2021 DRAFT
CAPITAL BUDGET OVERVIEW owensound.ca
THE SCENIC CITY Protected by the Niagara Escarpment, Owen Sound is a beautiful, green city home to cultural riches. With a population of almost 22,000 residents, the City of Owen Sound continues to be the urban heart of Grey County and a welcoming community to raise a family, start a business, or just enjoy an unrivalled quality of life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Capital Budget Overview Introduction
4
Terms & DeďŹ nitions
5
Achieving Results: 10th Street Bridge
6-7
City Mission, Vision & Values
8-9
What Funds The Capital Budget?
10
Where Are My Tax Dollars Going?
11
2021 Capital Budget Process
12 - 13
Achieving Results: Playgrounds
14 - 15
Budget Guiding Principles
16
Capital Budget Breakdown
17 - 24
Capital Budget Funding Sources
25
Achieving Results: Kelso Shoreline
26
Value of Capital Tax Dollars
27
Achieving Results: 16th Street East
28 - 29
Full Capital Project Summary
30 - 33
Achieving Results: Sidewalks
34
2021 New Fleet
35
Five Year Capital Forecasts
36 - 37
2021 DRAFT CAPITAL BUDGET OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Capital projects in Owen Sound represent a body of work that enhances and improves the lives of all residents of the City. Under the guide of Council’s Capital Priorities, projects have been identified that most benefit City residents, businesses and visitors, as well as utilize funding opportunities to extend the value of every tax dollar put towards capital projects. The 2021 Capital Budget and Five-Year Forecast builds on the successful 2020 budget process outcomes delivered earlier this year. This proposed 2021 budget of $12.9 million and five-year forecast totaling $86 million continues the progress which has been accomplished over the last three budgets to incrementally close the City’s infrastructure gap, improve the overall condition of our assets and support the policy directions of Council. Each budget year, staff use a continuous improvement outlook on budget development to incorporate learnings and feedback received from all stakeholders including internal staff, the community, media and Council. This year is no different and notable improvements and betterments to this process include: •
Enhanced communication to provide clarity and education about the City’s capital funding strategies and how they are supporting the journey to sustainability Better linkages between the Capital Budget funding and the related operating budgets Enhanced summarization of the 5-year forecast for improved understandability
• •
The City is continuing to put the building blocks of a long-term financial plan in place as the journey to sustainability continues over the next five-years and beyond. As revenue-neutral departments, water and wastewater rates do not impact the City’s budget as it relates to the tax levy. In order to comply with provincial legislation and ensure all water systems are properly maintained and tested, water and waste water capital plans have been reviewed separately and a deferral program that spreads capital spending over a greater period has been created. It should be noted that the deferred plan does not eliminate the burden for capital spending, however, it will potentially soften the future increases required. The City will review water and wastewater multi year capital and operating plans in detail each spring when water and wastewater rates are reviewed, evaluated and presented to Council. With the refreshed Strategic Plan coming into effect next year, a complete integration of its stated goals and objectives will be an outcome of the strategy teams and reflected in the 2022 budget. The current budget and forecast have been reviewed to ensure that principal projects proposed will align with the refreshed Strategic Plan. The 2021 Capital Budget continues the work of previous budgets in moving toward a sustainable level of capital investment that focuses balancing the demands of Infrastructure Renewal, Growth and City Building.
4
TERMS & DEFINITIONS Assessment growth refers to property taxes from new and/or expanded homes and/or businesses to pay for the services they receive. Capital Budget funds investments in municipal infrastructure (or assets) that provide a long-term benefit to the community. Examples of capital costs include building or replacing roads, vehicles, community centres and parks. Debt is funding the City has borrowed to complete capital projects. Existing Capital Balances are capital funding that have already been approved by Council, but have not been spent. Some capital projects take multiple years to complete (e.g. road reconstruction, building a new community centre), so the funding may accumulate for future spending. It may also be referred to as a ‘Carried Over’ item. Federal Gas Tax is annual funding provided to the City by the federal government for capital improvements. Grants are a sum of money given by a government or other organization for a particular project. Growth in terms of Capital Budget planning refers to the growth of the City’s residental population. Operating Budget funds the day-to-day costs of the municipality to provide its programs and services. Examples of operating costs include salaries and wages for city employees; utility costs, such as water and electricity; and operating supplies, such as road salt. Reserve/Reserve Funds are used to set aside funding now to be used for a specific purpose in the future. The City maintains reserves for both operating purposes (e.g. rate stabilization reserve funds), capital purposes (e.g. fleet and equipment reserve fund) and as required by legislation (e.g. federal gas tax reserve fund). Tax Levy is the amount of funding required from property taxes. It equals all of the tax supported gross expenditures minus all other revenues.
5
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
10TH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
6
APPROXIMATELY 300 CUBIC METRES OF CONCRETE AND 5,000 METRES OF REBAR WERE REQUIRED FOR THE BRIDGE DECK ALONE
Council voted unanimously to dedicate the 10th Street bridge as the Gitche Namewikwedong Bridge. The name means ‘Great Sturgeon Bay’ in Anishinaabemowin & acknowledges Owen Sound’s Indigenous history. With completion of the Municipal Class Environment Approval (MCEA) and the approval of $3M in grant funding from the Province of Ontario through the MTO’s Connecting Links Funding Program, City Council decided to proceed with the 10th Street
Bridge Replacement project. Currently on Milestone 7 - the concrete superstructure is expected to be open to traffic by the end of 2020 and completed in its entirety by May 2021. In addition to the bridge replacement, the trunk watermains and other watermains supplying the City’s north-west area have been replaced and upgraded. Storm sewer/drainage, traffic signals and road improvements are included in the project as well.
More than 35% of the 10th Street Bridge Replacement budget was funded by grant dollars, relieving tax payers of $3,000,000 toward the arterial City project.
7
CITY MISSION: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH SOUND LEADERSHIP The purpose is to strengthen our community and to make Owen Sound an attractive and prosperous place to live. This will be accomplished through sound leadership and visionary and forward-looking direction at the municipal government level. Sound leadership is multifaceted and means acting with integrity, being creative and innovative, listening to and collaborating with our community, neighbouring municipalities and Grey County, and ultimately acting in the best interest of Owen Sound residents as we work towards shared goals.
CITY VISION: THE CITY OF OWEN SOUND - WHERE YOU WANT TO LIVE Owen Sound’s vision exemplifies the desired future for our City. Owen Sound is a great place to live, work and play and we offer the small-town feel with big-city amenities. The vision statement reflects this and serves as an inspiration for our community.
8
CITY VALUES CARING We care about our community. We are a welcoming, inclusive, and age-friendly City. We strive for positive change and are committed to continue working in a collaborative fashion towards the city’s vision of being “Where You Want To Live”.
CREATIVITY We are a creative community that embraces innovation to find solutions with the greatest benefit for Owen Sound. As a City, we are resourceful and creative in order to thrive, regardless of external pressures.
INTEGRITY We demonstrate integrity by being open, transparent and communicative. We believe that continuing to communicate in an honest and informative way with residents will lead to more fruitful two-way conversations.
SUSTAINABILTY We demonstrate sustainability by acting in a financially, environmentally and socially responsible manner. 9
WHAT FUNDS THE CAPITAL BUDGET?
PROPERTY TAXES
GRANTS & EXTERNAL FUNDING
Property tax bills are divided between the City of Owen Sound, the County of Grey and the local school boards. Owen Sound uses its portion of the taxes to pay for City programs and services. This includes the services Owen Sound families rely on, including fire and emergency prevention services, parks and trails, recycle collection, snow removal and Capital Budget assets, repairs and investments such as road repairs and building maintenance.
The City of Owen Sound benefits from over $5 million in grant and external funding for the 2021 Capital Budget. This includes $1 million dollars from the Federal Gas Tax Fund directed to road repaving and accessible trail maintenance. City Staff work hard to utilize grants from the government and other organizations to extend the investment of each tax payer’s dollar in capital projects.
RESERVES
WATER & WASTEWATER RATES
The City of Owen Sound maintains Reserve Funds that are committed to fund capital projects identified in long term capital plans. These reserves offset project costs that are contingent on grant funding, so tax dollars are dedicated to capital projects that are guaranteed.
These are paid by residents and property owners for water-related services to ensure the City can provide safe drinking water, collect wastewater effectively, manage stormwater to mitigate flooding and save for future infrastructure needs.
10
WHERE ARE MY TAX DOLLARS GOING? GREY COUNTY 19%
CITY OF OWEN SOUND - 72% The City’s portion of residential taxes financially supports all City-provided services and infrastructure. In 2021, only 16.2% of each residential tax bill helps finance Capital projects throughout the year.
SCHOOL BOARD 9% 11
CAPITAL BUDGET PROCESS 2021 Identifying where a City’s greatest need for replacement and investment in new infrastructure or assets is one of the most important responsibilities a municipality has. With respect to the 2021 budget process, staff recommended a change, as per Report CR-20-045, which outlined a pre-budget session with Council to have the opportunity to provide input into the budget parameters used by staff in the budget development process.
12
JUNE 2020
JULY - SEPTEMBER 2020
OCTOBER 2020
Pre-budget session with Council to identify 2021 Capital common priorities and set spending thresholds. To adhere to current COVID precautions and safety measures, an online survey was completed by each Councillor in lieu of an in-person meeting. Council endorsed common priorities and budget thresholds presented from survey results at a Council Meeting on June 29, 2020.
Staff developed a detailed 2021 Capital and Operating Budget, employing the priorities identified by Council to recommend 2021 Capital Projects. Five Year Financial Plans were completed for proposed Capital projects, as well as a Capital Detail sheet for each project.
Staff reviewed and prioritized recommended Capital projects based on Budget Guiding Principles. This identified a project’s priority scoring based on Council’s direction as well as available financial resources.
NOVEMBER 2020
DECEMBER 2020
JANUARY 2021
Council budget deliberations for ďŹ nal proposed 2021 Capital Budget.
Full Budget Meeting with Council on December 3rd and 4th.
Final budget approval at Council Meeting in January.
13
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
TOT LOT PLAYGROUND
$100,000 HARRISON PARK PLAYGROUND UPGRADE SEPTEMBER 2020 COMPLETION
14
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
PLAY STRUCTURE UPGRADES
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS CAN MAKE OUR COMMUNITY MORE ACCESSIBLE AND INCLUSIVE.
HARRISON PARK
TIMBER MCARTHUR PARK
ENGINEERED WOOD FIBRE
The new playground features accessible amenities, offering a safe and inclusive outdoor recreation space for children of all ages and abilities. The upgrades provide accessibility enhancement in the areas of Mobility, Vision, Hearing, Mental Well-Being and Sensory. The Harrison Park Tot Lot is a central and heavily used space for park-goers. The new playground provides for a more modern feel and includes climbers, slides and spinners that support physical activity, intellectual development, social interaction and emotional wellness.
On Owen Sound’s east side, Timber McArthur Park had a new playground installed in August 2020 to enhance and improve free outdoor recreational space for local and visiting families. Anticipated life expectancy for new playground equipment is 25 years.
Playgrounds throughout the City have been upgraded with engineered wood fibre. This material is compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act as it easily compacts down for wheelchair accessibility, is softer, and is less prone to splitting than real woodchips. It’s manufactured specifically for playground use.
TOT LOT UPGRADE
PLAYGROUND UPGRADE
FOR SAFER PLAY
15
BUDGET GUIDING PRINCIPLES 01
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
In June 2020, Council identified three priority areas for 2021 Capital Budget projects to focus: Roads & Road Resurfacing; Improving the Downtown Core; and City Facilities.
DETAIL SHEET
02
Every Capital project has a detail sheet created by the staff lead to organize and categorize projects by Title, Capital Code & Priority Level.
SCORING MATRIX
03
04
16
Priority level of each project is aligned with a score based on a scoring matrix. The same matrix is used by all staff and is reviewed by two others not directly involved in each project. The matrix rationale is based on 10 scoring categories - each scored out of five, but each weighed differently toward overall score, reflective of Council’s identification of direct impacts. Scoring categories and relative weight out of five are outlined to the right.
STAFF TIME RESOURCES
Capital budget planning not only includes projects that can be financially afforded by the City, but also considers staff time as a resource. This budget includes a plan that we believe is achievable in 2021.
SCORE
CATEGORY
EXPLANATION
4.57
Operational Performance
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance?
4.43
Health & Safety
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
4.14
Finance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available?
4.14
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
4.00
Legislation
Is the project required for legislative or regulatory compliance?
3.57
People
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3.57
Asset Management
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan?
3.29
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives?
3.29
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement?
2.71
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan?
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN
ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING
CITY FACILITIES
IMPROVING THE DOWNTOWN CORE
67%
8.7%
2.3%
22%
$8,630,000
$1,118,000
$295,000
$2,842,800
TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET:
INVEST - RENEW - MANAGE
$12,885,800 17
COUNCIL PRIORITY #1
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING
67%
$8,630,000
CAPITAL TAX DOLLARS
85%
Of the $2.6 million tax dollars in the Capital budget, $2.2 million (or 85% of Capital Tax Dollars) are dedicated toward Council’s number one priority: Roads & Road Resurfacing. See full budget funding breakdown on page 25.
18
COUNCIL PRIORITY #1
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING
RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
1
10th St Bridge Replacement
83.8
1,000,000
6
Concrete Replacement & Asphalt Resurfacing
74.8
875,000
9
Resurfacing 16th St E - Phase One: 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E
71.4
25,000
10
Rehabilitation 16th St E - Phase Two: 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E
71.4
930,000
11
East Bayshore Rd (Grey Rd 15) - 3rd Ave E north to East Bayshore Rd Sewage Pump Station 69.6
5,300,000
15
Downtown & 10th St Corridor Traffic Signal Control
62.4
150,000
16
Reconstruction 9th Ave E - 20th St E to 23rd St E
61.8
350,000
For full budget detail sheets, please see Appendix A for Roads & Road Resurfacing Projects
19
COUNCIL PRIORITY #2
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN CITY FACILITIES
8.7%
$1,118,000
20
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: CITY FACILITIES RANKING
COUNCIL PRIORITY #2 PRIORITY SCORE
PROJECT TITLE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
14
Public Works Generator Set
63.0
90,000
19
Harrison Park Sanitary Connection, Replacement & Dumping Station Upgrades
54.0
100,000
28
Harrison Park Workshop Hot Water Heater System Replacement
50.4
15,000
30
Courthouse Windows & Doors Boarding
49.8
20,000
31
Courthouse Roof Replacement
49.8
100,000
32
Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Design & Drawings
49.0
30,000
40
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Flooring Replacement
46.6
50,000
41
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Roof Section 1 & 2 Replacement
45.2
150,000
43
Bayshore Roof Section 1 Restoration
44.2
65,000
44
Fire Station Roof Section 1 Replacement
41.4
350,000
45
Harrison Park Workshop Roof Replacement
41.0
20,000
47
East Side Boat Launch Building Upgrades
39.4
15,000
51
Harrison Park Senior Centre Grading Improvement & Eavestrough Replacement
36.8
13,000
52
Tom Williams Building Upgrades
36.6
15,000
54
Public Works Channel Drain
31.6
50,000
56
Greenwood Cemetery Office Basement Rehabilitation
30.6
15,000
62
Water Bottle Fill Stations
24.8
10,000
63
Cemetery Parking Lot Drainage
20.8
10,000
For full budget detail sheets, please see Appendix B for City Facilities Projects
21
COUNCIL PRIORITY #3
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN IMPROVING THE DOWNTOWN CORE
2.3%
$295,000
22
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
COUNCIL PRIORITY #3
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
12
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase One: 1st Ave E (800 Block)
67.0
30,000
13
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase Two: 1st Ave E (900 Block)
65.0
110,000
22
Pedestrian Crossing - 8th St E at 1st Ave E
52.2
25,000
23
Decorative Streetlight Replacement
52.0
60,000
36
Downtown Street Greening Initiative
48.0
10,000
48
Downtown WayďŹ nding Signage
38.8
60,000
For full budget detail sheets, please see Appendix C for Downtown Improvement Projects
23
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN INVEST - RENEW - MANAGE
22%
$2,842,800
3%
7%
1%
4%
1%
5%
1%
FLEET
PARKS & OPEN SPACES
CONTRACT SERVICES
PROGRAM SUPPORT
BUILDING & PLANNING
FIRE
POLICE SUPPORT
$402,500
$906,500
$121,000
$497,400
$152,500
$662,900
$100,000
24
For full budget detail sheets, please see Appendix D for Invest-Renew-Manage Projects
CAPITAL BUDGET BREAKDOWN BY FUNDING SOURCE GRANTS & EXTERNAL FUNDING
42% $5,417,000 PROPERTY TAXES
20% $2,631,500 DEBT FINANCING
8% $1,000,000
WATER & WASTEWATER RATES
5% $672,900
RESERVES
25% $3,164,400
25
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
KELSO BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION City staff completed work at Kelso Beach to protect sections of the shoreline from erosion due to wind driven wave action and historically high lake levels. This project had an approved budget of $150,000 in 2020.
BEFORE 26
AFTER
VALUE OF TAX PAYERS' DOLLARS With diligent budget planning and sta working hard to utilize grant funding for Capital projects, Owen Sound tax payers beneďŹ t from the value of their tax dollars. For every $1 in Capital taxes the City collects, Owen Sound is investing more than double back toward Capital Services (an additional $1.06) from grants and external funding sources - a remarkable return on investment.
$1
$2.06
27
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
16TH STREET EAST REHABILITATION ROADWORK
28
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
16TH STREET EAST REHABILITATION ROADWORK Being a well-travelled and arterial roadway, the rehabilitation of the road and structures along 16th St E/Highway 26 from 9th Ave E intersection to 16th Ave E is no small undertaking. This project has received 90
per cent grant funding in the amount of $933,427 for the road and structures through Connecting Link (CL) grant funding.
Additional work on 16th St E included 490 metres of watermain replacement, 155 metres of sanitary sewer replacement and 255 metres of new sidewalk construction.
29
2021 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY RANKING
30
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
1
10th St Bridge Replacement
83.8
1,000,000
2
Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration
81.4
150,000
3
East Waterfront Trail Restoration
81.4
150,000
4
Electronic Records Management Application
75.8
325,500
5
Software Transformation Project Needs Assessment
75.2
175,000
6
Concrete Replacement & Asphalt Resurfacing
74.8
875,000
7
Zoning By-law Review
74.2
10,000
8
Harrison Park Channel Wall Repair
72.2
25,000
9
Resurfacing 16th St E - Phase One: 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E
71.4
25,000
10
Rehabilitation 16th St E - Phase Two: 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E
71.4
930,000
11
East Bayshore Rd (Grey Rd 15) - 3rd Ave E north to East Bayshore Rd Sewage Pump Station 69.6
5,300,000
12
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase One: 1st Ave E (800 Block)
67.0
30,000
13
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase Two: 1st Ave E (900 Block)
65.0
110,000
14
Public Works Generator Set
63.0
90,000
15
Downtown & 10th St Corridor Traffic Signal Control
62.4
150,000
16
Reconstruction 9th Ave E - 20th St E to 23rd St E
61.8
350,000
17
Transit Study
58.4
80,000
18
Genoe Landfill Site Flush & Camera Work
55.0
15,000
19
Harrison Park Sanitary Connection, Replacement & Dumping Station Upgrades
54.0
100,000
20
Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance
53.2
35,000
2021 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
21
Forestry Gear
52.8
5,000
22
Pedestrian Crossing - 8th St E at 1st Ave E
52.2
25,000
23
Decorative Streetlight Replacement
52.0
60,000
24
Employee Engagement Survey
51.6
25,000
25
Brooke Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion
51.0
10,000
26
Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement
50.6
91,000
27
Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement
50.6
45,000
28
Harrison Park Workshop Hot Water Heater System Replacement
50.4
15,000
29
Phragmites (Invasive Species) Removal
50.2
40,000
30
Courthouse Windows & Doors Boarding
49.8
20,000
31
Courthouse Roof Replacement
49.8
100,000
32
Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Design & Drawings
49.0
30,000
33
Salt & Sand Storage Containment
49.0
50,000
34
Citizen Satisfaction Survey
48.8
25,000
35
Harrison Park Pool Filtration System Replacement
48.4
60,000
36
Downtown Street Greening Initiative
48.0
10,000
37
Kenny Drain Pond #4 Clean Out
47.5
20,000
38
Council Audio Visual
47.0
189,000
39
Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution
46.6
15,000
40
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Flooring Replacement
46.6
50,000 31
2021 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY RANKING
32
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
41
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Roof Section 1 & 2 Replacement
45.2
150,000
42
AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E)
45.0
350,000
43
Bayshore Roof Section 1 Restoration
44.2
65,000
44
Fire Station Roof Section 1 Replacement
41.4
350,000
45
Harrison Park Workshop Roof Replacement
41.0
20,000
46
Tennis/Pickle Ball Court Renewal
39.8
30,000
47
East Side Boat Launch Building Upgrades
39.4
15,000
48
Downtown Wayfinding Signage
38.8
60,000
49
Sanitary Sewer Relocation - 3rd Ave E & 297 18th St E (Georgian Landing Apartments)
38.4
5,000
50
Paving Around New Fuel System - Public Works
37.6
20,000
51
Harrison Park Senior Centre Grading Improvement & Eavestrough Replacement
36.8
13,000
52
Tom Williams Building Upgrades
36.6
15,000
53
YMCA New Playground at Julie McArthur Regional Rec Centre
35.2
50,000
54
Public Works Channel Drain
31.6
50,000
55
St. George’s Backstop Replacement
31.2
15,000
56
Greenwood Cemetery Office Basement Rehabilitation
30.6
15,000
57
Interpretive Plaques
27.8
2,500
58
Artificial Athletic Field Business Case
27.0
10,000
59
Auto Body Shop Development - 23rd St E - Contribution for Storm Drainage
26.4
15,000
60
Cemetery Benches Replacement
25.8
15,000
2021 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
61
Digitize Building Plans for AMANDA
25.4
20,000
62
Water Bottle Fill Stations
24.8
10,000
63
Cemetery Parking Lot Drainage
20.8
10,000
33
ACHIEVING RESULTS IN 2020
SIDEWALK REPAIRS
AS PART OF THE 2020 RESURFACING PROGRAM, THE CITY REINSTATED 35 LINEAR METRES OF SIDEWALK AND 16 LINEAR METRES OF CURB
Along with annual sidewalk repairs and improvements, the City partnered with Top Hat Robotics smart technology to undertake its annual sidewalk inspections. Previously, annual sidewalk inspections were labour intensive and took a significant amount of time. The Top Hat Robotics state of the art depth cameras detect lips, cracks, dips and other sidewalk deficiencies, accurate to within one millimetre - much better than traditional human judgement. 34
2021 CAPITAL BUDGET: NEW FLEET + POLICE SUPPORT ITEM #
TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
Fleet A
Drop Sander/Material Spreader
53.4
12,000
Fleet B
Building Vehicle Charging Station(s)
21.4
20,000
Fleet C
Building Vehicles
19.2
100,000
Police Support
Tax-Funded Police Capital
100,000
35
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL FORECASTS (FUNDED & UNFUNDED) BUDGET CATEGORY
2021 - 2025 FUNDED
2021 - 2025 REQUIRED
2021 - 2025 DIFFERENCE (UNFUNDED)
Roads & Road Related
46,886,000
48,301,000
1,415,000
Facilities
17,902,000
19,610,000
1,708,000
Downtown Improvements
5,244,000
5,244,000
-
Program Support (General Government)
1,933,100
1,933,100
-
Parks & Open Spaces
3,226,000
5,018,000
1,792,000
Contract Services (Transit & Waste)
588,000
588,000
-
Airport
-
1,545,040
1,545,040
Police Support
700,000
700,000
-
Building, Planning & Heritage
692,500
692,500
-
Fleet
2,597,745
2,597,745
-
TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAM
79,769,345
86,229,385
6,460,040
36
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL FORECASTS (FUNDED & UNFUNDED) $5M
$1,415,000 FUNDED CAPITAL BUDGET
$4M
UNFUNDED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
$3M $1,708,000
$2M $1M
$1,792,000 $1,545,040
0 ROADS
FACILITIES
DOWNTOWN
PROGRAM SUPPORT
PARKS
CONTRACT SERVICES
AIRPORT
POLICE
BUILDING & PLANNING
FLEET
37
“We will be a financially stable and responsible municipality, and will manage finances in a resilient and forward-thinking manner. We will address the infrastructure deficit by focusing on critical priorities first and approaching these issues one step at a time, with a view to long-term financial sustainability and prosperity.” OWEN SOUND STRATEGIC PLAN FINANCE GOAL
owensound.ca
APPENDIX A
ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING DETAIL SHEETS owensound.ca
39
APPENDIX A
ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING DETAIL SHEETS owensound.ca
40
COUNCIL PRIORITY #1
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: ROADS & ROAD RESURFACING
RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
1
10th St Bridge Replacement
83.8
1,000,000
6
Concrete Replacement & Asphalt Resurfacing
74.8
875,000
9
Resurfacing 16th St E - Phase One: 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E
71.4
25,000
10
Rehabilitation 16th St E - Phase Two: 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E
71.4
930,000
11
East Bayshore Rd (Grey Rd 15) - 3rd Ave E north to East Bayshore Rd Sewage Pump Station 69.6
15
62.4
150,000
61.8
350,000
16
41
Reconstruction 9th Ave E - 20th St E to 23rd St E
5,300,000
17P.3
10th Street Bridge Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
Partial
A - Very High
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Chris Webb
100 Year 2
Year 3+
$
20,000 $
7,000 $
3,500
$
100,000 $
10,000 $
8,000
$
780,000
$
100,000 $
83,000 $
88,500
$
1,000,000 $
100,000 $
100,000
-
-
Impact on Operating Budget $
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
$
Description and rationale: Capital budgets in 2021/2022 are for construction, contract administration, inspection, quality assurance/materials testing and staff time. After all revenue sources are exhausted, the balance would be converted to long-term debt expense.
-
1,200,000 Completed in 2019
(insert photo here)
October 1, 2019 June 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 42
Priority Level:
1,000,000
17P.3 10th St Bridge Replacement
17P.3
10th Street Bridge Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 5 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management 5 plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on 3 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 3 are there partnership funds available
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating This project was required to connect a major traffic corridor.
Existing bridge was at risk of collapsing Legislative requirements dictate a level of standard for all bridges Concrete replacement is a high priority in the asset management plan.
With this new asset larger driving lanes and sidewalk allow for easier operational maintenance.
This Project has grant funding associated with its purchase
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
5
Improves on the new standards for bridge deck draining so salt and sand do not directly drain into water bodies.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
Facilitates recreation and sports activities. Maintains inclusive public spaces, supports activity for the aging through easy travel throughout the city.
Master Plan Public Input 43
To what degree is the project addressed in 5 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 4 public engagement
Is specifically identified in the Harbour and Downtown master plan as well as the transportation master plan. Has been identified through public feedback on poor bridge condition.
17P.3 10th St Bridge Replacement
Concrete and Asphalt Annual Program
21P.1
Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
No
A - Very High
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
40 Year 2
Year 3+
$
14,000 $
12,000 $
15,000
$
774,000 $
708,000 $
745,000
$
87,000 $
80,000 $
90,000
$
875,000 $
800,000 $
850,000
-
-
Impact on Operating Budget $
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
$
-
Description and rationale: Annual program to upgrade and replace failed concrete infrastructure such as sidewalks and curb and gutter throughout the City. Locations are often coordinated with the asphalt resurfacing program. To rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces and maintain the expected service life of roads throughout the City. Road segments tentatively recommended in 2021 include: 14th St W - 2nd Ave W to 4th Ave W, 8th St W - 4th Ave W to 4th Ave "A" W, 20th St E - 20th Ave E to 28th Ave E, 9th St W - 7th Ave W to 8th Ave W, 8th Ave W - 9th St W to 10th St W, 16th Ave E - 20th St E to 23rd St E, 2nd Ave E R - 2nd Ave E to east end, 15th St W - 3rd Ave W to 4th Ave W, 18th St W - 5th Ave W to west end, 26th St W - 2nd Ave W to 3rd Ave W, 9th St "A" E - 8th Ave E to east end, 6th Ave E - Just south of 4th St E to northerly cul-de-sac. Tentative list attached.
2,525,000 February 1, 2021 June 1, 2021 November 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Federal Gas Tax $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 44
Priority Level:
700,000
175,000 21P.1 Concrete Replacement and Asphalt Resurfacing
(insert photo here)
Concrete and Asphalt Annual Program
21P.1
Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The different locations on arterial and local roads identified will allow for accessible pedestrian traffic and improve commutes for residents.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Trip hazards due to uneven surfaces, icing from ponding and accessible hazards are all the public or Staff if the project does not 3 examples of risks. proceed? Is the project required for Legislative requirements goal is to be barrier free and fully accessible by 2025. 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for Concrete replacement and road resurfacing is a high priority in the asset management 4 replacement in the asset management plan. plan If the project proceeds (or fails to Replacing sidewalks and resurfacing roads reduces operational costs by increasing proceed), what will be the impact on 4 sidewalk widths allowing for plows to clear the sidewalk and reduces the need for operational performance? Comment on public works to patch potholes and fix failing infrastructure. any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or This project is funded by Federal gas tax. 5 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
3 Little or no improvement to the natural environment will result from road resurfacing. 4
Facilitates recreation and sports activities. Maintains inclusive public spaces, supports activity for the aging.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Is specifically identified in the Harbour, Downtown and Traffic master plan.
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
Has been identified through public feedback on poor sidewalk conditions.
45
2
21P.1 Concrete Replacement and Asphalt Resurfacing
Resurfacing 16th St E - Phase 1 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
18P.3
Maintenance No
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
5,000 $
5,000
20,000 $
20,000
25,000 $
25,000 $
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Completed
Construction Start Date:
Completed
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
-
Description and rationale: This project involved rehabilitating the road and selected concrete structures along 16th St E/Highway 26 from 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E including the intersections. This work had approved MTO Connecting Link grant funding at 90% of eligible costs for the road and structures components of the project. Additional work that took place that is not eligible for CL grant, includes 490 m of watermain replacement from 60 m east of 12th Ave E to 16th Ave E, 80 m of sanitary sewer replacement under 16th Ave E and 255 m of new sidewalk construction (14th Ave E/Wendy's Restaurant driveway to 49 m west of 16th Ave E/Pioneer Petroleum driveway. This budget is for the 2 year maintenance period.
-
50,000
Design Start Date:
December 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 46
Chris Webb
Road - 25 years, Watermain - 80 years
25,000 18P.3 16th St East Rehabilitation - Phase 1 - 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E
Resurfacing 16th St E - Phase 1 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
47
18P.3 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 3 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating This improvement will benefit traffic travelling on 16th St E Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel
Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
Is the project a high priority for This section of road was identified in the cities asset management plan as being in 5 replacement in the asset management need of repair plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on 4 This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 5 This program has confirmed cost sharing partnership through connecting link funding. are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement 3 to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support 1 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
3
There is no improvement to the natural environment This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the poor condition of the road as well as sidewalks "just ending".
18P.3 16th St East Rehabilitation - Phase 1 - 9th Ave E to 16th Ave E
Rehabilitation 16th St E - Phase 2 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation Partial
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
$
10,000 $
2,000 $
2,000
$
80,000 $
8,000 $
8,000
10,000 $
10,000
$
$ $
Impact on Operating Budget $
760,000
80,000 930,000 $ -
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Description and rationale: Engineering design completed in 2020 with Phase 1. The 2020 approved budget and CL grant funding was insufficient to cover the road rehabilitation and watermain replacement from 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E. There is no sanitary sewer replacement planned in this segment. The City will be applying for 2021 Connecting Link funding for this Phase 2 project. The full road rehabilitation portion of the project would proceed in 2021 only if there is a successful grant funding application. The watermain replacement would proceed regardless of the full road rehabilitation due to the advanced deterioration of this main.
-
950,000 January 1, 2020
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
April 1, 2020
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
November 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Reserves (Specify) Grant (Specify) Water Rates Select from List Select from List Taxation 48
Chris Webb
Road - 25 years, Watermain - 80 years
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
21P.10
$ $ $
$
50,000 Capital 450,000 Connecting Link 380,000
50,000
21P.10 16th St East Rehabilitation - Phase 2 - 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E
Rehabilitation 16th St E - Phase 2 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment
Cultural Significance
21P.10 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
5
This will improve the road for traffic on 9th Ave E while also implementing required infrastructure for Odawa Heights Ph. 3 development.
3
Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel
3
Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
Is the project a high priority for replacement 5 in the asset management plan
This section of road was identified in the City's asset management plan as being in need of repair
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 4 This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 5 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? 3 To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a 2 Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
49
Priority Level:
3
This program has confirmed cost sharing partnership through connecting link funding. There is no improvement to the natural environment This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the poor condition of the road.
21P.10 16th St East Rehabilitation - Phase 2 - 16th Ave E to 18th Ave E
East Bayshore Rd - GR 15 - 3rd Ave E Northerly to East Bayshore Rd SPS Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation Partial Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
$
20,000 $
2,000 $
2,000
$
450,000 $
23,000 $
23,000
25,000 $
25,000
$ 4,672,000 $
58,000
$
100,000
$ 5,300,000 $
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
$
-
July 1st, 2018
Construction Start Date:
April 1, 2022
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
Description and rationale: This project involves reconstruction of Grey Road 15 and construction of new sanitary forcemain, sanitary sewer in conjunction with construction of the East Bayshore Road SPS. The forcemain and sanitary sewer will be funded from Wastewater rates. Road reconstruction will be from 3rd Ave E to the new East Bayshore SPS. The first phase of construction in 2020 includes commencing construction of the sewage pumping station. The second phase in 2021 will include the road reconstruction and forcemain construction. Grey County is responsible for road/road drainage costs only. The 2021 budget is for tendering, contract administration, inspection, construction and materials testing costs. Budget figures in the cash flow projection include the County's share of cost because the project is being managed and administered by the City with all funding and payments flowing through the City. The City will invoice the County for its share of the cost.
November 30, 2022
Current Year Funding Sources:
50
A - Very High
5,350,000
Design Start Date:
Waste Water Rates Grant (Specify) Water Rates Carry Forward Select from List Taxation
Priority Level:
Road - 50 years, Watermain and Sewers - 100 years.
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
21P.2
$ $ $ $
474,000 2,850,000 County Share 125,000 25,000
$
1,826,000 21P.2 East Bayshore Rd 3rd Ave E to SPS
(insert photo here)
East Bayshore Rd - GR 15 - 3rd Ave E Northerly to East Bayshore Rd SPS Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
51
21P.2
Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3
This project is identified to improve the pedestrians and traffic flow though the downtown
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
2
Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
5
This section of road was identified in the City's asset management plan as being in need of repair
5
This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks since it is a new development.
5
Part of the cost will be shared with Grey County
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 3 community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed 3 in a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
2
There is no improvement to the natural environment This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the downtown over all look
21P.2 East Bayshore Rd 3rd Ave E to SPS
Downtown and 10th St Corridor Traffic Signal Control Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
18Q.1 No
Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
135,000
150,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
$
Description and rationale: This project involves the full implementation of the traffic management and safety plan commenced in 2020 and required following the 10th Street Bridge replacement including operational improvements for the 10th Street Corridor from 4th Ave E to 3rd Ave W and the Downtown core (8th Street, 9th Street, 2nd Avenue East and 3rd Avenue East) for traffic and pedestrian signals. This budget addresses required MTO approvals, traffic control hardware and software, timing/programming, traffic and pedestrian signal improvements, Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) and vehicle detection system upgrading. Geometric improvements (lane widening, lane additions, islands, curb radii, pole relocation and replacement etc.) are not included or expected to be part of this project.
150,000 October 1, 2020
(insert photo here)
March 1, 2021 November 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
52
B - High
20
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
150,000 Traffic Signal
18Q.1 Downtown and 10th St Corridor - Traffic Signal Control
Downtown and 10th St Corridor Traffic Signal Control Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
18Q.1 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Priority Level:
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This improvement will benefit traffic heading down town and through the 10th St corridor. Improves traffic signals to allow for safer travel for traffic and pedestrians Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
4
Concrete replacement is a moderate priority in the asset management plan.
4
Upgrading this equipment will reduce maintenance costs on old failing equipment
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available
This improvement has no cost sharing opportunities.
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
2
There is no improvement to the natural environment
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
Does not support cultural initiatives set out by the city
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
53
4
Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public feedback on poor traffic signal timing.
18Q.1 Downtown and 10th St Corridor - Traffic Signal Control
9th Ave E - 20th to 23rd St E - Reconstruction Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
19P.3
Partial Year 2
Year 3+
$
20,000 $
20,000 $
5,000
$
280,000 $
280,000 $
2,000
$
50,000 $
3,480,000 $
13,000
$
350,000 $
4,130,000 $
20,000
-
-
-
$
$
350,000
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
$
Description and rationale: Engineering design to be undertaken in 2021 with phased (possibly) construction to follow in future years. Storm sewer upgrade construction on 8th Ave E - 21st St E to 23rd St E required to accommodate Odawa Heights Ph. 3 development. Construction in 2022 is tentative for road, sanitary and storm sewer upgrades on 9th Ave E to accommodate development in the area. Timing would be contingent upon development advancing on vacant properties fronting 9th Ave E. The City is collecting a Capital Infrastructure Charge from applicable property developers for the capital cost of water, sanitary and storm related works and services. All costs are related to sanitary and storm sewers plus road and sidewalk reconstruction or construction. Only minor water system related expenses are anticipated at this time such as installation of additional fire hydrants or service stubs to property line.
4,500,000 January 1, 2020
Design Start Date:
April 1, 2021
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
November 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
54
B - High
50
Impact on Operating Budget $
Water Rates Grant (Specify) Carry Forward Select from List Select from List Taxation
Priority Level:
$ $ $
$
50,000 50,000 Frontage 50,000
200,000 19P.3 9th Ave E - 20th to 23rd St E - Reconstruction
(insert photo here)
19P.3
9th Ave E - 20th to 23rd St E - Reconstruction Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This will improve the road for traffic on 9th Ave E while also implementing required infrastructure for Odawa Heights Ph. 3 development. Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel
4
Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
4
This section of road was identified in the City's asset management plan as being in need of repair
4
This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks
5 This program has confirmed cost sharing partnership through connecting link funding.
1
There is no improvement to the natural environment
1
This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
55
Priority Level:
2
Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the poor condition of the road.
19P.3 9th Ave E - 20th to 23rd St E - Reconstruction
APPENDIX B
CITY FACILITIES DETAIL SHEETS owensound.ca
56
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: CITY FACILITIES RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
COUNCIL PRIORITY #2 PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
14
Public Works Generator Set
63.0
90,000
19
Harrison Park Sanitary Connection, Replacement & Dumping Station Upgrades
54.0
100,000
28
Harrison Park Workshop Hot Water Heater System Replacement
50.4
15,000
30
Courthouse Windows & Doors Boarding
49.8
20,000
31
Courthouse Roof Replacement
49.8
100,000
32
Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Design & Drawings
49.0
30,000
40
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Flooring Replacement
46.6
50,000
41
Tom Thomson Art Gallery Roof Section 1 & 2 Replacement
45.2
150,000
43
Bayshore Roof Section 1 Restoration
44.2
65,000
44
Fire Station Roof Section 1 Replacement
41.4
350,000
45
Harrison Park Workshop Roof Replacement
41.0
20,000
47
East Side Boat Launch Building Upgrades
39.4
15,000
51
Harrison Park Senior Centre Grading Improvement & Eavestrough Replacement
36.8
13,000
52
Tom Williams Building Upgrades
36.6
15,000
54
Public Works Channel Drain
31.6
50,000
30.6
15,000
56 62
Water Bottle Fill Stations
24.8
10,000
63
Cemetery Parking Lot Drainage
20.8
10,000
57
21M.16
Public Works Generator Set Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Addition No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
15,000 75,000
90,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Jeff Follis
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: The Generator Set at the East Hill Booster Pumping Station was replaced in 2019 as a capital project, due to weathering and failure of the enclosure and the base fuel tank. At the time, outright replacement of the entire assembly was more logical and economical than piecemeal disassembly, replacement/reassembly of the enclosure and fuel tank alone, and also took less time (a significant consideration for a booster station.) The City retained ownership of the generator and motor assembly, which is in good condition with low hours. It is proposed to utilize this generator for sitewide power at Public Works. Current standby power at this location is partial only; emergency services radio tower (generator and batteries) and the fuel system only (manual generator). Renewed consideration of this site as an emergency services dispatch location has provided additional rationale.
90,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
Fall 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
58
B - high
25 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Water Rates $ Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
45,000 45,000 Capital
-
21M.16 PW Generator
21M.16
Public Works Generator Set Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This would allow Public Works, Water, and Emergency services (comms and fuel and backup dispatch) to operate in a sustained hydro outage. Operating the shop without standby power increases health and safety risk including heating, air quality alarms, mechanics shop, inadequate indoor/outdoor lighting Operating the shop without standby power would violate health and safety legislation around the above mentioned aspects. moderate probability of failure; low consequence
3
Standby Power at this location would allow all aspects of the site to operate regardless of whether Hydro power is online. This includes the Emergency Dispatch and Comms tower, the City fleet fuelling system, the fleet repair shop, all fleet 5 storage, the sand/salt depot, the water distribution shop, and the Public Works Admin area. 2
Funded through reserves
1
No impact positive or negative
3
Supports two Actions
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identifed through public engagement
59
Priority Level:
Project relates to the completion of another project identified
0
21M.16 PW Generator
Has not been identified by the public
HARRISON PARK Sanitary Connection, Replacement and Dumping Station Upgrades Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
15,000 85,000
100,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
100,000
Design Start Date:
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
20D.5
Priority Level:
B - High
Department: Staff Contact:
Corporate Services
This project combines three components: Community Hall connection to municipal sanitary system, the main washroom sanitary service replacement and the dumping station upgrades. In the 2020 budget, the sanitary connection was a separate project and this capital project combines these three components due to similar nature and efficiency of procurement. The Community Hall is the only building remaining on septic in Harrison Park and the existing system is failing. Pump outs of the holding tank has increased over the past year and it is believed that groundwater is penetrating the tank. The main washroom in Harrison Park is one of the busiest buildings in the park and the City invested in a complete interior renovation in 2018. This has been well received by the park users and general public. This year, the condition of the sanitary infrastructure servicing the washroom has declined causing backups in the building. The interior of the pipe is reducing in size, the fall of the pipe is not positive and the flushing of unwanted items causes blockages. The line from the washroom to the main will be replaced. Completion of this work will be done by contractors.
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources: Reserves (Specify) $ Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 60
Kristan Shrider
40,000 Campground 60,000
20D.5 HARRISON PARK Sanitary Connection, Replacement and Dumping Station Upgrades
HARRISON PARK Sanitary Connection, Replacement and Dumping Station Upgrades Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input 61
20D.5
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
Priority Level:
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating Thousands of people visit Harrison Park annually.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Failure of the system will cause maintenance issues and H&S issues. Possible exposure the public or Staff if the project does not 2 to sanitary system contents if failure occurs. proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
4
The sanitary system in the park is an asset and the facilities that operate on the system are assets.
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
3
Maintenance on the failing system will be required if work does not occur. Back ups occur and staff must clear and disinfect the affected buildings.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Project is not eligible for rebate.
3
To avoid leak in system, which would leak in the ground, the repair needs to occur.
5
Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Supports activities for the aging. Maintains inclusive public space.
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
Has not been identified in a master plan. Has not been identified by the public
20D.5 HARRISON PARK Sanitary Connection, Replacement and Dumping Station Upgrades
HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP HWH System Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
21D.1
Replacement No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: The existing HWH system at the workshop is not adequate for the demand required to fill the flood water tank on the park Zamboni implement for the Harrison Park Ice Rink. It currently takes approximately 45 minutes for staff to fill the water holding tank on the Zamboni implement and the system runs out of hot water prior to the tank being filled. The new system will include 2 natural gas tanks less water heaters that will work in tandem to provide 100G of 140° in 15 minutes. The replacement will save on staff time but is an upgrade to more efficient equipment. Rebate or incentive programs will be explored. Completion of this work will be done by a contractor.
15,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
Summer 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
62
B - high
15 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000 Capital
-
21D.1 HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP HWH System Replacement
HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP HWH System Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
21D.1
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
Priority Level:
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The City as a whole will benefit from the improved operational performance from this replacement. There are thousands of members of the public that enjoy the Harrison Park Ice Rink annually.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Poorly maintained ice surfaces could create potential health and safety hazards. Hot the public or Staff if the project does not 2 water is a key ingredient in well maintained ice surfaces. proceed? The city is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and Is the project required for 4 staff. legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
1
Enhancement to an existing asset
4
The new HWH system will save staff at least 30 minutes per day, 7 days a week in the winter season. This will create an improvement in our operating performance.
Financing
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
No improvement as a result of the project
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
Promotes Heritage Delivery of free events. Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
63
0
Harrison Park Master Plan. Has not been identified by the public.
21D.1 HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP HWH System Replacement
21M.7
COURTHOUSE Windows and Doors Boarding Rehabilitation No
Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials $ Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
20,000
20,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: Staff retained Taylor Hazell Architects to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and Demolition Approvals Plan of the Jail property. The public consultation phase is underway and future action on the property will be implemented upon council approval. The Courthouse is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Boarding up the windows and doors is an important step in mothballing a building and will assist with the future steps and prevent further deterioration to make it attractive for investment. The windows and doors will be boarded up with plywood to protect the interior of the building from the elements and also preserve the original wood work of the windows and doors. The completion of this work will be done by city staff.
20,000
Design Start Date:
Summer 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
64
B - high
5 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
10,000 Land Sale
10,000
21M.7 COURTHOUSE Windows and Doors Boarding
(insert photo here)
21M.7
COURTHOUSE Windows and Doors Boarding Justification for Matrix Values
People
Health and Safety Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input 65
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The City as a whole will benefit from the development of this property. Boarding up 5 the windows and doors is an important step in mothballing a building and will assist with the future steps of improving its condition to make it attractive for investment.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Leaking windows and doors creates unsafe conditions on the interior of a building the public or Staff if the project does not 3 and allows unwanted entry into the building. This will be a security measure as well. proceed? Is the project required for The City is required to maintain its property to ensure the safety of the public and 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? staff. Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
4
Windows and doors are critical components of a buildings envelop. The boarding is required to protect the interior components and the building structure.
3
Repairing broken windows and doors is done on an as need basis and will continue to cost the city both in staff resources and related costs.
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Will the project result in an improvement 1 to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
4
Little or no improvement as a result of the project N/A N/A Public feedback and consultation is a component of CHER and HIA.
21M.7 COURTHOUSE Windows and Doors Boarding
21M.8
COURTHOUSE Roof Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Replacement No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
100,000
100,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: At the July 15, 2020 Community Services Committee Meeting, resolution CS-200715004 directed staff to bring forward the cost of replacing the Courthouse roof for the 2021 capital budget deliberations. Staff retained Taylor Hazell Architects to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and Demolition Approvals Plan for the Jail property. The public consultation phase is underway and future action on the property will be implemented upon council approval. The Courthouse is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The roof is a critical component of the building envelop and is the first step in protecting the asset and improving its condition to make it attractive for investment. The size of the roof is approximately 6000 square feet. The replacement roof will be a similar asphalt shingle as the existing. Completion of this work will be done by a contractor.
100,000
Design Start Date:
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources:
66
B - high
25 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
20,000 Land Sale
80,000 21M.8 COURTHOUSE Roof Replacement
21M.8
COURTHOUSE Roof Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
67
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan? If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The City as a whole will benefit from the development of this property. The roof replacement is one step in maintaining the property to be attractive for investment. A leaking roof creates unsafe conditions on the interior of a building.
4
The City is required to maintain its property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
4
The roof is a critical component of a buildings envelop. The replacement is required to protect the interior components and the building structure.
3
The roof condition is creating undesired conditions on the inside of the building. In order to continue with the heritage preservation, the roof needs to be replaced.
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Will the project result in an improvement 1 to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
Priority Level:
4
Little or no improvement as a result of the project N/A Has not been identified in a master plan Public feedback and consultation is a component of the CHER and HIA.
21M.8 COURTHOUSE Roof Replacement
GREENWOOD CEMETERY CHAPEL Design and Drawings Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
20D.64
Consulting
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 1
Year 2
30,000 $ -
150,000
150,000 $
-
-
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
$
68
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
180,000 June 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
March 1, 2022 June 1, 2022
Current Year Funding Sources: Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
C - Moderate Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The Greenwood Cemetery Chapel, built in 1900, has been left unused for many years. As a part of the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan, it is to be restored to provide space for services and indoor columbaria. In 2021 engineering and design work are to be conducted to assess the structural integrity and provide a detailed design. The design will be used as the basis for restoration and construction to be submitted in 2022 as a part of the capital budget process. Prior to commencing the engineering or design process, a report to Community Services Committee will be presented with the business plan for this initiative.
Year 3+
30,000 $
Priority Level:
Parkland 30,000 Cemetery
20D.64 Greenwood Cemetery Chapel-Design and Drawings
GREENWOOD CEMETERY CHAPEL Design and Drawings Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance Asset Management
20D.64 Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
4
5,000 to 9,999
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
2
Should the building continue without intervention, the structure will eventually require demolition.
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
Renovations will be compliant with the Ontario Building and electrical codes.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 1
Yes
Operations Performance
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), The project is expected to generate additional revenue at Greenwood Cemetery. The what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 2 Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan notes the Chapel is a location where accessible customer service can be provided post renovation. operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Finance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or Design is to be funded via the Cemetery Reserve, pending a report to Council Via are there partnership funds available 2 Community Services Committee outlining a business case for indoor columbaria and space for quiet contemplation.
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Master Plan 69
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
2
The project will avoid demolition and avoid sending materials to landfill.
6. Promote Owen Sound's Built Heritage 7. Encourage and Promote participation in cultural activities and active lifestyles 8. Support Community Safety and Social 4 Inclusion 4
Recommendation 4.2.13 of the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan
4
Via the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan Process in 2019.
20D.64 Greenwood Cemetery Chapel-Design and Drawings
21M.10
TTAG Flooring Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Replacement No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
50,000
50,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Art Gallery Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: The age of the existing carpet in the gallery is unknown and is showing signs of wear and tear and creating potential trip hazards to the staff and public. The gallery is host to thousands of visitors each year and the flooring replacement will not only eliminate the safety concern, it will provide a new, fresh and clean look throughout the gallery. The options of finished flooring that are being explored are durable laminate and vinyl. Completion of this work will be done by a contractor.
50,000
Design Start Date:
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
Current Year Funding Sources:
70
C - moderate
20 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
50,000
-
21M.10 TTAG Flooring Replacement
21M.10
TTAG Flooring Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
5
Thousands of visitors enjoy the gallery annually.
2
The current condition of the flooring creates potential tripping hazards.
4
The city is required to maintain its property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
3
Flooring in the gallery is an asset that needs to be maintained for safety, functionality and appearance.
3
The cost to the city for continuing to maintain and repair the existing flooring will increase if flooring is not replaced. The cost to maintain new flooring is lower compared to the existing flooring.
Financing
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
Little or no improvement as a result of the project
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
Promotes Heritage Delivery of free events. Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
71
0
21M.10 TTAG Flooring Replacement
Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
TTAG Roof Section 1 and Section 2 Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
20M.7 No
Year 2
Year 3+
150,000
150,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
150,000
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Current Year Funding Sources:
72
C - Moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Art Gallery Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: This project was tendered in 2020 and the lowest compliant bid was over budget. This project will be retendered in the fall of 2020. The flat roof sections were installed in 1975 and had some repairs completed in 2018 to extend the life expectancy to 2020. The square footage of the roof is 3,500 and it is a Built Up Roof (BUR). It is comprised of wood deck, 1-ply felt, fibreglass insulation with a gravel surfacing. Issues with the existing roof include but not limited to ridges (felt lines buckle and protrude upwards), blueberries (dried out asphalt surface), reglet joint deterioration (expansion, contraction and sun damage to caulking and allow water to penetrate) and expansion joint deterioration (tears occur and water penetrate). Sections 1 and 2 of the roof will be replaced. Completion of this work will be done by contractors.
Design Start Date:
Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
150,000
20M.7 TTAG Roof Sections 1 and 2 Replacement
TTAG Roof Section 1 and Section 2 Replacement
20M.7
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Justification / Rationale for Rating Thousands of people visit the Art Gallery annually.
Potential minor injuries could occur if a the roof leak occurs (slip, trip and fall incidents).
4
The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
4
The roof is due for replacement. If delayed, the potential for leak and damage to assets within the building is greater. A roof is a critical component of a building envelop.
3
Maintenance on the failing roof will be required if the replacement does not occur. Staff time and resources will cost the City money. If leaks occur prior to the replacement, it may increase the cost of the replacement project.
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
73
C - Moderate
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
Environment
Public Input
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
Master Plan
Priority Level:
Project is not eligible for rebate.
1
No improvement as a result of the project.
5
Promotes Heritage Delivery of free events. Supports activities for the aging. Maintains inclusive public spaces.
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement 20M.7 TTAG Roof Sections 1 and 2 Replacement
Cultural Master Plan 2012. N/A.
20H.1
BAYSHORE Roof Section 1 Restoration Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
65,000
65,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
65,000
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 74
C - Moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
This project was tendered in 2020 and the lowest compliant bid was over budget. This project will be retendered in the fall of 2020. The Bayshore roof has five different sections that are included in our asset management plan. Section 1 is 6,100 ft² and a 2-ply modified bitumen mineral surface. Preventative maintenance repairs occurred in 2016 on Section 1 which increased the life cycle of the roof and prevented potential leaks. By performing the maintenance repairs in 2016 this section of roof will be restored in late 2020 or in the spring of 2021, not replaced. Scope of work include but not limited to: metal counter flashing, removal of loose debris, repair all ridges, blisters and deficiencies, caulking, apply primer and membrane to existing perimeter and projection flashing, fasten flashing, install new drains, apply primer, fabric reinforcement and asphaltic polyurethane entire roof surface and coat any exposed roof and projections. The warranty on membrane and labour is 10 years. The life expectancy of the restored roof is 15 years. This approach to asset management has prevented what would be a much higher cost replacement. Completion of this work will be done by contractors.
COMPLETED
Construction Start Date:
Priority Level:
65,000
20H.1 BAYSHORE Roof Section 1 Restoration
(insert photo here)
20H.1
BAYSHORE Roof Section 1 Restoration Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
75
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating Thousands of people visit the Bayshore annually.
Potential minor injuries could occur if a the roof leak occurs (slip, trip and fall incidents).
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
4
The roof is due for replacement. If delayed, the potential for leak and damage to assets within the building is greater. A roof is a critical component of a building envelop.
3
Maintenance on the failing roof will be required if the replacement does not occur. Staff time and resources will cost the City money. If leaks occur prior to the replacement, it may increase the cost of the replacement project.
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
To what degree does the project support 4 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
Project is not eligible for rebate.
No improvement as a result of the project. Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities.
20H.1 BAYSHORE Roof Section 1 Restoration
Supports activities for the aging. Maintains inclusive public spaces.
20U.1
FIRE STATION Roof Section 1 Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Replacement No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
175,000 $
175,000
175,000 $
175,000 $
-
-
-
-
$
$
350,000
Design Start Date:
Complete
Construction Start Date:
Fall 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Fall 2021
Department: Staff Contact:
Fire Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: Council approved a transfer to reserves for 50% of the required budget in 2020 with the remaining funds to be requested in 2021. The roof will be replaced in 2021. Existing flat roof was installed in 1990. The system is a Modified BUR (layered built up roof) with flood and gravel surfacing. The square footage is 17,094. Inspection occurred in 2013 and 2017 with an evaluation of poor both times. There are blueberries (erosion and dry out of the top coat of asphalt), ridges (felt lines protruding upwards through the surface layers), splits (weak or inflexible membranes that cannot accommodate movement causing the roof to split open) and blisters (soft/spongy pockets in the roofing materials that expand and rupture) present that have been and will continue to allow water to penetrate the building. Proposed roof replacement system is a modified membrane containing intermittent layers of asphalt and fiberglass felts covered by a top pour of asphalt and protective roofing gravel. The expected life of this system is 35+ years.
Current Year Funding Sources:
76
C - moderate
35 years
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
175,000 Fire Hall 175,000
20U.1 FIRE STATION Roof Section 1 Replacement
20U.1
FIRE STATION Roof Section 1 Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
4 4
3
The Fire Department provides services to the entire City of Owen Sound. Potential minor injuries could occur if a the roof leak occurs (slip, trip and fall incidents). The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff. The roof is due for replacement. If delayed, the potential for leak and damage to assets within the building is greater. A roof is a critical component of a building envelop. Maintenance on the failing roof will be required if the replacement does not occur. Staff time and resources will cost the City money. If leaks occur prior to the replacement, it may increase the cost of the replacement project.
May be eligible for rebate
1
No improvement as a result of the project.
0
N/A
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
77
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Priority Level:
1
Has not been identified in a master plan. No (during the 2019 budget deliberations, this project was highlighted).
20U.1 FIRE STATION Roof Section 1 Replacement
HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP Roof Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
20D.1 No
Year 2
Year 3+
20,000
20,000 $ -
Design Start Date:
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
20,000
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: This project was tendered in 2020 and the lowest compliant bid was over budget. This project will be retendered in the fall of 2020. There are three sections of roof that require replacement or repairs. The inspection and scan of this roof was complete to identify the repairs and replacements required. The installation dates of the roof sections is unknown. Two of the roof systems is a Modified BUR (layered built up roof) with flood and gravel surfacing. The third section is newer rolled asphalt surfacing. On the BUR sections there are blueberries (erosion and dry out of the top coat of asphalt), ridges (felt lines protruding upwards through the surface layers), splits (weak or inflexible membranes that cannot accommodate movement causing the roof to split open) and blisters (soft/spongy pockets in the roofing materials that expand and rupture) present that have been and will continue to allow water to penetrate the building. On the asphalt section there is slope, drainage and penetration issues that need to be addressed. Completion of this work will be done by contractors.
Completed
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
Current Year Funding Sources:
78
C - Moderate
25-50
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
20,000
20D.1 HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP Roof Replacement
(insert photo here)
HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP Roof Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
20D.1
Priority Level:
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating Thousands of people visit Harrison Park and the various parks in the city.
Potential minor injuries could occur if a the roof leak occurs (slip, trip and fall incidents).
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
4
The roof is due for replacement. If delayed, the potential for leak and damage to assets within the building is greater. A roof is a critical component of a building envelop.
3
Maintenance on the failing roof will be required if the replacement does not occur. Staff time and resources will cost the City money. If leaks occur prior to the replacement, it may increase the cost of the replacement project.
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available 0
Project is not eligible for rebate.
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
No improvement as a result of the project.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2
Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities.
Master Plan Public Input 79
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
Has not been identified in a master plan.
20D.1 HARRISON PARK WORKSHOP Roof Replacement
N/A.
EASTSIDE BOAT LAUNCH Building Upgrades Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
21D.35
No Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
-
$
-
-
$
-
Description and rationale: This building was constructed in 1994 and is located at the North End Parking Lot of the Bayshore. It is used heavily during the boating and fishing season. There is male and female washrooms and also storage/canteen space with its own entrance. The upgrades would include new partitions, new fixtures, epoxy flooring, painting and accessible openers. Magnetic locks were installed at the washrooms a few years ago. Currently the storage/canteen space is used for storage by the Owen Sound City Band. Staff would possibly like to explore options for upgrades and repurpose of this valuable space. Completion of this work will be done in combination of city staff and contractors.
15,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
Current Year Funding Sources:
80
C - moderate
25 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Grant (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000 Tom Williams
21D.35 EASTSIDE BOAT LAUNCH Building Upgrades
(insert photo here)
EASTSIDE BOAT LAUNCH Building Upgrades
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation
21D.35 Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
Thousands of people use the boat launch and the washroom building annually.
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
0
No impact on health and safety
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
The City is required to maintain its property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Asset Management
Is the project a high priority for replacement 1 in the asset management plan
The building is an asset owned by the city. The upgrades will assist staff in maintaining the asset in a more efficient manner.
Operational Performance
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational 2 performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
The upgrades will assist staff in maintaining the asset in a more efficient manner.
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
Will the project result in an improvement to 1 the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
4
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a 2 Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
81
Confirmed Tom Williams grant.
4
0
Little or no improvement as a result of the project Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging Recreation, Parks and Facilities Master Plan. Has not been identified by the public
21D.35 EASTSIDE BOAT LAUNCH Building Upgrades
HARRISON PARK SENIOR CENTRE Grading Improvements and Eaves Trough Replacement
21D.25
Maintenance No
Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
20 years
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Year 2
Year 3+
13,000
13,000 $
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Description and rationale: The Harrison Park Senior Centre plays host to activities and games on a daily basis for seniors in Owen Sound. The building is in good condition, however some exterior improvements are required. The grading at the back of the building is sloped towards the building and allows water to sit around the foundation. The eaves trough is in poor condition and leaks in several locations. The water leaking also sits around the foundation and creates interior conditions that are preventable. Completion of this work will be done in combination of city staff and contractor.
13,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources: Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
82
Kristan Shrider
13,000
21D.25 HARRISON PARK SENIOR CENTRE Grading Improvements and Eaves Trough Replacement
HARRISON PARK SENIOR CENTRE Grading Improvements and Eaves Trough Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment
Cultural Significance
21D.25 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 2 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
3
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating The Harrison Park Senior Centre has below 1,000 members.
If water penetrates the basement, it could potentially cause mould growth. The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff. The building is an asset owned by the City. Ensuring water diversion away from foundations is an important measure.
Repairing failing eaves trough will become a burden on staff time and costly. A 2 replacement is in the best interest of the city. Watering entering the building creates maintenance issues for staff. 0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
1
Little or no improvement as a result of the project
5
Promotes Heritage Delivery of free events. Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
83
Priority Level:
0
Harrison Park Master Plan. Has not been identified by the public
21D.25 HARRISON PARK SENIOR CENTRE Grading Improvements and Eaves Trough Replacement
TOM WILLIAMS Building Upgrades Enhancement No
Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection:
21D.37
Year 1
Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 2
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
Description and rationale: This building was constructed in 1950. It is Owen Sound's only true baseball (hardball) diamond. The building is aged and requires upgrades to enhance its functions to the baseball community. There is male and female washrooms and a storage room. The upgrades would include new partitions, new fixtures, accessible upgrades, epoxy flooring, painting, lighting and accessible openers. Magnetic lock installation for the washrooms are requested in a separate project for 2021. The work will be funded through the Tom Williams Reserve. Completion of this work will be done by a combination of city staff and contractors.
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
15,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources:
84
C - moderate
25 years
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Grant (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000 Tom Williams Park
21D.37 TOM WILLIAMS Building Upgrades
TOM WILLIAMS Building Upgrades Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment Cultural Significance
21D.37 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
3
Owen Sound minor ball registration, the visiting teams and spectators will benefit from this upgrade.
0
No impact on health and safety
4
The city is required to maintain its property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement The building is an asset owned by the city. The upgrades will assist staff in maintaining 1 in the asset management plan the asset in a more efficient manner. If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational 2 performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
4
Will the project result in an improvement to 1 the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
4
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a 2 Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
85
Priority Level:
The upgrades will assist staff in maintaining the asset in a more efficient manner.
The work will be funded through the Tom Williams Reserve. Little or no improvement as a result of the project Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging. Recreation, Parks and Facilities Master Plan.
0
21D.37 TOM WILLIAMS Building Upgrades
Has not been identified by the public
21M.15
Public Works Channel Drain Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Addition No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Jeff Follis
Description and rationale: The existing channel drain runs the length of the main vehicle bay at the Public Works facility (3 runs). It dates from the original building construction (1991) and the metal component of the drain assembly is failing. Parts of it are inoperable (does not drain), and are a significant tripping hazard.
50,000
50,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
50,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
(insert photo here)
Fall 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
86
C - moderate
25 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Water Rates $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
25,000
25,000
21M.15 PW Channel Drain
21M.15
Public Works Channel Drain Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
87
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
This positively affects Public Works staff The existing channel drain is a tripping/slipping hazard Health and Safety Legislation
1
Enhancement to an existing asset
2
Currently, the channel drain does not work well, and in some bay areas, does not work at all. Ponding results.
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 1 community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identifed through public engagement
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 3 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
0
21M.15 PW Channel Drain
No impact positive or negative Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
GREENWOOD CEMETERY OFFICE Basement Rehabilitation Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
20D.60
No Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
Description and rationale: The abatement of designated substances was complete in 2020 and the remaining funds will be used to rehabilitate the basement. The Greenwood Cemetery Office is understood to be one of the oldest city homes, dating back to 1840's. The basement foundation is allowing water to penetrate inside the building. Staff retained a consultant to complete a DSS (Designated Substance Survey) which includes but not limited to mould, asbestos and lead paint sampling. Staff use the basement for storage of seasonal items from the cemetery and parks operations. The current condition of the basement is not acceptable and repairs will include abatement, foundation repairs and rehabilitation. Staff will explore possible funding opportunities for heritage and structural elements. Completion of this work will be done in combination of city staff and contractors.
15,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 88
Kristan Shrider
15,000
20D.60 GREENWOOD CEMETERY OFFICE Basement Rehabilitation
GREENWOOD CEMETERY OFFICE Basement Rehabilitation Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
20D.60
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating Staff that work out of the building and use the basement for storage.
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
The rehabilitation will make the basement a better environment to work in and use for storage.
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
1
The rehabilitation will make the basement a better environment to work in and use for storage.
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
1
The space will be easier to maintain.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available 0
Project is not eligible for rebate.
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
4
The abatement of mould and asbestos has an impact to the workplace.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
0
Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
Master Plan Public Input 89
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan 2020. Has not been identified by the public
20D.60 GREENWOOD CEMETERY OFFICE Basement Rehabilitation
Water Bottle Fill Stations Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Contingency Total $
21M.1 Addition No
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
10,000 $
10,000 $
10,000
10,000 $
10,000 $
10,000
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
$
-
30,000
Design Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Other Kristan
Description and rationale: At its meeting on September 28, 2017, the Operations Committee recommended that Council approves the implementation of a phased program to increase access to tap water at city facilities over 5 years, without banning the sale of bottled water at city facilities. City staff have prioritized a list of facilities that the stations will be installed at and started the implementation process. The bottle filling stations allow people to fill reusable bottles by motion sensor. The unit tracks the amount of plastic bottles that are saved by filling reusable bottles. Previous installations have occurred at City Hall, CN Station, Bayshore, Duncan, Harrison Park Shop, Kiwanis Soccer, Transit Terminal, WTP, Harrison Park Inn, Art Gallery and Public Works (note: 2020 installations have not occurred yet due to covid). Potential locations for 2021 installations are Cemetery Shop, Tom Williams Park, Fire Station and Kelso Beach. Completion of this work will be done in combination of city staff and contractors.
(insert photo here)
Fall 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
90
C - moderate
15 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
10,000 21M.1 WATER BOTTLE FILL STATIONS
Water Bottle Fill Stations Justification for Matrix Values
People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
91
21M.1 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 0 proceed? Is the project required for 1 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The existing bottle fill stations throughout the city are used on a daily basis. No impact on health and safety No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
0
Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management plan
1
Little or no effect on current operations
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 3 community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
Priority Level:
3
The diversion of plastic bottles will have a positive impact on the environment. Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives Has not been identified in a master plan Residents have discussed actions that should be taken with regards to climate change and environmental impact.
21M.1 WATER BOTTLE FILL STATIONS
Cemetery Parking Lot Maintenance i
20D.61
Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 1
No
Year 2
Year 3+
2,500 7,500
10,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Jan 1 2020
Construction Start Date:
May 1 2020
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
June 1 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 92
D - Low
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: During rain events, runoff collects at the back door to the historic Greenwood Cemetery office, ponds and infiltrates the basement level of the building. This capital will be used to design and implement a suitable dewatering solution specific to this location that will protect the building and outlet water to the storm sewer. Completion of this work will be done by a combination of city staff and contractors.
10,000
Design Start Date:
Priority Level:
10,000
20D.61 GW Parking Lot Drainage
Cemetery Parking Lot D i
20D.61
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input 93
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
D - Low
Justification / Rationale for Rating >1000
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
1
No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
4
The project has been identified as a high priority for this asset to remediate poor drainage during storm events that is impacting the building
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
1
Little or no effect on current operations
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
To what degree does the project support 2 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
no opportunities for funding partnerships are known
minor improvement to the immediate area around the building.
Promotes heritage by maintaining a historic building a Greenwood Cemetery
20D.61 GW Parking Lot Drainage
This project is not identified in a master plan No input from the public has been received
APPENDIX C
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DETAIL SHEETS owensound.ca
94
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
COUNCIL PRIORITY #3
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
12
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase One: 1st Ave E (800 Block)
67.0
30,000
13
Downtown River Precinct (DRP) - Phase Two: 1st Ave E (900 Block)
65.0
110,000
22
Pedestrian Crossing - 8th St E at 1st Ave E
52.2
25,000
23
Decorative Streetlight Replacement
52.0
60,000
36
Downtown Street Greening Initiative
48.0
10,000
38.8
60,000
48
95
17P.12
DRP - Phase 1 - 1st Ave E (800 Block) Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
Partial
B - High
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
50 Year 2
$
2,000
$
18,000
$
10,000
$
30,000 $
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
Year 3+
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: This is the first of four phases of construction to implement the Downtown River Precinct plan. This project will be in its last year maintenance/warranty period and the budget is for administration of the warranty period by City and Consulting Engineering staff.
30,000 October 1, 2018 May 1, 2019 Nov 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: OCIF Formula $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 96
Priority Level:
30,000
17P.12 DRP - Phase 1 - 1st Ave E (800 Block)
(insert photo here)
17P.12
DRP - Phase 1 - 1st Ave E (800 Block) Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management 4 plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on 4 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 5 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This project is identified to improve the pedestrians and traffic flow though the downtown Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities. This section of road was identified in the City's asset management plan as being in need of repair
This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks since it is a new development.
This Project has grant funding associated with it's purchase
1
There is no improvement to the natural environment
3
This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 5 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
97
Priority Level:
4
Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the downtown over all look
17P.12 DRP - Phase 1 - 1st Ave E (800 Block)
21C.3
DRP - Phase 2 - 1st Ave E (900 Block) Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
New Asset
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Partial Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
8,000 $
13,000
102,000 $
50,000
$
$
1,007,000 $
15,000
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
1,150,000 $
15,000
-
-
-
$
$
1,275,000 May 1, 2021
Construction Start Date:
May 1, 2022
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: This is the second of four phases of construction to implement the Downtown River Precinct plan. The Engineering/Landscape design and approval phase is planned for 2021 with construction planned in 2022, subject to Council approval. This project will include reconstruction of the road between 9th St E and 10th St E. This project will also replace the sidewalk and address stormwater infrastructure improvements. The design aesthetics have been established as part of the Downtown River Precinct Master Plan public consultation process and approved Master Plan specifications.
80,000
110,000 $
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
November 30, 2022
Current Year Funding Sources:
98
B - High
50
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
OCIF Formula $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
110,000
21C.3 DRP - Phase 2 - 1st Ave E (900 Block)
21C.3
DRP - Phase 2 - 1st Ave E (900 Block) Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment
Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
3
This project is identified to improve the pedestrians and traffic flow through the downtown
2
Improvements to the road surface and sidewalk will allow for safer travel
4
Legislative requirements dictate the level of standard required by municipalities.
3
This section of road was identified in the City's asset management plan as being in need of repair
4
This will reduce the operational cost associated to repairing the road and sidewalks since it is a new development.
5
This Project has grant funding associated with its purchase
2
There is no improvement to the natural environment
3
This project will support cultural significance in the sense to allow for easier travel throughout the city
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 5 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
99
Priority Level:
4
Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the downtown over all look
21C.3 DRP - Phase 2 - 1st Ave E (900 Block)
21P.15
Pedestrian Crossing - 8th St E at 1st Ave E Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Partial
Priority Level:
B - High
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager
Year 2
Year 3+
2,000
Description and rationale: This item facilitates the installation of a regulatory and AODA compliant Pedestrian Crossover at 8th St E and 1st Ave E as part of the identified DRP - Phase 1 project but was deferred to 2021 until after the 10th Street Bridge Replacement was completed and related detours were removed.
23,000
25,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
25,000 January 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
April 1, 2021 November 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Grant (Specify) Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 100
Chris Webb
25
25,000
21P.15 Pedestrian-School Cross Construction 8th St E at 1st Ave E
21P.15
Pedestrian Crossing - 8th St E at 1st Ave E Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3
What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for 3 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
0
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on 3 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This project will facilitate an improved experience for pedestrians walking downtown along the river front. Public safety is at risk for pedestrians crossing 8th Street at 1st Ave E during the festival of northern lights as well as the farmers market. Designated crossings require safe crossing implements to be installed.
This is a new asset.
No significant change will result on operational performance.
There is no cost sharing opportunities.
1
There is no improvement to the natural environment
1
This project will support cultural significance in the sense to encourage pedestrian travel within the downtown core.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
101
Priority Level:
4
Improvement can be connected to the Downtown Master plan Has been identified through public input on the need for a crossing location at this intersection.
21P.15 Pedestrian-School Cross Construction 8th St E at 1st Ave E
21C.2
Decorative Streetlight Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
3,000 $
3,000 $
3,000
57,000 $
57,000 $
57,000
60,000 $
60,000 $
60,000
-
Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
$
-
$
Description and rationale: This project continues replacement of Downtown decorative street light fixtures, poles and banner poles on an annual basis for the foreseeable future to upgrade lighting to LED technology and replace deteriorated (corroded) decorative poles with longer lasting materials. The first phase of this replacement was completed on 2nd Ave E - 900 block for the light poles and fixtures only.
-
180,000 February 1, 2021 July 1, 2021 October 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
102
B - High
50
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation
Priority Level:
60,000 Streetlight
21C.2 Decorative Streetlight Replacement
(insert photo here)
21C.2
Decorative Streetlight Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
Priority Level:
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Depending on the replacement location it will help lots of residence or tourists.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Current poles are showing signs of corrosion and have prematurely fallen over posing the public or Staff if the project does not 2 a risk to the public and city staff. proceed? Is the project required for This replacement program is required to continue to be compliant. 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for Streetlights identified in this project have a high probability of failure and are in need replacement in the asset management plan 4 of replacement as well as having a focus on the downtown core. If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 3 operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available
This improvement will reduce the energy cost of streetlights since they will be converted to LEDs
This project may be eligible for rebates
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
2
This project will help the natural environment by upgrading old streetlights to be night sky compliant as well as reducing energy costs.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2
This project will promote nighttime activities throughout the city.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
103
2
This project is associated with the Downtown Master plan This project has come up in conversation with the public, in regards to the poor condition and look of the street lights.
21C.2 Decorative Streetlight Replacement
21C.4
Street Greening Initiative Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
10,000
10,000 $ -
$
$
100,000
-
$
100,000
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
-
104
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
110,000 January 4, 2021
December 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Donations $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
C - Moderate Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: In partnership with the DIA Board of Management, an initiative to improve the streetscape of 3rd Avenue East between 8th Street East and 10th Street East is proposed. Supported by urban design standards detailed in the Owen Sound Harbour and Downtown Urban Design/Master Plan Strategy, the plan notes that streetscape improvements for 3rd Avenue East should be a priority, including a "major greening initiative (along the length of the street) and a move to improve the pedestrian character..." This capital would be used to have design completed in accordance with the urban design standards in the master plan for costing and construction in a future year. A presentation to the DIA at the October meeting is linked HERE. The design would be shared with the DIA.
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Priority Level:
5,000 DIA
5,000 21C.4 Street Greening Upgrades- 3rd Ave E DIA
(insert photo here)
21C.4
Street Greening Initiative Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety Legislative Compliance Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
105
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 0 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
1
Is the project a high priority for 0 replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on 3 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available 4 Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating The project would impact a high traffic corridor in the downtown.
This project has not health and safety related aspects. There is no legislative requirement related to this project. New Asset
Some impact to the DIA beautification program in a future year post construction.
The cost of the project is to be shared equally by the City and DIA board of Management
3
Some improvement to the local environment by adding street trees and beautification elements to approximately 450m of 3rd Ave East.
4
6. Promote and enhance Owen Sound's Built Heritage, 7. Encourage and promote participation and active lifestyles, 8. Support community safety and social inclusion
To what degree is the project addressed in 3 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 3 public engagement
The project is identified in the Owen Sound Harbour and Downtown Urban Design/Master Plan Strategy The project has been discussed at the DIA Board of Management in response to feedback received by the Committee.
21C.4 Street Greening Upgrades- 3rd Ave E DIA
21C.1
Downtown Wayfinding Signage Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
No Year 1
Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 2
Year 3+
48,000 12,000
60,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
60,000
Design Start Date:
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
106
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Brent Fisher
Description and rationale: Wayfinding signage is an important tool for visitors and residents to identify key landmarks and destinations within a Municipality. The signage also reflects the image of the City to residents and visitors. Section 7.8.3 of the City's Official Plan (Experiencing the City) identifies in detail, the importance of clear wayfinding signage: "7.8.3.7 - The City will employ clear directional signage to inform visitors of the route to reach the main centres of the Downtown, harbour, east side commercial and west side commercial areas and to reach highway linking points. Signage should also identify the routes to other landmark destinations such as major parks, the library and hospital." The City is currently completing the 2020 Wayfinding Signage capital project for key access points and has adopted the RTO7 wayfinding signage guidelines. This project includes 22 locations outside of the downtown. The DIA and City are completing a Marketing, Branding and Action strategy whereby Wayfinding Signage is identified as a key joint initiative. A funding partnership with the Owen Sound DIA will be proposed in the DIA’s 2021 budget deliberations to support the rebranding. Additional funding sources will be explored such as the RT07 Signage funding program as well as possible RED Funding opportunities. If the signs are not replaced in the short term, they will need to be removed altogether.
June 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
September 1, 2021 October 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
C - Moderate
20
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage $ Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Construction Start Date:
Priority Level:
60,000 Red
21C.1 DowntownWayfindingSignage
21C.1
Downtown Wayfinding Signage Justification for Matrix Values
Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
5
Thousands of residents and visitors travel through the downtown on a weekly basis. Current downtown signage is not consistent or reflect the RTO7 model adopted in 2020.
2
No impact on health and safety
3
Current wayfinding signage does not meet MTO or accessibility requirements
1
Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management plan
1
Little effect on operations. Consultation with engineering and DIA Board required.
2
Funded through reserves, however grants (RTO7, RED) as well as a DIA contribution will all be explored.
1
The signs will be more aesthetically pleasing but will not have an impact on the natural environment.
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
3
Proper wayfinding signage is vital to marketing and promoting the Downtown as a destination.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan
3
DIA Action, Marketing and Branding Strategy
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
An upgrade in aesthetics to the current tired wayfinding signage in the downtown was a recurring theme in the public findings of the Downtown Marketing, Branding and 3 Action strategy.
People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment
Cultural Significance
107
How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
21C.1 DowntownWayfindingSignage
APPENDIX D
INVEST, RENEW, MANAGE DETAIL SHEETS owensound.ca
108
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: INVEST-RENEW-MANAGE RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
2
Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration
81.4
150,000
3
East Waterfront Trail Restoration
81.4
150,000
4
Electronic Records Management Application
75.8
325,500
5
Software Transformation Project Needs Assessment
75.2
175,000
7
Zoning By-law Review
74.2
10,000
8
Harrison Park Channel Wall Repair
72.2
25,000
17
Transit Study
58.4
80,000
55.0
15,000
18 20
Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance
53.2
35,000
21
Forestry Gear
52.8
5,000
24
Employee Engagement Survey
51.6
25,000
25
Brooke Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion
51.0
10,000
26
Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement
50.6
91,000
27
Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement
50.6
45,000
29
Phragmites (invasive Species) Removal
50.2
40,000
33
Salt & Sand Storage Containment
49.0
50,000
34
Citizen Satisfaction Survey
48.8
25,000
35
Harrison Park Pool Filtration System Replacement
48.4
60,000
38
Council Audio Visual
47.0
189,000
39
Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution
46.6
15,000
109
CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS: INVEST-RENEW-MANAGE RANKING
PROJECT TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
42
AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E)
45.0
350,000
46
Tennis/Pickle Ball Court Renewal
39.8
30,000
49
Sanitary Sewer Relocation - 3rd Ave E & 297 18th St E (Georgian Landing Apartments)
38.4
5,000
50
Paving Around New Fuel System - Public Works
37.6
20,000
53
YMCA New Playground at Julie McArthur Regional Rec Centre
35.2
50,000
55
St. George’s Backstop Replacement
31.2
15,000
57
Interpretive Plaques
27.8
2,500
27.0
10,000
58 59
Auto Body Shop Development - 23rd St E - Contribution for Storm Drainage
26.4
15,000
60
Cemetery Benches Replacement
25.8
15,000
61
Digitize Building Plans for AMANDA
25.4
20,000
110
CAPITAL BUDGET: NEW FLEET 2021 ITEM #
111
TITLE
PRIORITY SCORE
TOTAL BUDGET ($)
Fleet A
Drop Sander/Material Spreader
53.4
12,000
Fleet B
Building Vehicle Charging Station(s)
21.4
20,000
Fleet C
Building Vehicles
19.2
100,000
Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
21D.30 No
Year 2
Year 3+
10,000 140,000
150,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: Due to exceptionally high water levels in 2019 and 2020 the shoreline and storm outflow at Kelso Beach Park have sustained significant damage. In addition, the high water has exacerbated the issue of water at the base of the amphitheatre in front of the stage. Remediation of a large section of shoreline has been completed in 2020 as well as the drainage in the amphitheatre has been addressed. The shoreline failure has caused the waterfront trail to fail (see photo). This capital would be used to complete the shoreline protection work and design and construct the asphalt accessible trail. The Recreation Facilities and Parks Master Plan supports the Trails Master Plan recommendation that maintenance should be prioritized for the Waterfront Trail at Kelso Beach as it is considered a major trail hub within the City.
150,000 February 1, 2021 July 2nd 2021 August 2nd 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
112
A - very high
25
Impact on Operating Budget $
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
150,000 PY Gas Tax
-
21D.30 Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration
(insert photo here)
Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
113
21D.30 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
Priority Level:
A - very high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
5
10,000+
3
Unsafe trail conditions.
4
Occupiers Liability Act
5
Yes
5
A new trail alignment would need to be developed and constructed. Current condition is a detriment to the park and events that rely on the park space and shoreline access east of the amphitheatre stage and pavilion.
2
Grant opportunities are being explored.
Will the project result in an improvement The project will remediate existing shoreline damage and fortify the remaining lands to the natural environment of the 5 reducing sediment in the water and retain valuable waterfront parkland. community? To what degree does the project support 7.1 - Continue to deliver select free City events to residents 3 cultural initiatives 7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities To what degree is the project addressed in The waterfront trail and beach are supported by recommendations 11 and 12 in the 4 a Master Plan Kelso Beach Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
Shoreline and trail remediation received public input as part of the Kelso Beach 4 Master Plan process, and current conditions have been communicated to the public via media releases and periodic social media reminders.
21D.30 Kelso Waterfront Trail Restoration
East Waterfront Trail Restoration Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
21D.45
No Year 2
Year 3+
10,000 140,000
150,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: Wind driven wave shoreline damage has occurred on the east side of the bay impacting the waterfront trail between the Public Health Unit building and the Harry Lumley Community Centre as well as the Tom Thomson trail, between the Bayshore Community Centre and the north end of the Waste Water Treatment Plant property. This capital would be used to design a trail restoration solution including shoreline protection measures to resist additional wind driven wave action erosion. Staff are pursuing grant opportunities to assist with this project. The Recreation Facilities and Parks Master Plan supports the trails master plan recommendation that the Harbour Walkway and Waterfront trail be prioritized for maintenance as major feeder trails for the rest of the City's trail system. This trail also supports active transportation into Owen Sound via connectivity to trails that meet at the municipal boundary.
150,000 February 1, 2021 July 2nd 2021 August 2nd 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
114
A - very high
N/A
Impact on Operating Budget $
Grant (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
150,000 PY Gas Tax
-
21D.45 East Waterfront Trail Restoration
(insert photo here)
21D.45
East Waterfront Trail Restoration Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
A - very high
Justification / Rationale for Rating 10,000+
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed?
Unsafe trail conditions.
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
4
Occupiers Liability Act
5
Yes
5
The trail has completely failed west of the Inn on the Bay. Public access and staff ability to maintain the trail are impacted, and the trail cannot be opened until restoration is complete.
2
Grant opportunities are being explored.
5
The project will remediate existing shoreline damage and fortify the remaining lands reducing sediment in the water and retain valuable waterfront parkland.
3
7.1 - Continue to deliver select free City events to residents 7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identifed through public engagement
115
Priority Level:
The waterfront trail and beach are supported by recommendations in the Trails Master Plan
Current conditions have been communicated to the public via media releases and 4 periodic social media reminders. Users and nearby businesses have raised concerns about the trail damage with staff.
21D.45 East Waterfront Trail Restoration
20A.13
Electronic Records Management Application Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
New Asset
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
No Year 2
Studies $ 325,500 In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ 325,500 $ Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Year 3+
325,500 December 1, 2019
116
Department: Staff Contact:
Corporate Services
(insert photo here)
December 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
A - Very High Desiree Van Dijk
Description and rationale: All organizations are challenged with managing the explosive growth of electronic records in diverse formats. The City is falling behind acceptable practices in this area. Currently, the City's electronic records are stored on a variety of "directories" typically assigned by department, or operational area. The network directories are quite varied and numerous business records are stored in a very ad-hoc, unstructured basis. This means that many records are unclassified per the City's Records Classification System. As well, some departments often have numerous directories in which they access records for business purposes. The result of this current ad-hoc storage system is excessive time to find records, version accuracy issues, lost records and multiple duplicates. In addition, there is insufficient rigour regarding appropriate retention/destruction scheduling of City records. The benefits of an EDRMS are numerous, including increased sustainability and efficiency of service, increased legislative compliance and better customer service. On November 18, 2019 Council approved awarding the procurement of an EDMS to the highest scoring proponent in a 2019 RFP. The amount over the reserve set aside in previous years is to be funded from the discretionary modernization grant received from the Province in 2019.
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Priority Level:
325,500
20A.13 EDRMS
20A.13
Electronic Records Management Application
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input 117
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? 5 What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
2
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? 4 Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
EDRMS will significantly impact all staff, Owen Sound Citizens and those that work with the City. Improves and enhances ability to access and distribute Health and safety information and forms to staff. Assure compliancy with Municipal legislative requirements such as Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, ADOA, the City retention Policies. Replacement for current process and hardware.
1
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact Project will significantly improve the ability of staff to work and provides services to on operational performance? 5 the public. Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be This project is recommended to be funded entirely from the Province's modernization leveraged or are there partnership 4 grant which is intended to address service delivery and efficiency. The goals of the funds available grant program mirror the scope of this project. Will the project result in an Significant improvement to City ability to work effective and reduce our carbon foot 5 improvement to the natural print through paper reduction and ability to work remotely. environment of the community? Support for more than three actions by allowing the City to improve ability to Built To what degree does the project 5 our heritage through the Community Development Plan, Promote Safety and Foster support cultural initiatives and develop the ability to Facilitate Recreation and Sport opportunities. To what degree is the project Project relates to the completion of another project identified 1 addressed in a Master Plan Has the project been identified Has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback 1 through public engagement 20A.13 EDRMS
Software Transformation Project (Needs Assessment) Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
21A.6
Study Partial Year 1
Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 2
Year 3+
175,000
175,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
175,000 Late February, Early March
Construction Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Corporate Services Mark Giberson
Description and rationale: The objective is to transform our core software platforms into a flexible, agile integrated system allowing the City to conduct business anywhere, anytime meeting the City Strategic, operation and business goals. This will be done by conducting a needs assessment of current core applications to identify deficiencies and to develop a road map to allow the City to build a solid foundation moving forward. The City has not conducted a review of current software in the last ten years to determine if and how our current software meets our needs, as well as the expectations of Staff, Citizens, Developers and others. Covid-19 has presented a number of challenges that current software has had difficulty meeting. Healthy and robust systems are essential to allow the City to create growth, create efficiencies, meet reporting requirements and allow City to be able to be in a better position to promote the interest of it's Citizens.
(insert photo here)
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
August 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
118
A - Very High
N/A
Cash Flow Projection:
Grant (Specify) Carry Forward Water Rates Select from List Select from List Taxation
Priority Level:
$ $ $
$
130,000 Modernization 15,000 30,000
21A.6 Software Transformation Project (Needs Assessment)
Software Transformation Project (Needs Assessment) Justification for Matrix Values People
21A.6 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted 5 by the project?
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Affects all staff, Council and Citizens by identifying the direction that the City takes.
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
The project will aim to identify a solution for the City's Human Resources Information system including health and safety training and resources. Having this information 3 readily available will ensure that staff are trained adequately to do their jobs resulting in fewer injuries.
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
3
Asset Management
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
This project will address the optimal system to house the City's asset management 5 data ensuring that investments are made at the right time in the right place. Failure to recognize the highest priorities will result in asset failure.
Operational Performance
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
5
Needs Assessment will identify operational efficiencies and inefficiencies and allow City to address.
Financing
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
5
This project is recommended to be funded entirely from the Province's modernization grant which is intended to address service delivery and efficiency. The goals of the grant program mirror the scope of this project.
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
Health and Safety
Legislation
Cultural Significance Master Plan
Public Input 119
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
2 2 2
4
Helps to identify legislative deficiencies in current systems.
Implementing this project will not be a detriment to the environment and in many ways will help the City improve the environment through sound data management, reduced paper and staff time and improved interaction with our ratepayers. By facilitating more online interaction with ratepayers and participants, the process review will improve access to recreational programming. Assessment will allow City to be able to be in a better position to promote growth and interest with it's Citizens. The ability to interact with the City in more ways electronically and virtually has been requested by public on many circumstances. The ability to provide our services more efficiently and with faster access to information is often the root of an issue brought forward by the public.
21A.6 Software Transformation Project (Needs Assessment)
21E.1
Zoning By-law Review Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Study
Cash Flow Projection: Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 1
Year 2
10,000
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
$
-
$
-
Summer 2021
120
Community Services
(insert photo here)
Spring 2022
Current Year Funding Sources: Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation
Department: Staff Contact:
10,000
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
A - Very High Amy Cann
Description and rationale: In accordance with the Planning Act, an Official Plan is to be updated not less than every 5 years. The City will complete the Official Plan update in 2021. A municipality is legislatively mandated to update its zoning by-law no less than three years after the approval of an Official Plan under Planning Act Sec. 26(9). The City's Zoning By-law came into force in 2010 and will require review and update upon completion of the City's Official Plan. It is staff's objective, if time and capacity exists, to complete the review internally and have the document peer reviewed. If constraints necessitate, Staff will craft the new Zoning By-law in partnership with the consultant.
Year 3+
10,000
Priority Level:
10,000 21E.1_ZBL Review
21E.1
Zoning By-law Review Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
121
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
A - Very High
Justification / Rationale for Rating City-wide
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of Regulates building within areas prone to flooding and slope instability; ensure equity the public or Staff if the project does not 2 in land use and prevents encroachment onto neighbouring properties. proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
5
Yes, Planning Act. Implements the Official Plan.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
3
Update legislated
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Dated By-law is triggering an increased amount of developer/owner driven 5 amendments, which is onerous on developer/owner and unnecessarily consumes City resources.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 4 community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
To what degree is the project addressed in 5 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 4 public engagement
Not likely. Protection of the natural environment by directing development away from hazard lands and open space. Upholds strategic directions concerning the built environment and regulates all land uses in the City. Zoning is the primary implementing document of the Official Plan. Zoning By-law is required under the Planning Act and must be devised/reviewed through public consultation.
21E.1_ZBL Review
21D.20
HP Channel Wall Repair Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
No Year 2
Year 3+
5,000 20,000
25,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services A. Parsons
Description and rationale: The stacked stone retaining wall along the west/south side of the river is exhibiting signs of significant stone and mortar loss in localized areas. Additional deterioration of the wall could allow granular material loss below the roadway and parking lot surface resulting in failure of the roadway. This capital would be used to contract a consulting engineer to design a typical channel wall section, to be used to support repairs in 2021 and future maintenance repairs of the original 1922 structure. The stacked stone wall is part of the designated cultural heritage landscape of Harrison Park.
25,000 Jan 1 2021
(insert photo here)
March 25, 2021 April 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
122
A - very high
25
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
25,000
21D.20 HP Channel Wall Repairs
21D.20
HP Channel Wall Repair
Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
5
A - very high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Harrison Park is the most visited location in Owen Sound by visitors and residents.
What is the risk to the health and safety of Identified by a consulting engineer in the Bridges and retaining walls bi-annual report the public or Staff if the project does not 5 (completed in 2020) as a high probability of failure. proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
4
Required to continue to be compliant with the Occupiers Liability Act.
Parks assets are not included as a core asset as defined by the Province. Most parks assets are not included in the current Asset Management Plan. Identified by a 5 consulting engineer in the Bridges and retaining walls bi-annual report (completed in 2020) as a high probability of failure. Failure of the 1922 structure will result in the collapse of the main vehicular exit from the central area of Harrison Park. Traffic disruptions would cause major operational 4 delays. All parks operations would be forced to exit the park via a controlled traffic point alternating entering and exiting the park via a single lane. 0
No current funding partnerships are available for non-core assets (as defined by the Province).
4
Should the wall section fail, pending time of year, silt may flow into the main river channel impacting fish habitat and reproductive success.
1
Harrison Park is a designated heritage landscape - promote and enhance Owen Sound's built heritage.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
123
Priority Level:
Specifically identified in the City's bi-annual bridges and retaining wall report prepared by GM Blueplan engineering.
0
21D.20 HP Channel Wall Repairs
Has not been identified by the public.
21R.1
Transit Study Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Study
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
Yes Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
80,000
80,000 $ -
Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Cassandra Cesco
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Description and rationale: This item facilitates an experienced Transit Consultant to put together an RFP for the next City Transit contract. The importance of completing a Transit Study is largely based off the growth the City is expected to have within the next 5-10 years and how the City will need to adjust to incorporating new or existing transit service areas to be accommodated in the new transit network. Incorporating multiple service delivery models, implementation of a suggested bus route system specific to the City of Owen Sound's particular needs, how to reduce imperfections in the current transit system and make the most of our next City transit contract will have options presented in the RFP.
80,000 November, 2020
(insert photo here)
January, 2021 April, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
124
B - high
5 - 10
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
80,000 PY Gas Tax
21R.1 Transit Study
21R.1
Transit Study Justification for Matrix Values
People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment
Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
4
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Depending on the City's growth in the coming years, the study could impact a significant number of visitors and residents
What is the risk to the health and safety of No impact on health and safety 0 the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for 5 To ensure we maintain AODA compliance, we will need to factor in bus stop locations legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
Enhancement to an existing asset
5
Operationally we would see an improved transit system in the City. Impacts on budget may increase, including staff time
2
Funded through reserves
3
This project will improve transportation with the City.
4
It would have a positive impact on cultural initiatives as it would create an increased community setting to allow more residents to travel within the City
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 5 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
125
Priority Level:
Would be a positive initiative to the Transportation Master Plan 2010
1
21R.1 Transit Study
Has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback
21S.2
Genoe Flush and Camera Work Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Cassandra Cesco
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Description and rationale: Genoe Landfill Site (Genoe) has a leachate collection system comprised of 16 manholes connected by 200 mm (8 inch) PVC and HDPE perforated pipe. This requires a combination vacuum flushing truck, ideally with a CCTV explosion proof camera system due to the nature of methane exposure. A condition of the Genoe Landfill Closure Plan requires the City have a contractor conduct a camera inspection of the leachate collection system be scheduled to occur every 5 years. As this was last done in 2016, the camera work is due again for 2021.
15,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
Construction Start Date:
June, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
July, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
126
B - high
5
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000 Landfill
21S.2 Genoe Flush and Camera Work
21S.2
Genoe Flush and Camera Work Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Not applicable Possibility of high methane levels causing an explosion Yes, as per O. Reg. 232/98 Landfill Sites and as per the Genoe Landfill Closure Plan
Is the project a high priority for Last maintenance occurred July, 2021. Prior to that was 2016, then 2014. Waiting too 5 replacement in the asset management long of a time could incur negative impacts plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on Increased maintenance for the following year since, leading to increased costs 4 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or Funded through reserves are there partnership funds available 2 Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
Improvements to removal of excess and stagnant waste water
0
Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
127
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
0
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 4 proceed? Is the project required for 5 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
0
21S.2 Genoe Flush and Camera Work
Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
20D.13
Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
10,000 25,000
35,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Jan 1 2021 May 1, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
July 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 128
B - High
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The City's Bridges and Culvert inspection report by GM BluePlan, completed in 2020 , identified maintenance items for 3 bridges at Harrison Park. 1) The Ski Hill Bridge; 2) The South Mile Drive Bridge; 3) A steel Pedestrian Bridge to the Island Playground. The report pages referencing these projects with recommendations are attached. Completion of this work will be done by contractors. This maintenance work will extend the life of the asset.
35,000
Construction Start Date:
Priority Level:
35,000
20D.13 Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance
20D.13
Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating 10,000+
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of Maintenance is required to ensure the ongoing serviceability of bridges in Harrison the public or Staff if the project does not 5 Park. Should the project not proceed it will result in future risk to the public and users proceed? in the heavily used park. Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
5
Occupiers Liability Act
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
5
Yes
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
1
Maintenance will allow operations to continue unchanged.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available
No partnerships are available
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
Little or no environmental gains will be made by completing this project.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Supports activities for the aging. Maintains inclusive public space.
Master Plan Master Plan 129
To what degree is the project addressed in Identified in the Harrison Park Master Plan 3 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through This has not been identified by the public. The project is driven by regular engineering 0 public engagement reviews of the City's bridges and retaining walls by a consulting engineer. 20D.13 Harrison Park Bridges Maintenance
21D.36
Forestry Gear Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Contingency Total $
No Year 2
Year 3+
5,000 5,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The City's forestry team, comprised of 3 International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Arborists, 2 Arborists dedicated primarily to forestry duties, and a Horticulturalist who holds an ISA certification. Staff are supported by a fleet that includes a 65' bucket truck and chipper combination, and an assortment of small equipment and trade specific tools. This capital would be used to purchase replacement and new tools that will enhance the teams ability to respond to a wider variety of calls, and increase the degree of safety of the work they perform. Tools and equipment included in this request are a high elevation self rescue kit, dielectric ladder, various pulleys and rigging hardware, PPE and specialty saws sized for working at high angles with challenging access. Ropes and lines may last 2 seasons, durable goods are expected to have a 10 year lifecycle.
5,000 Jan 4 2021 January 10, 2021 Feb 1 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
130
B - high
2-10 years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
5,000 21D.36 Forestry Gear
21D.36
Forestry Gear Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment
Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2,500-4,999 Proactive maintenance efficiency will be improved reducing the risk to public and staff. Ontario Health and Safety Act and Regulations
0
Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an Asset Management Plan.
4
Improved safety efficiency and effectiveness for staff in the line of duty, supporting staff in the provision of timely responses to inquires.
0
No partnerships are available
Slight improvement in the natural environment by supporting the health of the City's urban tree canopy by tending to and supporting the health of mature trees throughout the City. While not specifically identified by the strategic plan in the category of society and culture, maintaining the urban tree canopy on City properties supports Owen 1 Sound's natural cultural heritage 2
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identifed through public engagement
131
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
3
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
5
This project has not been identified by a Master Plan. Forestry related inquiries account for 180-200 calls for service annually.
21D.36 Forestry Gear
21B.1
Employee Engagement Survey Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Study
Cash Flow Projection:
No Year 1
Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
Year 2
Year 3+
25,000
25,000 $
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager
25,000 January 1, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Current Year Funding Sources:
132
B - high Michelle Palmer
Description and rationale: Research shows increasing employee engagement leads to improved service to the public and increases citizens’ trust and confidence in government. Highly engaged employees not only provide better service to customers but their general performance was better than others, had better attendance and were less likely to leave. The survey will measure employee engagement and identify specific drivers of employee engagement at the City of Owen Sound, provide flexibility for the reporting of results through multiple team lenses, provide actionable results and supporting tools to foster an environment that empowers leaders and employees to be responsive and engaged in results to build a place where we want to work.
Construction Start Date:
Grant (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
25,000 Modernization
-
21B.1 Employee Engagement Survey
(insert photo here)
21B.1
Employee Engagement Survey Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
133
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
Priority Level:
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Employee engagement leads to improved service to the public and increases citizens’ trust and confidence in government
What is the risk to the health and safety Lack of employee engagement leads to decreased attendance and may lead to staff of the public or Staff if the project does 2 mental health not proceed? Is the project required for Employers are required to provide a safe work place 3 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management 0 plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on 5 any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available 5 Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
N/A
Highly engaged employees not only provide better service to customers, but their general performance was better than others
This project is recommended to be funded entirely from the Province's modernization grant which is intended to address service delivery and efficiency.
1
Project has a neutral impact on the environment
0
Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
0
Has not been identified in a master plan
0
Has not been identified by the public
21B.1 Employee Engagement Survey
17P.5
Brook Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering $ Design or Engineering $ Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
1,000 9,000
10,000 $ -
Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Description and rationale: Completion of the Brooke Area Storm Drainage Basin A3 Master Plan and Study that commenced in 2017. The project completion was placed "on hold" in 2020 just before the final public consultation phase (public meeting/information centre and notification of project completion) due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and restrictions on public gatherings. The Brooke Basin A3 Master Plan will identify priorities within Brooke Basin A3 for future years. Projects include: 6th Ave W - 2100 block culvert/storm sewer replacement and road municipal services reconstruction, 19th St W Storm Sewer Replacement and 19th St W Culvert/Storm Sewer Inlet. This is similar to the planning process that has been implemented for the Kenny Drain System.
10,000 February 1, 2018 N/A December 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
134
B - High
50
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
10,000 17P.5 Brooke Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion
(insert photo here)
17P.5
Brook Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
135
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted 1 by the project?
Priority Level:
B - High
Justification / Rationale for Rating
This Project will affect the property owners all along the Brooke Basin drainage catchment
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
1
Little heath and safety risks would be associated with this project
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
3
This replacement program is required to continue to be compliant.
Is the project a high priority for replacement This project has been identified in the City's asset management plan for replacement in the asset management plan 4 and improvements If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
4
This improvement will have a significant improvement to operational performance in terms to PW call out and liability claims
0
This project is not eligible for any grant funding
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? 4 To what degree does the project support 1 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in a 3 Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
4
This project will help address the flooding and erosion problems with the under designed creek system This project will have very little if any cultural significance This project can be associated with growth within the city as well as completing a portion of the Storm water study Public residents who back upon the creek have been working with the city to get this issue addressed.
17P.5 Brooke Basin A-3 Master Plan - Completion
Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
21D.70 No
Year 2
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: Lifecycle Replacement of the Playground Structure at the Harrison Park Campground. The aging play structure is deteriorating and has surpassed its projected lifecycle. New equipment will refresh the park and create a play space that meets current CSA play structure code requirements. The replacement of this structure supports the campground operation providing an amenity for children within the campground. Staff have submitted an application to the Enabling Accessibility Fund to support the project. The new equipment would be specified to have a natural theme in keeping with the location.
Year 3+
91,000
91,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
91,000 February 1, 2021
Construction Start Date:
September 15, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
September 30, 2021
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources:
136
B - high
25-50
Impact on Operating Budget $
Grant (Specify) $ Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
73,000 Accessibility 18,000 Capital
21D.70 Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement
Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
137
21D.70 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
Justification / Rationale for Rating 2,500-5,000
3
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for 5 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Injuries may result if the structure is not replaced or removed. CSA Z614-14 Design of Children's Play Structures, Occupiers Liability Act
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 5 If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 2 operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available 2 Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 1 community? To what degree does the project support 3 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
3
B - high
Yes
The cost of maintenance and replacement components is equal to or more than replacement.
Facility booking reserve and Parkland reserve.
Little or no impact positively or negatively on the surrounding environment 7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities This item is not identified specifically in a master plan, it supports goals of the Recreation, Parks and Facilities Master Plan. Public feedback has been received supporting replacement of the structure.
21D.70 Harrison Park Campground Playground Replacement
Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
21D.71
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
No Year 1
Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 2
Year 3+
45,000
45,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: Lifecycle Replacement of the Playground Structure at Duncan McLellan Park is required. The aging play structure is deteriorating and has surpassed its projected lifecycle. New equipment will refresh the park and create a play space that meets current CSA play structure code requirements. The replacement of this structure is supported by the Parks Recreation and Facilities master plan objective to provide a play structure within 500m of every residence. The fence that protects the playground from 19th St East is in poor condition and will be replaced/repaired as part of the project. Removal and replacement of this item is included in the project scope.
45,000 February 1, 2021
Construction Start Date:
June 1, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
June 30, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
138
B - high
25-50
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
Reserves (Specify) $ Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
10,000 Facility Booking 25,000 Parkland
10,000
21D.71 Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement
(insert photo here)
Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
139
21D.71
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
3
2,500-5,000
3
Injuries may result if the structure is not replaced or removed.
5
CSA Z614-14 Design of Children's Play Structures, Occupiers Liability Act
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 2 operating costs, staff time and maintenance 2
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? 1 To what degree does the project support 3 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in a 0 Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 5
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
Priority Level:
3
Yes
The cost of maintenance and replacement components is equal to or more than replacement.
Facility Booking Reserve and Parkland Reserve. Little or no impact positively or negatively on the surrounding environment 7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities This item is not identified specifically in a Master Plan, it supports goals of the Recreation, Parks and Facilities Master Plan. Public feedback has been received supporting replacement of the structure.
21D.71 Duncan McLellan Park Playground Replacement
21D.31
Phragmites Removal Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
No Year 2
Year 3+
40,000
40,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
40,000
Design Start Date:
January 1, 2021
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
August 10, 2021
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The control of the invasive phragmities was identified as a high priority in the Kelso Beach Master Plan in 2010. The Parks and Open Space Division has worked over several years to successfully reduce invasive phragmites reed grass along the shore at Kelso Beach Park in areas that could be reached from land or shallow waters. The work has had a positive impact on the environment and on the usability of the space. In 2019, the program included a trial with the Invasive Phragmites Control Centre (IPCC). Staff from the IPCC worked at Kelso Beach in 2019 with amphibious equipment, along side City staff to reduce or eliminate phragmites in stands that have been previously inaccessible. Staff from the IPCC anticipate an 80% to 100% reduction in density within the trial area. Given the success of the 2019 trial and the 2020 operation, this capital will be used to complete the program west of the 4th Ave W bridge towards the City's boundary to remove an estimated 100 tons of biomass from the riverbanks. This capital includes contractor costs for cutting, removal from site and disposal. Completion of this work will be done by contractors in August to achieve the highest degree of effectiveness.
(insert photo here)
August 20, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
140
B - high
N/A
Impact on Operating Budget $
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
40,000 Capital
21D.31 Phragmites Removal
21D.31
Phragmites Removal Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
10,000+
5
low risk to public safety The project is not related to legislative compliance
1
The project is an enhancement to an existing asset
3
The project will have a net increase in demand on operational demand in future years as parks staff will maintain the 0-20% regrowth that is expected to occur in subsequent years.
1 No partnership is available at time of budget, staff are exploring grant opportunities. Phragmites removal has a overwhelming positive impact on the surrounding 5 environment by restoring natural riaprian and fish habitat in the Pottowotomi river and the near shore environment at Kelso Beach Park. Maintains inclusive public spaces
2
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 3 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
141
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for 1 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
Priority Level:
2
The project is specifically identified in the Kelso Beach Master Plan Identified through public engagement during the Kelso Beach Master Plan process, and subsequently via direct unsolicited inquiries in the interim.
21D.31 Phragmites Removal
20M.10
Salt & Sand Storage Containment Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
50,000
50,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
50,000
Construction Start Date: December 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 142
C - Moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering Jeff Follis
Description and rationale: This project is to replace the two existing sand and salt domes at Public Works, which are at the end of their service life, with one new partitioned structure. The MOECP recommends that "road salt or sand/salt stockpiles should always be protected from precipitation or surface runoff. Further, the storage facility shall be underlain with an impervious apron (preferably asphalt) and dyed to prevent the seepage of salt leachate from the storage area to a nearby watercourse or to ground water aquifers." It is proposed to undertake Engineering in 2020, including demolition specs for the existing domes as well as base prep considerations. The existing two domes will remain in service until the new facility is completed. This will be possible because the new facility (similar to right photo below) will be located in a different location at the PW site than the existing one (left photo below).
Design Start Date:
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Priority Level:
50,000
20M.10 Sand & Salt Facility
20M.10
Salt & Sand Storage Containment Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
143
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating Winter Control efficiencies affect the entire City
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of The existing dome is at the end its useful life. Loading and unloading of salt and sand the public or Staff if the project does not 2 occur outside, which is not the MOECP best practice in winter conditions proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
5
Will result in full regulatory compliance with respect to salt storage.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
3
Is a priority for replacement of existing structure
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
3
Operational performance will improve. Current domes are undersized for undercover activity (mixing, loading)
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
3
To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding Consistent with MOECP and Federal requirements for environmental salt management. Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
20M.10 Sand & Salt Facility
Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
21B.2
Citizen Satisfaction Survey Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Study
Cash Flow Projection: Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 1
Year 2
-
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
January 1, 2021
City Manager
(insert photo here)
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Current Year Funding Sources:
144
Department: Staff Contact:
25,000
Construction Start Date:
Grant (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
C - moderate Michelle Palmer
Description and rationale: The City values the feedback and opinions of it's residents. Public engagement through statistically significant surveys and focus groups offers an opportunity to hear from citizens and stakeholders about their top-of-mind issues of concern and satisfaction with City services and builds stronger relationships with the public. Conducting citizen satisfaction surveys is also an effective way to examine the City’s performance in comparison to the national norm and see how Owen Sound’s service offerings and delivery measures up to other municipalities.
Year 3+
25,000
25,000 $
Priority Level:
25,000 Modernization
-
21B.2 Citizen Satisfaction Survey
21B.2
Citizen Satisfaction Survey Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values
People
Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan
Public Input
145
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
The City values the feedback and opinions of it's residents. Surveys are an important How many people will be positively impacted source of statistically valid, reliable and relevant feedback from citizens. Gathering 5 by the project? opinions on a number of key questions helps to inform strategic decisions by ensuring that organizational priorities are aligned with citizen needs What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 0 proceed? Is the project required for 1 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement 0 in the asset management plan
Not Applicable No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement Not Applicable
Conducting citizen satisfaction surveys is also an effective way to examine the City’s If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), performance in comparison to the national norm and see how Owen Sound’s service what will be the impact on operational offerings and delivery measures up to other municipalities. Public input is a key 5 performance? Comment on any impact on driver for decision-making, and informs policy decisions, budgetary spending and operating costs, staff time and maintenance continuous improvement. Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
5
This project is recommended to be funded entirely from the Province's modernization grant which is intended to address service delivery and efficiency.
Will the project result in an improvement to 1 the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Neutral impact to the environment
0
Not Applicable
To what degree is the project addressed in a 0 Master Plan
Not Applicable
Has the project been identified through public engagement
The City engages with citizens in a variety of methods on various projects, but has never undertaken a statistically reliable citizen satisfaction survey. The ability to 3 interact with the City in more ways electronically and virtually has been requested by public on many circumstances.
21B.2 Citizen Satisfaction Survey
HARRISON PARK POOL Filtration System Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
21D.5
Replacement No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
60,000
60,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Kristan Shrider
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: The City has invested in an upgrade and accessible features for the Harrison Park pool in 2019 and 2020 including pool, deck and changehouse. At that time, upgrades to the pool mechanical and filtration system were not within the scope of work. Mechanical and filtration function is the heart of the system and failure to maintain the components will result in failure and risk of not opening the pool. The filtration infrastructure is very old with minor repairs and additions being implemented over the years. The replacement will include but not limited to: removal of existing equipment and piping, installation of new filter(s), piping, pump, valves and gauges. The new equipment will be energy efficient and inline with today's technology of pool operating systems. Completion of this work will be done by a contractor.
60,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
May 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
146
C - moderate
25 years
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
60,000 Facility Booking
-
21D.5 HARRISON PARK POOL Filteration System Replacement
HARRISON PARK POOL Filtration System Replacement
Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety
Legislation
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing Environment
Cultural Significance
21D.5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
5
Harrison Park has thousands of people visit the campground annually. A large attraction to the park is the pool and amenities.
2
The existing equipment has health and safety concerns (guards missing, pinch points etc.) and the replacement will ensure that all equipment is safe and in acceptable operating condition.
4
The safe operation of a pool is legislated by TSSA and Public Health compliance. The City is required to maintain it's property to ensure the safety of the public and staff.
Is the project a high priority for replacement There is risk of failure of the existing equipment which will prevent the pool from in the asset management plan 4 operating. Poorly operating equipment may cause the pool to be unbalanced and not safe to swim in. If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), An updated system will allow for easier operating needs and equipment function. A what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 3 well maintained system will ensure proper chemical application to the pool and more efficient operations. operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 0 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? 1 To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
5
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a 2 Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
147
Priority Level:
0
No opportunity for partnership or grant funding Little or no improvement as a result of the project Promotes Heritage Delivery of free events. Facilitates recreation and sports opportunities. Maintains inclusive public spaces. Supports activities for the aging. Harrison Park Master Plan. Has not been identified by the public
21D.5 HARRISON PARK POOL Filteration System Replacement
20A.99
Council Audio Visual Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Partial Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
189,000 189,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
Impact on Operating Budget $
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Department: Staff Contact:
Corporate Services Mark Giberson
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: From the beginning of the COVID pandemic in March, Staff in Corporate Services and Facilities have worked exceptionally hard to maintain the City’s on-line electronic Council and Committee meetings through WebEx and iCompass using the existing Audio/Visual infrastructure in the Council Chamber. Although some lighting and audio components of this infrastructure have been addressed over the past four years, the solutions were to stabilize and extend the current usability of the entire A/V system. The equipment used to broadcast and conduct the meetings has now extended well beyond its current lifecycle and must be replaced with a complete solution to continue with on-line broadcasts and broadcasting on the Rogers Cable network. More than 30 issues are identified by a Consultant.
189,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
March 31st 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
148
C - Moderate
10
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Contingency Total $
Reserves (Specify) $ Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
69,000 IT Equip./Capital 120,000
-
20A.99 Council Chambers Audio Visual Project
20A.99
Council Audio Visual
Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment
Cultural Significance
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating All Citizen and Staff
5
What is the risk to the health and safety of Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result 1 the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for Moves the City Closer to addressing ombudsman comments in regards to records of 3 legislative/regulatory compliance? Closed sessions. Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 1 If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 4 operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 2 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Significant improvement to function of Council Chambers
Significant impact on ability for staff to support Council and Committee Meetings
Funded through reserves
2
Slight improvement as a result of the project
0
Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
149
Priority Level:
Strengthening our community through sound leadership
0
20A.99 Council Chambers Audio Visual Project
Has not been identified by the public
Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc. $ Contingency Total $
No
17D.55
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
75-80 Year 2
Year 3+
15,000 $
15,000 $
15,000
15,000 $
15,000 $
15,000
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
$
Description and rationale: The existing water system throughout Greenwood Cemetery is aged and beginning to show signs of failure. There has been sections of the water system that has been isolated and taken out of service. Funds were allocated in 2017 for repairs of the system ($15,000), however further investigation revealed the entire system was beyond end of life, and repairs were not feasible. A matching contribution was made in 2020 of $15,000. Replacement of the entire system will be completed when the reserve balance reaches the $150,000 project value. Staff recommend an annual contribution towards a reserve fund for three to five years to attain the required funding amount.
-
45,000 January 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Jan 1 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
150
Adam Parsons
15,000
17D.55 Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution
Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
17D.55
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
1
Visitors to the Cemetery
1
Minor health and safety risk related to underground water system leaks and potability.
5
Water system standards, Occupiers Liability Act
5
The system has failed in sections. As sections fail they are taken offline as repairs are not feasible on the existing infrastructure.
3
Reduced calls for service to the water distribution team less demand on Cemetery staff addressing leaks when they occur.
0
The cost of project implementation is to be borne by the Cemetery reserve when contributions are sufficient to support the project scope and budget.
3
Some positive impact by reducing occurrences of potable water leaks.
2
Maintains inclusive public spaces
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
151
Priority Level:
Indirectly supports the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan objectives
Cemetery staff often field questions about the status of the water system at 3 Greenwood Cemetery for the provision of water for the public to maintain interment plots of loved ones.
17D.55 Greenwood Cemetery Water System Reserve Contribution
20P.30
AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E) Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
New Asset Yes Year 1
Year 2
$
2,000
$
30,000
$
293,000
$ $
Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 3+
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
Description and rationale: This project is required to extend the waste water and storm sewers from 21st St E northerly to the south-west corner of private property to accommodate proposed new residential development at that property known as 2261 9th Avenue East. The amount shown will be included as part of a Servicing Agreement between the City and developer and recovered, in part, through the Capital Infrastructure Charges levied by the City to the developer of this property.
25,000 350,000 $
-
$
-
-
-
$
-
$
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
350,000 January 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 November 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Waste Water Rates $ Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation 152
C - Moderate
80
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total
Priority Level:
175,000 175,000
20P.30 AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E)
(insert photo here)
20P.30
AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E) Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating This development is required for new housing development. Little risk to public or city staff health and safety if this does not go ahead.
5
If development continues this project will be required to service the new buildings.
0
This project is a new asset therefore not identified in the Asset Management Plan.
2
This Improvement will have a slight improvement to operational performance due to increased flow characteristics.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 5 are there partnership funds available
This project will be funded by waste water rates and taxation.
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
3
This project will improve the environment due to sanitary and storm infrastructure being installed
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
0
There is no cultural significance associated with this project.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
153
4
This project will help growth within the city. This project has not been identified through public engagement.
20P.30 AGW Properties (PGW 2261 9th Ave E)
Tennis/ Pickle Ball Court Renewal Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Rehabilitation
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $
21D.21
No Year 2
Year 3+
30,000
30,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The Harrison Park Tennis and Pickle Ball courts are a popular and no cost outdoor recreation attraction. Over time the surface has been worn smooth from use. Adjustable nets installed for the purpose of having a flexible facility for both tennis and pickle ball are also in need of replacement. This capital would be used to have a qualified contractor remove the existing worn sport coating, and apply a new coating and lines, for both tennis and pickle ball. The expected useful life is 10 years. A recommendation in the Recreation Parks and Facilities Master Plan notes that improvements to the tennis/pickle ball courts at Harrison Park should be considered.
30,000 January 1, 2021 June 1,2021 June 15, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
154
C - moderate
10 Years
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
30,000
21D.21 HP Tennis and Pickle Ball Court Renewal
(insert photo here)
21D.21
Tennis/ Pickle Ball Court Renewal Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2,500-4,999
3
Slip, trip and fall
4
Occupiers Liability Act
4
no
1
Little to no impact on operational performance
0
Partnership funding is not available
1
No improvement or detriment will be realized by the completion of this project.
2
7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport activities
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
155
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 3 proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
Not specifically identified, but achieves a goal of the Harrison Park Master Plan.
A Pickle ball facility was identified as an important inclusion in parks amenities via the Recreation Parks and Facilities Master Plan. Several in person, email and 4 telephone requests have been received from users supporting renewal of the facility.
21D.21 HP Tennis and Pickle Ball Court Renewal
3rd Ave E Sanitary Sewer Relocation - 1800 Block Georgian Landing Apartments - 297 18th St E Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
19P.20
No Year 2
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager
Year 3+
Chris Webb
Description and rationale: This is the City's share of the construction cost to relocate an existing sanitary sewer to facilitate the construction of a new apartment building at 297 18th Street East. It is part of a Servicing Agreement with the developer.
5,000
5,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
5,000
Design Start Date:
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
(insert photo here)
December 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
156
C - Moderate
100
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Waste Water Rates $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
5,000
19P.20 3rd Ave E - Sanitary Sewer Relocation
3rd Ave E Sanitary Sewer Relocation - 1800 Block Georgian Landing Apartments - 297 18th St E Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
157
19P.20
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating This project was required to facilitate a 41 unit apartment complex Little health and safety risks would be associated with this project This replacement program is required to continue to be compliant.
4
Sewers identified would not meet the requirements for this development
3
The new sewer would improve operational performance due to new construction materials implemented in the development. The budget amount has been carried forward into 2021 due to the project completion delay.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement 2 to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
Priority Level:
0
This project may be eligible for rebates This project would improve the natural environment in terms of having a proper discharge for sanitary waste. This project will not have any cultural significance This project can be associated with growth within the city No public input was identified for this project
19P.20 3rd Ave E - Sanitary Sewer Relocation
20M.12
Paving around New Fuel System Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 2
Year 3+
20,000 $ -
Design Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Public Works and Engineering
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Jeff Follis
Description and rationale: The new fuel system was installed in 2018. In order to ensure proper drainage and containment of the area around the four fuel pumps, final paving needs to be completed.
20,000 January 1, 2020
(insert photo here)
Construction Start Date: December 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
158
C - Moderate
20,000
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
20,000
20M.12 Paving around Fuel Pumps
20M.12
Paving around New Fuel System Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
159
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
1
Primarily staff, however improvement for spill containment could be perceived as benefitting entire city.
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 2 proceed?
The existing gravelled area represents a fuel infiltration and runoff risk but also a hazard in the winter.
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
3
Spill containment is a requirement which currently is not met.
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
3
Failure could mean impact on stormwater system and receiving water bodies
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
2 Slight improvement with respect to ponding, erosion, and winter control in that area.
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Gas Tax
3
Spill containment is an environmental benefit
0
Little or no relationship to cultural strategic objectives
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
20M.12 Paving around Fuel Pumps
Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
19D.21
YMCA Playground Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
New Asset
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
50,000
50,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The Victoria Park Master Plan provides for the development of recreation space north and west of the rear parking lot for the JMRRC. The parking area and landscape grading was completed in 2018. This capital would be used to build a picnic shelter and add a play structure in the space identified in the 2018 plan. 100% of the funding for this project is to be funded by a private donation through the YMCA. An agreement and approval of plans will be done through Committee.
50,000 January 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
September 1, 2021 October 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
160
C - moderate
50
Impact on Operating Budget $
Donations $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
50,000 YMCA
-
19D.21 YMCA Playground
19D.21
YMCA Playground Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
4
5000-9,999
0
New Asset, no impact on health and safety
1
New asset to be constructed in compliance with CSAZ614-14 Design of Children's Playspaces
0
Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management plan
2
Minor operational impact via additional inspections and maintenance added to the existing complement of 22 play structures.
5
The project is to be 100% funded by the YMCA via a donation
1
No impact on the surrounding environment
2
Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities.
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 4 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
161
Priority Level:
The project is identified in the Victoria Park Master Plan
Identified via the Victoria Park Master Plan process and subsequent inquiries as the 2 north portion of the park has been developed in conjunction with the Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Centre
19D.21 YMCA Playground
St. George's Backstop Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Maintenance
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
21D.38
No Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: St. George's Ball Diamond is a heavily used Class A diamond. The backstop at this facility has reached the end of it's useful life and requires replacement. This capital would be used to repair the backstop framing, remove the existing chain link and install new chain link fence fabric in order to continue to provide an adequate facility for safe play.
15,000 February 1, 2021
Construction Start Date:
April 1, 2021
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
May 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
162
C - moderate
25
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000
21D.38 St. George's Backstop Replacement
(insert photo here)
St. George's Backstop Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
21D.38
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project? What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed? Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
2
1,000-2,499
2
The project is required as a preventative maintenance measure in an effort to avoid the backstop becoming a health and safety risk.
4
Occupiers Liability Act
3
Moderate probability of failure, low consequence.
1
Minor impact on operational performance by reducing the number and frequency of repairs required.
Financing
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
0
No partnership is available
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
Little or no impact on the surrounding environment
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
3
7.2 Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
163
1
The project is a maintenance item and is not included Park users have provided input that the project is supported
21D.38 St. George's Backstop Replacement
Interpretive Plaques Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
18E.2
New Asset
Cash Flow Projection: Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
2,500
2,500 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
164
C - Moderate
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Amy Cann
Description and rationale: Interpretive plaques help to promote Owen Sound's cultural heritage and tell the story of interesting places, people and events. There will be carry over from previous years. Budget may be used to research and prepare plaque text, purchase images for new plaques, or to repair or replace plaques in poor condition. Ideas for new plaques material or locations may include: revitalized Market and DRP; the Manitoba; parks; select private properties.
2,500 January 1, 2021
(insert photo here)
Summer 2021 Fall 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
2,500
18E.2_Interpretive Plaques
Interpretive Plaques Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
18E.2 Score 1 - 5
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
3
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Plaques benefit pedestrians and users of the sidewalks and trails in the City, primarily in the Downtown and Harbour areas.
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed?
Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
1
No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
2
Adding additional plaques to the existing inventory will contribute to the heritage program in the City
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
1
Low
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 1 are there partnership funds available
Occasional funding may be available from the Government
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
Low, unless the plaque addresses natural heritage
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
3
Plaques uphold a number of strategic actions (tourism, heritage)
Master Plan Public Input
165
The Official Plan Sec. 7.2.3 calls for interpretive plaques to implement the heritage To what degree is the project addressed in 4 conservation and interpretation plan a Master Plan OS residents often contact the Planning & Heritage Division to pitch ideas and request Has the project been identified through 2 new plaques public engagement
18E.2_Interpretive Plaques
Artificial Athletic Turf Field Business Case Project Type: Addition No
Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Cash Flow Projection:
21D.40
Year 1
Impact on Operating Budget $
Year 2
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: The City's Recreation Parks and Facilities Master Plan (RPFMP) identified a community desire for an all season artificial turf field in the community. Owen Sound Minor Soccer has approached the City to partner on undertaking a business case to study the potential for this facility. The RPFMP notes that the City should evaluate it's involvement in a turf facility based on a business plan, financing strategy and feasibility study prepared by an interested party.
Year 3+
10,000
10,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
10,000 January 1, 2021
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Jan 1 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
166
C - moderate
N/A
Studies $ In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
Donations $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
5,000
OSMSA to Match
5,000
21D.40 Artificial Athletic Field Reserve Contribution
Artificial Athletic Turf Field Business Case Justification for Matrix Values People
Health and Safety
Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment
21D.40
Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
2
1,000- 2,499
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not proceed?
0
Reserve contribution , no impact to health and safety
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
1
No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 0
Reserve contribution has no impact on existing asset management
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational Reserve contribution has little impact on current operational performance performance? Comment on any impact on 1 operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or A fund matching program has been proposed by Owen Sound Minor Soccer for the are there partnership funds available 4 purpose of bringing an artificial turf field to Owen Sound Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 1 community?
Little impact on the surrounding environment
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2
Continue to facilitate affordable recreation and sport opportunities
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan
4
The reserve contribution supports a major aspect of the Recreation Parks and Facilities Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identifed through public engagement
4
Significant public input was received supporting this project via surveys and public workshops during the Master Plan process in 2018.
Cultural Significance
167
21D.40 Artificial Athletic Field Reserve Contribution
Auto Body shop Development -23rd St E - City Contribution for Storm Drainage Channel Construction Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Enhancement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor $ Materials Equipment/Misc Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
19P.21
Partial Year 2
Year 3+
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
Department: Staff Contact:
City Manager Chris Webb
-
$
-
-
$
-
N/A
Construction Start Date:
N/A
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Description and rationale: The City owned property on 23rd Street East that was sold to an auto body repair business required a storm water drainage channel/ditch along its eastern side to provide a positive drainage outlet for properties to the east of the subject property that front on 20th Avenue East. This capital item is the City's share of constructing drainage works that are necessary as part of this new site development and to support existing development. The project is nearing completion but the City's share is not expected to be paid until 2021. Note - photo is of pre-development condition.
15,000
Design Start Date:
(insert photo here)
December 31, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
168
C - Moderate
50
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Carry Forward $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000
19P.21 Auto Body Shop Development - 23rd St E
Auto Body shop Development -23rd St E - City Contribution for Storm Drainage Channel Construction
Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
19P.21
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating This project will improve the storm drainage for this property Little heath and safety risks would be associated with this project This replacement program is required to continue to be compliant.
Is the project a high priority for If the development of this drainage ditch is not completed this development will not 4 replacement in the asset management be able to go forward plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on This new ditch will have very little impact on operation performance 1 operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or This project may be eligible for rebates 1 are there partnership funds available
Environment
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
1
This project would improve the natural environment in terms of having a proper discharge of the sites storm water.
Cultural Significance
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
This project will have very little if any cultural significance
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 1 a Master Plan
This project can be associated with growth within the city
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
169
0
No public input was identified for this project
19P.21 Auto Body Shop Development - 23rd St E
Cemetery Benches Replacement Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
Replacement
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials $ Equipment/Misc. Contingency Total $
21D.60
No Year 2
Year 3+
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
Description and rationale: Many benches at Greenwood Cemetery are aging, deteriorating or missing. This capital would be used to replace benches that are no longer suitable for service with new accessible benches, completing the replacement program initiated in 2020. The funding amount represents replacing 10 benches at the Cemetery. Completion of the installation will be done by city staff.
15,000
15,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date: Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
15,000 January 1, 2021 Feb 1 2021 August 1, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources:
170
C - moderate
25
Impact on Operating Budget $
Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
Priority Level:
15,000
21D.60 Cemetery Benches Replacement
(insert photo here)
Cemetery Benches Replacement Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
171
21D.60
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1,000 Minor risk of strain related injuries if accessible rest areas are not provided AODA
3
There is a moderate probability of failure with low consequence.
1
Little or no impact on operational performance
0
No opportunity for grant funding or partnerships
1
Little or no impact on the surrounding environment
3
To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan 2 Has the project been identified through public engagement
C - moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for 4 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Priority Level:
6. Promote and enhance Owen Sound's built heritage 7. Encourage and promote participation in cultural activities and active lifestyles. The Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan addresses accessibility and accessible customer service options. Although benches are not specifically identified in the plan, they support the provision of an accessible space for visitors.
0
21D.60 Cemetery Benches Replacement
Has not received any public input.
Digitize Building Plans for AMANDA Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
19E.1
New Asset
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Contingency Total $ Impact on Operating Budget $
No Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
20,000 20,000 $ -
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
172
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
20,000 (insert photo here) Winter/Spring 2021 TBD
Current Year Funding Sources: Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $
C - Moderate Amy Cann
Description and rationale: With the City's goal to reduce the amount of paper storage and the conversion to electronic storage, the Building Division is requesting money to convert the stored paper rolls and boxes of folded drawings to be digitized and loaded into the AMANDA Property Management System. This will allow a Building Inspector to view the drawings on site from their tablet and also allow transmission of these documents to interested parties. All new large projects since June 2018 have had electronic versions of the plans stored electronically.
Design Start Date: Construction Start Date:
Priority Level:
Building 20,000 Inspection
19E.1 Digitize current building plans for AMANDA
Digitize Building Plans for AMANDA Justification for Matrix Values People
Health & Safety
Legislative Compliance
Asset Management
Operations Performance
Finance
Environment
Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
173
19E.1
Priority Level:
Score 1 - 5 How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 0 proceed?
C - Moderate
Justification / Rationale for Rating
Staff will be able to search documents easier and clients can submit PDF copies of plans for storage Accumulated paper storage presents a risk of fire
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
0
There is no legislative requirement for this
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan
1
Enhancement to an existing asset
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance
3
Staff will be able to search documents easier and clients can submit PDF copies of plans for storage
Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 2 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the 1 community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
1
To what degree is the project addressed in 0 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through 0 public engagement
Building reserves to be used to fund this project
Little or no improvement as a result of the project
Supports a Cultural Objective not identified in the Strategic Plan Has not been identified in a master plan Has not been identified by the public
19E.1 Digitize current building plans for AMANDA
Drop Sander/Material Spreader Project Type: Growth Related? Estimated Useful Life (years)
21T.1
New Asset No
B - high
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services Adam Parsons
10
Cash Flow Projection:
Year 1
Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Contingency Total $
Year 2
Year 3+
12,000 12,000 $
Impact on Operating Budget $
-
$
-
$
-
-
$
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule: Design Start Date:
Description and rationale: A truck mounted drop sander/material spreader is required to enhance the Parks and Open Space division's ability to deliver efficient and timely winter control at Harrison Park, Greenwood Cemetery and other parks areas maintained for recreation and emergency access in winter months. Staff expect parks areas to see continued increased traffic in the winter months over previous years, as people remain close to home due to the pandemic. The unit would be mounted on an existing parks vehicle with an appropriate gross vehicle weight rating. This equipment will create an operational efficiency within the existing parks and open space winter control program.
12,000 January 4 2021
Construction Start Date: Substantial Completion or purchase date:
February 28, 2021
Current Year Funding Sources: Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation $ 174
Priority Level:
12,000 Fleet- Drop Sander-Material Spreader
(insert photo here)
Drop Sander/Material Spreader Justification for Matrix Values
People
21T.1
Score 1 - 5
Priority Level:
B - high
Justification / Rationale for Rating
How manay people will be positively 5 impacted by the project?
10,000+
Health and Safety
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the
3
Legislation
Is the project required for legislative/regulatory compliance?
The project will reduce the risk of health and safety related incidents for the public, and create operational efficiencies for staff, reducing hazards related to perfoming winter control measures
5
Occupiers Liability Act
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset
0
new asset
Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on The equipment will introduce an efficiency within the existing parks and open space 4 operational performance? winter maintenance program Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and Can the cost of investment be no opportunity for partnership 0 leveraged or are there partnership Will the project result in an improvement to the natural
1
little or no impact on the surrounding environment
To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
2
7.2 Continue to faciliate affordable recreation and sport opportunities
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in a Master Plan
0
not identified in a master plan
Public Input
Has the project been identifed through public engagement
3
Parks staff receive unsolicited public inquries about winter maintenance, particularly at Harrison Park, throughout the winter control season.
Environment Cultural Significance
175
Fleet- Drop Sander-Material Spreader
Building Vehicle Charging Station(s)
21E.3
New Asset
Project Type:
No
Growth Related?
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Internal Staff Time/Equipment Contingency Total $
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
20,000 $
-
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
$
TBD
Construction Start Date:
TBD
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
TBD
-
(insert photo here)
Current Year Funding Sources: 20,000
Kevin Linthorne
Description and rationale: In relation to the PHEV purchase by the Building Department, new charging stations are required to be purchased and installed in the parking lot of City Hall. Staff are currently investigating partnerships and grants for the installation of these charging stations as they will also be made available to the public.
20,000
Design Start Date:
176
D - low
20,000
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation
Priority Level:
Bldg Inspection
21E.3 11082020_ChargeStations
Building Vehicle Charging Station(s)
21E.3 Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People Health and Safety Legislation Asset Management
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance Master Plan Public Input
177
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community?
Justification / Rationale for Rating
No Risk No
0
New Asset
1
No Impact
2
Potential for partnerships and grants exist
2
Yes eliminating fossil fueled vehicles
To what degree does the project support 0 cultural initiatives To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan Has the project been identified through public engagement
D - low
Any person that drives an EV
4
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 0 proceed? Is the project required for 0 legislative/regulatory compliance? Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on operating costs, staff time and maintenance" Can the cost of investment be leveraged or are there partnership funds available
Priority Level:
None Section 13 of the City's Strategic Plan is to 'Improve Energy Conservation and Efficiency and Address Climate Change'
0
21E.3 11082020_ChargeStations
No
Building Vehicle(s)
21E.2
New Asset
Project Type:
No
Growth Related?
Cash Flow Projection: Studies In House Engineering Design or Engineering Communication/Signage Construction / Contractor Materials Equipment/Misc $ Internal Staff Time/Equipment Contingency Total $
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3+
100,000
100,000 $
-
Total Project Budget: $ Schedule:
$
-
100,000
TBD
Current Year Funding Sources:
178
Department: Staff Contact:
Community Services
(insert photo here)
Construction Start Date:
Reserves (Specify) $ Select from List Select from List Select from List Select from List Taxation
D - low Kevin Linthorne
Description and rationale: A survey of 24 Building Departments in the local chapter of the OBOA was recently undertaken and it was determined that only Owen Sound and 2 other municipalities require the Building Officials to use their personal vehicles. The Building Division proposes to acquire two (2) PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) SUV vehicles for use in carrying out duties under the Building Code Act of Ontario including site inspections, site meetings, meetings and conferences. SUV's are required due to the topography of the City, the needed ability to get to sites in inclement weather and condition of job sites. The acquisition of PHEV vehicles will require the installation of charging stations at City Hall and will help with the 'Greening' of Owen Sound and specifically add charging stations in the downtown. This project is to be financed from Building Department Reserves, the reserves in this area can only be used for Building Department needs. If a municipalities Building Reserves are too high the Province may dictate that the municipality reduce its Building Permit Fee.
Design Start Date:
Substantial Completion or purchase date:
Priority Level:
100,000 Bldg Inspection
21E.2 11082020_Vehicle
Building Vehicle(s) Score 1 - 5
Justification for Matrix Values People
21E.2
How many people will be positively impacted by the project?
1
Legislation
What is the risk to the health and safety of the public or Staff if the project does not 1 proceed? Is the project required for 0 legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management
Is the project a high priority for replacement in the asset management plan 0
Health and Safety
Operational Performance
Financing
Environment Cultural Significance
Justification / Rationale for Rating
More liability on staff to carry additional insurance for using personal vehicle for employment purposes No
No, this will add new asset
Nothing operationally will change
Anticipate a partnership with the charging stations
3
This project will improve the 'Greening' of Owen Sound with the PHEV and reduce the fleet reliance on fossil fuels
0
None
Master Plan
To what degree is the project addressed in 2 a Master Plan
Public Input
Has the project been identified through public engagement
179
D - low
2 vehicles will allow inspectors to not have to use personal vehicles for inspections
If the project proceeds (or fails to proceed), what will be the impact on operational performance? Comment on any impact on 0 operating costs, staff time and maintenance" Can the cost of investment be leveraged or 2 are there partnership funds available Will the project result in an improvement to the natural environment of the community? To what degree does the project support cultural initiatives
Priority Level:
Section 13 of the City's Strategic Plan is to 'Improve Energy Conservation and Efficiency and Address Climate Change'
0
21E.2 11082020_Vehicle
No