APPENDIX F STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS. Page 252

Transcription

1 APPENDIX F STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS Page 252

2 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS Presented for Council s consideration are targeted strategic investments that contribute to the strategies contained in Council s Strategic Plan. A total of 23 business cases with a gross expenditure investment of $53.1 million over the period ($13.3 million average) are included in the requested budget that require Council decision making. The business cases below provide detailed information about the investments and include initiative deliverables, required resources, timing, and risks. Debt servicing costs are included in the business cases requiring debt funding. CASE # Strategic Investments INITIATIVE INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000s) LEVY SOURCES OF FUNDING DEBT OTHER FTE S Page # Building a Sustainable City 1 Library s Ten Year Capital Plan $1,900 $1, Road Map 2.0 Road to Increased Resource Recovery and Zero Waste $400 $ Urban Forest Strategy $3,455 $3, Thames Valley Corridor Plan $1,200 $1, Road Safety Strategy $500 $ Rapid Transit Implementation Strategy State of Infrastructure Report $6,000 $6, Leading in Public Service 8 Garbage Collection On board Weighing and Tracking Technologies $150 $ Technology Amanda $1,000 $1, Establish Public Engagement as an Area of Focus New $340 $ Service London Implementation Plan $5,863 $2,527 $2,736 $600 (1) Computerized Maintenance Management System $2,100 $2, Page 253

3 CASE # Strategic Investments INITIATIVE INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000s) LEVY SOURCES OF FUNDING DEBT OTHER FTE S Page # Strengthening our Community London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy (LSNS) Ontario Works Service Plan Low Income Supports Enhancement $750 $ $1,280 $100 $1,180 (2) Mental Health and Addictions Strategy $200 $200 (2) London Homeless Prevention and Housing Plan London Homeless Prevention System $3,800 $2,600 $1, Implementation Plan 17 Winter Maintenance Strategy $1,750 $1, Growing Our Economy 18 London Community Foundation s Back to the River Project $5,350 $5,350 (3) Streamline Approval Process in Development Services $252 $ London s Downtown Plan Small Scale Projects $100 $ Regenerating Public Housing Plan $750 $ Dundas Place $15,614 $614 $15, City of London Internship Program $360 $ $53,114 $25,648 $20,136 $7, (1) Funding from Efficiency, Effectiveness & Economy Reserve Fund (2) Funding from Social Service Reserve Fund and Provincial subsidy (3) Funding from London Hydro Dividend Page 254

4 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #1 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY ROBUST INFRASTRUCTURE ADDRESS AND MANAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE GAP TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN ON FUTURE GENERATIONS LIBRARY'S TEN YEAR CAPITAL PLAN SUSANNA HUBBARD KRIMMER, LONDON PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $1, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $1,900 Page 255

5 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Base Budget Summary: The Library s capital plan addresses a number of needs: Civic Service Areas: Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Total Capital 0 0 Boards & Commissions: Integrated Library System Branch Facilities Maintenance Facility Renewal Plan 670 1,900 Maintain up-to-date, and functional capital assets by addressing and managing the infrastructure gap Replacement of aging equipment Provide safe, welcoming public spaces Improve the user experience; both for physical spaces and for technology Implement innovative ways to conserve energy The Library's capital infrastructure plan includes: The annual capital requirement and priority plan for lifecycle renewal for 16 Library locations (RC3533 and RC3540); and The Integrated Library System (ILS), which is both a technology service delivery and an infrastructure system (RC3341). These capital projects support the London Public Library s Strategic Plan s Strategic Priorities Spaces and Places, User First, and Current and Future Technology. BASE BUDGET METRICS Current capital plan funding ($000 s) Page 256

6 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,900 3,600 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The need for an increase to the Library s capital projects was identified for 2016 as part of the 2015 budget development process. Several factors have contributed to the need for an increase in order to ensure that the necessary funding is in place to meet the following needs: Capital requirements and priorities for lifecycle renewal are updated annually as part of the Library s 10 year capital needs assessment plan, in order to sustain library infrastructure and avoid future costly repairs. As a result of the Energy Management Facility and Renewal Plan undertaken by the Library, recommendations were made to implement an integrated solution to improve energy efficiency, renew aging facility assets and enhance operational effectiveness in its buildings. A three year work plan has been identified that will improve the Library s Facility Condition Index (FCI) and reduce ongoing energy costs. Scheduled projects over the next three years include boiler replacements (2 branches), rooftop HVAC replacements (5 branches), new roofs (2 branches), modernization of HVAC controls and lighting replacements (6 branches). The capital investment should generate incentives of about $20,000 and annual operating savings of approximately $7,000. With a focus on spaces and places in the Library s Strategic Plan Library Space is Community Place as well as opportunities to increase meeting room revenue as identified by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) revenue audit, capital funding will be required in order to upgrade meeting room spaces (with the exception of the Central Library) to meet public needs and expectations and to generate additional operating revenue. As LPL renovates and updates physical spaces, work is being done to incorporate additional accessibility features. Annual capital spending for the ILS includes hardware/software applications and modules, and upgrades. In order to keep customer service current for technologies, including digital technologies and tools, ongoing lifecycle maintenance and new functionality is required. The same is required in order to keep the infrastructure and corporate systems functional and efficient. Page 257

7 Implementation of these projects will provide the community with improved user experiences in up-to-date buildings with current technology. Maintaining the infrastructure will ultimately mean less taxpayer dollars for infrastructure repairs, and savings from effective energy management Project Priorities A TSSA audit identified a need to replace the 25 year old Central Library emergency generator. With a 2015 cost of $200,000, projects which had been previously identified and scheduled have been pushed back, reducing the Library s ability to fund those projects. [This project was identified independently from the Central Revitalization Project.] In order to accommodate the cost of the generator within the 2015 approved budget envelope, capital budget requests were shifted from RC3341 to RC3533 for three years (2016 to 2018) in order to accommodate its cost as well as the priorities listed above. In addition, as discovered through the tendering process, the cost of the two roof projects will be more than double the budgeted amount. This adds an unanticipated $418,000 to the budget. Once again, priorities were shuffled and projects were deferred in order to accommodate the additional costs. Lighting upgrades to LED in order to save future costs had to be eliminated from the project list. Even with deferrals and elimination of less critical projects, further actions were required to avoid a shortfall in the reserve fund in To avoid requesting additional funds in 2015, the Library will draw down on a portion of the Integrated Library System (ILS) capital budget, if necessary, to fund any short fall as the result of the generator and roof projects. The generator project must be completed in 2015 in order to meet TSSA requirements and the roof must be completed to avoid potential damage to the building. By shifting the funding, technology projects as part of the ILS budget will be deferred. All remaining projects are critical and further delays could mean future costly repairs. Therefore, the reserve fund contribution should be increased, as well as the budget requests for future years, in order to accommodate these projects. Page 258

8 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,900 3,600 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy (1) ,900 3,600 Additional Full-time Equivalents (1) This tax supported request is recommended to allow for an increased contribution to the Library Facilities and Equipment Reserve Fund. The reserve fund provides for the annual capital requirement for both lifecycle renewal of 16 Library locations (RC3533 and RC3540), and the Integrated Library system RC3341 (which is both a technology service delivery and an infrastructure system). METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Required capital plan funding ($000 s) WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 An inability to fund emergency repairs, one-time unanticipated expenses, or unanticipated increases in costs. 2 Not achieving a sustainable 10 year capital plan. 3 More costly repairs in the future if capital projects continue to be deferred. 4 Assets which will deteriorate over time. Page 259

9 5 An inability to recognize energy savings, increasing the pressure on the Library s operating budget. 6 Delays in upgrading meeting room spaces, hindering the ability to generate additional revenue, putting pressure on the operating budget in future years. 7 The potential loss of financial incentives offered by the energy providers. 8 Outdated technology, and aging public spaces, resulting in reduced customer service which is contrary to the User First Strategic Priority. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Library s Strategic Plan Library Space is Community Place Page 260

10 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #2 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY STRONG AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT EXPAND SUPPORT FOR RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY DRIVEN INITIATIVES THAT ENCOURAGE WASTE REDUCTION AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BEHAVIOURS ROAD MAP ROAD TO INCREASED RESOURCE RECOVERY AND ZERO WASTE JAY STANFORD SERVICE(S): RECYCLING & COMPOSTING INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $400 Page 261

11 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Total Capital 0 0 Base Budget Summary: The City of London has longstanding programs for waste diversion including recycling and composting. In 2008, Road Map 1.0 was approved and implemented and resulted in increased waste diversion. Road Map 2.0 was released for community engagement in 2013 and the Interim Waste Diversion Plan (IWDP) was approved in The IWDP (Road Map 2.0 initiatives that are low cost and can be implemented quickly) was approved as the Provincial Government has not yet finalized waste diversion and waste management legislation. New legislation and regulation is anticipated in the timeframe. Adjustments to Road Map 2.0 will occur at that time. The Base Budget for the IWDP as part of Road Map 2.0 is currently $65,000. The current level of waste diversion is 45%. BASE BUDGET METRICS Road Map 2.0 Waste Diversion 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Total Waste Diversion 2 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% Number of Waste Diversion Program Community Engagements Road Map 2.0 Waste diversion refers specifically to the increase in waste diversion (by weight) associated with new initiatives. 2 Total Waste diversion refers to the combined number of all waste diversion initiatives (by weight) available to London households. 3 Represents the combined number of all community engagements focused on waste diversion. Page 262

12 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,200 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.04% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES Residents expect the City to make continuous progress on increasing waste diversion and move closer to the Provincial goal of 60% waste diversion. Implementing new initiatives or expanding existing initiatives identified in the Road Map 2.0 is expected to result in 2% additional waste diversion (by weight) over the planning horizon. Depending on the initiatives ultimately selected, actual volume associated with waste diversion may be in the range of 5% if the target materials and actions focus on lighter, bulky items. As noted above, new legislation and regulation (proposed Resource Recovery and Waste Diversion Act) from the Provincial Government affecting waste diversion and waste management is anticipated in the time frame. The legislation and regulations will influence how and what initiatives from Road Map 2.0 are implemented. City staff will be reporting to Civic Works Committee on a regular basis as proposed legislation is out for discussion and comment. For example, the base budget and associated work plans include a reevaluation and refinement of Green Bin programs and Green Bin material processing technologies within the context of the expected changing Provincial regulatory landscape. In addition, required background work will occur as part of the Environmental Assessment for Waste Disposal. Funds in 2018 could be used to undertake the following, subject to Council approval: start the next steps on implementation of the Green Bin Program or related diversion programs identify and/or implement the next steps for advanced resource recovery programs focus on food waste prevention programs or other waste reduction initiatives increase recycling of items such as plastic bags, expanded foam plastic, etc. implement incentive programs such as reduced container limits for garbage pickup Metrics are very difficult to identify at this stage. Placeholders have been identified and will be refined for Page 263

13 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,200 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,200 Additional Full-time Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Road Map 2.0 Waste Diversion 4 0% 0% 0% 2% Waste Diversion 5 0% 0% 0% 2% Number of Waste Diversion Program Community Engagements Road Map 2.0 Waste diversion refers specifically to the increase in waste diversion (by weight) associated with new initiatives. 5 Total Waste diversion refers to the combined number of all waste diversion initiatives (by weight) available to London households. 6 Represents the combined number of all community engagements focused on waste diversion. Page 264

14 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 Loss of public trust as residents expect the City to make continuous progress on increasing waste diversion. 2 Official Plan vision and direction will not be met. 3 Approval of additional long term disposal capacity may be jeopardized by lack of investment in waste diversion. 4 Opportunity to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and turn waste into useful products may be missed. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Interim Waste Diversion Plan 2014 to 2015 (City of London, 2014) Road Map 2.0 The Road to Increased Resource Recovery and Zero Waste (City of London, 2013) Page 265

15 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #3 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY STRONG AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT PLANT MORE TREES AND BETTER PROTECT THEM FROM DEFORESTATION, INVASIVE SPECIES AND OTHER THREATS. URBAN FOREST STRATEGY JOHN FLEMING URBAN FORESTRY INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $3, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $3,455 Page 266

16 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 3,154 12,889 Full-Time Equivalents Capital Emerald Ash Borer Management 400 1,600 Boulevard and Infill Tree Planting 636 2,544 Woodland Management Total Capital 1,186 4,544 Base Budget Summary: Operating funding supports the Forestry Operations department, which is responsible for maintaining all trees on City property including boulevards, parks and woodlands. The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) funding supports: removal of hazardous and dead trees; injection of TreeAzin to protect existing, valuable ash trees; management of woodlands impacted by EAB; and replanting dead ash trees with a variety of other species in boulevards and manicured portions of parks. The injections are every two years, and not all trees injected will survive in the long term. The planting program includes replacement of non-ash trees that were removed from boulevards for health, structural, storm damage or other reasons. It also includes specific planting projects in difficult built environments like Downtown, Old East Village and Byron. The base budget represents an insufficient investment to reach the targets identified in the Urban Forest Strategy approved by Council in BASE BUDGET METRICS # of trees pruned annually 5,137 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 Trees planted on boulevards 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Tree canopy cover estimate (report published every 5 years 2016 and 2021) 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% Page 267

17 WHAT NEW INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,085 1,485 3,455 11,310 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.04% 0.09% 0.07% 0.07% INITIATIVE A PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE FOR URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM (FORESTRY OPERATIONS) Maintaining existing trees is a key component of achieving the tree canopy cover targets in the approved Urban Forest Strategy. Existing trees are important because they will provide the vast majority of tree canopy cover in the short term (i.e., 2035 canopy target levels), they provide the tree canopy cover until newly-planted trees get large enough to provide significant cover which is years from the time they are planted, and environmental benefits increase exponentially with tree size. Trees are an investment, and regular maintenance will prolong tree life. Both the Urban Forest Strategy and Corporate Asset Management Plan have identified that the current level of maintenance of existing trees and newly planted trees does not meet current best management practices and cannot sustain the long term health and structure of street, park and woodland trees. The current trim cycle of approximately years needs to be reduced to 5-7 years. Funding will permit more trees to be maintained on a regular, shorter trim cycle and the overall management of trees on a proactive rather than reactive basis. This will prolong the life and health of the trees, reduce the City s liability and result in lower individual tree life cycle costs in the long-term. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,055 1,710 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,055 1,710 Additional Full-time Equivalents Page 268

18 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Additional # of trees pruned annually 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 INITIATIVE B INCREASED PLANTING AND MONITORING TO ACHIEVE TREE CANOPY TARGETS The Council-approved Urban Forest Strategy includes increasing the tree canopy cover targets from an estimated current level of 23% to 28% by 2035 and 34% by This represents a long-term increase of 48% in tree canopy cover from current levels. To put this into perspective, a 1% increase in tree canopy cover represents the equivalent of 42 fully-treed Victoria Parks. These targets, and their associated timelines, cannot be achieved without increased tree planting on both City and private property. Current tree planting funding levels will not achieve these targets, nor will the amounts being requested through this multi-year budget; however, with the requested funding below, the number of trees planted annually will ramp up over the 4-year period under this program. In addition to the increased planting program, additional studies and analyses are required to ensure the long-term survival, growth and health of the planted trees. Several major analyses/studies have been identified in the Urban Forest Strategy to support the planning and implementation of the existing and increased planting program. The major studies and analyses include: Tree canopy cover analysis (report in 2016); Updated inventory of street trees; i-tree Eco (previously called UFORE) to determine structure, function and value of the urban forest; and, Integrated Pest Management Strategy. Other projects are identified in the Urban Forest Strategy and its implementation plan. CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,200 2,400 9,600 Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy ,200 2,400 9,600 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Increase in # of trees planted annually 0 1,150 2,500 3,850 relative to 2015 base year Increase in tree canopy cover estimate 0% 0% 0.5% 1% Page 269

19 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? By not enhancing investment in the Urban Forest Strategy, the City risks losing its long-standing identity as The Forest City. Some other specific risks include: 1 Council-approved future tree canopy cover targets of 28% by 2035 and 34% by 2065 will not be achieved 2 Official Plan policies will not be fully supported and developed 3 Continued loss of tree cover 4 Continued loss of environmental, social, human health and recreational values associated with the Urban Forest 5 Reduced asset value of London s trees 6 Increased overall tree management costs over long-term OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Urban Forest Strategy, 2014: Urban Forest Implementation Strategy, 2014: June 3, 2014 Urban Forest Strategy Report to PEC (Agenda Item 5): August 26, 2014 Urban Forestry Revision Report to PEC (Agenda Item 10): Emerald Ash Borer Strategy, Corporate Asset Management Plan: Page 270

20 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #4 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY CONVENIENT AND CONNECTED MOBILITY CHOICES IMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE SAFE MOBILITY CHOICES FOR CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, TRANSIT USERS AND DRIVERS THROUGH THE PROVISION OF COMPLETE STREETS, CONNECTED PATHWAYS AND ENHANCED TRANSIT SERVICES. THAMES VALLEY CORRIDOR PLAN JOHN FLEMING SERVICE(S): PARKS & NATURAL AREAS PLANNING & DESIGN INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $1, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $314* * Initiative to be financed by debt. Page 271

21 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital 1,700 0 Base Budget Summary: The Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) is London s most used recreation and active-transportation facility, representing one of the best interconnected pathway systems in Canada. Some portions of the system experience more than 40,000 trips per month. Connecting gaps in the TVP is an important direction of Council s Thames Valley Corridor Plan. Completion of gaps in the TVP also supports the London Strengthening Neighborhoods Strategy, Parks & Recreation Strategic Master Plan, Age Friendly London Action Plan, Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan and Council s Strategic Plan. BASE BUDGET METRICS Kilometres of constructed pathway* 41km 41km 41km 41km 41km Increase in number of users along North Branch** * Base condition-no new added pathway along the North Branch without the completion of a second river crossing. ** No increase in the number of users along the North Branch without the second river crossing. Page 272

22 WHAT NEW INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,542 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.02% 0.0% Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $314 thousand, and : $1.5 million. INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES London s TVP currently has two major gaps that require additional funding beyond the base budget to complete. There is previously approved funding of $1.7M available to support this project. This business case addresses one gap, which is located between Richmond and Adelaide Streets on the North Branch, in the next 4 years. Filling this gap would open access to the pathway system to a large area within the northeast portion of the City. The environmental assessment undertaken for this project is almost complete (early 2016). Based on work completed to date, the environmental assessment for the North Branch TVP gap is expected to recommend a design solution that includes two river crossings. Previously approved funding for the project only anticipated one river crossing. Two crossings are required in order to protect the natural heritage system, including endangered species present in the area, while ensuring a functional, technically feasible and economically responsible design solution that is supported by public and agency input. Without the second crossing, the preferred design solution recommended through the environmental assessment process will not be able to be implemented. Construction of the project is expected to occur in Future years funding ( ) will support pathway extensions and river crossings to complete the West London Gap. Page 273

23 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure 200 1, ,200 2,400 Source of Funding: Debt 200 1, ,200 2,400 Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $314 thousand, and : $1.5 million. METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Additional kilometres of constructed pathway Increase in number of trips along North Branch km 2km 2km 2km 0 0 8,000 9,000 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Community desire associated with completing the gap on the north branch of the TVP is high, as verified by numerous master planning documents including the Thames Valley Corridor Plan, the ReThink London public engagement processes, the Bicycle Master Plan and the ongoing environmental assessment relating to this project. Completing this gap will connect a large segment of London s population to the Thames Valley Parkway multi-use pathway system. The TVP provides an important active-transportation option in London which will not be fully met if gaps remain in the system. Not completing gaps in the TVP would detract from Council s strategic goals of providing connected, convenient and safe walking and cycling infrastructure to support those modes of transportation. Limiting the recreation and active transportation opportunities for Londoners has a direct effect on the health and quality of life for all Londoners. Page 274

24 Some other specific risks include: 1 Not meeting community supported goals associated with the Bicycle Master Plan and the Thames Valley Corridor Plan. 2 Not meeting community supported recommendations for filling gaps in the City s recreational pathway system as outlined in the Parks & Recreation Strategic Master Plan, Thames Valley Corridor Plan and the current Bicycle Master Plan. 3 Not meeting community supported goals for connecting neighbourhoods from London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy. 4 Not meeting community expectations associated with the Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan when it comes to providing attractive travel choices and improving infrastructure that helps support walking and cycling for Londoners. 5 Not completing the project as per the timelines provided to local landowners who have provided easements for the project. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Thames Valley Corridor Plan Action Plan: Bicycle Master Plan: London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy: London Parks & Recreation Master Plan: Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Plan: Background Information Thames Valley Parkway North Branch Extension: Page 275

25 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #5 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY SUB-PRIORITY: CONVENIENT AND CONNECTED MOBILITY CHOICES STRATEGY: IMPROVE TRAVEL BY MANAGING CONGESTION AND INCREASING ROADWAY SAFETY INITIATIVE: ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY INITIATIVE LEAD(S): JOHN BRAAM SERVICE(S): ROADWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $500 Page 276

26 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? There is currently no base budget allocated to the implementation of this initiative. WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.02% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES In 2014, Council approved the London Road Safety Strategy (LRSS), which was led by the City of London in collaboration with the Middlesex London Health Unit, London Police, Middlesex County and other partners. The LRSS is a five year plan and the partners share expertise and resources so the public has safer, more enjoyable use of our roads and sidewalks, improved safety, and fewer collisions over the five years. The goal of the Road Safety Strategy is to achieve a 10% reduction of injury and fatal collisions over 5 years. Based on a comprehensive review of 4-year traffic collision history and with the findings of several forms of public input collected by the City, six target areas were identified as the top road safety programs until the year The six target areas were: Intersections; Distracted and Aggressive Driving; Young Drivers; Pedestrians; Cyclists; and Red Light Running. The City of London and its partners signed a Program Charter in support of the London Road Safety Strategy, and committed to be an active member to the London-Middlesex Road Safety Committee to participate in accomplishing the LRSS Vision, Mission, Goal and Action Plan. The identified program will implement City lead initiatives to improve road safety such as intersection geometric modifications, traffic signal adjustments, signage improvements, pedestrian facility upgrades and pavement markings. City participation in programs such as Active and Safe Routes to School and the resulting solutions is also included. Page 277

27 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Reduction in Fatal and Injury Collisions on London Roads WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 Continued motor vehicle collisions causing injuries and fatalities, resulting in financial and social costs. 2 A decrease in the health and well-being of the London citizens. 3 Less road safety knowledge. Page 278

28 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO London Road Safety Strategy; Civic Works Committee, March 3 rd, Road Safety Strategy Page 279

29 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY CONVENIENT AND CONNECTED MOBILITY CHOICES IMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE SAFE MOBILITY CHOICES FOR CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, TRANSIT USERS AND DRIVERS THROUGH THE PROVISION OF COMPLETE STREETS, CONNECTED PATHWAYS, AND ENHANCED TRANSIT SERVICES RAPID TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY JOHN BRAAM AND EDWARD SOLDO SERVICE(S): ROADWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSIT INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): TBD* NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $0 *Additional funding is based on the assumption that both the Provincial and Federal levels of government will fund the additional amount required over and above what is in the existing plan. Page 280

30 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Civic Service Areas: Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Route 1 Wellington Bradley 1,000 87,994 Route 2 Richmond Fanshawe 0 35,109 Route 3 Highbury - Dundas ,406 Route 4 Dundas Adelaide ,205 Route 5 Oxford Highbury ,377 Route 6 Oxford Hyde Park ,785 Route 7 Richmond - Raymond 60 14,482 Route 8 York - Richmond 0 3,394 Route 9 Colborne York 0 1,131 Route 10 Dundas - Colborne 0 2,639 Route 11 Wellington - Horton Route 12 Downtown Terminal 0 5,000 Total Civic Departments Capital 2, ,722 Boards & Commissions: LTC Expansion Buses 0 13,064 Total Capital 2, ,786 Base Budget Summary: Rapid Transit is the primary recommendation of the Smart Moves Transportation Master Plan (TMP), is identified in the current Official Plan, and represents a cornerstone of The London Plan and Council s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan identifies the Rapid Transit Implementation Strategy as a means to deliver convenient and connected mobility choices as part of a strategic area of focus called Building a Sustainable City. The Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment (EA) is being undertaken to create a Rapid Transit Master Plan (Master Plan) that adheres to the legislative requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Master Plan will provide a strategy for building a Rapid Transit system that will help meet the City s economic development, mobility, environmental and community buildings objectives while still being operationally feasible and economically viable. The preliminary cost estimate for a full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system was approximately $380 million which does not include significant capital works nor were the estimates based on a detailed Environmental Assessment. This anticipates approximately 1/3 funding from each of the Provincial and Federal governments (yet to be confirmed) and 1/3 funding from the City (Development Charges and property taxes). Page 281

31 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The downtown continues to be an important part of London. The city is structured along key corridors radiating out from the downtown Wellington Street to the South, Richmond Street to the North, Oxford Street to the west and Dundas Street/Oxford Street to the east. Over the next 20 years, London is projected to grow by 77,000 people and 43,000 jobs. By focusing this growth on Rapid Transit corridors, London can capitalize on its established transit-supportive urban form, becoming a more attractive city in Ontario for regeneration and sustainable cost-effective growth. Factors that support a transformation and investment in Rapid Transit include: The draft London Plan implements a policy and planning framework to direct a large portion of London s future growth to the Downtown and along Rapid Transit Corridors. Almost 40% of London s future population and jobs would be within walking distance of the proposed Rapid Transit system. London is well connected to other parts of Ontario by rail, road, air and intercity bus. Rapid Transit would provide the local connections to these broader provincial networks supporting travel to London s major employers and institutions, as well as allowing greater access to other parts of Ontario for London residents. With the implementation of High Speed Rail in the Quebec- Windsor Corridor, these benefits would be significantly amplified. Rapid Transit would serve to connect major economic activities in London universities, colleges, hospitals, financial institutions, manufacturing and a rapidly growing high-tech industry. There is significant marketing potential associated with these connections one being a knowledge-based city. Connecting Rapid Transit to economic growth is also critical to encouraging students who are educated in London to stay in London. Page 282

32 Options being considered for Rapid Transit are: 1. Base BRT Network Alternative The BRT network previously developed through the TMP and LTC business case was refined to reflect updated conditions. The alternative does not include dedicated transit lanes in a number of constrained corridors (Wellington Street) and retains the at-grade crossing of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) tracks on Richmond Street in the Richmond Row area. The projected capital cost of this alternative is $260 - $280 million, which is lower than the TMP alternative which was estimated to cost $380 million. 2. Full BRT Network Alternative This BRT network alternative incorporates additional road widening along the corridors and a number of major structural projects, including a Richmond Street Rapid Transit Tunnel under the CP railway and fully separated transit lanes on Wellington Street between Commissioners Road and Horton Street. This alternative also includes allowances for a replacement bridge over the North Thames River on University Drive, pending finalization of alignments through Western University. The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $475 - $525 million. The cost differences between this alternative and the base alternative are primarily related to the Richmond Street tunnel and allowances for property costs on Wellington South. However, these major enhancements would improve transit travel times and transit reliability over the Base BRT option. 3. Hybrid Network Alternative Hybrid Network Alternative incorporates Light Rail Transit (LRT) along the north and east corridors via downtown with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the south and west corridors. It also incorporates additional widening along the corridors and a number of major structural projects, including a Richmond Street Rapid Transit Tunnel and widening of Wellington Street south of Horton Street to provide for fully separated lanes. The selection of the north and east corridors for LRT was to a large extent based on ridership. These corridors have high ridership today and projected ridership growth in these corridors reaches the minimum levels for LRT to be considered. There is good potential for walk in traffic given the major institutions and area businesses that are directly along the corridors. The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $850-$900 million. The major difference between this alternative and the Full BRT alternative is the added cost for rail tracks, electrical overhead power, LRT vehicles and a new LRT maintenance facility. Page 283

33 4. LRT Network Alternative This alternative network incorporates LRT along all the corridors. It also incorporates additional widening along the corridors and the same structural projects as the previous two alternatives. The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $1.1 - $1.2 billion. This works out to approximately $45 million per kilometer, which is within the range of typical costs from other jurisdictions. This option also requires a new LRT maintenance facility. One of the advantages of this alternative is that the entire rapid transit network would utilize the same technology. The disadvantage, however, is that the LRT capacity is more than what is needed for the projected ridership on the west and south corridors. As a result, either the frequency of trips would need to be reduced (likely to 15 minutes) or a higher subsidy per passenger would be required. Based on preliminary estimates, this subsidy could be over $1 million per year. The following table represents a summary of the network alternatives: NETWORK ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Network Alternatives Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT 2035 Ridership Projection (millions) (Annual riders - 24 million today) Operational Projected Travel Time Savings (# minutes faster than transit today) From King/Richmond to: Western University Time Savings (min) Time Savings (min) Time Savings (min) Time Savings (min) White Oaks Fanshawe College Wonderland Road Operational Flexibility High High Medium Low Transportation Benefits Transit User Benefits (NPV $millions) Qualitative User Benefits Environmental Benefits GHG emissions savings (NPV $millions) Page 284

34 Network Alternatives Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT Total Capital Cost ($millions) ,100-1,200 Financial Economic Development City Building and Social Community City of London Maximum Contribution to Capital Cost ($millions) Cost per km ($millions/km) Operating and Maintenance Costs (Annual $millions) * NPV Capital Costs including Quick Start ($millions) Net Incremental Operating Costs (NPV $millions) Benefit-Cost Ratio Including Environmental and Economic Development Land Value Uplift ($millions) Short Term GDP Gains (NPV $millions) Long Term GDP Gains ($millions) Catalyst for Compact Urban Form of Growth ½ Potential Impact on City Image ½ Urban Regeneration Benefits ½ Catalyst for Development Moderate potential to attract outside investment and to promote intensified development along the RT corridors High potential to attract outside investment and to promote intensified development along the RT corridors Note: = slightly positive impacts - = positive impacts - = very positive impacts. (*) Annual maintenance costs in 2035 expressed in current dollars. LRT will be more expensive in the short-medium term given projected ridership; NPV = Net Present Value (Life Cycle Costing) Page 285

35 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Shift Rapid Transit Update SPPC November 9, Shift Rapid Transit Initiative Appointment of Survey Consultants - CWC August 24, Rapid Transit Funding Opportunities CWC June 2, Page 286

36 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #7 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY ROBUST INFRASTRUCTURE ADDRESS AND MANAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE GAP TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM ROADS TO PARKS TO BUILDINGS. STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT MARTIN HAYWARD SERVICE(S): CORPORATE FINANCING INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $6, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $6,000 Page 287

37 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Civic Service Areas: Operating 14,812 60,783 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Transportation 34, ,434 Environmental Services 815 8,870 Parks & Recreation 6,556 34,677 Fleet 3,786 19,221 Information Technology 1,179 8,229 Corporate Facilities 2,295 8,400 Cultural Facilities 727 2,908 Other 433 3,970 Total Capital 53, ,574 Boards & Commissions: London Police Service 1,794 10,767 London Transit Commission 6,335 34,184 London Public Library 2,690 3,780 London & Middlesex Housing Corporation 2,208 8,832 London Convention Centre 2,661 2,450 Other 1,450 2,172 Base Budget Summary: The base budget and capital plan supports a capital lifecycle renewal program totaling $288.8 million over the next four (4) years. This supports infrastructure with a replacement value in excess of $4.2 billion. Despite the planned investment, based on an analysis undertaken as part of the State of Infrastructure Report 2013, an infrastructure gap exists. In 2013, the tax supported gap was identified to be $50.1 million which could grow to $405.6 over the next 10 years which takes into consideration the existing plan. While the existing gap is at a manageable level, concern was raised that increased investment is necessary to prevent the gap from reaching unmanageable levels. For example, in 2013 the City owned the following assets (to name a few): 3,717 land kilometres of road 101 bridges 1,471 kilometres of sidewalk 2,436 hectares of park land & natural areas 206 km of pathways & trails 14 Cultural Facilities 35 Corporate Facilities 11 Arenas 13 Community Centres 393 Vehicles (For the full exhaustive list, please refer to the State of Infrastructure Report 2013) Page 288

38 BASE BUDGET METRICS Achievement of funding identified in the State of Infrastructure Report (in $3,458 / $8,827 $3,458 / $17,655 $3,458/$26,482 $3,458/$35,310 $3,458/$44,137 thousands). Pavement Quality Index Pavement Quality Index (PQI) refers to the condition of pavement rated between 0 100, where the higher the number, the better the condition. Based on base planned funding levels, London s PQI will deteriorate from 63.1 in 2015 to 52.6 by 2025, a 17% reduction. NOTE: The State of Infrastructure Report 2013 identified the following: City of London Infrastructure Summary 2013 Replacement 2013 Condition Value 2013 Infrastructure Gap 2013 Infrastructure Gap In 10 Years $ 10.9 Billion $ 52.1 Million $ Million Note: includes rate supported assets (water and wastewater) tax supported gap in 2013 was $50.1 (current) and $405.6 million (in 10 years) Page 289

39 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 6,000 39,000 Net Incremental Tax Levy 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES As set out in the State of Infrastructure Report 2013, increased investment is required over and above planned budgetary levels in order to mitigate and manage the growth in the infrastructure gap. Additional funding to this initiative would be allocated based on the analysis undertaken in 2013 where Transportation accounted for approximately 67% of the current gap, Corporate Facilities accounted for 19%, and Parks accounted for 10%. It should be highlighted that an increase in funding is just one of many initiatives that the City is utilizing in order to improve its management of its infrastructure. These initiatives include but are not limited to; the standardization of asset management practices across the corporation; strategic planning; review of service delivery levels; leveraging of technology; and exploring funding opportunities with other levels of government including the viability of Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Page 290

40 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure (1) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 6,000 39,000 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 6,000 39,000 Additional Full-time Equivalents (1) A contribution to an Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund will be made and then allocated to capital projects as required to address the gap. METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Achievement of funding recommendation identified in the State of Infrastructure Report (in thousands). Pavement Quality Index (incremental improvement) $1,000 $2,000 $3, Page 291

41 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: Failure to deliver service Shortened useful life of assets Rising maintenance costs Negative social impacts Customers unable to carry out on their business Damage to the environment Additional unplanned costs OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Transportation Infrastructure Gap; Civic Works Committee, October 7, State of the Infrastructure Report 2013; Corporate Services Committee, January 7, Corporate Asset Management Plan 2014; Corporate Services Committee, August 26, Municipal Parking Lot Upgrade Strategy; Civic Works Committee, May 20, Corporate Asset Management Plan 2015 Review; Corporate Services Committee, December 1, Page 292

42 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #8 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE EXCELLENT SERVICE DELIVERY DELIVER GREAT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND VISITORS: INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY GARBAGE COLLECTION- ON-BOARD WEIGHING & TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES JAY STANFORD SERVICE(S): GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $150 Page 293

43 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 5 20 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Total Capital 0 0 Base Budget Summary: The use of GPS/AVL technology in garbage collection vehicles has been underway since 2015 and will continue into 2016/2017 (Trial Project). Five garbage packers have been outfitted with on-board tracking technology that provides real time information about vehicle and engine data, driver performance and service delivery. Key deliverables include additional levels of oversight and coaching to lead to risk mitigation, improved driver performance, conservation customer service, safety, accountability and due diligence. In addition, on board weighing technologies have gone through a short trial period. City staff are closely following the potential role of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags used to monitor recycling or garbage carts or bins in combination with GPS/AVL solutions. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT BASE BUDGET METRICS Vehicle idling (fuel consumption) 0 5% reduction 5% reduction 0 0 Route optimization (increase in pickups/day) 0 5% increase 5% increase 0 0 Cost per packer 0 5% reduction 5% reduction 0 0 Note: Metrics based on 3 year pilot ending at the end Page 294

44 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.01% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES On-board weighing technologies and RFID tags are complementary systems that provide increased opportunities for route optimization, asset utilization and customer service. GPS Fleet Telematics, as applied to garbage collection, is a method for monitoring the location, movements, status and behaviour of the mobile assets. This is achieved through a combination of a GPS receiver and an electronic device installed in each packer, which then communicates with the user and using advanced web-based software. In addition to location data, fleet telematics (fleetmatics) systems provide a wide variety of critical information that can be used to help manage all collection operations. In its simplest form it provides an easy method to track each garbage packer in real time identifying start time, shut down, idling status, location, and speed. Through analysis and controls this information is used to: Increase productivity through on and off-route optimization Optimize use of labour and associated costs Control fuel use and costs Mitigate risks Enhance regulatory compliance Improve customer service and understanding of customer needs (i.e., increased value of service) Increase worker and fleet safety and security Reduce operating expenses Reduce the environmental impact of a fleet NOTE: Operating costs, capital requirement needs and metrics are very difficult to identify at this stage as it requires details from the Demonstration Project and other research. Placeholders have been identified and will be refined for Page 295

45 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy Additional Full-time Equivalents CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy METRICS 1 (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Vehicle idling (fuel consumption) 5% reduction 5% reduction Route optimization (increase in pickups/day) 5% increase 5% increase Cost per packer 5% reduction 5% reduction Page 296

46 METRICS 1 (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Commercial Vehicles (packers) - Regulatory compliance percentage outfitted with Electronic Hours of Service Logs and Pre/Post Inspection Records Reduction of collisions and Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) Violation rate % outfitted 100% outfitted 2% reduction of CVOR violation rate (1) Metrics are conditional and will be developed based on the results from the Demonstration Project and further research. 2% reduction of CVOR violation rate WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some specific risks include: 1 Less ability to optimize collection routes and measure ongoing performance and contain/reduce costs. 2 Reduced levels of oversight and supervision. 3 Uncontrolled idling costs. 4 Driver development to increase safety and further reduce collisions. 5 Liability of not exercising adequate duty of care. 6 Potential for unsafe acts by drivers to be undetected. Page 297

47 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Garbage and Recycling Collection - Status and Potential Next Steps (December 2014) Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Results (PricewaterhouseCoopers PwC) - Engineering and Environmental Services: Solid Waste (Garbage) Collection and Recycling Process Review (December 2014) Road Map 2.0 The Road to Increased Resource Recovery and Zero Waste (City of London, 2013) Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Results (PricewaterhouseCoopers PwC) - b) Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services Fleet Asset Management internal audit project (2012) Fleet Services Report to the Environment & Transportation Committee (2009) %20AGENDA/ITEM%208.PDF Page 298

48 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #9 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE SUB-PRIORITY: EXCELLENT SERVICE DELIVERY STRATEGY: DELIVER GREAT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND VISITORS: INNOVATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS, IMPROVED ACCESS THROUGH WEB, PHONE AND IN PERSON, INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: TECHNOLOGY - AMANDA INITIATIVE LEAD(S): GEORGE KOTSIFAS SERVICE: BUILDING APPROVALS INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $1, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $1,000 Page 299

49 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Civic Service Areas: Operating (Building Approvals) Full-Time Equivalents 1 0 Capital AMANDA Database upgrade & Web Infrastructure Workflow Improvements & new business folders Total Capital Base Budget Summary: Amanda is used for development tracking and processing of planning applications, plans of subdivision and condominium approvals, building permits, by-law enforcement, site plan approvals, residential rental unit licensing, minor variance applications, consents, zoning information and call center operations and database. The City has been using the Amanda 4.4 solution for many years. Most of the applications in Amanda are stand-alone, unsupported, or at the end of their life; thereby putting the Corporation at significant risk. A strategy was developed to upgrade Amanda, which was subsequently implemented in December This enabled the Corporation to move to the current version of the AMANDA Database and the current web version of AMANDA. In addition, new folders and redesign or existing folders was carried out. A dedicated staff person (up to 2016) was appointed to support Amanda Project and ensure the successful co-ordination of the AMANDA program and to provide for a stable corporate software program, create efficiencies for work flow, generate performance measures through enhanced reporting and provide ongoing training which will allow for more effective use of software. BASE BUDGET METRICS Dedicated Project Management Support 100% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% # of Enhancements Page 300

50 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,000 1,500 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.05% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES This base budget in Building Approvals provides for the establishment of Amanda as a viable platform to sustain it over time and to leverage it fully. The Amanda platform is currently being used by many service areas including Finance, Building, By-law Enforcement, Development Approvals, Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services, after-hours Dispatch and Operations. The Amanda system was first implemented in 1999 to automate business processes primarily in the building and planning divisions to improve services to our citizens. Over time, the use of AMANDA has expanded into most service areas in the corporation; thus, AMANDA has evolved to become a corporate platform. To establish AMANDA as a viable, stable platform, to sustain it over time and to leverage it fully, the City needed to invest into bringing the system to the current supported standards as well as implement future upgrades that will be required every three years. In addition, AMANDA partnerships need to be upgraded. There is a need to obtain professional services to complete current and future projects scheduled within the AMANDA platform. The service level agreement (SLA) would provide services for the installation, configuration, training and testing for implementing all aspects of the AMANDA application. The SLA would provide for up to seventy days over a twelve month period to start of on-site and off-site days of service. Page 301

51 Identifying Amanda as a Strategic Priority is three-fold. 1) Amanda Project Manager / Power User ($100,000/yr) This position is required to ensure the successful coordination of the Amanda program between all service areas. This position will support the program management plan as well as creating a centralized location for all components of the overall platform. The program management plan includes the following two components. 2) Amanda SLA - Ongoing Enhancements and Implementation ($100,000/yr) This includes projects planned over the next four years, creation of new and redesigned folders, enhancements, training and maintenance and corporate governance. The source of funding for the Amanda Ongoing Enhancements and Implementation is an annual operating budget amount of $100,000. Some applications that urgently require replacement to be supported, or require significant upgrades to be functional and improve operations area: Permits and Issuance Review Folders for City e-permitting Business Services Business Licensing and Taxi Limo Licensing folder including Camera Solution Water Engineering Backflow Prevention Folder Development Services Redesign of Subdivision Folder Zoning - Public Property Permits for Approved Works Zoning Redesign of Sign and Canopy Permit Folders Business Services All Centre Workflow Improvements AMANDA Data Management & Cleansing AMANDA Project Improvements Additional Modules - Enhanced Inspection- Deficiency, Planning, Licence Vehicle, Batch Scheduler, Conditions Management, E- Mail and Enterprise Authentication adaptor 3) Amanda Upgrade and Implementation ($50,000/yr) Ensuring a routine system upgrade every three years, noting this could grow in cost based on enhancements Page 302

52 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,000 1,500 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,000 1,500 Additional Full-time Equivalents *$50k of the above request every year is to be put towards a platform upgrade/installation that is needed every three years. METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Dedicated Project Management Support 100% 100% 100% 100% # of Enhancements Page 303

53 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 Despite the database currently being upgraded, it is necessary that future capital upgrades are included so as to avoid service interruption or reduced level of service (Permits, licences, call centre complaints, planning applications, etc). 2 Some current applications are Livelink dependent and as Livelink is migrating to SharePoint in 2016, the applications are at the end of their life if not upgraded. 3 A backlog of requests and inability to introduce process efficiencies. 4 ITS staff resources are stretched to handle ongoing service and maintenance requests leaving little time for new projects and enhancements, such as online options. 5 Inability to train staff to utilize the platform effectively. Page 304

54 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #10 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT MAKE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A PRIORITY. MAKE THE PUBLIC A PARTNER WHO HAS ACCESS TO OUR INFORMATION AND HELPS MAKE DECISIONS WITH COUNCIL. ESTABLISH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AS AN AREA OF FOCUS JOHN FLEMING PLANNING SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $340 Page 305

55 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? There is currently no base budget allocated to the implementation of this initiative. WHAT NEW INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.02% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES In response to multiple Council requests, Planning Staff presented a report to the Planning and Environment Committee on March 23, 2015 which outlined a number of significant improvements that could be made to public engagement practices within the planning process. The driving force behind improving public engagement is to make the planning process more accessible to the general public, thereby inviting meaningful participation and resulting in an open, accountable and responsive government. Some changes to improving engagement have already begun. However, several of the changes presented in the report require additional resources for such things as improved notification signage for planning applications (larger, plain language, graphics), current information for each planning application posted and available on the City s website, proactive notification of new information and upcoming meetings relating to specific files for those that request such information, making new mediums of information available for obtaining planning-related information, and holding community level meetings at accessible locations with child-minding resources at these meetings as required. If funded through the multi-year budget, these changes are anticipated to commence in Q3 of 2016 as the appropriate staff are hired/trained, new sign contracts are awarded and the services of several internal and external partners are coordinated. $25,000 of the recommended $85,000 budget is for such things as new forms of signage, child-minding, community meeting venue rentals, etc. Page 306

56 This change is recommended to directly implement Council s Strategic Plan for the City of London, specifically the strategy to providing an Open, accountable, and responsive government. Council s Strategic Plan identifies a total five initiatives three of which can be achieved by implementing the actions outlined in this business case. Those 3 initiatives include: Make community engagement a priority. Make the public a partner who has access to our information and helps make decisions with Council Implement Plain Language writing in all City documents, reports, agendas, websites, signs, and notifications. Improve the City of London website so people can find what they want, when they want it, and how they want it. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy Additional Full-time Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Average % of those who participated in a Planning application process describing the level of engagement as good or better. Number of planning application notices that are disseminated proactively through social media Number of requests to be added to the notification list for planning applications (Note 1) Baseline data to be gathered through 80% 85% 85% follow-up surveys Establish baseline/determine current number 10% increase in requests to be added 15% increase in requests to be added 20% increase in requests to be added Page 307

57 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Number of visits to websites devoted to specific planning applications (Note 2) Various social media indicators (Note 3) Establish baseline/create counters to monitor Establish baseline/ create counters to monitor 1,000 page views/month 100 tweets/month 5 Facebook posts/month 1,500 page views/month 150 tweets/month 7 Facebook posts/month 2,000 page views/month 200 tweets/month 10 Facebook posts/month Note 1: Through the planning application process, residents become aware of the application, and ask to be placed on our notification list so that they are advised of future meetings or events related to the application. As a result of these new engagement techniques, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of requests for notification. Note 2: The City s website ( receives an average of 200,000 visits per month, and 600,000 page views per month. It is anticipated that with a more robust and user-friendly web presence, there will be an increase in page views on the planning application pages on the website. Note 3: The City averages approximately 5,000 tweet impressions per month related to specific City initiatives, such as SHIFT, or the Bicycle Master Plan Update, for example. Similarly, there are approximately 500 Facebook visits, and 100 posts/month (by either the City or others). With a more active social media presence, we anticipate an increase in these indicators for planning application items. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? If current public notification methods are not improved, the City risks precluding Londoners from receiving information about potential land use changes in their community as their reliance on other means for information gathering, such as the internet and social media, grows and the traditional ways, such as print media and basic signage, declines. This would be contrary to Council s Strategic Plan priorities relating to open government, transparency and authentic engagement. Some other specific risks include: 1 Londoners not having access to information through their preferred (and in some cases, their only) means of communication 2 Longer processing times for planning applications as matters are referred by Council back to Staff for further community dialogue at the Planning Committee stage (rather than being identified and resolved prior to Committee, where possible) 3 Disenfranchised citizens who do not participate in important planning decisions that shape the future of their neighbourhoods Page 308

58 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Council received an information report on this matter in March 2015 and resolved that the estimated cost of implementation to improve the engagement process is approximately $150,000 and will be referred for consideration as part of the multi-year budget development should the Municipal Council endorse this strategy. Report to Planning and Environment Committee on March 23, 2015 Improvements to Public Engagement Through the Planning Process (Agenda Item #12): Page 309

59 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #11 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE SUB-PRIORITY: EXCELLENT SERVICE DELIVERY STRATEGY: DELIVER GREAT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND VISITORS INITIATIVE: SERVICE LONDON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INITIATIVE LEAD(S): LYNNE LIVINGSTONE SERVICE(S): SERVICE LONDON (CUSTOMER RELATIONS) INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $5, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $3,125* * Initiative to be partially financed by debt and the Efficiency, Effectiveness & Economy (EEE) Reserve. Page 310

60 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? Base Budget Summary: Council s Strategic Plan identifies Leading in Public Service as a strategic area of focus. This strategic area of focus includes the strategy excellent service delivery under which the Service London Implementation Plan is referenced. Service London is a transformational initiative aimed to enhance and improve the delivery of customer services and experiences at the City of London by developing integrated service channels (online, telephone, in person) and placing customers at the centre of service planning and delivery. The one-time funding allocated to Service London in 2012 ($2.3M) has been sufficient to sustain the implementation of the Plan into However, given the significance of Service London, this business case seeks to establish permanent funding for Service London. In order to benefit from the work done from , we need to continue to strategically invest in our customer service channels (online, telephone, in person). BASE BUDGET METRICS Number of clients supported through Service London 1, Business Customer satisfaction with overall quality of service 87% N/A N/A N/A N/A delivery Customer satisfaction with accessibility of services 85% N/A N/A N/A N/A Customer satisfaction with time it takes to receive services 79% N/A N/A N/A N/A Customers who received needed service or support 60% N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: Although Service London will still be ongoing in early 2016, should the funding request not be approved, the operation would begin winding down and would be fully discontinued by the end of Page 311

61 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,065 1,161 3,125 8,818 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.02% 0.13% 0.05% 0.02% Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $598 thousand and : $3.1 million. INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES A. Link to Strategic Plan The City s mission is to be At Your Service: A respected and inspired public service partner, building a better city for all. This mission statement reflects our commitment to improving the way we deliver customer services. Council s Strategic Plan identifies Leading in Public Service as a strategic area of focus. This strategic area of focus includes the strategy excellent service delivery under which the Service London Implementation Plan is referenced. B. Strategic Context What is driving the change? Accessing services is one of the most important ways that citizens interact with government. Excellent customer service builds trust and demonstrates that the City is dedicated to serving residents, businesses and visitors. We know that our customers expectations are changing. Customers expect the same 24/7, personalized and convenient access to government services as they experience in the private sector. At the same time, governments are having to do more with less, so we need to find more efficient ways to deliver services. Service delivery is the most expensive thing that the City does as an organization. Service London is a transformative initiative that allows us to address these challenges. In May 2011, Service London was established as one aspect of the City of London s commitment to being At Your Service. The Service London Implementation Plan was endorsed by Council in December This plan was a roadmap for the City of London to transform the way we deliver services by focusing on customers and modernizing our three main service channels: online, telephone and in person. Page 312

62 Business Outcomes Service London is about Delivering value through integrated customer centered service. This means that we want to deliver services that are important to citizens in a way that is focused on their needs ( citizen centered ). Our customers want services to be delivered in a way that is easy for them. There should be no wrong door to access City of London services. Service London Results - we are committed to providing customer service and experiences that are: Simple services that are timely and easy to access Seamless effective integration between service areas and organizations Personalized delivery is customized, engaging and proactive Accountable results are efficient, consistent, reliable and accurate We will know we are successful when these words describe the experience of our customers. C Business Case In order to achieve outcomes as noted above, we need to continue our efforts to transform the way we deliver customer services. This means focusing on the needs of customers and modernizing our three main service channels: online, telephone, in person. We want our customers to have the ability to access as many of our services as possible through the channel of their choice. We need to integrate these service channels so that customers can expect the same great service regardless of the channel they choose to access. As business strategies and objectives evolve to accommodate the changing needs of customers, new technologies must be implemented to ensure easy access to City services. Initiative Deliverables Operating funding will be required to: - Establish a permanent Service London Office, including Service London Business - Support ongoing licensing and maintenance costs associated with the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software system - Support streamlining of corporate phone system, including the implementation of service standards and the launch of single number access for all municipal services Page 313

63 The capital funding continues to be focused on modernizing and integrating our customer service channels (online, telephone, in person). These include: - Customer Relationship Management (CRM) hardware, software and continued implementation in high priority services areas - Leverage other key technology initiatives and build integration between CRM and other key enterprise systems - Develop and launch online self-service portal - Renovate the Lobby (Election Office) to continue to improve the customer experience for residents, businesses and visitors - Implement the Service London Counter Strategy, including two district-level counters Appendix A articulates a detailed overview of the key annual deliverables and outcomes resulting from this investment. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,127 5,688 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other EEE Reserve Net Tax Levy ,527 5,688 Additional Full-time Equivalents CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,736 3,405 Source of Funding: Debt ,736 3,405 Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $598 thousand and : $3.1 million. Page 314

64 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Number of clients supported through Service London Business 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 Customer satisfaction with overall quality of service delivery 88% 89% 90% 91% Customer satisfaction with accessibility of services 86% 87% 88% 89% Customer satisfaction with time it takes to receive services 80% 81% 82% 83% Customers who received needed service or support 67% 69% 71% 73% Note Customer Effort Score metric will be added in 2016 to measure the perceived effort required by a customer to access service and will be measured annually. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? If the Service London initiative is not supported, it will impact the City of London s ability to achieve our mission to be At Your Service: A respected and inspired public service partner, building a better city for all. This will specifically impact two strategies noted within the Strategic Plan: (1) Support small businesses by improving City processes; and, (2) Deliver great customer experiences to residents, businesses and visitors. It will also impact our drive to make the City a more citizen centred organization, delivering customer services and experiences that are simple, seamless, personalized and accountable. Some other specific risks include: 1 Inability to implement Customer Relationship Management System beyond Phase Two. Future investments into the system including licensing, maintenance, upgrades, training and other enhancement efforts to the system will cease. This will have a negative effect on current users and our ability to consistently and efficiently manage service requests. 2 Self-service portal will not be implemented. 3 Delayed timing and lack of capacity to continue streamlining phone system and launch single number access. 4 Lower customer satisfaction scores. 5 Reduced level of service for start-up, small and medium-sized business customers in Service London Business will not continue beyond Page 315

65 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Achievements There have been significant achievements since the establishment of Service London. Some of the highlights include: The new london.ca was launched in 2013, providing enhanced search and navigational features, better content and mapping The first Service London counter was launched in 2014, providing a more welcoming, vibrant and customer-focused space, and offering enhanced services for all customers Service London Business was launched in This initiative is focused on improving the customer experience and reducing red tape for our start-up, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. Highlights include the introduction of Starter Guides for high volume customer segments and the creation of a Business Connector position. This position is dedicated to improving the in-person experience by acting as the first point of contact for business customers, and providing navigational support and guidance. Additional information on the achievements: Reports to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, October 29, 2012 (Agenda Item #5), December 4, 2012 (Agenda Item #2), December 16, 2013 (Agenda Item #3), April 14, 2014 (Agenda Item #2), April 13, 2015 (Agenda Item #2), Reports to Corporate Services Committee, August 26, 2014 (Agenda Item #27), November 3, 2015 (Agenda Item #3), Page 316

66 Appendix A Service London - Deliverables and Annual Outcomes Channel Strategy A key element of Service London is our channel strategy. Technology has increased the number of government contact points, resulting in more choice for citizens on how they interact with government. The objective is to allow customers to have the ability to access as many City services as possible via the channel that is most convenient for them, and have a positive, consistent experience across all channels. The Digital Experience The City s website is our fastest growing service channel, with increasing traffic each year. The website, along with other digital channels such as social media and mobile applications are desired channels because of convenience and 24/7 access. For these reasons, improving the digital experience is a top priority. This includes: improving access to information, increasing the availability of e-services and enhancing mobile technology and social media. The Telephone Experience The City receives between 500,000 and 750,000 phone calls each year from customers seeking information or services. The focus of this channel is to streamline the phone system and move to single number access for all non-emergency municipal services. This will be done through a virtual/decentralized call centre which will be supported by Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software. This software will manage all interactions with customers by creating, assigning and tracking customer requests. The In Person Experience The majority of City services are accessed over the counter with in person visits, the most expensive customer service channel. Currently, each service location offers individuals a unique range of services, resulting in customers often needing to visit multiple locations. The focus of this channel is to provide access to a broader range of information and services at more locations, working toward one-stop access for as many services as possible. Service London Plan The proposed Service London Plan, , outlines the key activities required to continue our drive to transform the service experience at the City of London and deliver customer service and experiences that are simple, seamless, personalized and accountable. Page 317

67 2016 Leveraging Momentum Appendix A (cont d) Service London - Deliverables and Annual Outcomes Work in 2016 will be focused on leveraging the strategic investments and groundwork completed in previous years: - Establish a permanent Service London Office - Leverage and build upon the successes of the Service London Business pilot. Continue to improve content and documentation available through Starter Guides and Consolidated Application Packages. Build and maintain collaborative working relationships with our partners - Extend Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution to additional high priority areas. Roll-out mobile CRM access for key internal stakeholders. Introduce service level agreements for common service requests - Ensure alignment with other corporate technology initiatives, including integration (where applicable) - Continue to streamline the City s phone system through the use of CRM and the implementation of service standards to ensure consistency and reduce wait times - Implement single number access for all non-emergency services (661-CITY) - Launch first phase of self-service (citizen) portal, allowing citizens to submit common complaints and inquiries online - Begin to implement Service London Counter Strategy, increasing access to information and services at all customer service counters - Convene a citizen panel comprised of a representative sample of Londoners to provide input and feedback on current and future Service London activities - Continue annual customer surveys and reports, tracking progress and identifying areas of improvement as well as achievements Page 318

68 Appendix A (cont d) Service London - Deliverables and Annual Outcomes 2017 Building on Success Work in 2017 will continue to build on the success of the initiative: - Incorporate customer segmentation and journey mapping into service planning and design initiatives - Through Service London Business, continue to develop a more customer centric service model for business customers. Explore opportunities to collaborate with partner agencies to integrate services and access to information - Continue to extend Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution to additional high priority areas. Leverage other corporate technology projects to deliver better outcomes for staff and customers - Build on the foundational work of the self-service portal. Continue to enable additional features and functionality - Continue to streamline the City s phone system through the use of CRM and the implementation of service standards to ensure consistency and reduce wait times. Align efforts with Phone System Upgrade project - Implement second phase of Counter Strategy, including enhancements to City Hall Lobby to augment service experience for business customers - Continue to establish a culture of service excellence throughout the organization. Celebrate examples of success - Conduct annual customer survey and publish report on customer service. Continue to track changes over time and identify improvement opportunities 2018 Transforming Service Design and Delivery Work in 2018 will be focused on: - Ensure services are integrated, consistent and meet the needs of our customers. Monitor and measure customer effort and satisfaction - Continue to explore additional opportunities to improve the customer experiences for residents, businesses and visitors - Complete final extension of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution. Continue to use CRM as a data collection and management decision-making tool Page 319

69 Appendix A (cont d) Service London - Deliverables and Annual Outcomes - Enhance self-service portal functionality and allow for consistent and seamless transition and navigation between channels - Leverage technology investments to increase our ability to resolve customer inquiries and requests at the first point of contact. Measure quality and accuracy of response through all channels - Proposed opening of first District Level Service London Counters, with multiple service offerings (access to experts, ability to: pay, register, initiate a service request, request information) - Conduct annual customer survey and publish report on customer service. Continue to track changes over time and identify improvement opportunities 2019 Achieving Service Excellence Work in 2019 will optimize the activities and actions made to date: - Continually assess and evaluate our customer access points, ensuring access is easy, needs are met and wrap-around service is provided - Use Customer Relationship Management (CRM) to increase organizational efficiency and support decision making and service design - Fully utilize the power and potential of our digital investments. The most common City services are available through any channel, allowing for consistent service and seamless transition and navigation between channels - Implement final phase of Counter Strategy, ensuring consistent access to information and services and meeting the needs of our community - Continue to establish a culture of service excellence throughout the organization. Celebrate examples of success - Conduct annual customer survey and publish report on customer service. Continue to track changes over time and identify improvement opportunities Page 320

70 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 12 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE EXCELLENT SERVICE DELIVERY DELIVER GREAT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND VISITORS: INNOVATIVE SERVICE MODELS IMPROVED ACCESS THROUGH WEB, PHONE, AND IN PERSON INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM JOHN BRAAM, MARTIN HAYWARD INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $2, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $2,100 TRANSPORTATION, FLEET, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ASSET MANAGEMENT Page 321

71 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Civic Service Areas: Operating (1) Full-Time Equivalents (1) 1 1 Capital ASSET MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (1) Total Capital (1) Base budget for CMMS relates to Water and Wastewater & Treatment Budgets. Currently there is no dedicated budget for Property Tax Programs. Base Budget Summary: A Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) initiative has long been considered by cross sections of working groups across a number of the Corporation s service areas, primarily within its Operating Divisions. In 2013, Water and Wastewater & Treatment Services began identifying and allocating budgets towards the research and development of the initiative in order to move forward with a CMMS which would also support the City s Corporate Asset Management program. Based on analysis to date, it is anticipated that this initiative could see up to a 37.5% return on investment over a 10 year period. This translates into $220,000 in net savings/ cost avoidance annually (capital deferrals, productivity enhancement, overtime savings) once fully implemented. Council has already directed a contract to be negotiated for a CMMS for Water, Wastewater and Forestry Operations. This business case is to complete the requirements for these, and extend the implementation project into Transportation and Parks Operations. BASE BUDGET METRICS Reduction in Overtime costs operational areas 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Average expected capital asset life extension 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Reduction in customer complaint resolution response 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Page 322

72 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,100 3,900 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.02% 0.09% 0.02% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The proposed Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) initiative will become the nucleus of the City s day-to-day operations, enabling staff to deliver a strategic, timely, effective, efficient, and economical service to its valued customers. Further, a CMMS will have the capability of providing critical information to support the Corporate Asset Management program. Effectively managing the City s ever growing, complex infrastructure and meeting the associated legislative requirements and becoming eligible for future infrastructure funding programs are the primary drivers behind this project. The adoption of this technology will bring the City of London up to par with most of the City s surrounding municipalities in the application of this technology. While it is difficult to accurately quantify the financial impact at this time, there is every indication and confidence that a savings will be realized through efficiencies gained. Operational studies undertaken for the City of London independently of this project suggest approximately 5% annual operating cost savings once fully implemented. Long term benefits include, but are not limited to: Decreases in capital asset replacement (properly maintained assets have a greater life cycle). Asset reliability increases (assets that are properly maintained work when needed and require less emergency repairs). Total cost of asset ownership decreases (preventative maintenance is less expensive long term over that of do nothing and deal with emergency repairs). Optimizing the use of operating and maintenance staff (slower growth in staff complement). Page 323

73 Examples of these benefits include: Tracking and analyzing maintenance activities will allow work planners to modify routines for optimal performance of both the services and the staff undertaking the work. Planning activities from a geographic base will reduce the travel time of work crews, allowing more work to be completed with less downtime. Central databases communicating with Financial, Equipment and Payroll systems will significantly reduce time wasting and manual administrative tasks. Staff efficiencies gained allow for more maintenance of infrastructure, which in turn is less prone to failure (emergency repairs) and extends the life (reducing future capital replacement/rehabilitation). The investment proposed would provide for the necessary resources (software licensing, maintenance, staffing) to maintain, operate, provide troubleshooting support, and to co-ordinate the CMMS system with end users on an on-going basis. Efficiencies and cost savings/avoidance has not been netted against the budget request however it is anticipated that the average return on investment is as high as 39%. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,100 3,900 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,100 3,900 Additional Full-time Equivalents Page 324

74 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Reduction in Overtime costs operational areas 0% 0% 2.5% 5% Average expected capital asset life extension 0% 0% 0% 0.5% Reduction in customer complaint resolution response 0% 0% 5% 10% Note: Operational studies undertaken independently of this project suggest approximately 5% annual operating cost savings once fully implemented. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? By not implementing a CMMS, the City of London risks falling behind the best practices in municipal asset management. Some other specific risks include: 1 Increased annual labour, equipment, materials and associated energy costs to meet the maintenance and repair of infrastructure. 2 Decreasing asset reliability and condition rating at present trends, or maintaining these at a higher labour cost. 3 Having to meet increasing regulatory demands for more detailed reporting, auditing and tracking compliance requirements, using present manual methods. 4 Reduced ability and opportunity to achieve efficiencies and identify and realize cost containment opportunities. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Report to the Civic Works Committee, June 17, 2013 (Agenda Item #3): Page 325

75 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #13 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY SUB PRIORITY: VIBRANT, CONNECTED, AND ENGAGED NEIGHBOURHOODS STRATEGY: SUPPORT NEIGHBOURHOOD DRIVEN ACTIVITIES AND DECISION MAKING INITIATIVE: LONDON STRENGTHENING NEIGHBOURHOODS STRATEGY (LSNS) INITIATIVE LEAD(S): LYNNE LIVINGSTONE SERVICE(S): COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & FUNDING INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $750 Page 326

76 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Opera ng $150 $600 Full Time Equivalents 1 1 Base Budget Summary: London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy (LSNS) base budget is broken down into 2 components: 1. SPARKS! Neighbourhood Matching Fund ($50,000) community grant program that supports the crea on and implementa on of neighbourhood driven ini a ves that build neighbourhood capacity, connec ons, and livability. 2. LSNS Strategies ($100,000) funds to support the development and implementa on of strategies iden fied in the LSNS Plan. Through these strategies several programs and tools were developed that strive to provide measurable, sustainable outcomes in neighbourhoods, build capacity, and strengthen London s neighbourhoods. Examples of the programs and tools recently developed include: Walk to Shop, Neighbourhood Safety Audit, Neighbourhood Associa on Tool Kit, Movies in the Park Ac vity Kit, Neighbourhood Ac on Plans, and Neighbourhood Events/Block Par es. These neighbourhood driven ac vi es are central to city building by empowering residents and cul va ng community leadership which forms the founda on of vibrant, connected, and engaged neighbourhoods (as outlined in the Strategic Plan). BASE BUDGET METRICS # of Sparks! neighbourhood projects Amount of community $ leveraged $122,705 $122,705 $122,705 $122,705 $122,705 # of neighbourhood programs/ tools Total # of neighbourhood ac vi es supported (through use of tools) Note metrics realized in 2015 are expected to remain constant at the base budget funding level Page 327

77 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumula ve) ,100 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.05% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES In 2010, City Council endorsed London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy (LSNS) and Five Year Implementa on Plan. In the 2012 budget, $100,000 was allocated to support resident led strategies iden fied in the LSNS Plan. Through these strategies several programs and tools were developed that strive to provide measurable, sustainable outcomes in neighbourhoods, build capacity, and strengthen London s neighbourhoods. LSNS is fundamentally a resident driven strategy that invited and encouraged resident par cipa on and engagement to help make all of London s neighbourhoods stronger. This was one of the City s first cross departmental ini a ves of this nature. It has proven to be very successful and opened the doors for increased collabora on across departments and increased opportuni es for resident engagement and resident led opportuni es. In addi on, $50,000 was re allocated in the service s areas budget to support a City of London Neighbourhood Matching Fund (SPARKS!) in The LSNS Resident Task Force iden fied the development of a neighbourhood matching fund as a crea ve and innova ve way to engage, empower and connect residents. A neighbourhood matching fund brings neighbours together around community driven projects that enhance and strengthen their own neighbourhoods. Funded projects can transform the culture, pulse and even the physical appearance of many neighbourhoods and build a stronger sense of community by engaging people from diverse walks of life. With the support of the City of London, the Neighbourhood Matching Fund allows neighbourhood groups to ini ate, manage and implement projects that truly make a difference and strengthen London s neighbourhoods. Addi onal opera ng funding is required to support the next phase of London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy in order to: 1. Support neighbourhood decision making by growing the SPARKS! program, which allocates funds to each neighbourhood enabling neighbourhood driven projects that residents create and implement as one neighbourhood. Funds will be allocated to each neighbourhood and through a variety of outreach, communica on, and engagement strategies, each neighbourhood will determine their preferred neighbourhood building project(s). Neighbourhood groups may use SPARKS! funds to plant public gardens, restore environmental resources, create public art, pilot a community program, host a neighbourhood event, document a neighbourhood s history, or enhance a park or playground, to name just a few ideas. Page 328

78 An increase to the current SPARKS! Neighbourhood Matching Fund will allow funds to be dispersed across all of London s neighbourhoods. Local residents in those neighbourhoods will make decisions together on the projects to be funded in their own neighbourhoods. This local decision making is an engagement tool that empowers local residents as they create and implement neighbourhood driven projects that are funded through a por on of the municipal budget. 2. Support neighbourhood driven ac vi es by con nuing to build upon the successful resident driven strategies implemented over the last 5 years. Addi onal funding will support the new resident driven ini a ves that come out of the next phase of London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy. In 2016, city staff and local neighbourhood champions will engage the broad community across all neighbourhoods to inform the direc on of future neighbourhood driven ac vi es and neighbourhood driven decision making which are crucial to city building: neighbourhoods are about people and places and how they work in partnership to make neighbourhoods great places to live, work and play. 3. In addi on, an increase of 1 Full Time Employee is required in 2018 to support the achievement of the KPI s. This posi on was added on a temporary basis in 2015 up to 2017 and is being requested to be made permanent in CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,100 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Exis ng Budget Other EEE Reserve Net Tax Levy ,100 Addi onal Full me Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Addi onal # of Sparks! neighbourhood projects Addi onal amount of community $ leveraged Addi onal # of neighbourhood programs/tools $268,000 $470,000 $470, Page 329

79 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Addi onal # of neighbourhood ac vi es supported (through use of tools) Addi onal # of new/rejuvenated neighbourhood groups/associa ons WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? In 2009, Civic Administra on began a process of large scale resident engagement across London s neighbourhoods: London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy (LSNS). This strategy became a vehicle for collec ve ac on at the neighbourhood level. LSNS has created a founda on for strong city building and there is now an expecta on to build on current engagement strategies, neighbourhood driven ac vi es, and decision making as outlined in The Strategic Plan for the City of London ( ). London has many neighbourhoods where residents regularly work together to collec vely safeguard and improve their shared quality of life. The engine at the core of these strong neighbourhoods is an established and well func oning network of rela onships, fueled by a dedicated team of community leaders. Although current and poten al community leaders exist in every corner of our city, not all of London s neighbourhoods contain the established network of rela onships necessary for them to fully realize their poten al impact. This inconsistency in neighbourhood strength contributes to some of the dispari es that exist across our city (economic, social, health). If the City of London doesn t con nue to support and strengthen all neighbourhoods in this way, these dispari es across our city will run the risk of deepening, poten ally requiring greater investment in the future. Some other specific risks include: 1 Lack of trust between residents and Civic Administra on and Council it is important to foster an environment that: invites and encourages ci zen par cipa on and engagement; is accessible to ci zens needs; and listens to their needs (Council recognizes this in their Strategic Plan under both Strengthening our Community and Leading in Public Service) 2 Lack of momentum community leadership is cri cal in developing vibrant, connected and engaged neighbourhoods. Without ongoing opportuni es to engage and empower residents to have greater involvement in decisions that impact their neighbourhoods, Civic Administra on and Council will lose the connec on to local residents and neighbourhood groups 3 Neighbourhood engagement stays the same and gradually declines residents aren t engaged, lack of support and connectedness amongst neighbours, dispari es grow in neighbourhoods across our city Page 330

80 4 City does not prosper neighbourhoods are not vibrant, connected and engaged (decrease in quality of life for everyone); ci es can t only invest in neighbourhood infrastructure (place), there must also be investment in people to build strong neighbourhoods. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO SPARKS! Neighbourhood Matching Fund Information, London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy and 5 Year Implementation Plan, Page 331

81 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #14 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY CARING AND COMPASSIONATE SERVICES ELIMINATE BARRIERS FOR INDIVIDUALS FACING POVERTY, MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS AND HELP THEM FIND PATHWAYS TO BE SUCCESSFUL ONTARIO WORKS SERVICE PLAN LOW INCOME SUPPORTS ENHANCEMENT SANDRA DATARS BERE ONTARIO WORKS INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $1, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $100* * Initiative to be partially funded from Provincial Subsidy and the Social Services Reserve Fund Page 332

82 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): Base Budget Summary: The base budget provides for the delivery of Ontario Works which is a provincially mandated and legislated employment program that provides integrated financial and employment supports to help move people toward self-sufficiency. These efforts promote a strong, inclusive economy. The provision of employment and financial support services through the Ontario Works program is one of the key ways of promoting a caring community. The Ontario Works program enhances employability, increases employment, increases earnings and financial independence. The Ontario Works program currently funds an employment pilot with 1 staff. In 2015 a total of $300k is estimated to be spent and will be funded 50% by the Province and 50% by the City s Social Services Reserve Fund. BASE BUDGET METRICS Budgeted Ontario Works caseload * 11,200 11,800 11,900 11,900 11,900 Average length of time on Social Assistance for overall caseload (months) Percentage of caseload exiting to employment ** 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Percentage of intensive case management caseload exiting to employment ** 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% Civic Service Areas: Gross MCSS Subsidy Social Services Reserve Fund Net Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 1 0 * Ontario Works caseload statistics are subject to change under the new Provincial Ontario Works system. ** This is the percentage of participants that leave Ontario Works for employment. Page 333

83 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,020 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.01% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The Bridges out of Poverty/Circles initiative has operated in London since Intended to expand understanding of poverty and the issues facing those who experience it, the program was initiated by key community stakeholders and continues to have significant community support. The Bridges out of Poverty workshops are designed as a comprehensive approach to understanding the dynamics that cause and maintain poverty from the individual to the systemic level. Bridges out of Poverty uses the lens of economic class and provides concrete tools and strategies for a community to prevent, reduce and alleviate poverty. Workshops are aimed at all members of the community. The Circles model is a transformational approach to ending poverty one family at a time. It is based on mentoring, befriending relationships that form between people in middle class (called Allies) and people in poverty (called Leaders) where all are empowered through training to break down prejudice and allow relationships to form across class lines to support each other in ending the poverty journey. This is a wrap-around support which includes Circles meetings held weekly, individual activities between the Leader and their Allies, along with staff supports to keep the Circles going and most importantly to provide strong support for Leaders to address their barriers and keep the Leaders moving to employment and out of poverty. Through the work of influential leaders and Community Champions, Circles also identifies poverty issues and needs to create systemic change. In 2013, City Council approved an allocation of funding from the Social Services Reserve Fund to support an Ontario Works (OW) employment pilot for the Bridges/Circles initiative which is designed to: Transition individuals and families out of poverty Address systemic barriers that make it difficult for people to move out of poverty Increase Ontario Works employment outcomes; and As possible, reduce reliance on social assistance, which could result in an overall reduction in service costs Activities to support the attainment of these outcomes have been implemented. These activities include the delivery of the Getting Ahead 15 week program, the creation and ongoing operation of 2 Circles, as well as Bridges Out Of Poverty training for community members. These 3 distinct activities build awareness of poverty, address systemic issues and provide direct supports to individuals to assist in moving out of poverty and towards greater independence. Page 334

84 Success has been attained through the implementation of the Bridges/Circles Ontario Works employment pilot. Three quarters (3/4) of the Ontario Works clients involved in the pilot have experienced positive outcomes including employment, self-employment, attendance at education or training, or participation in a combination of the aforementioned indicators. Given that, on average, Ontario Works clients involved in the program have been in receipt of social assistance for over 5 years (which is twice the average for all clients in receipt of Ontario Works in London), strategies implemented through this initiative appear successful in supporting clients to better outcomes. Yet challenging conditions continue to exist for many in the community and have been exacerbated by economic and employment realities. Service statistics from the Ontario Works program also demonstrate need for additional supports: There has been a 48% increase in number of individuals/families receiving assistance (i.e. caseload size) from 2007 to 2014 The number of households that have been receiving benefits for one year or longer has grown to 63% The average time on assistance has gone from 21.7 months in 2009 to 31.2 months in 2014 Funding to continue the implementation of this program is being requested to support costs for the delivery of Getting Ahead and Circles which includes: One Employment Support Specialist for the Ontario Works Employment team to continue to co-facilitate Circles and support the Ontario Works clients who are participating in these services; Contract funding to Goodwill, the lead community partner, for the Circles Coordinator and Circles Coach, and also to fund some client specific supports that are not covered through Ontario Works funding. Expected outcomes/community impacts include: Individuals on Ontario Works who are in generational or long term poverty will begin to reduce reliance on social assistance and will exit from Ontario Works and out of poverty as a result of increased employment. This will reduce the average length of time on assistance, Ontario Works caseload and overall program costs. The community will continue its collaborative efforts to address systemic barriers that keep people in poverty. As individuals and families experience better economic and employment outcomes, they will move out of poverty, which will result in reduced reliance on social services and health care. There will be continued and broader understanding of issues faced by those experiencing poverty. As more people are involved in training, it will increase understanding of poverty, change community-wide and individual mindsets, identify new approaches to addressing poverty issues, and most importantly, determine how best to support people who live in poverty. Page 335

85 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,280 2,040 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Social Services Reserve Fund Other MCSS Subsidy 50% ,020 Net Tax Levy ,020 Additional Full-time Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Number of people receiving Bridges training Number of families/individuals supported through Circles Percentage of Circles caseload clients starting employment, education and/or training Reduction in average length of time on Social Assistance for overall caseload (months) % 65% 65% 65% Page 336

86 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Addressing poverty is an identified municipal and provincial priority. Bridges/Circles is demonstrating positive outcomes and community impacts and is being recognized by our community as one of 3 nominees for the Pillar Impact Award. This initiative, combined with several others in the community, present the opportunity to strengthen the community through the provision of caring and compassionate services. The risks of not proceeding include: 1 The supports available to long term Ontario Works clients would need to end which will reduce their potential for positive employment outcomes and the ability to leave Ontario Works. 2 Loss of a support to address caseload growth and increased longevity. 3 Loss of reputation by the City if this program is discontinued. This program addresses an identified Council priority and is highly regarded as an effective and innovative approach to moving people out of poverty. 4 Loss of a proven support to addressing poverty. 5 Inability to achieve reduction in length of time on assistance (OW caseload). Page 337

87 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #15 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY CARING AND COMPASSIONATE SERVICES ELIMINATE BARRIERS FOR INDIVIDUALS FACING POVERTY, MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS AND HELP THEM FIND PATHWAYS TO BE SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS STRATEGY SANDRA DATARS BERE ONTARIO WORKS INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $0* * Initiative to be funded from Provincial Subsidy and the Social Services Reserve Fund; no tax levy impact. Page 338

88 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Gross 868 3,463 MCSS Subsidy 810 3,408 Net Operating Full-Time Equivalents Base Budget Summary: Ontario Works is a provincially mandated and legislated employment program that provides integrated financial and employment supports to help move people toward self-sufficiency. These efforts promote a strong, inclusive economy. The provision of employment and financial support services through the Ontario Works program is one of the key ways of promoting a caring community. The Ontario Works program enhances employability, increases employment, increases earnings and financial independence. Under the Ontario Works program, the Province of Ontario funds an Addiction Services Initiative (ASI) which is a targeted employment assistance measure designed to provide access to treatment for those whose substance use is a barrier to participation in employment or other Ontario Works activities. The ultimate goal of addiction services is enhanced employability of participants, leading to their getting and keeping a job. Addiction screening and assessment will make it easier for participants to attend treatment and get the supports they need to get and keep a job. This base budget provides addictions supports delivery to Ontario Works clients and incudes staffing, employment supports and funding to Addictions Services of Thames Valley (ADSTV) for addictions assessment and treatment services. Page 339

89 BASE BUDGET METRICS Budgeted Ontario Works caseload * 11,200 11,800 11,900 11,900 11,900 Number of participants served in Addictions Services Program Percentage of addictions caseload exiting to employment (% of participants that leave OW for employment) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% * Ontario Works caseload statistics are subject to change under the new Provincial Ontario Works system. WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES A community mental health and addiction strategy has been identified in the City of London Strategic Plan as one important approach to assist in the elimination of barriers for individuals facing poverty, mental health and addiction. Mental health and addictions are health issues and as such, the Province is the lead. It provides, through Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN), core funding for mental health and addiction support agencies and acute and primary care organizations (including hospitals), in order to provide service to those in need. Yet current needs exceed services and funding available and projections from the South West LHIN (Health System Design Blueprint, Vision 2022) suggest service needs will continue to increase significantly over the next seven years. Page 340

90 The Province has recently developed a comprehensive approach to transforming the mental health system. Open Minds, Healthy Minds Ontario s Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy is the plan to support mental health throughout life, from childhood to old age, and to provide the integrated services and supports that Ontarians need if they experience a mental illness or addictions. The Provincial approach identifies that mental health and addictions issues impact many areas beyond the health sector. As a result, coordination is needed between health and community based sectors such as employment, homelessness, education and justice in order to fully support individuals and maximize positive community outcomes. The Provincial strategy is designed to address coordination and to reduce fragmentation. However, given the complexity of the interconnections, work may still be required to provide supports that meet the needs of individuals along the full continuum. Building on the Provincial approach and cognizant of the lead roles played by various mental health and addition service providers in the community, Civic Administration will initiate engagement with key stakeholders to explore the development of a coordinated community mental health and addictions strategy. Funding will be used during 2016 to facilitate cross-sector community engagement to support the development of an integrated and coordinated local strategy that combines the strengths of the transformed mental health and addictions system with the strengths and needs of the community. Once developed, City staff will support community agencies to determine what elements of the strategy can be implemented within the funding/resources available and what additional resources/requests are needed. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Grants (MCSS 50%) User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Social Services Reserve Fund Net Tax Levy Additional Full-time Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Development of a community plan for local integration of mental health services with sectors beyond the health care system Complete in 2017 Page 341

91 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Without the proposed investment, City staff will be unable to show leadership in our coordination and support roles for broader community needs and strategies related to mental health and addictions Some other specific risks include: System-wide coordination will not be maximized and fragmentation will continue. Development of a system that is too medically/treatment based. A system that has inadequate focus on prevention. Loss of cross sector collaboration opportunities that are so critical for prevention and recovery. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO See attached link to Open Minds, Healthy Minds - Ontario s Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy Page 342

92 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #16 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY SUB PRIORITY: STRATEGY: CARING AND COMPASSIONATE SERVICES 1. ELIMINATE BARRIERS FOR INDIVIDUALS FACING POVERTY, MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS AND HELP THEM FIND PATHWAYS TO BE SUCCESSFUL. 2. WORK WITH COMMUNITY AGENCIES TO HELP TENANTS KEEP THEIR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AVOID HOMELESSNESS. 3. REDUCE AND PREVENT HOMELESSNESS. INITIATIVE: A. LONDON HOMELESS PREVENTION AND HOUSING PLAN INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): B. LONDON HOMELESS PREVENTION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN LYNNE LIVINGSTONE HOMELESS PREVENTION INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $3, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $2,892* * Ini a ve to be par ally financed by debt. Page 343

93 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Opera ng 1,351 5,404 Full Time Equivalents 5 6 Capital 0 0 Total Capital 0 0 Base Budget Summary: The base budget for Homeless Preven on under Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services supports the City of London s Homeless Preven on System Implementa on Plan. The programs, policies and prac ces funded under this outcome focused Plan are designed to address, reduce and prevent homelessness in London. Our collabora ve efforts with community agencies, through a Housing First response, help tenants to keep their exis ng housing and avoid homelessness. The base budget is primarily directed to the Housing Stability Bank providing small loans to assist Londoners with low income to obtain and retain their housing and to keep those at risk of homelessness housed. To achieve the outcomes iden fied in the Plan, funds from all orders of government are applied. Efforts con nue to transi on community services from diver ng individuals from entering into an emergency shelter, shelter specializa on and rapid housing once in shelter. By achieving these outcomes, priority popula ons are immediately supported with housing stability versus homelessness. BASE BUDGET METRICS Reduce Emergency Shelter Use 5% 10% 10% 10% 10% Decrease in Emergency Services Diversion (Police, ER, EMS) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Persistently Homeless Households that Achieve Housing Stability Page 344

94 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumula ve) ,146 1,146 2,892 8,374 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.04% 0.04% 0.14% 0.0% Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $292 thousand, and : $874 thousand. INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES All orders of Government, including Municipal Council, have approved London s Homeless Preven on System Implementa on Plan. The Plan concentrates on delivering ac onable and measurable solu ons in purposeful and strategic ways with community level results, consistent service delivery and informa on management. The deliverables are organized into five areas of focus: Securing Housing, Housing with Support, Housing Stability, Shelter Diversion and Strategy, Competency and Capacity. Two primary efforts require addi onal opera ng funding and capital funding. Ini a ve A From Homelessness to Housed Opera ng funding is required for housing supplement programs available to households moving from homelessness into housing. Commencing in 2016, and for each year following, housing supplements will be provided to a minimum of 150 households at an annual cost of $200,000 for the first year, $400,000 for the second year and the full cost of $500,000 for each subsequent year with the aim of providing supplements to a minimum of 300 households per year. A significant challenge is the affordability of units for low income Londoners. Housing supplements provide an immediate and effec ve way to support a aining housing in neighbourhoods families and individuals choose as where they believe they can be most successful in achieving stability. Housing supplements provide an immediate housing solu on, addressing gaps in services (from homelessness to rapidly housed) and supports the move to housing stability. This evidence informed prac ce complements exis ng housing solu ons, adds to the diversity and range of housing op ons available, allows flexibility rela ve to household size, neighbourhoods and access to immediate permanent housing. London has achieved strong success with its current, modest housing supplements, par cularly when delivered through a Housing First service. A housing supplement is paid directly to the landlord and is based on the difference between what a household can afford to pay and the cost of the unit. Maximum levels are set and monthly contact is maintained with the landlord to ensure that a posi ve rela onship and monitoring is in place between the landlord, tenant and funded agency. Page 345

95 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,600 3,000 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Exis ng Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,600 3,000 Addi onal Full me Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Addi onal decrease in emergency shelter use and cost for chronic shelter users Decrease in emergency services diversion (police, ER, EMS) Increase number of individuals and families retaining their homes (retain housing 6 months+) Decrease by 50 Decrease by 100 Decrease by 300 Decrease by 300 individuals individuals individuals individuals Decrease by 10% Decrease by 10% Decrease by 10% Decrease by 10% Increase by 25 households Increase by 25 households Increase by 25 households Increase by 25 households Ini a ve B Inves ng in Our Youth Experiencing Homelessness The first phase of London s Homeless Preven on System Implementa on Plan focused on reducing pressures on emergency shelter use. Special programs, along with the commitment of the emergency shelter operators, have been successful in achieving demonstrated results. Between 2012 and July 1, 2015 there has been a voluntary reduc on of emergency shelter beds from 360 beds to 320 beds. The re tooling of our emergency shelters, along with our exis ng homeless serving organiza ons, con nues. Investment of me and resources are dedicated to introducing centralized intake for emergency shelters, an integrated data base and specializa on of services based on the unique needs of the popula on. Street involved youth and youth experiencing homelessness in London require youth specific, trauma informed immediate services to address the exis ng gap in services. To respond to the growing trend of youth, the goal is to design and open a youth focused Housing First Emergency Shelter aimed at rapid housing, reconnec on to family and las ng support services. Both capital and annualized opera ng costs are required. The addi onal funding requested will finance the capital cost of construc ng a youth focused shelter, as well as the ongoing opera onal costs of opera ng the shelter. Page 346

96 Currently, street involved and homeless youth are provided an emergency shelter bed at The Salva on Army Centre of Hope. There is limited ability to provide a dedicated youth unit, or provide integrated services. Young men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 o en share dormitory beds with older adults. The Centre of Hope currently operates 136 emergency beds and, along with other services offered, there are o en over 500 individuals using the services of the Centre of Hope. Youth are at risk of harm including sexual exploita on and abuse, exposure to street drugs, gang ac vity, discrimina on, bullying and violence. The poor personal outcomes o en lead to an increase in street entrenchments, addic on, mental health and exposure to violence, abuse and distrac on from family and organiza ons that can assist with stability. Evidence informed models are being developed in other communi es based on a Housing First approach. In this approach a youth shelter is focused on the immediate response to prevent street involved youth from moving to an extensive and damaging experience of homelessness. The Housing First shelter includes ac ve involvement with community outreach ini a ves to have a collabora ve, immediate response to new street involved youth including rapid short term accommoda on and basic needs. The focus is immediate access to permanent housing with ongoing built in supports. Services include efforts to maintain or re establish family connec ons, and provide targeted interven ons and services during mes of crisis to support and maintain new housing. Shelter stays are designed to connect youth to appropriate services based on their unique needs including their income security, educa on, addic on and mental health, experience of trauma, sexual abuse, exposure to domes c violence, and homophobia, while linking the youth to a wider system of care for as long as is required. The addi onal funding requested will finance the capital costs of construc ng a youth focused shelter as well as the ongoing opera onal costs of opera ng the shelter. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,000 4,500 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Exis ng Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,000 4,500 Addi onal Full me Equivalents Page 347

97 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure 0 1, ,200 0 Source of Funding: Debt 0 1, ,200 0 Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total : $292 thousand, and : $874 thousand. METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Youth achieving appropriate housing within 14 days of entering shelter Youth who have improved outcomes (social determinants of health, income, educa on, and overall health) Increased number of youth housed with support Page 348

98 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? By not implemen ng these ini a ves, there is a risk of not achieving the objec ves of the City of London s Homeless Preven on System Implementa on Plan. Some other specific risks include: 1 The solu on to homelessness is immediate access to a ainable housing. When housing supplements are a ached to exis ng inhome support, the risk of ongoing homelessness is eliminated on a permanent basis. 2 Housing supplements provide an immediate resolu on to an immediate housing crisis. By not implemen ng housing supplements the wai ng list for rent geared to income increases and there will be an increased failure in housing stability. 3 Increased demand for emergency shelter resul ng in an increase cost to shelter use (cost per month per individual in shelter is $1,452 versus an average monthly cost per individual of $150 per month to achieve permanent housing). 4 Street entrenched youth will increase resul ng in declining educa on, an increase in addic ons, and contact with police and jus ce responders. Long term poor outcomes. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO LONDON HOMELESS PREVENTION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LONDON S HOMELESS PREVENTION SYSTEM PROGRESS REPORT AND UPDATE, AGENDA ITEM #4, Page 349

99 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #17 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY SUB-PRIORITY: HEALTHY, SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE CITY STRATEGY: CONTINUE TO MAKE PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING ROUTES SAFER YEAR ROUND FOR SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN INITIATIVE: WINTER MAINTENANCE STRATEGY INITIATIVE LEAD(S): JOHN BRAAM SERVICE(S): SNOW CONTROL (WINTER MAINTENANCE) INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $1, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $1,750 Page 350

100 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 12,744 52,854 Full-Time Equivalents Boards & Commissions: London Transit Commission Base Budget Summary: To provide a safe, clear mobility on roadways, pathways and sidewalks in periods of inclement climate conditions (winter) to the citizens, businesses and community at large while meeting the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) contained within the regulations of the Ontario Municipal Act and thus supporting a Reliable Infrastructure. The City of London is contracted by the London Transit Commission for the winter maintenance of bus stops. BASE BUDGET METRICS Cost of winter mtce ($/lane KM) $3,379 $3,430 $3,481 $3,533 $3,586 Cost of winter mtce ($/Capita) $33.42 $33.60 $33.75 $33.81 $34.02 Sidewalk clearing 8 cm 8 cm 8 cm 8 cm 8 cm Parks pathway clearing * No standard No standard No standard No standard No standard White Oaks Park pathways Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 School Zones/Seniors Home Areas Priority 3 Priority 3 Priority 3 Priority 3 Priority 3 *Excluding White Oaks Park Pathway **For levels of service for Winter Operations sidewalks and streets, see attached Appendix A from Winter Maintenance Program Enhancements Report to the Civic Works Committee on November 3, Page 351

101 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,750 3,000 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.05% 0.05% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES On November 3, 2015, Civic Works Committee received a report on various options to enhance the existing winter maintenance program. The following are the options in the report: Table 3 Winter Maintenance Enhancement Options for Sidewalks Option Description Cost A Status Quo $0 Existing sidewalk practice (8 cm) with existing resources allow plowing to proceed uninterrupted with spot sanding or salting occurring after roads are completed. B Standard Enhancement - 5 cm Response Increasing the level of service by deploying sidewalk plows at 5 cm accumulation. Would require a response for 6 additional winter events on average per year. $300,000 C Standard Enhancement Prioritize School Zones/Seniors Home Areas 8 cm Response Increasing the level of service by modifying sidewalk beats to add sidewalk within 200 m of schools/seniors home to Priority 1 (8 cm response). Enhanced snow clearing in school zones exists where the school is on a major road. Schools that are situated on local streets are cleared and part of the local sidewalk clearing protocol. The same scenario exists with senior and health care area. Routes would be linked back to Priority 1 routes since it would be impractical to jump over to these areas and then back over to the remaining areas without creating a lot of non-essential travel time. $500,000 Page 352

102 Option Description Cost D Standard Enhancement Continuous Salting of full sidewalk network This option would involve the use of salt on all sidewalks while initial plowing is ongoing. Would $2,200,000 plus damage costs require multiple plowing passes to reduce the depth of snow pack. This option would be contrary to the Salt Management Plan and have a significant impact on abutting sod, vegetation and environmental receivers. Additional costs would be incurred for replacement of sod and vegetation. E Shovel By-law - Implement a by-law that would require property owners to scrape the sidewalks bare. This option would require an increase in by-law enforcement service and reduce contracted services. The City would be required to do extensive lengths of sidewalk where they are the abutting land owner. Equipment used to clear LTC bus stops would no longer be available and the City would discontinue this service. Higher inspection, manual labor clearing and enforcement costs would create a cost neutral scenario at best. $0 Table 4 Winter Maintenance Enhancement Options for Pathways Option Description Cost F Service Enhancement All Parks Pathways $194,120 Expand to Class 3 sidewalk service to all park pathways 115 km at $1688 per km G Service Enhancement 50 % Parks Pathways $92,840 Expand to Class 2 or 3 sidewalk ONLY to service to parks where those paths are the preferred pedestrian routes 50% of park pathways 55 km at $1688 per km H Service Enhancement Entire TVP Expand Class 3 sidewalk service to the balance of the TVP 30 km at $1688 per km $50,640 Page 353

103 Option Description Cost I Service Enhancement TVP from King Street to Richmond Street Expand service on the TVP ONLY from King street to Richmond Street 6 km at $1688 per km $10,130 Table 5 Options for Parking Bays & Bus Stops Option Description Cost J Parking Bays Provide service to 13.3 km of boulevard parking bays at $3,379 per km $45,000 K Bus Stops LTC Clear bus stops at same time as the sidewalks (8 cm standard)additional standby costs $340,000 Consistent with the report to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on September 14, 2015, a placeholder with a cumulative budget impact of $1.750 million has been included in the tax levy impact table. During budget deliberations, specific enhancements are required to be identified. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,750 3,000 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,750 3,000 Additional Full-time Equivalents Page 354

104 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Sidewalk clearing Parks pathway clearing* White Oaks Park Pathway School Zones/Seniors Home Areas *Excluding White Oaks Park Pathway Impact on metrics is subject to enhancement(s) that are approved. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 Slip and fall claims will continue to occur. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Civic Works Committee - February 3, Roadway Winter Maintenance Program Civic Works Committee November 3, Winter Maintenance Program Enhancements Page 355

105 OBJECTIVE Appendix A QUALITY STANDARD FOR WINTER OPERATIONS SIDEWALKS The major objective for Winter Operations sidewalks are: to reduce the hazards of snow and ice to pedestrians to reduce economic losses to the community and industry caused by workers not being able to get to their jobs. SUMMARY In order to assign specific levels of service for Winter Operations sidewalks, all sidewalks in the City of London have been classified according to the following: Streets By-law Class 1 Located within designated area as defined in By-law S where primary responsibility for winter operations. 2 nd Priority Class 3 Primarily secondary collectors, collectors where there is no London Transit route designated and local streets. Provides access to abutting property owners. Includes pedestrian walkways. Closed Class 4 Pedestrian walkways closed for winter. Page 356

106 The level of service to be provided for Winter Operations Sidewalks shall be in accordance with the following: Class 1 Sidewalks Surface shall be maintained as bare as possible through enforcement of the provisions of the Streets By-law pertaining to the designated area where the primary responsibility for winter operations rests with the abutting property owner. When non-compliance with provisions of the Streets By-law are noted, works shall be completed by assignment of manpower, equipment and materials as required. Class 2 and 3 Sidewalks Surfaces shall be maintained in a snow packed condition by assignment of manpower, equipment and materials as necessary. The maximum allowable accumulation of fresh snow shall be 8 cm. Ploughing shall be completed within 24 hours after an accumulation of 8 cm. During periods of excessive or continual snowfalls Class 2 sidewalks shall be given first priority treatment and Class 3 sidewalks shall be given second priority treatment. Salt/sand mixture shall be applied in isolated sections only, general at intersections, school crossings and PXO s. Class 2 sidewalks shall be given first priority treatment for sanding/salting. Continuous sanding and/or salting and sanding shall not be completed except under conditions of freezing rain or generally slippery conditions. Class 4 Sidewalks Class 4 sidewalks shall be closed from December 1 to March 30 and no winter operations shall be completed. Page 357

107 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #18 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): GROWING OUR ECONOMY DIVERSE AND RESILIENT ECONOMY PARTNER WITH THE LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ON THE BACK TO THE RIVER PROJECT LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION S BACK TO THE RIVER PROJECT JOHN FLEMING SERVICE(S): PLANNING SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $5, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $0* * Initiative to be funded from one-time London Hydro dividend; no tax levy impact. Page 358

108 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Back to the River (PD1215) Total Capital Base Budget Summary: The base budget for the London Community Foundation Back to the River initiative will fund the first stage of detailed design work an Environmental Assessment for the inaugural project from the winning design The Ribbon of the Thames. However, it will not support the completion of the design process, tendering, construction administration processes, nor implementation of the design the actual capital improvements to the waterfront. BASE BUDGET METRICS Number of people using the Forks area Base data to be collected No change from base No change from base No change from base Construction value of building permits within 400m $3M/year (5 year average) $3M/year (5 year average) $3M/year (5 year average) $3M/year (5 year average) $3M/year (5 year average) Number of new businesses within 400m 13/year (6 year average) 13/year (6 year average) 13/year (6 year average) 13/year (6 year average) 13/year (6 year average) Lift in assessment value within 400m $15M/year (5 year average) $15M/year (5 year average) $15M/year (5 year average) $15M/year (5 year average) $15M/year (5 year average) Environmental additional habitat, shoreline restoration & tree cover projects Note: These metrics may require revision i.e. future phases will include more of a focus on environmental restoration and benefits Page 359

109 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,000 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: The funding for the first phase of this project is from the London Hydro one-time dividend and therefore would not affect the tax levy. Future phases of this initiative during the timeframe are anticipated to be funded from the tax levy. INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The goal of this project is to create an active, accessible and attractive riverfront to give Londoners a place to work, play and call home a place that draws the community together. Similar projects have been proven to spur private investment in residential and business development. In Pittsburgh, PA, every $1 invested in riverfront improvements has generated $32 in private investment along the riverfront. With similar aims of economic development, improving city-image and providing outstanding community space, municipalities across Ontario are improving their waterfronts Burlington, Cambridge, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor are some good examples. Saskatoon is another example of a mid-sized city that has recently undertaken major improvements to its riverfront (which has prompted significant private sector development on adjacent properties). In 2015, the London Community Foundation (LCF), the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) and the City of London partnered to lead an international design competition in an effort to revitalize a five kilometer stretch of the Thames River radiating from the Forks in three directions to Wharncliffe Road, Adelaide Street South and Oxford Street. At the conclusion of the design competition in Fall 2015, the submission by Civitas + Stantec Consulting Ltd. The Ribbon of the Thames, was declared the successful proposal by the competition s Jury. The team of Civitas + Stantec Consulting Ltd. will be awarded a design contract with the City to begin the detailed design of the Inaugural Project see Other Information To Refer To section for an overview of the winning submission. An Environmental Assessment is required to fully assess and refine the winning design concept and coordinate its development with a variety of other projects occurring in the Downtown and at the Forks (e.g. separating storm and sanitary wastewater in the Downtown, extension of the Dyke, Dundas Place Flex Street, etc.). The Environmental Assessment process will include further public consultation, coordination with related City initiatives and input from all regulatory agencies required to gain approvals necessary for construction. The Page 360

110 funding requested through this business case will be utilized to complete the design phase (2016/17) and construct many components of the Forks of the Thames Concept the exact scale and scope to be determined by Council. In selecting The Ribbon of the Thames design, the Jury recommended that The Ribbon look-out ( boomerang bridge see item 2 on diagram in Other Information To Refer To section) be included in the Inaugural Project as it is the key focal feature of the design. The total scope of work is beyond what was originally contemplated in the Design Competition s preliminary cost estimate for the Inaugural Project; however the request in the budget cycle has been limited to $5.35 million (inclusive of design costs). The additional funding of $2 million to complete the larger scope of work is proposed for 2020, bringing the total request for Phase 1 to $7.35 million. An additional $5 million has been included in the period to support Phase 2, resulting in a total request of $12.35 million for Phases 1 & 2. Staff continue to work with the London Community Foundation to explore the opportunity for their contribution to the Forks inaugural project, understanding that, to date, their interests have been focused on the inaugural project in SoHo. Proceeding with Phase 1 implementation supports recommendations made in the Thames Valley Corridor Plan, Downtown Master Plan, Parks & Recreation Strategic Master Plan and ReThink London. The Phase 1 project scale may increase if matching funding is secured from the LCF, senior government infrastructure grants, or other sources. Committing the City s capital funding portion and having shovelready construction plans will allow us to apply for other sources of funding to support a larger project should that funding be available. It is important to understand that the Forks inaugural project is made up of different components. These are well described on the attached diagram in the Other Information To Refer To section. Some of these components are already scheduled for a date beyond the four year budget window. Council has the option of reducing the scope of the project, which would be addressed by removing one or more components. In doing so, it is important to ensure that an adequate scope of works remains to make identifiable change and impact at the Forks even if that scope is not adequate to make a transformational impact. CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure 350 5, ,350 7,000 Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other London Hydro Dividend 350 5, ,350 0 Capital Levy ,000 Page 361

111 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Number of people using the Forks Base data to be Base Base + 10% Base + 15% area (standardized counting method) collected in 2016 Additional construction value of building permits within 400m $0/year $0/year $0.2M/year $0.2M/year Additional number of new businesses within 400m Incremental lift in assessment value within 400m Environmental additional habitat, shoreline restoration & tree cover projects 0/year 0/year 1/year 1/year $0/year $0/year $1M/year $4M/year WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? This project has widespread community support, and is expected to provide for a successful community partnership between the City, the Conservation Authority and the London Community Foundation. The international design competition has broadened the public s knowledge about this project, and not proceeding with a significant City contribution to the project may affect these relationships. Furthermore, the London Community Foundation intends to seek out additional private sector funding for subsequent phases of riverfront revitalization as described in the overall plan. If the City does not proceed with the inaugural project, the likelihood of attracting significant private sector funding to implement the Back to the River Plan may decline. Some other specific risks include: 1 Risks regarding community and business relationships relating to this project that were established through numerous Council public engagement processes including, but not limited to, the Thames Valley Corridor Plan, London Downtown Master Plan and ReThink London. Page 362

112 2 Loss of opportunity for the City to generate development interest in the downtown core with a goal of fronting the river and bringing Londoners back to the river. Opportunity to lead by example to stimulate investment and high quality development in the downtown core. 3 Potential to lose ground to competing cities across Ontario, Canada and North America that are improving their central waterfront areas, for the purpose of improving their image, furthering quality of life, and attracting/retaining labour force and new investment in their city. OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO London Community Foundation - Back to the River London s Downtown Plan Thames Valley Corridor Plan - Page 363

113 Page 364

114 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #19 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY SUB-PRIORITY: DIVERSE AND RESILIENT ECONOMY STRATEGY: SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES BY IMPROVING CITY PROCESSES INITIATIVE: STREAMLINE APPROVAL PROCESS IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIATIVE LEAD(S): GEORGE KOTSIFAS SERVICE(S): DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $252 Page 365

115 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? There is currently nothing in the budget allocated to the implementation of this initiative. WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.01% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES This investment will be for an additional position whose primary responsibility will be enhancing the relationship between Development & Compliance Services staff and the public by providing a web-based customer communication channel focusing on easily-accessible electronic information with respect to planning applications and development applications (i.e. Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, draft plans of subdivision and associated amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, draft plans of condominium, condominium conversions, part-lot control by-laws, minor variance, rezoning, consent, public consultation, etc.), as well as serve other areas within Development & Compliance that require web assistance. Usually confusing applications will now be captured on the website in a manner that is simplified, easy to navigate and provides an opportunity for engagement. Application details will be pulled from AMANDA into a user-friendly interface that will provide status of applications, map options (using interface with GIS), and staff contact information. This position will ensure the application information available on our website is current and accurate, while sharing the same information via social media channels such as Twitter and RSS feeds. Page 366

116 CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy Additional Full-time Equivalents METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Concise web content and readability 100% 100% 100% 100% Social media channels employed WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Some other specific risks include: 1 Inefficient use of staff time answering phone inquiries because the Website is not being used by the public or is too difficult to use. 2 Overcomplicating materials and website navigation. 3 Inability to reach a wide spectrum of the public due to few communication channels be used. Page 367

117 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #20 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY SUB-PRIORITY: URBAN REGENERATION STRATEGY: INVEST IN LONDON S DOWNTOWN AS THE HEART OF OUR CITY INITIATIVE: LONDON S DOWNTOWN PLAN - SMALL SCALE PROJECTS INITIATIVE LEAD(S): JOHN FLEMING SERVICE(S): PLANNING SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $100 Page 368

118 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? There is currently no base budget allocated to the implementation of this initiative. WHAT NEW INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,000 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.02% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES In April 2015, Council adopted Our Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan, as Municipal Council s strategy for future public and private investment in London s Downtown. It is the successor to the Downtown Millennium Plan [DMP] which won a Pinnacle Achievement Award from the International Downtown Association for its successful implementation. The State of the Downtown Report has tracked steady progress in the regeneration of London s Downtown using a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures, most notably the rise in downtown s assessed property value. The Report continues to serve as the main tool for measuring downtown s regeneration. With the launch of Our Move Forward, a base roster of 18 small & medium scale projects was drafted to implement the 6 Strategic Directions in the Plan. [See Other Information appended below]. They respond to current and foreseeable needs and opportunities, spanning a period of 2 4-year budget cycles so that short-term and medium-term capital planning options can be weighed, with flexibility to advance or postpone what are considered to be the right things to do and the best time/circumstances in which to do them. The Plan anticipated an expenditure of $500k per year. The intent is to review the base roster before each budget cycle, and re-set if necessary, the projects and their timelines. Given resource constraints, and the significant investment represented by the business case for Dundas Place, an investment of $100k is being recommended within this multiyear budget for these small and medium scale projects. Page 369

119 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,000 Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy ,000 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) # of small-scale projects completed Increase in street-level events event # of partner events # of clean and green projects Increase in pedestrian counts Downtown %, depending on the event or project WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Stalling, slowing, or not proceeding with these projects risks backtracking on the progress made in raising the value that downtown London contributes to the city s economic health and reputation. Some other specific risks include: 1 Fewer private sector investments contributing to assessed property value 2 Reduced chances at attracting national & international caliber events and conventions to London 3 Reduced appeal in downtown as a residential option and London as an attractor of value-added jobs 4 Fewer opportunities to partner with private and agency partners to stimulate Downtown investment 5 Missed opportunities for partnering with a scheduled National event Page 370

120 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Our Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan: ACTIVITY Culture District Enhancements: Venue identification signs, venue-enclosure fencing, and other reusable permanent fixtures to define, stage & promote music, entertainment & other cultural activities London s Downtown Plan page reference BUDGET ESTIMATE (k) PRIORIITY RANK Proposed City Lead [partners] 43 (6.1 & 6.2) Urban Regen [Culture Office] Decorative / uplighting project: create an animated and creative space during the evening by strategically lighting buildings and/or above/around the spaces between them 43 (6.3) Urban Regen [Urban Design] Waste management / seasonal plantings co-op program: Work with MainStreet London to purchase equipment & establish programs for downtown property owners to sponsor/maintain seasonal container plantings, manage waste collection & reduce energy costs Wellington / York Gateway: Landscaping and sidewalk public space upgrade focussed around major intersection closest to the VIA Train Station to create a welcoming and positive experience for visitors arriving in London Gateway entry identification features: Permanent signs or other means at a scale signbificant enough to mark the main entry points to downtown Wayfinding sign program: Permanaent "family of" pedestrian scale of signs, installed according to an adopted plas, to help navigation through downtown and point out significant landmarks. New Events seed fund: City contribution to launch a revolving funding program for juried activities & events that keep Dundas Street animated with activities, after Dundas Place initial phase(s) are constructed Dog amenities for downtown residents: Fencing, ground-covers, & waster-disposal units to create enclosed off-leash dog runs and rest areas to manage public space cleanliness & create convenient comfortable locations for dog-owners to socialize Downtown street-sign program: Replace street-name signs with a consistent sign design referencing its cultural heritage to identify downtown as a unique neighbourhood 39 (4.8) Urban Regen [Env Services] Urban Design [Forestry; Parks Planning;Urban Regen; Transportation] Urban Design [Urban Regen, Transportation] 37 (3.6) Urban Design [Urban Regen, Transportation] 33 (1.5) Urban Regen [Culture Office] 41 (5.6) Parks Planning [Urban Regen] 41 (5.4) (5.5) Urban Regen [Urban Design] Page 371

121 ACTIVITY Downtown Mgmt Organization independent study: to determine whether and what type of organization the downtown can benefit from, with an emphasis on funding its operations from non-city sources Heritage interpretive signs: Permanent signs of a consistent design, linked with mobile devices that can serve as a self-guided tour, explaining the people, buildings and places that shaped the historical significance & legacy of downtown Railway underpass upgrading: Lighting, painting, planting, and artistic enhancements [supplementray to structural or maintenance investments] installed on the Richmond and Wellington Streets underpasses to create a more inviting environment for pedestrians London s Downtown Plan page reference BUDGET ESTIMATE (k) PRIORIITY RANK Proposed City Lead [partners] 43 (6.6); Urban Regen 65 (5.21) Urban Regen [Urban Design] 37 (3.4); Transportation [Urban Design, Urban Regen] Vacant lot temporary use fit-out [non-parking lot]: Partnership fund used to supplement owners' cost of adapting vacant property to use it for passive & active pedestrian use, especially where temporary commercial parking lot zoning may not be renewed Urban Design [Parks Planning, Forestry] Alternative energy infrastructure: Funds allocated to a City-sponsored project using solar-, district-, or other alternative energy and/or its infrastructure, to demonstrate unconventional ways of reducing energy use downtown Children s play equipment: Custom- and/or community-designed play structures and equipment that appeals to families living downtown, and attracts more children visits downtown in locations supplementing parks View identification & protection study: Independent consultants' study to define critical view corridors of the Thames River, parks, and/or established landmarks, and the means to protect them, to help guide optimal siting of proposed tall buildings and/or property consolidations 63 (4.6) Urban Regen [Env Services] 41 (5.6); 64 (5.19) Parks Planning [Urban Regen] 35 (2.4); 62 (2.3) 50 3 Urban Design Cycling end-of-trip facilities: City contribution to amenities for general-public [vs propertyspecfic] cyclist that may include secure weather-protected bicycle parking, showers, and change rooms Laneways upgrading: Paving upgrades, lighting, public art, trees and plantings, signage, supplemental security surveillance and other means of using the existing laneway system and where possible expanding it to create dynamic spaces for small-scale restaurants, retail, and community activity to spill into and offer pedestrians non-vehicular route options to better link destinations 62 (3.6) Urban Regen [Env. Services] 41 (5.3); Urban Design [Urban Regen] Page 372

122 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #21 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): SERVICE(S): GROWING OUR ECONOMY URBAN REGENERATION CREATE NEW PARTNERSHIPS TO BUILD, AND SUPPORT THE BUILDING OF, NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGENERATING PUBLIC HOUSING PLAN SANDRA DATARS BERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $750 Page 373

123 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? There is currently no base budget allocated to the implementation of this initiative. WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,750 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.05% 0.04% INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The 2018 funding request will be utilized to develop a detailed strategic plan that will define the process for regeneration/re-development of LMHC properties, inclusive of funding and partnership strategies, tenant impact and engagement strategies. The initial focus of regeneration activities will be on the re-development of aging townhouse complexes. The 2019 funding request will provide for the necessary assessments, land valuations and other costs to initiate the regeneration process and will be the basis for future capital development. Strategic partnerships will also be explored to support the planned regeneration activities. Subsequent to the completion of the strategic plan and associated assessments and valuations, regeneration activities at the identified sites will be commenced. The amounts projected for 2020 to 2025 are estimates based on currently known information. These estimates will be refined based on completion of the strategic plan and the specific target sites identified. Any operating costs associated with additional units of housing would be addressed within the pro forma budgets and rental revenues associated with the project as per normal practice with affordable housing developments. Page 374

124 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,750 Source of Funding: Debt Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy ,750 METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Completion of a comprehensive plan for regeneration of LMHC properties including financial strategies, tenant engagement & support plans Initial Site(s) - Regeneration Plans 3-5 sites identified** 10 sites** Increased number of affordable and market rate housing units through revised site plans 1 Increase affordable and market units by 10% over current social housing units at each site Increase affordable and market units by 10% over current social housing units at each site **NOTE: Regeneration activities at individual sites will occur over an extended period of time and will vary depending on the nature and extent of the re-development at each site. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the number of projects completed each year at this time. The comprehensive plan will provide further clarity on the potential duration and staging of projects. Page 375

125 WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? There are numerous risks associated with not proceeding with this initiative. Risks Include: 1 Not accessing value in existing stock to advance new affordable development and regeneration of old social housing units 2 Not achieving new affordable unit potential in affordable housing development 3 Not increasing value, diversity of stock, and asset potential on existing public (and other social housing) properties 4 Not supporting End of Operating Agreement strategies for social housing, which may result in increased longer term contributions to outdated sites 5 Fewer affordable units for persons in need 6 Viability of certain housing projects cannot be sustained and will deteriorate with impacts on their surrounding communities 7 Higher subsidy and upkeep costs by the City for housing sites with no increase in units or capacity OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Housing Development Corporation - Council Approval and Business Plan - Sept (HDC as Developer for Public and Social Housing Regeneration) End of Operating Agreement - Reports of the Service Manager Feb (End of Operating Agreement strategies based on investments and leveraging of assets to create more units) Agenda Item #11 Homeless Prevention and Housing Plan ( ) - Dec (End of Operating Agreements and Public Housing Regeneration) Page 376

126 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 22 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY SUB-PRIORITY: URBAN REGENERATION STRATEGY: INVEST IN LONDON S DOWNTOWN AS THE HEART OF OUR CITY INITIATIVE: DUNDAS PLACE INITIATIVE LEAD(S): JOHN BRAAM WITH JOHN FLEMING SERVICE(S): ROADWAY PLANNING & DESIGN WITH PLANNING SERVICES INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $15, NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $1,977* *Initiative to be partially financed by debt. Page 377

127 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE BUDGET? BASE BUDGET ($000 S): 2015 Civic Service Areas: Operating 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents 0 0 Capital Dundas Place 1,300 0 Total Capital 1,300 0 Boards & Commissions: LTC Operating 0 0 LTC Capital (Rerouting) 0 0 Base Budget Summary: The approved base budget is enabling the completion of the environmental assessment, My Dundas as required by the Environmental Assessment Act. It includes a thorough consultation process to engage stakeholders, including the public and business owners, to gather input on the design, implementation and operation of the facility that will turn Dundas into London s most exciting street. BASE BUDGET METRICS Environmental Assessment Approval to enable project implementation x Page 378

128 WHAT INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED FROM PROPERTY TAX? TAX LEVY IMPACT ($000 S): Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) ,416 1,977 13,945 Net Incremental Tax Levy Annual Tax Levy Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.10% 0.15% Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total $1.4 million, and $11.3 million. INITIATIVE DELIVERABLES The project aims to turn Dundas Street between Wellington Street and the Thames River into a flexible street serving as a prominent public place in London beyond just a space to move through. Instead it will become a destination to arrive at for shopping, leisure, civic activities and celebrations. The project will integrate life cycle and capacity upgrades to underground municipal infrastructure, coordinate utilities service upgrades and tops these with a unifying surface treatment, from building face to building face, enabling the space between to be easily transformed for functions at different times of the day/week/year. The project will provide a high standard for dayto-day and life cycle maintenance as an essential part of this project. In April 2015, Council adopted Our Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan, as Municipal Council s strategy for future public and private investment in London s Downtown. It is the successor to the Downtown Millennium Plan [DMP] which won a Pinnacle Achievement Award from the International Downtown Association for its successful implementation. The biennial State of the Downtown Report has tracked steady progress in the regeneration of London s Downtown using a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures, most notably the rise in downtown s assessed property value. The Report continues to serve as the main tool for measuring downtown s regeneration. This is the first of 10 larger-scale Transformational Projects presented in Our Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan, which together focus mainly on public space capital investments that complement the public buildings capital investments made in the former Downtown Millennium Plan. Being the condition and uses along Dundas Street reflect London s face to the world, it is a strategic direction of the Plan to make Dundas Street the most exciting place in London. Its comprehensive improvement will create an environment capable of resetting its historic role, in a modern way, as London s focal point for positive and compelling repeat experiences that will sustain quality businesses, increase property values, and attract visitors. Page 379

129 The environmental assessment, My Dundas is underway and will further develop the design concepts for the street. The environmental assessment will plan development, streetscape design, related studies, utility coordination, public and business consultation. The utility upgrades and transit modifications required prior to construction of the project are such that construction of the flexible street is envisioned in 2018 and The phasing of construction is envisioned in two years. Both the phasing and timing will be a subject to further discussions with adjacent business owners, the broader community and council. The project also enables the cost effective coordination of other life cycle infrastructure improvements such as watermain replacement and London Hydro upgrades. The initiative includes efforts to animate Dundas Street with a variety of programmed events and activities. This sets an expectation that the street acts as a destination regularly hosting civic and social events, which complement the informal and casual day-to-day pedestrian-oriented activities. For project success, the proposed facility requires a higher level of ongoing operations and maintenance than typical for the current Dundas Street. To achieve this, following its construction, estimated operating allocations of $150,000 annually will fund extra materials and specialized equipment to effectively and efficiently clean the space, remove snow, transition it from vehicle to non-vehicle use, provide shade/shelter, demarcate spaces for certain uses, etc. The project requires consideration for establishing an entity dedicated to its ongoing management function to ensure coordination of matters such as maintenance, security, seasonal decorations, event programming and scheduling, revenue generation, and vehicular access. There is potential for the Business Improvement Association to play a role in the ongoing operation of the facility. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy Additional Full-time Equivalents Page 380

130 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,400 6,300 13,300 0 Source of Funding: Debt ,400 6,300 13,300 0 Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: Total $1.0 million, and $10.1 million. METRICS (CUMULATIVE CHANGES) Monthly average of daily pedestrian counts # Of new targeted businesses operating # Of business frontages upgraded % vacant street level frontage* 2015 number to be reported in number to be reported in number to be reported in 2016 No change No change No change No change $ Assessed property value along the 4.1% increase * No change No change street # Stage events held/monthly average 2015 number to be of pedestrian-oriented business use/ 31/378,000 visitors * No change No change reported in 2016 other activities Note: Pre-construction pedestrian traffic counts and downtown commuter transit use will be established in 2016/2017 so that future progress can be measured. Downtown indicators (*) are 2013 results; the 2015 Downtown Report Card will be completed in early Page 381

131 RELATED INITIATIVE IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DUNDAS PLACE EA/TRANSIT RE- ROUTING/CONSULTATION WITH LONDON TRANSIT COMMISSION Subject to the recommendations of the environmental assessment, and considering the strategic direction of Our Move Forward to make Dundas Street the most exciting place in London, fixed bus routes operating on this segment of Dundas Street will be relocated. The removal of buses is intended to create more flexibility and versatility in using public space and promote pedestrian activity. Currently 21 conventional transit bus routes travel on or across Dundas Street through the downtown. LTC has indicated that this project will increase transit operating costs given the requirement to travel greater distances to provide the same service levels. Key to mitigating any negative ridership impact is maintaining current service levels and providing transit priority via the downtown which are assumed to be in place for costing purposes. LTC estimates the bus route reconfiguration will require one-time costs of $1.5 M for three additional buses and $170,000 for infrastructure relocation (wayside service information signage, stops, shelters, and transit priority measures). The ongoing operating cost increase is estimated at $282,000 per year. These assumptions are exclusive of any negative ridership and related revenue impact on the rerouting. Costing assumptions assume that specialized transit will continue to operate on Dundas Street subsequent to the completion of the project. CUMULATIVE OPERATING BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure ,692 Source of Funding: Grants User Fees Savings from Existing Budget Other Net Tax Levy ,692 Additional Full-time Equivalents Page 382

132 CUMULATIVE CAPITAL BUDGET ($000 S): Expenditure 0 1, ,700 0 Source of Funding: Debt 0 1, ,700 0 Reserve Fund Other Capital Levy Note: Debt servicing costs would be realized as follows: $413 thousand, and $1.2 million. There are no perceived transit improvements relating to this initiative and the cost estimates exclude any negative ridership impacts. There are no metrics for this piece of the initiative that would be viewed as positive. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING? Dundas Place is the key Transformational Project for Downtown London. The re-imagining of London s main street as the most exciting place in London will set the stage as the City moves to the next generation of civic investment in London s Downtown. Not proceeding with the project will have an impact on on-going and future private investment in Downtown. Some other specific risks include: 1 Delaying or not implementing the first Transformational Project in the Plan may call into question the commitment to implementing Our Move Forward. 2 Not integrating the under- and above-ground components of the project escalates costs of doing either individually and increases the construction impacts on abutting residences and businesses if the projects are separated. 3 Fewer private sector investments contributing to assessed property value/less opportunity to leverage the public investment made in the infrastructure improvements. 4 Reduced chances at attracting national & international caliber events and conventions to London. 5 Reduced appeal in downtown as a residential option and London as an attractor of value-added jobs. Page 383

133 OTHER INFORMATION TO REFER TO Some previous reports on this subject: CWC MAY 14, 2012 DUNDAS STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FORMULATING AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CWC AUGUST 25, 2014 DUNDAS FLEXIBLE STREET SCOPING STUDY, CONSULTING ENGINEER ASSIGNMENT INCREASE PEC FEBRUARY 2, 2015 OUR MOVE FORWARD: LONDON S DOWNTOWN PLAN CWC FEBRUARY 3, 2015 DUNDAS FLEXIBLE STREET SCOPING STUDY APPROVAL CWC JUNE 2, 2015 APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DUNDAS PLACE. AS WELL AS: CREATING DUNDAS PLACE: A FLEXIBLE STREET SCOPING STUDY OUR MOVE FORWARD: LONDON S DOWNTOWN PLAN: STATE OF THE DOWNTOWN REPORTS: Page 384

134 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE #23 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): GROWING OUR ECONOMY DIVERSE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ATTRACT AND RETAIN NEWCOMERS, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, FOREIGN TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, AND MULTI-GENERATIONAL IMMIGRANTS TO STRENGTHEN LONDON S WORKFORCE CITY OF LONDON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM (TO INCLUDE FOREIGN TRAINED PROFESSIONALS) VERONICA MCALEA MAJOR SERVICE(S): HUMAN RESOURCES NET INVESTMENT REQUESTED ($000 S): $ NET BUDGET REQUESTED ($000 S): $360 Page 385