Amendment 4: New Environmentally Significant Areas (Esa’S)

Table of Contents

Multi-Year Budget Amendment Cases - 2018 Annual Budget Update

New Council Direction 1 – Two Year Temporary London Music Industry Development Office ...... 1 2 – Council Compensation Task Force - Councillors’ Annual Compensation ...... 4 Cost or Revenue Driver 3 – Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 10 Year Environmental Targets Strategic Plan...... 6 4 – Dundas Place – Ongoing Place Management ...... 11 5 – Elimination of the Annual Payment to the Stiller Centre for Technology Commercialization...... 20 6 – Increased Ontario Works Administration Subsidy ...... 23 New Regulation 7 – Proposed Minimum Wage Increases ...... 26 Confidential Matter – “In-Camera” 8 – Confidential Matter – “In-Camera” ...... 29 Lifecycle Renewal 9 – Invasive Species Management Strategy ...... 31 10 – London Police Service – Capital Plan Changes ...... 34 11 – Exterior Lighting Redesign & Replacement for all London & Middlesex Housing Corporation Sites ...... 38 Growth 12 – Realignment of Growth Parks Projects ...... 43 13 – Deferral of New Fire Station 15 ...... 50 14 – Adelaide Street – CPR Grade Separation ...... 52 15 – Western Road Widening – Platts Lane to Oxford Street ...... 55 16 – Realignment of Growth Transportation Capital Projects ...... 58 Service Improvement 17 – Farquharson, Glen Cairn and Silverwoods Arenas Decommissioning ...... 68 18 – Relocation of Existing Resources to New Fire Station 16 ...... 73 19 – Western Road & Philip Aziz Ave Improvements Deferred ...... 76

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 1

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY INITIATIVE: TWO YEAR TEMPORARY LONDON MUSIC INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

SERVICE(S): ARTS, CULTURE & HERITAGE ADVISORY & FUNDING SERVICE LEAD(S): MARTIN HAYWARD, CITY MANAGER ROBIN ARMISTEAD, MANAGER OF CULTURE TYPE OF AMENDMENT: NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $150 $150 $300 Revenue $0 $0 ($150) ($150) ($300) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 1 AMENDMENT 1: TWO YEAR TEMPORARY LONDON MUSIC INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) Arts, Culture & Heritage 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Advisory & Funding Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 2,172 2,212 2,218 2,218 2,248 2,248 13,488 13,488 Cumulative Amendment 150 01 150 01 0 0 Revised Budget 2,368 2,218 2,398 2,248 13,488 13,488 Note 1 - Funded by the Economic Development Reserve Fund, $150 thousand in 2018 and 2019.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 1.0 1.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $100 $100

Key Performance Indicator(s) Table Metrics 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Workshops, Events and Seminars 16 27 28 30 # of Artist Showcases 10 14 15 20

Page 2 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Council’s 2015-2019 Strategic Plan holds a vision of London as “A leader in commerce, culture, and innovation — our region’s connection to the World.” Music represents a major opportunity for London to serve as a “leader in commerce, culture and innovation” within Ontario, Canada and beyond. In September 2014, City Council endorsed the London Music Strategy, developed by a volunteer Music Industry Task Force. Council also approved $300,000 in funding for a two year pilot to create the London Music Office. Following a scoping and recruitment process with community partners, London’s first Music Industry Development Officer was hired in November 2015. The two year pilot will be complete in November 2017.

The intent of this business case is to continue the London Music Industry Development Office on a two year temporary basis, noting that on May 30, 2017 as a result of a review of the London Music Industry Initiative Pilot (see link to the Report on the City’s Website http://sire.london.ca/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1517&doctype=AGENDA), Council unanimously approved the recommendation to bring forward this business case during the 2018 Annual Budget Update.

Successful music cities with vibrant music economies generate a wide array of benefits, from economic growth, job creation and increased spending to greater tax revenues and cultural development. The London Music Office has captured the attention of cities across North America through promotion, programming, education, community integration and policy development. London is cited throughout the music industry as a “Burgeoning Music City”.

A number of broad community benefits have been realized through this music pilot such as: enhancing music industry advocacy and engagement, assessing the current state of the music industry through the London Music Census, increasing youth engagement and connection with post- secondary schools, increasing live music opportunities for talented London musicians, building better communities through sound study and mitigation, and creating more favourable business conditions for London’s music industry. The next two years of the London Music Industry Development Officers’ appointment would continue to showcase success of the completion of the priorities of the London Music Strategy. Twenty- five percent of the long-term priorities of the Strategy have not been initiated and are dependent on the lead up work completed with the other priorities, which are on target. Should this position be made permanent in the future, opportunities for future business investment, increased live music, connection with digital film and multi-media, incubation of youth and potential City by-law changes would be advanced.

London has a strong and vibrant local music industry which, with proper support, guidance and investment can flourish into Canada’s leading secondary market. Much progress has been made over the past two years, and momentum remains high. The investment in London’s Music Strategy represents a key cultural and economic investment for our community. Continuing to lead in the field of music development, London is strategically positioning itself as a leader in culture, commerce and innovation.

Page 3

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 2

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE INITIATIVE: COUNCIL COMPENSATION TASK FORCE – COUNCILLORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION SERVICE(S): COUNCILLORS’ OFFICES SERVICE LEAD(S): BARRY CARD, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF LEGAL & CORPORATE SERVICES CATHY SAUNDERS, CITY CLERK TYPE OF AMENDMENT: NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $0 $245 $245 Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $245 $245 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $245 $245 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.04% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 4 AMENDMENT 1: COUNCIL COMPENSATION TASK FORCE – COUNCILLORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Councillors’ Offices Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 1,387 1,393 1,394 1,394 1,395 1,395 8,370 8,370 Cumulative Amendment 245 245 1,470 1,470 Revised Budget 1,640 1,640 9,840 9,840

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.04% 0.01%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 0.0 0.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $0 $0

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? At its meeting on August 22, 2017, Municipal Council, on the recommendation of the 2016 Council Compensation Review Task Force, resolved that effective with the commencement of the next term of Council, the annual compensation for serving as a Ward Councillor be set at the 2016 median full time employment income for Londoners.

Page 5

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 3

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (UTRCA) 10 YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS STRATEGIC PLAN SERVICE(S): UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SERVICE LEAD(S): IAN WILCOX, GENERAL MANAGER, UTRCA TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure 1 $0 $0 $191 $400 $591 Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $191 $400 $591 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $191 $209 $400 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.03% 0.04% Note 1: Represents the City’s share of expenditures among member municipalities. Note 2: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 6 AMENDMENT 1: IMPLEMENTATION OF A 10 YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES IN THE WATERSHED

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-20251 UTRCA Appropriations Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 2,926 3,240 13,456 3,285 13,645 3,330 90,324 21,662 Cumulative Amendment 2,277 191 3,138 400 26,969 3,307 Revised Budget 15,733 3,476 16,783 3,730 117,293 24,969 Note 1: 2020-2025 amendment amount includes an additional investment of $199 thousand in 2020. Municipal Levy increases under the strategic plan are complete by 2020 at which point municipal levies are anticipated to increase at the rate of inflation (estimated at 2%).

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.03% 0.04% 0.02%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 2 4 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 2 4 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $186 $372 Note: Costs above represent the gross salary and fringe costs to UTRCA of additional staff. The positions are cost shared.

Page 7 Key Performance Indicator(s) Table Metrics 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) 1. Watershed Flood Model Update 25% complete 50% completion 75% completion Program Launch- 15% increase in 2. Water Quality Program Participation by Private Marketing Target to program Residents reach every participation watershed resident Program Launch- Marketing Target to 3. Natural Areas Expansion reach every watershed resident

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The UTRCA Board of Directors approved its Environmental Targets Strategic Plan in June of 2016. This plan proposes the most significant programming change in the Authority’s nearly 70 year history. These Environmental Targets are designed to advance achievement of the UTRCA’s goals:

1. Protecting people and their property from flooding and erosion, 2. Protecting and improving water quality, 3. Managing and expanding natural areas, and 4. Providing outdoor recreation/ education opportunities.

Monitoring data has clearly shown that progress in achieving these goals has plateaued during the past 20 years at a level far below potential. That is not to suggest past efforts have been ineffective. In fact, maintaining these measures as status quo in light of increasing stressors such as development, population growth, climate change and invasive species, is a form of success. However, the UTRCA has a responsibility to do more than simply “maintain.” The adoption of Environmental Targets represents an organizational commitment to achieve measurable improvements in our watershed’s health during the next 20 years. This in turn supports economic development, human and environmental health, and makes the watershed more attractive and resilient.

Page 8

Targets include:

1. Improve each subwatershed water quality score by one letter grade, as measured by the UTRCA Watershed Report Cards, by the year 2037. 2. Establish and restore 1,500 hectares of natural vegetation cover, windbreaks and buffers by 2037. 3. Reduce flood and erosion risk by updating flood models and hazard mapping for all UTRCA subwatersheds by 2020, then integrate climate change scenarios into the updated models and developing climate change adaptation strategies by 2030. 4. Reach 1 million people annually with conservation messages through access to UTRCA lands and demonstration of green infrastructure by the year 2037.

A doubling of the UTRCA’s current level of effort will be required to achieve the proposed Targets. Existing programs are effective but inadequate due to capacity limits. In total, $4 million in new funding to support new staff and programs will be required annually to support this work. This new funding is being sought from all four of the UTRCA’s traditional revenue streams in the following proportions: senior government funding (28%), municipal funding (28%), user fees (30%) and special contracts (14%). Municipal levy funding is being requested from all 17 member municipalities with a planned four year phase-in (2017- 2020). New municipal funding was approved by City Council in 2017, as per the Strategic Plan’s proposed budget.

The UTRCA Board of Directors has adopted Environmental Targets that are aggressive but realistic. The Authority and its various partners have the tools, experience, expertise and relationships to achieve these Targets. Funding needed to support this work is also significant, however, given partner support and a phased approach to implementation, the plan proposed is practical and achievable. Specific benefits to the City of London include: • Safer and more efficient growth through accurate identification of developable lands free from flood and erosion hazards. This will streamline the development approvals process as well. Investment of $97 thousand started in 2017 with a request for $79 thousand in 2018 for updated flood modelling. One FTE was added in 2017 and a further addition of one FTE is required in 2018 to achieve the target for this program. No incremental funding will be required in 2019. • Expanded outdoor recreation and education opportunities with a target of two visits a year to a natural area for every resident of the watershed. An investment of $70 thousand to develop and maintain background information including user surveys and community surveys started in 2017. No incremental funding will be requested for this target in 2018 or 2019. • A visible improvement in the water quality of the Thames River and its tributaries which supports and encourages a healthy and growing community. Investments of $97 thousand in 2018 and $94 thousand in 2019 will be used for expanded landowner supports such as technical assistance, conservation plans and access to grant funding. One FTE will be added in 2018 and a further one FTE in 2019 to achieve the target for this program. • Net growth in naturalized green spaces which makes the City more resilient to weather extremes and builds on the brand of the Forest City. Investment of $94 thousand for natural areas expansion starts in 2019 with the addition of one FTE along with associated program supports to achieve the long term program targets.

Page 9 • Cost Sharing Over the 10 year period of the strategic plan, multiple revenue sources are being used for Targets implementation including senior government funding (28%), contract funding (14%), user fees (30%) and municipal funding (28%) that is to be shared among the 17 municipalities in the Upper Thames River Watershed. London’s share of costs to implement the entire strategic plan is 18%. • Phased Funding Increase Municipal funding will be phased in over four years (2017-2020) and used to leverage funding from other sources. For every $1 of City of London investment, the UTRCA will be leveraging $3.81 in additional investment.

2017 Performance 2017 represents the first year of investment towards the Environmental Targets Strategic Plan. Municipal levy support was approved and resulted in an overall investment of $257 thousand toward flood modelling, protection and background studies. The UTRCA leveraged this investment and secured an additional $1.141 million for these initiatives as well as infrastructure funding. This represents a return of $4.44 for every $1 of municipal investment. This increased funding has allowed the UTRCA to begin updating its Watershed Flood Model which is on target for the 25% completion as indicated on last year’s KPIs.

Page 10 AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #4

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY INITIATIVE: DUNDAS PLACE – ONGOING PLACE MANAGEMENT SERVICE(S): PLANNING SERVICES WITH ROADWAY PLANNING & DESIGN SERVICE LEAD(S): JOHN FLEMING, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER; KELLY SCHERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CITY ENGINEER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $75 $755 $830 Revenue $0 $0 ($75) ($380) ($455) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $375 $375 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $375 $375 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.07% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 11 AMENDMENT 1: DUNDAS PLACE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) Maintenance, Security & 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Activation of Dundas Street/Place Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 250 250 250 250 300 300 2,400 2,400 Cumulative Amendment 75 0 1 475 375 1 4,500 4,500 Revised Budget 325 250 775 675 6,900 6,900 Note 1 – Partially funded by the Economic Development Reserve Fund, $75 thousand in 2018 and $100 thousand in 2019.

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure Dundas Place Field House 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Amendment 280 Revised Budget 0 280 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 0 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) (280) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget 0 (280) 0 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.07% 0.02% Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 12

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 * 0 * # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 1.0 1.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $75 $100 * The Dundas Place Manager position is proposed to be funded on a temporary basis for 2018 and 2019 while the permanent management approach for Dundas Place is determined. As noted in the business case, this position may not be with the City of London.

Key Performance Indicator(s) Table

Metrics 2016 2017 2018** 2019** (Cumulative Changes) Monthly average of unique visitors to Dundas Street, 43,240 45,000 45,000 45,000 counted through Wi-Fi enabled devices Number of new targeted businesses (Dundas) 6 6 3 6

Street-level storefront vacancy rate (Central London) 7.9%*** 7.9% 7.9% 7.9%

Number of business frontages upgraded (Dundas) 2 0 3 4

Number of planned events held (Dundas) 7 7 3 10

Number of seasonal sidewalk patios (Dundas) 5 4 2 6

** Dundas Place will be under construction during this time. Metrics are anticipated to improve in 2020. *** 2015 data

Page 13 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)?

Purpose of Dundas Place

The Strategic Plan 2015-2019 highlights that investing in “London’s downtown as the heart of our city” is a top priority. The Plan outlines ways to achieve this goal, which includes the construction of the “Dundas Flexible Street” (Dundas Place) and the establishment of a “Downtown Management Organization”, both of which implement Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan.

The Dundas Place project aims to transform Dundas Street between Wellington Street and the Thames River into a flexible street, to become a prominent public destination and programming space for Londoners and visitors to arrive at for festivals, celebrations, small-scale events, and every-day shopping, leisure, and civic activities. The project will also address necessary life-cycle improvements and capacity upgrades to municipal infrastructure, coordinated with third-party utilities service upgrades, to create a visibly unified space paved flat from building face to building face. While still permitting vehicle passage and parking, it will more effectively accommodate “spill-out” activity associated with the buildings and businesses along it, and be easily transformed for planned functions and events.

Place Management Approach

While the capital project will be transformational for our Downtown, a three-pronged “place management” approach, integrating: (i) maintenance, (ii) security, and (iii) activation, will be critical to the successful operation of this space over time.

Base Budget and Proposed Budget Amendment by Year (note that these amounts are not cumulative)

2018 2019 Annual Amount 2020-2024 $000’s Base Proposed Total Base Proposed Total Base Proposed Total Budget Additional Budget Additional Budget Additional Amount Amount Amount Maintenance 250 0 250 300 125 425 400 450 850 Activation and 0 0 0 0 150 150 0 200 200 Security Dundas Place 0 75 75 0 100 100 0 0 0 Place Manager1 Dundas Place 0 0 0 0 100 380 0 100 100 Field House (operating) (operating) 280 (capital) Note 1 - Position is proposed to be funded from the Economic Development Reserve Fund on a temporary basis for 2018 and 2019 until the permanent management approach for Dundas Place is determined.

Page 14 New/Refined Information on Costs Determined Through Environmental Assessment Process

The business case for Strategic Investment #22, submitted through the 2016-2019 Multi Year Budget, focused on enabling the completion of the environmental assessment, as required by the Environmental Assessment Act, and the necessary rerouting of London Transit Commission (LTC) buses from Dundas Street. Consideration was also given at that time for increased maintenance standards and a Dundas Place management entity:

The initiative includes efforts to animate Dundas Street with a variety of programmed events and activities. This sets an expectation that the street acts as a destination regularly hosting civic and social events, which complement the informal and casual “day-to-day” pedestrian- oriented activities. For project success, the proposed facility requires a higher level of ongoing operations and maintenance than typical for the current Dundas Street. To achieve this, following its construction, estimated operating allocations of $150,000 annually will fund extra materials and specialized equipment to effectively and efficiently clean the space, remove snow, transition it from vehicle to non-vehicle use, provide shade/shelter, demarcate spaces for certain uses, etc. The project requires consideration for establishing an entity dedicated to its ongoing maintenance, security, seasonal decorations, event programming and scheduling, revenue generation, and vehicular access.

This business case was submitted through the 2016-2019 Multi Year Budget, and a number of advancements in the Dundas Place project have been made since that time.

In December 2016, the Environmental Assessment for Dundas Place, which better defined the feasibility and limitations of the project, was presented to Council. The Environmental Assessment identified that “a robust programming and management strategy is equally important (as the physical redesign) to the transformation success.” It also noted that “Dundas Place should be managed as an independent public place, not just as a public street, with a defined mandate and operating budget.” In the associated staff report, the estimates for enhanced maintenance were revised and increased based on the new information obtained. The cost estimates for the Dundas Place management entity remained constant; however, it was noted that “significant annual investment into programming and activation may be required depending on the model selected, the nature and frequency of events and other desired soft services.” The extent of funding required for programming and activation was to be determined once the scope of the organizational concept was better defined.

Core Area Steering Committee Identify Importance of Maintenance, Programming and Security

The Core Area Steering Committee (CASC) was established in 2017. This Committee represents a subset of the Senior Leadership Team whose responsibilities regularly involve addressing identified core area issues. The CASC is identified as the Executive Approval entity for progress on the Dundas Place capital project. A first project taken on by the CASC was evaluating Market Lane and determining what is needed to address a variety of issues that had been identified by Staff, Council and the community in the Lane. This Market Lane project has served as a learning experience that can be applied to Dundas Place. Specifically, there is consensus among Core Area Steering Committee members that a high level of maintenance, programming and security is of the utmost importance to ensure the success of Dundas Place.

Page 15 Description of the Proposed Budget Amendment a. Dundas Place – Place Manager

As noted above, a deliberate place management approach will be necessary for Dundas Place to succeed. This approach is not unlike that required for a shopping centre, where maintenance, furniture staging, event planning, programming, security, coordination with merchants are all coordinated by one office. The initial business case identified the need for a Downtown Management function (broader in scope), with a $100k budget allocation expected to be required beginning in 2020.

The Dundas Place – Place Management Office responsibilities would include oversight and coordination of all three prongs of the place management approach: (i) maintenance; (ii) security; and (iii) activation for this defined area. It must be clear, however, that the Place Manager would not conduct the majority of maintenance activities themselves, but would coordinate with the appropriate City service area (e.g. Roads Operations and Parks Operations) to achieve an agreed-upon maintenance service level. Enhanced maintenance standards could include such functions as priority snow-clearing, regular streetscape power washing and steam cleaning, landscape weeding and watering and a dedicated crew for litter cleanup. Security considerations may cover such matters as additional cameras or contracted security personnel for specific times and/or events. Activation would include responsibilities such as scheduling events, planning for festivals, working with various potential partners (Tourism London, London’s Music Officer, the Arts Council, etc.) to deliver other programming, facilitating street closures and street set-up (movement of Downtown furniture, stages, planters, bollards, etc.). The management entity would also be responsible for seeking revenue generation opportunities to assist in offsetting the expenditures associated with the space over time.

Staff believe it may be beneficial to house the Dundas Place Place Manager within the office space of the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA). This would allow for synergies between the activities currently undertaken by the LDBA and the new entity and cost efficiencies relating to office space, meeting space, management support, and clerical services. There are a variety of ways in which this may be explored – from funding the LDBA to hire a Place Manager (together with a service agreement to deliver this function) to a City position that is collaboratively housed within the LDBA offices. The possibilities for this kind of arrangement are being explored both internally and together with the LDBA. The Core Area Steering Committee will be asked to provide leadership on this issue as it progresses, with a goal of having the Dundas Place Place Manager in place by the 2nd Quarter of 2018.

Construction of Dundas Place is planned for two phases. Phase One construction from Ridout Street to Richmond Street is to commence in the Spring of 2018 and conclude in the Fall/Winter of 2018. Phase Two construction from Richmond Street to Wellington Street is planned to commence in the Spring of 2019 and conclude in the Fall/Winter of 2019. The current budget forecast anticipated that a management entity would be required starting in 2020, after both phases of construction are intended to be complete. This timeline would leave a completed Phase One unmanaged for over a year which would create a number of problems.

Page 16 Alternatively, hiring the Place Manager in early 2018 as recommended, will allow the Place Manager to develop standards of maintenance and operational criteria specific to Dundas Place in collaboration with City staff, to create a programming schedule to begin on the first day that the street is open and to deliver on activation immediately upon completion of construction. The Manager could also begin to investigate revenue- generating options, develop relationships with key stakeholders downtown, create service arrangements, coordinate set-up and tear-down processes and protocols, communicate and coordinate with downtown merchants and property owners, etc. Recognizing that the hiring will not occur until the beginning of the 2nd Quarter of 2018, only partial funding is identified for the position in 2018. The position is proposed to be funded from the Economic Development Reserve Fund on a temporary basis for 2018 and 2019 until the permanent management approach for Dundas Place is determined. b. Dundas Place - Maintenance Requirement

The base budget, as submitted in the 2016-2019 Multi Year Budget, identifies $250,000 for the maintenance of Dundas Street, prior to completion of construction (up to and including 2018). Council approved an additional $50,000 of operating budget in 2019 and another $100,000 in 2020 (subject to budget approval), for a total budget of $400,000 for the maintenance of Dundas Place by 2020, following complete construction of Dundas Place. These maintenance cost estimates were based on information available at the time the 2016-2019 Multi-year Budget was submitted.

In a staff report dated December 12, 2016, following more refined cost projections produced through the Environmental Assessment process, preliminary cost estimates were reported to Council for recommended levels of maintenance for Dundas Place, which included plowing, sweeping, localized steam cleaning and more frequent waste management. With this new information, a new estimated total cost of $850,000 annually was identified for the new maintenance standard requirement for Dundas Place following complete construction. As $400,000 has already been identified, it is estimated that an additional $450,000 will be required annually, beginning in 2020, to ensure that the required standard of maintenance is achieved. As only half of Dundas Place will be completed by 2019, less funding is required for this interim transitional period (an additional $125,000 beyond the base budget, rather than the additional $450,000 needed in 2020).

The standards set for Dundas Place maintenance, security and activation in 2019 will also help to refine the level of funding required in the following 2020-2023 budget cycle. It is anticipated that Dundas Place will create revenue generation opportunities, which could help to off-set expenditures in the future. Rental of the space, permit fees, and advertisements are potential revenue generators for Dundas Place. The Dundas Place Management Office will be critical for “selling the space” and for tracking and projecting these revenues for future budget development. c. Dundas Place - Activation and Security

No budget currently exists for activation or security, but as learned through the Market Lane experience, these elements are critical to the success of Dundas Place. Staff are recommending an amount of $150,000 to be added to the Operating Budget in 2019, increasing to a total of $200,000 for activation and security in 2020. These funds would be used for a variety of expenses that come with planning and delivering programming, such as: advertising and promotion, various fees, potential event incentives and partnerships, etc. In addition, security will be required in different forms from time to time. The proposed budget would accommodate these security fees as well. Once Dundas Place is established, it is anticipated that

Page 17 there will be opportunities for raising funds in new ways such as space rental, permit fees, advertisement and sponsorship fees, etc. These revenues may be able to offset some of these activation and security costs in the future.

d. Dundas Place - Field House

A physical indoor space (“field house”) accessible on Dundas Place will be required to support the day-to-day operations of the space. This “field house” is intended for storing moveable furniture, bollards, planters and equipment; providing a location for public washrooms; and for use as a “back stage” for the events that will be occurring outdoors. No specific location has been secured for such a field house at this time, but preliminary estimates for one identified location suggests that a one-time capital cost of $280,000 for renovations and an annual operating cost of $100,000 is a reasonable estimate for the rent, utilities and operations of a “field house”. As Dundas Place is a linear public space, there may be a need in the future for a second “field house” for logistical purposes; however, Staff believe it is appropriate to plan for one such facility and evaluate the need for a second as experience is gained managing the street.

What are the risks associated with not proceeding with the amendment? A large capital investment is being made to design and construct four-blocks of Dundas Street to transform it into Dundas Place. This project is intended to stimulate investment in storefront improvements, support new and existing businesses, and encourage new development Downtown. It is also intended to have a transformative effect on Downtown’s image, offer new space for community celebration and festivals, offer an every-day attraction for Londoners and tourists and support Council’s Strategic Plan goal of improving Downtown as the heart of our City.

Without the proposed enhanced funding for (i) activation; (ii) maintenance; and (iii) security identified in this business case, there is a substantial risk that Dundas Place will not be successful over time. With the current level of investment in maintenance, the new streetscape will quickly deteriorate, rapidly diminishing the quality of the space and user experience. Accordingly, it may not achieve Council’s goal for this civic space.

While the quality of physical space is important, the degree to which it is programmed with interesting and attractive activities and events is equally as critical. Without adequate funding for such programming, and the necessary security for various conditions, the space will not be used frequently by Londoners and visitors and the capital investment will not reach its potential. Without these proposed budget enhancements, Council’s substantial investment in this capital project will not result in the goals that it is intended to achieve. There is a corresponding risk that the Downtown will not progress over time, and that investment in the core and the City as a whole may be negatively affected.

A Dundas Place Place Manager is necessary to ensure the space feels secure, well-maintained and active and that the environment and experience of these blocks of Dundas Street is demonstrably improved from its pre-construction state. If the first constructed half of Dundas Place is not managed (or managed adequately) from the outset there is a significant risk of establishing negative perceptions of the space and undermining Council’s primary goals for this important municipal project.

Page 18 Additional information The documents listed below can be found on london.ca and mydundas.ca.

• Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/downtown/Documents/Our-Move-Forward-LondonsDTPlan-adopted-April-14- 2015.pdf • Creating Dundas Place: A Flexible Street Scoping Study http://www.london.ca/residents/Roads-Transportation/Transportation-Planning/Documents/Creating-Dundas-Place-LR-2015-01-14.pdf • Dundas Place Environmental Study Report http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/659d1e_9315be9cefc04e30bca69128950f4153.pdf • CWC Staff Report (Agenda Item 9): http://sire.london.ca/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1377&doctype=AGENDA

Page 19

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 5

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: GROWING OUR ECONOMY INITIATIVE: ELIMINATION OF THE ANNUAL PAYMENT TO THE STILLER CENTRE FOR TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

SERVICE(S): BUSINESS ATTRACTION & RETENTION SERVICE LEAD(S): MARTIN HAYWARD, CITY MANAGER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 ($224) ($228) ($452) Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 ($224) ($228) ($452) Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 ($224) ($4) ($228) Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% (0.04)% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 20 AMENDMENT 1: ELIMINATION OF ANNUAL PAYMENT TO STILLER CENTRE FOR TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) Elimination of Stiller Centre 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Payment Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 215 219 224 224 228 228 1,467 1467 Cumulative Amendment (224) (224) (228) (228) (1,467) (1,467) Revised Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% (0.04)% 0.0% (0.01)%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 0 0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $0 $0

Page 21 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The City of London (the City) has an agreement with University of Western Ontario Research and Development Park (Western Research Park) for the City to provide the Stiller Center for Technology Commercialization with an annual contribution from June 30, 2010 through April 20, 2028.

In September 2017, Western Research Park provided the City with formal notice that they wished to terminate the agreement effective April 30, 2018. The City’s contribution is paid annually for the period May 1 – April 30.

Western Research Parks and the Stiller Centre for Technology Commercialization have earned international recognition for their work in bringing together minds in research, professional, medical biotechnology and commercial sectors, and were also named as the 2016 recipient of the Outstanding Research Park award.

As a result of all their work and achievements, they no longer require the annual subsidy from the City. Western Research Park also wishes to extend its sincere appreciation to the City for their long-standing and unwavering commitment to the Stiller Centre for Technology Commercialization, its vision and its mission.

Page 22

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #6

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: INCREASED ONTARIO WORKS ADMINISTRATION SUBSIDY SERVICE(S): ONTARIO WORKS SERVICE LEAD(S): SANDRA DATARS BERE, MANAGING DIRECTOR – HOUSING, SOCIAL SERVICES & DEARNESS HOME TYPE OF AMENDMENT: REVENUE DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue $0 $0 ($600) ($600) ($1,200) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 ($600) ($600) ($1,200) Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 ($600) $0 ($600) Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% (0.11%) 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 23 AMENDMENT 1: INCREASED ONTARIO WORKS ADMINISTRATION SUBSIDY

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) Increased Ontario Works 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Administration Subsidy Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 17,813 15,740 152,508 13,098 156,494 13,487 938,964 80,922 Cumulative Amendment 0 (600) 0 (600) 0 (3,600) Revised Budget 152,508 12,498 156,494 12,887 938,964 77,322

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% (0.11%) 0.0% (0.03%)

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 0.0 0.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $0 $0

Key Performance Indicator(s) Table Metrics 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) Budgeted OW Caseload – London 11,800 11,900 11,900 11,900 Estimated London Caseload as a Percentage of Total Provincial Caseload (2 Year Average - 2016 ratio 4.16% 4.65% 4.65% TBD reflects Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2014; 2017/2018 funding ratio reflects Oct. 2014 to Sep. 2016)

Page 24 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The Province of Ontario funds the City of London, as the designated CMSM (Consolidated Municipal Service Manager) for the City of London and County of Middlesex, for the costs to administer Ontario Works (OW). A portion of the funding envelope for Ontario Works cost of administration is included in the Provincial Upload and will be funded 100% in 2018. The balance of costs are cost shared 50% by the CMSM.

OW administration funding allocations to CMSM’s are derived based on two-year monthly average standard and supplementary caseload and a provincial subsidy per case. The notional funding allocations for 2017 and 2018 are based on the average caseload levels from October 2014 to September 2016. London’s share of the Provincial subsidy increased for 2017 and 2018 as a result of a higher average caseload from October 2014 to September 2016. This increased subsidy exceeds the amount that was anticipated and built into the approved 2016-2019 Multi Year Budget. This higher subsidy allocation means that a portion of the City’s current OW costs, budgeted at 50% subsidy, will be funded at 97.2% subsidy in 2017 and at 100% subsidy in 2018 (approximately $285,000). In addition, this increased subsidy allocation will enable a higher portion of our corporate support costs to Ontario Works to be subsidized (approximately $215,000) and also includes subsidy in support of the City’s poverty initiatives (approximately $100,000) currently claimed but not reflected in the City’s budget.

There is a risk that the City’s subsidy allocation will decrease in future years should London’s average caseload decrease in relation to the rest of the Province. Funding for the 2019 calendar year will be based on caseload levels from October 2016 to September 2018. If London’s ratio of caseload to the total Provincial caseload increases, a higher share of Provincial OW administration subsidy will be allocated to London; conversely, if London’s caseload ratio decreases, a lower share of Provincial OW administration subsidy will be allocated. Any future adjustments to London’s administration funding will be incorporated in future budget updates.

Page 25

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #7

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE INITIATIVE: PROPOSED MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES SERVICE(S): FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE LEAD(S): BILL COXHEAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES AND CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER ANNA LISA BARBON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES AND CITY TREASURER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: NEW REGULATION

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure 1 $0 $0 $1,584 $2,207 $3,791 Revenue $0 $0 ($131) ($183) ($314) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $1,453 $2,024 $3,477 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $1,453 $571 $2,024 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.26% 0.10% Note 1: Represents the City’s share of expenditures among member municipalities for UTRCA and KCCA. Note 2: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 26 AMENDMENT 1: PROPOSED MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Personnel Costs Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 221,421 231,585 237,877 237,877 245,554 245,554 1,473,324 1,473,324 Cumulative Amendment 1,736 1,453 2,406 2,024 14,436 12,144 Revised Budget 239,613 239,330 247,960 247,578 1,487,760 1,485,468

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.26% 0.10% 0.09%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 0.0 0.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $0 $0

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? In March 2017, the Ontario government increased minimum wage from $11.40/hour to $11.60/hour (1.8% increase) and it became effective October 1, 2017. Further, on May 30, 2017, the Ontario government announced its intention to increase the minimum wage from $11.60/hour to the following: • $14.00/hour effective January 1, 2018 (20.7% increase); and • $15.00/hour effective January 1, 2019 (7.1% increase).

As of September 2017, the proposed legislation, Bill 148 - Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, is currently draft and the government is engaging in consultation throughout the Province to obtain feedback on the proposed increases to the minimum wage from employees, employers and other interested parties.

The Corporation and certain Boards & Commissions rely on casual and seasonal employees to deliver many valuable services to Londoners. The wages for these employees are often based on the legislated minimum wage. If approved, the proposed increases to the minimum wage are expected

Page 27 to have a significant impact on the personnel costs for the Corporation and the affected Boards & Commissions. This amendment recommends an increase to the budget to reflect the forecasted impact of the proposed increase.

While modest increases to the minimum wage were anticipated and factored into the user fee rates for 2017 to 2019 (approved by Council on October 25, 2016), the proposed minimum wage increases in the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 are far greater than anticipated. The previously approved user fee rates reflect moderate increases for 2018 and 2019 that the market can sustain without eroding participation. Further increases to user fees may result in reduced participation and have an adverse impact on total user fee revenue. Further phased increases to user fees will be considered as part of the 2020-2023 Multi Year Budget.

The following table provides a further breakdown of the anticipated impact of the various services affected by the proposed legislation:

Forecasted Impact of Proposed Minimum Wage Increase 2018 2019 Gross Offsetting Net Budget Gross Offsetting Net Budget Expenditure Factors (see Increase Expenditure Factors (see Increase Impact notes below) Required Impact notes below) Required Civic Service Areas: Aquatics 242,609 - 242,609 327,062 - 327,062 Arenas 142,086 - 142,086 201,435 - 201,435 Community Centres 144,553 - 144,553 216,689 - 216,689 Community Development and Funding 1,046 - 1,046 1,690 - 1,690 Community Recreation & Leisure Programming 179,367 - 179,367 268,523 - 268,523 Golf 1 96,474 (96,474) - 132,864 (132,864) - Special Events 14,452 - 14,452 20,404 - 20,404 Sports Services 22,638 - 22,638 30,014 - 30,014 Storybook Gardens 96,263 - 96,263 133,690 - 133,690 Corporate Security & Emergency Management 38,000 - 38,000 56,000 - 56,000 Street Lighting & Traffic Signals - School Crossing Guards 158,506 - 158,506 223,806 - 223,806 Civic Service Areas Total 1,135,994 (96,474) 1,039,520 1,612,178 (132,864) 1,479,314 - Agencies, Boards and Commissions: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 2 389,770 (139,733) 250,037 467,655 (167,654) 300,001 Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 3 28,547 (12,347) 16,200 73,254 (31,682) 41,572 London Public Library 125,000 - 125,000 177,000 - 177,000 London Convention Centre 22,000 - 22,000 26,400 - 26,400 Centennial Hall 4 35,000 (35,000) - 50,000 (50,000) - Agencies, Boards & Commissions Total 600,317 (187,079) 413,238 794,309 (249,337) 544,972

TOTAL 1,736,311 (283,553) 1,452,758 2,406,487 (382,201) 2,024,286

Note 1 - Consistent with the "golf pays for golf" strategy, fees will be further increased to offset the impacts of the minimum wage increase in Golf. Note 2 - London's share of the total UTRCA increase is approximately 64% based on the current apportionment of costs among member municipalities. Note 3 - London's share of the total KCCA increase is approximately 57% based on the current apportionment of costs among member municipalities. Note 4 - Centennial Hall anticipates increasing fees to offset the impact of the proposed increase to minimum wage. Page 28

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #8

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: LEADING IN PUBLIC SERVICE INITIATIVE: CONFIDENTIAL MATTER – “IN-CAMERA” SERVICE(S): FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE LEAD(S): BILL COXHEAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES AND CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER ANNA LISA BARBON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES AND CITY TREASURER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: CONFIDENTIAL MATTER – “IN-CAMERA”

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $1,455 $2,485 $3,940 Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $1,455 $2,485 $3,940 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $1,455 $1,030 $2,485 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.26% 0.18% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 29 AMENDMENT 1: CONFIDENTIAL MATTER – “IN-CAMERA”

Operating Budget Table ($000’s) Confidential Matter – “In 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Camera” Net Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Expenditure Net Approved Budget 13,613 12,116 17,018 17,018 22,693 22,693 136,158 136,158 Cumulative Amendment 1,455 1,455 2,611 2,485 15,666 14,910 Revised Budget 18,473 18,473 25,304 25,178 151,824 151,068

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Operating Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.26% 0.18% 0.11%

Staffing Table Staffing Summary 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) # of Full-Time Employees Impacted 0 0 # of Full-Time Equivalents Impacted 0.0 0.0 Full-Time Equivalents Cost ($000’s) $0 $0

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Page 30

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #9

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY SERVICE: PARKS & NATURAL AREAS PLANNING & DESIGN SERVICE LEADS: JOHN M. FLEMING, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $350 $350 $700 Revenue $0 $0 ($350) ($350) ($700) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 31 AMENDMENT 1: INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure Invasive Species Management Strategy 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 150 150 150 150 900 Cumulative Amendment 350 350 Revised Budget 500 500 900 Source of Financing Approved Budget (150) (150) (150) (150) (900)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) 1 (350) (350) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (500) (500) (900) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $150 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $150

Note 1 – Funded from the Woodland Acquisition & Management Reserve Fund.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 32 Key Performance Indicator(s) Table Metrics 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes)

Hectares of Phragmites removed - 1.1 Ha 20.0 Ha 21.0 Ha Hectares of Buckthorn removed - 47.9 Ha 40.0 Ha 42.0 Ha Number of sites of other invasive species removed - 21 25 25

What is the reason for the budget amendment? Control and eradication of terrestrial invasive species is a key activity in the long-term management of the City’s Natural Heritage System. Invasive species are the biggest threat to the sustainability of London’s natural areas. Currently, the City carries out invasive species control activities yearly in our Environmentally Significant Areas, woodlands and parks, but the efforts need to be significantly increased.

As part of the City’s new Terrestrial Invasive Species Strategy, a budget request is being submitted to increase the funding for invasive species removal from $150,000 to $500,000 for 2018 and 2019. Delays in addressing invasive species increases the annual and total costs associated with invasive species management. Council approved the Strategy and referred the budget request to the 2018 budget process on October 3, 2017. A permanent increase in funding for the Strategy will be subject to budget availability in the 2020-2023 Multi Year Budget.

The Invasive Species Management Strategy can be found at: http://sire.london.ca/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1611&doctype=AGENDA (agenda item #8)

Page 33

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #10

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: LONDON POLICE SERVICE – CAPITAL PLAN CHANGES SERVICE(S): LONDON POLICE SERVICE SERVICE LEAD(S): JOHN PARE, CHIEF, LONDON POLICE SERVICE TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $77 $80 $157 Revenue $0 $0 ($77) ($80) ($157) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 34 AMENDMENT 1: POLICE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PP431418 – Replace Police Vehicles 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 1,797 1,746 1,493 1,866 10,639 Cumulative Amendment 77 80 461 Revised Budget 1,570 1,946 11,100 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (1,493) (1,866) (10,639)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) 1 (77) (80) (461) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (1,570) (1,946) (11,100)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $1,638 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $2,683

Note 1 – Funded from the Police Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The price per unit for replacement vehicles has been increased by the manufacturer.

Page 35 AMENDMENT 2: POLICE EQUIPMENT

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PP4291 – Police Equipment 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 0 0 0 1,308 Cumulative Amendment (113) Revised Budget 0 0 1,195 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 0 0 (1,308)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) 1 113 Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget 0 0 (1,195)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $692 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $227

Note 1 – Adjustment to the Police Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Replacement of a second Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in 2023 is no longer required.

Page 36 AMENDMENT 3: STORAGE SERVER

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PP4406 – Storage Server 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 213 0 0 0 225 Cumulative Amendment 225 Revised Budget 0 0 450 Source of Financing Approved Budget (213) 0 0 0 (225)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 (225) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget 0 0 (450)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The storage server has a 4 year life span and will need to be replaced in 2024.

Page 37

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #11

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: EXTERIOR LIGHTING REDESIGN & REPLACEMENT FOR ALL LMHC SITES SERVICE(S): LONDON & MIDDLESEX HOUSING CORPORATION (LMHC) SERVICE LEAD(S): JOSH BROWNE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LMHC TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $500 $500 $1,000 Revenue $0 $0 ($500) ($500) ($1,000) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 38 AMENDMENT 1: EXTERIOR LIGHTING REDESIGN & REPLACEMENT FOR ALL LMHC SITES

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD261818 Public Housing Major Upgrades 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 2,208 2,208 2,208 2,208 13,248 Cumulative Amendment 500 500 Revised Budget 2,708 2,708 13,248 Source of Financing Approved Budget (2,208) (2,208) (2,208) (2,208) (13,248)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) 1 (425) (425) Other (O) 2 (75) (75) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (2,708) (2,708) (13,248) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $2,208 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $2,208

Note 1 – Funded from the Public Housing Major Upgrades Reserve Fund. Note 2 – Reflects County of Middlesex portion (approx. 15%) of amendment based on current Housing Cost Apportionment Agreement.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Key Performance Indicator(s) Table Metrics 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Cumulative Changes) Facility Condition Index (Avg.) 9% Good (<20%) Good (<20%) Good (<20%) Tenant Safety & Security Satisfaction N/A 70% Target 75% Target 80% Target

Page 39 Facility Condition Index (FCI) is an industry standard asset management tool, which measures the “constructed asset’s condition at a specific point in time”. It is a functional indicator resulting from an analysis of different but related operational indicators (such as building repair needs) to obtain an overview of a building’s condition as a numerical value.

FCI is obtained by aggregating the total cost of any needed or outstanding repairs, renewal or upgrade requirements at a building compared to the current replacement value of the building components. It is the ratio of the “repair needs” to “replacement value” expressed in percentage terms. Land value is not considered when evaluating FCI.

The lower the value of FCI, the better condition that a building is in. Current industry benchmarks indicate the following subjective condition ratings for facilities with various ranges of FCI:

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? With the average age of LMHC’s properties being approximately 46 years old, virtually all of the properties’ systems and components were designed using what are now outdated and to a certain extent obsolete parameters and concepts. In addition, with the very different demographic make-up of LMHC’s buildings, design criteria that would be utilized today were not even considered. As outlined to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on May 15, 2017, LMHC’s properties are also aging in a uniform fashion, and building systems and components at many sites are requiring replacement at approximately the same time.

The condition of the existing lighting system components, at all of the proposed properties, varies between needing immediate replacement and needing replacement within an approximate three-year period. The determining factors can be summarized as the level of deterioration of the concrete bases and the corrosion of the metal components. All of the lamps within the light fixtures themselves would be considered energy inefficient. Replacement of these lamps with energy efficient technology will help offset the consumption costs of having a larger number of fixtures.

By leveraging one time funding programs and utility rebate programs, LMHC has effectively upgraded some systems to current standards and technology. Unfortunately, these programs typically are limited to retrofits that result in significant reductions in energy consumption and/or greenhouse gases. All other upgrades or improvements must be funded through LMHC’s annual capital allocation of $2.2 million, which limits the corporation’s capability to modernize systems in an effective manner in addition to completing the required lifecycle replacements.

Page 40 Overall site safety and security for all of LMHC’s properties is an element that requires urgent improvement and is the focus of this additional capital funding request. Failure to begin to make improvements in this area may lead to continued erosion of safety for tenants, their guests, LMHC staff, community support and emergency workers when on sites. Further delaying the replacement of the current lighting infrastructure will also continue to widen the infrastructure gap for these systems.

The intent is to implement improvements in a phased manner beginning with improvements to the exterior site lighting systems. These systems are completely inadequate by today’s standards and require a complete re-design with significant additional new components to ensure proper levels of illumination are achieved. Current technologies will be also be utilized to ensure maximum energy efficiency.

The implementation plan is to do the 14 sites in Portfolio #1 in 2018, and the 15 sites in Portfolio #2 in 2019 based on the following tables that provides a specific breakdown of the estimated cost per project by each building site and ward:

While the recently received VFA Building Condition Assessment does support replacing the existing components of LMHC’s exterior lighting systems in the near future, the improvements contemplated with this funding extend beyond “like-for-like” replacement of current systems to also include enhancements to site safety and security based on the availability of funding. For example, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts will be used to further improve safety & security. Additionally, building perimeter access systems, keying systems, and surveillance camera systems may also be implemented at select sites where warranted.

Page 41 It is anticipated that the additional lighting systems will generate a small increase in utility costs, which will be mitigated through the use of more energy efficient products. However, actual figures cannot be quantified until new systems have been designed/engineered.

Providing safe and secure homes is fundamental to our tenants’ lives as well as to LMHC’s new Strategic Plan. The work outlined in this report is a critical first step to meeting these needs and to managing the condition of LMHC’s infrastructure.

As this is not simply a replacement of current components but also an opportunity to re-design systems to greatly improve their functionality, while also addressing lighting conditions and site safety at 98% of LMHC’s overall portfolio, it is identified as the best use of the requested funding. The strategy for addressing the remaining infrastructure challenges as outlined in the VFA report in their entirety will be managed through the development of a comprehensive Asset Management Plan. LMHC’s objective is to have this plan, as well as the associated funding requests, prepared for Municipal Council’s consideration as part of the next multi-year budget cycle.

Other reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? • The $500K puts LMHC on par with all other social housing providers in the City based on capital funding increases they have received since devolution in accordance with provincially mandated indices (CPI). • The project aligns directly with recommendation 4.10 (Enhance community safety in social housing) of the London For All Plan http://povertyresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/London-for-All-final-report.pdf. • Tenant safety and security in LMHC communities continues to be a major concern. • Any capacity issues are mitigated as this is one large project rather than multiple ones that would have to be managed separately including design specs, RFP, engineering, contractor oversight, purchasing policies and reporting, etc.

Page 42

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #12

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: REALIGNMENT OF GROWTH PARKS PROJECTS SERVICE(S): PARKS & NATURAL AREAS PLANNING & DESIGN SERVICE LEAD(S): JOHN M. FLEMING, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 ($1,617) $807 ($810) Revenue $0 $0 $1,617 ($807) $810 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget. Overview This budget amendment has no impact on the annual tax levy. However, for the purpose of clarity and transparency, changes to the timing of various parks projects are being articulated. These parks projects are tied to development – and thus development charges funding – and are subject to review each year and to change, based on changes in the timing of subdivision development.

Page 43 AMENDMENT 1: NEW DISTRICT PARKS

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD103318 New District Parks 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 450 0 937 750 2,000 Cumulative Amendment (837) 87 750 Revised Budget 100 837 2,750 Source of Financing Approved Budget (450) 0 (937) (750) (2,000)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 342 22 (364) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 495 (109) (386) Revised Budget (100) (837) (2,750) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $500 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 – Non-tax supported: development charges supported (rate varies depending on location).

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Changes in timing of projects to suit the timing of subdivision development. The change means that funding commitments are better aligned with the revised schedule for parkland assumption and subsequent construction. The gross budget amount for the 2016-2025 period has not changed.

Page 44 AMENDMENT 2: NEW MAJOR OPEN SPACE

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD204318 New Major Open Space 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 1,730 915 475 1,050 2,715 Cumulative Amendment (80) 80 Revised Budget 395 1,130 2,715 Source of Financing Approved Budget (1,730) (915) (475) (1,050) (2,715)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 34 (34) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 46 (46) Revised Budget (395) (1,130) (2,715) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $350 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $350

Note 1 – Non-tax supported: development charges supported (rate varies depending on location).

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 45 AMENDMENT 3: NEW FIELD HOUSES

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD223018 New Field Houses 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 600 300 600 300 1,500 Cumulative Amendment (600) 600 Revised Budget 0 900 1,500 Source of Financing Approved Budget (600) (300) (600) (300) (1,500)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 195 (262) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 405 (338) Revised Budget 0 (900) (1,500) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $500 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 – Non-tax supported: development charges supported (rate varies depending on location).

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 46 AMENDMENT 4: NEW ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA’S)

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD225318 New ESAs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 80 60 260 450 Cumulative Amendment (60) 60 Revised Budget 60 200 510 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 (80) (60) (260) (450)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 29 (29) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 2 31 (31) Revised Budget (60) (200) (510) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 – A financing adjustment was required to fund the capital project with capital levy, noting that other financing adjustments result in the overall capital levy allocation remaining unchanged. Note 2 – Non-tax supported: development charges supported (rate varies depending on location).

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 47 AMENDMENT 5: NEW WOODLAND PARKS

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD276518 New Woodland Parks 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 100 125 100 400 425 Cumulative Amendment (100) 100 Revised Budget 0 400 525 Source of Financing Approved Budget (100) (125) (100) (400) (425)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 23 (23) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 2 77 (77) Revised Budget 0 (400) (525) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $100 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $100

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 48 AMENDMENT 6: NEW URBAN PARKS

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PD301918 New Urban Parks 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 850 160 600 200 2,275 Cumulative Amendment 100 (100) Revised Budget 600 300 2,175 Source of Financing Approved Budget (850) (160) (600) (200) (2,275)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 (23) 23 Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 2 (77) 77 Revised Budget (600) (300) (2,175) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $300 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $300

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 49

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #13

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: DEFERRAL OF NEW FIRE STATION 15 SERVICE(S): FIRE SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): LYNNE LIVINGSTONE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEIGHBOURHOOD, CHILDREN & FIRE SERVICES TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $0 ($200) ($200) Revenue $0 $0 $0 $200 $200 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 50

AMENDMENT 1: DEFERRAL OF NEW FIRE STATION 15

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure PP1087 – New Fire Station 15 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 500 0 200 3,886 Cumulative Amendment (200) 611 Revised Budget 0 0 4,497 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 (500) 0 (200) (3,886)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 71 (216) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 129 (395) Revised Budget 0 0 (4,497) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 – Non-tax supported: 64.7% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? This project is to construct a fire station in the southeast area of the city in order to provide specified response times to that area as it grows. Current growth rates in this portion of the city do not yet warrant this new station so the project has been deferred from 2020 to 2022. The $325/sq. ft. cost from the 2016 tender for new Fire Station #11 was escalated by 6% per year for future years based on recent trends in facilities projects in London and similar trends from other Fire Services in Southern Ontario. Civic Administration and the London Fire Department will continue to monitor trends in construction pricing for new fire facilities and will adjust as necessary in future years.

Page 51

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 14

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: ADELAIDE STREET - CPR GRADE SEPARATION SERVICE(S): TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): KELLY SCHERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CITY ENGINEER EDWARD SOLDO, DIRECTOR, ROADS & TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF AMENDMENT: NEW COUNCIL DIRECTION

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $7,100 $12,800 $19,900 Revenue $0 $0 ($7,100) ($12,800) ($19,900) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 52 AMENDMENT 1: ADVANCEMENT OF ADELAIDE STREET – CPR GRADE SEPARATION

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1306-Adelaide Street Grade Separation CPR Expenditure Tracks 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 50 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Amendment 7,100 12,800 40,000 Revised Budget 7,100 12,800 40,000 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 0 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) (4,043) (7,290) (22,780) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 (3,057) (5,510) (17,220) Revised Budget (7,100) (12,800) (40,000)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 33% developed charges supported and 15% cost apportionment from the rail company.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 53 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? In response to the May 15th, 2017 Rapid Transit Corridors report (link below), Council resolved that the Adelaide Street/CPR railway grade separation project be considered a necessary element of the rapid transit (RT) system and that the project implementation be advanced, in order to assist in the implementation of the RT north corridor. Preliminary timelines for the RT north corridor are scheduled for the 2022-2025, subject to completion of the Shift Environmental Assessment (EA). Ideally the Adelaide Street improvements would be initiated in advance of this period.

This amendment considers the fastest possible project implementation with construction beginning in 2021, subject to EA clearance, property acquisition and railway concurrence.

The complexity of the Adelaide Grade Separation project and planned timelines will require advanced planning, engineering, property acquisitions, utility relocations, coordination with CPR etc. to support the proposed phasing timelines. It is expected that the Rail Company will provide 15% cost apportionment towards the project subject to negotiations.

http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=282605

Page 54

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 15

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: WESTERN ROAD WIDENING - PLATTS LANE TO OXFORD STREET SERVICE(S): TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): KELLY SCHERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CITY ENGINEER EDWARD SOLDO, DIRECTOR, ROADS & TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $3,500 $0 $3,500 Revenue $0 $0 ($3,500) $0 ($3,500) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 55 AMENDMENT 1: INCREASE IN WESTERN ROAD WIDENING PLATTS LANE TO OXFORD STREET

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1489 – Western Widening Platts Lane to Expenditure Oxford Street 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 4,500 17,069 1,500 0 0 Cumulative Amendment 3,500 Revised Budget 5,000 0 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget (4,500) (17,609) (1,500) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) (595) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 (2,905) Revised Budget (5,000) 0 0

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 83% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 56 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? The investment increase in this project is required to successfully achieve the project objectives. Through the course of the detailed design, a number of additional items were encountered which in turn modified the project. The following items provide reasoning for the budget increase:

Rail Diversion Construction: It was originally planned to construct the temporary rail diversion partially on private lands immediately to the south of the existing rail. The acquisition of temporary working easements was unsuccessful so an alternate strategy to relocate the shoring wall/system fully on CPR property was implemented. The revised approach incurred additional costs due to the increased shoring wall length and height.

Utilities Relocations: The final design requires significant work to bury and relocate London Hydro plant and other utilities to an extent that was not originally planned. Given the proximity to Western University and demands for improved active transportation facilities, the project is making significant investments to improve the Western/Wharncliffe Road North corridor to provide streetscape elements and community enhancements that are consistent with The London Plan.

Archaeological Stage 3 Assessment: An archaeological survey of the municipal land fronting the UWO property at Grosvenor Lodge identified a 19th century Euro-Canadian archaeological site. This archaeological site has material dating to the early 19th century and is considered by Provincial standards to have cultural heritage value or interest and requires further investigation in the form of a Stage 3 archaeological assessment. Based on the material recovered thus far, a Stage 4 mitigation will be required. The site will need to be completely removed from the ground in a controlled manner so the information is preserved for future research. Final construction costs and added coordination efforts are required to achieve archaeological clearance that was not originally planned.

Revised Stormwater Management (SWM) Storage: Revised engineering drawings and on-site stormwater storage was required to include additional catchment areas, resulting in added on-site storage in Kensington Park. Engineering drawing revisions, Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) preparation and approvals, and on-site construction changes were required. Final construction costs and added coordination efforts are necessary to accommodate Kensington Park work that was not originally planned.

Page 57

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE # 16

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: REALIGNMENT OF GROWTH TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS SERVICE(S): TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): KELLY SCHERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CITY ENGINEER EDWARD SOLDO, DIRECTOR, ROADS & TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 ($11,623) $4,215 ($7,408) Revenue $0 $0 $11,623 ($4,215) $7,408 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 58 AMENDMENT 1: HAMILTON ROAD & HIGHBURY AVE. INTERSECTION LAND ADVANCED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1309 – Hamilton Road & Highbury Ave. Expenditure Intersection 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 200 50 1,525 0 Cumulative Amendment 200 (200) Revised Budget 250 1,325 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (50) (1,525) 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) (20) 20 Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 (180) 180 Revised Budget (250) (1,325) 0

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 87.7% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Funding advanced to enable proactive property acquisition.

Page 59 AMENDMENT 2: LONG TERM CORRIDOR PROTECTION EA STUDIES ADVANCED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1031 – Long Term Corridor Protection EA Expenditure Studies 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 200 0 200 100 Cumulative Amendment 100 (100) Revised Budget 0 300 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 200 0 (200) (100)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 (100) 100 Revised Budget 0 (300) 0

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 100% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Funds accelerated to enable the anticipated scope required for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Boler Road south extension.

Page 60 AMENDMENT 3: RICHMOND STREET & FANSHAWE PARK ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1134 Richmond Street & Fanshawe Park Expenditure Road Intersection Improvements 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 2,100 4,400 0 0 Cumulative Amendment (4,000) 4,000 Revised Budget 400 0 4,000 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 (2,100) (4,400) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 400 (400) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 3,600 (3,600) Revised Budget (400) 0 (4,000)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 90% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Project construction deferred to enable coordination with Rapid Transit improvements that are in development through the Shift Environmental Assessment (EA).

Page 61 AMENDMENT 4: SOUTHDALE ROAD UPGRADES PHASE 2 WICKERSON TO BRAMBLEWOOD DEFERRED TO 2019

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1407-2 Southdale Road Upgrade – Phase 2 Expenditure Wickerson to Bramblewood 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 557 3,253 0 0 Cumulative Amendment (3,000) 3,000 Revised Budget 253 3,000 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (3,253) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 390 (390) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 2,610 (2,610) Revised Budget (253) (3,000) 0

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 87% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Natural environment and potential property impacts have triggered the need for an Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Study that has been initiated. Consequently, construction of the project is being deferred to not before 2019.

Page 62 AMENDMENT 5: SOUTHDALE ROAD UPGRADES PHASE 1 FILL REQUIREMENT- WICKERSON TO BRAMBLEWOOD DEFERRED TO 2019

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1407-1 Southdale Road Upgrade - Phase 1 Expenditure Fill Requirement-Wickerson to Bramblewood 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 380 500 1,870 0 0 Cumulative Amendment (1,760) 1,760 Revised Budget 110 1,760 0 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (1,870) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 1,760 (1,760) Revised Budget (110) 1,760 0

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 100% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Natural environment and potential property impacts have triggered the need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that has been initiated. Consequently, construction of the project is being deferred to not before 2019.

Page 63 AMENDMENT 6: WONDERLAND ROAD WIDENING – PHASE 1 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO SPRINGBANK DRIVE DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1348-1 Wonderland Road Widening – Phase Expenditure 1 Riverside Drive to Springbank Drive 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 1,009 0 1,475 210 18,017 Cumulative Amendment (1,475) 1,475 Revised Budget 0 1,685 18,017 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (1,475) (210) (18,017)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 103 (103) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 1,372 (1,372) Revised Budget 0 (1,685) (18,017)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 93% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Design and property acquisition funds deferred based on current Environmental Assessment (EA) and project schedule.

Page 64 AMENDMENT 7: SOUTHDALE ROAD UPGRADES – WICKERSON TO WESTDEL BOURNE DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1626 Southdale Road Upgrades – Expenditure Wickerson to Westdel Bourne 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 82 1,338 0 Cumulative Amendment (1,338) 1,338 Revised Budget 0 0 1,338 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (1,338) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 174 (174) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 1,164 (1,164) Revised Budget 0 0 (1,338)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 87% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Construction deferred to 2021 to improve coordination with adjacent projects and area development.

Page 65 AMENDMENT 8: BOSTWICK ROAD UPGRADES – PACK ROAD TO SOUTHDALE ROAD DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1357 Bostwick Rd Upgrades - Pack Road to Expenditure Southdale Road 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 0 250 2,637 Cumulative Amendment (250) 250 Revised Budget 0 0 2,887 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (250) 0 (2,637)

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 32 (32) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 218 (218) Revised Budget 0 0 (2,887)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 87% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Construction deferred to 2023 to improve coordination with adjacent projects and area development.

Page 66 AMENDMENT 9: HYDE PARK ROAD - OXFORD STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1477-3 Hyde Park Road - Oxford Street Expenditure Intersection Improvements 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 310 0 1,920 0 Cumulative Amendment (1,920) 1,920 Revised Budget 0 0 1,920 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 0 (1,920) 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 154 (154) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) 1 1,766 (1,766) Revised Budget 0 0 1,920

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Note 1 - Non-tax supported: 92% development charges supported.

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Construction timing deferred to 2021 based on network need and current infrastructure condition.

Page 67 AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #17

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: FARQUHARSON, GLEN CAIRN AND SILVERWOODS ARENAS DECOMMISSIONING SERVICE(S): PARKS, RECREATION & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 $54 $0 $54 Revenue $0 $0 ($54) $0 ($54) Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 68 AMENDMENT 1: REVISION TO FARQUHARSON ARENA DECOMMISSIONING CAPITAL PROJECT

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure RC2602 Farquharson Decommissioning 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 125 2,060 Cumulative Amendment 126 Revised Budget 125 2,186 Source of Financing Approved Budget (125) (2,060)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 (126) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (125) (2,186) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 69 AMENDMENT 2: REVISION TO GLEN CAIRN ARENA DECOMMISSIONING CAPITAL PROJECT

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure RC2608 Glen Cairn Decommissioning 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 670 Cumulative Amendment 13 Revised Budget 683

Approved Budget (670)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 (13) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (683) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 70 AMENDMENT 3: REVISION TO SILVERWOODS ARENA DECOMMISSIONING CAPITAL PROJECT

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) Expenditure RC2612 Silverwoods Decommissioning 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 125 2,060 Cumulative Amendment 41 Revised Budget 2,101

Approved Budget (125) (2,060)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 (41) Debenture (D) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget (2,101) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 71 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Recent tender closings for facilities projects have been higher than anticipated. A 2% per year increase was added to the construction costs component of these capital projects to more accurately reflect current pricing trends. Administration will continue to monitor trends in construction pricing in the coming years leading up to the tendering of these projects, it being noted that the tendering of the east multi-purpose recreation centre in 2017 will provide a useful benchmark. Subject to the results of that tender and other available information, further budget amendments will be brought forward if necessary.

Page 72

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #18

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY INITIATIVE: RELOCATION OF EXISTING RESOURCES TO NEW FIRE STATION 16 SERVICE(S): FIRE SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): LYNNE LIVINGSTONE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEIGHBOURHOOD, CHILDREN & FIRE SERVICES TYPE OF AMENDMENT: COST DRIVER

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 ($500) $300 ($200) Revenue $0 $0 $500 ($300) $200 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 73 AMENDMENT 1: RELOCATION OF EXISTING RESOURCES TO NEW FIRE STATION 16

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) PP1090 – Relocation of Existing Resources to Expenditure New Fire Station 16 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 0 500 450 3,102 Cumulative Amendment (500) 300 597 Revised Budget 0 750 3,699 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (500) (450) (3,102)

Capital Levy (CL) 1 500 Debenture (D) (300) (597) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget 0 (750) (3,699) 2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table Tax Levy Impact 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 (Incremental Changes) Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 74 What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? This project is to construct a fire station in the Wharncliffe area south of Springbank Dr. toward Commissioners Rd. W. while moving the Engine at Station 1 to this new location in order to address a service gap. The London Fire Department continues to review and assess the need for this station move and at this time has deferred the project from 2020 to 2022. The $325/sq. ft. cost from the 2016 tender for new Fire Station #11 was escalated by 6% per year for future years based on recent trends in facilities projects in London and similar trends from other Fire Services in Southern Ontario. Civic Administration and the London Fire Department will continue to monitor trends in construction pricing for new fire facilities and will adjust as necessary in future years.

Page 75

AMENDMENT FORM – CASE #19

STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY INITIATIVE: WESTERN ROAD & PHILIP AZIZ AVE IMPROVEMENTS DEFERRED SERVICE(S): TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SERVICE LEAD(S): KELLY SCHERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CITY ENGINEER EDWARD SOLDO, DIRECTOR, ROADS & TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF AMENDMENT: SERVICE IMPROVEMENT

Budget Amendment 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact ($000’s) TOTAL Expenditure $0 $0 ($6,000) $0 ($6,000) Revenue $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 Net Requested Tax Levy (Cumulative) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Incremental Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Tax Levy Impact % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note 1: The tax levy impact is calculated using the approved budget.

Page 76 AMENDMENT 1: WESTERN ROAD & PHILIP AZIZ AVE IMPROVEMENTS DEFERRED

Capital Budget Table ($000’s) TS1136 Western Road & Philip Aziz Ave. Expenditure Improvements 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Approved Budget 0 650 6,000 0 0 Cumulative Amendment (6,000) 6,000 Revised Budget 0 0 6,000 Source of Financing Approved Budget 0 0 (6,000) 0 0

Capital Levy (CL) Debenture (D) 6,000 (6,000) Reserve Fund (RF) Other (O) Amendments Non-tax Supported (NTS) Revised Budget 0 0 (6,000)

2026 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0 2027 Capital Gross Expenditure: $0

Tax Levy Per Cent Impact Table 2016-2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tax Levy Impact Average Capital Impact 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

What is the reason(s) for the budget amendment(s)? Project construction deferred to 2020 to enable coordination with Rapid Transit improvements that are in development through the Shift Environmental Assessment (EA).

Page 77

london.ca/budget