After hours of discussion by council and many more hours of work by staff and consultants, Prince Edward County’s Committee of the Whole (COW) has recommended levels of service and investment needed to keep the municipality running.
Those decisions will be part of a provincially mandated 10-year Asset Management Plan to be approved or amended by council September 25.
The plan will guide council in efforts to upgrade or replace its buildings, roads, equipment, fire department and parks, and keep vehicles up to code and serviceable for the public for at least the next 10 years.
All Ontario municipalities are required to have such a plan approved by October of this year and most, if not all, have significant asset lifecycle spending deficits.
It won’t come cheap.
Consultants, in consultation with staff, say the county currently has an asset management spending gap of $24.9 million a year. That’s the difference between the county’s current spending on asset upkeep of $11.5 million
a year and the consultant’s estimate of necessary spending of $33.6 million.
If council were to immediately increase its asset lifecycle spending to $33.6 million annually it would mean a 46% tax increase ($1,600) on a home valued at the average of $323,000 on next year’s tax bill.
That approach won’t fly so consultants offered a 10-year phase-in to reach the recommended level of asset investment which, when average assessment growth is considered, would lead to a tax increase for a homeowner of around 5.4%.
Next year that kind of increase would mean just under $200 more on the average residential bill and it doesn’t include increases caused by pay increases to staff, utility cost increases, or increases passed on by external agencies such as the OPP or public health.
Over 10 years the annual 5.4% increase would bring municipal taxes on the average house to just over $6,000 a year from the current $3,560.
It’s very important to stress that it is council that makes decisions regarding spending and tax increases during its annual budget discussions and those have not yet formally begun, although staff have been working on the numbers.
The Levels of Service and subsequent Asset Management Plan serve as a plan to guide staff in its planning and council in its decision-making.
During the COW meeting Thursday, members expressed dismay at the size of the asset lifecycle spending gap but admitted the consultant’s numbers were a reality check and needed to be taken seriously.
Below are the committee’s recommendations on Levels of Service.
Bridges
Keep all bridges at a Bridge Condition Index of 70 or higher, meaning no maintenance required within a five-year period. Annual investment over 10 years $1.225 million.
Roads
Roads are a major expense in the county with just over 1,000 kilometres of roads to maintain. The committee recommended Option 1, maintaining a high level of maintenance of its urban and rural road network. The estimated annual spend to do that is $25.8 million.
Corporate Vehicle Fleet
Committee selected Option 2, extending fleet lifecycles by 25%. That means a vehicle recommended for replacement at years of service would instead be considered for replacement at 12 years or later. That option would cost $1.125 million a year.
Fire and Emergency Fleet
Maintain existing service model for approximately two years while updating Community Risk Assessment (CRA) and creating a Master Fire Plan.
Facilities
Committee voted to recommend Option 2. That means reducing the square footage considered high priority for upkeep by 25% in so-called “public-facing buildings”, buildings that are heavily used by residents. The annual investment to meet that target would be $4.767 million.
Equipment
Committee recommends keeping equipment (extrication tools, SCBAs, turnout gear, lifting equipment, IT infrastructure, servers, radios, network gear, computers) and training/ops equipment (tablets, laptops, projectors) in fair condition or better. Annual investment would be just over $1 million.
Parks and Recreation
Committee recommends keeping 100% of park assets in fair or better condition. Annual spend estimated at $374,000.
See detailed staff reports here.
See the consultant’s report here.
