assumption beyond 2022 = assumed to increase relative to population growth
Tax as gas tax monies usually are distributed based on population every few years.
 Entire amount is assumed to be allocated to R&R activities (consistent with
current practice)
 Other minor one-time confirmed grants included
 Totals $13.3 Million in 2022 and the entire amount is used to offset transit-
Provincial operating costs.
Gas Tax  These funds are not assumed for capital repair and replacement activities in
the forecast period (consistent with current practice).

95
 Revenue
Analysis Assumptions
Source
 Approximately $35 million is assumed over the next 10-years, which will be
PTIF allocated to capital repair and replacement activities for Transit.
 The remaining $315 Million is assumed to be directed towards the acquisition
of new transit buses (consistent with approach outlined in the DC Study)
One-time
Government  Other minor one-time confirmed grants included ($4.6 million)
Funding Top-  Assumption beyond 2022 = Any potential one-time Federal and Provincial
up grants have not been considered

 Development Charges are used to fund first round growth-related infrastructure

and any existing funds in these obligatory accounts are not considered for
asset management purposes.
DCs  That said, Reserve #4 (the City's asset management reserve) has sometimes
been used to fund growth-related capital when DCs were not available. It is
assumed that future DCs will not be used to repay Reserve #4 in those
instances where non-dc sources were used to fund growth capital.
 Approximately $98.9 million in existing tax supported reserve funds are
considered and applied towards funding asset repair and replacement
activities. Only certain capital related reserves are considered in this study and
other dedicated and special purpose reserves are not considered to be
“available” for capital asset Repair and Replacement.
 This total is allocated over 3-years in the Corporate AMP (consistent with
Existing previous City’s AMP methodology)
Reserves  About 15% of the total $658M Reserve and Reserve Funds are considered as
other key non-obligatory reserves such as the Legacy Fund ($93M), General
Rate Stabilization ($94M) or the Community Investment Fund ($48M) are
excluded.
 $11.4 million in Stormwater reserves are accounted for and only applied to
offset stormwater costs. This is in addition to the $98.9 million identified above.
 Reserve fund balances applied are actuals as of year-end 2021
 Approximately $175 Million per annum in existing capital related operating and
maintenance costs, which are currently funded through existing taxation and
user fee revenues is assumed to remain constant over the period to maintain
Existing the existing asset base.
Taxation &  It is assumed that any new asset acquisitions would result in increased capital
User Fee operating and maintenance costs that would need to be absorbed by the City
Revenues and captured in the full life cycle model.
 This share relates only to capital related operating and maintenance costs (i.e.
to maintain parks, maintain fleet or facilities) and does not account for general
operating costs that may arise from new infrastructure.

96