Council Meeting - Special Agenda Preview — June 23, 2026
Hook: Multi-year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031
Owen Sound · Council Meeting - Special · June 23, 2026
Summary
One-sentence summary: Staff present a multi-year capital plan prioritizing urgent water safety repairs over flashy projects to address pressing infrastructure strain caused by staff shortages and rising procurement costs.
On June 23, 2026 at 9:00 AM, staff present a Multi-Year Capital Plan Update (2027-2031) that shifts focus toward equitable resource sharing as infrastructure strain intensifies; by 2027, urgent water safety supersedes flashy projects to address sediment buildup and replace aging wastewater pumps preventing sewage spills. Critical interventions include repairing leaking roofs at community centres and supplying firefighters with federally mandated gear without burdening immediate taxpayers through new levies. The agenda considers a Freedom Trail segment blocked by ravine instability requiring up to $70,000 in geotechnical analysis from capital reserves while staff discuss replacing deteriorated Centennial Tower steel panels via modular design phases rather than confirming construction timelines immediately. Council evaluates resurfacing Harrison Park courts amidst cracks and unauthorized cricket use alongside Fourth Avenue West reconstruction options that balance traffic calming against neighbourhood connectivity concerns. Staff propose closing unsafe trail sections until engineers complete urgent studies, noting hidden deterioration in the historic tower during future invasive testing may increase costs beyond preliminary estimates without new public spending decisions currently confirmed.
Top Newsworthy Developments
- Presentation from the Director of Corporate Services, Manager of Corporate Services, and Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031: Owen Sound faces pressing infrastructure strain as staff shortages and rising costs under new procurement rules shift focus toward multi-year planning grounded in equitable resource sharing. By 2027, urgent water safety supersedes flashy projects; a massive overhaul of the Kenny Drain Pond addresses sediment buildup that previously forced boil-water advisories for over 10,000 residents. Critical interventions involve replacing aging wastewater pumps and rehabilitating corroding pipe protection to prevent sewage spills threatening local waters, funded by debt or reserves rather than new levies. Upcoming priorities through 2031 rely heavily on tax levies and user rates instead of grants. Projects include repairing leaking roofs at the Bayshore Community Centre and Julie McArthur Rec Centre, automating obsolete ice resurfacing equipment, supplying firefighters with federally mandated safety gear, and renovating fire station living conditions. The Fourth Avenue Bridge requires restoration for emergency access while decaying parks like Harrison Park need pedestrian separation following flood damage. Transportation funds will resurface roads with dangerous potholes using federal gas taxes, though developer contributions cover subdivision infrastructure costs that raise questions about offloading utility burdens onto household budgets for private expansions. Beyond 2031, a five-year Official Plan update costing $60,000 aims to refresh legislative vision via tax levies. Plans rebuild Ed Taylor Park's playground and design four new accessible units without operational impacts. Reconstruction of 15th Street East starts January 2031 with funding totaling $5.55 million to address storm drainage affecting thousands, alongside wastewater treatment upgrades for climate resilience costing an estimated $300,000 from waste fees. Additional steps include inventorying recreational trails at $100,000 via tax levies, repairing Greenwood Cemetery facilities including hazardous tree removal at combined costs of $240,000, and upgrading water treatment instrumentation using water rates. The city holds nearly six million dollars in combined water reserves for rate stability while securing over five million from provincial grants specifically for capital projects like bridge rehabilitation to ensure public goods are funded directly rather than burdening existing taxpayers immediately. Significant backlogs remain with the Engineering department facing roughly sixteen million dollars in unfunded needs alongside Parks' eleven-million-dollar gap linked to ash tree removal and roadway repairs, highlighting substantial deferred work without confirming new spending decisions beyond these reported gaps.
- Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project CONSENT AGENDA: The Centennial Tower in Owen Sound remains closed since August 2024 following a structural review that identified significant corrosion in eastern steel panels allowing water to pond, alongside spalled concrete, cracked corners near the southeast edge, and missing bolts at doorways. Visual evidence also highlights a deformed northwest wood column likely damaged by impact, minor undermining of stone abutments, shifted bricks on the original kiln base, degraded decking, and corroded rails. While an unfunded rehabilitation was previously listed for 2027 with preliminary estimates around $391k pending invasive testing, staff are currently utilising allocated funds to complete a detailed design phase required before any future construction window opens in 2027. Proposed remediation measures include debris removal, corrosion patching, installing bird nets for brick protection, and annual inspections after spring thaws to ensure safety ahead of tourism season. Concurrently, the city considers replacing playgrounds at multiple parks under a multi-year strategy aiming to fill infrastructure gaps through modular construction that standardizes designs for better accessibility; however, specific repair timelines or funding commitments remain contingent on future community input and official decisions yet to be made by elected officials regarding both tower restoration and park upgrades.
- By-law No. 2026-077 "a By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Special Meeting of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Owen...: Harrison Park's tennis and pickleball courts require renewal due to cracking surfaces damaged by weather and unauthorized cricket use; staff face a choice between short-term repairs funded at $60k–$200k for 2027 construction or prioritizing the park's current facilities over new infrastructure. Meanwhile, Fourth Avenue West reconstruction is stalled until 2027 due to unresolved debates on road width and parking. Staff present two design paths: Option 1A keeps existing pavement with minimal engineering costs but increases winter maintenance needs, while Option 2A proposes a narrower road without street parking that could lower lifecycle costs despite potential sidewalk sod risks or utility conflicts from added pedestrian space. Both options incur redundant consulting fees if details must be rebid mid-stage, and management assumes notifying neighbours of these changes is unnecessary to save money. The project aims for tender-ready documents before the 2027 construction season without committing immediately to final funding or execution specifics; detailed redesign work begins upon council direction while avoiding extra public information centres unless explicitly requested, aligning climate goals but sidestepping further engagement expenses that would add cost without inferring specific reasons behind these particular choices.
- Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) - Condition Update: A proposed Freedom Trail segment on Nine Bends connects Harrison Park and the River District, but steep ravine slopes have failed due to groundwater pressure. This dangerous instability has blocked a well-used pedestrian link near Greenwood Cemetery with fallen trees and eroded drainage swales that fill open ditches. Staff recommend closing this section until qualified engineers complete urgent geotechnical analyses costing up to $70,000; Council funding from capital reserves may cover these studies. Simultaneously, the Centennial Tower, closed since August 2024 due to structural risks after two decades of minimal repair beyond a surface restoration, now moves its full rehabilitation budget into the 2026–2027 timeline. Initial visual inspections are insufficient; invasive material testing will soon reveal likely cost increases once hidden deterioration is exposed during design phases scheduled for early next year.
- Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing: Harrison Park's tennis and pickleball courts in Owen Sound are deteriorating from age and non-standard use like cricket, prompting staff to recommend safety closures while seeking funding between $60,000 and $200,000 for resurfacing that extends asset life without increasing maintenance burdens. Staff advise against high-cost acrylic surfaces that strain municipal resources. Concurrently, 4th Avenue West reconstruction is paused until the 2027 construction season following an April 2026 Council pause; however, detailed designs on underground utilities continue to advance within Vision 2050 priorities despite uncertain future financial direction from upcoming public proceedings. Staff request approval to keep engineering work moving while awaiting final decisions between a modernized status quo option and a traffic-calming alternative that narrows the road but improves snow removal efficiency by eliminating on-street parking conflicts, even if it reduces neighbourhood connectivity via removed sidewalks. Both pathways incur additional staff costs without triggering immediate public consultations or new information centres unless Council directs otherwise, with all work coordinated across multiple departments to prepare tender-ready documents for the next season under current Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund constraints while ensuring aging water and storm utilities are still addressed regardless of road layout choices.
- Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section: Critical drainage failures have caused sections of the single vehicular entrance at Harrison Park, a major heritage asset serving 150,000 annual visitors yearly, to collapse under worsening conditions from recent rainfall. Staff are requesting approval to utilise the capital reserve fund for up to $70,000 in engineering analysis near Nine Bends Trail and an estimated $25,000 for emergency repairs on the roughly 220-metre roadway stretch currently rated in very poor condition. These corridors support vital active transportation across steep slopes but face urgent infrastructure risks that existing studies cannot adequately address due to outdated data from recent ground failures. No final decisions regarding funding commitments or project timelines have been made yet, as no construction can proceed without updated designs necessitated by current conditions. A design for upgrading the West Park Entry Roadway is scheduled for presentation to an advisory committee in January 2027, with tenders expected only after that review if approved. Following this preliminary phase and subsequent design revisions late next year, permanent reconstruction work may enter a future capital plan cycle between 2027 and 2031. These steps aim to restore safe community connectivity while supporting climate mitigation goals for residents navigating hazardous lands near First Street West without compromising access needs during necessary repairs.
- Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements: The Bayshore Community Centre's original plywood ice cover and bowl seating, installed in 1983, are critically deteriorated by moisture exposure and age. Recent incidents highlight the immediate safety risks: a January 2022 vaccine clinic was moved after one morning due to warping gaps on the floor, while arena seats frequently break during games with only temporary fixes possible as replacement parts were discontinued years ago. Staff propose replacing these failing assets this summer with a lightweight, durable ice cover from Athletica Sports Systems that eliminates trip hazards and reduces energy use by improving insulation. The new system allows shared usage between Bayshore and the Julie McArthur facility to generate approximately $30,000 annually in additional ice rental revenue during off-seasons like the Fall Fair. Simultaneously, all 1,870 original seats will be replaced with an upgraded model that simplifies repairs and reduces overall costs by over $100,000 compared to partial replacements; installation runs from May to August 2027 while keeping east-side seating operational for public events during construction. The project aligns with climate mitigation goals through recycling steel frames and selling old plywood via GovDeals, ensuring responsible stewardship of resources without requiring new staff hires or immediate funding commitments beyond the current scope.
- Council Resolution No. R-260526-006 Postponed 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps: Council has instructed staff to advance designs prioritizing Option 1A, which maintains existing lane widths and on-street parking while modernizing aging underground utilities between 15th and 20th Streets West for a potential 2027 construction season. This approach seeks to address critical infrastructure needs without immediately committing funds to widen paths that might disrupt current community usage of road space for vehicles or pedestrians alike. Although an Operations Committee previously favoured replacing lanes with a multi-use path, the Council deferred approval until next year's window opens. Staff emphasizes that significant engineering work on subterranean systems remains valuable regardless of whether Option 1A or the financially cheaper but operationally heavier Option 2A is selected later; Option 2A would offer superior winter maintenance capabilities and lower initial costs by utilising a narrower road platform, yet it demands higher long-term clearing expenses. The project relies on Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund resources to cover unavoidable underground infrastructure costs while staff continues detailed design development in public works and engineering. No new Public Information Centre will be organised unless Council explicitly directs one, keeping associated community engagement costs under review for the upcoming season's start.
Key Topics & Sections
Meeting Details
- Jurisdiction
- Owen Sound
- Body
- Council Meeting - Special
- Date
- June 23, 2026
- Transcript Status
- Agenda package summary and extracted subreport text
- Transcript URL
- https://helpos.ca/transcripts/owen-sound/council-meeting-special/2026-06-23
- Official Source
- View official meeting page
Related Discussion
HelpOS discussion thread link pending.
Transcript Notice
This page is an accessibility-focused summary and extracted agenda text intended to promote civic accessibility.
It is an unofficial convenience copy and may contain extraction or summarization errors.
For the authoritative record, try to access the original source materials from Owen Sound using the original link below.
Full Transcript
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The section contains no substantive content, presenting only a header and repeated title without newsworthy details.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3 MOTION TO MOVE COUNCIL INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The agenda item proposes moving the council into a Committee of the Whole.
3 MOTION TO MOVE COUNCIL INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MOTION TO MOVE COUNCIL INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
4 DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.a
This section covers deputations and presentations, a procedural agenda item with no substantive content provided.
4 DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.a DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.a
4.a Presentation from the Director of Corporate Services, Manager of Corporate Services, and Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator Re: Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031
Owen Sound faces pressing infrastructure strain as staff shortages and rising costs under new procurement rules shift focus toward multi-year planning grounded in equitable resource sharing. By 2027, urgent water safety supersedes flashy projects; a massive overhaul of the Kenny Drain Pond addresses sediment buildup that previously forced boil-water advisories for over 10,000 residents. Critical interventions involve replacing aging wastewater pumps and rehabilitating corroding pipe protection to prevent sewage spills threatening local waters, funded by debt or reserves rather than new levies. Upcoming priorities through 2031 rely heavily on tax levies and user rates instead of grants. Projects include repairing leaking roofs at the Bayshore Community Centre and Julie McArthur Rec Centre, automating obsolete ice resurfacing equipment, supplying firefighters with federally mandated safety gear, and renovating fire station living conditions. The Fourth Avenue Bridge requires restoration for emergency access while decaying parks like Harrison Park need pedestrian separation following flood damage. Transportation funds will resurface roads with dangerous potholes using federal gas taxes, though developer contributions cover subdivision infrastructure costs that raise questions about offloading utility burdens onto household budgets for private expansions. Beyond 2031, a five-year Official Plan update costing $60,000 aims to refresh legislative vision via tax levies. Plans rebuild Ed Taylor Park's playground and design four new accessible units without operational impacts. Reconstruction of 15th Street East starts January 2031 with funding totaling $5.55 million to address storm drainage affecting thousands, alongside wastewater treatment upgrades for climate resilience costing an estimated $300,000 from waste fees. Additional steps include inventorying recreational trails at $100,000 via tax levies, repairing Greenwood Cemetery facilities including hazardous tree removal at combined costs of $240,000, and upgrading water treatment instrumentation using water rates. The city holds nearly six million dollars in combined water reserves for rate stability while securing over five million from provincial grants specifically for capital projects like bridge rehabilitation to ensure public goods are funded directly rather than burdening existing taxpayers immediately. Significant backlogs remain with the Engineering department facing roughly sixteen million dollars in unfunded needs alongside Parks' eleven-million-dollar gap linked to ash tree removal and roadway repairs, highlighting substantial deferred work without confirming new spending decisions beyond these reported gaps.
Attachment: Presentation - Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031.pdf
Source: https://pub-owensound.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=52923
Capital Planning Meeting
Council
June 23, 2026
1
Agenda
• 2026 Capital Progress Update
• The environment we are operating in
• 2027 – 2031 Capital Plan
• Top 20 projects from 2027
• Funding Strategies
• Capital Levy
• Debt
• Grants
• Reserves
2
2026 Capital Plan
Update
3
2026 Capital Progress Update
• 102 active projects in ProjectTeam with total budgets of $71.4M
• 7 completed projects valued at $167,000
• 135 projects are in progress with a total value of $58.8M
• 26 projects have not started valued at $12.4M
4
Amendments to the 2026
Capital Program
5
Harrison Park - West Entry Roadway
Repair (Failed Portion)
Report Number: CS-26-032 | Proposed Budget: $25,000
• The West Entry Road is the only vehicular entrance into Harrison
Park and supports significant traffic.
• This project offers a short-term solution by paving a minimal section
of the failed roadway to support safe vehicular access.
• A longer-term solution project is included in the 2027-2031 Multi-Year
Capital Plan.
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-032 respecting the
Harrison Park west entry failed roadway section, City Council
receives the report for information purposes.
6
Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st St W)
Report Number: CS-26-038 | Proposed Budget: $70,000
• The Nine Bends Trail is a heavily-utilized active transportation and
recreation link.
• There are known slope and drainage concerns, resulting in recent failures
that have required the closing of the trail.
• This project involves retaining a qualified engineering professional to
review the current conditions, undertake necessary analysis and offer
suggestions to remediate the slope and trail area.
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-038 respecting the Nine
Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) Condition Update, City
Council approves an allocation of up to $70,000 for engineering
analysis and preliminary design from the capital reserve fund.
7
Centennial Tower Refurbishment
Report Number: CR-26-049 | Proposed Budget: $39,700 (detailed design)
• The Centennial Tower was constructed in 1967 and was restored to its
original condition in 2001. Since then, the structure has only undergone
minor maintenance, resulting in significant structural safety concerns.
• This project involves initiating a Detailed Design Phase, which includes
invasive material testing to determine the actual condition of the tower’s
structural components.
• Upon completion of the design phase, staff will provide Council with an
updated construction estimate prior to 2027 project tender.
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CR-26-049 respecting the
Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project, City Council receive this
report for information purposes.
8
4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th St to
20th St)
Report Number: OP-26-031 | Proposed Budget: TBD (funded through OCIF)
• This project is a priority infrastructure renewal project focused on the replacement
of aging underground utilities that are at or beyond their useful lives.
• After evaluating several design alternatives, Option 2A – “Traffic Calming
Alternative” has been recommended and includes:
• Reconstruction using 3.5m Lane Width, No Parking, No Bicycle Lanes, 1.5m wide
concrete sidewalk on both sides
• Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners
• Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing)
THAT in consideration of Staff Report OP-26-031 respecting the next steps
for the 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street), City
Council directs staff to proceed with the detailed design of Option 2A –
Traffic Calming Alternative, to support preparation of construction tender
documents for issuance in advance of the 2027 construction season.
9
2027 - 2031 Capital
Plan
10
2027 – 2031 Capital Planning Context
• Procurement and Buy Ontario requirements
• Organizational Workload and Staffing Capacity
• Construction market volatility
• Infrastructure downloading
• Development Support
11
Procurement – Buy Ontario Initiative
The public procurement environment continues to evolve, requiring municipalities to balance trade
obligations, local economic priorities, procurement fairness and project affordability”
Emerging Requirements Operational Impacts
• Increasing emphasis on Ontario • Longer procurement lead times
and Canada supply chains • Reduced supplier availability
• Evolving trade and procurement • Increased material pricing
compliance obligations
• Additional scrutiny around • Additional procurement
procurement fairness and documentation and evaluation
transparency requirements
• Supply chain resiliency • Greater pressure to coordinate
considerations timing across departments
12
Organizational Capacity and Workload
The City’s ability to deliver capital projects is influenced not only by funding availability, but also by
organizational capacity
Staffing Gapping has Two Realities Strategic Response
• Vacancies and delayed hiring have • Capital project coordinator role
contributed to operating budget • Engineering project coordinator role
savings.
• However, those same vacancies • ProjectTeam Software
reduce the City’s ability to: • Workplan review
• Advance design work • Project reviews and updates
• Manage procurement processes
• Deliver projects on schedule
• Coordinate consultants and contractors
• Complete reporting and grant
administration
13
Construction Market Volatility
Construction pricing remains elevated and unpredictable
Municipal infrastructure projects remain Impact and Response
particularly vulnerable
Impacts to capital planning
• Ontario construction pricing continues to trend above historic norms.
• Increased risk of tenders exceeding approved budgets
• Stats Canada continues to report year over year increases in non
residential construction pricing • More projects requiring scope adjustments
• Industry reporting indicates that infrastructure construction continues • Pressure on reserve flexibility and grant allocations
to experience pressure from:
• Skilled labour shortages • Greater difficulty forecasting future year costs
• Material volatility
• Supply chain uncertainty (tariffs)
Strategic Response:
• Steel and mechanical equipment pricing
• Continued commitment to multi year planning
• Increased competition for specialized contractors
• Maintaining reserve balances and flexibility
• The City has experienced: • Phased implementation strategies
• Limited bidder pools • Standardized design where appropriate
• Specialized contractor challenges
• Bundling projects
• Higher contingency pricing
• Pursuit of grant opportunities
• Significant tender variability.
• Updated Procurement Policy
14
Grey County Roads Download
Grey County is currently evaluating the potential transfer of certain County road assets to lower-tier
municipalities, including Owen Sound
Financial Considerations Implications
If transferred, these assets will create: • Value and timing of projects in the capital plan
• Additional annual operating maintenance costs • 2nd Ave E (Grey Road 5)
• 3rd Ave E (Grey Road 15)
• Future rehabilitation and replacement liabilities • Grey Road 1
• Additional pressure on:
• OCIF funding • OCIF funding continuity
• Capital Levy capacity • Currently allocated to 3rd Ave E to align with prior County
• Long term reserve planning Capital plans. Funding is not sufficient to cover 100% of
the project costs.
The City continues to seek clarity on:
• Asset Conditions
The long-term financial liability associated with these
• Lifecycle requirement costs assets may materially impact future capital prioritization
• Timing of the transfer and infrastructure funding strategies.
• Financial compensation
• Future Growth related obligations
15
Development Coordination and Servicing
Supporting growth requires not only infrastructure funding, but also organizational capacity and
financial flexibility to respond as development opportunities emerge.
New development requirement are Capital Planning Impacts
unique
• Water and wastewater servicing • Multi year planning is challenging when timing is uncertain.
• Road modifications • Infrastructure priorities may need to shift quickly to support
growth opportunities
• Stormwater infrastructure
• Significant staff capacity can be redirected to growth related
• Traffic and engineering reviews coordination activities
• Cost sharing arrangements
The City continues to respond through:
While the City participates in planning and coordination, the timing • Long range planning
of development activity is ultimately controlled by developers.
• Coordinated Development Team
As a result:
• Reserve planning
• Infrastructure demands may arise with limited lead time
• Maintaining flexibility
• Capital contribution timing may not align with spending
• Project coordination can shift from year to year.
16
Key Metrics
17
2027 – 2031 Capital Plan
Five Year Capital Spending
$35,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$-
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Capital Budget Capital Reserve Funding Aggregate Captial Spending
18
Capital Spending Breakdown
0% 2%
20%
7%
20%
51%
Study/Design Replacement Maintenance New Asset Disposal Software
19
Capital Funding Sources
16% 0%
18%
2%
1%
4%
17%
42%
Debenture Development Charges Developer Contributions Gas Tax
OCIF Grant Reserves Capital reserve Water and Wastewater Rates
20
Capital Spending by Service Area
4%
11%
3% 2%
7%
2%
0% 6%
17%
23%
5%
1%
19%
General government Parks Cemetery Recreation Facilities
Roads Traffic Water Waste Water
Storm water Landfill Facilities Police
Fire
21
Top 20 Capital Projects - 2027
22
Top 20 Capital Projects from 2027
Department Division Capital Capital Project Name Priority
Budget
Project ID Score
Community Services Parks & Green CAP-27-0051 Playground Replacement Design - 2027
$150,000 69.30
Spaces
Public Works and Engineering Waste Water CAP-27-0060 WWTP Storage Tank Biosolids Cleanout (2027) 27O.1 $150,000 69.30
Public Works and Engineering Water CAP-27-0062 Watermains Cathodic Protection Rehab 27N.4 $270,000 66.10
Fire Fire CAP-27-0019 Fire Services Bunker Gear Replacement 27U.7 $45,000 65.20
Public Works and Engineering Waste Water CAP-27-0058 10th St. Overflow Weir Modification $100,000 65.10
Public Works and Engineering Water CAP-26-0101 Water Valve Replacements 2027 26N.3 $40,000 64.80
Community Services Parks & Green Harrison Park - West Entry Roadway Replacement
$350,000 64.70
Spaces
Public Works and Engineering Engineering CAP-27-0014 Kenny Drain Pond Clean Out and Expansion (3005 9th Ave E) $1,946,000 63.90
Public Works and Engineering Engineering CAP-27-0015 Traffic Signal Replacement - 10th St and 7th Ave W $350,000 63.70
Public Works and Engineering Water CAP-27-0067 Water Treatment Plant Facility Maintenance i/c Roof 27N.3 $475,200 63.40
Public Works and Engineering Engineering CAP-27-0010 Reconstruction of 2nd Ave W/Grey Road 1 - 10th St W to 14th St W (675 m) 27P.9 $620,000 53.70
Public Works and Engineering Water CAP-27-0066 Water Distribution New Valve Chambers for BGCSB 28N.6 $250,000 53.70
Community Services Parks & Green CAP-27-0052 Tom Williams Backstop & Fencing Replacement
$90,000 51.20
Spaces
Community Services Parks & Green CAP-26-0019 HP Community Hall - Parking Lot and Facility Drainage Improvements (24D.5)
$105,000 51.10
Spaces
Community Services Parks & Green CAP-27-0050 Playground Replacement - Parkview Park 30D.10
$246,000 50.90
Spaces
Public Works and Engineering Engineering CAP-27-0013 Asphalt & Concrete Replacement (2027) 27P.7 $125,000 50.30
Community Services Cemetery CAP-27-0027 Greenwood Cemetery Office Accessibility Entrance and Parking Space $249,000 49.80
Corporate Services Police CAP-27-0041 Police Station Air Handling Unit Replacement 27J.4 $1,620,000 40.30
Community Services Bayshore CAP-27-0003 Ice Floor Cover $231,000 39.70
Community Services Bayshore CAP-27-0002 Arena Bowl Seat Replacement $650,000 36.10
23
Playground Replacement Design
Parks and Open Spaces
Project ID: CAP-27-0051 | Priority score: 69.30 | Budget: $150,000
• The City has an inventory of playgrounds
at the end of their lifecycle that have been
identified for replacement.
• Four playgrounds (Parkview, Alexandra,
Westmount and Tot Lot) are scheduled to
be replaced between 2027 and 2030 and
this project is intended to establish the
design context for each.
• The project will involve the procurement of
a consultant to undertake the
development of design plans,
specifications and tender documentation
to generate shovel ready construction
packages.
24
WWTP Storage Tank Biosolids Cleanout
Wastewater
Project ID: CAP-27-0060 | Priority score: 69.30 | Budget: $150,000
• This project involves the
removal of sediment and
debris from the biosolids
storage tank at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• The tank requires regular
cleaning for proper operation
(occurs every 3 years).
25
Watermains Cathodic Protection Rehab
Water
Project ID: CAP-27-0062 | Priority score: 66.10 | Budget: $270,000
• This project is for the annual
replacement of Cathodic
Protection on large diameter
critical ductile iron trunk
watermains.
• This slows/eliminates
corrosion via an
electrochemical process
whereby the anode decays
instead of the main.
26
Fire Services Bunker Gear Replacement
Fire
Project ID: CAP-27-0019 | Priority score: 65.20 | Budget: $45,000
• NFPA 1971 - Standard on
Protective Ensembles for
Structural Fire Fighting requires
replacing PPE assets every ten
years or as needed.
• This is an annual project that
replaces bunker gear that is at
the end of its useful life in order
to ensure it is up to safety
standards and operating
effectively.
27
10th St. Overflow Weir Modification
Wastewater
Project ID: CAP-27-0058 | Priority score: 65.10 | Budget: $100,000
• This project was identified by
wastewater operations to
improve the West Side
Pumping Station's
performance.
• By adjusting the overflow weir
height and altering the weir
design, pumps can operate at
higher flow rates and avoid or
eliminate bypass events.
28
Water Valve Replacements
Water
Project ID: CAP-26-0101 | Priority score: 64.80 | Budget: $40,000
• This project involves the
installation of a 12" check
valve at the East Hill Booster
Station and an 8" raw water
drain valve.
29
Harrison Park - West Entry Roadway
Replacement
Parks and Green Spaces
Priority score: 64.70 | Budget: $350,000
• The West Entry Road is the only
vehicular entrance into Harrison Park.
The upper portion was repaved in
2018; however, the paving terminated
at the bottom of the entrance road.
• A 220m section of the roadway from
the bottom of the newer paved section
south to the Senior Centre is in very
poor condition. This project is
intended to address the replacement
of this section of roadway and
associated drainage infrastructure.
30
Kenny Drain Pond Clean Out and Expansion
Engineering
Project ID: CAP-27-0014 | Priority score: 63.90 | Budget: $1,946,000
• As part of this project, the existing SWMF would be
retrofitted to improve water quality treatment for the
Kenny Drain.
• The proposed retrofit would increase the extended
detention volume provided by enlarging the SWMF
footprint by approximately 100%. A forebay would also
be constructed to improve sediment removal.
• Proper functioning of this stormwater quality facility is
crucial in protecting a viable intake water supply for the
Water Treatment Plant. High sediment loading occurs
regularly from the Kenny Drain as the existing facility is
filled to capacity with sediment, causing sediment to be
scoured or bypassed through the pond with each
precipitation or snowmelt event. This played a major
factor in the Precautionary Boiled Water Advisory that
the City implemented in March 2026.
31
Traffic Signal Replacement - 10th St and 7th
Ave W
Engineering
Project ID: CAP-27-0015 | Priority score: 63.70 | Budget: $350,000
• This project involves geometric
improvements to the
intersection to better facilitate
traffic flow and turning
movements.
• Phase 1 includes installation of
steel poles and arms for the
traffic signals that are presently
suspended on cable strand and
wood poles until full construction
in 2028.
32
WTP Facility Maintenance i/c Roof
Water
Project ID: CAP-27-0067 | Priority score: 63.40 | Budget: $475,200
• This project involves the
replacement of Roof Sections
4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
33
Reconstruction of 2nd Ave W/Grey Road 1 –
10th St W to 14th St W
Engineering
Project ID: CAP-27-0010 | Priority score: 53.70 | Budget: $620,000
• Grey County Transportation Services
plans to rehabilitate 2nd Ave West
(Grey Road 1) from 10th St W to 14th
St W.
• Preliminary estimate for sidewalk and
storm water infrastructure that may be
replaced, at the City's cost.
• Replacement of curb and gutters is
expected together with catch basins
that will have to be rehabilitated or
replaced, at the County's cost,
although there may be some cost
sharing with the City.
34
Water Distribution New Valve Chambers for
BGCSB
Water
Project ID: CAP-27-0066 | Priority score: 53.70 | Budget: $250,000
• These funds will be used to
support planned watermain zone
connection that will be completed
during the BGCSB (New school)
project on 28th Street connecting
the East Hill Pressure Zone to the
Industrial Zone in the general area
of 28th Ave E and 16th Street E.
• These funds will also be used to
address a handful of water
services that will be completed
during the project.
35
Tom Williams Backstop & Fencing
Replacement
Parks and Green Spaces
Project ID: CAP-27-0052 | Priority score: 51.20 | Budget: $90,000
• Replacement of the backstop with
heavy-duty steel frames in
concrete, with chain-link fencing
and an overhang with wing panels
to prevent balls from clearing the
backstop and foul lines.
• The backstop will be structured to
accommodate a seasonal shade
panel that can be installed without
specialized equipment.
• The infield fencing that is of the
same vintage will also be replaced.
36
HP Community Hall - Parking Lot and Facility
Drainage Improvements
Parks and Green Spaces
Project ID: CAP-26-0019 | Priority score: 51.10 | Budget: $105,000
• This project is focused on
exterior improvements related
to the parking lot (provision of
accessible parking spots) and
improvements to surface
drainage around the
perimeter of the HP
Community Hall.
37
Playground Replacement - Parkview Park
Parks and Green Spaces
Project ID: CAP-27-0050 | Priority score: 50.90 | Budget: $246,000
• Replacement of the
playground at Parkview Park
is required as the existing
play structure has exceeded
its useful life.
38
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement
Engineering
Project ID: CAP-27-0013 | Priority score: 50.30 | Budget: $125,000
• Annual program to rejuvenate
hot mix asphalt surfaces
including the replacement or
rehabilitation of concrete
structures associated with
asphalt resurfacing including
catch basins, maintenance
structures, curb, gutter and
sidewalks.
39
Greenwood Cemetery Office Accessibility
Entrance and Parking Space
Cemetery
Project ID: CAP-27-0027 | Priority score: 49.80 | Budget: $249,000
• This project will renovate the
front entrance to include a new
accessible AODA compliant
ramp.
• The current steps to the
cemetery office are past their
useful life.
• Currently, staff have to meet in
cars with people who have
mobility issues.
40
Police Station Air Handling Unit Replacement
Police
Project ID: CAP-27-0041 | Priority score: 40.30 | Budget: $1,620,000
• This project involves the
installation of two units to
replace the existing unit, with
one unit serving the perimeter
duct system and the other
unit serving the interior duct
system
41
Ice Floor Cover
Bayshore
Project ID: CAP-27-0003 | Priority score: 39.70 | Budget: $231,000
• This project would see the
replacement of the current plywood
ice covering and replace it with a
manufactured industry standard ice
deck floor.
• The plywood is deteriorating with
every use and absorbs moisture
from the ice which causes the
wood to curl away from the ice
surface, causing a tripping hazard.
• This floor can be utilized at both
the Bayshore and the JMRRC.
42
Arena Bowl Seat Replacement
Bayshore
Project ID: CAP-27-0002 | Priority score: 36.10 | Budget: $650,000
• This project would see the
replacement of all original 1805 seats
at the Bayshore Community Centre.
• The replacement parts are no longer
available through the manufacturer to
make repairs to the existing seats and
staff are constantly trying to fix seats
without proper parts.
• The new seats would be a direct
match to the seating installed during
the 2001 renovation on the east
portion of the arena bowl.
43
Funding Strategies
44
Understanding “Aggregate Capital
Spending”
Looking Beyond the Annual Capital Levy
• When discussing capital affordability, it is important to look beyond only the
dedicated annual capital levy increase.
• The City’s total annual investment in infrastructure is made up of several
coordinated funding tools working together.
Aggregate Capital Spending Includes:
• Annual Capital Levy Contributions
• Dedicated ongoing taxation support for infrastructure replacement
• Debt Repayment (Principal & Interest)
• Existing debt commitments supporting major infrastructure projects
• Reserve & Reserve Fund Contributions
• Planned transfers supporting lifecycle replacement and future capital needs
45
Multi Year Capital Budget
46
What’s working well with our Capital Plan
While our capital planning framework continues to evolve, the
underlying strategy is delivering strong results
The City continues to refine how multi-year capital projects are
categorized, prioritized, and presented to Council. Concepts such as
project readiness, estimate refinement, and the distinction between
approving a project concept versus approving implementation are
evolving as part of a more mature long-term capital planning
framework.
However, it is important to recognize that the foundational strategy
behind the capital plan is already working extremely well.
47
The Dedicated 1% Capital Investment Has
Created Stability
By maintaining a dedicated annual increase to aggregate capital
funding, the City has been able to:
• Reliably fund multi-year infrastructure projects
• Coordinate design and construction funding over several years
• Reduce disruption caused by unforeseen projects or cost escalations
• Improve long-term planning certainty for staff and Council
48
Moving Beyond “One Year at a Time”
Historically, capital planning often occurred on a year-by-year basis.
This created challenges where:
• Design work was funded without certainty that construction funding would follow
• Projects were delayed after significant planning costs had already been incurred
• Emergency projects or cost overruns forced other approved projects to be
cancelled or deferred
Today, because the City plans capital funding over multiple years:
• Projects can move from design into construction with greater certainty
• Future funding capacity is known and can be coordinated across years
• The organization can adjust timing and reprioritize projects without destabilizing
the overall capital program
49
Flexibility has become a Competitive
Advantage
The City’s multi-year capital approach has created flexibility that
many municipalities do not currently have.
Rather than cancelling projects to respond to cost increases or
urgent infrastructure needs, the City can:
• Rebalance timing across future years
• Adjust sequencing of projects
• Respond to emerging priorities while maintaining overall capital investment
levels
This approach has strengthened the City’s ability to maintain
infrastructure investment while many municipalities continue to
reduce capital spending to offset operating pressures.
50
Challenges in Multi-Year Capital Planning
Building a Five-Year Plan in a Changing Environment
• While the City’s multi-year capital strategy has strengthened long-
term planning and financial sustainability, preparing and
maintaining a five-year capital plan also introduces challenges.
• Projects identified several years in advance are being planned
within an environment that continues to evolve operationally,
financially, and economically.
51
Key Challenges – Budget accuracy in
future years
The further a project is from implementation, the more assumptions
are required regarding:
• Construction market conditions
• Inflation and material pricing
• Scope refinement and design development
• Availability of external funding
• Regulatory or legislative changes
• Organizational capacity and project sequencing
As a result, future-year budgets should be understood as
progressively less refined than near-term implementation budgets.
52
Key Challenges – Timing Flexibility
Capital projects are often interconnected and influenced by factors
outside of the City’s direct control, including:
• Grant timing and eligibility
• Development activity and third-party coordination
• Procurement results and contractor availability
• Emergency infrastructure failures
• Changing operational priorities
This requires flexibility to shift project timing while maintaining the
integrity of the overall capital strategy.
53
Key Challenges – Evolving Project
Readiness
Not all projects in the five-year plan are at the same stage of
development.
Projects move along a continuum from:
Concept → Scoped → Defined → Implementation Ready
As projects mature:
• Scope becomes more refined
• Budget certainty improves
• Partnerships are confirmed
• Delivery timing becomes more reliable
54
Refining our Capital Budget Policy – What
is Council Approving?
A multi-year capital plan should be viewed as a structured roadmap
with varying levels of project maturity — not as five years of fixed
implementation commitments.
55
Multi Year Capital Budget
56
Year 1 – Implementation Approval
Projects in the current budget
year are considered
implementation-ready.
Council approval confirms:
• Validated budget
• Confirmed scope and schedule
• Assigned project leadership
• Authorization to proceed
These projects are expected to
proceed substantially as
presented
57
Years 2 and 3 – Planned Commitments
Projects in these years are
approved as confirmed priorities
within the capital program.
Council approval confirms:
• Intent to proceed
• Preliminary scope and budget
direction
• Continued refinement through future
budget cycles
• Timing and budget adjustments may
occur as projects mature.
• Projects may linger in this block
until they are implementation ready.
58
Years 4 and 5 – Strategic Direction
Projects in the outer years
represent long-term infrastructure
priorities.
Council approval confirms:
• Strategic intent
• Future funding direction
• Recognition of long-term
infrastructure needs
These projects remain subject to:
• Scope development
• Design refinement
• Partnership coordination
• Future financial review
59
Unfunded Capital
The unfunded capital list is maintained to
provide transparency regarding future
infrastructure needs and strategic
opportunities that are not currently included
within the funded capital program.
Provided for information and does not require
Council approval.
• Not intended to be comprehensive
• New priorities and infrastructure needs will
continue to emerge
• Projects may move to funded capital as
they become more defined or when funding
opportunities arise
These projects are expected to proceed
substantially as presented
60
Flexibility within the Multi Year Plan
• Refining project timing or updating future-year budgets is not
necessarily a change in direction, it is a normal and expected part of
managing a multi-year capital program.
The Capital Plan Is a Roadmap — Not a Rigid Sequence
• While projects generally follow the planning maturity continuum
presented throughout this framework, there will always be exceptions.
• Some projects identified in future years may already be highly
developed, implementation-ready, or strategically positioned to move
forward sooner than originally anticipated.
• Similarly, some near-term projects may require additional refinement,
coordination, or timing adjustments before proceeding.
61
Debt Financing
62
Debt Financing within the Capital Plan
Strategic Use of Debt Supports Long-Term Infrastructure
Investment
• The City strategically uses debt financing as one tool within the
overall capital funding framework to support major infrastructure
investments while maintaining long-term financial sustainability.
• Debt payments form part of the City’s broader concept of
aggregate capital spending, alongside:
• Dedicated capital levy contributions
• Capital reserve funding
• External funding sources
• Other capital financing strategies
63
Current Debenture Commitments
The City’s current annual tax-supported debt payments total
approximately:
$1.6 Million Annually
This amount is already incorporated into the City’s ongoing capital
financing strategy.
Future Planned Debt:
Fire Hall Rehabilitation Project
• Expected annual payment of $610,000 starting in 2029
• Total project cost in line with Council’s direction ($5.1M per resolution
S-250602-004 June 2, 2025)
64
Maturing Debt Creates Future capacity
Several existing debt obligations will mature in the coming years, helping
create future financial flexibility.
Parking Debt
• Matures in 2029
• Annual payment approximately $21,000
• Offset through a corresponding reduction in the River District
contribution
Harrison Park Electrical Debt
• Funding returns to the broader capital levy framework
• Future allocation will be prioritized through the capital planning process
65
Grant Funding
66
Senior Government Funding Plays a
Significant Role in Capital Investment
• While the City maintains a dedicated capital levy and reserve
funding strategy, grant funding remains a critical component of the
overall capital program.
• In many years, external funding opportunities allow the City’s total
annual capital spending to significantly exceed what could
otherwise be supported through local levy and reserve funding
alone.
67
Why Grants Matter
• Grant funding allows the City to:
• Accelerate infrastructure investment
• Reduce reliance on local tax-supported funding
• Advance projects sooner than would otherwise be possible
• Preserve capital levy and reserve capacity for other priorities
However, grant programs can also introduce uncertainty related to:
• Eligibility requirements
• Timing of intake periods
• Matching funding requirements
• Project scheduling constraints
68
Canada Community Building Fund (CCBF)
Canada Community Building Fund
• (formerly Federal Gas Tax)
• This funding program has become a stable and predictable
component of the City’s long-term capital financing strategy.
• Historically, the City has primarily applied CCBF funding toward:
• Annual asphalt resurfacing programs
• Where surplus funding capacity exists, the City may also allocate
CCBF funding toward other eligible infrastructure initiatives. For
example this program was utilized to fund the replacement of the
roof at the Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Centre
69
Grants – Community Building Fund
BUILDING CANADA FUND (FEDERAL GAS TAX)
Budget 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated
Revenue (Funding Received) 707,795.72 736,107.55 736,107.55 736,107.55 736,107.55
Projects (Expenditures)
Roads Rehabilitation Annual Program 700,000.00 124,500.00 700,000.00 700,000.00 700,000.00
16th St East Sidewalk 575,500.00
TOM
JMRRC Roof
Road to Pool (Harrison Park)
Transportation Master Plan 300,000.00
Total Planned Spending 700,000.00 700,000.00 1,000,000.00 700,000.00 700,000.00
Annual Funding Surplus (deficit) 7,795.72 36,107.55 - 263,892.45 36,107.55 36,107.55
Reserves
Opening 580,753.88 600,164.68 648,275.52 397,348.58 441,403.10
Annual Funding Surplus (deficit) 7,795.72 36,107.55 - 263,892.45 36,107.55 36,107.55
Interest earned 2.0% 11,615.08 12,003.29 12,965.51 7,946.97 8,828.06
Closing 600,164.68 648,275.52 397,348.58 441,403.10 486,338.72
70
Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund
(OCIF)
A Foundational Source of Long-Term Infrastructure Funding
• The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) has become one of the
most significant and stable external funding programs supporting the City’s
capital plan.
• The program is intended to support the rehabilitation and replacement of core
municipal infrastructure assets, including:
• Roads
• Bridges
• Water infrastructure
• Wastewater infrastructure
• Storm water infrastructure
• Importantly, OCIF funding is intended for the renewal of existing infrastructure
and generally cannot be used to support the creation of entirely new assets.
71
Planned Use Within current Capital Plan
$3.3 Million Annually
• Given the program’s structure and ongoing provincial commitment to infrastructure renewal, the City
currently anticipates OCIF to remain a stable and impactful long-term funding source within the capital
plan.
Planned Use Within the Current Capital Plan
The current five-year capital plan anticipates significant utilization of OCIF funding, including:
• Major Infrastructure Projects
• 4th Avenue West Reconstruction
• 9th Avenue East Reconstruction
(in combination with the Housing Enabling Water Systems Fund)
• 2nd Avenue East infrastructure improvements associated with redevelopment of the former BCK lands
• Future phases of 3rd Avenue East reconstruction
Key Risk and Long-Term Consideration
The City’s long-term OCIF strategy is closely connected to the outcome of the Grey County road download
discussions.
72
Grants - OCIF
OCIF FORMULA FUNDING CONTINUITY
FC2-M-0287
Budget 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated estimated
OCIF Revenue (Funding Received) 3,316,223.00 3,316,224.00 3,316,224.00 3,316,224.00 3,316,224.00 3,316,224.00 3,316,224.00
Infrastructure Projects (Expenditures)
22nd St.
25th St.
1st Ave East / River Precinct Phase 2 $ 20,250.00
Alpha Street
25P.2 4th Ave W (15th St. W to 17th St. W.) $ 500,000.00 $ 9,100,000.00
25P.12 9th Ave E - 20th to 23rd St $ 380,000.00 $ 385,000.00 $ 8,976,875.00
26P.4 2nd Ave W/GR 1 - 10th St W to 14th St W $ 55,000.00 $ 550,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Transportation Master Plan (FGT)
27P.2 3rd Ave E/GR 15 - 10th St E to 12th St E $ 300,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00
28P.1 3rd Ave E/GR 15 - 12th St E to 14th St E $ 300,000.00 $3,000,000.00
29P.1 3rd Ave E/GR 15 - 14th St E to 18th St E $ 600,000.00
Moores Hill Road and Retaining Walls $ 220,000.00 2,200,000.00
Asset Management (Expenditures)
Asset Management Recovery (Operating) $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00
Condition Assessments (Engineering) $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Condition Assessments (Parks and Play) $ 50,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Condition Assessments (Building Condition) $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Total Planned Spending 20,250.00 1,110,000.00 9,745,000.00 9,756,875.00 560,000.00 3,750,000.00 6,030,000.00
73
Grants – One Time
• Household Enabling Water Systems Fund – 2027 – 9th Ave E
(North)
• RT07 – 2029 – Downtown Wayfinding Signage
• Connecting Link
• 2029 – 10th St W Retaining Wall
• 2031 – 10th St E Retaining Wall
• 2031 – 9th Ave E (15th to 19th) Reconstruction
• Accessibility Grants
• Cemetery office entrance (anticipated)
74
Reserves
75
What are Reserves and Reserve Funds?
• Reserves are internally allocated funds set aside by Council for future
operating, capital, or contingency purposes
• They provide financial flexibility and allow the City to plan beyond a
single budget year
• Reserves are commonly used to stabilize taxation and manage
unforeseen financial pressures.
• Reserve funds are funds set aside for specific future purposes, most
commonly capital replacement and rehabilitation. Reserve Funds are
interest bearing.
• Unlike annual budget funding, reserves support long-term financial
sustainability and strategic planning
76
Obligatory vs. Discretionary Reserves
• Obligatory Reserve Funds are required by legislation or external
agreements and can only be used for prescribed purposes.
• Examples include Development Charges, Parkland in Lieu
contributions, Gas Tax and OCIF Funding.
• Discretionary Reserve funds are treated as deferred revenue in the
City’s financial statements (a liability)
• Strong governance is required to ensure reserves are used
consistently with the corresponding legislation and reporting
requirements are met.
77
Why Reserves Matter
• Reserves and reserve funds are a foundational component of the
City’s long-term financial strategy.
• They allow the City to:
• Smooth taxation and reduce financial volatility
• Fund infrastructure replacement without excessive reliance on debt
• Respond to emergencies and unforeseen pressures
• Support strategic initiatives and grant opportunities
• Manage lifecycle replacement of major assets
• Maintain flexibility in an increasingly uncertain construction and funding
environment
78
Reserve & Reserve Fund Policy Refresh
Why We’re Bringing This Forward
• The City’s reserves and reserve funds have evolved over many years
through individual decisions, bylaws, grants, and operational practices.
• While many reserves are functioning effectively, the overall framework
would benefit from modernization, standardization, and formal Council
confirmation.
• The proposed policy refresh is intended to:
• Improve transparency and consistency
• Clarify the purpose and intended use of each reserve
• Align reserve practices with long-term financial sustainability
• Support stronger capital and operating planning
• Reduce ambiguity around when reserves should or should not be used
79
Reserve Review and Council Confirmation
Council’s Role
• Council direction will be sought to:
• Confirm the intent and continued need for each reserve
• Validate strategic priorities and funding approaches
• Endorse any proposed reserve consolidations or eliminations
• Establish a clear long-term reserve framework
80
Staff Recommendations
• Combine Trails reserve with Parks Capital Reserve Fund
• Create a unique reserve for campground reserve fund outside of
the equipment reserve fund
• Eliminate airport facility reserve (currently in facility reserves) and
transfer funds to capital reserve fund
• With Council’s indicated support, the updated reserve and reserve
fund policy will reflect these changes when it comes forward for
approval in July.
81
Closing Remarks
• Opportunity for final questions
• Clarify follow up actions
• The End
82
---
Attachment: Appendix A - 2027-2031 Capital Detail Sheets + Unfunded Projects.pdf
Source: https://pub-owensound.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=52924
20277
Capital
Detail Sheets
1
Year: 2027
Police Station Lighting Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0042 Score:
29.50
27J.5, 27J.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $388,000.00 Location/Coordinates: 922 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
Description:
Most of the lighting was replaced with new in the 2007 renovation with current technology fixture of the time, a T8 fluorescent fixture.Since 2007, LED fixtures have been developed
and have become the normal lighting source.The project will replace all fixtures in its entirety with new flat panels.The majority of the lights operate 24/7 and will have a payback of
less than 3 years. The payback of the lights in the other areas of the building will have a payback of 5-7 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $160,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $160,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $160,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 06/01/2026
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $160,000.00
Total $160,000.00
2
Year: 2027
Police Station Lighting Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0042 Score:
29.50
27J.5, 27J.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Impacts 100 staff
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact to staff
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Some lights will fail but can be repaired
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 New LED fixtures require much less electricity to operate
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Maybe eligible for rebates or grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Replacing existing lighting with energy conserving LED fixtures will reduce
address needs impacted by climate electrical consumption
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 New fixtures will deliver better lighting
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This does not affect the strategic plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No this was not suggested buy the public
public engagement?
3
Year: 2027
Priority
10th St. Overflow Weir Modification CAP-27-0058 Score:
65.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The 10th St. overflow weir modification was identified by wastewater operations to improve the West Side Pumping Station's performance. By adjusting the overflow weir height and
altering the weir design, pumps can operate at higher flow rates and avoid or eliminate bypass events. This project will be funded by wastewater but led by engineering staff.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $90,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $100,000.00
Total $100,000.00
4
Year: 2027
Priority
10th St. Overflow Weir Modification CAP-27-0058 Score:
65.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Impacts all residents and users of our local water resources. Raw sewage
impacted by the project? or partially treated overflows to the environment degrade environmental
water quality, damage fish habitat and recreational shorelines. Loss of use
or degradation of these assets directly affects tourism and the area's
economic prosperity.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Impacts public health and water quality. Untreated overflows or bypasses
the public or Staff if the project does not could result in beach closures.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Helps eliminate harmful overflow events. While the MECP understands that
legislative/regulatory compliance? overflows will occur in nominally separated systems such as the City's, to
continue to meet our regulatory objectives, the occurrence of these events
must be minimized, and progress must be demonstrated towards reducing
them over time.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Renewal/improvement of critical asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Vastly increases operational performance
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Relatively simple project to be managed through existing resources
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 4 Project will provide immediate benefit to the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Keeps our waterways clean and protects water quality at local beaches
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Buried infrastructure
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Aligns with Green City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Not required
public engagement?
5
Year: 2027
20th Street East Culverts
Priority
Replacements (OS-10) - West of 28th CAP-27-0009 Score:
40.60
Ave E- 27P.10
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 80 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the dual culvert under 20th Street East has reached the end of its useful service life.
The Engineering design will be completed in 2027 for construction planned in 2028 estimated at $675,000.
The costs indicated in 2029 are for the administration of the two-year maintenance period in 2029 and 2030.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
$95,000.00 $40,000.00 $9,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $675,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $720,000.00 $10,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $830,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $830,000.00
Total $830,000.00
6
Year: 2027
20th Street East Culverts
Priority
Replacements (OS-10) - West of 28th CAP-27-0009 Score:
40.60
Ave E- 27P.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 This project will impact a small number of residents
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 This culvert is in poor condition and is in need of replacement.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance? Structure is critically deficient. It must be replaced (closing/removal not
practical).
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Culvert replacement is identified in our Asset Management Plan this project
replacement in the asset management has high probability of failure with moderate consequences.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This project will have little to no impact on operational performance
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Tax revenue would be finding this project
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The culvert is undersized and this may cause increased flooding. The
address needs impacted by climate project will prevent further detriment due to climate change.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 This project will maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Some aesthetic value by rehabilitating a deteriorating asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 This project does not help meet a key result in the strategic plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified through public feed back
public engagement?
7
Year: 2027
Animal Control Facility - Furnace & Priority
CAP-27-0001 Score:
33.50
Condenser Replacement 27K.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq / Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $18,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
27K.1 Replacement of combined natural gas furnace and condenser
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
8
Year: 2027
Animal Control Facility - Furnace & Priority
CAP-27-0001 Score:
33.50
Condenser Replacement 27K.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The project mainly serves the City's animal control contractor and the
impacted by the project? animals that utilize the shelter.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have minimal impact on contractor or patron health and
the public or Staff if the project does not safety if replacement is completed prior to failure.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City is required to provide adequate climate control to the City's
legislative/regulatory compliance? contractor and to be compliant with Ministry requirements for animal
shelters.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate chance of failure and a low consequence if the
replacement in the asset management replacement is completed prior to failure.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project and will be associated with lower energy consumption and
operational performance? Comment on maintenance costs.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The City will investigate potential grant funding programs associated with
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling the improved technologies available at the time.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project maintains an existing public space that is available for the City's
diversity and inclusion initiatives? contractor, animals, and visiting public.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project carries no aesthetic value as it is located in an area only
the asset improved? accessible by the City's contractor.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the core delivery of services by providing an adequate
Result in the Strategic Plan? facility to provide animal control services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by members of the publics.
public engagement?
9
Year: 2027
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0013 Score:
50.30
(2027) 27P.7
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces including the replacement or rehabilitation of concrete structures associated with asphalt resurfacing including catch basins,
maintenance structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering $2,700.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $108,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases $14,300.00
Contingency
Total $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $125,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $125,000.00
Total $125,000.00
10
Year: 2027
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0013 Score:
50.30
(2027) 27P.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 High priority resurfacing locations have been completed and this project will
impacted by the project? address roads that have less average annual traffic.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 As high priority resurfacing locations have already been completed, this
the public or Staff if the project does not project will address mainly cosmetic issues which will not result in
proceed? significant injuries.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Core service but imminent repair is not needed
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Road resurfacing will reduce operation costs associated with the road
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance (eg repairing pot holes).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource categories met - scheduling of specific roads still to be done
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Minor positive impact will be realized from this project due to improved
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Some sidewalk replacement and improved cycling (active transportation
diversity and inclusion initiatives? enhancements).
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project slightly addresses aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Supports one strategic priority.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 While road resurfacing in general is a highly requested project, there have
public engagement? not been major high priority resurfacing locations that have been requested
that have not already been addressed.
11
Year: 2027
Automated External Defibrillators Priority
CAP-27-0018 Score:
55.00
(AEDs) on Fire Apparatus 27U.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Scheduled replacement of Automatic External Defibrillators -2 units - 2012 (End of life 2027)
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $5,000.00
Contingency
Total $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $5,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $5,000.00
Total $5,000.00
12
Year: 2027
Automated External Defibrillators Priority
CAP-27-0018 Score:
55.00
(AEDs) on Fire Apparatus 27U.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Life saving equipment that will protect all residents and visitors of Owen
impacted by the project? Sound. AED equipment is also used to protect OSFD members while
performing Firefighting duties.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Failure of the asset would be directly detrimental to the safety of staff.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Failure of the asset would be directly detrimental to the safety of staff.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 High consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness through new
proceed), what will be the impact on technology.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Helps ensure everyone has access to life saving equipment.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
13
Year: 2027
Bayshore - Arena Bowl Seat Priority
CAP-27-0002 Score:
36.10
Replacement
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $1,253,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the replacement of all original 1805 seats at the Bayshore Community Centre, to be replaced at a total cost of $315 per seatThe original seats are from 1983
are in need of constant repairs, while replacement parts are no longer available through the manufacturer to make these repairs, staff are constantly trying to fix seats without
proper parts. The new seats would be a direct match to the seating installed during the 2001 renovation on the east portion of the arena bowl.This work would be completed by a
contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $650,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $650,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $650,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $650,000.00
Total $650,000.00
14
Year: 2027
Bayshore - Arena Bowl Seat Priority
CAP-27-0002 Score:
36.10
Replacement
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Based on the number of people that attend games shows and events and
impacted by the project? use the seating.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries have happened as a result of broken seat pans or parts.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 there is no know legislation at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 these seats are a high probability of failure, with at least 1-2 seats needing
replacement in the asset management repairs following every Attack home game.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There would be a slight impact to operational efficiency, less staff time
proceed), what will be the impact on would be spent trying to repair seats.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 At this time there is not a partnership opportunity available.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There would be little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project would greatly improve the aesthetic value of the impacted
the asset improved? asset.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project helps support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 there are several documented complaints regarding damaged seats,
public engagement? damage to clothing etc.
15
Year: 2027
Priority
Bayshore - Ice Floor Cover CAP-27-0003 Score:
39.70
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $404,250 in 2052 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the replacement of the current plywood ice covering and replace it with a manufactured industry standard ice deck floor. The plywood is deteriorating with
every use, and absorbs moisture over time laying on the ice which causes the wood to curl away from the ice surface, causing a large tripping hazard. The plywood leaves gaps in
the floor between some boards creating hazards for those walking on the surface. During the vaccination clinics, there were several trips reported, to the point the clinics were
moved to the front lobby of the facility. This would be ordered through a reputable industry manufacturer. This floor can be utilized at both the Bayshore and the JMRRC with the
recent renovation of the boards and floor at the Bayshore the ice sizes are identical. This project may be eligible for municipal accommodation money as events are an economic
driver for the City.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $231,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $231,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $231,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $231,000.00
Total $231,000.00
16
Year: 2027
Priority
Bayshore - Ice Floor Cover CAP-27-0003 Score:
39.70
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 A few thousand people annually attend events on the floor.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Injuries have occurred due to tripping hazards and during installation of the
the public or Staff if the project does not floor.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislation at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational effectiveness, the new floors are
proceed), what will be the impact on lighter and easier to handle. This will reduce the risk involved with potential
operational performance? Comment on injury of staff manually laying and picking the floor up.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 3 readiness criteria are met.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 There will be a slight environmental impact, as the new floor will have a
address needs impacted by climate better R value, and allow the refrigeration plant to run less during these
change? events to maintain the ice below the floor.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will slightly improve the aesthetic value of the asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project will support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The state of the old floor has been brought up by the public in unsolicited
public engagement? feedback.
17
Year: 2027
Citizen Satisfaction Survey 2027 - Priority
CAP-27-0004 Score:
37.50
27B.3
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Re-surveying in 2027 (initial survey completed in 2021) it will enable the City to assess changes in satisfaction with services and importance of services
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
18
Year: 2027
Citizen Satisfaction Survey 2027 - Priority
CAP-27-0004 Score:
37.50
27B.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Surveys are an important source of statistically valid, reliable and relevant
impacted by the project? feedback from citizens. To be statistically relevant requires 400
respondents/individuals.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is not included in an asset management plan.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Conducting citizen satisfaction surveys is also an effective way to examine
proceed), what will be the impact on the City’s performance in comparison to the national norm and see how
operational performance? Comment on Owen Sound’s service offerings and delivery measures up to other
any impact on operating costs, staff time municipalities. Public input is a key driver for decision-making, and informs
and maintenance. policy decisions, budgetary spending and continuous improvement.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 The project ensures that voices of engagement are inclusive as it is a
diversity and inclusion initiatives? statistically relevant survey representative of City demographics.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Identified action for KR2- Service Excellence - enhance our information,
Result in the Strategic Plan? technology and digital capabilities to allow residents, business, and visitors
to interact with the City where, when and how they choose
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 5 The City engages with citizens in a variety of methods on various projects,
public engagement? and undertook a statistically reliable citizen satisfaction survey in 2021.
19
Year: 2027
Computer Monitor Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0030 Score:
43.00
27A.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $17,800.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Continued replacement of computer monitors standardized on a five year replacement cycle
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $11,000.00
Contingency
Total $11,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $11,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $11,000.00
Total $11,000.00
20
Year: 2027
Computer Monitor Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0030 Score:
43.00
27A.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
21
Year: 2027
Priority
Computer Replacement 27A.1 CAP-27-0028 Score:
43.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $147,485.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing end-of-life equipment on a standardized replacement cycle.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $124,800.00
Contingency
Total $124,800.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $124,800.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $124,800.00
Total $124,800.00
22
Year: 2027
Priority
Computer Replacement 27A.1 CAP-27-0028 Score:
43.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
23
Year: 2027
Employee Engagement Survey (2027) Priority
CAP-27-0005 Score:
36.10
27B.1
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: $25000 in 2030 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Survey will measure employee engagement and identify specific drivers of employee engagement at the City of Owen Sound
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
24
Year: 2027
Employee Engagement Survey (2027) Priority
CAP-27-0005 Score:
36.10
27B.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Employee engagement leads to improved service to the public and
impacted by the project? increases citizens’ trust and confidence in government
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Lack of employee engagement leads to decreased attendance and may
the public or Staff if the project does not lead to staff to have negative mental health
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 Employers are required to provide a safe work place
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 N/A
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Highly engaged employees not only provide better service to customers,
proceed), what will be the impact on but their general performance was better than others
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Project has a neutral impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 This project will assess diversity, equity and inclusion practices as they
diversity and inclusion initiatives? relate to employees
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 This project supports the strategic priority of Services Excellence and Clear
Result in the Strategic Plan? Direction
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
25
Year: 2027
Engineering - 2nd Avenue East Priority
CAP-26-0135 Score:
68.70
Watermain Replacement 23N.2
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 100 Staff Contact: Lara Widdifield
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
23N.2 In 2024 it is proposed to replace the watermain on 2nd Ave East (Grey Road 5) in conjunction with road reconstruction planned by the county. Recall that in the winter of
2014/2015 a short portion of pipe (80m) was replaced on this section since it had frozen. It is intended to preserve this section but that is a small portion of the total 505m.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028
Consulting including Design &
$80,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $800,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $800,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $880,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $880,000.00
Total $880,000.00
26
Year: 2027
Engineering - 2nd Avenue East Priority
CAP-26-0135 Score:
68.70
Watermain Replacement 23N.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Typically just the area of a break, but excavating new asphalt is always best
impacted by the project? avoided. This is a significant trunk main.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Watermain breaks carry some risk of Adverse Conditions, though this risk is
the public or Staff if the project does not mitigated by good procedures.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act (specifically Adverse Condition provisions of the
legislative/regulatory compliance? regulation)
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Locations are older main identified as such in the plan.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Would avoid watermain breaks in newly paved areas, and coordinate
proceed), what will be the impact on resources properly with County.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No significant Environmental Impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N:A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
27
Year: 2027
Fire - Water Rescue - Survival Suits, Priority
CAP-27-0024 Score:
48.60
Life Jackets and PDFs 27U.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Ice Survivor submersion suits replacement
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $6,000.00
Contingency
Total $6,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $6,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $6,000.00
Total $6,000.00
28
Year: 2027
Fire - Water Rescue - Survival Suits, Priority
CAP-27-0024 Score:
48.60
Life Jackets and PDFs 27U.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 All suppression firefighters share the suits.
impacted by the project? Suits are used to provide ice rescue services to all residents and visitors of
Owen Sound.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Failure of the asset would be directly detrimental to the safety of staff.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Project is required to continue to be compliant - NFPA 1801 - 10 year
legislative/regulatory compliance? replacement.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 High consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness through new
proceed), what will be the impact on technology.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Slight environmental impact as a result of newer assets made with
address needs impacted by climate potentially more environmentally friendly materials
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No input has been requested
public engagement?
29
Year: 2027
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-27-0019 Score:
65.20
Replacement 27U.7
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting requires replacing PPE assets every ten years or as needed. 2027 - Assets requiring replacement
include:
5 x bunker gear replacements
6 x helmet replacements
3 x boots replacement
24 x balaclava replacement
24 x gloves replacement
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $45,000.00
Contingency
Total $45,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $45,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $45,000.00
Total $45,000.00
30
Year: 2027
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-27-0019 Score:
65.20
Replacement 27U.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 26 Suppression Firefighters & 5 support personnel
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 The utmost highest priority is that we provide adequate and appropriate
the public or Staff if the project does not PPE to protect our Firefighters.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Failure of Asset can result in critical injury.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of the asset increases reliability of operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Scheduled replacement of the pooled asset includes funding for future PPE
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacement of diversity recruitment opportunities.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Replacement of equipment with newer, more modern equipment will greatly
the asset improved? improve aesthetic value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports Core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
31
Year: 2027
Priority
Firewall Replacement 27A.4 CAP-27-0029 Score:
43.40
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $15,100.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Continued replacement based on the standardized three-year replacement cycle for network firewalls
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $14,000.00
Contingency
Total $14,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $14,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $14,000.00
Total $14,000.00
32
Year: 2027
Priority
Firewall Replacement 27A.4 CAP-27-0029 Score:
43.40
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Less than 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 v
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
33
Year: 2027
Priority
Flush and Camera Work Genoe CAP-27-0017 Score:
42.50
Rationale Legislated Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Heidi Jennen
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Genoe Landfill Site (Genoe) has a leachate collection system comprised of 16 manholes connected by 200 mm (8-inch) PVC and HDPE perforated pipe. Inspection of this system
requires a combination vacuum flushing truck, ideally equipped with an explosion-proof CCTV camera system due to the presence of methane gas. As a condition of the Genoe
Landfill Closure Plan, the City is required to retain a contractor to complete a camera inspection of the leachate collection system every five (5) years.The most recent inspection
was completed in 2024; however, due to elevated water levels, a full inspection could not be completed. As a result, the inspection will need to be undertaken again in summer of
2027. Upon completion of a full inspection, the next inspection will not be required for an additional five (5) years. Any deficiencies identified during the inspection will be addressed
in a future year.Work may be impacted by elevated or fluctuating water levels; therefore, a contracted vactor truck with sufficient capacity to ensure the complete removal of water
from the pipes may be required.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $75,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $75,000.00
Total $75,000.00
34
Year: 2027
Priority
Flush and Camera Work Genoe CAP-27-0017 Score:
42.50
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 0 This project does not have a direct impact on the public
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed. Ongoing maintenance of the system is required to protect local
proceed? ground water
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Ongoing maintenance of the system is required to protect local ground
replacement in the asset management water and to keep the system compliant
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be minimal impact to current operations
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 This project meets at lease 3 resource categories to be completed in 2027
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will moderately improve the natural environment and/or prevent
address needs impacted by climate further detriment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct effect on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 project does not have an aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This proposes at lease one of the City's strategic Priority's
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
35
Year: 2027
General Facilities - Bottle Fill Stations Priority
CAP-27-0025 Score:
19.00
27M.5
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Derek Christie
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Imstallation of the bottle filling stations allow people to fill reusable bottles by motion sensor. The unit tracks the amount of plastic bottles that are saved by filling reusable
containers.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
36
Year: 2027
General Facilities - Bottle Fill Stations Priority
CAP-27-0025 Score:
19.00
27M.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 2,500 to 4,999.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management
replacement in the asset management plan.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will slightly improve the natural environment or prevent further
address needs impacted by climate detriment due to reducing the use of single-use plastic bottles.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Project will be free to access to all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project provides no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
37
Year: 2027
Greenwood Cemetery - BAO License Priority
CAP-26-0041 Score:
39.20
Update for Columbarium 25D.17
Rationale Master Plan - Greenwood Cemetery Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan detailed that 62% of services at Greenwood Cemetery are cremated remains, and inurnment in a columbarium continues to be a preferred
option.
Greenwood Cemetery is required under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 to generate required documentation to support obtaining approval for the creation of
new inurnment/interment lots. Greenwood Cemetery has seen a dramatic increase in cremations and is looking to expand its columbarium niche inventory to meet the growing
demand. There are five existing columbariums with a total of 560 niches. The existing inventory of columbarium niches is quickly filling up with less than 94 remaining.
This capital project will engage a landscape architect and a licensed surveyor to generate drawings to accurately reflect the configuration of the existing two columbarium areas and
develop a new third columbarium area to accommodate growing demand for this type of inurnment lot. The documentation required is as follows:
a. Survey of existing two columbarium areas to reflect built condition,
b. Complete the design of the second columbarium area (west of Mausoleum) to reflect columbarium expansion and integrate upright marker cremation lots and scattering lots, and
c. Generate design for new third columbarium area and carry out survey to delineate lot layout. Columbarium area will also accommodate upright marker cremation lots and
scattering lots.
The required documentation will be provided to the Burial Authority of Ontario for approval of new inurnment/interment lots.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Debenture $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
38
Year: 2027
Greenwood Cemetery - BAO License Priority
CAP-26-0041 Score:
39.20
Update for Columbarium 25D.17
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 1,000 to 2,499 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 The project is a new asset and is not included in an asset management
replacement in the asset management plan.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 The project will not impact operational performance and is an required
proceed), what will be the impact on administrative update that defines burial offerings available to the public at
operational performance? Comment on Greenwood Cemetery.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project is funded through reserves. The sale of niches will repay the
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling internal debt.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 0 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 The project increases service offerings to a minority or aged population.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project will create a consolidated columbarium area that will improve
the asset improved? aesthetic quality of space.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project is identified as a Strategic Priority outside of the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
39
Year: 2027
Greenwood Cemetery Office
Priority
Accessibility Entrance and Parking CAP-27-0027 Score:
49.80
Space
Rationale Legislated Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik / Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $750,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The current steps to the cemetery office are past their useful life. This building is believed to be one of the oldest homes in the City. This project will renovate the front entrance to
include a new accessible AODA compliant ramp. Currently, staff have to meet in cars with people who have mobility issues.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $249,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $249,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $249,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $249,000.00
Total $249,000.00
40
Year: 2027
Greenwood Cemetery Office
Priority
Accessibility Entrance and Parking CAP-27-0027 Score:
49.80
Space
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Number of clients to accessing the GWC office
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries may occur
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Need to meet AODA requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Required essential service
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no impact
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 Increase service to aging population
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Address failing aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Unsolicited feedback
public engagement?
41
Year: 2027
Harrison Park - West Entry Roadway Priority
Score:
64.70
Replacement
Rationale Master Plan - Harrison Park Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The West Entry Road to Harrison Park at 2nd Avenue East and 1st Street East is the only vehicular entrance into Harrison Park. The upper portion of the West Entry Road was
repaved in 2018, however, the paving terminated at the bottom of the entrance road. This roadway supports significant vehicular traffic with an estimated 150,000 vehicles entering
and exiting the park. The internal roads in Harrison Park are in poor to very poor condition (based on 2025 Pavement Condition Index report). A 220m section of the West Park
Entry roadway from the bottom of the newer paved section south to approximately the Senior Centre is in very poor condition. This project is intended to address the replacement of
the 220m section of roadway and associated drainage infrastructure in 2027. The project involves two key components: 1. Engineering Design - procurement of a consulting
engineering firm to undertake a background study, drainage analysis, detail design, tendering support and contract administration during construction. 2. Construction - construction
work will involve replacement of the roadway and installation of the supporting drainage improvements to manage surface water. Repairs to a 150m section of the roadway are
included in a 2026 capital project to replace failed portions of the road to support vehicular traffic on the road until the roadway and drainage infrastructure related to this project can
be implemented.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $350,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $350,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $350,000.00
Total $350,000.00
42
Year: 2027
Harrison Park - West Entry Roadway Priority
Score:
64.70
Replacement
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 There are approximately 150,000 vehicles that enter and exit the park on an
impacted by the project? annual basis that are impacted by the failing roadway segments.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries are possible given the unstable portion of the failed portion of
the public or Staff if the project does not the road.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The repair will move the City closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The roadway replacement will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project meets two resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The roadway replacement will improve the natural environment and prevent
address needs impacted by climate further detriment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 The project dramatically improves the aesthetic value of the roadway.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports the Harrison Park Master Plan objectives.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicitated feedback.
public engagement?
43
Year: 2027
Harrison Park Workshop Interior Priority
CAP-27-0048 Score:
19.20
Door Replacement 30D.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $67,963.35 Location/Coordinates: 75 2nd Avenue East
Description:
Replacement of doors to rectify including damaged and deformed surfaces and corrosion, wear and deterioration, worn and faded finishes, operational difficulties, loose or missing
components, and worn hardware.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $28,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $28,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $28,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 07/01/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $28,000.00
Total $28,000.00
44
Year: 2027
Harrison Park Workshop Interior Priority
CAP-27-0048 Score:
19.20
Door Replacement 30D.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Impacts HP staff
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Replacement is required for continued use of the facility
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Office, restroom, shops doors should be in good working order for staff
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No know opportunities
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This will improve the interior of the facility
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 No public involvement
public engagement?
45
Year: 2027
Priority
Hydrant Flow Testing (2027) 27N.2 CAP-27-0063 Score:
63.80
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Required to re-test the fire flow capacity of the system to update hydrant capacities to provide the correct colour coding on the hydrants, in accordance with the National Fire
Protection Association procedures.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
46
Year: 2027
Priority
Hydrant Flow Testing (2027) 27N.2 CAP-27-0063 Score:
63.80
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Entire City Water Distribution System
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Mischaracterising hydrant capacity can lead to the use of the incorrect
the public or Staff if the project does not hydrant by emergency services
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 291
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Part of required testing of the assets
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Can result in incorrect fire flow estimations which can affect fire protection
proceed), what will be the impact on for existing and new development.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through water rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 N/A
public engagement?
47
Year: 2027
Priority
Hydrant Painting (2027) 27N.1 Score:
46.00
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Refresh hydrant paint approximately every five years. Hydrants are painted entirely yellow (except for the black cap shown) and the colour coding will be achieved via removable
reflective rings on the side ports.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $90,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $90,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $90,000.00
Total $90,000.00
48
Year: 2027
Priority
Hydrant Painting (2027) 27N.1 Score:
46.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Entire City Water Distribution System; however, not the whole city will be
impacted by the project? directly impacted by the hydrant painting in one year.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Poorly maintained hydrants can fail.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 No legislation, but this is a best practice in the industry.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Part of required maintenance of the assets
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Adversely affects hydrant life if not done.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 readiness criteria met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Improves aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 N/A
public engagement?
49
Year: 2027
IT - Telephone System Replacement Priority
CAP-26-0034 Score:
43.00
25A.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 to 8 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
25A.2 The current telephone system has been in operation since 2012 and handling almost 200,000 internal and external calls a year at eight facilities through out the City and is
one of the primary ways citizens/customers can access services delivered by the City, report issues. While a normal phone system lasts 5-8 years, Information Technology has
pursued an aggressive maintenance plan that has extended its expected life to 10 plus years. In 2025 the system will be 13 years old and as technology has changed, the system
struggles to be able to support these new technologies and integrations into other collaborative communication platforms such as Microsoft Teams to be able to better support our
citizens.
With maintaining current infrastructure becoming increasing difficult and time consuming the City will begin to integrate Microsoft Teams into the existing Phone system to allow for
a more cohesive and flexible approach to call management. Microsoft Teams is a workspace for real-time collaboration and communication, meetings, file sharing, that is assisting
in creating efficiencies and reducing effort in delivering those types of services.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $139,000.00
Contingency
Total $139,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $139,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/29/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $139,000.00
Total $139,000.00
50
Year: 2027
IT - Telephone System Replacement Priority
CAP-26-0034 Score:
43.00
25A.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Affects all Staff, Council and the ability to deliver services to the public.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislation/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Moderate probability of failure; low consequence.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Equipment is past operation life expectancy with higher maintenance costs.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on Current equipment reduces the ability of staff to work, due to equipment not
any impact on operating costs, staff time working and needing repairs. New equipment allows staff to deliver
and maintenance. effective services and the ability to work anywhere anytime.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 The project will slightly improve the natural environment. Replacement
address needs impacted by climate equipment meet or exceeds energy star ratings and reduces City carbon
change? foot print
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public service.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Project identified in 2021 Strategic Plan. Service Excellence - KR3.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
51
Year: 2027
JMRRC Compressor 2 Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0036 Score:
27.00
27I.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $52,500.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of compressor 2 in the refrigeration plant at the Julie McArthur Recreation Centre
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $30,000.00
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
52
Year: 2027
JMRRC Compressor 2 Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0036 Score:
27.00
27I.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 While the Rec Centre sees thousands of users annually, anywhere from
impacted by the project? 2500-4999 could be impacted if this project does not move forward.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 If the compressor fails there would be little to no impact on health and
the public or Staff if the project does not safety.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is current no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 If this project were to not move forward this compressor would have a high
replacement in the asset management probability of failure and could have high consequences (loss of revenue)
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This project would have little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is currently no opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project would have little or no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This asset has no aesthetic value as its in a mechanical room and not
the asset improved? visible to the public.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 There has been no public input in regards to this project.
public engagement?
53
Year: 2027
Priority
JMRRC Flag Pole CAP-27-0037 Score:
20.40
Rationale Other Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $16,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the installation of a single flag pole for a Canada Flag on the grounds of the JMRRC. Multiple requests have come from the public regarding this project, and
would require donations to be completed. The installation would be completed by a contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $10,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $5,000.00
Donations $5,000.00
Total $10,000.00
54
Year: 2027
Priority
JMRRC Flag Pole CAP-27-0037 Score:
20.40
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 While over 10,000 people annually visit the JMRRC or the adjacent sports
impacted by the project? field, users may not be directly impacted by this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There are no health risks if this project does not move forward.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 there is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This is a new asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little to no effect on current operations. Staff will have to
proceed), what will be the impact on replace flags and lower and raise them when required.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 2 readiness criteria are met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be no impact to the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project does not impact the aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project would support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This project would mentioned through unsolicited feedback by a member of
public engagement? the public.
55
Year: 2027
Kenny Drain Pond Clean Out and Priority
CAP-27-0014 Score:
63.90
Expansion (3005 9th Ave E)
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
As part of this project, the existing SWMF would be retrofitted to improve water quality treatment for the Kenny Drain. The proposed retrofit would increase the extended detention
volume provided by enlarging the SWMF footprint by approximately 100% (6,500 m2), and consequently, the permanent pool volume would be expanded. A forebay would also be
constructed to improve sediment removal, and the outlet structures would be adjusted to optimize the SWMF function. The outlet would be retrofitted by enlarging the existing
orifices to provide a 350 mm diameter orifice and a 300 mm diameter orifice at the permanent pool level. The proposed outlet would control the 25mm storm within the extended
detention portion of the SWMF and allow the larger return frequency storms to discharge via the secondary outlet. The proposed SWMF expansion would provide approximately
10,000 m3 of permanent pool volume and 11,000 m3 of extended detention storage to improve water quality treatment. The total active storage volume provided in the SWMF
would be approximately tripled (5,950 m3 to 16,800 m3) from existing conditions. The proposed extended detention volume would exceed the required storage volume for
Enhanced level treatment for wetland type SWMFs as specified by the MOE 2003 SWMPDM. The permanent pool volume would be within 5% of the SWMPDM requirement for
Enhanced level treatment. It should be noted that the proper functioning of this stormwater quality facility is crucial in protecting a viable intake water supply for the Water Treatment
Plant. High sediment loading occurs regularly from the Kenny Drain as the existing facility is filled to capacity with sediment, causing sediment to be scoured or bypassed through
the pond with each precipitation or snowmelt event. This played a major factor in the Precautionary Boiled Water Advisory that the City implemented in March 2026.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$245,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $1,696,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $1,946,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $1,946,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $1,946,000.00
Total $1,946,000.00
56
Year: 2027
Kenny Drain Pond Clean Out and Priority
CAP-27-0014 Score:
63.90
Expansion (3005 9th Ave E)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project. Upon
impacted by the project? completion of the project staff anticipate that source water quality will
improve coming into WTP
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The asset is not functioning as designed and is close to imminent failure of
replacement in the asset management function.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Financially funded from reserves, and can be completed with the assistance
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling of Consultants
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project has a demonstrated impact on mitigating or adapting to climate
address needs impacted by climate change.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This projects supports one City Strategic Priority
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The project has been mentioned informally through public feedback
public engagement?
57
Year: 2027
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Asset Priority
CAP-27-0049 Score:
40.70
Condition Assessment
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Kiwanis Soccer Complex was constructed back in 1995 and many assets that are approaching the end of their lifecylce. A Consultant will be procured to inventory, assess,
establish condition and lifecycle status and establish a strategy that outlines potential replacement needs, costs and timelines for each facility asset. The information generated will
be instrumental in shaping future capital needs based on the asset condition and estimated remaining life. The information that is generated will be input into the City GIS database
to ensure that the asset inventory is up to date and reflective of current composition.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $5,000.00
Donations $5,000.00
Total $10,000.00
58
Year: 2027
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Asset Priority
CAP-27-0049 Score:
40.70
Condition Assessment
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Owen Sound Minor Soccer Association is a long standing community
impacted by the project? partner that provides a soccer facility in OS to play organized soccer at
recreational and competitive levels supporting programs for youth and
adults.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Asset inventory aimed at assessing the condition of existing assets at the
the public or Staff if the project does not facility and developing a plan to keep them in a good state of repair.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 Work is aimed at maintaining the field conditions and supporting assets in a
legislative/regulatory compliance? condition to support play.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 The aim of this assessment is to confirm asset condition to avoid potential
replacement in the asset management failure and impact programmed use of facility.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 No expected impact to current operational performance.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no environmental impact expected.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 No impact to public use of the facility expected.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project has the potential to impact overall facility assets and their
the asset improved? function/appearance.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 Project developed in collaboration with Owen Sound Minor Soccer
public engagement? Association.
59
Year: 2027
Library Front Door Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0038 Score:
41.70
26V.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Library
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $125,625.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the main doors at the entrance of the Carnegie Library
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $60,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $60,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $60,000.00
Total $60,000.00
60
Year: 2027
Library Front Door Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0038 Score:
41.70
26V.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 The Library receives approximately 200,000 visitors annually, with the
impacted by the project? majority of the visitors entering via the front entrance doors.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries may occur in the event of the failure of door hardware
the public or Staff if the project does not equipment.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The front entrance is not considered fully accessible or does not meet best
legislative/regulatory compliance? practices.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure, with a medium consequence
replacement in the asset management associated with the availability of an accessible entrance to the Library.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There doors have not experienced significant maintenance to date, but will
proceed), what will be the impact on likely begin to incur these costs if not replaced in the short-term.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for accessibility related grants if combined with
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling other unfunded projects for the front entrance to the facility.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 The project will have little or no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project will maintain access to the Library.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The aesthetic value of the existing doors has failed due to age and
the asset improved? surrounding entrance components. The replacement of the doors will be a
first step in improving the aesthetic value of the facility.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery by ensuring an adequate facility
Result in the Strategic Plan? portfolio.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The condition of the existing doors has been mentioned in unsolicited
public engagement? feedback.
61
Year: 2027
Priority
Library Masonry Re-pointing 26V.3 CAP-27-0039 Score:
30.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Library
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Maintain the exterior building envelope of the Library by re-pointing the existing exterior
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
62
Year: 2027
Priority
Library Masonry Re-pointing 26V.3 CAP-27-0039 Score:
30.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 The annual visitors to the Library facility are in excess of 10,000 individuals.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Deterioration of the existing exterior can lead to building deterioration.
the public or Staff if the project does not Failing masonry can require medical attention if a brick to were to fall on a
proceed? visitor or staff.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The intention is to rehabilitate the exterior of the building before it
replacement in the asset management deteriorates to an unsafe condition.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations if the exterior continues to remain
proceed), what will be the impact on sealed.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 Project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
63
Year: 2027
Priority
Library Window Replacement 26V.4 CAP-27-0040 Score:
27.50
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Library
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Maintain the exterior building envelope by replacing existing windows
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $125,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $125,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $125,000.00
Total $125,000.00
64
Year: 2027
Priority
Library Window Replacement 26V.4 CAP-27-0040 Score:
27.50
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 The average annual visitors exceeds 10,00 individuals.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Deterioration of the doors and windows can lead to unsecured buildings.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The intention is to replace the existing doors and windows before it
replacement in the asset management deteriorates to an unsafe condition.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations - the rehabilitation work will have
proceed), what will be the impact on minimal impact on operations if the exterior continues to remain sealed.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 Project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
65
Year: 2027
Mobile Data Terminals Installed in Priority
CAP-27-0020 Score:
39.90
Fire Apparatus 27U.1
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: $15,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Purchase and installation of Mobile Data Terminals in Fire Apparatus.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $12,000.00
Contingency
Total $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $12,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $12,000.00
Total $12,000.00
66
Year: 2027
Mobile Data Terminals Installed in Priority
CAP-27-0020 Score:
39.90
Fire Apparatus 27U.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Although Fire Fighters are the end users of the asset, this project will have
impacted by the project? an impact on all residents of the City and help to ensure that they have the
best service possible.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Having access to this asset would greatly impact the safety of staff and
the public or Staff if the project does not residential and commercial occupants of buildings.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 No current legislation; however, it is a best practice in the industry.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This is currently not included in the City's asset management plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Increase in operational effectiveness through new technology.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 No impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Not mentioned by public
public engagement?
67
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park - Naturalization Priority
CAP-26-0084 Score:
34.80
of Bird and Waterfowl Area 27D.9
Rationale Master Plan - Harrison Park Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
27D.9 The 2024 Harrison Park Master Plan includes a number of recommendations that focus on the naturalization of a portion of the former bird area not required to support an
appropriate swan population (based on habitat needs of swan). The naturalization effort will focus on the use of native plant species that will thrive in the river floodplain that
attracts pollinators, native birds and other wildlife species. A donation has been received that will be utilized to undertake the development of a restoration plan.
This capital project will focus on the development of a restoration plan and the implementation of the plan. A portion of the bird enclosure area will be transitioned to a natural state
that will support a diverse native bird and wildlife population.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$7,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $37,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $37,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Donations $7,000.00
Total $37,000.00
68
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park - Naturalization Priority
CAP-26-0084 Score:
34.80
of Bird and Waterfowl Area 27D.9
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 While more than 10,000 people visit Harrison Park annually, not all of them
impacted by the project? will be directly impacted by this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Naturalization of an area that was formerly used as a waterfowl area which
replacement in the asset management has been eliminated.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved with naturalization of
proceed), what will be the impact on former waterfowl area.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 4 Focus on naturalization of a former enclosed waterfowl area and creation of
address needs impacted by climate habitat for native and wild bird population.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project will have a significant aesthetic impact to the natural
the asset improved? environment of Harrion Park and the floodplain along the Sydenham River.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service and the project aligns with the 2024 Harrison Park
Result in the Strategic Plan? Master Plan related to a number of objectives.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 The Harrison Park Master Plan was informed through feedback obtained at
public engagement? a number of public consultation events.
69
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Community
Priority
Hall - Parking Lot and Facility CAP-26-0019 Score:
51.10
Drainage Improvements (24D.5)
Rationale Master Plan - Harrison Park Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates: 75 2nd Ave. E.
Description:
In 2021 the Harrison Park Hall received an interior renovation focused on accessibility improvements. This capital project is focused on a number of exterior improvements related
to the parking lot (provision of accessible parking spots and transition into the building) and improvement to surface drainage around the perimeter of the facility (eaves, surface
drainage improvements and establishment of dedicated exterior amenity to support venue offering). 24D.5
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $80,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $105,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $105,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $105,000.00
Total $105,000.00
70
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Community
Priority
Hall - Parking Lot and Facility CAP-26-0019 Score:
51.10
Drainage Improvements (24D.5)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Support Harrison Park Community Hall as a long standing venue offering
impacted by the project? amenities that support its continued use.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Project will move organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Moderate probability of failure; low consequence
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Improvements to the halls parking lot and drainage of the lands enveloping
proceed), what will be the impact on the hall will improve efficiencies.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Parking lot improvements may lead to less salt usage in winter and surface
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Existing public access is maintained.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Project should dramatically improve aesthetic appearance of facility.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Supports one strategic plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Supported by Harrison Park Master Plan and extensive public engagement
public engagement? undertaken.
71
Year: 2027
Parks - Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Priority
CAP-26-0124 Score:
48.90
Main Entrance & Fence 24D.20
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
24D.20 The Main entrance at Kelso Beach at Nawash Park is in need of a renewal to ensure the property reflects its status as a City Park, a focal point of local indigenous heritage
and reconciliation, and as a venue for hosting significant arts, cultural and athletic events.
Pending the outcome of the 2022 Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Master Plan, this capital would be used to procure landscape design for the main entrance that includes new
signage, removal of legacy chain link fence that separated the park from a former CN rail line, tree planting and landscaping to elevate the entrance area to align the appearance of
the main entrance with the status of the park.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $31,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $31,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $31,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $31,000.00
Total $31,000.00
72
Year: 2027
Parks - Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Priority
CAP-26-0124 Score:
48.90
Main Entrance & Fence 24D.20
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 Although visitor numbers have not been tracked at Kelso Beach at
impacted by the project? Nawash Park to date, Summerfolk attracts 10,000 visitors annually for a
single event. It can be inferred therefore that more than 10,000 people visit
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park annually
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor Impact on Health and Safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No Known Legislation
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Existing park assets along the park frontage that are aging that require
replacement in the asset management maintenance/replacement/removal.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operating efficiency as a result of frontage
proceed), what will be the impact on improvement work.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meet 3 of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 little or no impact on the environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 project will be free to access for all users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 project would dramatically improve the aesthetic value of the asset
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Kelso Beach Maser Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 Documented Multiple supports through unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
73
Year: 2027
Parks - Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Priority
CAP-26-0068 Score:
42.30
Entrance Gate/Sign 26D.16
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
26D.16 The access gate at the entrance of Kiwanis Soccer Complex has reached the end of its life. This gate is used by both the Owen Sound Minor Soccer Association (OSMSA)
and the City of Owen Sound (City) staff to restrict vehicular access to the soccer complex. The project will also include the creation of a new sign for the Kiwanis Soccer Complex.
This capital project will be used to design and construct a new entrance gate and additional barriers to restrict unauthorized access to the soccer complex. The City and OSMSA
have a long standing agreement that defines that all capital projects at this facility are shared equally at 50% each.
Total cost of the capital project is split equally with the OSMSA and City.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$5,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $15,000.00
Donations $15,000.00
Total $30,000.00
74
Year: 2027
Parks - Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Priority
CAP-26-0068 Score:
42.30
Entrance Gate/Sign 26D.16
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The project will provide a more secure soccer facility and reduce
the public or Staff if the project does not unauthorized vehicular access to the site.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The existing gate is well beyond its useful life and a higher level of
replacement in the asset management exclusion will be provided with facility signage.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Limited or no environmental impact.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic value and security.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in discussion with OSMSA.
public engagement?
75
Year: 2027
Parks West Side Shop Roof Priority
CAP-27-0054 Score:
19.80
Replacement 27D.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Derek Christie
Future Replacement Cost: $22,850.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the existing roof with a steel roof to extend the lifespan and to better survive its current environment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $7,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $7,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $7,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $7,000.00
Total $7,000.00
76
Year: 2027
Parks West Side Shop Roof Priority
CAP-27-0054 Score:
19.80
Replacement 27D.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 The project supports internal operations but is in an area that is widely used
impacted by the project? by the public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance associated with this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project other than compliance with the City's property standards bylaw.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
77
Year: 2027
Playground Replacement - Parkview Priority
CAP-27-0050 Score:
50.90
Park 30D.10
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the playground at Parkview Park is required as the existing play structure has exceeded its useful life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $246,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $246,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $246,000.00
Total $246,000.00
78
Year: 2027
Playground Replacement - Parkview Priority
CAP-27-0050 Score:
50.90
Park 30D.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a high probability of failure and high consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project meet 3 of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public. The playground project
public engagement? layout will be brought forward to the Grey County Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their input.
79
Year: 2027
Playground Replacement Design - Priority
CAP-27-0051 Score:
69.30
2027
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): NA Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: NA Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The City has an inventory of playgrounds at the end of their lifecycle that have been identified for replacement in the current 5-year capital budget cycle. There are four
neighbourhood park playgrounds in Parkview Park, Alexandra Park, Westmount Park and the Tot Lot Park that are scheduled to be replaced between 2027 and 2030 and this
project is intended to establish the design context for each so that they are shovel ready to support their staggered implementation. The project will involve the procurement of a
consultant to undertake the development of design plans, specifications and tender documentation to generate shovel ready construction packages. The consultant will seek public
input on the design of each playground. That public input will be used to shape the design context of each playground configuration.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$150,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
80
Year: 2027
Playground Replacement Design - Priority
CAP-27-0051 Score:
69.30
2027
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Playgrounds to be replaced service local neighbourhood families.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 The playgrounds being replaced are beyond their useful life.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Playgrounds are required to comply with the standards as set out within
legislative/regulatory compliance? CSA Z614:20 - Children's Playground Equipment and Surfacing.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Replace neighbourhood playgrounds that provide measurable health, social
replacement in the asset management inclusion, and community building benefits.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of end of life playgrounds will positively impact staff time and
proceed), what will be the impact on operating costs.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact to natural environment expected.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Replacement playgrounds will offer greater play experience and
diversity and inclusion initiatives? accessibility.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 The replacement playgrounds will dramatically improve the aesthetic
the asset improved? appearance of the city playgrounds.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Public consultation on replacement playgrounds is part of the scope of this
public engagement? project.
81
Year: 2027
Police Station Air Handling Unit Priority
CAP-27-0041 Score:
40.30
Replacement 27J.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $5,480,225.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Installation of two units to replace the existing unit, with one unit serving the perimeter duct system and the other unit serving the interior duct system
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
$80,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $675,000.00 $675,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $50,000.00 $85,000.00
Total $80,000.00 $750,000.00 $790,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $1,620,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $1,620,000.00
Total $1,620,000.00
82
Year: 2027
Police Station Air Handling Unit Priority
CAP-27-0041 Score:
40.30
Replacement 27J.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Police staff are the only users affected by the replacement of the AHU.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The current unit does not provide sufficient dehumidification or air quality
the public or Staff if the project does not control for the facility, which has required adjustments to other building
proceed? components.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The AHU will exceed its recommended useful life by 3 years at the
replacement in the asset management proposed time of construction. This is the only unit facilitating air movement
plan? throughout the facility.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 It is anticipated that there will be direct financial savings from reduced
proceed), what will be the impact on energy consumption as well as indirect savings through the optimization of
operational performance? Comment on other HVAC equipment.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for grant funding once the replacement unit has
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling been designed.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 It is anticipated that there will be moderate reductions in energy
address needs impacted by climate consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value as it is located on the roof of the facility,
the asset improved? with one unit being placed inside the existing penthouse.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is available to deliver services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
83
Year: 2027
Police Station Roof Section 3 Priority
CAP-27-0043 Score:
21.40
Restoration 27J.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $101,270.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Restoration of Roof Section 3 to extend the lifespan of the roof section by 15 years
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $80,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $80,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $80,000.00
Total $80,000.00
84
Year: 2027
Police Station Roof Section 3 Priority
CAP-27-0043 Score:
21.40
Restoration 27J.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The roof affects the cell block only and does not cover core building assets.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The project will have no effect on health and safety if it is completed before
the public or Staff if the project does not the roof deteriorates and allows penetration.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and a moderate consequence
replacement in the asset management associated with failure.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project if it is completed prior to deterioration.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure
the asset improved? by removing "stained" look of the roof.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is available to deliver services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
85
Year: 2027
Public Works Shop Hot Water Heater Priority
CAP-27-0055 Score:
29.50
(HWH) Replacement 27M.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $23,400.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the existing hot water heater (HWH) to reduce annual energy consumption and costs.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $15,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
86
Year: 2027
Public Works Shop Hot Water Heater Priority
CAP-27-0055 Score:
29.50
(HWH) Replacement 27M.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Hot water is available to staff and the maximum amount of patrons allowed
impacted by the project? in the facility at any given time.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 While there is no direct health and safety impacts, access to hot water is
the public or Staff if the project does not important in a facility like the Public Works building.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance issues associated with
legislative/regulatory compliance? the current equipment.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 There is a low consequence of failure and a low probability of failure
replacement in the asset management associated with the current equipment.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Financial savings will be achieved as a result of the project due to the high
proceed), what will be the impact on volume of water used at this location.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a grant depending on the annual
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling consumption and the type of equipment that will be installed.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be minimal impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The replacement of the equipment will allow for the maintenance of the
diversity and inclusion initiatives? existing space.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The HWH carries no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services through the maintenance
Result in the Strategic Plan? of an adequate facility portfolio.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
87
Year: 2027
Public Works Shop Radiant Heater Priority
CAP-27-0056 Score:
26.10
Replacement 27M.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $88,600.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing radiant heating system to reduce annual energy consumption and costs, while providing similar or improved output for facility users.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $54,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $54,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $54,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $54,000.00
Total $54,000.00
88
Year: 2027
Public Works Shop Radiant Heater Priority
CAP-27-0056 Score:
26.10
Replacement 27M.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The radiant heating system supports the staff that utilize the storage bays of
impacted by the project? the PW work shop.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There are no health and safety issues at this time.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There are no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance? associated with the replacement of the equipment
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure with a low consequence of failure
replacement in the asset management with the assumption that equipment is readily available.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight improvement on operational efficiency through
proceed), what will be the impact on reduced energy consumption. This will be confirmed once the proper
operational performance? Comment on equipment has been selected.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a grant once the annual consumption and
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling proposed equipment has been confirmed.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 There will be a slight improvement to the environment through the potential
address needs impacted by climate change from fossil fuel powered equipment to cleaner sources.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services through ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is maintained in order to deliver services out of
them.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified through public feedback.
public engagement?
89
Year: 2027
Reconstruction- 8th St E/GR 5 - From
Priority
end of curb (600 m east of 8th St E) to CAP-27-0012 Score:
47.40
20th Ave E 27P.8
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $1,973,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Grey County Transportation Services is planning to construct 8th Street East/Grey Road 5 in 2027 to a full urban cross-section (south side). For the City's part, this project involves
having a new multi-use path (3 m wide paved Active Transportation Route) constructed on the south side of 8th Street East from 11th Avenue East to 20th Avenue East and
upgrading the existing street lighting
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
$38,000.00 $18,000.00 $10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $380,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $400,000.00 $10,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $450,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Donations $450,000.00
Total $450,000.00
90
Year: 2027
Reconstruction- 8th St E/GR 5 - From
Priority
end of curb (600 m east of 8th St E) to CAP-27-0012 Score:
47.40
20th Ave E 27P.8
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 This project will support active transportation for the new upcoming
impacted by the project? developments (Red Hawk & Flato).
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Serious injuries or death may occur due to pedestrian or cyclist use of the
the public or Staff if the project does not south side of the road if this multi use path does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project is required to continue to be compliant by including pedestrian
legislative/regulatory compliance? and cyclist facilities for new residential development.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset
replacement in the asset management management plan
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 0 This project will require additional operational resources
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The developers are responsible for constructing this multi-use path fronting
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling their properties. The City will be responsible for the cost of the western
feasibility, Technology/resources. segment of the path.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have minor beneficial effect on the environment as a result
address needs impacted by climate of the project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 This project will have minor impact on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 During the design of this project the street scape will be reviewed and
the asset improved? consideration for planting boulevard trees will be looked at to increase the
aesthetics of the road
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 This project has not been identified by the public but will be as part of public
public engagement? engagement through the subdivision approval process.
91
Year: 2027
Reconstruction of 2nd Ave W/Grey
Priority
Road 1 - 10th St W to 14th St W (675 CAP-27-0010 Score:
53.70
m) 27P.9
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $2,500,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Grey County Transportation Services plans to reconstruct or rehabilitate 2nd Avenue West (Grey Road 1) from 10th Street West to 14th Street West. Preliminary estimate for
sidewalk and storm water infrastructure that may be replaced, at the City's cost. Replacement of curb and gutters is expected together with catch basins that will have to be
rehabilitated or replaced, at the County's cost, although there may be some cost sharing with the City. Storm sewer replacement is not planned.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
$52,000.00 $45,000.00 $15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $3,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $500,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $55,000.00 $550,000.00 $15,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $620,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $15,000.00
OCIF Formula $605,000.00
Total $620,000.00
92
Year: 2027
Reconstruction of 2nd Ave W/Grey
Priority
Road 1 - 10th St W to 14th St W (675 CAP-27-0010 Score:
53.70
m) 27P.9
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 This section of road has a traffic count of approximately 5,100 AADT
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor trips and fall may result due to the sidewalk condition
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project is required to continue to be compliant under minimum
legislative/regulatory compliance? maintenance standards
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The assets in this road are reaching their useful life and should be replaced
replacement in the asset management before they have multiple failures.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 This project will have slight operational operational efficiencies due to the
proceed), what will be the impact on underground infrastructure being replaced.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 This project will be coordinated with the County reconstruction so the road
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling portion would be covered by the County.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have little or no impact on environment as a result of the
address needs impacted by climate project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 This project will have no direct impact on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 During the design of this project the street scape will be reviewed and
the asset improved? consideration for planting boulevard trees will be looked at to increase the
aesthetics of the road
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This project has been mentioned by unsolicited feedback regarding the
public engagement? sidewalk condition on this section of road.
93
Year: 2027
Replacement of Retaining Wall- 5th
Priority
Avenue East (RW-4) - 700 block - east CAP-27-0011 Score:
44.20
side 27P.11
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 80 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $4,000,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Retaining Wall- 5th Avenue East (RW-4) - 700 block - east side
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
$70,000.00 $25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $370,000.00 $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $400,000.00 $10,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $485,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $485,000.00
Total $485,000.00
94
Year: 2027
Replacement of Retaining Wall- 5th
Priority
Avenue East (RW-4) - 700 block - east CAP-27-0011 Score:
44.20
side 27P.11
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 This retaining wall will affect traffic on a low volume local road. It is
impacted by the project? supporting soils and a residential driveway fronting 735 5th Ave E.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Major injuries may result (minor car accidents due to the retaining wall
the public or Staff if the project does not proximity to the adjacent travel lane)
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project will continue to keep us in compliance from good engineering
legislative/regulatory compliance? design.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 Some signs of failure are showing (cracking) and should allow this retaining
replacement in the asset management wall to be replaced.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 This retaining wall replacement may allow for more effective snow plowing
proceed), what will be the impact on since snow storage will be considered in the redesign of this wall
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Currently there is no opportunity for grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 This project will have no direct impact on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will be subject to a heritage review regarding the cultural
the asset improved? significance of this retaining wall. The wall's rustic appearance, while
possibly having cultural heritage value, is becoming a visual as well as
structural liability.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 This project is not directly aligned to the strategic plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
95
Year: 2027
Priority
Rope Rescue Equipment 27U.2 CAP-27-0021 Score:
51.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: $12,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Scheduled Replacement of Life Safety ropes and high angle rescue equipment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $9,000.00
Contingency
Total $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $9,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $9,000.00
Total $9,000.00
96
Year: 2027
Priority
Rope Rescue Equipment 27U.2 CAP-27-0021 Score:
51.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Although Fire Fighters are the end users of the asset, this project will have
impacted by the project? an impact on all residents of the City and help to ensure that they have the
best service possible.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Failure of the asset would be directly detrimental to the safety of staff and
the public or Staff if the project does not residential and commercial occupants of building.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Legislated replacement as per schedule
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 High consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Maintains operational performance
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
97
Year: 2027
Servicing Agreement - 10th St E -
Priority
18th Ave E to 20th Ave E - Smart CAP-27-0007 Score:
39.30
REIT 24P.40
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 100 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $20,285,009.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This is the estimated capital cost of constructing the new 10th Street East road and active transportation facilities (sidewalk and bike lanes or Active Transportation Route) between
18th Avenue East and 20th Avenue East to its terminus. There is no cost obligation for the City. This is a "placeholder" amount and estimated cost to be paid by (the developer of
the) Calloway REIT property that is south of the Smart Centres shopping plaza, for the new proposed 10th Street East road and sidewalk. This project cost is included in the
updated Development Charges study and by-law with 10% of the cost included as a growth related amount that will benefit all development in the City. Under a Servicing
Agreement with Calloway REIT, the developer will pay for the road and services construction and the City will contribute $280,000 from the DC Reserve. There is no opportunity to
recover this cost directly from neighbouring undeveloped lands (Villarboit to the east and Telfer Creek Subdivision to the south-east) as the neighbouring properties do not require
10th Street East to be extended for their direct access. They will obtain direct access via the construction of 20th Avenue East for each of these two developments. However, all
three of these developments will require 20th Avenue East or 10th Street East as a secondary emergency access for complete build-out of their respective developments. The
underground services capital costs for the new 10th Street East are not included in this amount. This is because the watermain, storm and sanitary sewers on the new 10th Street
East will benefit Calloway REIT only and connect/discharge to existing services on 18th Avenue East. Calloway REIT and Villarboit, to the east, will be contributing to watermain
oversizing costs in the Telfer Creek Subdivision. This payment will be made to the City, if the City has front ended this cost. If Telfer Creek Subdivision has not advanced prior
Calloway developing, the City will place the oversizing amount in reserve and reimburse the developer of Telfer Creek Subdivision when the subdivision development proceeds.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $2,800,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $2,800,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $2,800,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Donations $2,520,000.00
Development Charges $280,000.00
Total $2,800,000.00
98
Year: 2027
Servicing Agreement - 10th St E -
Priority
18th Ave E to 20th Ave E - Smart CAP-27-0007 Score:
39.30
REIT 24P.40
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 This project will directly impact the new residence directly adjacent to the
impacted by the project? new road.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 This project would meet the legislative requirements to proceed with the
legislative/regulatory compliance? development.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management
replacement in the asset management plan.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 0 Project will require additional operational resources (i.e. winter
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The developer will be responsible to contribute financially for the
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling construction of this project.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Street scape will be reviewed during site plan.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 This project supports and is an action to help support "A City That Grows"
Result in the Strategic Plan? objective of the Strategic Plan.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
99
Year: 2027
Servicing Agreement- 16th St E &
20th Ave E Intersection Upgrading Priority
CAP-27-0008 Score:
46.50
and 20th Ave E Construction -
Thompson Centres 27P.6
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $1,400,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This is the City's reimbursement amount for the developer's front-ending contribution (Servicing Agreement for Thompson Centres) of the 16th St E & 20th Ave E Intersection
upgrade along with the construction of 20th Avenue East.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $478,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $478,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $478,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $478,000.00
Total $478,000.00
100
Year: 2027
Servicing Agreement- 16th St E &
20th Ave E Intersection Upgrading Priority
CAP-27-0008 Score:
46.50
and 20th Ave E Construction -
Thompson Centres 27P.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 It is expected that over 6,000 motorists will be impacted as a result of this
impacted by the project? project
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 This project was required to accommodate new developments in the area
the public or Staff if the project does not ensuring traffic and pedestrian traffic would be safe
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project is required to continue to be compliant due to traffic patterns
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This will be a new asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 This will add additional staff time and resources to maintain this traffic
proceed), what will be the impact on system.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 This project may be eligible for rebates / funding through future developer
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling contributions
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
101
Year: 2027
Software Transformation - HRIS Priority
CAP-27-0031 Score:
44.50
27A.7
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 to 10 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implement a new Human Resource Information System (HRIS) to have efficient and accurate human resource management, to significantly enhance productivity and employee
satisfaction through the use of better analytics, self-serve functionality for employees
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $163,700.00 $84,300.00
Contingency
Total $163,700.00 $84,300.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $248,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $148,000.00
Tax Levy $100,000.00
Total $248,000.00
102
Year: 2027
Software Transformation - HRIS Priority
CAP-27-0031 Score:
44.50
27A.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Direct impact will be City staff from various departments; however, this
impacted by the project? project will also affect delivery of all it services to staff and Citizens
(>10,000 people indirectly impacted)
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No Impact on Health an Safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Completion will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This is an enhancement to an existing asset in order to generate
replacement in the asset management operational improvements.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both Staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - KR3 Supports an objective of the Strategic Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
103
Year: 2027
Term of Council Priorities - Strategic Priority
CAP-27-0006 Score:
42.50
Plan (Term) 27B.2
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Development of “Term of Council Priorities” aligned with 2050 Vision after each election
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
104
Year: 2027
Term of Council Priorities - Strategic Priority
CAP-27-0006 Score:
42.50
Plan (Term) 27B.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Greater than 10,000 citizens, will impact entire community
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislation, this is based on best practice
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 N/A
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Term of Council priorities will build into the Strategic plan provides clear
proceed), what will be the impact on direction of the long term vision of the community and identify direction for
operational performance? Comment on continuous terms of council to ensure a consistent progress towards that
any impact on operating costs, staff time long term vision
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded from strategic planning reserve
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The outcomes of this project will support climate change initiatives
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 The outcome of this project will support diversity and inclusion initiatives
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 This is specifically mentioned within a Key Result
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 Having a long term strategic plan with term of council priorities in order to
public engagement? achieve flexibility while building towards a long term vision has been
discussed at Committee
105
Year: 2027
Tom Williams Backstop & Fencing Priority
CAP-27-0052 Score:
51.20
Replacement
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The existing backstop and infield fencing at Tom Williams Park diamond is well beyond its useful life. Staff have performed numerous repairs and invested significant effort to keep
the backstop safe. The permanent backstop will be replaced with a heavy-duty steel frames in concrete, with chain-link fencing and an overhang with wing panels to prevent balls
from clearing the backstop and foul lines. The backstop will be structured to accommodate the installation of a seasonal shade panel that can be installed without the need for
specialized equipment. The infield fencing that is of the same vintage will also be replaced to bring a consistent standard to the infield infrastructure. A consultant will be secured to
prepare the construction and supporting engineered foundation plans/specification and quotation document for the structure.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $80,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $90,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $78,500.00
Donations $11,500.00
Total $90,000.00
106
Year: 2027
Tom Williams Backstop & Fencing Priority
CAP-27-0052 Score:
51.20
Replacement
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 The baseball diamond is utilized by the Owen Sound Baysox and OS Minor
impacted by the project? Baseball for recreational and competative league play.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The existing backstop is well beyond its useful life and is not longer
the public or Staff if the project does not repairable given the age and conditions of the unit.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 The backstop is being replaced to mitigate risk associated with potential
legislative/regulatory compliance? failure of a component of the backstop.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This is a non-essential asset requiring replacement to address potential
replacement in the asset management failure of asset.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Operational efficiency and financial saving will be achieved with the
proceed), what will be the impact on replacement of the backstop.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing backstop and infield fence that is well
the asset improved? beyond its useful life and will dramatically improve the facility aesthetics.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been referenced in discussion with facility user groups.
public engagement?
107
Year: 2027
Traffic Signal Replacement - 10th St Priority
CAP-27-0015 Score:
63.70
and 7th Ave W
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves geometric improvements to the intersection to better facilitate Traffic flow and Turning movements. It also includes installation of steel poles and arms for the
traffic signals that are presently suspended on cable strand and wood poles. This type of construction is considered temporary in nature. It requires regular tensioning of the cables
due to movement and relaxation in the cable strand which also has limited adjustment due to the existing wooden poles that are owned by Hydro One. This upgrading is to
incorporate a road widening/sight triangle taking in the south-west quadrant of the intersection that will require some engineering, legal survey work and property acquisition in 2027.
These improvements will require MTO approval (Highway 6/21 Connecting Link). Construction is planned to commence in 2028 (starting with road, curb and gutter/geometric and
sidewalk changes (AODA compliance), underground work and pole base construction) and continue into 2029 (completion of traffic and pedestrian signals and pole installation).
Precise phasing of construction is yet to be determined. The acquisition of property may take an extended time period.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027 2028
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $350,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $350,000.00
Total $350,000.00
108
Year: 2027
Traffic Signal Replacement - 10th St Priority
CAP-27-0015 Score:
63.70
and 7th Ave W
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This would have a large beneficial impact on commuter and pedestrian
impacted by the project? access in the area, specifically around the High School. In 2024, this was
one of the City's highest collision intersections, likely in part due to the
volume of pedestrian traffic between the school and the Tim Hortons.
Improving the signalization and geometry will increase public safety.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result due to inadequate intersection crossing
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project is required to provide a safe pedestrian crossing
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This project would enhance current assets to meet AODA compliance
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Saving will be realized due to ease of winter maintenance and eliminating
proceed), what will be the impact on spring cleanup requirements
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Staff believe we are in a position to complete the project with consultants
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling help and will fit in our current Schedule and Technology
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project would have minor improvements to climate change needs
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Has limited impact, but some improvement to aesthetics
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Meets one Strategic goal
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Project has been mentioned in public comments
public engagement?
109
Year: 2027
Transit Terminal Window and Door Priority
CAP-27-0057 Score:
42.30
Replacement 27R.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $60,700.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of entrance doors which were installed in 1986
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
110
Year: 2027
Transit Terminal Window and Door Priority
CAP-27-0057 Score:
42.30
Replacement 27R.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 The transit terminal is a well utilized facility by both transit and non-transit
impacted by the project? users.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety associated with the windows in
the public or Staff if the project does not their current state.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure based on the lifecycle and other
replacement in the asset management deterioration. There have been multiple repairs in recent years.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness by reducing
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance related repairs.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project is funded by Provincial Gas Tax and does not require tax
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling supported funding.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project will moderately improve the aesthetic of the building.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
111
Year: 2027
Water & Wastewater Master Servicing Priority
CAP-27-0016 Score:
34.70
27P.12
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $410,151.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This area has experienced growth and development and a number of the recommended servicing construction and upgrading projects have been completed, the study (completed
in 2007) should be updated to reflect the improvements, refine the plans and provided updated strategies and techniques to further guide and inform the City's development process
in this area
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$345,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $350,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $350,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $175,000.00
Waste Water Rates $175,000.00
Total $350,000.00
112
Year: 2027
Water & Wastewater Master Servicing Priority
CAP-27-0016 Score:
34.70
27P.12
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This study update will review the key growth and development areas of the
impacted by the project? City and provide guidance for future continuing development in Primarily on
the east side of the City but will review interconnections of Water and
Sanitary Distribution and Collection systems City wide for areas of growth
and improvement.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety directly as a result of the
the public or Staff if the project does not deliverable, however the Plan will guide future infrastructure project scope
proceed? and sequencing to ensure that health and safety objectives are met for the
planning horizon of the document.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement for
legislative/regulatory compliance? completing this study. However, the study will contribute to the ongoing
objectives of the City's Environmental Compliance Approvals for both the
water distribution and treatment and the sanitary collection and treatment
systems. It will also provide a framework for future water and wastewater
rates and financial plans, contributing to the City's eligibility for the Drinking
Water System License. There are many other regulatory frameworks that
relate to this study, such as the various environmental protection Acts and
Regulations. The study will be undertaken using the well-established
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process, which examines
socioeconomic, environmental, technical and financial factors when
determining the preferred alternative.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This will be an update to the existing East Side Master Servicing Study.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This will have little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project in eligible to be funding from water and sewer fees and will be
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling completed primally by consultants
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will moderately improve the natural environment and/or prevent
address needs impacted by climate further detriment. The basis for the analysis is to determine, in part, the
change? most environmentally responsible solutions with the best return on
investment.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 This project will have no direct impact on public users but will be
diversity and inclusion initiatives? undertaken with mandatory public engagement components.
Socioeconomic factors are considered in the process determining the
preferred alternative.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project directly supports one strategic priority
Result in the Strategic Plan?
113
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
114
Year: 2027
Water Distribution New Valve Priority
CAP-27-0066 Score:
53.70
Chambers for BGCSB 28N.6
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
These funds will be used to support planned watermain zone connection that will be completed during the BGCSB (New school) project on 28th Street connecting the East Hill
Pressure Zone to the Industrial Zone in the general area of 28th Ave E and 16th Street E. These funds will also be used to address a handful of water services that will be
completed during the project.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $250,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $250,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $250,000.00
Total $250,000.00
115
Year: 2027
Water Distribution New Valve Priority
CAP-27-0066 Score:
53.70
Chambers for BGCSB 28N.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Proper Operation of the Valve Chambers affects the entire pressure zone
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Failure to feed between zones can lead to low pressure and backflow
the public or Staff if the project does not events and reduced fire flow
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act (specifically Adverse Condition provisions of the
legislative/regulatory compliance? regulation)
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 N/A : New Assets to be coordinated with development
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Interconnecting valve chambers improve fire flows, as well as system
proceed), what will be the impact on circulation which improves chlorine residuals
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Possible Contributions from Development Charges
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No significant Environmental Impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
116
Year: 2027
Water Treatment Plant Facility Priority
CAP-27-0067 Score:
63.40
Maintenance i/c Roof 27N.3
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Roof Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $475,200.00
Contingency
Total $475,200.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $475,200.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $475,200.00
Total $475,200.00
117
Year: 2027
Water Treatment Plant Facility Priority
CAP-27-0067 Score:
63.40
Maintenance i/c Roof 27N.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the water treatment for the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Roof failure could affect water quality and staff safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is identified in the 10-year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Ultimately roof failure could cause leakage and damage to important
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment components; equipment and mechanical and electrical.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Not a direct link
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not significant aesthetic impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
118
Year: 2027
Water Valve Replacements 2027 Priority
CAP-26-0101 Score:
64.80
26N.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mark Hill
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
26N.3 This project is for the installation of a 12" check valve at East hill booster station and 8" raw water drain valve
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
119
Year: 2027
Water Valve Replacements 2027 Priority
CAP-26-0101 Score:
64.80
26N.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the Water Treatment Process which can affect the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Valve failure could be a risk to health and safety and the delivery of drinking
the public or Staff if the project does not water to the customer
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Failure of a significant valve in the water treatment plant could reduce water
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment production.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not a relevant factor for
address needs impacted by climate this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
120
Year: 2027
Watermains Cathodic Protection Priority
CAP-27-0062 Score:
66.10
Rehab 27N.4
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual Replacement of Cathodic Protection on large diameter critical ductile iron trunk watermains. This slows/eliminates corrosion via an electrochemical process whereby the
anode decays instead of the main. The City continues to follow the multi year program to protect watermains as laid out in 2013.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $270,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $270,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $270,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $270,000.00
Total $270,000.00
121
Year: 2027
Watermains Cathodic Protection Priority
CAP-27-0062 Score:
66.10
Rehab 27N.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Watermain failures can affect a significant area
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Watermain breaks can damage property and result in poor water quality
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 The intent is to extend the useful life of water infrastructure
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Failure to do this could result in vastly increased watermain breaks as older
proceed), what will be the impact on watermain rots in place
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Water Rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Watermain breaks can affect environment : chlorinated water in receiving
address needs impacted by climate water
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not significant aesthetic impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Watermain Projects generally are not.
public engagement?
122
Year: 2027
West Side Boat Launch Roof Priority
CAP-27-0053 Score:
19.80
Replacement 27D.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $32,650.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the existing roof with a steel roof to extend the lifespan and to better survive its current environment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
123
Year: 2027
West Side Boat Launch Roof Priority
CAP-27-0053 Score:
19.80
Replacement 27D.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 The project supports operations but is in an area that is widely used by the
impacted by the project? public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance associated with this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project other than compliance with the City's property standards bylaw.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
124
Year: 2027
Wireless Access Point Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0035 Score:
45.40
27A.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $24,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing wireless access points are reaching end-of-life and are out of warranty, with an average age between 5 and 7 years, exceeding their 4- to 5-year life
expectancy on the continued replacement schedule.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $20,000.00
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Reserves $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
125
Year: 2027
Wireless Access Point Replacement Priority
CAP-27-0035 Score:
45.40
27A.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 1,000 to 2,499 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
126
Year: 2027
WWTP Storage Tank Biosolids Priority
CAP-27-0060 Score:
69.30
Cleanout (2027) 27O.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: $2,000,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Removal of sediment and debris, and requires a cleaning for proper operation (occurs every 3 years)
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
$150,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
127
Year: 2027
WWTP Storage Tank Biosolids Priority
CAP-27-0060 Score:
69.30
Cleanout (2027) 27O.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This is the biosolids storage for the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Storage tank mixing or pumping failure could create adverse reactions in
the public or Staff if the project does not the tank, which could create dangerous and oderous gases.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This is a recurring requirement for asset maintenance
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 This is a necessary regular activity in order to allow proper operation of the
proceed), what will be the impact on biosolids treatment train.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded through wastewater rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Increased flows do not necessarily translate to increased biosolids
address needs impacted by climate production.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Prevent a possible severe odour problem.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
128
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Bandstand Priority
CAP-26-0121 Score:
19.40
Ceiling, Facia, Soffit 25D.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Derek Christie
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
25D.3 The Harrison Park Bandstand was constructed in 1935 with a field stone veneer on the lower level and wooden trusses, soffit and fascia beneath an asphalt roof. In an effort
to preserve the bandstand component of the facility, staff are proposing to rehabilitate the existing wooden components with steel components or updated wood product.
Staff will consult with the Planning & Heritage Division as Harrison Park facilities are designated under the City's Heritage By-law.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $20,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/04/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
129
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Bandstand Priority
CAP-26-0121 Score:
19.40
Ceiling, Facia, Soffit 25D.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The average annual vistors to the facility is less than 1,000.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result - deterioration of
the public or Staff if the project does not the ceiling, soffit, and fascia could lead to materials falling from the
proceed? ceiling/roof.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The intention is to replace the existing ceiling, soffit and fascia before they
replacement in the asset management deteriorate to an unsafe condition.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations - the rehabilitation work will have
proceed), what will be the impact on minimal impact on operations if the components are rehabilitated prior to
operational performance? Comment on further deterioration.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The rehabilitation of the existing components will maintain its aesthetic
the asset improved? value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
130
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Bandstand
Priority
Window and Door Replacement CAP-26-0018 Score:
21.90
24D.16
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Derek Christie
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
24D.16 The Harrison Park Band Stand is a popular spot for many user groups ranging from exercise classes to musical bands. The Heritage building stands proudly behind the
Harrison Park Inn. Consultation with the heritage group will be necessary to perform the work.
Cash Flow Projection: 2027
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2026 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/04/2027
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2027
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
131
Year: 2027
Parks - Harrison Park Bandstand
Priority
Window and Door Replacement CAP-26-0018 Score:
21.90
24D.16
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 <1000 annually
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries operating the doors could result in minor injury
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 0 No impact
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Not currently covered in Asset Management
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Low operational impact on performance.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Currently no partnerships.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact at this time.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 Currently little impact to public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Will greatly improve the aesthetic value of the building.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No public engagement.
public engagement?
132
2028
Capital
Detail Sheets
133
Year: 2028
4th St Pumping Station - Minor Priority
CAP-28-0034 Score:
61.00
Pumping Station Rehab 28O.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 59 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
4th St. Pumping Station is due for end-of-life mechanical upgrade and minor design improvements to increase operational efficiencies and for required access improvements for
safe confined space entry.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $300,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $300,000.00
Total $300,000.00
134
Year: 2028
4th St Pumping Station - Minor Priority
CAP-28-0034 Score:
61.00
Pumping Station Rehab 28O.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 This would typically affect people in the project area
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Sewer bypasses and backups from failed pumps
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This has been identified in the 10 year plan, as part of a multi-year program
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 This station requires frequent callouts to pull the pump for maintenance;
proceed), what will be the impact on since there is only one pump, any issue must be addressed quickly and
operational performance? Comment on often on overtime.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 No
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Wet weather flows are now more frequent; this is only a somewhat relevant
address needs impacted by climate factor for this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 N/A
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 None
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
135
Year: 2028
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-28-0011 Score:
81.30
(2028) 28P.6
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces and maintain the expected service life of roads throughout the City. The project also includes the replacement or
rehabilitation of concrete structures associated with asphalt resurfacing including catch basins, maintenance structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering $15,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $605,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases $80,000.00
Contingency
Total $700,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $700,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $700,000.00
Total $700,000.00
136
Year: 2028
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-28-0011 Score:
81.30
(2028) 28P.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Roads being resurfaced will improve local and commuter traffic throughout
impacted by the project? the City and generally benefits all road users in the City.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Injuries may result if roads are not resurfaced from drivers or cyclists
the public or Staff if the project does not avoiding potholes or other deficiencies in the road
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is included in the Asset Management Plan. Failure to seal road ways
replacement in the asset management can impact infrastructure under the road decreasing the life of multiple
plan? assets
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Road resurfacing will reduce operation costs associated with the road
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance (eg repairing pot holes).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 This is funded by Federal Gas Tax.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Minor positive impact will be realized from this project due to improved
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Some sidewalk replacement and improved cycling (active transportation
diversity and inclusion initiatives? enhancements).
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 This project is identified in the strategic plan to improve road conditions
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Road resurfacing has been requested multiple times through public
public engagement? engagement
137
Year: 2028
Priority
B.A.S. Control Upgrades 28I.2 CAP-28-0021 Score:
26.70
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $78,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the Eco Chill Automation system at the Julie McArthur Rec Centre with an updated system which will allow for improved remote access and operating parameters
andmore efficient operation of the refrigeration plant.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $65,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $65,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $65,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $65,000.00
Total $65,000.00
138
Year: 2028
Priority
B.A.S. Control Upgrades 28I.2 CAP-28-0021 Score:
26.70
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Thousands of ice users would be effected by improved safety and ice
impacted by the project? quality.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 This project would have minimal impact on health and safety, though it will
the public or Staff if the project does not have improved monitoring for the refrigeration plant and alarm notifications
proceed? to improve response to potential issues.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 Currently there is no known legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This would be an enhancement to the current system.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little to no impact on the operation.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 A grant or rebate may be available at the time of purchase.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Improved technology and operating parameters will allow for more efficient
address needs impacted by climate operation.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
139
Year: 2028
Bayshore - Roof Section 2, 4, 5 Priority
CAP-27-0068 Score:
45.50
Repair and Restore
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $1,099,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This would see the restoration of the metal roof sections over the Banquet Halls, Arena Bowl, and East Concourse at the Harry Lumley Bayshore Community Centre. These
repairs/restorations would address ongoing roof leaks, and trouble areas identified in the three roof sections. The City will work with a consultant to identify the scope of work for
these repairs to ensure the longevity of each roof section. The work would be completed by a licensed roofing contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $628,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $628,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $628,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $628,000.00
Total $628,000.00
140
Year: 2028
Bayshore - Roof Section 2, 4, 5 Priority
CAP-27-0068 Score:
45.50
Repair and Restore
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 10,000 plus people visit the facility annually.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There is a low risk of injury, but a roof leak could result in a potential slip trip
the public or Staff if the project does not or fall.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislation requiring this project move ahead.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 These roof sections have already began to leak and need to be addressed.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be minimal impact to the operation, less cleaning up after roof
proceed), what will be the impact on leaks, ceiling tile replacements etc.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 This project is funded, and will be ready to be completed on the timeline
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling presented. Exact scheduling is yet to be determined.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little to no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project directly supports the City Building strategic priority. We receive
Result in the Strategic Plan? feedback from the public, and would go to increasing the satisfaction of
users.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Roof leaks have been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
141
Year: 2028
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) HVAC Priority
CAP-28-0001 Score:
29.10
Replacement 28M.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $46,750.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the furnace located in the attic of the facility which is at the end of its useful life
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
142
Year: 2028
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) HVAC Priority
CAP-28-0001 Score:
29.10
Replacement 28M.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The HVAC system is primarily used to maintain an adequate climate for the
impacted by the project? facility. The direct impact on the number of users is minimal
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is moderate probability of failure of the existing unit, which carries a
replacement in the asset management low consequence of a replacement unit can be installed in a quick manner.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved with a newer unit that is more
proceed), what will be the impact on energy efficient.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a rebate depending on consumption history
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling and the type of unit being proposed for purchase.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will have a moderate impact on the environment through the
address needs impacted by climate reduction in energy consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have minimal impact on users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project will have no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of key services by ensuring important
Result in the Strategic Plan? HVAC equipment.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Public input has not been received for this project.
public engagement?
143
Year: 2028
Priority
Cathodic Protection Rehab 28N.1 CAP-28-0035 Score:
66.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Cathodic Protection on large diameter critical ductile iron trunk watermains
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $300,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $300,000.00
Total $300,000.00
144
Year: 2028
Priority
Cathodic Protection Rehab 28N.1 CAP-28-0035 Score:
66.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Watermain failures can affect a significant area
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Watermain breaks can damage property and result in poor water quality
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 The intent is to extend the useful life of water infrastructure
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Failure to do this could result in vastly increased watermain breaks as older
proceed), what will be the impact on watermain rots in place
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Water Rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Watermain breaks can affect environment : chlorinated water in receiving
address needs impacted by climate water
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not significant aesthetic impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Watermain Projects generally are not.
public engagement?
145
Year: 2028
Priority
City Hall - Carpet Replacement 28G.1 Score:
33.60
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $67,200.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The administrative areas and Council Chambers at City Hall have a carpeted floor surface. The installation of carpet tiles in these areas was determined as part of the 2018 City
Hall renovations for its durability and its noise attenuation in open concept areas.
The existing carpet tiles are deteriorating at their corners and creating trip hazards in multiple areas of the building. Staff have been using spare stock to repair high traffic areas but
can no longer purchase the same materials. All carpet tiled areas will need to be replaced. The project will be completed over multiple weeks due to the need to move office and IT
equipment and maintain business continuity.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
146
Year: 2028
Priority
City Hall - Carpet Replacement 28G.1 Score:
33.60
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 City Hall staff located in the areas with the majority of the carpet tiles. There
impacted by the project? is limited impact on the general public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if staff or public users trip
the public or Staff if the project does not over the deteriorating carpet tile edges.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance with the exception of
legislative/regulatory compliance? the Occupiers' Liability Act.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and a low consequence of failure
replacement in the asset management resulting from deteriorating carpet tiles.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project in that staff will no longer have to remove and replace tiles on an
operational performance? Comment on ongoing basis.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded from the City Hall Capital Reserve.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 There will be a minor aesthetic improvement.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery but maintaining the services
Result in the Strategic Plan? delivered via City Hall.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
147
Year: 2028
City Hall Access Control System Priority
CAP-28-0002 Score:
26.60
Replacement 28G.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $100,800.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the access control system at City Hall which became obsolete in 2023 and allows for the non-public and operational areas of City Hall to be restricted to the public.
This is for both the security of staff and the public.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $75,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $75,000.00
Total $75,000.00
148
Year: 2028
City Hall Access Control System Priority
CAP-28-0002 Score:
26.60
Replacement 28G.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 City Hall staff are the main users of the system. There is limited impact on
impacted by the project? the general public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The access control system is used restrict areas that staff or the public
the public or Staff if the project does not should not access (i.e. mechanical and electrical rooms). This mitigates the
proceed? impact of error if untrained staff enter these areas.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for an
legislative/regulatory compliance? access control system.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure for the existing equipment. The
replacement in the asset management consequence is low because there is an alternative way to access these
plan? areas.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project as a system is already in place.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through the City Hall capital reserve.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value as the public facing equipment is already
the asset improved? in place and the controllers are located in a mechanical room.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery but maintaining the services
Result in the Strategic Plan? delivered via City Hall.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
149
Year: 2028
Priority
City Hall Interior Painting 28G.2 CAP-28-0004 Score:
21.40
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $26,900.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The renovation of City Hall occurred in 2018. A large component of this project included interior renovations such as new walls, flooring, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. The
average lifespan of these assets range from 10-20 years. One of the items with the lowest lifespan is wall painting.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $18,000.00
Materials $2,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
150
Year: 2028
Priority
City Hall Interior Painting 28G.2 CAP-28-0004 Score:
21.40
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 City Hall staff are located in the areas with the majority of the spaces to be
impacted by the project? painted. There is limited impact on the general public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequence of failure from a
replacement in the asset management structural standpoint, however, the maintenance of City assets is an
plan? expectation of facility users.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project as staff have been able to keep up with minor damages to the walls.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through the City Hall reserve.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 There will be a minor aesthetic improvement.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery but maintaining the services
Result in the Strategic Plan? delivered via City Hall.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
151
Year: 2028
CN Station Decking Replacement & Priority
CAP-28-0006 Score:
34.30
Slab Repairs 28M.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $31,200.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Removal of the existing deck and replacement with the same type of material unless a third party grant has been received and a more durable material can be installed.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $20,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
152
Year: 2028
CN Station Decking Replacement & Priority
CAP-28-0006 Score:
34.30
Slab Repairs 28M.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 It is estimate that 2,500 to 4,999 people access the building via the platform
impacted by the project? or walk across it.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if users trip over the uneven
the public or Staff if the project does not decking edges.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement other than
legislative/regulatory compliance? the Occupiers' Liability Act.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure and moderate consequence depending
replacement in the asset management on the severity of an incident at a trip hazard.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project as staff have been able to refasten boards to the structure
operational performance? Comment on underneath.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a grant or donation.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement over the existing, weathered surface.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery by ensuring access to this
Result in the Strategic Plan? facility.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
153
Year: 2028
CN Station Exterior Hardscaping and Priority
CAP-28-0007 Score:
38.30
Accessibility Enhancements 28M.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $104,700.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Landscaping around the building and the platform to return this area to its previous condition. Accessibility will be incorporated into this design through improved paths of travel.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
154
Year: 2028
CN Station Exterior Hardscaping and Priority
CAP-28-0007 Score:
38.30
Accessibility Enhancements 28M.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 It is estimate that 2,500 to 4,999 people access the building via the platform
impacted by the project? or walk across it.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if users trip over or fall into
the public or Staff if the project does not holes in the existing surfaces.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement other than
legislative/regulatory compliance? the Occupiers' Liability Act.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure and moderate consequence depending
replacement in the asset management on the severity of an incident at a trip hazard.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project as both public works and facilities staff have to remediate the failing
operational performance? Comment on concrete or aggregate surfaces multiple times each year.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 This project may be eligible for a grant or a donation.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement over the existing, weathered surface.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery by ensuring access to this
Result in the Strategic Plan? facility.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
155
Year: 2028
Digital Message Signs (JMRRC & Priority
CAP-28-0005 Score:
50.70
Bayshore) 28B.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer & Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
There are currently outdoor message signs at the Harry Lumley Bayshore and the Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Complex (JMRRC). The outdoor sign at the Bayshore
currently uses manual changeable lettering. The outdoor sign at the JMRRC is an electronic message board with outdated technology which experiences frequent failures. This has
led to not being able to utilize the sign for extended periods of time. For both screens, the structure of the signs is still operational and can remain with just the screen area being
replaced.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $75,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Donations $75,000.00
Total $75,000.00
156
Year: 2028
Digital Message Signs (JMRRC & Priority
CAP-28-0005 Score:
50.70
Bayshore) 28B.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 based on the volume of traffic which passes the signs at the
impacted by the project? Bayshore/JMRRC
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Currently staff have to manually change the lettering on the sign at the
the public or Staff if the project does not Bayshore in all types of weather. By eliminating this manual work, we may
proceed? be able to reduce potential injuries.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 0 N/A
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The sign at the JMRRC has failed repeatedly.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 By being able to update the signage at both locations through one central
proceed), what will be the impact on location, the messages can be updated in real-time without having to
operational performance? Comment on access the site
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 Project will not proceed without 100% sponsorship
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact to the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintains and enhance communication at facilities
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The current emd sign at the JMRRC is non-operational and can not show
the asset improved? signage; the interchangeable letters at the Bayshore are aged
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Service Excellence - KR2
Result in the Strategic Plan? Enhance our information, technology and digital capabilities to allow
residents,
businesses and visitors to interact with the City where, when and how they
choose
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The community has anecdotally complained about the lack of a working
public engagement? digital sign outside the JMRRC
157
Year: 2028
Employee Development and Priority
CAP-28-0016 Score:
34.50
Performance Tool 27B.4
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Janet Ashfield
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implementation of an Employee Development and Performance Management tool that allows senior leaders, managers, supervisors and employees to collaborate and set smart
goals and objectives, identify learning opportunities, and continuously monitor progress
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
158
Year: 2028
Employee Development and Priority
CAP-28-0016 Score:
34.50
Performance Tool 27B.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Ensure employee performance and development initiatives occur.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is not included in an asset management plan.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Ensure staff are developed to continue to grow with the City, and transition
proceed), what will be the impact on into alternate roles within the City.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Establishes a new effort to celebrate Diversity and Inclusion by ensuring
diversity and inclusion initiatives? diversity, equity and inclusion for performance management and
development of staff throughout the City.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 KR3 - Part of the overall HR Strategy for the City.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
159
Year: 2028
Fire Services Auto Extrication Priority
CAP-28-0014 Score:
48.50
(Cutter, Spreader, Ram) 28U.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
One Auto Extrication Device is in need of replacement. This is a combination tool + ram that is stored on Pump 5. This piece of rescue equipment is known in the fire service as a
"Cutter/Spreader" or more commonly called the "Jaws of Life". This is a scheduled replacement of an asset.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $40,000.00
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
160
Year: 2028
Fire Services Auto Extrication Priority
CAP-28-0014 Score:
48.50
(Cutter, Spreader, Ram) 28U.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Firefighters are the direct users. All motorists in the city could potentially
impacted by the project? need the use of equipment if involved in a MVC.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Failure of existing equipment would result in the death or further injury to
the public or Staff if the project does not the victim requiring assistance.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 No legislation for replacement. Auto Extrication Certification and training is
legislative/regulatory compliance? legislated by the province and the equipment is required to achieve
certification.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 Auto Extrication Equipment is a Capital Asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 A Replacement of the asset will result in slightly reduced maintenance
proceed), what will be the impact on hours- repairing the aged equipment.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No grant opportunities available at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Climate Change has resulted in severe weather patterns, severe weather
address needs impacted by climate often results in motor vehicle collisions (MVC) The equipment is required to
change? free victims from entrapment.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Advances "Safe City" as a priority
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No Public Engagement
public engagement?
161
Year: 2028
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-28-0015 Score:
65.20
Replacement 28U.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to replace bunker gear as required by NFPA 1971 or as required
2028 - Assets requiring replacement include:
4 x bunker gear replacements
5 x replacement boots
2 x balaclava replacement
2 x glove replacement
25 year - PPE replacement schedule has been created and updated yearly.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $30,000.00
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
162
Year: 2028
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-28-0015 Score:
65.20
Replacement 28U.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 26 Suppression Firefighters & 5 support personnel
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 The utmost highest priority is that we provide adequate and appropriate
the public or Staff if the project does not PPE to protect our Firefighters.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Failure of Asset can result in critical injury.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of the asset increases reliability of operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Scheduled replacement of the pooled asset includes funding for future PPE
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacement of diversity recruitment opportunities.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Replacement of equipment with newer, more modern equipment will greatly
the asset improved? improve aesthetic value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports Core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
163
Year: 2028
Fire Station - Unit Heater
Priority
Replacements (x3) - Apparatus Bay CAP-27-0023 Score:
38.10
27U.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $83,500.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing unit heaters, which are beyond the end of their life cycle and prone to sudden failure, with a heater for each bay door (total of 8 heaters)
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
164
Year: 2028
Fire Station - Unit Heater
Priority
Replacements (x3) - Apparatus Bay CAP-27-0023 Score:
38.10
27U.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The current unit heaters impact only the apparatus bay.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Adequate temperature and ventilation equipment is important to maintain
the public or Staff if the project does not air quality in the fire station.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure and moderate consequences as heat is
replacement in the asset management required to ensure that apparatus are in a state of being readily available
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 The current units cannot be repaired and will be taken out of service when
proceed), what will be the impact on they fail.
operational performance? Comment on If one unit fails and there is no funding available to complete the entire
any impact on operating costs, staff time replacement project, a one-off purchase will be made and will not achieve
and maintenance. the desired results.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for an energy grant rebate depending on the
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling final product selected.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing piece of equipment and is integral to
diversity and inclusion initiatives? supporting the fire station and services.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the core delivery of fire services by ensuring an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility for this service.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
165
Year: 2028
Fire Station Renovation and Priority
CAP-27-0022 Score:
48.20
Expansion 27U.6
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $30,000,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
27U.6 Fire Station Facility Strategy – Construction Phase
Following the approved outcome of Report CAP-26-0032, this phase funds the long-term structural solution for Fire Services. The baseline project scope delivers a major renovation
of approximately 30% of the existing 11,662 sq ft facility (built 1973) to address critical end-of-life building components and meet modern Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
standards. It also includes a 4,000 sq ft expansion to provide mandatory apparatus storage, decontamination space, and adequate training facilities.
However, to ensure maximum fiscal responsibility, the final construction delivery model is dependent on Council’s review of the February 2027 Options & Site Assessment. If the
high-level costing and feasibility study demonstrates that a new, purpose-built facility offers superior cost savings and operational efficiencies over the complex retrofit baseline,
construction funding will be reallocated to execute that approved direction.
Construction is targeted to begin in late spring 2028, with both pathways prioritizing energy conservation and a reduced environmental footprint.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $1,202,520.00 $3,607,560.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $1,202,520.00 $3,607,560.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $4,810,080.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Debenture $4,810,080.00
Total $4,810,080.00
166
Year: 2028
Fire Station Renovation and Priority
CAP-27-0022 Score:
48.20
Expansion 27U.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 While the service is provided to all City residents and neighbouring
impacted by the project? municipalities through mutual aid, the project will directly impact the fire
staff only.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed. This is mainly related to the failing building components and lack
proceed? of decontamination.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 There is no immediate requirement, but legislation is though to be pending.
legislative/regulatory compliance? This is mainly related to enhanced requirements for decontamination
measures that need to be added to the facility.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 There is a high probability of failure and high consequence of failure of the
replacement in the asset management building's mechanical and electrical components. There is no redundancies
plan? in place for these items.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of this project,
proceed), what will be the impact on particularly around improved operations on the apparatus floor, adequate
operational performance? Comment on work space, and improved training space.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for grant funding once the final design has been
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling completed.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 The project establishes a new effort to celebrate diversity and inclusion by
diversity and inclusion initiatives? implementing improved dormitory and change rooms into the facility.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvements, especially for the window replacements on the south side of
the building. The building envelope improvements will match neighbouring
properties.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 The project has received documented multiple supports through unsolicited
public engagement? (informal) feedback.
167
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Camp Laundry Facility Priority
CAP-28-0024 Score:
26.50
Repairs 27D.11
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project covers both ceiling repairs and window and door replacement.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
168
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Camp Laundry Facility Priority
CAP-28-0024 Score:
26.50
Repairs 27D.11
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1000
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Structural integrity is key to providing a safe facility.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 0 No
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Maintenance item
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Staff efficiency in cleaning and maintenance will be a key result.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded from reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Low impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 Low degree
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Will improve the overall look and cleanliness of the buildings interior.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
169
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Work Shop Furnace Priority
CAP-28-0025 Score:
29.10
Replacement 28D.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Nicole Wildeboer
Future Replacement Cost: $45,150.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the two unit heaters which were installed in 2010 and will be at the end of their useful lifespan.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
170
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Work Shop Furnace Priority
CAP-28-0025 Score:
29.10
Replacement 28D.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The HVAC system is primarily used to maintain an adequate climate for the
impacted by the project? facility. The direct impact on the number of users is minimal
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is moderate probability of failure of the existing unit, which carries a
replacement in the asset management low consequence of a replacement unit can be installed in a quick manner.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved with a newer unit that is more
proceed), what will be the impact on energy efficient.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a rebate depending on consumption history
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling and the type of unit being proposed for purchase.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will have a moderate impact on the environment through the
address needs impacted by climate reduction in energy consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have minimal impact on users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project will have no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of key services by ensuring important
Result in the Strategic Plan? HVAC equipment.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Public input has not been received for this project.
public engagement?
171
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Workshop Roof Priority
CAP-28-0026 Score:
22.00
Replacement 28D.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $41,875.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Roof replacement for the storage bay section of the building
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $20,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
172
Year: 2028
Harrison Park Workshop Roof Priority
CAP-28-0026 Score:
22.00
Replacement 28D.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The facility is utilized by Parks and Open Spaces staff only.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The deterioration of the roof may result in water infiltration and associated
the public or Staff if the project does not development of mould.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance concerns with the roof
legislative/regulatory compliance? in its current state.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is low probability of failure and low consequence of failure of the roof
replacement in the asset management is replaced in its current state.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no impact on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no third party funding available for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little environmental impact in its current state
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The replacement of the roof will maintain the existing building
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The replacement of the roof will not show a significant aesthetic
the asset improved? improvement
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core service by ensuring that the City's
Result in the Strategic Plan? facility portfolio is available for the services that it supports.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
173
Year: 2028
Priority
Ice Resurfacer Replacement 28I.1 CAP-28-0022 Score:
35.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $156,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the current ice resurfacer at the Julie McArthur Recreation Centre, which was purchased in 2017 (expected replacement life of 10 years)
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $130,000.00
Contingency
Total $130,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $130,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $130,000.00
Total $130,000.00
174
Year: 2028
Priority
Ice Resurfacer Replacement 28I.1 CAP-28-0022 Score:
35.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Thousands of users would be impacted by the replacement of this machine.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There is no risk to health and safety if this does not proceed.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is currently no legislation mandating this project move forward.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and a low consequence as we do
replacement in the asset management have a back up machine to put into service.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This will have little to no effect on the current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 This is funded through the fleet reserves. An electric option may be eligible
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling for rebates.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Depending on the model chosen an electric would have a high impact on
address needs impacted by climate the environment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This replacement would maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 this project does not impact the aesthetic value of the asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This has not be mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
175
Year: 2028
Instrumentation Replacement (2028) Priority
CAP-28-0036 Score:
64.80
28N.4
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Instrumentation within the facility ranges from computer related components to analog input/output cards, digital input and output cards, PLC processors, network cards, network
cabling, fibre optics, power supplies, relays, and backup power (UPS). For the continued ongoing success with the computer architecture, these components will need to be
replaced as needed.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
176
Year: 2028
Instrumentation Replacement (2028) Priority
CAP-28-0036 Score:
64.80
28N.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the Water Treatment Process which can affect the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Instrumentation failure could be a risk to health and safety and the delivery
the public or Staff if the project does not of drinking water to the customer
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Failure of a significant instrument could reduce water treatment production.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not a relevant factor for
address needs impacted by climate this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
177
Year: 2028
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Technical
Priority
Assessment of Turf Condition and CAP-28-0027 Score:
59.10
Restoration
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Owen Sound Soccer Complex sportsfield turf (and supporting soil structure) are a critical operating component that support the programmed use of the fields. The turf
assessment will investigate current turf health through sampling and testing to determine soil texture, fertility, soil compaction (G-max and rotation friction testing, spatially defined),
soil moisture retention content, turf health and density. A comprehensive report will be generated outlining investigative findings, recommended remediation strategy, budget
implications and timing of work. As part of the turf assessment, a cost estimate will be generated to quantify and prioritize the scope of work to be performed. Turf
improvements based on a prioritized list of upgrade requirements will be carried that can be accommodated within the project budget envelope. Any outstanding
recommended turf improvements not performed within the current budget envelope will be costed and used to inform future capital needs.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Donations $25,000.00
Total $50,000.00
178
Year: 2028
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Technical
Priority
Assessment of Turf Condition and CAP-28-0027 Score:
59.10
Restoration
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Owen Sound Minor Soccer Association is a long standing community
impacted by the project? partner that provides a soccer facility in OS to play organized soccer at
recreational and competitive levels supporting programs for youth and
adults.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Turf health (soil composition) is a critical component that support safe use
the public or Staff if the project does not of programmed sportsfields.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 Turf health is a key component in maintaining field health and supports safe
legislative/regulatory compliance? play.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Non-essential service with an asset component that requires specific
replacement in the asset management operating parameters to support good plant/soil health to support organized
plan? field play.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiency will be maintained with work to sustain playing field
proceed), what will be the impact on turf (soil).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Goal of work is to sustain turf (soil) in healthy state (living plant).
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintain existing soccer facility that supports Owen Sound Minor Soccer
diversity and inclusion initiatives? Association programming.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 A healthy turf (and supporting soil environment) produce healthy field
the asset improved? conditions.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 Supports Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships, Safe
Result in the Strategic Plan? City
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Project developed in collaboration with Owen Sound Minor Soccer
public engagement? Association.
179
Year: 2028
Parks - Duncan McLellan Diamonds -
Priority
Facility Design and Construction CAP-26-0044 Score:
58.90
25D.51
Rationale Master Plan - Recreation, Parks and Facilities Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
25D.51
Duncan McLellan Park is the City's marquee ball park with 3 class A diamonds (Major, North and South Diamond). The existing ball diamonds were constructed over 30 years ago
on a known landfill site. Over time, the field grade has settled differentially resulting in undulations in the outfield. In addition, site conditions have made it difficult to maintain turf-
grass on portions of the outfield, created inconsistent playing conditions and safety concerns. The north and south diamonds are lit using 60+ 1000W incandescent bulb which are
inefficient and have high utility costs (Major Diamond lights have been converted to LED). The infield material used for the diamonds is a silt-based pond sand mix, which presents
many operational challenges: 1) becomes saturated when wet and slow to dry out; and 2) becomes powdery when dry, generating a lot of dust that migrates to adjacent residential
neighbourhoods.
This project is to assess the existing field conditions and diamond assets in order to define an exact scope of work to be undertaken at all three Duncan McLellan diamonds (Major,
North and South diamond).
Design services will be procured to define the scope of work for all three diamonds and a cost estimate will be established for the proposed scope of work to support the preparation
of tender packages. This will include engagement with user groups and a detailed project scope would be brought forward to Committee.
The construction of the three diamonds will be phased over three years between 2029 and 2030 (1 diamond per year) to minimize the impact of the construction on the user groups
that rely on the diamonds. The 2029 through 2030 capital funding supports the construction of the three diamonds at Duncan McLellan and will be phased over the three years (1
diamond per year) to minimize the impact of the construction on the user groups that rely on these diamonds. Phasing of the diamond construction will be established during the
design stage of the project. The expected scope of work may include the following: Re-grade the outfield to a level playing surface; Repair/replace sections of outfield fence as
required when grading is complete; Import topsoil to create improved soil conditions for turf grass establishment; Replace the infield material with appropriate granite based sand
material and regrade; Replace existing incandescent light fixtures with LED on existing concrete poles; Replace dugouts as required.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028 2029 2030
Consulting including Design &
$100,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $320,000.00 $320,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $320,000.00 $320,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $740,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
180
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $570,000.00
Reserves $170,000.00
Total $740,000.00
181
Year: 2028
Parks - Duncan McLellan Diamonds -
Priority
Facility Design and Construction CAP-26-0044 Score:
58.90
25D.51
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 It is estimated approximately 6,000 users enjoy the north Diamond at
impacted by the project? Duncan McLellan Park annually
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 no known legislative requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Non-essential service that requires maintenance to prevent failure and
replacement in the asset management mitigate risk.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiency will be gained.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 Meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no environmental impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintains an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The improved playing field will improve the aesthetic value of the space
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 City Building - revitalization of aging multi-field diamond that supports
Result in the Strategic Plan? recreational use.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 Has been mentioned informally through public engagements.
public engagement?
182
Year: 2028
Parks - Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade -
Priority
HP Rainbow Bridge (OSIM Structure CAP-26-0069 Score:
38.50
#21) 26D.17
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The City of Owen Sound is required to conduct Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) inspections of bridges/culverts with a span greater than 3 metres on a biannual basis to
estimate rehabilitation needs and costs. Parks & Open Spaces has a number of pedestrian oriented bridges/culverts within its parks that meet the span threshold and are captured
as part of the citywide bridge/culvert OSIM inspection program. An OSIM inspection was carried out in the summer of 2022 and identified repair/re habilitation work that needs to be
undertaken at the Rainbow Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #21) in Harrison Park.
This capital project captures the engineering services required to define the recommended repair/rehabilitation work to be performed on the pedestrian bridge and outlines the time
frame in which the work should be undertaken.
Urgent
1. replace missing barrier railing pickets
1-5 Years
1. Sandblast and repaint steel components:
a. Abutment Bearings
b. Beams (diaphrams, floor and stringers)
c. Bottom Chord Trusses/Arches
In the past, the City has engaged Grey County staff to undertake bridge work and this will be explored as part of this project.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $70,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $80,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
183
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $80,000.00
Total $80,000.00
184
Year: 2028
Parks - Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade -
Priority
HP Rainbow Bridge (OSIM Structure CAP-26-0069 Score:
38.50
#21) 26D.17
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 The activity is maintenance that can reasonably be deferred because the
replacement in the asset management asset is currently functioning as intended.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
185
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - East
Priority
Harbour Boat Launch Bridge (OSIM Score:
40.50
Structure #26) 28D.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair/rehabilitation work that needs to be undertaken at the East Harbour Boat Launch Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #26).
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$5,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $49,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $54,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $54,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $54,000.00
Total $54,000.00
186
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - East
Priority
Harbour Boat Launch Bridge (OSIM Score:
40.50
Structure #26) 28D.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
187
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - Harrison
Priority
Park Pedestrian Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0030 Score:
40.50
Structure #22) 28D.20
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair/rehabilitation work that needs to be undertaken at the Weathered Steel Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #22) in Harrison Park at the northern end of the channel.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $34,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $44,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $44,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $44,000.00
Total $44,000.00
188
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - Harrison
Priority
Park Pedestrian Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0030 Score:
40.50
Structure #22) 28D.20
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
189
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - Harrison
Priority
Park South Mile Drive Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0031 Score:
40.50
Structure #24) 28D.9
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair/rehabilitation work that needs to be undertaken at the South Mile Drive Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #24) in Harrison Park.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $87,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $97,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $97,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $97,000.00
Total $97,000.00
190
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - Harrison
Priority
Park South Mile Drive Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0031 Score:
40.50
Structure #24) 28D.9
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
191
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - HP
Priority
North Mile Drive Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0029 Score:
40.50
Structure #23) 28D.19
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair/rehabilitation work that needs to be undertaken at the North Mile Drive Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #23) in Harrison Park.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $98,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $113,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $113,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $113,000.00
Total $113,000.00
192
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade - HP
Priority
North Mile Drive Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0029 Score:
40.50
Structure #23) 28D.19
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project supports core service delivery
public engagement?
193
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade -
Priority
Pottawatomi River Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0032 Score:
40.50
Structure #06) 28D.8
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair/rehabilitation work that needs to be undertaken at the Pottawatomi River Pedestrian Bridge (Structure #06) in Kelso Beach at Nawash Park.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$2,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $32,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $34,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $34,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $34,000.00
Total $34,000.00
194
Year: 2028
Pedestrian Bridge Upgrade -
Priority
Pottawatomi River Bridge (OSIM CAP-28-0032 Score:
40.50
Structure #06) 28D.8
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The project is required to continue to be compliant
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure and low consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
195
Year: 2028
Playground Replacement - Alexandra Priority
CAP-28-0033 Score:
53.50
Park
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the playground at Alexandra Park is required. The existing play structure has exceeded its useful life. The new playground will be created to meet the current
standards as set out within CSA Z614:20, Children's Playground Equipment and Surfacing. The new playground will also include design elements that support accessibility that
comply with AODA requirements associated with public spaces.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $246,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $246,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $246,000.00
Total $246,000.00
196
Year: 2028
Playground Replacement - Alexandra Priority
CAP-28-0033 Score:
53.50
Park
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a high probability of failure and high consequences.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project meet 3 of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public. The playground project
public engagement? layout will be brought forward to the Grey County Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their input.
197
Year: 2028
Police Station Elevator Upgrades or Priority
CAP-28-0023 Score:
23.40
Replacement 28J.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $471,100.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Removal and replacement of the existing elevator.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $225,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $225,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $225,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $225,000.00
Total $225,000.00
198
Year: 2028
Police Station Elevator Upgrades or Priority
CAP-28-0023 Score:
23.40
Replacement 28J.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The use of the elevator is limited to internal staff or invited guests.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and a low consequence as
replacement in the asset management accommodations can be made during an outage.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project through reduced maintenance costs and fewer outages..
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space, particularly for the Police
diversity and inclusion initiatives? Services boardroom
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery by allowing access to areas of
Result in the Strategic Plan? the facility.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback particularly around
public engagement? the lack of speed of the elevator.
199
Year: 2028
Priority
Projectors 28A.1 CAP-28-0018 Score:
24.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $16,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of current Laser Projector has been in use since 2017 and will be well beyond it normal replacement cycle of 5 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $16,000.00
Contingency
Total $16,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $16,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $16,000.00
Total $16,000.00
200
Year: 2028
Priority
Projectors 28A.1 CAP-28-0018 Score:
24.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public at The Bayshore Community
diversity and inclusion initiatives? Centre
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery (Facility Booking)
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
201
Year: 2028
Reconstruction of 3rd Ave E/GR 15 - Priority
CAP-28-0010 Score:
56.30
10th St E to 12th St E - Phase 1 28P.7
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 years (roads) - 100 years (mains and services) Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This is the first phase of a proposed three phase project that involves reconstructing 3rd Avenue East from 10th Street East to 18th Street East. The first phase is the 10th Street
East to 12th Street East segment. This project will be coordinated in conjunction with the County of Grey Road reconstruction. This project will include reconstruction of 3rd Avenue
East roadway, replacing all the failing municipal underground infrastructure and fully reconstructing curbs/gutters and sidewalks.
The costs shown are for City related costs only. This includes watermain, sanitary sewer, sidewalk replacement, existing storm sewer replacement or new construction water
replacement (cost shared by City and County) and boulevard landscaping including planting new trees. Not included are the County's costs such as road reconstruction, curb and
gutter replacement, partial stormwater cost.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028 2029 2030
Consulting including Design &
$280,000.00 $280,000.00 $15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $2,500,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $200,000.00
Total $300,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $20,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $3,320,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
OCIF Formula $668,000.00
Water Rates $1,326,000.00
Waste Water Rates $1,326,000.00
Total $3,320,000.00
202
Year: 2028
Reconstruction of 3rd Ave E/GR 15 - Priority
CAP-28-0010 Score:
56.30
10th St E to 12th St E - Phase 1 28P.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 It is estimated that 5,000 to 9,999 people will be directly impacted as a
impacted by the project? result of this project. This will impact pedestrian and vehicular traffic on a
collector road servicing a school.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries may result if this project does not proceed due to trip hazards.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 All the infrastructure under the road is currently past its life expectancy and
replacement in the asset management is in need of replacement.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Improvements on the underground infrastructure and road will greatly
proceed), what will be the impact on reduce the amount of staff time and operational costs, as well we reduce
operational performance? Comment on liability due to flooding in the area
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 This project is partially funded by OCIF (less than 50%), plus a partnership
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling cost component with Grey County.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain existing public infrastructure.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 This project will look at improving the aesthetic value of the road street
the asset improved? scape by including boulevard trees where appropriate and feasible.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 Has been mentioned informally through public comments on the condition
public engagement? of the road.
203
Year: 2028
Replacement 28th Avenue East
Priority
Culverts (OS-17) - north of 20th St E CAP-28-0009 Score:
32.10
28P.8
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $1,345,794.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the 28th Ave East Culverts (OS-17) located approximately 320m north of 20th Street East. This culvert is a 0.9m double barrel culvert crossing that was
constructed in 1965.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028 2029 2030
Consulting including Design &
$70,000.00 $45,000.00 $10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $10,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $600,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $650,000.00 $10,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $740,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $690,000.00
Reserves $50,000.00
Total $740,000.00
204
Year: 2028
Replacement 28th Avenue East
Priority
Culverts (OS-17) - north of 20th St E CAP-28-0009 Score:
32.10
28P.8
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 It is expected that approximately 1,500 motorists would be affected by this
impacted by the project? construction
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Continued structural deterioration resulting in an uneven driving surface
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The replacement will meet minimum maintenance legislation requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The culverts are showing signs of deterioration; no load restrictions are yet
replacement in the asset management applied to these culverts
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 This project may be eligible for rebates in the future.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
205
Year: 2028
Replacement of Meeting Room Priority
CAP-28-0017 Score:
44.60
Conferencing Equipment 28A.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $15,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of meeting room conferencing equipment which was acquired in 2021 and will be well beyond it normal replacement cycle of 5 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $15,000.00
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
206
Year: 2028
Replacement of Meeting Room Priority
CAP-28-0017 Score:
44.60
Conferencing Equipment 28A.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on through the effect use of remote meetings reduced travel time and
operational performance? Comment on increased ability to meet with out those restrictions.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will slightly improve the natural environment and/or prevent
address needs impacted by climate further detriment through the reduction of travel.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Project supports ability of public to interact with staff without barriers.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan by improving
Result in the Strategic Plan? operational effectiveness.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
207
Year: 2028
Retaining Wall Repair/ Replacement -
Priority
10th St W - Upper North Side - RW-3B CAP-28-0008 Score:
43.20
(Connecting Link) 28P.9
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $1,547,663.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Investigate the stability of the retaining wall and any sections of the retaining wall that may need to be replaced and repaired. Followed by construction to repair and replace.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028 2029 2030
Consulting including Design &
$70,000.00 $45,000.00 $15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $10,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $550,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $600,000.00 $15,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $695,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $95,000.00
Grant $600,000.00
Total $695,000.00
208
Year: 2028
Retaining Wall Repair/ Replacement -
Priority
10th St W - Upper North Side - RW-3B CAP-28-0008 Score:
43.20
(Connecting Link) 28P.9
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 It is expected that over 10,000 motorists will be impacted as a result of this
impacted by the project? project
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Without further investigation of the causes of this failure the retaining wall
the public or Staff if the project does not may tip or not adequately support the slope behind it
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The replacement will meet minimum maintenance legislation requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The retaining wall is showing signs of movement but should be addressed
replacement in the asset management in a timely manner to prevent additional costs
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 This project may be eligible for rebates / funding through Connecting Link
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling Funding
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
209
Year: 2028
Software Transformation - Mobile Priority
CAP-28-0019 Score:
44.50
Technology + AVL 28A.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 07/10/2026 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Extend and enhance City's Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system to assist in the day to day management of city vehicles, automatically collect data, creating metrics and assist
in managing risk.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $52,800.00
Contingency
Total $52,800.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $52,800.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $52,800.00
Total $52,800.00
210
Year: 2028
Software Transformation - Mobile Priority
CAP-28-0019 Score:
44.50
Technology + AVL 28A.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Direct impact will be City staff from various departments; however, this
impacted by the project? project will also affect delivery of all it services to staff and Citizens
(>10,000 people indirectly impacted)
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No Impact on Health an Safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This is an enhancement to an existing asset in order to generate
replacement in the asset management operational improvements.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both Staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - KR3 Supports an objective of the Strategic Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
211
Year: 2028
Transportation Master Plan Update Priority
CAP-28-0013 Score:
45.50
28P.4
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $404,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Significant refresh/major updating of the existing Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which will be 18 years old in 2028
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
$300,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $300,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $300,000.00
Total $300,000.00
212
Year: 2028
Transportation Master Plan Update Priority
CAP-28-0013 Score:
45.50
28P.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This projects affects the entire City, therefore over 10,000 people will be
impacted by the project? directly impacted as a result of this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 This is a difficult project to classify as it relates to this category. It is
the public or Staff if the project does not assumed that it will have a positive impact on public health and safety but
proceed? this is difficult to quantify.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 There is no immediate legislated requirement but legislation may future
legislative/regulatory compliance? legislation or best management practices may support or require multiple
recommendations in an updated TMP.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This project could recommend enhancements to existing assets.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of this
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project has confirmed grant funding greater than 66%.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will slightly improve the natural environment or prevent further
address needs impacted by climate detriment by identifying opportunities for active transportation and more
change? efficient use of existing transportation infrastructure.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains existing public spaces.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted assets.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The project, or aspects of it, have been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
213
Year: 2028
Video Surveillance System Priority
CAP-28-0020 Score:
41.00
Replacement 28A.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $77,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the City's Video Surveillance System which is used in various City facilities.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $70,000.00
Contingency
Total $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $70,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Reserves $70,000.00
Total $70,000.00
214
Year: 2028
Video Surveillance System Priority
CAP-28-0020 Score:
41.00
Replacement 28A.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Serious injuries or death may result if the project does not proceed. City
the public or Staff if the project does not Video Surveillance System is core to ensure the health and safety of staff in
proceed? their work environment. Failure to replace existing equipment would
remove this tool.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public at the Bayshore Community
diversity and inclusion initiatives? Centre and JMRRC.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
215
Year: 2028
WWTP Instrumentation/SCADA (2028) Priority
CAP-27-0061 Score:
66.00
27O.2
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of electrical and SCADA equipment including PLC's, computers, software upgrades, and various instrumentation and networking equipment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $150,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2028
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
216
Year: 2028
WWTP Instrumentation/SCADA (2028) Priority
CAP-27-0061 Score:
66.00
27O.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This can affect the wastewater treatment train which affects the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 PLC failure poses a considerable risk to proper sewage treatment
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 PLC failure would result in the plant control system "Crashing" and sewage
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment could partially or entirely cease, (There are alarms in place to
operational performance? Comment on alert the operators of this outcome)
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through wastewater rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not as relevant a factor
address needs impacted by climate for this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 No adverse affect
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
217
Year: 2028
IT - Fire Record Management System Priority
CAP-26-0064 Score:
44.50
26A.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 to 15 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
26A.5 In 2022, the City completed an Information Technology (IT) Needs Assessment to evaluate core systems in alignment with strategic and legislative requirements. The
assessment aimed to determine which systems meet current and future needs, enhance service delivery, improve operational efficiency, and strengthen integration across City
platforms. The final report established a long-term solution architecture that prioritizes system replacements to support these goals.
This project proposes the implementation of a consolidated Fire Record Management System for Owen Sound Fire and Emergency Services. The new system will streamline data
management, improve integration with other City systems, and support more efficient service delivery.
The replacement system will:
Centralize Data Management – Consolidate all fire-related records in a single platform to reduce discrepancies, ensure data accuracy, and enhance reporting reliability.
Improve Operational Efficiency – Streamline workflows, reduce manual data entry, and enable personnel to focus on core emergency response and safety responsibilities.
Ensure Regulatory Compliance – Meet current reporting and record-keeping standards through enhanced and automated reporting capabilities.
Enhance System Integration – Seamlessly integrate with key systems such as CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch), HRIS/Payroll, and mobile notification platforms.
Simplify Training and Support – Provide a unified, user-friendly system that simplifies onboarding, training, and ongoing support for all users.
Cash Flow Projection: 2028
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $45,000.00
Contingency
Total $45,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2027 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget: $26,000.00
Total Project Budget: $45,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/03/2028
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/29/2028
Funding Sources:
218
Reserves $45,000.00
Total $45,000.00
219
Year: 2028
IT - Fire Record Management System Priority
CAP-26-0064 Score:
44.50
26A.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Direct impact will be City staff from various departments; however, this
impacted by the project? project will also affect delivery of all it services to staff and Citizens
(>10,000 people indirectly impacted)
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No Impact on Health an Safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Completion will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This is an enhancement to an existing asset in order to generate
replacement in the asset management operational improvements.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both Staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - KR3 Supports an objective of the Strategic Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
220
20299
Capital
Detail Sheets
221
Year: 2029
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-29-0008 Score:
81.30
(2029) 29P.3
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces including the replacement or rehabilitation of concrete structures associated with asphalt resurfacing including catch basins,
maintenance structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering $15,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $605,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases $80,000.00
Contingency
Total $700,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $700,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $700,000.00
Total $700,000.00
222
Year: 2029
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-29-0008 Score:
81.30
(2029) 29P.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Roads being resurfaced will improve local and commuter traffic throughout
impacted by the project? the City and generally benefits all road users in the City.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Injuries may result if roads are not resurfaced from drivers or cyclists
the public or Staff if the project does not avoiding potholes or other deficiencies in the road
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is included in the Asset Management Plan. Failure to seal road ways
replacement in the asset management can impact infrastructure under the road decreasing the life of multiple
plan? assets
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Road resurfacing will reduce operation costs associated with the road
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance (eg repairing pot holes).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 This is funded by Federal Gas Tax.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Minor positive impact will be realized from this project due to improved
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Some sidewalk replacement and improved cycling (active transportation
diversity and inclusion initiatives? enhancements).
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 This project is identified in the strategic plan to improve road conditions
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Road resurfacing has been requested multiple times through public
public engagement? engagement
223
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) - Priority
CAP-29-0002 Score:
31.60
Accessibility Upgrades 27M.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 - 50 years Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $50,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Improve on-site accessible parking and access throughout the main floor of the building.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
224
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) - Priority
CAP-29-0002 Score:
31.60
Accessibility Upgrades 27M.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 The facility receives between 2,500 and 4,999 visitors annually.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 There are threshold and inadequate turning radius which can restrict
the public or Staff if the project does not movement of accessible devices, leading to potential accidents.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Although these features are not triggered until a building permit has been
legislative/regulatory compliance? obtained, the proposed work will move the facility towards current OBC
standards.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Enhancement to an existing asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for accessibility grant funding but will not be
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling confirmed until closer to the time.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 This project will build on previous accessibility improvements at this facility.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 The project may have a negative impact on the aesthetic value from a
the asset improved? heritage standpoint due to the addition of asphalt or replacement of building
features.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 Project is not directly aligned to the strategic plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The need for improved accessibility has been noted through informal
public engagement? feedback.
225
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) - West Priority
CAP-29-0004 Score:
21.40
Roof Structural Repairs 29M.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
To complete an intrusive assessment of the current structure to determine the proposed repair. Staff have allocated funds in the event that an immediate repair is required.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$5,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
226
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) - West Priority
CAP-29-0004 Score:
21.40
Roof Structural Repairs 29M.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 2,500 to 4,999.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There are no current health and safety concerns in its current condition.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There are no known legislative or regulatory compliance issues at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure, however, there is a moderate
replacement in the asset management consequence as this is the accessible entrance to the facility.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There is little to no impact on current operations/
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little to no impact on the environment at this time.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The structural integrity of this roof section will allow for the maintenance of
diversity and inclusion initiatives? this space.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The sagging is negligible at this time.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by members of the public.
public engagement?
227
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) Side Priority
CAP-29-0003 Score:
12.20
Porch Upgrades 27M.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Renovation can allow for the expansion of the museums display space or can be utilized to support events in the side/back yard of the facility
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $90,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Grant $30,000.00
Tax Levy $60,000.00
Total $90,000.00
228
Year: 2029
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) Side Priority
CAP-29-0003 Score:
12.20
Porch Upgrades 27M.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 It is anticipated that between 2,500 and 4,999 visit the facility annually and
impacted by the project? will be able to access the renovated space.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The renovation of this space has no health and safety impact as it is not
the public or Staff if the project does not regularly accessed by staff or patrons of the facility.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This is an enhancement to an existing asset and will require ongoing
replacement in the asset management investment.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 0 The project will require additional operational resources through additional
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance and cleaning.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no known partnership or grant available for this project at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling City and BBM staff will work towards finding third-party funding for this
feasibility, Technology/resources. project.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved? The project will enhance the usability of an existing space.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the delivery of core services.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
229
Year: 2029
Centennial Tower - Pathway Upgrade Priority
CAP-29-0049 Score:
43.30
(Parking Lot to Tower Platform)
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The existing 210 metre pathway that once connected the Centennial Tower parking lot to the observation deck of the tower is in poor condition or missing with no clear path of travel
evident. A pathway will need to be established that supports pedestrian access to the deck that meets accessibility requirements. A portion of the pedestrian route (from the newly
installed p-gate off of 9th Ave. E.) will be upgraded to support vehicular access to the tower platform to support operation and maintenance activities. The existing railing along
portions of the pathway route are well beyond their useful life and will need to be replaced. The scope of work of this project is broken into two phases: Phase 1) - Design: Obtain
services of a design consultant to inventory the existing context (topographic survey) and generate a layout plan for the trail alignment, accessibility requirements and associated
design components (signage, railings). A construction cost estimate will be generated based on the defined required scope of work. Committee approval of the design work will be
sought. A tender ready construction package will be created (contract drawings, specifications, tender documentation) based on the endorsed scope of work. Phase 2) -
Construction: Tender the scope of work and oversee the construction of the new pathway and related components.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$35,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $110,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $145,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $145,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $145,000.00
Total $145,000.00
230
Year: 2029
Centennial Tower - Pathway Upgrade Priority
CAP-29-0049 Score:
43.30
(Parking Lot to Tower Platform)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Centennial Tower primary pedestrian and O&M access route.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Project support the establishment of an accessible pedestrian route to the
the public or Staff if the project does not tower platform, re-establishes railings along edge of steep banks and
proceed? supports maintenance vehicle access.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Project will move pathway toward AODA compliance and mitigate risk to the
legislative/regulatory compliance? city.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Establishes formal pathway route to popular landmark (Centennial Tower).
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiency with the establishment
proceed), what will be the impact on of a formal pathway.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintains existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
231
Year: 2029
Priority
Centennial Tower Rehabilitation CAP-29-0050 Score:
39.30
Rationale Committee / Council Request Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $3.5M -2054 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves the rehabilitation of Centennial Tower to address structural deterioration—specifically severe corrosion and section loss in the steel panels—identified in the
2018 and 2024 engineering assessments. Based on a visual-only inspection by GEI Consultants, the estimated $271,795 ($265,000 in staff summary) is intended to cover structural
steel and concrete repairs, corrosion removal, and protective recoating. These measures aim to stabilize the structure, prevent further degradation, and extend the asset's life by
approximately 25 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $271,795.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $271,795.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $271,795.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $271,795.00
Total $271,795.00
232
Year: 2029
Priority
Centennial Tower Rehabilitation CAP-29-0050 Score:
39.30
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people directly impacted
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 If the project does not proceed, continued deterioration of structural steel
the public or Staff if the project does not and concrete elements presents an ongoing risk to public and staff safety.
proceed? Progressive structural degradation could result in falling materials, localized
structural failure, or trip and fall hazards, which may cause injuries requiring
medical attention. Rehabilitation is required to eliminate these risks prior to
any future public use of the structure.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There are no known statutory orders or regulatory requirements mandating
legislative/regulatory compliance? the rehabilitation of the structure at this time.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The Centennial Tower is an existing City-owned asset that provides a non-
replacement in the asset management essential service and is currently closed due to identified structural
plan? deterioration. The project directly aligns with asset management principles
by addressing lifecycle renewal of an aging asset rather than introducing a
new asset or enhancement.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 The Centennial Tower is currently closed, resulting in minor ongoing
proceed), what will be the impact on operational effort related to monitoring closures, barriers, and public safety.
operational performance? Comment on Rehabilitation of the structure would modestly improve operational
any impact on operating costs, staff time efficiency by reducing the need for ad-hoc risk management and condition
and maintenance. monitoring associated with deterioration. However, as the tower provides a
non-essential service, the project is not expected to result in significant
operational savings.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project meets two of the four project readiness resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling Internal staff resources and technical capacity are available, and the
feasibility, Technology/resources. required systems, tools, and delivery methods for a rehabilitation project of
this nature are already in place. However, scheduling feasibility will be
determined following the completion of a comprehensive, facility-specific
asset management program and capital prioritization by Council.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 The project does not directly address climate change mitigation or
address needs impacted by climate adaptation; however, rehabilitating the existing Centennial Tower structure
change? will extend the useful life of the asset and prevent the environmental
impacts associated with demolition and full replacement. By maintaining
and reusing existing materials, the project slightly reduces waste and
embodied carbon, thereby preventing further environmental detriment.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project supports the maintenance of an existing publicly accessible
diversity and inclusion initiatives? municipal landmark that contributes to community identity and tourism.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The central tower and capital detailing display strong aesthetic value
the asset improved? through their proportions, craftsmanship, and contribution to the building’s
overall architectural design. As prominent and stylistically consistent
elements, they enhance visual interest, reinforce compositional hierarchy,
and contribute to the building’s landmark presence.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports the Strategic Plan priority of Celebrating and
Result in the Strategic Plan? Embracing Culture by preserving a significant municipal landmark that
contributes to community identity, heritage, and tourism.
233
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The rehabilitation of the Centennial Tower has been mentioned informally
public engagement? by members of the public due to the visibility of the closure and the tower’s
role as a local landmark.
234
Year: 2029
Confined Space Entry Equipment for Priority
CAP-29-0058 Score:
70.40
Water Services 29N.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The City Water and Wastewater departments have confined space entry equipment, including tripod, winch, harnesses, and associated equipment. This equipment is required in
order to safely enter confined spaces in accordance with the regulations.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $10,000.00
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
235
Year: 2029
Confined Space Entry Equipment for Priority
CAP-29-0058 Score:
70.40
Water Services 29N.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Water and Wastewater Staff
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Confined Space Entry, done improperly, with improper equipment, kills a
the public or Staff if the project does not number of people in Ontario yearly.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Occupational Health and Safety Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Identified in Asset Management Plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Confined Space Entries will not be possible.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Not Applicable
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 Not Applicable
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not Applicable
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
236
Year: 2029
Culvert Repair/Rehabilitation- 9th Priority
CAP-29-0007 Score:
38.30
Avenue East - 3000 Block 29P.5
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $675,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Repair culvert pipe segments which are separated/misaligned as well as some concrete repairs, removal and clearing of vegetation from the inlets and outlets.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$30,000.00 $20,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $225,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $35,000.00 $250,000.00 $5,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $290,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $290,000.00
Total $290,000.00
237
Year: 2029
Culvert Repair/Rehabilitation- 9th Priority
CAP-29-0007 Score:
38.30
Avenue East - 3000 Block 29P.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 It is estimated that 2,500 to 4,999 people will be directly affected as a result
impacted by the project? of this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This is an enhancement to an existing asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of this project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for future grant funding opportunities.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will moderately improve the natural environment and prevent
address needs impacted by climate further detriment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an objective of the strategic plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
238
Year: 2029
Design for TTAG/Tourism/OSNGUPL
Priority
Shared Customer Service Area and CAP-29-0001 Score:
31.40
Entrance 27M.4
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Celebrating and Embracing Culture Department: Art Gallery
Estimated Useful Life (years): 100 Staff Contact: Aidan Ware
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
To commence the detailed design process and to finalize estimated construction costs once other reports are finalized (e.g. the business case approved for the opportunity to
reorganize the Library, Tourism and TTAG entrance to create a shared reception/customer service area.
The Service Review project (3 a 3) (Develop a business case that analyzes the opportunity to reorganize the Library, Tourism and TTAG entrance to create a shared
reception/customer service area) will also potentially inform initial work required to create the shared reception/entrance between the TOM and Library.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$500,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $500,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $500,000.00
Total $500,000.00
239
Year: 2029
Design for TTAG/Tourism/OSNGUPL
Priority
Shared Customer Service Area and CAP-29-0001 Score:
31.40
Entrance 27M.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Over 10,000 users visit the Art Gallery annually and over 150,000 for the
impacted by the project? Library. These users will be impacted by increased programming
opportunities.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no direct impact on health and safety on the need for an expanded
the public or Staff if the project does not facility.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislative/regulatory requirement determining the need of an
legislative/regulatory compliance? expanded facility.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a medium-to-high probability and consequence of failure when
replacement in the asset management considering the current storage conditions of the existing building.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 0 The project may require additional operational resources or will result in a
proceed), what will be the impact on savings. This will be highlighted in the Service Review report.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 There are no confirmed third party funding sources for the project, however
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling the feasibility study will provide further information on this.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Environmental impacts cannot be determined at this time.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 The addition of programmable space will allow for programming associated
diversity and inclusion initiatives? with diversity and inclusion to be further developed by Art Gallery staff.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 With the exception of the storage component of the facility, there are no
the asset improved? failures of the building that must be addressed at this time.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facilities are provided for the services being delivered by the City.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 The concept of an expansion and a shared entrance has undergone
public engagement? significant public consultation in the past.
240
Year: 2029
Fire - Water Rescue - Ice Commander Priority
CAP-29-0013 Score:
62.80
Suits 29U.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Ice Commander suit replacement -planning to replace 3 at a time at a cost of approximately $1500 each.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $5,200.00
Contingency
Total $5,200.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $5,200.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $5,200.00
Total $5,200.00
241
Year: 2029
Fire - Water Rescue - Ice Commander Priority
CAP-29-0013 Score:
62.80
Suits 29U.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Direct users of suits are Firefighters. The rescue equipment serves all
impacted by the project? residents and visitors to Owen Sound.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Injury or death to First Responders needing the equipment.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Legislated to be replaced every ten years as Firefighter PPE.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Regular scheduled replacement of In-service equipment.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Suits require minimal maintenance and have minimal impact on staff time to
proceed), what will be the impact on repair or maintain.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No funding or grants available at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 5 Climate Change has created more extremes in weather. This has an
address needs impacted by climate impact to ice rescue as the ice is not as stable for the duration of the winter.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No value to diversity
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Limited value to the "look" of the suits. New assets may be a brighter
the asset improved? colour.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Water Rescue services are a core service of the Fire Department. The
Result in the Strategic Plan? Strategic Plan identifies "Safe City" as a priority.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No public engagement
public engagement?
242
Year: 2029
Fire - Water Rescue - Inflatable Life Priority
CAP-29-0014 Score:
73.10
Raft 29U.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Inflatable Life Raft which will be at end of life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $9,500.00
Contingency
Total $9,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $9,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $9,500.00
Total $9,500.00
243
Year: 2029
Fire - Water Rescue - Inflatable Life Priority
CAP-29-0014 Score:
73.10
Raft 29U.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Water Rescue services are provided to a large area of Georgian Bay and
impacted by the project? the inland waterways.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Life Raft is paramount to the Health and Safety of First Responders while
the public or Staff if the project does not on the water. Similar to life jackets the life raft is a requirement of vessel
proceed? operation.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Legislated as a requirement of Transport Canada Life Saving Equipment
legislative/regulatory compliance? Regulations C.R.C., c. 1436
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 It is identified in the plan on a 25 year replacement schedule.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Possible fines for non Compliance with Federal Regulations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 No known external funding sources.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Minimal value to climate change.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Life Saving Equipment
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 Minimal value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No formal Public Engagement process.
public engagement?
244
Year: 2029
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-29-0011 Score:
65.20
Replacement 29U.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This is a multi-year, recurring annual project (every year replacement of Bunker Gear is required).
2029 - Assets requiring replacement include:
6 x bunker gear replacements
2 x helmet replacements
1 x balaclava replacement
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $42,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $42,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $42,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Reserves $42,000.00
Total $42,000.00
245
Year: 2029
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-29-0011 Score:
65.20
Replacement 29U.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 26 Suppression Firefighters & 5 support personnel
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 The utmost highest priority is that we provide adequate and appropriate
the public or Staff if the project does not PPE to protect our Firefighters.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Failure of Asset can result in critical injury.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of the asset increases reliability of operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Scheduled replacement of the pooled asset includes funding for future PPE
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacement of diversity recruitment opportunities.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Replacement of equipment with newer, more modern equipment will greatly
the asset improved? improve aesthetic value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports Core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
246
Year: 2029
Fire Services Thermal Imaging Priority
CAP-29-0012 Score:
53.00
Cameras 29U.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Thermal Imaging Cameras (TIC)past end of life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $15,000.00
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
247
Year: 2029
Fire Services Thermal Imaging Priority
CAP-29-0012 Score:
53.00
Cameras 29U.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Firefighters are the end user of the Asset.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Failure of the asset would be directly detrimental to the safety of staff.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Project is required to continue to be compliant - NFPA 1801 - 10 year
legislative/regulatory compliance? replacement.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 High consequence of failure.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness through new
proceed), what will be the impact on technology.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded through Fire Equipment Reserve.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
248
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery - GIS Plots Priority
CAP-26-0039 Score:
36.50
25D.10
Rationale Master Plan - Greenwood Cemetery Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
25D.10 Recommendation 4.2.8 of the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan says: Implement a GIS Mapping Program of all Interment Sites at Greenwood Cemetery Compatible with
Existing IT Resources
Cemeteries in Ontario are required to make available a public list of interment sites and occupants who have been interred for 30 years or more. In its most basic form, this record
can be ink and paper and be kept at the Cemetery, and made available upon request. The Cemetery receives frequent calls and visits to the administration office requesting
interment site information for relatives, friends, and significant persons. Implementing a GIS module for the Cemetery online and at the administration office would allow the public
self serve access to relevant information about interment sites, and reduce the demand on the Parks and Cemetery Administration Coordinator, allowing them to focus on core
functions.
This recommendation would be implemented in several phases:
a) Via a capital request to the City’s capital program in a future budget year, recruit the services of a geomatics student to collect lot and monument information including GPS
coordinates, photos and location;
b) Upload the data to the City’s existing GIS database in coordination with Corporate Services and the GIS Technologist for publication online;
c) Market and promote the new service via the City’s website;
d) Consider the implementation of a kiosk with the GIS module available at the Greenwood Cemetery office;
e) Annually, upload data to conform with the 30 year rolling publication rule, such that the information available to the public is current to 30 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Reserves $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
249
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery - GIS Plots Priority
CAP-26-0039 Score:
36.50
25D.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Would impact thousands of people
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Completion will gain full legislative compliance with Funeral Burial and
legislative/regulatory compliance? Cremation Services Act
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Relates to an existing asset and the generation of a GIS database.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved by Parks & Cemetery staff having
proceed), what will be the impact on to spend less time manually looking up each request
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Meets two resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Project will be free for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project is identified as a strategic priority outside of the strategic plan -
Result in the Strategic Plan? Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 5 Has received the highest number of formal requests through public
public engagement? engagement.
250
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery - Natural
Priority
Burials Area Landscape Construction CAP-26-0127 Score:
22.40
22D.75
Rationale Master Plan - Greenwood Cemetery Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
22D.75 In the Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan, a natural burials area was one of the focuses of the public input received. The updated master plan included a recommendation to
establish a natural burials option and an area was selected. A landscape design for this space was established. This capital project involves the construction of the natural burials
area and prepare the site for a phased naturalization as the burial plots are occupied.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
251
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery - Natural
Priority
Burials Area Landscape Construction CAP-26-0127 Score:
22.40
22D.75
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 < 1,000
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 New asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Meets two resource needs.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will moderately improve the natural environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 Increases service offering to a minority or aged population
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No impact to the aesthetic value of Greenwood Cemetery.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan Public Engagement
public engagement?
252
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery Survey Priority
CAP-29-0040 Score:
30.60
Underutilized Areas 27D.8
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Perform an analysis of how many previously unavailable lots may be developed in these ranges, including options for preferred in ground cremation lots and full size casket lots in
proportions relative to the predicted selection for both types over the next 10-25 years
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $15,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
253
Year: 2029
Greenwood Cemetery Survey Priority
CAP-29-0040 Score:
30.60
Underutilized Areas 27D.8
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Will make more areas available at the cemetery
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact to health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislation/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Parks assets are not currently included in the City's Asset Management
replacement in the asset management Plan.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three resource catgories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 Increases service offering to a minority or aged population.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Asset has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Has received formal requests through public engagement.
public engagement?
254
Year: 2029
Harrison Park - Roads, Parking Lots
Priority
and Pathways Optimization and CAP-29-0051 Score:
61.10
Prioritization Study
Rationale Master Plan - Harrison Park Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Harrison Park is a highly utilized City park that offers an array of valued spaces, facilities and amenities throughout the park. The road and trail network is a critical component that
facilitates safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement through the park. The existing roadways and parking lots are integral components that support the overall function
of the park. They provide access to the many public facilities and services offered throughout the park including business operations such as the Park Inn, Community Hall and HP
Campground. The trail network in Harrison Park offers pedestrian access to the many unique settings in the park, along the shores of the Sydenham River and the broader urban
and natural areas that surround the park. The trail inventory is diverse and offers a variety of experiences with many stream crossings that take advantage of the full extent of the
environment offered in the park. The existing roadways, parking lots and trail network to some degree has evolved over the years as natural desire lines were formalized and
historical uses were serviced. Today, much of the road network and parking lots are at the end of their lifecycle and in need of repair or upgrading. The trail network is in a similar
situation with many of the trail segments nearing the end of their lifecycle, degraded through a lack of maintenance capacity and frequently impacted by flood events or poor
drainage infrastructure. The focus of this project is to assess the roadway, parking lot and trail inventory in the park and evaluate the current state of the infrastructure to determine
and quantify capital needs to perform the necessary upgrades and timeline. As part of the work, opportunities for improvements to routing, asset configuration (road and trail cross-
section), establish roadway/parking areas dedicated to operations, establish clear division between pedestrian and vehicular realm, establish trail network that links to broader
network, establish parking capacity need for the park (and meet accessibility requirements for all parking lots and facilities in the park), identify and establish corrective measures to
address safety concerns, establish an appropriate number of stream crossings to support primary vehicular and pedestrian needs, establish lighting and other infrastructure needs
to bring these assets in compliance with operational and program needs. The final product will outline recommendations for improvements and consolidation where possible of
existing roads, parking lots and trails. All recommendations will be catalogues by asset and include a detail scope of work, suggested timeline for implementation and an estimated
cost. The consultant will use this information to develop a phased implementation strategy for the work that could be integrated and considered within the City's capital budget.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
255
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
256
Year: 2029
Harrison Park - Roads, Parking Lots
Priority
and Pathways Optimization and CAP-29-0051 Score:
61.10
Prioritization Study
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Harrison Park is a primary city park that draws users that take advantage of
impacted by the project? the many amenities and events supported by and in this large park.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 The roadway, parking lot and trail network in the park is heavily utilized.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of this project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets 3 of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact to the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports a core service.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Supported by public engagement solicited through the 2024 Harrison Park
public engagement? Master Plan.
257
Year: 2029
Harrison Park Seniors Centre Priority
CAP-29-0052 Score:
29.10
Furnace Replacement 28D.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $21,700.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the forced air furnace to cover both levels of the building, which will be at the end of its useful life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $15,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
258
Year: 2029
Harrison Park Seniors Centre Priority
CAP-29-0052 Score:
29.10
Furnace Replacement 28D.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The HVAC system is primarily used to maintain an adequate climate for the
impacted by the project? facility. The direct impact on the number of users is minimal
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is moderate probability of failure of the existing unit, which carries a
replacement in the asset management low consequence of a replacement unit can be installed in a quick manner.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved with a newer unit that is more
proceed), what will be the impact on energy efficient.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for a rebate depending on consumption history
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling and the type of unit being proposed for purchase.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will have a moderate impact on the environment through the
address needs impacted by climate reduction in energy consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have minimal impact on users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project will have no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Public input has not been received for this project.
public engagement?
259
Year: 2029
Priority
IT Firewall Replacement 29A.2 CAP-29-0042 Score:
43.40
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of end-of-life IT Firewalls, to ensure manufacturer support, security patches, and performance capabilities to maintain a secure and resilient network environment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $35,000.00
Contingency
Total $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $35,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Reserves $35,000.00
Total $35,000.00
260
Year: 2029
Priority
IT Firewall Replacement 29A.2 CAP-29-0042 Score:
43.40
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Less than 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
261
Year: 2029
JMRRC Floor Scrubber Replacement Priority
CAP-29-0043 Score:
29.40
29I.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $26,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the floor scrubber at the Julie McArthur Rec Centre, which was originally purchased in 2020.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $20,000.00
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
262
Year: 2029
JMRRC Floor Scrubber Replacement Priority
CAP-29-0043 Score:
29.40
29I.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 This project could have an impact on 1000-2500 per day.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Slips and falls could result as this equipment is used to clean spills and
the public or Staff if the project does not soiled floors especially during the winter months.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 0 There is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 As the equipment ages it has a high probability of failure with a moderate to
replacement in the asset management low consequences.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 This project would have a slight impact on operation efficiency, as newer
proceed), what will be the impact on equipment will clean more efficiently and save time compared to older
operational performance? Comment on equipment.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Currently there are no opportunities for other funding sources.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 0 This project will have little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project helps to maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This equipment is used to improve the aesthetic value of assets.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project helps support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 There has been no public input for this project.
public engagement?
263
Year: 2029
JMRRC Plate and Frame Heat
Priority
Exchanger #3- Replacement of CAP-29-0044 Score:
38.00
Gaskets 29I.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $43,500.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the gaskets for the Plate and Frame heat exchanger #3 at the Julie McArthur Rec Centre
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $30,000.00
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
264
Year: 2029
JMRRC Plate and Frame Heat
Priority
Exchanger #3- Replacement of CAP-29-0044 Score:
38.00
Gaskets 29I.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Though the Rec Centre sees over 10,000 annually, if this equipment failed
impacted by the project? it could impact over 5000 at that time.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project would have little to no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 TSSA mandates equipment be properly maintained through the Operating
legislative/regulatory compliance? Engineers Regulations.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 There is a probability of failure if not replaced, with a high consequence, as
replacement in the asset management this could impact users and revenue.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no impact on operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is currently no opportunity for grant or partnership at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would help to maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project helps support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not be identified by the public.
public engagement?
265
Year: 2029
JMRRC Plate and Frame Heat
Priority
Exchanger Replacement of Gaskets 3 CAP-29-0045 Score:
38.00
29I.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $43,500.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the replacement of the gaskets for the Plate and Frame heat exchanger #2 at the Julie McArthur Rec Centre.
This work will take place in the refrigeration plant room at the Julie McArthur Rec Centre by a refrigeration contractor. This project would be completed during the summer months
when the demand on the plant is lessened, after removing one ice pad
.
This work will ensure the continued efficient operation of the refrigeration plant and help avoid potential downtime, loss of ice, and subsequent revenue loss. The contractor
recommends changing the gaskets every 15-20 years to prevent potential failure. Delaying this work could result in significantly higher costs if a failure occurs, leading to more
extensive repairs and potential revenue loss.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $30,000.00
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
266
Year: 2029
JMRRC Plate and Frame Heat
Priority
Exchanger Replacement of Gaskets 3 CAP-29-0045 Score:
38.00
29I.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Though the Rec Centre sees over 10,000 annually, if this equipment failed
impacted by the project? it could impact over 5000 at that time.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project would have little to no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 TSSA mandates equipment be properly maintained through the Operating
legislative/regulatory compliance? Engineers Regulations.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 There is a probability of failure if not replaced, with a high consequence, as
replacement in the asset management this could impact users and revenue.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no impact on operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is currently no opportunity for grant or partnership at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would help to maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project helps support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not be identified by the public.
public engagement?
267
Year: 2029
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Irrigation
Priority
Network Technical Assessment and CAP-29-0053 Score:
64.10
Upgrades
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Owen Sound Soccer Complex irrigation network is a critical operating component that manages the delivery of water to the sports fields, supporting turf health and
performance. The existing irrigation network is near the end of its lifecycle and a technical assessment of the irrigation system will be undertaken to understand the condition of the
system and establish corrective measures to correct any defects, replace aging component, integrate water efficiency measures with the aim of extending the life of the network. An
implementation plan will be established based on assessment findings and work defined for implementation. As part of the assessment, a cost estimate for the renewal of the
irrigation network will be established along with an understanding of the remaining lifecycle of the asset. This work will assist in establishing future capital needs for the facility.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $60,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $70,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $35,000.00
Donations $35,000.00
Total $70,000.00
268
Year: 2029
Kiwanis Soccer Complex - Irrigation
Priority
Network Technical Assessment and CAP-29-0053 Score:
64.10
Upgrades
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Owen Sound Minor Soccer Association is a long standing community
impacted by the project? partner that provides a soccer facility in OS to play organized soccer at
recreational and competitive levels supporting programs for youth and
adults.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Irrigation is a critical component that supports turf health and performance
the public or Staff if the project does not for field users.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 Irrigation is a key component in maintaining field conditions that support
legislative/regulatory compliance? play; however, there is no legislative requirements.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Non-essential service with an asset component that requires maintenance
replacement in the asset management to prevent failure.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 There is operational efficiency, cost savings and water efficiency gains to
proceed), what will be the impact on be realized.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Water efficiency gains.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintain existing soccer facility that supports Owen Sound Minor Soccer
diversity and inclusion initiatives? Association programming.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 A well functioning irrigation network supports a healthy green turf.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 Supports Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships, Safe
Result in the Strategic Plan? City
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Project developed in collaboration with Owen Sound Minor Soccer
public engagement? Association.
269
Year: 2029
Priority
Pay Equity and Market Review 29B.1 CAP-29-0041 Score:
42.60
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Janet Ashfield
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Undertake a compensation analysis provides the data and insights for decisions as it relates to salaries and total benefits for employees. Part of this study will be to create a pay
policy for the City, which will define the frequency that a market / pay equity study is completed
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
270
Year: 2029
Priority
Pay Equity and Market Review 29B.1 CAP-29-0041 Score:
42.60
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Ensure pay within market values, and pay equity requirements met.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Pay Equity Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Not included in an asset management plan.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Potential for increased turnover, recruitment and onboarding. Loss of
proceed), what will be the impact on knowledge and skills from lack of staff retention.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 0 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion for pay rates of positions at the City.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 KR3 - Develop a Human Resources Strategy.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Employees impacted, and shared within Strategic Plan Refresh.
public engagement?
271
Year: 2029
Playground Replacement - Priority
CAP-29-0054 Score:
45.90
Westmount Playground 30D.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the playground at Westmount Park which has exceeded its useful life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $246,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $246,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $246,000.00
Total $246,000.00
272
Year: 2029
Playground Replacement - Priority
CAP-29-0054 Score:
45.90
Westmount Playground 30D.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for rebate.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public. The playground project
public engagement? layout will be brought forward to the Grey County Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their input.
273
Year: 2029
Police Station Fire Alarm System Priority
CAP-29-0047 Score:
19.00
Replacement 28J.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the single-stage current fire alarm system, which is nearing the end of its recommended lifespan, including upgrading to a two-stage system in order to prevent
false / nuisance alarms.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
274
Year: 2029
Police Station Fire Alarm System Priority
CAP-29-0047 Score:
19.00
Replacement 28J.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The fire alarm system protects OS staff and other users.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety at this time as the system is
the public or Staff if the project does not currently functioning.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement as the
legislative/regulatory compliance? system is currently functioning.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and a low consequence as the
replacement in the asset management system is currently functioning.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding for this project.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value as the system is contained within a
the asset improved? mechanical room in the facility.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
275
Year: 2029
Police Station Window and Door Priority
CAP-29-0048 Score:
40.30
Replacement 29J.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $695,250.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the exterior doors and windows which are in poor condition, compromising the security of the building and does not provide an efficient building envelope.
Upgrading accessible components will be included.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $375,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $375,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $375,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $375,000.00
Total $375,000.00
276
Year: 2029
Police Station Window and Door Priority
CAP-29-0048 Score:
40.30
Replacement 29J.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Police staff are the only users affected by the replacement of the windows.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The deterioration of the windows is resulting in negative air balancing in the
the public or Staff if the project does not facility, resulting in drafts.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The replacement of the windows and doors has been identified in the 2024
replacement in the asset management building condition assessment.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 It is anticipated that there will be direct financial savings from reduced
proceed), what will be the impact on energy consumption.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for grant funding once the replacement unit has
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling been designed.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 It is anticipated that there will be moderate reductions in energy
address needs impacted by climate consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has minimal aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is available to deliver services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
277
Year: 2029
Police Stations Cell Block Packaged Priority
CAP-29-0046 Score:
38.30
HVAC Replacement 29J.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $75,150.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the packaged HVAC to provide climate control to the cell block
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
278
Year: 2029
Police Stations Cell Block Packaged Priority
CAP-29-0046 Score:
38.30
HVAC Replacement 29J.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Police staff are the only users affected by the replacement of the unit.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The system is operational and is being planned for replacement prior to
the public or Staff if the project does not failure in order to maintain the required climate for the facility.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a moderate likelihood of failure based on the age and assessment
replacement in the asset management of the current equipment. Likewise, there is a moderate consequence as it
plan? will take multiple days of outage to replace the equipment.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 It is anticipated that there will be direct financial savings from reduced
proceed), what will be the impact on energy consumption as well as indirect savings through the optimization of
operational performance? Comment on other HVAC equipment.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 It is anticipated that there will be moderate reductions in energy
address needs impacted by climate consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value as it is located on the roof of the cell
the asset improved? block.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is available to deliver services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
279
Year: 2029
Reconstruction of 3rd Avenue
Priority
East/GR 15 - 12th St E to 14t St E - CAP-29-0006 Score:
55.90
Phase 2 - 29P.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 years (roads), 80-100 years (mains and services) Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project will be coordinated in conjunction with the County of Grey Road reconstruction (which includes reconstruction of 3rd Avenue East roadway, replacing all the failing
municipal underground infrastructure and fully reconstructing curbs/gutters and sidewalks. City related costs include: watermain, sanitary sewer, sidewalk replacement, existing
storm sewer replacement or new construction water replacement (cost shared by City and County) and boulevard landscaping including planting new trees.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$280,000.00 $280,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $2,500,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $200,000.00
Total $300,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $20,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $3,320,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
OCIF Formula $660,000.00
Water Rates $1,330,000.00
Waste Water Rates $1,330,000.00
Total $3,320,000.00
280
Year: 2029
Reconstruction of 3rd Avenue
Priority
East/GR 15 - 12th St E to 14t St E - CAP-29-0006 Score:
55.90
Phase 2 - 29P.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 It is estimated that 5,000 to 9,999 people will be directly impacted as a
impacted by the project? result of this project. This includes the local residents and businesses as
well as the travelling public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries may result if the project does not proceed due to sidewalk trip
the public or Staff if the project does not hazards.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure of underground services with moderate
replacement in the asset management consequences.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Replacing the underground and surface infrastructure will result in
proceed), what will be the impact on operational cost savings related to attending to sidewalk trip hazards, road
operational performance? Comment on patching and repairs, sewer blockages and repairs and watermain break
any impact on operating costs, staff time avoidance.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project has confirmed OCIF funding at less than 50% of the cost, plus
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling includes a partnership cost component with Grey County.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will slightly improve the natural environment and prevent further
address needs impacted by climate detriment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project will improve the aesthetic value of the street scape by replacing
the asset improved? the road and sidewalk with enhancements including tree planting.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The project has been mentioned informally through public comments.
public engagement?
281
Year: 2029
Traffic Signal Replacement - 14th St Priority
CAP-29-0010 Score:
63.30
& 4th Ave West
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves geometric improvements to the intersection to better facilitate Traffic flow and Turning movements. This upgrading may incorporate road widening/sight
triangles at the intersection; some engineering consulting, legal survey work and property acquisition is expected in the prior year. Construction is planned to commence in 2030
(starting with road, curb and gutter/geometric and sidewalk changes (AODA compliance), underground work and pole base construction) and continue into 2030 (completion of
traffic and pedestrian signals and pole installation). Precise phasing of construction is yet to be determined. The acquisition of property may take an extended time period.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029 2030
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $350,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $350,000.00
Total $350,000.00
282
Year: 2029
Traffic Signal Replacement - 14th St Priority
CAP-29-0010 Score:
63.30
& 4th Ave West
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This would have a large beneficial impact on commuter and pedestrian
impacted by the project? access in the area; as a busy intersection linking a convenience store to a
community ballfield, private school, daycares and large residential area, it is
anticipated that the improvements would present a significant upgrade to
the area's users.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result due to inadequate intersection crossing
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 This project is required to provide a safe pedestrian crossing
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This project would enhance current assets to meet AODA compliance
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Saving will be realized due to ease of winter maintenance and reducing
proceed), what will be the impact on spring cleanup requirements.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Staff believe we are in a position to complete the project with consultants
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling help and will fit in our current Schedule and Technology
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project would have minor improvements to climate change needs as it
address needs impacted by climate will redesign the pedestrian spaces at the intersection, improving winter
change? maintenance ability
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Has limited impact, but some improvement to aesthetics
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 One strategic priority
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
283
Year: 2029
Trail Design and Signage Standards Priority
CAP-29-0055 Score:
54.00
Development 28D.7
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Develop design standards for the existing trail network to define trail configurations (surface material, trail width, delineation of trail to address unauthorized use, surface markings)
and signage to clearly delineate the trail network, promote wayfinding that includes important city destinations and supports a safe and comfortable active transportation experience.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
284
Year: 2029
Trail Design and Signage Standards Priority
CAP-29-0055 Score:
54.00
Development 28D.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is non-essential and requires upgrade/maintenance to support
replacement in the asset management safe use of trail inventory and mitigate risk to the City.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiency will be achieved as a result of this project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
285
Year: 2029
Transit Terminal Roof Section 2 Priority
CAP-29-0056 Score:
42.30
Replacement
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $306,900.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Roof Section 2 is the steel sloped roof on the transit terminal building, which is surrounded by a flat roof system. The roof section was installed in 1987 and has a multiple leaks,
particularly around the fasteners.The City's roof inspection consultant has recommended replacement with a product that has improved flexibility to mitigate against expansion
activities.The project is funded by the City's Provincial Gas Tax Reserve.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $70,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $70,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Provincial Gas Tax $70,000.00
Total $70,000.00
286
Year: 2029
Transit Terminal Roof Section 2 Priority
CAP-29-0056 Score:
42.30
Replacement
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 The transit terminal is a well utilized facility by both transit and non-transit
impacted by the project? users.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact on health and safety unless the roof deteriorates to the
the public or Staff if the project does not point that there is leakage and structural weakening.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure based on the lifecycle and other
replacement in the asset management deterioration.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness by reducing
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance related repairs.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project is funded by Provincial Gas Tax and does not require tax
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling supported funding.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project will moderately improve the aesthetic of the building.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
287
Year: 2029
Wastewater Collection System Priority
CAP-29-0057 Score:
61.60
Capital Reinvestment 29O.2
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer infrastructure with a focus on sanitary sewers, as well as manhole rehabilitation. This rehabilitation will be conducted through “cured in place
pipe” (CIPP) technology
Cash Flow Projection: 2029 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $350,000.00 $350,000.00 $700,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $350,000.00 $350,000.00 $700,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $1,400,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $1,400,000.00
Total $1,400,000.00
288
Year: 2029
Wastewater Collection System Priority
CAP-29-0057 Score:
61.60
Capital Reinvestment 29O.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This would typically affect people in the project area which is usually one
impacted by the project? block at a time. But the program is City-wide
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Sewer bypasses from collapsed sewer have resulted.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This has been identified in the 10 year plan, as part of a multi-year program.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Sewer backups consume considerable public sector and private sector
proceed), what will be the impact on resources.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 No
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Wet weather flows are now more frequent; this is a somewhat relevant
address needs impacted by climate factor for this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 N/A
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 N/A
public engagement?
289
Year: 2029
Priority
Water - Leak Detection Survey 29N.5 CAP-29-0059 Score:
70.80
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Undertake a leak detection survey of the water distribution system (regular 3 year interval) which is optimal in terms of discovering new leaks in a timely manner.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $20,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
290
Year: 2029
Priority
Water - Leak Detection Survey 29N.5 CAP-29-0059 Score:
70.80
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 The entire City distribution system is surveyed
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Leaks left undetected can fail suddenly and could be a risk to health and
the public or Staff if the project does not safety and the delivery of drinking water to the customer
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This program has been identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Failure of a major watermain could result in loss of service to a portion of
proceed), what will be the impact on the community
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Not relevant to this project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
291
Year: 2029
Water - WTP Transformer Priority
Score:
72.80
Replacement
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The existing on-site transformer at the Water Treatment Plant is original equipment (late 1960's) and is due for replacement due to several ESA and safety concerns. Failure of the
on-site transformer at this location would create a serious issue due to the long lead time to get a replacement. The plant would have to use the diesel generators for an extended
period of time. In 2019, a voltage fluctuation event highlighted the vulnerability of the Water Treatment Plant to transformer failure. No damage occurred to the transformer in that
instance, but at first that seemed like a real possibility. A consultant will work to specify a new transformer suitable for the Water Treatment Plant as well as placement location that
is in line with ESA requirements. The critical time path for acquiring a new transformer is the ordering, fabrication, and delivery process, due to supply chain issues. Current delivery
estimate is 12 months. The transformer was serviced in 2025 and minor ESA non-compliances where addressed. Annual servicing will continue to maintain reliability.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$250,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $2,250,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $2,500,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $2,500,000.00
Total $2,500,000.00
292
Year: 2029
Water - WTP Transformer Priority
Score:
72.80
Replacement
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This is an attempt at being proactive and sourcing and installing a
impacted by the project? transformer before the current one fails permanently. Without electricity
from the grid, the plant would have to run on a generator that would have to
be brought in. The emergency backup generator is not intended for
sustained use, as in that situation, there is no backup power supply. Loss of
power means loss of water treatment to the entire city and external areas
fed by the OS system.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 The inability to treat water would be an adverse condition. Even if pressure
the public or Staff if the project does not could be maintained in the system without the plant transformer that powers
proceed? the main lift pumps in both the municipal and industrial systems, the inability
to treat the water would prompt a massive and sustained boiled water
advisory, with extensive effort and wasted water required to recommission
the system once power is restored. This has impacts primarily on human
health and those that may be difficult to communicate with in order to
provide them with bottled water. If pressure is lost as well, fire protection
would be lost. Fire suppression water would need to be brought in tanker
trucks rather than pumpers (that use the hydrants). This may have a ripple
effect on the surrounding rural fire services as they offset each other's
deficits to help the City, if the City does not have adequate tanker inventory.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act (specifically Adverse Condition provisions of the
legislative/regulatory compliance? regulation)
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The asset is required to provide an essential service and has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed and requires replacement; or
plan? • requires imminent maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 The new transformer will be properly sized for the current plant with room to
proceed), what will be the impact on expand in the future. The existing transformer is original to the plant, and is
operational performance? Comment on completely obsolete. The project also includes modifications within the plant
any impact on operating costs, staff time to accept the new transformer, to bring the installation to current electrical
and maintenance. and safety codes. Modern technology and materials will be used, and the
area around the transformer will be prepared fresh, with appropriate
groundcover and fencing.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project meets 3 resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No significant Environmental Impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the impacted asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
293
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by public
public engagement?
294
Year: 2029
Priority
Water Rate Study 29N.8 CAP-29-0063 Score:
54.60
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Undertake a Water Rate Study and associated Financial Plan, which are requirements for the City to update its Drinking Water Licence and Drinking Water Works Permit.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
295
Year: 2029
Priority
Water Rate Study 29N.8 CAP-29-0063 Score:
54.60
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the entire system
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 This is a regulatory requirement, ultimately a lack of a financial plan could
the public or Staff if the project does not jeopardize the system
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 It is a recurring requirement in the 10-year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Not particularly applicable to operational performance unless a lack of
proceed), what will be the impact on funding arose.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves/Water Rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No adverse impact on public spaces
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
296
Year: 2029
Water System Model Update & Priority
CAP-29-0064 Score:
59.60
Training 29N.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Recalibrate and/or confirm accuracy of the working computer model of the water distribution system
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
297
Year: 2029
Water System Model Update & Priority
CAP-29-0064 Score:
59.60
Training 29N.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Accurate modeling of the water system is important to ensure the impact of
impacted by the project? changes on fire flows in the City are understood.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 There is some probability of a modeling error resulting in an issue with fire
the public or Staff if the project does not flows.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 A failure to accurately assess fire flows can result in mischaracterization (ie
proceed), what will be the impact on colour coding) of individual hydrants, which could cause the fire department
operational performance? Comment on to select the "wrong" hydrant.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not a relevant factor for
address needs impacted by climate this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
298
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant Major Pump Priority
CAP-29-0060 Score:
70.30
Replacement 29N.7
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 100 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of Industrial High Lift Pump P3 at the Water Treatment Plant
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $100,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $100,000.00
Total $100,000.00
299
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant Major Pump Priority
CAP-29-0060 Score:
70.30
Replacement 29N.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 A failure of the high lift pump could affect the whole City under certain
impacted by the project? circumstances
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 There are risks of Adverse Conditions which could be created by pump
the public or Staff if the project does not failure.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act (specifically Adverse Condition provisions of the
legislative/regulatory compliance? regulation)
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 It was in the plan. But recent issues have compelled sooner action.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Improvements to the pump will improve reliability of operation, reduce the
proceed), what will be the impact on probability of failure, and reduce operating costs.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No significant Environmental Impact
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
300
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant SCADA
Priority
Computer and Software Upgrade CAP-29-0061 Score:
62.30
29N.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Following the PLC upgrades at the City's remote locations (Beattie St, East Hill Booster Station, the reservoir and the Genoe Leachate monitoring system in 2024), this project is for
the SCADA PLC upgrades at the Water Treatment Plant.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $90,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $90,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $90,000.00
Total $90,000.00
301
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant SCADA
Priority
Computer and Software Upgrade CAP-29-0061 Score:
62.30
29N.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the water source for the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Network system failures can result in SCADA failures and an inability to
the public or Staff if the project does not treat and/or pump water
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Yes. The SCADA is a high priority item in the 10-year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 This will ensure reliable operation of the SCADA system. It includes some
proceed), what will be the impact on programming changes to optimize treatment, as well.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Water Rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Not a direct link
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not significant aesthetic impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
302
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant Valve Priority
CAP-29-0062 Score:
64.80
Replacements (2029) 29N.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
There are a number of valves and components associated with valves such as actuators in the water plant that range in size and age from fairly new to 55 years old (original).
For proper operation of the plant, these valves need to open and close on a very frequent basis, to prevent backflow, control flow or pressure for proper operation of the plant
process. Valve replacements usually are incorporated into larger scale projects such as piping rehabilitation or can be isolated to a particular pipe.
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
303
Year: 2029
Water Treatment Plant Valve Priority
CAP-29-0062 Score:
64.80
Replacements (2029) 29N.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the Water Treatment Process which can affect the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Valve failure could be a risk to health and safety and the delivery of drinking
the public or Staff if the project does not water to the customer
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Failure of a significant valve in the water treatment plant could reduce water
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment production.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not a relevant factor for
address needs impacted by climate this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
304
Year: 2029
Priority
Wayfinding Signage 26C.1 CAP-29-0005 Score:
40.10
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Tim Simmonds
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implementation of the Wayfinding Signage Strategy recommendations
Cash Flow Projection: 2029
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2028 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2029
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2029
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Grant $25,000.00
Total $50,000.00
305
Year: 2029
Priority
Wayfinding Signage 26C.1 CAP-29-0005 Score:
40.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 > 10,000.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Project will move organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 Moderate probability of failure; low consequence.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 0 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Partial grant funding through DIA and RT07
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 Replacing the signage greatly improves the aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
306
2030
Capital
Detail Sheets
307
Year: 2030
10th St E - Upper South Side Priority
CAP-30-0010 Score:
48.20
Retaining Wall Rehabilitation 30P.4
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 80 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $1,500,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The 10th St E - Upper South Side Retaining Wall is located on the south side of 10th Street East between 5th Avenue East and 6th Avenue East and this project will investigate the
stability of the retaining wall and any sections of the retaining wall that may need to be replaced and repaired to extend the service life of this structure.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$35,000.00 $20,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00 $3,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $277,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $340,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $41,000.00
Grant $299,000.00
Total $340,000.00
308
Year: 2030
10th St E - Upper South Side Priority
CAP-30-0010 Score:
48.20
Retaining Wall Rehabilitation 30P.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 It is expected that over 10,000 motorists will be impacted as a result of this
impacted by the project? project
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Without further investigation of the causes of this failure the retaining wall
the public or Staff if the project does not may tip or not adequately support the slope behind it
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The replacement will meet minimum maintenance legislation requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 The retaining wall is showing signs of movement but should be addressed
replacement in the asset management in a timely manner to prevent additional costs
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 4 This project may be eligible for funding through the Connecting Link funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling programme at 90% subsidy. The project would proceed with CL funding
feasibility, Technology/resources. secured.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
309
Year: 2030
Priority
27th St. Lift Station Generator 30O.1 CAP-30-0041 Score:
50.80
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Installation of a standby generator would ensure reliable operations during power outages reducing the likelihood of by-pass incidents. 2030 - Budget used for preliminary design,
sizing, acoustic and dispersion modeling, 2031 - Supply and install
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $200,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $250,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $250,000.00
Total $250,000.00
310
Year: 2030
Priority
27th St. Lift Station Generator 30O.1 CAP-30-0041 Score:
50.80
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Although the catchment zone for the pump station is relatively small the
impacted by the project? impacts of by-pass events have the potential to affect many
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 By-pass event present a significant public health risk
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 A generator would likely reduce our by-pass events and elevate regulatory
legislative/regulatory compliance? reporting and further legal issues
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 No, but it adds a critical component to an existing asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Generator will need to be maintained and ran monthly for testing. Low
proceed), what will be the impact on hours of operation are expected, so maintenance cost should be minimal.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 N/A
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 5 Yes, climate change has drastically impacted the number of severe weather
address needs impacted by climate events we see. This will make our system more resilient and minimize by-
change? pass events to the natural environment.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 No
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project aligns with both "Green City" and "Service Excellence"
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 No
public engagement?
311
Year: 2030
9th Ave East Road Rehabilitation &
Priority
Servicing Replacement- 8th Street E CAP-30-0012 Score:
58.00
to 6th Street E (30P.5)
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves replacing existing City infrastructure, together with rehabilitating or reconstructing the 9th Avenue East (Highway 6/10) road. The primary focus of the project is
to improve municipal water security of supply to part of the East Hill Pressure Zone and all of the East Hill Reduced Pressure Zone as well as improve the roadway infrastructure.
The project Design or Engineering would be completed in 2030 with construction in 2031. Initiation of the project will rely on having been awarded Connecting Link Grant funding.
The intended scope is as follows: Replace the existing municipal watermain and appurtenances and replace/repair deficient sanitary sewer. The following components would be
Connecting Link funding eligible: Replace the existing storm sewer or rehabilitate, if appropriate and rehabilitate the road and road-related structures, replace existing sidewalk as
required and replace stormwater infrastructure.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$245,000.00 $245,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $5,200,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $250,000.00 $5,450,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $5,700,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Water Rates $675,000.00
Waste Water Rates $275,000.00
Grant $4,600,000.00
Total $5,700,000.00
312
Year: 2030
9th Ave East Road Rehabilitation &
Priority
Servicing Replacement- 8th Street E CAP-30-0012 Score:
58.00
to 6th Street E (30P.5)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Project benefits many road users, significant number of water customers.
impacted by the project? This is the basis of the number of people affected.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Road is in poor condition and City infrastructure has reached the end of its
the public or Staff if the project does not useful life. Pressure loss could be experienced in parts of water distribution
proceed? system during watermain failure.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Project completion ensures the City is in compliance with legislation for
legislative/regulatory compliance? minimum maintenance standards for roads and underground infrastructure.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This section of road has multiple assets with poor condition ratings with
replacement in the asset management significant impacts if it was to fail.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Major improvements to operational performance would be achieved with the
proceed), what will be the impact on completion of this project due to replacing the water main and resurfacing
operational performance? Comment on the road. Financial savings will be achieved once project is completed.
any impact on operating costs, staff time Watermain breaks and road repairs/patching will be avoided.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets 3 resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Minor impact will be realized from this project by improving storm water and
address needs impacted by climate improving road surface (better fuel efficiency).
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Improving road condition has been identified in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by public
public engagement?
313
Year: 2030
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0013 Score:
70.30
(2030) 30P.1
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces and maintain the expected service life of roads throughout the City. The project also includes the replacement or
rehabilitation of concrete structures associated with asphalt resurfacing including catch basins, maintenance structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks.Detailed locations to be
determined prior to construction year.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering $15,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $685,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $700,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $700,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $700,000.00
Total $700,000.00
314
Year: 2030
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0013 Score:
70.30
(2030) 30P.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Roads being resurfaced will improve local and commuter traffic throughout
impacted by the project? the City and generally benefits all road users in the City.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Injuries may result if roads are not resurfaced from drivers or cyclists
the public or Staff if the project does not avoiding potholes or other deficiencies in the road
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is included in the Asset Management Plan. Failure to seal road ways
replacement in the asset management can impact infrastructure under the road decreasing the life of multiple
plan? assets
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Road resurfacing will reduce operation costs associated with the road
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance (eg repairing pot holes).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets 3 resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Minor positive impact will be realized from this project due to improved
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Some sidewalk replacement and improved cycling (active transportation
diversity and inclusion initiatives? enhancements).
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project is identified in the strategic plan to improve road conditions
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 Road resurfacing has been requested multiple times through public
public engagement? engagement
315
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Christie Hare Room Floor Priority
CAP-30-0001 Score:
31.80
Replacement 30H.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the existing carpet flooring in the Christie Hare Room at the Bayshore Community Centre.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
316
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Christie Hare Room Floor Priority
CAP-30-0001 Score:
31.80
Replacement 30H.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Thousands of people use this space yearly.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no risk to health and safety if this project does not proceed.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislation at this time required for compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This would be an enhancement to an existing asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Reduced staff time will be achieved, from having to repair wallpaper with
proceed), what will be the impact on minimal effect.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for grant funding or partnership at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be no environmental impact by completing this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 This project will improve the look of the area.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project will support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This has been mentioned by public and staff.
public engagement?
317
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Ice Resurfacer Room Priority
CAP-30-0002 Score:
25.40
Floor Repairs 30H.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $78,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replace the concrete floor stretching from the arena ice gate to the ice resurfacer water fill parking area.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $60,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $60,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $60,000.00
Total $60,000.00
318
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Ice Resurfacer Room Priority
CAP-30-0002 Score:
25.40
Floor Repairs 30H.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Thousands of people would cross over this area to get to their seats
impacted by the project? annually.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Minor injuries could result as it creates a potential slip, trip or fall hazard.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 Currently there is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This would be an enhancement o the asset, as its not likely to fail but it is in
replacement in the asset management need of repair.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This will have little to no impact on the operation.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no partnership or grant opportunities at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have little or no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will improve the look of the concrete surface, where there is not
the asset improved? deemed a failure.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
319
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Rutherford Hall Floor Priority
CAP-30-0003 Score:
32.20
Replacement 30H.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $160,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacing the existing vinyl tile flooring in Rutherford Hall with a modern vinyl plank or lay-in vinyl floor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $100,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $100,000.00
Total $100,000.00
320
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Rutherford Hall Floor Priority
CAP-30-0003 Score:
32.20
Replacement 30H.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This space is used by over 10,000 annually.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is a very low impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 there is currently no legislation requiring this project be completed.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure with low consequence, as we have
replacement in the asset management seen tiles begin to break or lift out.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 This would have a slight impact on the operation as it would save a week of
proceed), what will be the impact on stripping, waxing and sealing the existing floor.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Currently there are no opportunities for partnerships or grants.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will improve the aesthetic value where there is not deemed a
the asset improved? failure.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project would support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The flooring has been mentioned by users groups.
public engagement?
321
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Unit Heater 1, 3 and 8 Priority
CAP-30-0004 Score:
23.10
Replacement 30H.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The existing hydronic unit heaters in the front lobby of the Bayshore Community Centre have reached the end of their expected useful life and will be replaced with newer, more
efficient models. This work will be completed by a contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $15,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
322
Year: 2030
Bayshore - Unit Heater 1, 3 and 8 Priority
CAP-30-0004 Score:
23.10
Replacement 30H.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 While the number of users that pass through the Lobby is greater than
impacted by the project? 10,000 annually, the average number of users at any given time is less than
1,000.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety unless their is a failure of HVAC equipment.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The probability of failure of the existing unit is moderate but is a low risk due
replacement in the asset management to the City's ability to provide temporary heating solutions for this area.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be minimal operational efficiencies from this project as this is
proceed), what will be the impact on effectively a like for like replacement utilizing similar technologies.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for an energy rebate at the time of replacement.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Improved HVAC technology will reduce the City's energy consumption
address needs impacted by climate moderately.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The unit heater has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 Project is not directly aligned to the strategic plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
323
Year: 2030
Bayshore Window and Door Priority
CAP-30-0005 Score:
45.20
Replacement 30H.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the remaining original doors and frames at the Bayshore Community Centre
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $30,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
324
Year: 2030
Bayshore Window and Door Priority
CAP-30-0005 Score:
45.20
Replacement 30H.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Project will move organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Moderate probability of failure; low consequence.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operational efficiency and effectiveness.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little of no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 Newer windows and doors will slightly increase aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
325
Year: 2030
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) Window Priority
CAP-30-0006 Score:
20.20
Repairs and Painting 30M.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $336,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The facility windows (including seasonal storm windows) require replacement in order to maintain the historical, victorian features of the building and to ensure the building envelope
is maintained.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $150,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
326
Year: 2030
Billy Bishop Museum (BBM) Window Priority
CAP-30-0006 Score:
20.20
Repairs and Painting 30M.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 It is anticipated that between 2,500 and 4,999 visit the facility annually and
impacted by the project? will be able to access the renovated space.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The renovation of this space has no health and safety impact other than
the public or Staff if the project does not deterioration can lead to other structural issues within the building.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirements for this
legislative/regulatory compliance? project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low probability of failure, however, there is a moderate
replacement in the asset management consequence if there is deterioration from water.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There is little to no impact on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no opportunity for partnership or grant funding at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the delivery of core services.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
327
Year: 2030
Priority
Bottle Fill Stations 30M.4 CAP-30-0018 Score:
19.00
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Continued implementation of a phased program to increase access to tap water at City facilities over 5 years. The bottle filling stations allow people to fill reusable bottles by motion
sensor. The unit tracks the amount of plastic bottles that are saved by filling reusable containers.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
328
Year: 2030
Priority
Bottle Fill Stations 30M.4 CAP-30-0018 Score:
19.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 2,500 to 4,999.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is a new asset and therefore not included in an asset management
replacement in the asset management plan.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The project will slightly improve the natural environment or prevent further
address needs impacted by climate detriment due to reducing the use of single-use plastic bottles.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Project will be free to access to all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project provides no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
329
Year: 2030
Priority
Bulk Water Fill Station 30N.1 CAP-30-0044 Score:
58.90
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Installation of a new bulk water fill station which would ideally be located in commercial/industrial area with easy access for large, construction type equipment with consideration to
ensure sufficient water supply, sewer availability and traffic flows.
2030 - Feasibility and Design; 2031 - Supply and Install
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $200,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $250,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $250,000.00
Total $250,000.00
330
Year: 2030
Priority
Bulk Water Fill Station 30N.1 CAP-30-0044 Score:
58.90
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 This service primarily benefits contractors but has an indirect benefit to all
impacted by the project? residents when it come to accessing bulk water for a variety of purposes
including construction, events, pool filling, drinking water cisterns and other.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Traffic congestion and control is a concern at the Public Works yard.
the public or Staff if the project does not Relocation of this service will allow for proper/safe vehicle staging and
proceed? filling.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Modernized air gap fill system will eliminate cross contamination risk
legislative/regulatory compliance? associated with truck hose connections.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 I don't believe this asset is currently identified, but will be include in future
replacement in the asset management capital needs assessment.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Failure to proceed with modernizing and relocating the bulk water fill station
proceed), what will be the impact on will have significant impacts on both the water distribution crew and public
operational performance? Comment on works crew. Current congestion and traffic flow negatively impacts
any impact on operating costs, staff time operations.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Not that I am aware of at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The responsible supply and management of fresh water is becoming more
address needs impacted by climate critical with climate change. This project will allow for more responsible
change? management of that resource.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 Creates greater accesses to bulk water
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 Create a modernized, professional customer service point.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - Delivers a level of customer service expected by a
Result in the Strategic Plan? municipality of our size
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No as of yet.
public engagement?
331
Year: 2030
Citizen Satisfaction Survey 2030 Priority
CAP-30-0007 Score:
37.50
30B.3
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The initial statistically relevant survey was completed in the Summer of 2021 and the second survey occurred in 2025. By re-surveying in 2030, it will enable the City to assess
changes in satisfaction with services and importance of services. These surveys are intended to be completed on a regular cycle to enhance the use as a measurement tool.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
332
Year: 2030
Citizen Satisfaction Survey 2030 Priority
CAP-30-0007 Score:
37.50
30B.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Surveys are an important source of statistically valid, reliable and relevant
impacted by the project? feedback from citizens. To be statistically relevant requires 400
respondents/individuals.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 Project is not included in an asset management plan.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Conducting citizen satisfaction surveys is also an effective way to examine
proceed), what will be the impact on the City’s performance in comparison to the national norm and see how
operational performance? Comment on Owen Sound’s service offerings and delivery measures up to other
any impact on operating costs, staff time municipalities. Public input is a key driver for decision-making, and informs
and maintenance. policy decisions, budgetary spending and continuous improvement.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 The project ensures that voices of engagement are inclusive as it is a
diversity and inclusion initiatives? statistically relevant survey representative of City demographics.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Identified action for KR2- Service Excellence - enhance our information,
Result in the Strategic Plan? technology and digital capabilities to allow residents, business, and visitors
to interact with the City where, when and how they choose
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 5 The City engages with citizens in a variety of methods on various projects,
public engagement? and undertook a statistically reliable citizen satisfaction survey in 2021 and
2025.
333
Year: 2030
Computer Capital - New Council
Priority
Equipment (Councilor/Mayor CAP-30-0019 Score:
33.00
Ipad/Computer) 30A.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 - 5 years Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of hardware for new Council and Smart Phones, Cell Phones and other mobile devices. Based on a standard replacement cycle ensuring staff and Council have
reliable hardware for the delivery of services.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $32,000.00
Contingency
Total $32,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $32,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $32,000.00
Total $32,000.00
334
Year: 2030
Computer Capital - New Council
Priority
Equipment (Councilor/Mayor CAP-30-0019 Score:
33.00
Ipad/Computer) 30A.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Affects all Staff, Council and the ability to deliver services to the public.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 high probability of failure; moderate consequence
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational Efficiencies will be achieved
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Asset has no aesthetic value (i.e. is underground, is not is not
the asset improved? visible)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery - Service excellence
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
335
Year: 2030
Computer Capital - Replace Staff Cell Priority
Score:
46.70
Phones 30A.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 3 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $53,000 (2034), $68,000 (2035) Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing end-of-life equipment on a standardized replacement cycle. By 2030, equipment will be out of warranty, with an average age between 3 and 4 years. Most
equipment has a life expectancy of between 2 and 4 years based on type of usage.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $45,000.00 $58,800.00
Contingency
Total $45,000.00 $58,800.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $103,800.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $103,800.00
Total $103,800.00
336
Year: 2030
Computer Capital - Replace Staff Cell Priority
Score:
46.70
Phones 30A.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Significant number of Staff, Council are affected and the ability to deliver
impacted by the project? services to the public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Equipment used to field communication to staff working alone.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislation/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Equipment is used to support City's asset management plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Current equipment will be past operation life expectancy which will lead to
proceed), what will be the impact on higher maintenance costs. Older equipment reduces the ability of Staff to
operational performance? Comment on work, due to equipment not working and needing repairs and incompatibility
any impact on operating costs, staff time with new software. New equipment allows Staff to deliver effective
and maintenance. services.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource categories met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Equipment allows staff to work in the field significantly reducing travel time
address needs impacted by climate and green house gases
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 No impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - KR3 Supports an objective of the Strategic Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
337
Year: 2030
Computer Monitors Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0023 Score:
43.00
30A.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $17,782.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The City has standardized on a five year replacement cycle of Monitors. Replacement of existing end-of-life equipment.
All equipment is out of warranty, with an average age between 5 and 10 years old. Most equipment has a life expectancy of 4 to 5 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $13,750.00
Contingency
Total $13,750.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $13,750.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $13,750.00
Total $13,750.00
338
Year: 2030
Computer Monitors Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0023 Score:
43.00
30A.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
339
Year: 2030
Priority
Computer Replacement 30A.6 CAP-30-0021 Score:
43.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $183,400 (2035) Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of existing end-of-life equipment on a standardized replacement cycle. All equipment is out of warranty, with an average age between 5 and 10 years old. Most
equipment has a life expectancy of 4 to 5 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $158,275.00
Contingency
Total $158,275.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $158,275.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $158,275.00
Total $158,275.00
340
Year: 2030
Priority
Computer Replacement 30A.6 CAP-30-0021 Score:
43.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
341
Year: 2030
Corporate Website Transformation Priority
CAP-30-0008 Score:
45.00
30B.2
Rationale Continuous Improvement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Carly McArthur
Future Replacement Cost: $66,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The current City website was developed in 2016 and updated in 2024 to ensure best practices in user experience and website design. By continuing to plan for reviewing and
updating the website every 6 years, the City can ensure that its online presence incorporates best-in-class web design practices to give residents the information they are looking for
right away.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
$0.00
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
342
Year: 2030
Corporate Website Transformation Priority
CAP-30-0008 Score:
45.00
30B.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Website will increase accessibility of information to all residents
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 N/A
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Replacement of existing asset (asset not included in current asset
replacement in the asset management management plan)
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Improved availability of information and customer service options online
proceed), what will be the impact on could decrease calls and physical visits to City Hall
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded by the modernization reserve
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 Increase accessibility of information to all residents
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 A redesigned website will increase the user experience and use best
the asset improved? practices in website design
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 4 Project will support priority of service excellence KR 2 - enhance our
Result in the Strategic Plan? information, technology and digital capabilities to allow residents,
businesses and visitors to interact with the City where, when and how they
choose
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 Lack of ease in navigating the current website has been commented on
public engagement? anecdotally and within surveys (community engagement review)
343
Year: 2030
Council Chambers Audio/Video Priority
CAP-30-0022 Score:
30.00
Replacement 30A.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $149,920.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of equipment which will be 7 years old. Most equipment has a life expectancy of 5 to 7 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $121,900.00
Contingency
Total $121,900.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $121,900.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $121,900.00
Total $121,900.00
344
Year: 2030
Council Chambers Audio/Video Priority
CAP-30-0022 Score:
30.00
Replacement 30A.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 1,000 to 2,499people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project? This is based on viewer potential
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 0 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure and low consequences
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 The project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project supports an Objective in the Strategic Plan.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
345
Year: 2030
Duncan McLellan Field House Priority
CAP-30-0031 Score:
19.00
Exhaust Fan Replacement 30D.8
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $19,300.00 Location/Coordinates: 800 18th Street East
Description:
A building condition assessment was completed in 2024. The exhaust fans serve both the concession area and the washrooms and require replacement.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,400.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,400.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
$0.00
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,400.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,400.00
Total $10,400.00
346
Year: 2030
Duncan McLellan Field House Priority
CAP-30-0031 Score:
19.00
Exhaust Fan Replacement 30D.8
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The floor replacement will be limited to the users of the concession area
impacted by the project? and the washrooms.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There are minimal health and safety issues due to the low or infrequent
the public or Staff if the project does not use.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative or regulatory requirements associated with
legislative/regulatory compliance? the replacement of the exhaust fan
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low likelihood of failure and consequence of failure associated
replacement in the asset management with the replacement of the exhaust fans
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be no or little effect on current operations as the space is seldom
proceed), what will be the impact on used or is seasonal.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no known opportunity for grant or partnership funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 0 There will be little to no impact on the environment as part of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 There is no impact on the aesthetic of the facility associated with the
the asset improved? replacement of the exhaust fans.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the core delivery of service by supporting athletic field
Result in the Strategic Plan? operations.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
347
Year: 2030
Duncan McLellan Field House Floor Priority
CAP-30-0032 Score:
20.80
Replacement 30D.7
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $48,600.00 Location/Coordinates: 800 18th Street East
Description:
Replacement of floor based on a building condition assessment completed in 2024.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $26,200.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $26,200.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
$0.00
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $26,200.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $26,200.00
Total $26,200.00
348
Year: 2030
Duncan McLellan Field House Floor Priority
CAP-30-0032 Score:
20.80
Replacement 30D.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The floor replacement will be limited to the users of the concession area
impacted by the project? and the maintenance areas.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The raised floor tiles are creating trip hazards and have the potential to
the public or Staff if the project does not cause minor injury.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative or regulatory requirements associated with
legislative/regulatory compliance? the replacement of the floor surfaces.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 There is a low likelihood of failure and consequence of failure associated
replacement in the asset management with the floor replacements.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be no or little effect on current operations as the space is seldom
proceed), what will be the impact on used. The floor must be replaced in order to maintain current levels of
operational performance? Comment on service.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no known opportunity for grant or partnership funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little to no impact on the environment as part of this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the core delivery of service by supporting athletic field
Result in the Strategic Plan? operations.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
349
Year: 2030
Employee Engagement Initiative Priority
CAP-30-0009 Score:
37.70
(2030) 30B.1
Rationale Master Plan - Human Resources Strategy Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The survey will measure employee engagement and identify specific drivers of employee engagement. The last survey was completed in 2027. Based on best practice, this initiative
will be completed every three years to assess changes in perceptions related to engagement.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
350
Year: 2030
Employee Engagement Initiative Priority
CAP-30-0009 Score:
37.70
(2030) 30B.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Employee engagement leads to improved service to the public and
impacted by the project? increases citizens’ trust and confidence in government
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Lack of employee engagement leads to decreased attendance and may
the public or Staff if the project does not lead to staff to have negative mental health
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 Employers are required to provide a safe work place
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 N/A
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Highly engaged employees not only provide better service to customers,
proceed), what will be the impact on but their general performance was better than others
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Funded through tax levy
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Project has a neutral impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 3 This project will assess diversity, equity and inclusion practices as they
diversity and inclusion initiatives? relate to employees
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project supports the strategic priority of Services Excellence and Clear
Result in the Strategic Plan? Direction
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
351
Year: 2030
Farmers Market Radiator Priority
CAP-30-0016 Score:
21.50
Replacement 30M.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $92,650.00 Location/Coordinates: 114 8th Street East
Description:
Replacement of the heating system, particularly the radiators which have exceeded its expected useful life with performance and reliability likely diminishing over time.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $34,500.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $34,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
$0.00
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $34,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $34,500.00
Total $34,500.00
352
Year: 2030
Farmers Market Radiator Priority
CAP-30-0016 Score:
21.50
Replacement 30M.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The replacement of the radiators will support the tenants of the market.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no direct impact on health and safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative or regulatory compliance requirement
legislative/regulatory compliance? associated with the replacement of the existing radiators.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure due to the age of the existing
replacement in the asset management radiators. The consequence is low assuming that individual units will fail,
plan? and not the entire system.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on replacement of the units at this time. This may change as the units continue
operational performance? Comment on to surpass their estimated useful life.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 There is no known opportunity for grant funding at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little or no direct impact on the environment as a result of the
address needs impacted by climate replacement of this equipment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The replacement of the equipment is required in order to maintain the
diversity and inclusion initiatives? existing market building heating and ventilation needs.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has not aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the core delivery of services through the provision of a
Result in the Strategic Plan? functional facility through the City's lease agreement for the market building.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
353
Year: 2030
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-30-0017 Score:
65.20
Replacement 30U.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting requires replacing PPE assets every ten years or as needed. 2030 - Assets requiring replacement
include:
8 x bunker gear replacements
3 x helmet replacements
3 x boots replacement
0 x balaclava replacement
0 x gloves replacement
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $33,500.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $33,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $33,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $33,500.00
Total $33,500.00
354
Year: 2030
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-30-0017 Score:
65.20
Replacement 30U.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 26 Suppression Firefighters & 5 support personnel
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 The utmost highest priority is that we provide adequate and appropriate
the public or Staff if the project does not PPE to protect our Firefighters.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Failure of Asset can result in critical injury.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of the asset increases reliability of operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Scheduled replacement of the pooled asset includes funding for future PPE
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacement of diversity recruitment opportunities.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 Replacement of equipment with newer, more modern equipment will greatly
the asset improved? improve aesthetic value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports Core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
355
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Community Hall Priority
CAP-30-0033 Score:
32.70
Window Replacement 30D.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $104,372.29 Location/Coordinates: 75 2nd Avenue East
Description:
Deficiencies observed or reported during the assessment include glazing seal failure, worn framework and trim. The deterioration is anticipated to progress due to age and exposure
to the elements, and may lead to moisture infiltration, a weakening of integrity, and a loss of marketability
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $43,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $43,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $43,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $43,000.00
Total $43,000.00
356
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Community Hall Priority
CAP-30-0033 Score:
32.70
Window Replacement 30D.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Impacts all HP community center users
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Replacement is required to protect the building asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Will gain HVAC efficiencies
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Rebates programs might available
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Energy conserving
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 New windows will function much better for the users
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 This does not affect the strategic plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This is a public facing asset
public engagement?
357
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Pool Window and Door Priority
Score:
32.70
Replacement 30D.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $42,477.09 Location/Coordinates: 75 2nd Avenue East
Description:
Windows and doors are at end of their useful life and may experience sealant failure over time, resulting in potential leakage, condensation, energy loss, and discomfort for building
occupants. Replacement is recommended in the short term.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $17,500.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $17,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $17,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $17,500.00
Total $17,500.00
358
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Pool Window and Door Priority
Score:
32.70
Replacement 30D.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Impacts pool staff and users
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Replacement is required to protect the building asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Will gain HVAC efficiencies
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Rebates programs might available
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Energy conserving
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 New windows will function much better for the users
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 This does not affect the strategic plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This is a public facing asset
public engagement?
359
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Senior Centre Window Priority
CAP-30-0035 Score:
34.30
and Door Replacement 30D.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $48,545.25 Location/Coordinates: 75 2nd Avenue East
Description:
The windows and doors are at the end of there useful life and may experience sealant failure over time, resulting in potential leakage, condensation, energy loss, and discomfort for
building occupants. Replacement is recommended in the short term.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $25,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
360
Year: 2030
Harrison Park Senior Centre Window Priority
CAP-30-0035 Score:
34.30
and Door Replacement 30D.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Impacts all HP Senior Center users
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Replacement is required to protect the building asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Will gain HVAC efficiencies
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Rebates programs might available
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Energy conserving
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 New windows will function much better for the users
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 N/A
public engagement?
361
Year: 2030
Priority
Hydrant Painting (2030) 30N.5 CAP-30-0045 Score:
46.00
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Historically the Water Utility has refreshed hydrant paint approximately every five years. Hydrants are painted entirely yellow (except for the black cap shown) and the colour coding
will be achieved via removable reflective rings on the side ports.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $90,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $90,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $90,000.00
Total $90,000.00
362
Year: 2030
Priority
Hydrant Painting (2030) 30N.5 CAP-30-0045 Score:
46.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Entire City Water Distribution System; however, not the whole city will be
impacted by the project? directly impacted by the hydrant painting in one year.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Poorly maintained hydrants can fail.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 No legislation, but this is a best practice in the industry.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Part of required maintenance of the assets
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Adversely affects hydrant life if not done.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 readiness criteria met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Improves aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 N/A
public engagement?
363
Year: 2030
JMRRC Domestic Hot Water Boiler 1 - Priority
CAP-30-0025 Score:
35.00
30I.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $105,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the hot water boiler #1 at JMRRC which has consistently failed, resulting in significant repair costs. It is now nearing the end of their useful life, with replacement
parts becoming both expensive and hard to obtain
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $70,000.00
Contingency
Total $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $70,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $70,000.00
Total $70,000.00
364
Year: 2030
JMRRC Domestic Hot Water Boiler 1 - Priority
CAP-30-0025 Score:
35.00
30I.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This would effect all the users of the facility who use dressing rooms, or
impacted by the project? washroom facilities.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project will not have an impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability these boilers will fail with a moderate
replacement in the asset management consequence. We would lose hot water in showers and hand washing
plan? sinks.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This project will have little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 This project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 This project would see more efficient boilers, sized correctly for the facility
address needs impacted by climate usage installed.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 There have been complaints from public when the current boilers aren't
public engagement? working and theres no hot water in showers or washrooms.
365
Year: 2030
JMRRC Domestic Hot Water Boiler 2 - Priority
CAP-30-0026 Score:
35.00
30I.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $105,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the hote water boiler #2 which has consistently failed, resulting in significant repair costs. It is now nearing the end of useful life, with replacement parts becoming
both expensive and hard to obtain.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $70,000.00
Contingency
Total $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $70,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $70,000.00
Total $70,000.00
366
Year: 2030
JMRRC Domestic Hot Water Boiler 2 - Priority
CAP-30-0026 Score:
35.00
30I.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This would effect all the users of the facility who use dressing rooms, or
impacted by the project? washroom facilities.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project will not have an impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability these boilers will fail with a moderate
replacement in the asset management consequence. We would lose hot water in showers and hand washing
plan? sinks.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 This project will have little or no effect on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 This project is funded through reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 This project would see more efficient boilers, sized correctly for the facility
address needs impacted by climate usage installed.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 There have been complaints from public when the current boilers aren't
public engagement? working and there's no hot water in showers or washrooms.
367
Year: 2030
Priority
JMRRC Natural Gas Refueler 30I.4 CAP-30-0027 Score:
36.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the current natural gas refueling system used for our ice resurfacers. The existing infrastructure is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, and replacement
parts are becoming more difficult to source
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $60,000.00
Contingency
Total $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $60,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Reserves $60,000.00
Total $60,000.00
368
Year: 2030
Priority
JMRRC Natural Gas Refueler 30I.4 CAP-30-0027 Score:
36.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 This project will impact ice users. Any downtime of this equipment will result
impacted by the project? in floods being missed or altering or canceling rentals.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project will not have any impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislation mandating this replacement at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure. This equipment has failed in the past,
replacement in the asset management and we were lucky enough to have the needed parts on the shelf. As parts
plan? become obsolete we will see larger downtimes.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be slight impact, as the quick fill replacement unit will result in
proceed), what will be the impact on less downtime when filling the machine. This has the potential to increase
operational performance? Comment on the amount of heavy ice maintenance performed etc.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 This projected would be funded through facility reserves.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project maintains a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been mentioned by the public.
public engagement?
369
Year: 2030
JMRRC Roof Sections 3-9 Priority
CAP-30-0028 Score:
21.80
Replacement 30I.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $950,200.00 Location/Coordinates: 700 10th Street East
Description:
Replacement of sections 3 through 9 are smaller flat roofs over mechanical areas, entrance doors, and common areas.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $453,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $453,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $453,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $453,000.00
Total $453,000.00
370
Year: 2030
JMRRC Roof Sections 3-9 Priority
CAP-30-0028 Score:
21.80
Replacement 30I.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 The roof sections impacted by these roof sections are not regularly
impacted by the project? occupied by facility users and are limited to entrances, common areas, and
mechanical spaces.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project has no direct impact on health and safety at this time.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative or regulatory compliance requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance? associated with this project.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Some of these roof sections have experienced leaks and damage to
replacement in the asset management insulation. There is a high probability of failure of the roof system and
plan? moderate impact on users.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 The repair costs to date are minimal but will get more costly as the
proceed), what will be the impact on deterioration continues. The replacement of the wet insulation and
operational performance? Comment on rehabilitation of the surface will reduce annual operating costs associated
any impact on operating costs, staff time with the leaks.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There is no known grant or partnership funding for this project at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little or no direct impact on the environment as a result of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This projects maintains an existing space, being common, staff, and
diversity and inclusion initiatives? mechanical areas of the facility.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact an aesthetic value of the facility.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the delivery of core services through maintaining an
Result in the Strategic Plan? existing facility used by the public.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback, mainly through
public engagement? complaints about roof leaks in common public areas.
371
Year: 2030
Priority
Kinsmen Park Bleachers 30D.9 CAP-30-0036 Score:
44.20
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: $32,800.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The bleachers at Kinsmen Park have reached the end of their service life. This capital would be used to purchase and install two new 5-tier aluminum bleacher placed on a
concrete pad.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $20,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
372
Year: 2030
Priority
Kinsmen Park Bleachers 30D.9 CAP-30-0036 Score:
44.20
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Approximately 1,000 to 2,499 people will use these bleachers annually.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 The current bleachers are beginning to deteriorate. The failure of the
the public or Staff if the project does not wooden boards can lead to multiple injuries.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The replacement of the bleachers will ensure compliance with the
legislative/regulatory compliance? Occupier's Liability Act.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probably of failure and moderate consequence due to the
replacement in the asset management height of the bleachers and their conditions.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight improvement on operational efficiencies by placing a
proceed), what will be the impact on concrete pad underneath the bleachers.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 There are no known third party funding sources at this time.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project maintains the same number of bleachers at this location.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 Renewal of aging infrastructure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Support core service delivery of outdoor ball diamonds.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Project has not been identified by the public or sports group users.
public engagement?
373
Year: 2030
Library Facility - Detailed Electrical Priority
CAP-30-0029 Score:
23.50
and Mechanical Assessment 30V.1
Rationale Asset Management - Study / Assessment / Plan Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
824 1st Avenue West, Owen Sound,
Future Replacement Cost: $25,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Ontario, Canada
Description:
Undertake an electrical and mechanical equipment assessment to identify potential issues, assess their condition, and recommend necessary actions to develop a multi-year capital
replacement program
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
$25,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $25,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $25,000.00
Total $25,000.00
374
Year: 2030
Library Facility - Detailed Electrical Priority
CAP-30-0029 Score:
23.50
and Mechanical Assessment 30V.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 0 While the OSNGUPL has over 175,000 visits per year, this project supports
impacted by the project? a study only and not the rehabilitation or replacement of equipment. The
mechanical and electrical audit will ensure that the building services are
able to maintain operations.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project is for future planning and is not related to any ongoing electrical
the public or Staff if the project does not or mechanical concerns that impact health and safety.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no specific legislative or regulatory compliance requirements other
legislative/regulatory compliance? than the requirements to maintain a building occupied by staff and the
public.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The existing mechanical and electrical equipment will be at the end of its
replacement in the asset management useful life. This means that there is a moderate probability of failure but a
plan? low consequence assuming that components will fail, rather than an entire
system.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There are no significant failures known at this time, however, increased
proceed), what will be the impact on operating costs are anticipated as the equipment approaches the end of its
operational performance? Comment on useful life.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 This project may be eligible for a rebate through a project that confirms the
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling City's energy consumption.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no direct impact on the environment as part of this
address needs impacted by climate project.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project will help support the establishment of operating and capital
diversity and inclusion initiatives? needs to maintain an existing public space.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value as it is an assessment of existing
the asset improved? mechanical and electrical equipment
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the delivery of core service through maintaining the
Result in the Strategic Plan? existing space and operations.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
375
Year: 2030
Moores Hill Road and Retaining Priority
CAP-30-0015 Score:
45.50
Walls- Reconstruction 30P.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 75 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $22,500,000.00 Location/Coordinates: 499 Moore's Hill, Owen Sound
Description:
Reconstruction of the road and adjacent earth retaining walls including the replacement of the existing sidewalk, possible improvements to the geometry of the 2nd Avenue West
and 4th Avenue West intersections and pedestrian crossings, streetlighting improvements, replacement of the existing storm sewer and associated storm water management
infrastructure under Moores Hill road and replacement of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer on 2nd Avenue West within the limits of construction.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031 2032
Consulting including Design &
$200,000.00 $190,000.00 $12,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $1,800,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $200,000.00
Total $220,000.00 $2,200,000.00 $15,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
$0.00
Impact on Operating Budget: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Project Budget: $2,435,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2033
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $2,220,000.00
Water Rates $172,000.00
Waste Water Rates $58,000.00
Total $2,450,000.00
376
Year: 2030
Moores Hill Road and Retaining Priority
CAP-30-0015 Score:
45.50
Walls- Reconstruction 30P.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Based on 2016 traffic counts, approximately 2,500 vehicles travel on
impacted by the project? Moores Hill daily. Including an assumed 200 pedestrians using the
sidewalk and two persons per vehicle, this equates to approximately 5,200
persons relying on this transportation link every day.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result if the project does not proceed. The slope
the public or Staff if the project does not stability is a concern in this area. There is movement taking place as
proceed? evidenced by the embankment or existing gabion baskets encroaching on
the road and sidewalk, respectively.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no legislation mandating this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 There is a moderate probability of failure with moderate consequences.
replacement in the asset management This project involves replacing three classes of critical infrastructure -
plan? roadway, sidewalks and retaining walls.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved by reducing the required repairs to
proceed), what will be the impact on the road as a result of slope movement causing buckling road surfaces,
operational performance? Comment on sidewalk encroachment by the gabion baskets that have to be adjusted and
any impact on operating costs, staff time repaired regularly and the impairment of winter control activities
and maintenance. (inadequate sidewalk width).
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 There is no opportunities for partnership or grant funding at the present time
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling but future funding opportunities may be possible.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 This project will slightly improve the natural environment and prevent further
address needs impacted by climate damage to the environment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project will maintain an existing public space. The project will involve
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacing and widening the sidewalk to enable snow storage and improved
accessibility, thereby encouraging pedestrian and possible other active
transportation usage.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The upgraded retaining walls, roadway and sidewalk will have an improved
the asset improved? appearance.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The condition of Moores Hill has been noted informally by some members
public engagement? of the public as requiring some upgrading.
377
Year: 2030
Parks - Playground Replacement - Priority
Score:
50.90
Tot Lot Park
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the playground at Tot Lot Park is required. The existing play structure has exceeded its useful life. The new playground will be created to meet the current
standards as set out within CSA Z614:20, Children's Playground Equipment and Surfacing. The new playground will also include design elements that support accessibility that
comply with AODA requirements associated with public spaces.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $246,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $246,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $246,000.00
Total $246,000.00
378
Year: 2030
Parks - Playground Replacement - Priority
Score:
50.90
Tot Lot Park
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource criteria met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public. The playground project
public engagement? layout will be brought forward to the Grey County Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their input.
379
Year: 2030
Police Station Boiler Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0030 Score:
38.30
30J.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Jason Hoffman
Future Replacement Cost: $314,100.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The bulk of the hydronic system was installed in the 2007 and 2008 project when new heating mains installed throughout the building, as well as new valves and reheat coils.
During this renovation, the second boiler and new boiler circulation pumps were installed. The existing boiler in the penthouse was left in place but has since been replaced. They
have an expected life span of 20 years.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $150,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
380
Year: 2030
Police Station Boiler Replacement Priority
CAP-30-0030 Score:
38.30
30J.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Police staff are the only users affected by the replacement of the Boilers.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 The system is operational and is being planned for replacement prior to
the public or Staff if the project does not failure in order to maintain the required climate for the facility.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a moderate likelihood of failure based on the age and assessment
replacement in the asset management of the current equipment. Likewise, there is a moderate consequence as it
plan? will take multiple days of outage to replace the equipment.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 It is anticipated that there will be direct financial savings from reduced
proceed), what will be the impact on energy consumption as well as indirect savings through the optimization of
operational performance? Comment on other HVAC equipment.
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project may be eligible for grant funding.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 It is anticipated that there will be moderate reductions in energy
address needs impacted by climate consumption.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value as it is located inside the existing
the asset improved? penthouse.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports the delivery of core services by ensuring that an
Result in the Strategic Plan? adequate facility portfolio is available to deliver services out of.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
381
Year: 2030
Public Works Facility Exterior Steel Priority
CAP-30-0040 Score:
29.50
Entrance Door Replacement 30M.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $40,292.56 Location/Coordinates: 1900 20th Street East
Description:
Replacement of door to correct deficiencies observed or reported during the assessment includes damaged surfaces, corrosion, worn or discoloured finishes, and operational
difficulties.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $16,600.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $16,600.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $16,600.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $16,600.00
Total $16,600.00
382
Year: 2030
Public Works Facility Exterior Steel Priority
CAP-30-0040 Score:
29.50
Entrance Door Replacement 30M.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Impacts multiple staff
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislative requirements
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Replacement is required to protect the building asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Will gain HVAC efficiencies
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Rebates programs might available
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Energy conserving
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No impact
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 0 This does not affect the strategic plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 No public involvement
public engagement?
383
Year: 2030
Reconstruction of 3rd Avenue
Priority
East/GR 15 - 14th St E to 18th St E - CAP-30-0011 Score:
56.30
Phase 3 -30P.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 years (roads), 80-100 years (watermains and sewers) Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This is the third phase (14th Street East to 18th Street East segment) of a proposed three phase project that involves reconstructing 3rd Avenue East from 10th Street East to 18th
Street East. This project will be coordinated in conjunction with the County of Grey Road reconstruction (which includes reconstruction of 3rd Avenue East roadway, replacing all
the failing municipal underground infrastructure and fully reconstructing curbs/gutters and sidewalks. City related costs include: watermain, sanitary sewer, sidewalk replacement,
existing storm sewer replacement or new construction water replacement (cost shared by City and County) and boulevard landscaping including planting new trees.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$580,000.00 $250,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $5,000,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $730,000.00
Total $600,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $6,600,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
OCIF Formula $1,320,000.00
Water Rates $2,640,000.00
Waste Water Rates $2,640,000.00
Total $6,600,000.00
384
Year: 2030
Reconstruction of 3rd Avenue
Priority
East/GR 15 - 14th St E to 18th St E - CAP-30-0011 Score:
56.30
Phase 3 -30P.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 It is estimated that 5,000 to 9,999 people will be directly impacted as a
impacted by the project? result of this project. This includes the local residents and businesses as
well as the travelling public.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries may result if the project does not proceed due to sidewalk trip
the public or Staff if the project does not hazards.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a high probability of failure of underground services with moderate
replacement in the asset management consequences.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Replacing the underground and surface infrastructure will result in
proceed), what will be the impact on operational cost savings related to attending to sidewalk trip hazards, road
operational performance? Comment on patching and repairs, sewer blockages and repairs and watermain break
any impact on operating costs, staff time avoidance.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project has confirmed OCIF funding at less than 50% of the cost, plus
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling includes a partnership cost component with Grey County.
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 The project will slightly improve the natural environment and prevent further
address needs impacted by climate detriment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project will improve the aesthetic value of the street scape by replacing
the asset improved? the road and sidewalk with enhancements including tree planting.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 2 The project has been mentioned informally through public comments.
public engagement?
385
Year: 2030
Software Transformation - Asset Priority
CAP-30-0024 Score:
44.50
Management 30A.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 07/10/2026 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implement an Asset Management System (AMS) to ensure the efficient resource utilization, operational success and that the City is compliance with the provincial requirements for
asset management planning. An AMS helps organizations track, monitor, and manage their assets throughout their life-cycle.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $110,550.00
Contingency
Total $110,550.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $110,550.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $110,550.00
Total $110,550.00
386
Year: 2030
Software Transformation - Asset Priority
CAP-30-0024 Score:
44.50
Management 30A.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Direct impact will be City staff from various departments; however, this
impacted by the project? project will also affect delivery of all it services to staff and Citizens
(>10,000 people indirectly impacted)
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No Impact on Health an Safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This is an enhancement to an existing asset in order to generate
replacement in the asset management operational improvements.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both Staff time and cost savings will be achieved as a result of the project
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 No opportunity for partnership or grant funding
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 This project does not eliminate an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence - KR3 Supports an objective of the Strategic Plan
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
387
Year: 2030
St. George's Baseball Diamond - Field Priority
CAP-30-0038 Score:
28.80
Lights Replacement 27D.10
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
St. Georges baseball diamond lights have reached the end of their lifecycle and are no longer repairable This project will replace the light fixtures (on existing poles) with new
energy efficient LED lights.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
388
Year: 2030
St. George's Baseball Diamond - Field Priority
CAP-30-0038 Score:
28.80
Lights Replacement 27D.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 The ball diamond facility is utilized by approximately 1,000 to 2,500 users
impacted by the project? annually.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on H&S.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no know legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The lights are at the end of their lifecycle and no longer repairable.
replacement in the asset management Replacement is required to support rental use of the lit field.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 The project will have little or minimal impact on current operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource needs.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little or no environmental impacts associated with this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 Maintains public use of an existing recreational facility.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No aesthetic impact.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports the delivery of core services through the delivery of
Result in the Strategic Plan? ball diamonds.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Informal feedback has been received on the condition of this facility.
public engagement?
389
Year: 2030
Trail Design and Signage Standards Priority
CAP-30-0039 Score:
54.50
Implementation 29D.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implement specific design standards developed in 2029 as part of the Trail Design and Signage Standards Development project.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $150,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
390
Year: 2030
Trail Design and Signage Standards Priority
CAP-30-0039 Score:
54.50
Implementation 29D.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is non-essential and requires upgrade/maintenance to support
replacement in the asset management safe use of trail inventory and mitigate risk to the City.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiency will be achieved as a result of this project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
391
Year: 2030
Wastewater Treatment Plant Storage Priority
CAP-30-0042 Score:
69.30
Tank Biosolids Cleanout (2030) 30O.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: $2,000,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The biosolids storage tank (pictured) at the Wastewater Treatment Plant receives digested biosolids after treatment, and stores them for seasonal land application. In time the tank
accumulates sediment and debris and requires a cleaning for proper operation; especially mixing and pumping.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $150,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
392
Year: 2030
Wastewater Treatment Plant Storage Priority
CAP-30-0042 Score:
69.30
Tank Biosolids Cleanout (2030) 30O.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This is the biosolids storage for the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Storage tank mixing or pumping failure could create adverse reactions in
the public or Staff if the project does not the tank, which could create dangerous and oderous gases.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 This is a recurring requirement for asset maintenance
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 This is a necessary regular activity in order to allow proper operation of the
proceed), what will be the impact on biosolids treatment train.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 2 Funded through wastewater rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Increased flows do not necessarily translate to increased biosolids
address needs impacted by climate production.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Prevent a possible severe odour problem.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
393
Year: 2030
Water Treatment Plant Facility Priority
CAP-30-0046 Score:
63.40
Maintenance i/c Roof 30N.7
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of roof sections 1 and 2 are recommended for replacement in 2030
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $93,500.00
Contingency
Total $93,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $93,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $93,500.00
Total $93,500.00
394
Year: 2030
Water Treatment Plant Facility Priority
CAP-30-0046 Score:
63.40
Maintenance i/c Roof 30N.7
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the water treatment for the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 Roof failure could affect water quality and staff safety
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is identified in the 10-year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Ultimately roof failure could cause leakage and damage to important
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment components; equipment and mechanical and electrical.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Not a direct link
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Not significant aesthetic impact
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 None
public engagement?
395
Year: 2030
Priority
WTP Storage Facility 30N.2 CAP-30-0047 Score:
59.20
Rationale Asset Management - New Asset / Expansion Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Space for maintenance workshop, critical parts, chemicals and emergency supplies. 2030- Location selection, site prep and design; 2031- Construction
Cash Flow Projection: 2030 2031
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $150,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $150,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $200,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $200,000.00
Total $200,000.00
396
Year: 2030
Priority
WTP Storage Facility 30N.2 CAP-30-0047 Score:
59.20
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 The entire population many be affected if we fail to store critical parts and
impacted by the project? supplies on-site that could result in a plant shut-down as we source
supplies.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 There is a significant H&S risk related to the improper storage of parts and
the public or Staff if the project does not materials. From hazardous or dangerous goods to general housekeeping to
proceed? prevent trips and fall organized storage is critical for operations
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 Under the Safe Drinking Water Act we are required to keep the drinking
legislative/regulatory compliance? water system in a fit state of repair. Part of that is ensure we maintain
adequate supplies in case of emergency.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Not specifically identified, but limited space has been noted.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 As previously mentioned this project is critical for operational continuity and
proceed), what will be the impact on ensuring adequate resources in case of emergency.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 0 Not that I am aware of
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Potentially. With climate change come more severe weather events
address needs impacted by climate resulting in stresses on our treatment plant processes. Have adequate
change? storage space will allow for more emergency supplies.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 N/A
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 0 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Service Excellence. Being a to provide a more reliable treatment process
Result in the Strategic Plan? and supply.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Not as of yet.
public engagement?
397
Year: 2030
WWTP Instrumentation/SCADA (2030) Priority
CAP-30-0043 Score:
66.00
30O.4
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
There is a need to regularly replace electrical and SCADA equipment which have a short lifespan.
This especially includes PLC's, computers, software upgrades, and various instrumentation and networking equipment.
Cash Flow Projection: 2030
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $40,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2029 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $40,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2030
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2030
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $40,000.00
Total $40,000.00
398
Year: 2030
WWTP Instrumentation/SCADA (2030) Priority
CAP-30-0043 Score:
66.00
30O.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This can affect the wastewater treatment train which affects the entire City
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 PLC failure poses a considerable risk to proper sewage treatment
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Ontario Water Resources Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 These are identified on the 10 year plan
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 PLC failure would result in the plant control system "Crashing" and sewage
proceed), what will be the impact on treatment could partially or entirely cease, (There are alarms in place to
operational performance? Comment on alert the operators of this outcome)
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Funded through wastewater rates
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 Wet weather flows are now more frequent but this is not as relevant a factor
address needs impacted by climate for this project
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 No adverse affect
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A: Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
399
20311
Capital
Detail Sheets
400
Year: 2031
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0009 Score:
71.30
(2031) 31P.2
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 40 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Annual program to rejuvenate hot mix asphalt surfaces and maintain the expected service life of roads throughout the City. The project also includes the replacement or
rehabilitation of concrete structures associated with asphalt resurfacing including catch basins, maintenance structures, curb, gutter and sidewalks.Detailed locations to be
determined prior to construction year.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering $15,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $685,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $700,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $700,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Federal Gas Tax $700,000.00
Total $700,000.00
401
Year: 2031
Asphalt & Concrete Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0009 Score:
71.30
(2031) 31P.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Roads being resurfaced will improve local and commuter traffic throughout
impacted by the project? the City and generally benefits all road users in the City.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Injuries may result if roads are not resurfaced from drivers or cyclists
the public or Staff if the project does not avoiding potholes or other deficiencies in the road
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 The City has minimum maintenance standards it is required to meet.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 This is included in the Asset Management Plan. Failure to seal road ways
replacement in the asset management can impact infrastructure under the road decreasing the life of multiple
plan? assets
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Road resurfacing will reduce operation costs associated with the road
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance (eg repairing pot holes).
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets 3 resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 3 Minor positive impact will be realized from this project due to improved
address needs impacted by climate drainage.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Some sidewalk replacement and improved cycling (active transportation
diversity and inclusion initiatives? enhancements).
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 This project is identified in the strategic plan to improve road conditions
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 Road resurfacing has been requested multiple times through public
public engagement? engagement
402
Year: 2031
Bayshore - Roof Top Units (RTU)s Priority
CAP-31-0005 Score:
35.50
Replacement 31H.5
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $323,750 in 2056 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the replacement of the following Roof Top Units (RTUs) at the Bayshore Community Centre.RTU 10 - 3 tonne unit which currently provides heating and
cooling for the Attack Staff Office. This unit has been in service since 2002 and is reaching the end of its useful life.RTU 11 - 12 tonne unit that currently services the South East
concourse of the arena bowl. This unit has been in service since 2001 and is reaching the end of it useful life.RTU 2 - 7.5 tonne unit which services Shore Room 1, the foyer
between the Bay and Sound room and the banquet hall washrooms. This unit has been in service since 2001 and is reaching the end of it useful life.RTU 3 - 25 tonne unit which
currently provides heating and cooling for the Bay Room. This unit has been in service since 2002 and is reaching the end of its useful life.RTU 8 - 12.5 tonne unit which currently
provides heating and cooling for the front lobby. This unit has been in service since 2001 and is reaching the end of its useful life.This project would be completed during the
summer months by an HVAC contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $204,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $204,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $204,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $204,000.00
Total $204,000.00
403
Year: 2031
Bayshore - Roof Top Units (RTU)s Priority
CAP-31-0005 Score:
35.50
Replacement 31H.5
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 These units service the Bayshore Community Centre. This space sees
impacted by the project? thousands of people annually.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 There is no impact to health and safety unless the unit fails.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 there is no legislation requiring this project be completed.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact to the operation, less downtime and
proceed), what will be the impact on maintenance.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project meets three resource categories:
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling • Financial resources
feasibility, Technology/resources. • Human resources
• Scheduling feasibility
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 New units will be more efficient, so there will be a slight impact on the
address needs impacted by climate environment.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain existing public spaces
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 There will be no aesthetic value with this project.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project will support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 There has been unsolicited feedback when the current RTUs aren't working
public engagement? properly.
404
Year: 2031
Bayshore Dressing Room Rubber Priority
CAP-31-0001 Score:
39.10
Floor Replacement 31H.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $656,250 in 2056 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves the replacement of the existing skate tile flooring in the dressing rooms at the Bayshore Community Centre. The current flooring, over 20 years old, has
reached the end of its useful life and is showing signs of significant wear and tear, including cracks and peeling.This work will happen in the North end dressing rooms including the
refs room, hallway, room 4, 5,6 and 7 at the Bayshore Community Centre. With the remaining south hallways, dressing room 1, 2 and 3 to be completed the following year.This
work would be completed by a contractor during the summer months when the ice is removed between May and August.New skate tile will be much safer as the existing floor is
deteriorating and will be much easier to maintain and keep clean.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031 2032
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $375,000.00 $375,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $375,000.00 $375,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $750,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $750,000.00
Total $750,000.00
405
Year: 2031
Bayshore Dressing Room Rubber Priority
CAP-31-0001 Score:
39.10
Floor Replacement 31H.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Between 2500-5000 people use these rooms and hallways annually.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There is potential for slips and trips on the existing flooring.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is currently no know legislative requirement for this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Asset has reached the end of its useful life and requires replacement to
replacement in the asset management prevent further deterioration.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 there will be a very slight operational efficiency, as the new floor would be
proceed), what will be the impact on easier to maintain.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 This project will dramatically improve the aesthetic value of the current
the asset improved? asset. A new floor will modernize the facility and dressing rooms.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
406
Year: 2031
Bayshore Dressing Room Shower Priority
CAP-31-0002 Score:
25.70
Upgrades 31H.2
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Dressing room shower facilities be
Future Replacement Cost: 48,000 in 2051 Location/Coordinates: upgraded at the Bayshore Community
Centre with new fixtures, and surrounds
Description:
This project will see the dressing room shower facilities be upgraded at the Bayshore Community Centre with new fixtures, and surrounds. The current facilities are over 40 years
old with minimal upgrades completed to the shower heads in past years. Trusscore would be installed on the wall surfaces to allow for better aesthetics and ease of cleaning, with
water saver shower heads installed to help reduce some water consumption. This work would be completed in house with Facility Maintenance Staff and Arena Staff working
together.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
407
Year: 2031
Bayshore Dressing Room Shower Priority
CAP-31-0002 Score:
25.70
Upgrades 31H.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Thousands of people annually use the dressing room and shower facilities
impacted by the project? at the Bayshore.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 Currently there is no risk to health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no know legislation mandating this project at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This is a much needed enhancement to a current asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little to no impact on operational performance.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource categories met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will have minimal impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will improve the aesthetic value of the asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 the current state of the showers and how they function has been mentioned
public engagement? in unsolicited feedback.
408
Year: 2031
Bayshore Elevator Modernization Priority
CAP-31-0003 Score:
27.70
31H.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $224,000 in 2051 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the enhancement of the Bayshore elevator. The elevator was installed in 2001 and is in need of repairs. The interior would be updated, replacing damaged
panels, flooring, and lighting, as well as upgrading the operation controls and panel to be more modern and safer for use.This work would be completed by a licensed contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $140,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $140,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $140,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $140,000.00
Total $140,000.00
409
Year: 2031
Bayshore Elevator Modernization Priority
CAP-31-0003 Score:
27.70
31H.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Several thousand people use this elevator annually. This is the only means
impacted by the project? for patrons with accessibility needs to get to the upper concourse of the
facility.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 This project will not have an impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 there is no known legislation mandating this project at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This project will fix some damage to existing elevator, but could be
replacement in the asset management reasonably deferred because asset is functioning as expected.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be a slight impact on the operational performance.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There is little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project maintains a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 There will be a definite improvement to the aesthetic value of the asset.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 This project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback by users of the
public engagement? elevator.
410
Year: 2031
Bayshore Exterior Brick Priority
CAP-31-0004 Score:
28.90
Repairs/Sealing 31H.4
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: 95000 in 2061 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project will see the cleaning and sealing of the white brick on the exterior of the Bayshore Community Centre. Currently there is evidence of mold on the brick which indicates
moisture penetration, cleaning is an option however it must be sealed afterwards to ensure moisture cannot continue to penetrate the brick and cause damage. The brick is still in
good shape and should be maintained to ensure this continues. This work would be completed by a contractor.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
411
Year: 2031
Bayshore Exterior Brick Priority
CAP-31-0004 Score:
28.90
Repairs/Sealing 31H.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Thousands of people use the Bayshore annually, though the users are not
impacted by the project? directly impacted.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 As the brick continues to absorb moisture the brick will begin to deteriorate,
the public or Staff if the project does not which may lead to potential risk of injury if the brick falls apart and would
proceed? land on the sidewalks below.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no know legislation at this time.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 The activity is maintenance that can reasonably be deferred because the
replacement in the asset management asset is currently functioning as intended.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 this project will have little to no impact on the operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource categories met.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This will have little to no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project will maintain a current public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 This project will improve the aesthetic value of the asset, though there is not
the asset improved? a failure at this time.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project will maintain a current public space, being the exterior of the
Result in the Strategic Plan? facility.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 There has been some unsolicited feedback regarding the black all over the
public engagement? bricks on the Bayshore exterior.
412
Year: 2031
Bridge Rehabilitation - 4th Avenue Priority
CAP-31-0010 Score:
60.90
West over Pottawatomi River 31P.3
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: $18,000,000.00 Location/Coordinates: 350 4th Avenue West, Owen Sound
Description:
Rehabilitation project to realize the expected service life of the structure.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031 2032 2033
Consulting including Design &
$70,000.00 $40,000.00 $16,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $605,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $80,000.00 $650,000.00 $20,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $750,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2033
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $750,000.00
Total $750,000.00
413
Year: 2031
Bridge Rehabilitation - 4th Avenue Priority
CAP-31-0010 Score:
60.90
West over Pottawatomi River 31P.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 This bridge had an AADT of 4,445 vehicles in 2016. This equates to a
impacted by the project? population use of approximately 9,000 persons per day including
pedestrians and cyclists.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Not completing this project will result in deterioration of the bridge leading to
the public or Staff if the project does not load restrictions, closure and ultimately premature failure (unrealised
proceed? expected service life of 80 years). If the failure occurs unexpectedly,
multiple injuries may result if the project does not proceed.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Provincial legislation and regulations mandate bridge inspections to be
legislative/regulatory compliance? completed and documented every two years and bridge repairs and
maintenance to be completed as action items and recommendations from
the inspection reports.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 There is a moderate probability of failure with high consequences. This is
replacement in the asset management critical infrastructure that should be maintained as per the City's asset
plan? management plan.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Not completing this rehabilitation will result in increased repair costs and
proceed), what will be the impact on may result in load posting and restricted access by certain vehicles
operational performance? Comment on including City operational (winter control, transit, etc.) and emergency uses.
any impact on operating costs, staff time Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of this project.
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 resource categories met.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There are no known environmental impacts related to this project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space. Additionally, the imposition
diversity and inclusion initiatives? of load restrictions and/or bridge closure would have significant impact on
the economic well-being of the City and the Brooke community. The only
remaining access, not including a long detour via the Township of Georgian
Bluffs and the 7th Avenue W/14th St W bridge is the bridge over the
Pottawatomi River on 2nd Avenue West/Eddie Sargent Parkway.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 4 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement. A deteriorated bridge is not aesthetically pleasing.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project is not specifically identified in the City's strategic plan but it
Result in the Strategic Plan? does support a City that moves. It supports core service delivery.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 There have been no documented concerns or comments from the public
public engagement? regarding this bridge but informal comments have been received about
some aspects of the bridge's appearance.
414
Year: 2031
Condition Assessment Municipal Priority
CAP-31-0030 Score:
64.40
Reservoir 31N.1
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
As per the City's DWQMS Operational Plan, the reservoir is due for inspection every 8 years. This is completed using a remotely operated vehicle to inspect the inside of the
reservoir, without having to drain it. The walls, columns, and floor are inspected for any abnormalities and a report is provided on the overall condition.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$20,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $20,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $20,000.00
Total $20,000.00
415
Year: 2031
Condition Assessment Municipal Priority
CAP-31-0030 Score:
64.40
Reservoir 31N.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This affects the City's primary drinking water system water reservoir. Failure
impacted by the project? of this infrastructure would affect the drinking water for the entire City, and
fire suppression (as it provides storage capacity for fire protection) for the
entire municipal system.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 If failure led to contamination of the drinking water this could be
the public or Staff if the project does not characterized as a serious public health and safety risk.
proceed? Structural failure up to and including collapse would have a catastrophic
impact on the water supply, as the reservoir allows the treatment plant to
"make" water 24 hours a day, despite water consumption being primarily
during the day and evening. Further, the reservoir provides storage to
supplement the distribution system under fire flow conditions (i.e. when
hydrants are drawing water faster than the plant can supply it).
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Maintenance activity; however, not recommended to be deferred as
replacement in the asset management reservoir is critical to system operations.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Reservoir issues resulting in low chlorine residual or high turbidity could
proceed), what will be the impact on result in Boil Water Advisories.
operational performance? Comment on Deterioration of structural condition without the City's understanding of that
any impact on operating costs, staff time degradation would leave the City unprepared for end-of-service life
and maintenance. expenses, and would increase risk of failure.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 Re-occurring, low impact on resources
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Climate change trends indicate that average surface water temperatures
address needs impacted by climate are rising. Diurnal temperature swings during the shoulder seasons may be
change? more variable. This freeze-thaw affects the frost penetration and can
increase the failure rate (breakage rate) of metallic pipe. If more water is
lost, and it becomes harder to process water quickly due to increased
sediment or biological loading (from higher intake water temperatures), with
the expected population growth, it will become even more critical to have
storage capacity in the reservoir. In fact, an additional storage facility is
expected to be required at some point in the future. It is imperative to
ensure the reservoir is maintained to the best possible degree.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
416
Year: 2031
Fire - Auto Extrication (Battery Priority
Score:
51.40
Powered Tools)
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 15 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Several Auto Extrication Devices are in need of replacement. These pieces of rescue equipment include combination tool, cutter, and spreader (often known in the fire service as
"Jaws of Life"). This is a scheduled replacement of assets.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $71,000.00
Contingency
Total $71,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $71,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $71,000.00
Total $71,000.00
417
Year: 2031
Fire - Auto Extrication (Battery Priority
Score:
51.40
Powered Tools)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Firefighters are the direct users. All motorists in the city could potentially
impacted by the project? need the use of equipment if involved in a MVC.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 4 Failure of existing equipment would result in the death or further injury to
the public or Staff if the project does not the victim requiring assistance.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No legislation for replacement. Auto Extrication Certification and training is
legislative/regulatory compliance? legislated by the province and the equipment is required to achieve
certification.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Auto Extrication Equipment is a Capital Asset.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 A Replacement of the asset will result in slightly reduced maintenance
proceed), what will be the impact on hours- repairing the aged equipment.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 This project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Climate Change has resulted in severe weather patterns, severe weather
address needs impacted by climate often results in motor vehicle collisions (MVC) The equipment is required to
change? free victims from entrapment.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 NA
public engagement?
418
Year: 2031
Fire Hydrant Flow Testing (2031) Priority
CAP-31-0031 Score:
61.80
31N.2
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
With development continuing, the City's water system will have undergone considerable changes. It is required to re-test the fire flow capacity of the system to update hydrant
capacities to provide the correct colour coding on the hydrants; in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association procedures.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $50,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $50,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $50,000.00
Total $50,000.00
419
Year: 2031
Fire Hydrant Flow Testing (2031) Priority
CAP-31-0031 Score:
61.80
31N.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Entire City Water Distribution System
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Mischaracterising hydrant capacity can lead to the use of the incorrect
the public or Staff if the project does not hydrant by emergency services
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 291
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Part of required testing of the assets
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Can result in incorrect fire flow estimations which can affect fire protection
proceed), what will be the impact on for existing and new development.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets 3 resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact on the environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 N/A
public engagement?
420
Year: 2031
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-31-0015 Score:
70.80
Replacement 31U.4
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Fire
Estimated Useful Life (years): 10 Staff Contact: Greg Nicol
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting requires replacing PPE assets every ten years or as needed. This is a multi-year, recurring annual
project (every year replacement of Bunker Gear is required). 25 year - PPE replacement schedule has been created and updated yearly. This project is a recurring yearly project,
indefinitely. Funding is from fire bunker gear reserve.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials $47,500.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $47,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $47,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $47,500.00
Total $47,500.00
421
Year: 2031
Fire Services Bunker Gear Priority
CAP-31-0015 Score:
70.80
Replacement 31U.4
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 26 Suppression Firefighters & 5 support personnel
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 5 The utmost highest priority is that we provide adequate and appropriate
the public or Staff if the project does not PPE to protect our Firefighters.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 Failure of Asset can result in critical injury.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Replacement of the asset increases reliability of operations.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 This project meets all four resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 NA
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 5 Scheduled replacement of the pooled asset includes funding for future PPE
diversity and inclusion initiatives? replacement of diversity recruitment opportunities.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Replacement of equipment with newer, more modern equipment will greatly
the asset improved? improve aesthetic value.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 NA
public engagement?
422
Year: 2031
Greenwood Cemetery Administrative Priority
CAP-31-0016 Score:
38.10
Office Interior Upgrade 31D.50
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The existing structure is one of the oldest buildings in Owen Sound and is one of the oldest homes in the City. The building is a listed heritage property. The structure is in need of
space spatial modifications to support controlled access for visitors and define a staff only administrative area. The finishes in the structure are aging and in need of a refresh. The
main floor must house a formal receiving area, secure office space to support Cemetery Supervisor and administrative support staff. The lower floor is intended to be used for
cemetery operations and requires a meeting space for staff (Cemetery and Arboriculture both operate out of this facility). The main floor should not be used for operational activities
to avoid impact on cleanliness of space and conflict with administrative functions.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $75,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $75,000.00
Total $75,000.00
423
Year: 2031
Greenwood Cemetery Administrative Priority
CAP-31-0016 Score:
38.10
Office Interior Upgrade 31D.50
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 Spatial layout modifications will establish independent area for public and
the public or Staff if the project does not staff.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 There is not immediate requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is an essential component in the delivery of cemetery services
replacement in the asset management and in need of maintenance to update facility to current standards.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiency will be achieved with dedicated work space for
proceed), what will be the impact on administrative functions and defined area to support operations work
operational performance? Comment on (meetings/computer access).
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 The project will have little to no impact on environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 The project will have no direct impact on public users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 Dramatic improvement on aesthetic quality of primary cemetery space that
the asset improved? receives grieving families.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project will support public use of a portion of the building to support
public engagement? core service delivery.
424
Year: 2031
Harrison Park Seniors Centre Garage Priority
CAP-31-0021 Score:
20.00
Roof 31D.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Low - Score 0-20
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 30 Staff Contact: Shawn Dubosq
Future Replacement Cost: $30,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of seniors centre garage roof to extend life of the asset.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $10,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
425
Year: 2031
Harrison Park Seniors Centre Garage Priority
CAP-31-0021 Score:
20.00
Roof 31D.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 The activity is maintenance that can reasonably be deferred because the
replacement in the asset management asset is currently functioning as intended.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 The project meets two resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The project does not eliminate an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The project has no aesthetic value (i.e. asset is underground, is not visible,
the asset improved? etc.)
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project supports a core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 The project has been mentioned in unsolicited feedback.
public engagement?
426
Year: 2031
Priority
IT Network Switches (2031) 31A.1 CAP-31-0017 Score:
60.90
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 Years Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $115,500.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Network Switch Replacement project consists of the systematic replacement of aging and end-of-life network switching equipment across the organization’s facilities. A number
of existing switches have reached or are approaching manufacturer end-of-support status, limiting the availability of security updates, firmware enhancements, and vendor support.
Network switches are replaced on a planned 7- to 10-year lifecycle to maintain performance, ensure continued vendor support, and reduce the risk of failure associated with aging
infrastructure. This initiative will modernize the network infrastructure through the deployment of current-generation managed switches, ensuring continued operational reliability and
alignment with organizational technology standards.The proposed upgrades will enhance network performance, capacity, and resiliency while reducing the risk of service
disruptions and security vulnerabilities. The new switching infrastructure will support current and future service requirements, including voice, data, and cloud-based applications,
and will provide improved functionality such as Power over Ethernet (PoE), advanced traffic management, and higher-speed connectivity. This investment supports the
organization’s long-term asset management strategy and commitment to maintaining secure, reliable, and efficient IT services.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $100,500.00
Contingency
Total $100,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,500.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $100,500.00
Total $100,500.00
427
Year: 2031
Priority
IT Network Switches (2031) 31A.1 CAP-31-0017 Score:
60.90
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project. Mostly
impacted by the project? Staff and people utilizing direct digital services from the City.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 If the project does not proceed, failure of aging network infrastructure could
the public or Staff if the project does not disrupt emergency communications, facility safety systems, and critical staff
proceed? operations. These disruptions present a credible risk pathway where
multiple injuries may result due to delayed response times and reduced
system reliability.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The replacement of network switching infrastructure will strengthen the
legislative/regulatory compliance? City’s ability to meet legislative and regulatory obligations related to
cybersecurity, data protection, and system integrity. While current systems
remain operational, aging and unsupported hardware increases the risk of
future non-compliance.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The City’s network switching infrastructure is a critical asset required to
replacement in the asset management deliver essential municipal services, including communications, public
plan? safety systems, and internal operations. Much of the existing equipment is
approaching end-of-life and presents an increasing risk of failure and loss of
vendor support.
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 The replacement of network switching infrastructure will improve
proceed), what will be the impact on operational efficiency by enhancing system reliability, reducing downtime,
operational performance? Comment on and minimizing reactive maintenance efforts. These improvements will
any impact on operating costs, staff time support more consistent service delivery and more efficient use of staff
and maintenance. time.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project has confirmed financial resources through reserves, and the
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling required technology and human resources are available to support
feasibility, Technology/resources. implementation. While scheduling will require coordination to minimize
operational disruption, the project is well-positioned to proceed.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 2 The replacement of network switching infrastructure will result in modest
address needs impacted by climate environmental benefits through improved energy efficiency and reduced
change? power consumption compared to aging equipment. While the project is not
a primary environmental initiative, it will contribute to incremental reductions
in energy use and prevent further inefficiencies.
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project supports the continued delivery of municipal services relied
diversity and inclusion initiatives? upon by the public by maintaining reliable network infrastructure. While it
does not introduce new services or directly expand access to specific
populations, it ensures continuity of existing services and prevents
degradation.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 The network switching infrastructure is located within secured technical
the asset improved? environments and is not visible to the public. As such, the project does not
impact the aesthetic value of municipal assets.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 The replacement of network switching infrastructure directly supports
Result in the Strategic Plan? multiple strategic priorities identified in the City’s Vision 2050 plan, including
City Building, Safe City, and Prosperous City, with secondary alignment to
Green & Resilient City. As foundational infrastructure, the project enables
reliable service delivery, operational resilience, and digital capability across
the organization.
428
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified through formal or informal public
public engagement? engagement processes. While it provides indirect benefits to the public
through improved service reliability, it has not been the subject of public
requests or feedback.
429
Year: 2031
Priority
IT Server Replacement 29A.1 CAP-31-0018 Score:
46.00
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Department: Corporate Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 7 Staff Contact: Mark Giberson
Future Replacement Cost: $175,220.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Servers for main city applications will be replaced based on right sizing to ensure future growth, redundancy and sustainability. By 2031 all equipment will be out of warranty, with an
average age 5 years, which is the normal useful life of servers.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $162,700.00
Contingency
Total $162,700.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $162,700.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $162,700.00
Total $162,700.00
430
Year: 2031
Priority
IT Server Replacement 29A.1 CAP-31-0018 Score:
46.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 Affects delivery of services to all Citizen's of Owen Sound
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 N/A
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 No known legislative/regulatory compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 moderate probability of failure; low consequence
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Funded through reserves
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little or no impact on environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 The Project does not eliminate an existing public
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Asset has no aesthetic value (i.e. is underground, is not visible)
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Project supports an objective of the Strategic Plan ( Operational
Result in the Strategic Plan? effectiveness)
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
431
Year: 2031
JMRRC Compressor 1 Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0019 Score:
35.10
30I.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: 48,000 in 2051 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of compressor 1
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
432
Year: 2031
JMRRC Compressor 1 Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0019 Score:
35.10
30I.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 2 Thousands of users would be impacted if this equipment were to fail.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There is no risk to health and safety if this project does not proceed.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislation mandated at this time for this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 This project would have a slight impact on operational efficiency.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 readiness criteria are met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This asset has no aesthetic value as it is in a mechanical room and not
the asset improved? visible to the public.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project would support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
433
Year: 2031
JMRRC Compressor 3 Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0020 Score:
37.10
31I.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment City Building Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Ryan Gowan
Future Replacement Cost: $48,000 in 2051 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project would see the replacement of compressor 3. These compressors typically begin to fail at 35,000 run hours. This compressor is currently at 33,428 run hours and may
experience failure if it is not replaced. It would be difficult to maintain 2 ice sheets if this component were to fail and be out of commission for an extended period of time. Replacing
this equipment before failure would ensure no interruption to service delivery. This project is funded through equipment reserves.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $30,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
434
Year: 2031
JMRRC Compressor 3 Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0020 Score:
37.10
31I.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Thousands of users use the JMRRC ice surfaces annually, they would be
impacted by the project? impacted by this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 There is no risk to health and safety if this project does not proceed.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislation mandated at this time for this project.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There could be a small impact to operation efficiency if this project doesn't
proceed), what will be the impact on move forward.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 3 readiness criteria are met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 This project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 This project would maintain an existing space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project has no aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 This project will support core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 This project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
435
Year: 2031
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park
Priority
Frontage Renewal (Conceptual CAP-31-0022 Score:
42.10
Design) 31D.2
Rationale Master Plan - Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park is an important 'City Park' that offers a unique combination of passive and recreational experiences occupying 9.86 hectares and almost 700 metres of
frontage along Eddie Sargent Parkway. This park is a prominent destination that attracts local residents and visitors to the City who enjoy the unique program elements offered
within the park (splashpad, beach area, amphitheater and reconciliation garden). The park is a primary venue for hosting numerous events that contribute to the rich cultural history
of Owen Sound. The frontage of the park is an important first impression that should be inviting and well defined to establish a strong sense of place. Unfortunately, the frontage is
not well defined, visually dominated by gravel parking lots, ditches and volunteer vegetation along an abandoned rail corridor and aging infrastructure. The 2022 Kelso Beach at
Nawash Park Master Plan includes a recommendation to upgrade the park frontage to tie all these former land uses together to support the establishment of a frontage worthy of
this important park. The capital funding will be used to procure a landscape architect to develop a preliminary conceptual design for the park frontage. Stakeholder consultation will
be carried out to support the conceptual design of the park frontage. An implementation plan and associated cost estimate will be generated. The implementation plan will outline a
prioritized list of conceptual design elements and define budget needs/envelopes for each over a defined implementation window. New project sheets will be established each
conceptual design element that defines the full development cost (detail design, construction, construction administration).
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$35,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $35,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $35,000.00
Total $35,000.00
436
Year: 2031
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park
Priority
Frontage Renewal (Conceptual CAP-31-0022 Score:
42.10
Design) 31D.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result with the plan to
the public or Staff if the project does not improve physical and visual access to the park.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This project is for conceptual design
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Project meets two of the resource needs.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 The project was referenced within the Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Master
public engagement? Plan (2022).
437
Year: 2031
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Parking Priority
CAP-31-0023 Score:
38.50
Lot Upgrade 30D.1
Rationale Asset Management - Renewal / Rehabilitation Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Implement design recommendations (identified in project CAP-31-0022) to improve the parking lot, the profile of the parks street frontage and access to the park.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $75,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $75,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $75,000.00
Total $75,000.00
438
Year: 2031
Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Parking Priority
CAP-31-0023 Score:
38.50
Lot Upgrade 30D.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 >10,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 The project will move the organization closer to meeting legislation.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Maintenance activity that can reasonably be deferred if necessary
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Slight impact on operations
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 1 Project meets two of the resource needs.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 The project maintains an existing public space.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
439
Year: 2031
Priority
Official Plan Update 2031 (31E.1) CAP-31-0028 Score:
42.00
Rationale Legislated Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Prosperous City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 Staff Contact: Sabine Robart
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
5 year update of the City's Official Plan. This is a legislated requirement. Pending changes to the Ontario Planning Act may require an earlier update to the Plan. Having an up-to-
date Official Plan is important to ensuring that the community's growth and development reflect the City's vision, protect employment lands, and guide the City's future.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$60,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $60,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $60,000.00
Total $60,000.00
440
Year: 2031
Priority
Official Plan Update 2031 (31E.1) CAP-31-0028 Score:
42.00
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 People impacted directly include developers
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 N/A
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 4 Planning Act requires the City's OP to be updated every 5 years
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 2 maintenance is legislated
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 delaying the update will require additional resources to update the
proceed), what will be the impact on document later on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 All 4 resource categories met
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 N/A
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No impact on public users (only developers)
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 N/A
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Supports core service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 N/A
public engagement?
441
Year: 2031
Playground Replacement - Ed Taylor Priority
CAP-31-0024 Score:
53.50
Playground 28D.6
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Replacement of the playground at Ed Taylor Park as the existing play structure has exceeded its useful life.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $246,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $246,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $246,000.00
Total $246,000.00
442
Year: 2031
Playground Replacement - Ed Taylor Priority
CAP-31-0024 Score:
53.50
Playground 28D.6
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 <1,000 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries requiring medical attention may result if the project does not
the public or Staff if the project does not proceed.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will gain full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 The asset is required to provide a non-essential service, but has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed; or
plan? • requires maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Both staff time and cost savings will be achieved as result of the project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project meet 3 of the resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic values where there is not a deemed failure.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core service delivery
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 The project has not been identified by the public. The playground project
public engagement? layout will be brought forward to the Grey County Accessibility Advisory
Committee for their input.
443
Year: 2031
Playground Replacement Design - Priority
CAP-31-0025 Score:
69.30
2031 (31D.6)
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Safe City Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): NA Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: NA Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The City has an inventory of playgrounds at the end of their lifecycle that have been identified for replacement between 2031 and 2034. There are four neighbourhood park
playgrounds in Ed Taylor Park, St. Julien Park, Evans Park and Kinsman Park that are scheduled to be replaced starting in 2031. This project is intended to establish the design
context for each so that they are shovel ready to support their staggered implementation. The project will involve the procurement of a consultant to undertake the development of
design plans, specifications and tender documentation to generate shovel ready construction packages. The consultant will seek public input on the design of each playground. That
public input will be used to shape the design context of each playground configuration.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$150,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $150,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $150,000.00
Total $150,000.00
444
Year: 2031
Playground Replacement Design - Priority
CAP-31-0025 Score:
69.30
2031 (31D.6)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 Playgrounds to be replaced service local neighbourhood families.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 The playgrounds being replaced are beyond their useful life.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Playgrounds are require to comply with the standards as set out within CSA
legislative/regulatory compliance? Z614:20 - Children's Playground Equipment and Surfacing.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Replace neighbourhood playgrounds that provide measurable health, social
replacement in the asset management inclusion, and community benefits.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 4 Replacement of end of life playgrounds will positively impact staff time and
proceed), what will be the impact on operating costs.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 No impact to natural environment expected.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Replacement playgrounds will offer greater play experience and
diversity and inclusion initiatives? accessibility.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 5 The replacement playgrounds will dramatically improve the aesthetic
the asset improved? appearance of the city playgrounds.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 1 Public consultation on replacement playgrounds is part of the scope of this
public engagement? project.
445
Year: 2031
Reconstruction of 15th Street E - 3rd Priority
CAP-31-0008 Score:
70.30
Ave E to 6th Ave E - 31P.2
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: Very High - Score 70+
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 50 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves reconstructing 15th Street East from 6th Avenue East to 3rd Avenue East (St. Mary's Hill). Will involve slope stabilization, replacing all failing municipal
underground infrastructure and fully reconstructing the road, curbs/gutters, and sidewalks. May include streetlight upgrades. Additionally, as there currently is no storm sewer on the
hill, this will be added. Will also include modification of the watermain to eliminate redundant lines and improve pressure on the side streets.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031 2032 2033
Consulting including Design &
$450,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering $50,000.00 $25,000.00
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $4,975,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency $50,000.00
Total $500,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $50,000.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $5,550,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $3,330,000.00
Water Rates $1,110,000.00
Waste Water Rates $1,110,000.00
Total $5,550,000.00
446
Year: 2031
Reconstruction of 15th Street E - 3rd Priority
CAP-31-0008 Score:
70.30
Ave E to 6th Ave E - 31P.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 5,000 to 9,999 people will be directly impacted as a result of this project.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 1 Minor injuries not requiring medical attention may result if the project does
the public or Staff if the project does not not proceed. Currently the storm drainage on the hill is very poor, resulting
proceed? in overland flow shedding throughout the pavement surface. This increases
the likelihood of ice formation and risk of slip and vehicular traction loss
incidents. The improvement of geometric design will enable accessibility-
related upgrades.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Completion of the project will achieve full legislative/regulatory compliance.
legislative/regulatory compliance? Chiefly, the elimination of sections of combined sewer through installation of
new storm sewer system on the hill. This will also result in lower flows at the
plant by removing a known source of extraneous flow; this is an objective
the MECP expects the City to make progress on over time. The
reconstruction work will also make it easier for City forces to maintain an
ice-free surface on the hill.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 4 Asset has reached its useful life and needs to be planed and scheduled for
replacement in the asset management replacement to not affect essential water services (i.e. trunk watermain)
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Staff expect to get operational efficiency by completing the project, treating
proceed), what will be the impact on less stormwater at the wastewater plant, icing issues on the road, etc.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Project can be completed on the scheduled timeframe by staff and
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling consultants and have scheduling and technological resources
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 4 The project has a demonstrated impact on mitigating or adapting to climate
address needs impacted by climate change.
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 Increased accessibility provisions will be implemented wherever
diversity and inclusion initiatives? possible/appropriate.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 The project does not impact the aesthetic value of the asset
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 The project meets at least one Strategic goal
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Not identified by the public to date
public engagement?
447
Year: 2031
Recreation Trails Master Plan Update Priority
CAP-31-0026 Score:
51.50
31D.10
Rationale Master Plan - Recreation, Parks and Facilities Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The Recreation Trails Master Plan was completed in August of 2012 and established trail priorities intended to improve residents health, the environment, accessibility, tourism,
community pride and an overall sense of place. The master plan recognizes Owen Sound as a potential "trail destination" with its unique position in Georgian Bay and linkages to
national trail networks like the Trans Canada Trail and Bruce Trail, to name just a couple. An update to the trail master plan would involve updating the trail network inventory map
to understand the current physical and spatial context of the local network and the potential linkages to the much broader regional and national trail connections. The aim of the
master plan update would be to:- update inventory of all recreational trails based on defined trail attributes and update digital GIS database,- review and update the trail
classification framework to reflect current best practices,- establish condition ratings for each trail class and apply to current trail inventory to support development of a trails Asset
Management Plan,- identify gaps and potential trail linkage opportunities within the city and beyond,- establish policy to support trail network development and operation and
maintenance, and- establish operating and maintenance objectives to support long term sustainability of trail asset that can be integrated into the cities operating and capital
budget.These are preliminary objectives for the Recreational Trails Master Plan update that would form part of the terms of reference to secure a consultant to undertake the
update.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$100,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $100,000.00
Total $100,000.00
448
Year: 2031
Recreation Trails Master Plan Update Priority
CAP-31-0026 Score:
51.50
31D.10
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 Although thousands of people utilize City trails annually, not all of them
impacted by the project? would be directly impacted by this project.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Injuries may result if the trails master plan project does not proceed.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 The project will move the organization closer to meeting standards related
legislative/regulatory compliance? to active transportation networks.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Asset is required to provide non-essential service and will require
replacement in the asset management maintenance to prevent failure.
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Operational efficiencies will be achieved as a result of this project.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Meets three of the resource needs.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on the environment.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access by all users.
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project improves aesthetic value.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 The project supports core services.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Public input will be sought as part of the delivery of this project to ensure
public engagement? that master plan is reflective of community input.
449
Year: 2031
Priority
Strategic Priorities Dashboard 31B.1 CAP-31-0006 Score:
43.50
Rationale Committee / Council Request Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 5 years Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: $15,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
A Strategic Priorities Dashboard to provide a single, consistent method to capture, monitor, and report progress across the City’s seven strategic priorities. The dashboard will serve
as the City’s core tool to consolidate updates on key initiatives and outcomes—using standardized status definitions, milestones, performance measures, and narrative—so
information can be shared reliably with the community and Council. The dashboard would be built to support:routine reporting to Council (e.g., quarterly) with a clear “at-a-glance”
view of progress by priorityan internal management view for leadership to identify issues early and coordinate actiona public-facing summary version to increase transparency (with
appropriate exclusions for sensitive items)Staff will also be investigating integrating the City's various master plans into the same dashboard to provide a holistic view.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$10,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget: $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Total Project Budget: $10,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $10,000.00
Total $10,000.00
450
Year: 2031
Priority
Strategic Priorities Dashboard 31B.1 CAP-31-0006 Score:
43.50
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 This will be a tool to share information with the entire community.
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 The project will have no impact on health and safety.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This project is a new asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 There will be a slight impact on operational efficiencies as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project. Staff expect that a dashboard will alleviate time spent compiling and
operational performance? Comment on creating reports
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 The project meets three resource categories:
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling • Financial resources
feasibility, Technology/resources. • Human resources
• Scheduling feasibility
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 4 The project will be free to access for all users. The dashboard will be
diversity and inclusion initiatives? embedded into the City's website.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 The project addresses a failing aesthetic value and provides for an
the asset improved? improvement. Currently, the City does not have a dynamic dashboard for
the community to easily access progress of the strategic priorities.
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 This project directly supports multiple strategic priorities - and enhances
Result in the Strategic Plan? reporting of progress overall.
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 3 The project has received documented multiple supports through unsolicited
public engagement? (informal) feedback from the public and Council.
451
Year: 2031
Term of Council Priorities - Strategic Priority
CAP-31-0007 Score:
34.60
Plan (Term) 2031 - 31B.2
Rationale Committee / Council Request Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Fostering Mutually Beneficial & Respectful Relationships Department: City Manager
Estimated Useful Life (years): 4 Staff Contact: Michelle Palmer
Future Replacement Cost: $15,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The process of creating a long-term Strategic Plan is part of a broader transformation planning initiative. We are building a city where people want to live, raise families, invest, work
and enjoy tourism and recreational opportunities. Fostering a shared vision and priorities will enable service excellence throughout the organization. The 2050 Vision (approved
October 2025) will enable the development of “Term of Council Priorities” after each election. These funds will be used for engagement related to the development of the term of
Council priorities.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$15,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $15,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Reserves $15,000.00
Total $15,000.00
452
Year: 2031
Term of Council Priorities - Strategic Priority
CAP-31-0007 Score:
34.60
Plan (Term) 2031 - 31B.2
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 1 This project is for Council to identify their term of council goals within each
impacted by the project? of the strategic priorities from the 2050 Vision. The outcomes of this project
will influence work over the term of Council
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 0 No impact on health and safety directly related to this project.
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 There is no known legislative/regulatory compliance requirement.
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 0 This project does not directly relate to asset management
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 There will be little or no effect on current operations as a result of the
proceed), what will be the impact on project. This project is to identify goals which will inform other work.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 The project meets all four resource categories:
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling • Financial resources
feasibility, Technology/resources. • Human resources
• Scheduling feasibility
• Technology/resources
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 There will be little or no impact on environment as a result of the project.
address needs impacted by climate The (outcome) goals identified may support environment actions
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 This project is specific to Council and does not directly increase service
diversity and inclusion initiatives? offerings. The (outcome) goals identified may support diversity and
inclusion
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 This project is specific to Council and does not directly impact an asset.
the asset improved? The (outcome) goals identified may support projects which will further
improve experiences for residents
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 This project directly supports multiple strategic priorities.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 4 The project has received several formal requests through public
public engagement? engagement.
453
Year: 2031
Traffic Signal Replacement - 8th St W Priority
CAP-31-0011 Score:
53.80
& 2nd Ave W - 31Q.1
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 25 Staff Contact: Mason Bellamy
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
This project involves geometric improvements to the intersection to better facilitate Traffic flow and Turning movements. This upgrading is may incorporate a road widening/sight
triangles of the intersection that will require some engineering, legal survey work and property acquisition in 2031. Construction is planned to commence in 2032 (starting with road,
curb and gutter/geometric and sidewalk changes (AODA compliance), underground work and pole base construction) and continue into 2032 (completion of traffic and pedestrian
signals and pole installation). Precise phasing of construction is yet to be determined.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031 2032
Consulting including Design &
$50,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $300,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $50,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $350,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2032
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $350,000.00
Total $350,000.00
454
Year: 2031
Traffic Signal Replacement - 8th St W Priority
CAP-31-0011 Score:
53.80
& 2nd Ave W - 31Q.1
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 This would have a large beneficial impact on commuter and pedestrian
impacted by the project? access in the area
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Multiple injuries may result due to inadequate intersection crossing
the public or Staff if the project does not
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 3 This project is required to provide a safe pedestrian crossing
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 This project would enhance current assets to meet AODA compliance
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 3 Saving will be realized due to decrease in ongoing maintenance
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Staff believe we are in a position to complete the project with consultants
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling help and will fit in our current Schedule and Technology
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Minor impacts to the natural environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 This project will maintain an existing public space
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Has limited impact, but some improvement to aesthetic
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 3 Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public
public engagement?
455
Year: 2031
Waterfront Trail West - Pave FHT to Priority
CAP-31-0027 Score:
65.50
Boat Launch 31D.11
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment A City That Moves Department: Community Services
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 years Staff Contact: Eckhard Pastrik
Future Replacement Cost: $2,051.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The west inner harbour waterfront trail (WIHT) is a paved from 10th Avenue East north to the Pottawatomi River pedestrian bridge at Kelso Beach at Nawash Park. A short 120
metre section of the WIHT from the northern limit of the Owen Sound Medical Centre to the West Side Boat Launch is not paved. The unpaved section of trail is composed of
compacted fines and has eroded over the years. The current state of the unpaved trail is heavily utilized and a missing paved section that forms a primary north-south link along the
west waterfront. The intent is to pave this unpaved section with asphalt at a width of 3.5 metres which will match the width of the existing trail that it will link to. A short 40 metre
portion of the existing trail from the boat launch south is situated on private lands. Staff will engage the landowner to negotiate terms to support the trail upgrade and establish an
agreement to support public use of a portion of the landowners property to support the city trail.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
$20,000.00
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $80,000.00
Materials
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $100,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Tax Levy $100,000.00
Total $100,000.00
456
Year: 2031
Waterfront Trail West - Pave FHT to Priority
CAP-31-0027 Score:
65.50
Boat Launch 31D.11
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 3 This is a heavily utilized trail along the west inner harbour with a links to the
impacted by the project? extend from Downtown to the north-west city limit.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 The trail has deteriorated and warrants upgrading to support level of use to
the public or Staff if the project does not reduce potential risk of injury.
proceed?
Legislation Score Is the project required for 1 Focus of work is to establish a trail that is of a quality that is consistent with
legislative/regulatory compliance? existing trail network along the inner harbour and reduce potential liability
risk.
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 3 Trail upgrade to prevent further deterioration and mitigate risk.
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 5 Both operational efficiency and cost savings will be incurred with reduction
proceed), what will be the impact on in maintenance work.
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 5 Project meets all four resource categories.
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Little to no impact.
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 2 Maintains existing trail and creates continuity in surface treatment along
diversity and inclusion initiatives? west inner harbour trail.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 3 Aesthetic value improved.
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 5 A City that Moves, Safe City
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 N/A
public engagement?
457
Year: 2031
WTP Instrumentation Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0032 Score:
62.20
(2031) 31N.3
Rationale Asset Management - Replacement Priority Level: High - Score 49-69
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 20 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: Location/Coordinates:
Description:
Instrumentation within the facility ranges from computer related components to analog input/output cards, digital input and output cards, PLC processors, network cards, network
cabling, fibre optics, power supplies, relays, and backup power (UPS). These devices are important for meeting regulatory requirements and keeping equipment within its lifecycle is
critical. To change out everything at the same time can be a challenge, so staged approaches to change out components is a preferred option. The main Plant PLC was upgraded
in 2012, including a number of associated components. For the continued ongoing success with the computer architecture, these components will need to be replaced as needed.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor
Materials
Equipment Purchases $30,000.00
Contingency
Total $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $30,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Water Rates $30,000.00
Total $30,000.00
458
Year: 2031
WTP Instrumentation Replacement Priority
CAP-31-0032 Score:
62.20
(2031) 31N.3
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 5 These components are critical to the automation and functioning of the
impacted by the project? Water Treatment Plant. Eventually, due to obsolescence, replacement parts
become unavailable, so it is important to maintain relatively current
technology. Failure of these parts without readily available replacements
will affect the entire City's water supply.
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 3 Instrumentation failure could be a risk to health and safety through the
the public or Staff if the project does not delivery of drinking water to the customer and provision of water for fire
proceed? suppression purposes.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 5 Safe Drinking Water Act
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 5 The asset is required to provide an essential service and has either:
replacement in the asset management • failed and requires replacement; or
plan? • requires imminent maintenance to prevent failure
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 2 Failure of a significant instrument could reduce water treatment production.
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Superintendent and operators to purchase and install
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Climate change's effect on the water system is primarily increased usage
address needs impacted by climate during summer months due to increased duration and severity of heat and
change? drought between extreme precipitation events. It is expected that the water
system would be affected by increased demands during these periods.
Typically, these conditions also contribute to poor intake water quality due
to sediment loading (erosion during extreme rainfall and due to soil
moisture conditions preventing the absorption of precipitation prior to runoff)
and organic content (algae and bacterial growth accelerate with warmer
temperatures).
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 1 No public spaces adversely impacted, however reduced capacity for water
diversity and inclusion initiatives? treatment could result in the need for mandatory water conservation
measures.
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 2 No adverse impact on aesthetic value
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 N/A : Core Service
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 None
public engagement?
459
Year: 2031
WWTP Digester Cleanout 2031 Priority
CAP-31-0029 Score:
35.70
(31O.1)
Rationale Asset Management - Maintenance Priority Level: Moderate - Score 21-48
Strategic Plan Alignment Green and Resilient City Department: Public Works and Engineering
Estimated Useful Life (years): 6 Staff Contact: Bryce McDonald
Future Replacement Cost: $350,000.00 Location/Coordinates:
Description:
The digester, with a capacity of about 2000 cubic metres receives the biosolids from the clarifiers at the WWTP, and provides additional treatment, and produces biogas, prior to
being stored on site in the two storage tanks, then land applied. Approximately every five years deletrious materials in the digester must be cleaned out to allow for proper tank
operation, especially the biosolids pumps and mixing system. Otherwise rags and other materials begin to clog those components, which could result in digester failure. During the
down time of the digester the gas compressor should be refurbished or replaced. Budget was adjusted according to to accommodate this recommendation Currently such clogging
events are accelerating in frequency.
Cash Flow Projection: 2031
Consulting including Design &
Studies
In House Engineering
Communication / Signage
Construction / Contractor $250,000.00
Materials $50,000.00
Equipment Purchases
Contingency
Total $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Costs Incurred to 2030 Year
End
Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Project Budget: $300,000.00
Schedule:
Construction Start Date: 01/01/2031
Substantial Completion or
Purchase Date: 12/31/2031
Funding Sources:
Waste Water Rates $300,000.00
Total $300,000.00
460
Year: 2031
WWTP Digester Cleanout 2031 Priority
CAP-31-0029 Score:
35.70
(31O.1)
Justification for Matrix
Score 0 - 5 Justification / Rationale for Rating
Values
People How many people will be directly 4 Affects entire city
impacted by the project?
Health & Safety Score What is the risk to the health and safety of 2 Protects public health. Failure of system components increases the
the public or Staff if the project does not possibility of bypass or overflows of untreated or partially treated sewage to
proceed? the environment, causing pollution, degrading fish habitat and exposing the
City to potential fines or other reprimands from failing to adhere to
regulations.
Legislation Score Is the project required for 2 Ensure environmental compliance
legislative/regulatory compliance?
Asset Management Score Is the project a high priority for 1 Maintains critical asset
replacement in the asset management
plan?
Operational Performance Score If the project proceeds (or fails to 1 Ensures operations
proceed), what will be the impact on
operational performance? Comment on
any impact on operating costs, staff time
and maintenance.
Project Readiness (Resourcing) How many resources are ready? Financial 3 Managed by internal staff. Ready to execute
Score resources, Human resources, Scheduling
feasibility, Technology/resources.
Environment Score Environment ScoreDoes the project 1 Protects environment
address needs impacted by climate
change?
Socio-Economic Factors Score To what degree does the project support 0 No direct impact on public users
diversity and inclusion initiatives?
Aesthetic Value Score To what degree is the aesthetic value of 1 Asset has no aesthetic value (i.e. is underground, is not visible).
the asset improved?
Strategic Plan Score Does the project help to meet a Key 1 Project supports core service delivery.
Result in the Strategic Plan?
Public Input Score Has the project been identified through 0 Has not been identified by the public.
public engagement?
461
Unfunded
Capital Project
List
462
Division Project Count Sum of Est. Project Budget (Unfunded)
Bayshore 4 $ 3,470,000
Cemetery 18 $ 970,000
City Hall 1 $ 350,000
Downtown 2 $ 810,000
Engineering 12 $ 15,960,000
Facilities, Other 7 $ 355,000
Fire 13 $ 1,013,000
JMRRC 1 $ 25,000
Library 6 $ 480,000
OSPS 5 $ 440,000
Parks & Open Spaces 54 $ 11,670,300
Public Works 1 $ 1,800,000
Grand Total 124 $ 37,343,300
463
Est. Project Budget
Division Project Name
(Unfunded)
Fire CO/Nox Sensors $ 5,000
Fire Exhaust Fan Replacement $ 25,000
Fire Additional Hot Water Heater $ 10,000
Fire Mechanical Ventilation - Garage $ 150,000
Fire Packaged Roof HVAC Unit $ 250,000
Fire Building Automation System $ 80,000
Fire Water Sprinkler System $ 50,000
Fire Electrical Distribution Equipment Replacement $ 130,000
Fire Emergency Lighting Replacement $ 10,000
Fire Exit Signage Replacement $ 10,000
Fire Fire Alarm Panel Replacement $ 30,000
Fire Communication Wiring Replacement $ 13,000
Fire Replace Emergency Generator at Fire Station $ 250,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Cairn Upgrade $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Channel Wall and Riverbank Remediation $ 200,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Roadway and Parking Lot Upgrades $ 500,000
Parks & Open Spaces Park Asphalt Condition Assessment (Roadways, Parking Lots) $ 30,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Internal Asphalt Roadway Design and Upgrade $ 500,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Pool Asphalt Roadway Upgrade (safety concerns) $ 200,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Campground Granular Roadway Upgrade $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Asphalt and Granular Roadway Upgrades $ 230,000
Parks & Open Spaces Parks Granular Roadways Upgrade (Citywide) $ 30,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Primary Parking Lot Design and Upgrade $ 1,430,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Community Hall Parking Lot - Accessibility Stalls Paving $ 60,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Community Hall Granular Parking Lot Upgrade $ 275,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Pool Parking Lot Upgrades $ 60,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Toboggan Hill Granular Parking Lot Upgrade $ 825,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach at Nawash Park Parking Lot Upgrade $ 40,000
Parks & Open Spaces Harrison Park Fountain Repair $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Campground Playground Decommision $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Community Hall Floor Replacement $ 85,300
Parks & Open Spaces HP Inn North Patio Entrance Rehabilitation $ 150,000
464
Est. Project Budget
Division Project Name
(Unfunded)
Parks & Open Spaces HP Inn Floor Replacement $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP South Washroom Masonry Repointing $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Pool Boiler Replacement $ 20,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Bandstand Masonry Repointing $ 15,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Island Picnic Shelter Roof Replacement $ 40,000
Parks & Open Spaces HP Outdoor Rink Electrical Shed Roof Replacement $ 5,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Reconciliation Garden Noise Abatement $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Solar Trail Lighting $ 300,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Electrical Upgrades $ 610,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Main Pavilion and Stage Building/Structure Condition Assessment $ 15,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Campground Pavilion Camp Hut Demolition $ 15,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Baseball Diamond Decomission $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Campground Pavilion Sportsfield Slot Drainage $ 45,000
Parks & Open Spaces Victoria Park Master Plan Update $ 20,000
Parks & Open Spaces Victoria Park Skate Park Surface renewal and concrete features $ 750,000
Parks & Open Spaces East Boat Launch Cleaning Station Roof Replacement $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces City Entrance Bed Upgrades $ 50,000
Parks & Open Spaces 14th St E /14th Ave E Park Development $ 10,000
Parks & Open Spaces J Irvine Brown Park Playground $ 1,000,000
Parks & Open Spaces Duncan McLellan Field Fencing / Backstop Replacement $ 300,000
Parks & Open Spaces Duncan McLellan Scoreboard Replacement $ 220,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kinsmen Park Ball Diamond $ 40,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kinsmen Infield Resurfacing $ 30,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kinsmen Fence (and dugout upgrades?) $ 90,000
Parks & Open Spaces Tom Williams Light Replacement $ 120,000
Parks & Open Spaces Tom Williams Warning Track $ 80,000
Parks & Open Spaces St. Georges Bleacher Replacement $ 20,000
Parks & Open Spaces St. Georges Dugout Replacement $ 60,000
Parks & Open Spaces St. Julien Bleachers $ 40,000
Parks & Open Spaces Timber McArthur Trail Establishment $ 250,000
Parks & Open Spaces Kelso Beach Trail Lighting - Pedestrian Bridge to Marina $ 300,000
Parks & Open Spaces Ash Tree Removal (high/medium risk) $ 2,000,000
465
Est. Project Budget
Division Project Name
(Unfunded)
Parks & Open Spaces Tree Inventory Renewal $ 150,000
Parks & Open Spaces Ash Tree Replacement Planting $ 270,000
Parks & Open Spaces Commemorative Forest Central Monument $ 100,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Hedgerow Replacement (between Muslim and Jewish area) $ 20,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Access Gates (restrict vehicular access to unserviceable roads) $ 20,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Water Line Upgrades $ 80,000
Greenwood Cemetery Natural Burial Areas Landscape Construction (MP
Cemetery $ 120,000
Implementation)
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Asphalt Access Road Establishment (NW Section) $ 45,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Asphalt Access Road Establishment (Section A) $ 40,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Spoil Area Management $ 50,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Hazard Tree Removal (Master Plan Implementation) $ 120,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan Update $ 30,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Mausoleum Repointing and Downspout Repair $ 90,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Mausoleum Storage Area Access Upgrade $ 15,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Mausoleum Water Damage Repairs (interior) $ 15,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Mausoleum Vault Face Repairs (marble replacement) $ 60,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Office Window and Door Replacements $ 40,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Office painting abatement and repainting (exterior) $ 150,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Office Basement Renovations $ 50,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Workshop Overhead Door Replacement $ 15,000
Cemetery Greenwood Cemetery Workshop HWH Replacement $ 10,000
Downtown Replace/Install New Streetlights - River District $ 690,000
Downtown Benches/Street Furniture $ 120,000
City Hall City Hall Roof Lower Sections Enhancements $ 350,000
Bayshore Hall of Fame Display Case $ 20,000
Bayshore Generator $ 250,000
Bayshore South Parking Lot Re-paving $ 700,000
Bayshore North Parking Lot Paving $ 2,500,000
JMRRC Bioswale Sidewalk Installation $ 25,000
466
Est. Project Budget
Division Project Name
(Unfunded)
Facilities, Other McQuay Tannery Doors and Window Replacement $ 15,000
Facilities, Other TTAG Rice House Demolition $ 25,000
Facilities, Other TTAG AHU-3 System Replacement (4T Main Entrance) $ 40,000
Facilities, Other TTAG AHU-4 System Replacement (3T Basement) $ 80,000
Facilities, Other TTAG Masonry Repointing $ 75,000
Facilities, Other TTAG Storage Room Humidity Control Improvements $ 80,000
Facilities, Other TTAG LED lighting retrofit $ 40,000
OSPS Exit Lighting LED Conversion $ 30,000
OSPS UPS Replacement $ 150,000
OSPS IT Wiring Replacement $ 60,000
OSPS Flooring Replacement $ 100,000
OSPS BAS Replacement $ 100,000
Public Works Salt & Sand Storage Containment $ 1,800,000
Library Stairwell Glass and Wall Repair $ 100,000
Library Front Steps, Ramp and Handrail Replacement - consider as part of DRP $ 200,000
Library Stairwell and Landing Flooring Replacement $ 30,000
Library Washroom Upgrades and Staff Washroom $ 50,000
Library Main Level Drop Ceiling Installation $ 50,000
Library Outdoor Programmable Space $ 50,000
Engineering 9 Bends Ravine - Trail Slope Stability and SWM $ 2,940,000
Engineering 26th St W - 5th Ave W to 7th Ave W $ 400,000
Engineering 17th St E Storm Outfall Channel & SWQ Pond Construction $ 2,440,000
Engineering Kenny Drain Culvert Conveyance Upgrade (C2) 26th St E $ 950,000
Engineering Kenny Drain Stabilization & Improvement Section (W5) 26th St E -South $ 1,400,000
Engineering Kenny Drain Stabilization & Improvement Section (W6) 23rd St E -North $ 1,200,000
Engineering Brooke Basin A3 MP - Reach 6 - 19th St W Culvert Replacement $ 680,000
Engineering Telfer Creek (TC) Subdivision - Barry's Construction $ 650,000
16th St E & 22nd Ave E Intersection Upgrading - Install Traffic Signals - Telfer and
Engineering $ 300,000
North side Developer Servicing Agreement
16th St E Widening - south side - Heritage Grove Centre Road to 150 m east of 22nd
Engineering $ 600,000
Ave E
Engineering 16th St E Widening - north side - 18th Ave E to 150 m east of 22nd Ave E $ 1,200,000
Engineering 20th Ave. E. Road Construction - 17th St. E. to 20th St. E. $ 3,200,000
467
---
Attachment: Appendix B - AF016 Reserve Schedule.pdf
Source: https://pub-owensound.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=52925
Appendix ‘A’ to Policy AF016
Schedule of City Reserves,
Obligatory Reserves and
Reserve funds
2025
1
Discretionary Reserves
2
Cannabis Grant Typical Source of Funds
11-0000-0000-33103 Initial funding was provided by the Ontario Cannabis Legalization Implementation Fund
(OCLIF), a provincial grant program that distributed revenues to municipalities to offset the
impacts of cannabis legalization. No further contributions are anticipated. Staff remain
hopeful that the Province will commit to future revenue sharing however in absence of future
funds it is recommend that this reserve be closed once all funds have been expended.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used for activities permitted under the Ontario Cannabis Legalization
Implementation Fund (OCLIF), including:
• Increased enforcement related to cannabis legislation (e.g., by-law or police services)
• Public education and awareness related to cannabis use
• Community safety initiatives
• Ongoing administrative costs associated with managing the municipal response to
cannabis legalization
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Reserve The current balance is committed to offsetting the cost of installing security cameras in the
downtown.
Purpose Interest Bearing
To support municipal costs associated with the legalization No
of cannabis, with a focus on promoting community safety,
public health, and local enforcement. This reserve continues
to fund initiatives aligned with the City’s Community Safety Responsible Department
and Well-Being priorities, particularly those involving by-law Finance
enforcement and public education.
Target or Minimum Balance
Once depleted, the reserve account will be closed.
2025 Year End Balance $21,787 3
Modernization Grant
11-0000-0000-33103 Typical Source of Funds
One time grant funds received from the Province of Ontario in 2019, totaling $634,340. Of
the original grant, approximately $80,000 remains uncommitted. The balance of funds are
committed to website improvements, IT systems, Strategic Vision 2050 and traffic counters.
Permitted Uses
Funds held in the reserve may be used for projects that align with the original intent of the
funding – namely to improve service efficiency, streamline operations and modernize
municipal services.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Reserve Responsible Department
Finance
Purpose
This reserve preserves funding received from the Ontario Target or Minimum Balance
Municipal Modernization Program (MMP), a provincial
initiative designed to support small and rural municipalities Once the funds are depleted the reserve will be closed
in modernizing service delivery, improving efficiency and
implementing technology based solutions. For the City of
Owen Sound, these funds have enabled key system upgrade 2025 Year End Balance $232,000 (Committed Balance: $200,000)
including the implementation of SharePoint and service
review costs.
4
RT07 Grant
11-0000-0000-33123 Typical Source of Funds
• Grants received from RT07 where the approved funding offset prior period costs and were
transferred to reserves
• Any additional RT07 distributions, surpluses, or future tourism related grants directed by
Council.
Permitted Uses
Funds should be used to undertake initiatives that meet RT087 guidelines; for example,
tourism, experience development, wayfinding signage, product or event development,
digital or marketing supports.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve No
Discretionary Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose Community Services
To hold and manage funds received from Regional
Tourism Organization 7 (RT07) for future initiatives that
align withRT07’s mandate of supporting and growing the Target or Minimum Balance
regional tourism economy. The reserve ensures that There is no minimum balance. Should the reserve be reduced to $0, it is recommend that it
grant funds not immediately applied to prior-period be closed.
costs are preserved for eligible projects that enhance
Owen Sound’s tourism profile.
2025 Year End Balance $42,500
5
Accessibility
11-0000-0000-33103 Typical Source of Funds
Unspent funds originally allocated for accessibility purposes, including surplus funds from
related capital projects, grants, or other program-specific funding streams.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to offset the cost of accessibility-related consulting services, studies,
or minor capital improvements. This includes upgrades to software systems,
implementation of accessibility features, or professional services aimed at meeting AODA
standards. Once the balance is applied as a funding source, staff will recommend that this
reserve be closed.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Reserve Responsible Department
Finance
Purpose
To support initiatives that improve accessibility across
City services, infrastructure, and digital platforms. The Target Balance
reserve provides a source of funding for small-scale or Once depleted it is recommended this reserve account be closed.
preliminary investments that enhance accessibility for
residents and staff, particularly where other funding is 2025 Year End Balance 8,987
unavailable.
6
Events and Awards
11-0000-0000-33103
Typical Source of Funds
Biannual contributions for the Culture Awards and year-end surpluses from the events
operating budget.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to cover costs related to one-time or special events, including cultural
celebrations and community awards programs, or to purchase minor capital items that
support event logistics and programming.
Interest Bearing
No
Related Bank Account
General Bank Account
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose Art Gallery, Tourism and Events
To support the delivery of future community events
and cultural initiatives by offsetting costs associated
Target or Minimum Balance
with one-time or infrequent events, as well as small
capital investments that enhance event delivery. This $40,000 (estimated cost to fund a one time event)
reserve helps avoid budget fluctuations by providing
a funding source outside of the annual operating 2025 Year End Balance $77,979
budget.
7
Festival Lighting
11-0000-0000-33110 Typical Source of Funds
An annual contribution in the operating budget. Currently $20,000
Permitted Uses
Funds may be for:
• Repairs and maintenance of lighting displays in related infrastructure
• Lighting upgrades and electrical box maintenance
• Storage and related logistical costs for festival equipment
• Covering annual operational needs of the Festival
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Responsible Department
Discretionary Reserve
Community Services – Parks
Purpose
To provide funding stability for the annual Festival of
Target or Minimum Balance
Northern Lights by supporting unforeseen
operational, maintenance, and minor capital costs $20,000
associated with the event.
2025 Year End Balance $45,000
8
Scenic City Order of Good Cheer
11-0000-0000-33101
Typical Source of Funds
Donations received from the public
Permitted Uses
To be used as directed by the Scenic City Order of Good Cheer for a project agreed on in
partnership with the City of Owen Sound. This is currently designated for upgrades to the
Splash Pad at Kelso Beach Park.
Interest Bearing
No
Responsible Department
Type of Reserve Finance in consultation with the Scenic City Order of Good Cheer
Discretionary Capital Reserve
Purpose Target Balance
To hold funds for future capital projects undertaken in n/a
partnership with the Scenic City Order of Good Cheer that
will ultimately become assets of the City of Owen Sound. 2025 Year End Balance $185,000 (Committed to Kelso Playground and Splash Pad)
9
Kiwanis Soccer Complex
11-0000-0000-33104
Typical Source of Funds
20% of revenues generated from summer soccer camps, revenue from Old Timers Soccer
facility booking. Other grants and donations specific to the complex. Surplus funds from
Soccer complex specific projects.
Permitted Uses
Operating and maintenance costs associated with the Soccer complex that are not
accommodated within the annual operating budget and minor capital improvements,
upgrades, or equipment purchases that enhance the quality, safety or accessibility of the
soccer complex. One-time expenditures that enhance the delivery of soccer programming,
training or community use of the facility.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve No
Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose
To provide a dedicated source of funds to support the Community Services – Parks and Sports fields in consultation with Kiwanis and Owen
Sound Minor Soccer
operation, maintenance, and capital renewal of the City’s
Soccer Complex, which is operated in partnership with
Kiwanis and Owen Sound Minor Soccer. The reserve ensures Target or Minimum Balance
that sufficient resources are available to sustain the facility
None
and programs, and to respond to one-time or emerging needs
without requiring unplanned increases to the operating
budget. 2025 Year End Balance $22,000
10
Tom Williams Reserve
11-0000-0000-33119 Typical Source of Funds
Distributions from Community Foundation related to the Tom Williams Estate fund
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to offset the one time costs of preparing, updating or completing the
city’s strategic plan, engage consultants, facilitators or subject matter experts to support
Council and community input, support public consultation, communications and
implementation tools tied directly to the planning process. The uses are not intended to
cover the costs of actions identified in the strategic plan.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Operating Reserve Responsible Department
City Manager
Purpose
To provide a source of funding for projects at the
Tom Williams Baseball Field or the Owen Sound Target or Minimum Balance
Inner Harbour, in accordance with the directions of The Tom Williams reserve is only expected to hold balances temporarily when there are
the Tom Williams estate. The reserve ensures timing differences between receipt of funds from the Community Foundation and
surplus or undesignated contributions from the completion of capital projects.
Tom Williams Fund can be applied flexibly to
eligible projects. 2025 Year End Balance $9,000
11
Tom Thomson Trail
11-0000-0000-33103
Typical Source of Funds
The reserve is funded primarily through annual donations designated for trail maintenance
within Owen Sound. Other contributions, such as grants or surplus funds related to trail
improvements, may also be directed to the reserve as appropriate
Permitted Uses
Funds in the Tom Thomson Trail Reserve may be used for regular maintenance of the trail
bed, signage and markers, upgrades to trail surfaces and other trail infrastructure.
Type of Reserve Interest Bearing
Operating Reserve No
Purpose
The Tom Thomson Trail Reserve was established to support Responsible Department
the upkeep and improvement of the Tom Thomson Trail Community Services – Parks in consultation with TT Trail Association
within the boundaries of the City of Owen Sound. The trail, a
non-motorized, multi-use corridor for biking, hiking, and Target or Minimum Balance
horseback riding, showcases the region’s countryside and
There is no minimum balance currently as annual donations are not significant.
connects Owen Sound to Meaford. Funds in this reserve
ensure that the City can maintain its portion of the trail in a
safe, accessible, and enjoyable condition for residents and 2025 Year End Balance $7,000
visitors.
12
Trails Reserve
11-0000-0000-33103 Typical Source of Funds
The reserve is funded primarily through annual donations designated for trail maintenance
within Owen Sound. Other contributions, such as grants or surplus funds related to trail
improvements, may also be directed to the reserve as appropriate
Permitted Uses
Funds in the Trail Reserve may be used for regular maintenance of the trail bed, signage and
markers, upgrades to trail surfaces and other trail infrastructure.
Interest Bearing
No
Responsible Department
Community Services – Parks
Type of Reserve Target or Minimum Balance
Operating Reserve
There is no minimum balance currently as annual donations are not significant.
Purpose
To fund the maintenance of the city’s trail network. 2025 Year End Balance $33,000
13
Doctor Recruitment
11-0000-0000-33103
Typical Source of Funds
• Annual or ad hoc grants provided by external agencies or government programs
• Donations and fundraising proceeds received by the Physician Recruitment Committee
• Contributions from the City’s operating budget, when approved by Council
Permitted Uses
• Covering costs associated with physician recruitment initiatives including marketing,
advertising and promotional materials.
• Supporting community events or initiatives aimed at welcoming and retaining physicians
Interest Bearing
No
Type of reserve
Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose City Manager
To provide dedicated funding in support of physician
recruitment and retention efforts in Owen Sound.
Target or Minimum Balance
The reserve supports the City’s ongoing commitment
to addressing local healthcare needs by ensuring There in not currently a targeted balance.
resources are available to attract and retain qualified
medical professionals. 2025 Year End Balance $10,500
14
Compost Site
11-0000-0000-33112
Typical Source of Funds
An annual contribution in the operating budget. Currently $12,500
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used for grinding and removal of large stumps, branches or accumulated
organic materials or other maintenance activities at the compost site that exceed the
approved annual operating budget.
Interest Bearing
No
Responsible Department
Public Works
Type of reserve
Discretionary Operating Reserve
Target or Minimum Balance
Purpose $25,000
To provide funding for extraordinary
maintenance and material processing
2025 Year End Balance $25,000
costs at the City’s compost site.
15
Tom Thomson Collections
11-0000-0000-33120
Typical Source of Funds
• Annual donations to the Gallery that exceed the annual budgeted requirements for
collection management
• Larger one-time donations or bequests directed to the collection
Permitted Uses
The reserve is discretionary however typical uses for the funds would be to acquire new
works; conserve, restore or other professional services required to maintain the collection.
Specialized storage, display, or equipment supporting the care and accessibility of the
collections. One time projects or initiatives that advance the gallery’s mandate. Future
gallery expansion subject to Council approval.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve No
Discretionary Operating Reserve
Purpose Responsible Department
To ensure long-term financial support for the preservation, Director and Chief Curator of the Tom Thomson Art Gallery
growth, and management of the Tom Thomson Art Gallery
collection. The reserve provides stability by setting aside
annual donation surpluses, so they are available in future Target or Minimum Balance
years when additional funds are required, for one-time The balance must remain above zero.
collection-related projects, or for significant strategic
initiatives such as gallery expansion. 2025 Year End Balance $55,000
16
Staff Support
11-0000-0000-33121
Typical Source of Funds
Surplus allocations from annual professional development budgets or other contributions
as approved by Council.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used for:
• One-time corporate training or professional development events;
• Professional development initiatives not included in departmental budgets;
• Other staff supporting costs that strengthen organizational capacity and workforce
development.
Type of Reserve Interest Bearing
Discretionary Operating Reserve No
Purpose
To provide a flexible source of funding for Responsible Department
corporate training, professional development, Human Resources
and other staff-supporting initiatives. Originally
created during COVID-19 to capture surplus
Target or Minimum Balance
training budgets, the reserve now ensures one-
time training events or needs outside of the $0
base operating budget can be supported
without creating financial pressures. 2025 Year End Balance $55,000
17
Election Reserve
11-0000-0000-33117
Typical Source of Funds
An annual contribution in the operating budget. Currently $20,000
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to cover all costs directly associated with the administration of a
municipal election, including but not limited to election staff, equipment, supplies,
technology, communications, and voter engagement initiatives.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve Responsible Department
Discretionary Operating Reserve Clerks
Purpose
To ensure sufficient funds are available to Target or Minimum Balance
administer municipal elections, which The balance is anticipated to reach $80,000 ahead of the one time use.
occur every four years, by spreading the
cost of the election evenly across each year 2025 Year End Balance $87,000
of the Council term.
18
Strategic Planning
11-0000-0000-33103
Typical Source of Funds
An annual contribution in the operating budget. Currently $10,000
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to offset the one time costs of preparing, updating or completing the
city’s strategic plan, engage consultants, facilitators or subject matter experts to support
Council and community input, support public consultation, communications and
implementation tools tied directly to the planning process.
The uses are not intended to cover the costs of actions identified in the strategic plan.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose City Manager
To provide a stable source of funding for the periodic
development of the City’s strategic plan, undertaken once
per term of Council (typically every four years)). This Target or Minimum Balance
reserve ensures that the costs of consulting, engagement The balance is anticipated to reach $40,000 to $50,000 ahead of the one time use.
and related activities for Strategic Planning are smoothed
over time and do not create one time pressure on the
operating budget. 2025 Year End Balance $70,000
19
Community Improvement Plan
11-0000-0000-33106
Typical Source of Funds
Annual transfers of uncommitted and unspent funds from the CIP program budget
(currently $62,500)
Permitted Uses
• To supplement the annual CIP budget in years when applications are oversubscribed,
allowing the City to fund eligible and approved projects beyond the base program budget.
• To fund new or expanded CIP program categories as approved by Council in their first
year
• To support one time strategic initiatives related to community improvement that align
with the intent of the CIP
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose Community Services – Planning and Heritage
To provide a funding mechanism that supports the delivery
of the City’s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) grant Target or Minimum Balance
programs. The reserve ensures that program funding n/a.
remains stable and predictable from year to year, even when
grant demand fluctuates.
2025 Year End Balance $85,000
20
Community Policing
11-0000-0000-33115
Typical Source of Funds
Annual revenues received from third-party criminal record check services administered by
the Owen Sound Police Service.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used for capital equipment, technology, or other major asset purchases that
enhance police operations, provided they are outside of the City’s capital budget
commitments.
Interest Bearing
No
Responsible Department
Owen Sound Police Board
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Capital Reserve
Target or Minimum Balance
Purpose
The reserve balance must remain positive
To provide a dedicated source of funding for capital
purchases by the Owen Sound Police Service that are
not covered through the City’s capital contribution. 2025 Year End Balance $414,000 ($266,775 Committed to 2026)
21
Sustainable Communities (Formerly Climate Change)
Typical Source of Funds
11-0000-0000-33109 • The original climate change coordinator budget transferred in 2020
• Council approved transfer of $100,000 in the 2025 budget
• Future contributions as directed by Council to advance Strategic Vision 2050 priorities
• Grants, donations, or other revenues earmarked for sustainability or Vision 2050
initiatives
Permitted Uses
Funds maybe used for capital projects, studies or initiatives that directly advance one or
more pillars of the Strategic Vision 2050.
Climate Change adaptation and mitigation projects, environmental improvements or
community sustainability initiatives
Pilot projects or one time costs that advance innovation, community resilience or long term
sustainability.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Discretionary Capital Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose City Manager
To accumulate funds dedicated to advancing the
implementation of the City of Owen Sound Strategic Vision
Target or Minimum Balance
2050. This reserve supports projects, initiatives and
partnerships that align with the Visions pillars. The reserve The balance cannot be less than zero.
provides funding to ensure the Strategic Vision 2050 is
actionable and resilient to budgetary fluctuations. 2025 Year End Balance $220,000 (includes 2025 transfer)
22
Owen Sound Attack Ticket Surcharge
11-0000-0000-33108
Typical Source of Funds
Annual ticket surcharge revenues as defined in the lease agreement with the Owen Sound
Attack plus any additional contributions received from the Attack specifically designated for
capital purposes at the Bayshore Community Centre.
Permitted Uses
• Capital Renewal, replacement or enhancement projects at the Bayshore Community
Centre that benefit both the Attack as tenant and the broader community users.
• Operating costs, day to day maintenance and event related expenses are not eligible
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve No
Capital Reserve
Purpose Responsible Department
To accumulate funds received through the Owen Sound Community Services – Recreation Facilities in consultation with Owen Sound Attack
Hockey
Attack’s annual ticket surcharge, as outlined in the lease
agreement with the City of Owen Sound, for the exclusive
purpose of funding future capital upgrades and lifecycle Target or Minimum Balance
replacements at the Bayshore Community Centre. This The balance may be oversubscribed with future anticipated contributions committed to
reserve ensures that major renewal costs are not borne returning the balance to a positive position.
solely by the tax levy in any given year and supports the
long-term sustainability of the facility. 2025 Year End Balance -$28,000
23
Land Sale and Acquisition
11-0000-0000-33113 Typical Source of Funds
Net proceeds from the sale of Municipal Property
Budgeted contributions as approved by Council
Transfers from other funds or reserves as directed by Council for specific land-related purchases
Third party contributions for the purpose of land acquisitions
Permitted Uses
Funds may used for:
• The purchase of land required for municipal purposes
• Costs directly associated with land acquisition and disposal (e.g., legal, appraisal, surveying,
environmental assessments or consulting)
• Capital improvements to prepare lands for sale or enhance property value
• Covering interim costs related to land transactions.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve
No
Discretionary Capital Reserve
Purpose Responsible Department
To provide a dedicated source of funding to support Finance
the strategic acquisition and disposition of
municipal lands. The reserve ensures that the City
has the financial flexibility to act on opportunities Target or Minimum Balance
that align with Council priorities, long-term planning $100,000
objectives, and community needs.
2025 Year End Balance $298,000
24
Tax Stabilization
11-0000-0000-33102
Typical Source of Funds
Annual Surplus
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to offset operating deficits, manage one-time or non-recurring
expenditures, and respond to unanticipated financial pressures.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve Responsible Department
Contingency reserve
Finance
Purpose
To stabilize the tax levy by offsetting operating deficits Target Balance
arising from unforeseen events, including significant
5% of prior year’s tax levy (approximately $1,750,000)
weather events and years where winter control costs
exceed forecasts. The reserve may also be used to manage
one-time budget impacts and reduce year-over-year tax 2025 Year End Balance $1,410,000
volatility.
25
WSIB Reserve
11-0000-0000-33118
Typical Source of Funds
Annual operating contributions as determined through the budget process, as well as any
year-end surplus allocations related to WSIB costs
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to cover unanticipated WSIB-related costs, including but not limited to
claims experience fluctuations, retroactive assessments, and other costs associated with
workplace injury and disability management that exceed budgeted allocations.
Interest Bearing
No
Type of Reserve
Contingency Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose Human Resources
To provide funding stability for unforeseen Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) costs that may arise
Target or Minimum Balance
beyond what is budgeted in any given year. This reserve
ensures the City can meet its statutory obligations to Total WSIB liability as determined by actuary. Currently $48,000
employees without creating sudden financial pressures
on the operating budget. 2025 Year End Balance $590,000
26
Software Contingency
11-0000-0000-33103 Typical Source of Funds
Initial funding created through the recognition of prepaid software maintenance expenses, with
the resulting surplus transferred into the reserve. Future contributions may be considered from
unspent software project funds or other identified operating surpluses related to software costs,
and unspent capital allocations where the budget for expenses precedes cash outflows.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to:
• Offset the cost of first-year software maintenance fees where ongoing costs have not yet been
included in the operating budget;
• Fund one-time software enhancements, upgrades or integrations that improve service delivery
• Support transitional costs related to implementing new software solutions, including data
migration
Type of Reserve • Cover other software-related expenditures that are non-recurring
Contingency Reserve
Interest Bearing
Purpose No
To provide a source of funds to manage the timing and cost
impacts associated with software licensing and Responsible Department
maintenance contracts. The reserve ensures that first-year
Finance – Information Technology
maintenance costs for newly acquired software—before
they are incorporated into the base operating budget—can Target or Minimum Balance
be funded without creating unexpected budget pressures.
The reserve also supports the City’s ability to respond The balance is anticipated to reach $40,000 to $50,000 ahead of the one time use.
flexibly to emerging software needs by providing resources
2025 Year End Balance $75,000
for one-time enhancements. 27
Insurance Contingency
11-0000-0000-33125
Typical Source of Funds
• Annual operating surpluses from insurance budgets, including when actual claims or
deductible payments are lower than budget
• Surpluses resulting from budgeted premiums being higher than actual policy costs.
• Planned contributions in years where insurance provider changes or contract renewals
result in significant savings which are expected to be reduced as premiums increase in
subsequent years.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used for:
• Covering unanticipated increases in annual insurance premiums
• Funding claim costs or deductibles that exceed budgeted provisions
• Stabilizing the operating budget by smoothing the impact of insurance market cycles
Type of Reserve Interest Bearing
Contingency Reserve No
Purpose Responsible Department
To provide financial stability in managing the City’s Risk Management
insurance program by offsetting unexpected increases
in premiums, deductibles, or claims costs. The reserve Target or Minimum Balance
ensures that annual fluctuations in insurance markets
One year of above average premium escalation. In 2025 this would be approximately
do not create undue pressure on the operating budget
$160,000
and that savings in low-cost years are available to buffer
high-cost years 2025 Year End Balance $155,000
28
Source Separated Organics Contingency
11-0000-0000-33126
Typical Source of Funds
The reserve balance was created from recycling costs that were budgeted prior to the
transition to producer responsibility, transferred into reserve beginning in 2019 and unused
equipment replacement contributions from when the City directly managed waste services.
Permitted Uses
Funds may be used to offset the annual levy increase associated with the introduction of
new or expanded waste diversion services, including the source-separated organics
program, stabilizing budgetary impacts from contract transitions in solid waste and
diversion services, and covering one time or transitional costs related to waste diversion
initiatives
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve No
Operating Reserve
Responsible Department
Purpose
To provide funding stability for waste diversion services as the Environmental Services
City transitions between service delivery models. Originally
established when responsibility for recycling shifted to producer Target or Minimum Balance
pay, the reserve captured annual recycling costs that were
removed from the operating budget. The reserve now supports The balance is expected to be drawn down until it has been fully utilized to smooth
transitional costs to Source Seprated Organics, at which time the reserve may be closed.
the phased implementation of the City’s source-separated
organics program by smoothing levy impacts until the full cost of
the service is incorporated into the operating budget. 2025 Year End Balance $380,000
29
Obligatory Reserve Funds
30
Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund
13-0410-1610-33301 Typical Source of Funds
Cash-in-lieu payments collected from development applications under the Planning Act
where the conveyance of land is not feasible or appropriate
Permitted Uses
As required by the Planning Act, funds may only be used for:
• Acquisition of land for part or other public recreation purposes;
• Development, improvement, or repair of land, buildings, and structures for park or
recreational purposes, including the provision of trails, playgrounds, sports fields and
related amenities.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve
Obligatory Reserve (Planning Act, s. 42 & s. 51.1) Responsible Department
Parks and Greenspaces
Purpose
To hold cash-in-lieu contributions collected under the
Planning Act in place of land conveyance for park or other Target or Minimum Balance
public recreational purposes. The fund ensures that There is no minimum balance.
development contributes to the provision of parkland in
the community
2025 Year End Balance $430,000
31
Obligatory Cemetery Reserve Fund
13-0410-0610-33302 Typical Source of Funds
• Contributions or charges collected under the cemeteries act and Planning Act
provisions;
• Interest accrued on the balance
Permitted Uses
As required by Provincial law, funds may only be used for:
• Capital improvements to cemetery lands, buildings, or structures;
• Compliance with statutory obligations regarding the upkeep and operation of
cemeteries.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve Responsible Department
Obligatory Reserve (Planning Act, Cemeteries Act) Cemetery
Purpose
Target or Minimum Balance
To hold contributions related to cemetery operations as
required by legislation. The reserve ensures that funds are There is no minimum balance.
available for the ongoing maintenance, care, and
improvement of municipal cemeteries. 2025 Year End Balance $295,000
32
Obligatory Parking Reserve Fund
13-0410-0610-33310 Typical Source of Funds
Cash-in-lieu of parking contributions collected from development applications under the
Planning Act
Permitted Uses
As required by the Planning Act, funds may only be used for:
• Acquisition of land to provide municipal parking;
• Construction, improvement, or maintenance of municipal parking facilities, including
surface lots, structures, and related equipment.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve Responsible Department
Obligatory Reserve (Planning Act, s.40) Engineering
Purpose Target or Minimum Balance
To hold cash-in-lieu of parking contributions collected
There is no minimum balance.
under the Planning Act where onsite parking requirements
are not met. The fund ensures that development
continues to support municipal parking supply. 2025 Year End Balance $49,000
33
Provincial Gas Tax Reserve Fund
13-0450-0650-33306 Typical Source of Funds
Annual transfers from the Ontario Provincial Gas Tax Program, based on local ridership and
population data. Note that the City of Owen Sound currently allocates 100% of the annual
grant to the operating budget and as such there are not currently any transfers into this
reserve fund.
Permitted Uses
As required by the Provincial transfer payment agreement, funds may only be used for:
• Operating costs of eligible public transit services;
• Capital expenditures that support or improve transit infrastructure, fleet, or facilities.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Responsible Department
Type of Reserve
Obligatory Reserve (Provincial Funding Agreement) Finance
Purpose Target or Minimum Balance
To hold funds received annually from the Ontario
Provincial Gas Tax Program. These funds are There is no minimum balance.
earmarked to support local public transit services
in accordance with program requirements. 2025 Year End Balance $205,000
34
Canada Community Building Fund (formerly Federal Gas Tax)
13-0440-0640-33305 Typical Source of Funds
Semi-annual transfers from the Government of Canada via the Association of Municipalities
of Ontario
Permitted Uses
As required by the Federal funding agreement, CCBF funds are dedicated to capital
infrastructure and capacity building investments. Eligible project categories include:
Local Roads and Bridges Public Transit
Drinking Water and Wastewater systems Solid Waste Facilities
Community Energy Systems Culture, tourism, recreation and sport
Brownfield redevelopment, resilience, broadband connectivity
Note that the City of Owen Sound currently allocates 100% of the annual contributions to
the annual asphalt and concrete rehabilitation program.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Responsible Department
Type of Reserve
Obligatory Reserve (Federal Funding Agreement) Finance
Purpose Target or Minimum Balance
To hold and manage funds received from the federal The balance of the reserve fund must be tracked such that it does not exceed three years of
government under the Canada Community-Building Fund. contributions.
The reserve provides long-term, stable funding for local
infrastructure priorities in alignment with program criteria. 2025 Year End Balance $580,000 35
Development Charges Reserve Fund
13-0430-0630-33304 Typical Source of Funds
Development Charges collected at the time of building permit issuance or otherwise
provided in agreements under the Development Charges Act
Permitted Uses
As required by the Development Charges Act, funds may only be used for:
• Growth related capital projects included in the City’s approved development charges
study;
• Eligible costs of infrastructure and facilities required to service growth
• The City currently only collects DC’s to fund roads, water, storm water, waste water and
the growth portion of the annual debt repayment related to the Julie McArthur Regional
Recreation Centre.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve Yes
Obligatory Reserve (Development Charges Act, 1997)
Purpose Responsible Department
To collect and manage funds from development Finance
charges levied under the Development Charges Act,
1997. The reserve ensures growth-related infrastructure
costs are paid for by new development rather than Target or Minimum Balance
existing taxpayers. Separate accounts are maintained There is no minimum balance.
for each service category (e.g., roads, water,
wastewater, parks).
2025 Year End Balance $1,997,000
36
Building Permit and Inspection Reserve Fund
13-0420-0620-33303 Typical Source of Funds
Surpluses of building permit fee revenues over related annual expenditures
Permitted Uses
As required by the Building code Act, funds may only be used for:
• Direct costs of administering and enforcing the Building Code Act and Building Code,
including plans review and building inspections;
• Indirect support costs reasonably related to delivering building regulatory services
• One time or capital costs that support or improve building service delivery, such as
software, vehicles or equipment used by Building Staff.
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve Yes
Obligatory Reserve (Building Code Act, 1992)
Purpose Responsible Department
To hold building permit and inspection fee revenues in Building Inspection
accordance with the Building Code Act, ensuring that the
municipality’s building regulatory services are financially self-
sustaining. The reserve provides stability where annual Target or Minimum Balance
revenues and expenditures differ, and ensures sufficient The average value of one year’s building inspection fees.
resources are available for future investments in the delivery of
building services. 2025 Year End Balance $637,000
37
Ontario Community Infrastructure Reserve Fund (OCIF)
Typical Source of Funds
13-0460-0660-33307
Annual per-capita and formula based transfers from the Province of Ontario
Any additional discretionary allocations received from the Province under OCIF top-up or
expanded program intakes
Permitted Uses
As required by the program guidance, funds may only be used for:
• Eligible capital projects that rehabilitate, replace or enhance core municipal
infrastructure including roads, bridges, water, wastewater and stormwater systems;
• Capital improvements that extend the useful life of assets or reduce future operating
pressures.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve
Obligatory Reserve (Ministry of Infrastructure) Responsible Department
Finance
Purpose
To hold and manage funds received through the Ontario
Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF), a provincial program Target or Minimum Balance
providing stable and predictable funding for municipal The balance of the reserve fund must be tracked such that it does not exceed three years of
infrastructure renewal. The reserve ensures that OCIF funds are contributions.
preserved for eligible capital investments that address local
infrastructure needs and support long-term asset management 2025 Year End Balance $5,890,000 *note that this balance is committed to the five
planning. year capital plan
38
Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT)
Typical Source of Funds
13-0470-0670-33309 The city’s retained portion of Municipal Accommodation Tax Proceeds collected under By-law No.
2023-127;
Unspent annual MAT funds from prior years
Permitted Uses
Funds from the Municipal Accommodation Tax Reserve Fund may be used to:
• Support one-time initiatives or capital projects that promote tourism, culture, and events;
• Fund capital improvements or infrastructure that enhance the visitor experience;
• Offset eligible tourism-related operating costs as defined in the City’s MAT Allocation Policy;
• Finance capital reinvestment and maintenance at the Harrison Park Campground using the
MAT proceeds collected from campground stays.
• All uses must comply with the intent of the MAT Allocation Policy and the applicable provincial
legislation.
Type of Reserve
Obligatory Reserve (Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and
Interest Bearing
Ontario Regulation 435/17 – Municipal Accommodation Tax)
Yes
Purpose
Responsible Department
To hold and manage the portion of Municipal Accommodation
Tax (MAT) proceeds retained by the City of Owen Sound, Finance
ensuring that funds are used in accordance with the City’s MAT
Target or Minimum Balance
Allocation Policy and the requirements of Ontario Regulation
435/17. The reserve provides a transparent mechanism for No specific minimum balance is required; however, the reserve must maintain sufficient funds to
funding tourism, cultural, event, and infrastructure initiatives meet committed or planned project allocations in the current and upcoming fiscal years..
that support and enhance the visitor economy.
2025 Year End Balance $150,000 $25,000 committed in 2026
39
Reserve Funds
40
Capital Reserve Fund
14-0360-0460-33232 Typical Source of Funds
• Annual tax levy contribution equal to a flat base amount plus a dedicated 1% of the total
levy;
• 50/50 allocation of annual operating surpluses, once the Tax Stabilization Reserve has
achieved its target balance;
• Annual transfers as approved by Council
Permitted Uses
• Capital projects and acquisitions identified in the approved multi year capital plan;
• One-time costs directly tied to capital delivery, such as design, engineering, and land
acquisition;
• Covering capital project costs where other funds sources (grants, DCs, donations) are
insufficient
Interest Bearing
Yes
Responsible Department
Type of Reserve
Reserve Fund Finance
Target or Minimum Balance
Purpose
To provide a dedicated and sustainable funding source The target balance equal to accumulated unspent levy allocations. Surpluses build up
for the City’s capital plan, ensuring the renewal, when projects come under budget or do not proceed, creating capacity for future capital
needs.
replacement, and expansion of municipal assets other
than water and wastewater systems. 2025 Year End Balance $4,806,000 *note that this balance is fully committed
41
Infrastructure Reserve Fund
14-0300-0400-33124 Typical Source of Funds
• Capital contributions and frontage fees from third-party developers;
• Any levy supported contributions or Council-directed transfers in future years
• Recoveries from service agreements where municipal work has already been completed and
funded but is subsequently reimbursed by developers
Permitted Uses
• Capital Projects related to the reconstruction, resurfacing, or rehabilitation of municipal roads;
• Replacement or construction of sidewalks, curbs and accessible crossings;
• Installation, replacement or modernization of streetlights;
• Replacement, upgrading, or modernization of traffic signal systems
• Design, engineering or other one time capital costs directly tied to the above infrastructure
categories
Interest Bearing
Type of Reserve Yes
Reserve Fund
Responsible Department
Purpose
To provide dedicated funding for the renewal, rehabilitation, and Finance
replacement of core municipal infrastructure, including roads,
Target or Minimum Balance
sidewalks, streetlights, and traffic signals. These reserves
support the City’s asset management objectives by ensuring No prescribed minimum; balances will fluctuate with development activity, project timing, and
that critical infrastructure remains safe, reliable, and financially capital funding needs.
sustainable.
2025 Year End Balance $661,000
42
Equipment and Fleet Reserve Funds
14-0310-0410-33200 Typical Source of Funds
Dedicated annual transfers from the operating budget, proceeds from the sale or disposal
of equipment, recoveries or surpluses arising from underspent asset management or
maintenance budgets
Permitted Uses
Replacement or major refurbishment of equipment, vehicles and related assets funded
through the city’s equipment lifecycle program.
Equipment and Fleet reserves are not intended to fund the acquis ion of new fleet assets
that are not replacing an existing asset.
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve
Capital Reserve Fund
Responsible Department
Purpose Finance
To fund the planned replacement of City-owned
equipment, vehicles, and other capital assets, including Target or Minimum Balance
those used in parks, public works, parking operations,
campgrounds, and information technology. This reserve Sufficient to fund the planned replacement of all equipment and vehicles identified in the
City’s Asset Management Plan or capital forecast.
ensures that the City maintains sufficient funding capacity
to replace essential equipment as it reaches the end of its
useful life. 2025 Year End Balance $5,319,000
43
Facility Reserve Funds
14-0320-0420-33240 Typical Source of Funds
• Dedicated annual transfers from the operating budget;
• A portion of facility booking revenues (approximately 5%)
• Recoveries or surpluses from underspent maintenance budgets
Permitted Uses
• Capital projects that replace, renew or rehabilitate municipal facilities;
• Projects that extend the useful life or improve the efficiency of existing facilities;
• Asset management studies, design or engineering work related to facility renewal
• One time capital costs tied directly to maintaining facility service levels
Interest Bearing
Yes
Type of Reserve
Capital Reserve Fund Responsible Department
Finance
Purpose
To provide a sustainable source of funding for the renewal,
rehabilitation, and replacement of City-owned facilities. The Target or Minimum Balance
reserve supports asset management objectives by ensuring Sufficient to fund the planned replacement of all equipment and vehicles identified in the
sufficient funding is available for projects that extend the City’s Asset Management Plan or capital forecast.
useful life of buildings and facility components, or that replace
them at end of life.
2025 Year End Balance $1,923,000
44
Storm Water Reserve Fund
14-0330-0430-33227 Typical Source of Funds
• Annual tax-levy transfers dedicated to storm water capital and asset management.
• Future storm water rate contributions (if/when a utility model is adopted), including any
Council-approved rate stabilization transfer
• Recoveries or surpluses from underspent maintenance budgets
Permitted Uses
• Capital projects that renew or replace storm water infrastructure (e.g., culvert/pipe
replacements, inlet/outfall works, pond dredging, LID retrofits);
• Flood-risk reduction and resiliency projects (capacity upgrades, conveyance
improvements, overland flow routing);
• Asset management activities: condition inspections, CCTV, modeling, master plan
updates, inventories, and design/engineering tied to storm projects
• Projects identified in the storm water master plan
Type of Reserve
Capital Reserve Fund Interest Bearing
Yes
Purpose
To provide a stable, dedicated funding source for the
Responsible Department
renewal, rehabilitation, and risk-mitigation of the City’s storm
water system, culverts, storm sewers, ditches, channels, Finance
outfalls, stormwater management ponds, LID features, and
related appurtenances, and to support asset management
Target or Minimum Balance
planning. The reserve was established as a foundational
mechanism should Council adopt a storm water rate in the Aligned with the City’s Storm Water Master Plan and Asset Management Plan
future, enabling a smooth transition from tax-levy funding to
a utility model. 2025 Year End Balance $1,019,000 (Committed to Kenny Drain in 2027) 45
Landfill Post-Closure Care Reserve Fund
14-0310-0410-33215 Typical Source of Funds
• Annual Transfers from the operating budget
• Surpluses from post closure maintenance accounts
• Recoveries from third part contributions or project specific funding
• Interest earned on the reserve balance or debt instruments
Permitted Uses
• Annual operating and maintenance costs associated with the closed landfill, including
environmental monitoring, sampling, and reporting
• Capital projects related to post-closure care, such as monitoring equipment replacement,
slope stabilization, and landscaping;
• Major environmental or infrastructure repairs identified through the City’s monitoring and
maintenance programOne time capital costs tied directly to maintaining facility service levels
• Debt repayment or internal borrowing related to renewable energy initiatives (e.g., solar panel
Type of Reserve installations) provided that the principal and interest are repaid to the reserve
Capital Reserve Fund
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, and O. Interest Bearing
Reg. 222/98 – Landfill Standards
Yes
Purpose Responsible Department
To fund the City’s long-term post-closure care obligations
Finance
related to the closed municipal landfill site, ensuring
environmental protection and regulatory compliance in Target or Minimum Balance
accordance with provincial standards. The reserve provides a
sustainable financial mechanism for covering the cost of The minimum balance should equal the estimated cost of one year of post-closure maintenance
and environmental monitoring, as outlined in the City’s post-closure care plan
ongoing maintenance, environmental monitoring, and site
improvements required after landfill closure. 2025 Year End Balance $1,030,500
46
Water Reserve Fund Typical Source of Funds
14-0370-0470-33223
• Annual Surpluses from the water budget
• Sale of Surplus Land or equipment related to the water system
• Dedicated contributions or recoveries tied to Water infrastructure
• Interest earned on account balances
Permitted Uses
• Capital replacement, rehabilitation, or expansion of the municipal drinking water system,
including treatment, storage and distribution infrastructure;
• Asset management activities such as studies or condition assessments that support long
term system sustainability;
• Rate stabilization to mitigate temporary deficits in operating or capital programs, or to
phase in future rate increases;
Type of Reserve
• Emergency or unforeseen costs related to system integrity, compliance, or public safety;
Capital and Sustainability Reserve
• One time capital or operational transition costs directly related to regulatory compliance.
Legislative Authority: Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and
Ontario Regulation Safe Drinking Water Act 453/07 (Financial Interest Bearing Yes
Plans for Municipal Drinking Water Systems)
Responsible Department Water Treatment and Distribution
Purpose Target or Minimum Balance
To provide a consolidated funding source to support the financial The reserve fund may show a temporary negative balance provided that the five year financial
sustainability of the City’s drinking water system. The Water plan required under O.Reg 453-07 demonstrates that the fund is sustainable and that the
Reserve Fund acts as a combined rate stabilization, capital provision of clean, safe drinking water can continue without tax rate subsidy
renewal, and asset management reserve, ensuring that the City The target balance should be sufficient to support planned capital activity and maintain a
can maintain and invest in critical water infrastructure while stable rate structure consistent with the approved financial plan.
avoiding undue fluctuations in user rates.
2025 Year End Balance $2,974,726
47
Waste Water Reserve Fund Typical Source of Funds
14-0340-0440-33228
• Annual remaining amount after revenues cover annual operating and capital obligations
• Sale of land or equipment associated with waste water operations
• Dedicated contributions from developers or agreements related to wastewater
infrastructure;
• Other Council Approved Transfers
Permitted Uses
• Replacement, rehabilitation or expansion of wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure;
• Asset management activities, system condition assessments or master plans
• Rate stabilization to offset temporary deficits or smooth rate adjustments;
• Emergency or unforeseen capital or operating costs that protect system integrity or
regulatory compliance;
• Design and engineering for future wastewater capital projects
Type of Reserve Interest Bearing Yes
Capital and Sustainability Reserve
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and O. Reg. 588/17 (Asset Responsible Department Waste Water collection and Treatment
Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure)
Target or Minimum Balance
Purpose The reserve fund may show a temporary negative balance provided the five-year financial plan
To ensure the long-term financial stability of the City’s wastewater demonstrates that the system is financially sustainable and con continue operating on full cost
system by providing a consolidated funding source for capital recovery basis.
renewal, asset management, and rate stabilization. The reserve The target balance should be sufficient to fund planned capital projects and maintain stable
supports infrastructure renewal and helps maintain compliance wastewater surcharges consistent with the financial plan.
with environmental and legislative requirements for wastewater
collection and treatment 2025 Year End Balance $6,072,268 48
Parks Capital Reserve Fund
14-0390-0490-33234 Typical Source of Funds
• Annual contributions from the operating budget
• Sale of Parks-related land or non-equipment assets;
• Contributions, donations, grant, or sponsorships designated for parks capital purposes;
• Surpluses from parks related capital projects or maintenance programs, where approved
by Council
Permitted Uses
Funds may be for:
• Replacement, rehabilitation, or enhancement of parks, playgrounds, sports fields, trails,
splash pads, courts and related outdoor recreational infrastructure;
• Major repairs or lifecycle replacement projects that extend useful life of park assets;
• One time capital initiatives or strategic investments that improve recreation service
levels or public accessibility;
• Design, engineering, site preparation, and other capital costs directly associated with
parks and infrastructure projects.
Type of Reserve
Capital Reserve Fund Interest Bearing Yes
Purpose Responsible Department Parks Manager
To provide a sustainable funding source for the renewal,
rehabilitation, replacement, and enhancement of municipal Target or Minimum Balance
parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and related outdoor The reserve should maintain sufficient funding capacity to accommodate significant
recreational infrastructure. The reserve supports the City’s unplanned or accelerated parks capital projects without creating undue pressure on the tax
asset management objectives by ensuring funding capacity levy or annual capital program. At this time, a recommended working balance of
exists for both planned lifecycle replacement and approximately $500,000 is considered appropriate to support asset management flexibility
unanticipated capital needs within the parks system. and emerging capital needs.
2025 Year End Balance $601,322.74 ($255,000 is currently committed) 49
Strategic Capital Financing Reserve Fund (GBE Sale reserve)
Typical Source of Funds
14-0380-0480-33224
• Original proceeds from the sale of the City’s former public utility (GBE);
• Undistributed annual investment income retained within the reserve;
• Interest earned through authorized investments including: Internal debenture financing
arrangements; Investments consistent with the City’s investment policy; Strategic loans
approved by Council (i.e. GSCA loan)
Permitted Uses
• Debt repayment associated with significant capital projects;
• Internal financing arrangements for major capita infrastructure projects in lieu of external
borrowing;
Type of Reserve • Strategic capital financing initiatives approved by Council;
Capital Financing Reserve (endowment style)
• Investment management costs directly associated with the reserve
Purpose The principal balance of the reserve shall generally be preserved and not drawn upon except by
specific Council direction under exceptional circumstances.
To preserve and prudently manage the proceeds received
from the sale of the City’s former public utility (GBE) and to Interest Bearing Yes
utilize investment earnings generated from the reserve to
support major municipal capital projects and related debt Responsible Department Finance
obligations.
Target or Minimum Balance
The reserve functions as a long-term strategic financing tool
The reserve is intended to remain stable or grow modestly over time through retained investment
intended to reduce reliance on external debentures and income, ensuring that sufficient annual earnings continue to be available to support long-term
minimize impacts to the tax levy while preserving the original capital financing obligations.
principal balance of the fund.
At current investment performance levels, the reserve is expected to continue supporting debt
Historically, the reserve supported financing related to the repayment obligations associated with the Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Centre while
“Big Dig” downtown reconstruction project and is currently maintaining the long-term sustainability of the fund.
being utilized to offset debt obligations associated with the
50
Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Centre 2025 Year End Balance $17,880,000 (available to be invested $1.5M)5.a Report CS-26-032 from the Director of Community Services Re: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section
Critical drainage failures have caused sections of the single vehicular entrance at Harrison Park, a major heritage asset serving 150,000 annual visitors yearly, to collapse under worsening conditions from recent rainfall. Staff are requesting approval to utilise the capital reserve fund for up to $70,000 in engineering analysis near Nine Bends Trail and an estimated $25,000 for emergency repairs on the roughly 220-metre roadway stretch currently rated in very poor condition. These corridors support vital active transportation across steep slopes but face urgent infrastructure risks that existing studies cannot adequately address due to outdated data from recent ground failures. No final decisions regarding funding commitments or project timelines have been made yet, as no construction can proceed without updated designs necessitated by current conditions. A design for upgrading the West Park Entry Roadway is scheduled for presentation to an advisory committee in January 2027, with tenders expected only after that review if approved. Following this preliminary phase and subsequent design revisions late next year, permanent reconstruction work may enter a future capital plan cycle between 2027 and 2031. These steps aim to restore safe community connectivity while supporting climate mitigation goals for residents navigating hazardous lands near First Street West without compromising access needs during necessary repairs.
Page 602 of 692 The long-term project includes background review, drainage analysis, conceptual design, detailed design, tendering, contract administration, and construction. Staff is seeking direction on funding the short-term repair immediately and bringing the permanent project forward through the 2027-2031 Capital Plan. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: The recommendation contributes to core service delivery or a corporate initiative that enables service delivery for one or more strategic priorities. Previous Report/Authority: Report CS-14-088 – Design Considerations for Harrison Park Roadway Reconstruction Project Harrison Park Master Plan Background: Harrison Park is a significant City and heritage asset Harrison Park is located within the valley area of the City on the Sydenham River at the southeast end of Owen Sound. The Park is unique among City parks with its diversity, including streams and rivers, gardens, forests, playgrounds, bridges, and trails located in the centre of the City. In 2012, Harrison Park was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape. The description of key heritage attributes includes the main entrance gates. The key attributes of the designation that express the contextual value of the Park include the vistas and views that can be viewed from a variety of vantage points. Harrison Park is the largest park in the City, consisting of 60.7 hectares (150 acres) and classified as a City park. The Park represents almost 2 per cent of the City’s entire land area. The 150-acre Park is divided into nine functional areas: 1. West Park Entry; 2. West Woodland and Escarpment Lands; 3. Island and Pleasure Grounds; Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 2 of 8 Page 603 of 692 4. Inn, Good Cheer Rink, and Bandshell Area; 5. Community Hall, Tennis/Pickleball Court, Upper Meadow, and Pool Area; 6. Campground Area; 7. Bird Area and Parks Operations Yard; 8. The Mile Drive; and 9. Toboggan Hill, Commemorative Forest Grove, Fitness Trail, and Northeast Woodland. The West Park Entry (WPE) functional area is 34,203 square metres (8.45 acres) in area and focuses on the only vehicular entrance into Harrison Park at 2nd Avenue East and 1st Street East. It includes a 2-lane, 2-way roadway along with a portion of the Freedom Trail that runs slightly below and parallel to this primary park entrance road. The WPE functional area terminates at the small parking area and pedestrian bridge that leads to the Island and Pleasure Grounds functional area. The sanitary sewer system that services Harrison Park enters from 3rd Avenue East to the north and traverses through this functional area. A key section of the park entrance road has failed and needs attention A 220+ metre stretch of the WPE roadway extending approximately from the pedestrian bridge that leads to the Island and Pleasure Grounds at the bottom of the WPE roadway to the access point of the main parking lot is in very poor condition with segments that have failed. Attachment 1 outlines the extent of the entrance roadway to be upgraded as well as the short-term repairs to the failed segments. The recent spring melt and heavy rainfall conditions have further deteriorated the failing roadway segments. Drainage improvements are required to mitigate frequent flooding and standing water that negatively impact the entrance roadway integrity. The one-way narrow road to the pool has also experienced rutting and the right shoulder has sunk. A repair of this approximately 10 metre long road is planned for 2026. Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 3 of 8 Page 604 of 692 The Harrison Park Master Plan identifies this road repair as a shortterm priority In 2024, Council approved a 10-year Harrison Park Master Plan. Section 8 of the Master Plan includes five overarching principles: 1. Conflicting and Competing Uses/Overuse – The recommendations of this Master Plan recognize conflicting and competing uses as well as the carrying capacity of the park. 2. Natural Amenities and Slopes – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize the importance of protecting and enhancing the park’s natural amenities, waterways, and slopes. 3. Accessibility and Inclusion – Accessibility and inclusion are important considerations and have been a focus for much of the capital work in the Park in the last 20 years and should remain an important consideration for Park development and infrastructure renewal moving forward. 4. Cultural Heritage Landscape – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize and support cultural heritage attributes that are important to the Park. 5. Asset Renewal and Reconciliation – The recommendations of the Master Plan focus on asset renewal and reconciliation of assets rather than the development of new assets. One recommendation from the Master Plan relates specifically to this section of roadway: WPE-C-001 Repair/replace roadway pavement that has failed (short term) The approximately 220+ metre-long stretch of roadway that provides the single vehicular entrance to the Park is in very poor condition and includes segments that have failed. This is the only vehicular access to the Park and based on the most recent car count data, it is estimated that there are approximately 150,000 vehicles that travel in and out of the park each year (300,000 total). In 2025, a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) report was completed for City roads, which included certain areas within Harrison Park (although these are not City streets). The stretch of roadway being considered in this report (see Attachment 2) has a PCI of 28 (Very Poor) (1/3) and 44 (Poor) (2/3). Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 4 of 8 Page 605 of 692 Attachment 3 includes photos that illustrate the current conditions of the entrance roadway along the 150-metre stretch. In 2011, the wall adjacent to the road was reconstructed, and a portion of the entrance roadway was replaced at that time. In 2018, the road from the wall north to the entrance at 2nd Avenue East was reconstructed. This project included drainage, curbing, and a new guardrail. At the same time in 2018, the Freedom Trail that runs below and parallel to the entrance roadway was paved. Pedestrians are directed to use the Freedom Trail as the primary pedestrian route into the Park and are restricted from using the entrance roadway. A report in 2014 (CS-14-088) outlined design considerations for the Harrison Park Roadway that remain relevant for the road section under consideration today. This report sets out a short-term solution for 2026 that involves the repair of a failed portion of the 150-metre roadway stretch alongside a new capital project for a more long-term solution for the upgrade of this stretch of roadway. Analysis and Options: A temporary repair was completed in 2026, followed by a permanent solution Short-Term Solution An estimate was received to repair portions of the roadway that have failed. The repairs are aimed at doing a minimal amount of work to stabilize and reestablish the roadway surface and edge to support safe vehicular use until a more permanent solution can be developed and implemented. This includes the repair of a short section of the one-way road to the pool as well. This repair was approximately $25,000 and was funded from the Parkland Reserve in 2026. Long-Term Solution In 2018, when the entrance road was reconstructed north of the retaining wall to the 2nd Avenue East entrance, the engineering design was completed by Gamsby and Mannerow Engineering (John Slocombe). Given the information and background that the company has regarding that section of road, and knowledge of that project, including the design and site Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 5 of 8 Page 606 of 692 characteristics, a quotation was requested to review the background, the current drainage characteristics, and prepare a preliminary design. This information would be used to undertake detailed design, tender, and ultimately contract administration and construction. The design for the permanent upgrade would respect the Harrison Park Master Plan overall planning considerations and the 2014 report considerations. The preliminary design options would be presented to the Vibrant Community Advisory Committee in early 2027. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources Short-Term Solution Repair of approximately 150.8 square metres along portions of the 150metre stretch of roadway to be upgraded. Scope Item Description Estimate Cost Repair of approximately 150 m2 of failed asphalt roadway surface (removal and disposal, Granular ‘A’ and fine grading, new 60 mm depth asphalt, line painting, traffic control) $20,000 Contingency (10%) $5,000 Total $25,000 As noted, this was funded from the Parkland Reserve. Long-term Solution Phase 1 - Design Services Upgrade of approximately 220 metre stretch of roadway and associated drainage improvements. Scope Item Description Estimate Cost Consulting Services (Background Study including Drainage, Conceptual Design) $7,800 Detailed Design (provisional) $10,000 Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 6 of 8 Page 607 of 692 Scope Item Description Estimate Cost Tender (provisional) $5,000 Construction Administration (provisional) $19,000 Sub-Total $41,800 Contingency (10%) $4,200 Total $46,000 This is proposed to be funded from the Parkland Reserve. Phase 2 – Construction The construction cost would be based on the cost estimate developed during Phase 1 - Detail Design component of the project. The construction cost estimate was provided by GEI Engineering in 2026. Scope Item Description Estimate Cost Construction (approximately 220 m) $230,000 Sub-Total $230,000 Contingency (25%) $57,500 Total $287,500 Human Resources Design would be completed by the consulting engineer. City staff, including the Manager of Parks and Open Space and Director of Community Services, would support this project. The City’s Purchasing and Claims Coordinator would support procurement relating to this project. Time and Scheduling The short-term solution involving the repairs to the failed roadway segments would be completed in 2026. The permanent solution involving the replacement of the 200-metre roadway stretch and associated drainage upgrades would be completed as follows: 1. The engineering work would commence in 2026 with construction in 2027 of the permanent solution. Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 7 of 8 Page 608 of 692 2. The initial design will be presented to the Vibrant Community Advisory Committee in January of 2027. The project would be tendered in Q1 of 2027. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Climate Mitigation Plan. Communication and Engagement: Communication regarding road closures and the impact on access would be coordinated as part of the construction. The engagement on the design was previously completed in 2014. Report Developed in Consultation With: Eckhard Pastrik, Manager of Parks and Open Space Attachments: 1. West Park Entry Roadway Proposed Upgrade Segments along with Short-Term Repairs 2. Excerpt from 2025 Pavement Condition Index Report 3. Images of Entrance Roadway to be Upgraded and Image of pool road Reviewed by: Pamela Coutler, Director of Community Services Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Pamela Coutler, Director of Community Services at pcoulter@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1252. Staff Report CS-26-032: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section Page 8 of 8 Page 609 of 692 Attachment 1 West Park Entry Roadway Proposed Upgrade Segments along with Short-Term Repairs Orange – Temporary Repair Area Blue and Orange - Permanent Repair Area (220+ metres) Page 610 of 692 Temporary Repair Area Scope of Work: Page 611 of 692 Attachment 2 Excerpt from 2025 Pavement Condition Index Report Page 612 of 692 Attachment 3 Images of Entrance Roadway to be Upgraded Page 613 of 692 Page 614 of 692 Page 615 of 692 One-way pool road Sinking on the right side and heaving in the middle Page 616 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-038 Subject: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-038 respecting the Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) Condition Update, City Council approves an allocation of up to $70,000 for engineering analysis and preliminary design from the capital reserve fund. Highlights: The Nine Bends trail is an important active transportation and recreation link. The lands adjacent to the trail are characterized by steep slopes, intermittent watercourses, open ditches, and trees. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law defines the area as Hazard Lands. Existing studies confirm the longstanding slope and drainage concerns. With recent failures, these studies are outdated and updated engineering study and design is critical to informing repairs and remediation. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: A City that Moves – Facilitating sustainable transportation options and creating community connectivity. Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 1 of 6
5.b Report CS-26-038 from the Director of Community Services Re: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) - Condition Update
A proposed Freedom Trail segment on Nine Bends connects Harrison Park and the River District, but steep ravine slopes have failed due to groundwater pressure. This dangerous instability has blocked a well-used pedestrian link near Greenwood Cemetery with fallen trees and eroded drainage swales that fill open ditches. Staff recommend closing this section until qualified engineers complete urgent geotechnical analyses costing up to $70,000; Council funding from capital reserves may cover these studies. Simultaneously, the Centennial Tower, closed since August 2024 due to structural risks after two decades of minimal repair beyond a surface restoration, now moves its full rehabilitation budget into the 2026–2027 timeline. Initial visual inspections are insufficient; invasive material testing will soon reveal likely cost increases once hidden deterioration is exposed during design phases scheduled for early next year.
Page 617 of 692 Previous Report/Authority: None. Background: The Nine Bends Trail connects from the terminus of a short section of open road, 1st Street West, to Greenwood Cemetery. The trail provides pedestrian access from the terminus of 1st Street West to the top of the ravine in Greenwood Cemetery (see Attachment 1). The entire section was originally a public street. Staff has not been able to locate a by-law that formally stopped up and closed this section of the road. The open section of 1st Street West provides access and frontage to two existing single-family homes. Schedule D, the Active Transportation Plan & Trails Master Plan of the City’s Official Plan identifies Nine Bends as a trail and bike route. With no sidewalk on the Cemetery Hill roadway (2nd Avenue East, Grey Road 5), this trail connection provides an important active-transportation link and recreational trail from the upper southwest quadrant of the city to Harrison Park and the River District. Official Plan and Zoning The Official Plan designates the area that includes the trail as Hazard and the lands are also zoned Hazard (ZH). The hazard designation reflects the characteristics of the area with steep slopes and intermittent water courses. Trails are permitted uses in the hazard area. The trail includes: Approximately 3 m granular surface. Open ditches on both sides. Steep treed ravine. The ravine abuts Greenwood Cemetery on top of the ravine on all sides. In certain sections, the slope is nearly vertical. Stormwater catch basin near the open road portion. Pedestrian gate at the end of the open roadway and at the top at the connection to Greenwood Cemetery. The trail is a well-used connection. The last trail counter data reported use from July of 2021 to February of 2022. In July, it is estimated that there were 4,800 pedestrians counted, with a monthly average of 2,925. Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 2 of 6 Page 618 of 692 TROW Slope Study The TROW Owen Sound Slope Study was completed for Grey Sauble Conservation in 1988. At that time, slopes were classified into five types based on the probability of a slope failure in the next three years. Type 1 slopes were described as slopes where there is evidence of slope failure with a high risk of failure. Type 5 slopes are considered to be stable and have a probability of failure of 0-25 per cent in the next three years. The study is dated, and sections of the slope adjacent to the road and trail have failed. The study does define remedial measures that are recommended. The study suggested: “detailed engineering investigations are required in these areas to ensure that the remedial measures provide the required stability. These studies should include small-scale mapping of all slumping and water seepage, as well as profiles down the slope at representative locations. Boreholes should be undertaken at regular intervals to confirm the soil and water conditions.” Proposed Freedom Trail Drainage Improvements (2007) In 2007, the Nine Bends trail was designed to be part of the Freedom Trail extending from Harrison Park to connect to Greenwood Cemetery. At the time, the trail design within the Park also included drainage improvements on the Nine Bends portion of the trail. These works were not completed at that time. Master Stormwater Management Plan, 2025 (DRAFT) The City has a draft Stormwater Management Master Plan. This document has not yet been finalized or approved; however, it provides helpful information and considerations respecting this trail and road section relating to stormwater management. The following information has been summarized from the Study by City Engineering staff: Waters Edge Engineering was retained to evaluate multiple ravines throughout the City. For this particular ravine (Project No. W3) the repair recommendation from the consultant is to line the ditch with Rip Rap or Sub-angular stone to avoid the transportation of sediment downstream. It’s likely that lining the ditch would help prevent further ditch erosion alongside the ravine bank while also providing a level of Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 3 of 6 Page 619 of 692 energy attenuation along the trail, this should be confirmed by a qualified person through detailed design. Where this ditch connects to the 1st Street East Storm infrastructure (Project No. 23), the current draft recommendation is to replace the existing infrastructure with approximately 55 m of 675 mm storm sewer and 45 m of 750 mm storm sewer. The driveway culvert for 101 2nd Ave E and 300 1st St E would be replaced with a 750 mm culvert. The inlets at the upstream end of the storm sewer in 1st St W would be improved with double-ditch inlet catch basins. Current Conditions The slope adjacent to the trail and the drainage swales on either side of the trail have failed (see Attachment 2). The groundwater conditions on this steep slope have caused a slope failure around the mid-point. Trees have been impacted by other trees that have fallen. One tree is currently across the trail, and others have been cut and are within the drainage swale. The trail has been signed and marked as closed due to public safety concerns. Analysis and Options: Given that the slope is adjacent to Greenwood Cemetery and that it provides a critical pedestrian off-road linkage, and that the available information and studies regarding the slope are dated, and in light of the significantly deteriorated condition, it is recommended that: 1. Measures be taken to sign and close the trail to public use (completed); and 2. Retain a qualified engineering professional to review the current conditions, undertake necessary analysis (potentially geotechnical), and offer an approach to evaluate and design alternatives to remediate the slope and trail area, including addressing the failed stormwater infrastructure. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources This project is not currently in the City’s Multi-Year Capital Plan. Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 4 of 6 Page 620 of 692 It is estimated that up to $70,000 may be required for the necessary engineering and geotechnical evaluation to undertake the background research and design options for the repair. Following preliminary design, there would be an estimate of detailed design cost and construction based on the preferred design alternative. The Director of Corporate Services suggests the project be funded from the Capital Reserve fund. Human Resources This project requires professional engineering consulting. This project will require support from Parks & Open Space staff as well as support from the Engineering Services Division. Time and Scheduling Given the current slope failure, this work should be given some priority in 2026. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Climate Mitigation Plan. Communication and Engagement: The preliminary findings and design options would be presented to the Community Services Committee. The trail has been closed, and this has been communicated to users and Council. Report Developed in Consultation With: Manager of Parks and Open Space Engineering Services Division staff Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 5 of 6 Page 621 of 692 Attachments: 1. Location of Trail 2. Photos of Current Conditions Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services at pcoulter@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1252. Staff Report CS-26-038: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) – Condition Update Page 6 of 6 Page 622 of 692 Attachment 1 Lower Section of Nine Bends Trail – 1st Street West Page 623 of 692 Upper Section – Trail Portion of Nine Bends Page 624 of 692 Attachment 2 – Photos of Nine Bends Trail Debris from trail has filled open swales Page 625 of 692 Erosion of swale Obstructed swale Page 626 of 692 Wash out of trail and debris in swale Sink hole Page 627 of 692 Large bank slump creating unstable bank condition Page 628 of 692 Tree damage and impact Tree damage Page 629 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Jason Hoffman, Manager of Corporate Services Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CR-26-049 Subject: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CR-26-049 respecting the Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project, City Council receives the report for information purposes. Highlights: Constructed in 1967 to celebrate Canada’s 100th birthday – a project championed by local high school students and the community – the tower was restored to its original condition in 2001. Over the past two decades, the structure has only received minor maintenance, with no significant structural repairs undertaken. Following the closure of Centennial Tower on August 23, 2024, due to structural safety concerns, City Council passed a motion in December 2025 directing staff to move the rehabilitation project to the 2027 funded capital list. Staff are utilizing $39,700 which reflects the original 2024 estimate adjusted for current market conditions and professional service inflation, of the approved capital allocation to immediately initiate a Detailed Design Phase, which includes invasive material testing to determine the true condition of the structural components. Due to the strictly visual-only nature of the initial 2024 assessment, there is a strong likelihood of increased costs once deterioration is exposed. Staff will report directly back to Council with a verified Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 1 of 6
5.c Report CR-26-049 from the Manager of Corporate Services Re: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project CONSENT AGENDA
The Centennial Tower in Owen Sound remains closed since August 2024 following a structural review that identified significant corrosion in eastern steel panels allowing water to pond, alongside spalled concrete, cracked corners near the southeast edge, and missing bolts at doorways. Visual evidence also highlights a deformed northwest wood column likely damaged by impact, minor undermining of stone abutments, shifted bricks on the original kiln base, degraded decking, and corroded rails. While an unfunded rehabilitation was previously listed for 2027 with preliminary estimates around $391k pending invasive testing, staff are currently utilising allocated funds to complete a detailed design phase required before any future construction window opens in 2027. Proposed remediation measures include debris removal, corrosion patching, installing bird nets for brick protection, and annual inspections after spring thaws to ensure safety ahead of tourism season. Concurrently, the city considers replacing playgrounds at multiple parks under a multi-year strategy aiming to fill infrastructure gaps through modular construction that standardizes designs for better accessibility; however, specific repair timelines or funding commitments remain contingent on future community input and official decisions yet to be made by elected officials regarding both tower restoration and park upgrades.
Page 630 of 692 construction estimate upon completion of this design phase and prior to the 2027 tender. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: Celebrating and Embracing Culture - Uplifting all aspects of the City’s local culture, including Indigenous Peoples’ cultural histories and practices, the cultural histories and practices of all residents, and formal institutional arts and culture. Previous Report/Authority: CR-25-083- Centennial Tower Structural Assessment and Capital Needs Update “THAT in consideration of Staff Report CR-25-083 respecting Centennial Tower Structural Assessment and Capital Needs Update, City Council directs staff to include the cost for the rehabilitation of the Centennial Tower in the 2026-2030 Multi-Year Capital Plan as an unfunded project until a comprehensive asset management program for facilities has been approved by Council.” "THAT in consideration of Staff Report CR-25-146 respecting the 2026-2030 Multi-Year Capital Plan, City Council directs staff to move the Centennial Tower refurbishment project to the list of funded projects for 2027." Background: Originally constructed in 1967 as a community-led Canada Centennial Project on the foundation of an 1887 lime kiln, the Centennial Tower is a prominent local landmark. The facility underwent its last major rehabilitation in 2001. Over the subsequent two decades, the structure received only routine minor maintenance, such as painting and deck patching, with no significant structural investments undertaken. 2024 Visual Assessment and Site Closure In August 2024, staff retained GEI Consultants to conduct a structural review due to visible safety concerns. Based on a surface-level visual inspection, the engineers identified considerable corrosion and section loss of the eastern Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 2 of 6 Page 631 of 692 steel panels supporting the upper concrete tower. The site was immediately closed to the public. GEI provided a preliminary rehabilitation estimate of $271,795 for structural repairs. Recent Council Direction This topic is being brought before Council as a direct result of recent Council direction regarding the 2026-2030 Multi-Year Capital Plan. Through an approved motion, Council directed staff to move the Centennial Tower refurbishment project to the list of funded projects for 2027. Staff are providing this report to inform Council of the transition of the project from a preliminary, visual-only estimate into an actionable, "shovelready" state. Proceeding with the detailed design and engineering phase now utilizing the approved project allocation of $39,700 ensures that the City has a stamped set of drawings and a verified scope of work prior to the 2027 construction window. Analysis and Options: Building upon the 2024 GEI visual assessment, which estimated structural rehabilitation at $271,795, staff have identified recommended next steps. Because that review was strictly limited to surface-level observations without invasive testing or engineering calculations, the current cost estimate is considered a "budgetary discussion" figure rather than a construction-ready "classed estimate". To appropriately plan for a 2027, start date and mitigate the risk of unforeseen structural failures or budget creep, staff considered the following option. Pre-Construction Testing and Detailed Design To appropriately plan for the 2027, start date, staff are utilizing $39,700 of the approved allocation to immediately proceed with a Detailed Design and Engineering Phase. Staff will develop a formal Scope of Work to retain structural consultants to perform invasive material testing and complete a final, stamped engineering design package. This upfront technical investment transitions the project into a truly "shovelready" state. Upon completion of this design phase, staff will return directly to Council with the verified technical findings and a finalized, classed construction estimate prior to issuing the 2027 tender. Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 3 of 6 Page 632 of 692 Resource Alignment: The project requires specialized technical coordination and external expertise: Testing Infrastructure: Completion of this phase is dependent on external consultants utilizing specialized equipment. Digital Deliverables: The output "tender-ready" package requires professional structural modeling and CAD software to produce stamped engineering drawings. Facility Access: Existing access points are sufficient, though the retention of external consultants includes the provision of any necessary temporary scaffolding or lift equipment required for high-level inspections. Financial Resources The total capital investment currently estimated for structural rehabilitation is $271,795. This figure covers targeted structural steel and concrete repairs, corrosion removal, and protective recoating intended to stabilize the structure and extend its useful life by approximately 25 years. Budget Sufficiency and Contingencies While the current structural estimate includes allowances for material testing and general contingencies, the budget cannot be confirmed as strictly sufficient at this time. The $39,700 required for the immediate detailed design phase and material testing is being drawn from the approved project allocation to establish cost certainty. Funding Security The project was moved to the 2027 funded capital list by a Council motion in December of 2025. To ensure the 2027 budget remains accurate, staff are initiating the Detailed Design and Engineering Phase immediately. Funding for these preliminary studies ($39,700) is being identified within existing pre-engineering accounts or advanced from the 2027 allocation to secure the project’s technical viability. Human Resources Project Management and Oversight The development of the formal Scope of Work and the administration of the RFP process will be managed internally by the Manager of Corporate Services. Ongoing coordination and financial tracking will require the support Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 4 of 6 Page 633 of 692 of the Corporate Facilities Project Coordinator, Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator, and the Finance team to ensure the project remains aligned with the 2027 capital funding schedule. External Technical Expertise External structural consultants will be required to perform the specialized testing, calculations, and design work, as well as provide final inspections to mitigate City liability. Future Operational Requirements Upon completion of the rehabilitation in 2027, additional staff time from Facilities and Parks and Open Space Divisions will be required for routine maintenance, including biannual structural inspections and daily security (opening and closing of the facility), which are not currently included in the existing staff workplans or operating budget. Technology and Infrastructure The project’s primary infrastructure gap is the current lack of verified technical documentation. The proposed Detailed Design phase will establish the necessary "technical infrastructure”, such as verified steel thickness calculations and concrete core samples, to ensure the 2027 construction budget is based on physical data rather than preliminary observations. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Communication and Engagement: This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the meeting. As the project is currently in a pre-construction engineering phase, formal community engagement is not recommended at this time. Once the tender-ready design package is finalized and a "classed" construction estimate is confirmed, a comprehensive communication plan will be developed. This plan will include a media release highlighting the upcoming 2027 rehabilitation schedule and public notices regarding the continued site closure until the structural and safety requirements for a full reopening are met. Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 5 of 6 Page 634 of 692 Report Developed in Consultation With: Director of Corporate Services, Director of Community Services, and Corporate Facilities Project Coordinator. Attachments: GEI Centennial Tower Structural Assessment Reviewed by: Kate Allan, Director of Corporate Services Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Jason Hoffman, Manager of Corporate Services at jhoffman@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1240. Staff Report CR-26-049: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project Page 6 of 6 Page 635 of 692 Prepared By: T Centennial Tower Avenue East – Owen Sound, ON R AF 290-9 th Structural Review Report GMBP File: 218104 D September 2018 GUELPH | OWEN SOUND | LISTOWEL | KITCHENER | LONDON | HAMILTON | GTA 1260-2ND AVE. E., UNIT 1, OWEN SOUND ON N4K 2J3 P: 519-376-1805 WWW.GMBLUEPLAN.CA Page 636 of 692 CENTENNIAL TOWER STRUCTURAL REVIEW REPORT GMBP FILE: 218104 SEPTEMBER 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 3. BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................... 1 5. Base ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Upper Tower ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Constructed Walkway........................................................................................................................................... 2 DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Base ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Upper Tower ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 4.3 Constructed Walkway........................................................................................................................................... 3 T 4. 3.1 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS AF APPENDICES D R APPENDIX B: STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS i Page 637 of 692 PEOPLE | ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTS STRUCTURAL REVIEW REPORT CENTENNIAL TOWER 290-9TH AVENUE EAST – OWEN SOUND, ON SEPTEMBER 2018 GMBP FILE: 218104 1. INTRODUCTION 2. METHODOLOGY AF T This structural review report has been prepared by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited for the City of Owen Sound (City). It is our understanding that the City has retained GM BluePlan to review the existing structure and identify structural deficiencies. This report formalizes our observations and summarizes the overall condition of the structure. The recommendations list any observed structural deficiencies and also indicates suggested maintenance to minimize possible future structural deficiencies. The findings of this report may be used to assist with future plans for this building, and for preparing applications for funding for future repair work or replacements. D R At the request of Chris Webb, P.Eng.; of the City of Owen Sound, Mr. Travis Denley, E.I.T. and Jesse Borges, E.I.T. of GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, attended the site on September 5, 2018. The purpose of this site visit was to complete a structural review of the subject tower. The structural review consisted of a visual review of a representative sample of the exposed structural components. Our review was conducted from the ground out. Site Photographs are provided in Appendix “A”, and the limitations of this report are provided in Appendix “B”. 3. BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS The Centennial Tower is a converted kiln that was originally built in 1887. The building consists of three (3) main components, the base and original kiln area, the upper tower area and the constructed walkway. The subject tower was originally opened for tourism in 1969; however it is our understanding that significant work was undertaken in 2001 in order for the tower to remain open. 3.1 Base The lower portion of the structure has two (2) distinct parts. The first part will be referred to as the original structure and is constructed out of brick. The original brick area has two (2) arched entrances (see attached photo 1) and an arched dome at the top (see Photo 2 in Appendix “A”). It should be noted that this original brick structure has been surrounded with a new steel outer structure (see Photo 3). This steel outer structure is octagonal in shape and is supported by a poured concrete foundation (see Photo 4). The new steel outer layer is constructed using structural steel panels that support the upper concrete tower. OF692 4 PagePAGE 6381of CENTENNIAL TOWER STRUCTURAL REVIEW REPORT GMBP FILE: 218104 SEPTEMBER 2018 Based on our review of the lower portion of the structure, the original brick area appears to be in overall good condition; however, the two (2) arches at either entrance to the base of the structure are showing signs of deflection, and some bricks have shifted (see Photo 5 in Appendix ‘A’). In reviewing the outer steel at the base of the structure, it was noted that there was a section of corrosion on an eastern panel. This corrosion has portions of the steel outer layer that are located above the two (2) entrances, the horizontal steel panels were noted to have corroded in many locations (see Photo 7/8). It was also noted that the horizontal steel has deflected causing areas for water to pond. 3.2 Upper Tower AF T The upper tower portion of the structure consists of four (4) vertical concrete panels. These panels are 25’-0” in height and are 2” thick (see Photo 9). These panels are connected with 4”x4”x⅜” steel angles that are spaced at 8’-0” and are anchored to the concrete using two (2) ½”Ø bolts. It does appear that new angles have been installed since the construction of the tower, and these angles appear to be in overall good condition (see Photo 10). The concrete panels are topped with a steel viewing area that is surrounded by a 3’-6” high 2” thick concrete railing (see Photo 11). The viewing area is 12’-0”x12’-0” and is supported by four (4) steel “I” beams. 3.3 D R In reviewing the upper tower, it was noted that in many locations the concrete around the above noted steel angles has cracked or spalled away (see Photo 12). It was also noted on the south eastern corner of the structure that there were two (2) significant cracks. One crack is located near the base of the structure and the other is approximately half way up the structure (see Photo 13/14). Scaling of the concrete was also noted in the railings of the upper structure (see Photo 15). Several bolts were also noted to be missing at the connection of the steel door to the existing concrete (see Photo 16). There is also a single bolt missing at the northeast corner of the tower where the tower meets the elevated walkway (see Photo17). Constructed Walkway The constructed walkway consists of a 2x6 wood deck that is supported by steel “I” beams and columns (see Photo 18). The entire walkway is surrounded by a 3’-6” high steel railing. The east side of the walkway is supported by a stone abutment and wingwalls. Both the abutment and wingwalls have been covered with a layer of concrete. The wood deck is in overall good condition, but some sections of the wood decking are showing signs of deterioration (see Photo 19). It was noted that several sections of the wood decking have been replaced throughout the walkway. In reviewing the railing that surrounds the wood deck, it was noted that several sections of the steel railing require a new coat of paint. In reviewing the steel structure supporting the deck, it is in overall good condition, with only minor pitting or deterioration. However, in reviewing the column at the northwest corner of the structure, it was noted that the column is deformed and corroded approximately 6’0” above the grade (see Photo 20). Based on the localized nature of the deformation of the column, we are of the opinion that the damage to the column was likely caused by impact. In reviewing the eastern abutment and wingwalls it was noted that both elements appear to be experiencing minor undermining and the concrete layer that has been added to the stone rubble is experiencing minor spalling and cracking (see Photo 21). OF692 4 PagePAGE 6392of CENTENNIAL TOWER STRUCTURAL REVIEW REPORT GMBP FILE: 218104 SEPTEMBER 2018 4. DISCUSSIONS Overall the structure is in good condition with various deficiencies and maintenance need throughout. A list of our recommended actions for each area is noted below. 4.1 Base 4.2 Upper Tower AF T Overall the base of the structure is in good condition; however we do recommend that the horizontal steel above the entrances be cleared of debris on a consistent basis. Clearing debris should reduce the amount of stationary water deteriorating the steel over time and should slow the corrosion of the steel that has already occurred. We also recommend that the deteriorated panel on the eastern panel described above be cleaned and patched. Although, it is not an immediate structural concern while on site, it was noted that many birds were nesting in the structure. We recommend that bird nets or another preventative measure be installed to reduce the amount of droppings on the brick and surrounding structure. It should be noted that while on site two small retaining walls were noted at the path around the base of the structure. These walls were not reviewed as they are not part of the tower structure and thus beyond the scope of this review. It was however noted that the guardrail that is installed along the top of the westernmost retaining wall has experienced significant localised deflection on its northern end (see attached photo 22). 4.3 D R Based on our review of both the concrete and the steel elements, it appears that the City is currently painting the structure on an as required basis. We recommend that this painting and maintenance continue as required. We also recommend that the missing bolts in both the doorway and the northeastern corner of the structure mentioned above be replaced. Constructed Walkway The railing around the walkway should continue to be painted on an as required basis. We also recommend that the City continue to replace rotten/deteriorated decking as required prior to opening the structure each spring. The deformed column at the northwest corner of the walkway that was identified above should be painted prior to winter of 2018. We also recommend that this column be reviewed annually in the spring prior to the tower being opened to the public to ensure that its condition has not worsened. OF692 4 PagePAGE 6403of CENTENNIAL TOWER STRUCTURAL REVIEW REPORT GMBP FILE: 218104 SEPTEMBER 2018 5. CLOSURE Although the building is showing signs of wear, most structural elements appear to be in fair condition. It should be noted that the original brick area of the structure could not be reviewed in detail but it appears to be functioning adequately. We trust that this review and report has been prepared in accordance with our agreed upon scope. Should you have any questions, or if you wish us to assist with any other aspects of this building, feel free to contact us. All of which is respectfully submitted, GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LIMITED D R Travis Denley, E.I.T. TD/mz AF T Per: OF692 4 PagePAGE 6414of T AF D R APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS Page 642 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 1: View of arched area in base of structure. Photo 2: View of domed brick area in base of original structure. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 643 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 3: View of steel panel outer structure. Photo 4: View of poured concrete foundation under steel panels. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 644 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 5: View of shifted bricks. Photo 6: View of deterioration on eastern panel. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 645 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 7: View of horizontal steel panels over entrances at base. Photo 8: View of corrosion at base of horizontal steel panels. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 646 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 9: View of concrete wall panels of upper tower. Photo 10: View of new and old steel angles that connect upper concrete panels. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 647 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 11: View of concrete railing at top of structure. Photo 12: View of spalling at top of northwest corner of tower. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 648 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 13: View of crack at southeast corner of upper tower. Photo 14: View of crack approximately half way up the upper tower on southeast corner. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 649 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 15: View scaling in upper concrete railing at top of viewing area. Photo 16: View of missing bolts at doorway. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 650 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 17: View of missing bolt at northeast corner of tower. Photo 18: View underside of constructed walkway. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 651 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 19: View of section of deteriorated wood deck. Photo 20: View of deformed and corroded northwest column. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 652 of 692 AF T Centennial Tower Structural Review City of Owen Sound D R Photo 21: View of undermined concrete wingwalls at eastern end of walkway. Photo 22: View of deformed steel guiderail. File No. 218104 To be read in conjunction with GMBP Review Report dated September 2018 Page 653 of 692 T AF D R APPENDIX B: STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS Page 654 of 692 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information reviewed by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited at the time of preparation. • Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, this report shall not be used to imply warranty as to the fitness of the property for a particular purpose. • This report is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. • Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. • The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. • No physical or destructive testing nor have any design calculations been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. D R AF T • Page 655 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Kate Allan, Director of Corporate Services Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-043 Subject: Playground Replacement Strategy Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-043 respecting the Playground Replacement Strategy, City Council receives the report for information purposes. Highlights: The proposed multi-year playground renewal strategy establishes a more proactive and sustainable lifecycle replacement approach intended to reduce the current playground infrastructure gap while improving safety, accessibility, and long-term service reliability. The program introduces a standardized playground design framework that is expected to improve procurement consistency, streamline project delivery and maintenance, and create operational efficiencies through repeated modular project delivery over time. Approximately $1.53 million in capital funding is included within the next five years of the capital plan, supporting planned playground replacements at Parkview, Alexandra, Westmount, 28th Street West Tot Lot, and Ed Taylor Parks while continuing to incorporate community input into individual playground designs. Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 1 of 7
6 Presentation from the Director of Corporate Services, Manager of Corporate Services, and Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator Re: Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031
The agenda item covers a multi-year capital plan update for 2027-2031, presenting reports on specific infrastructure projects including roadway repairs at Harrison Park West, condition updates for the Nine Bends Trail, refurbishment of Centennial Tower, playground replacement strategies, and necessary replacements for Bayshore Ice Cover seating.
6 Presentation from the Director of Corporate Services, Manager of Corporate Services, and Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator Re: Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031 Presentation from the Director of Corporate Services, Manager of Corporate Services, and Capital Asset and Risk Management Coordinator Re: Multi-Year Capital Plan Update 2027-2031 REPORTS OF CITY STAFF 5.a Report CS-26-032 from the Director of Community Services Re: Harrison Park West Entry - Failed Roadway Section 5.b Report CS-26-038 from the Director of Community Services Re: Nine Bends Trail and Roadway (1st Street West) - Condition Update 5.c Report CR-26-049 from the Manager of Corporate Services Re: Centennial Tower Refurbishment Project CONSENT AGENDA 6.a Report CS-26-043 from the Director of Corporate Services Re: Playground Replacement Strategy 6.b Report CS-26-056 from the Manager of Arena Operations Re: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements
6.b Report CS-26-056 from the Manager of Arena Operations Re: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements
The Bayshore Community Centre's original plywood ice cover and bowl seating, installed in 1983, are critically deteriorated by moisture exposure and age. Recent incidents highlight the immediate safety risks: a January 2022 vaccine clinic was moved after one morning due to warping gaps on the floor, while arena seats frequently break during games with only temporary fixes possible as replacement parts were discontinued years ago. Staff propose replacing these failing assets this summer with a lightweight, durable ice cover from Athletica Sports Systems that eliminates trip hazards and reduces energy use by improving insulation. The new system allows shared usage between Bayshore and the Julie McArthur facility to generate approximately $30,000 annually in additional ice rental revenue during off-seasons like the Fall Fair. Simultaneously, all 1,870 original seats will be replaced with an upgraded model that simplifies repairs and reduces overall costs by over $100,000 compared to partial replacements; installation runs from May to August 2027 while keeping east-side seating operational for public events during construction. The project aligns with climate mitigation goals through recycling steel frames and selling old plywood via GovDeals, ensuring responsible stewardship of resources without requiring new staff hires or immediate funding commitments beyond the current scope.
Page 663 of 692 Previous Report/Authority: N/A. Background: The plywood arena ice cover and bowl seating on the north, south, and west sides of the Bayshore Community Centre are original to the facility in 1983 and are well past the end of their useful life. The sheets of plywood have deteriorated heavily over time due to the repeated installation, removal, and exposure to moisture. The ongoing wear has resulted in visible damage, including warping, splinter, and surface degradation. In January 2022, the City hosted a Vaccine Clinic on the floor, using the plywood floor. After one morning of use, the decision was made to move the clinic to the Bayshore lobby, as the gaps, warping, and overall condition of the floor posed too great of a risk for continued use for another nine days. Similarly, the arena bowl seating is well past its expected useful life. Due to the age and prolonged use, the seating consistently experiences breakage and failure. Replacement parts are no longer manufactured, with the final seat pan replacement purchased in 2013, with only six pans left, and constant replacement needed, the ability to complete proper and safe repairs are limited. During the hockey season staff regularly fix one to two seats following every Attack game, though with limited to no parts these are often short-term band-aid fixes. Analysis and Options: Staff propose that a purpose-built arena ice cover from Athletica Sports Systems, a vendor on the Canoe Procurement platform, be purchased to replace the existing plywood. This new system, which is used widely across municipal, Ontario Hockey League, and National Hockey League venues would be lighter weight, quicker to install, and custom cut to fit the Bayshore arena floor, while also providing a tight fit with no gaps and reducing or eliminating potential trip hazards. A new floor will also have an added Rvalue which will contribute to a load reduction on the refrigeration plant when the ice is covered compared to the plywood floor, providing some energy savings. Staff Report CS-26-056: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Page 2 of 5 Page 664 of 692 Other products have been investigated by staff, with this option being in a similar price range but with a proven track record of performance and longevity, with a 25-30 year expected useful life. With the standardization of the arena floor at the Bayshore to be the same as both pads at the Julie McArthur Regional Recreation Centre (JMRRC), the floor can now be used at both buildings. This added benefit would allow the use of the floor cover at the JMRRC during the Fall Fair. This would allow the early installation of the second ice pad in August, where typically the floor is underutilized between August to September as the ice cannot be installed until the completion of the Owen Sound Fall Fair. This will result in a potential revenue increase of $30,000 from added summer and early fall ice rentals, as demonstrated during a trial in August 2025. Similarly, the seats would be purchased through Canoe Procurement, through the same supplier of the original seats from 1983, and the newer seats along the east side of the arena bowl from the 2001 Bayshore expansion. The seats would be replaced with the same model as the east side seats, with an upgraded version that’s been improved for simpler repairs. All 1,870 original seats would be replaced during the summer of 2027, with minimal to no impact to users as the east side seating would remain open during the construction to allow for spectators for floor rentals. This approach will also provide a cheaper per chair replacement cost than completing three to four sections at a time, reducing the overall cost of the seat replacements by over $100,000. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources Scope Description Estimate Cost Arena Ice Cover System $230,900 Total $230,900 If the floor can also be used at the JMRRC for the Owen Sound Fall Fair, this could result in an additional $30,000 in ice rental revenue annually. Staff Report CS-26-056: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Page 3 of 5 Page 665 of 692 Scope Description Estimate Cost 1,870 Seat Replacements $588,830 Contingency (10%) $60,000 Total $648,830 The City and Owen Sound Attack Ownership meet annually to discuss the Bayshore lease agreement and planned capital expenditures. This project as well as other planned capital at the Bayshore will be on a future agenda at which time cost sharing or use of existing ticket surcharge allocations may be considered. Human Resources The planning and implementation of these projects will be part of staff’s annual workplan and therefore will require no additional staffing or time. Time and Scheduling The purchase of the arena ice cover system would be completed in early 2027, to allow for its use during the Fall Fair in 2027, and other potential concerts/events. Similarly, the seats would be purchased in early 2027 to allow for an installation date from May to August 2027. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Climate Mitigation Plan. The plywood will be sold as a lot on GovDeals, while the steel frames from the seats will be recycled through scrap metal processes, with over 70 per cent of the seat being recycled. Staff will continue to investigate recycling options for the remaining plastic seat components. Staff Report CS-26-056: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Page 4 of 5 Page 666 of 692 Communication and Engagement: This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the meeting. Report Developed in Consultation With: Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services Kate Allan, Director of Corporate Services Attachments: None. Reviewed by: Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Ryan Gowan, Manager of Arena Operations at rgowan@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 4222. Staff Report CS-26-056: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Page 5 of 5 Page 667 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-044 Subject: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-044 respecting the fortress area of the Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West, City Council receives the report for information purposes. Highlights: The Downtown River Precinct (DRP) Plan was developed in 2012 as part of a broad public consultation. The Environmental Assessment for the overall project was completed in 2018. Investment in placemaking, particularly in downtown areas of communities, has a significant positive impact on making places livable and accessible. Phase 1 implementation in the 800 block of 1st Avenue East has set a positive direction for implementing the plan. Downtown River Precinct Phase 1, the 800 block of 1st Avenue East, including the Farmers’ Market deck was constructed in 2020. Downtown River Precinct Phase 2, the 900 Block of 1st Avenue East, was constructed in 2024 and opened in the spring 2025. Phases 3 and 4 which include the 800 and 900 blocks of 1st Avenue West are not funded in the City’s Multi-Year Capital Plan. Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 1 of 7
6.c Report CS-26-044 from the Director of Community Services Re: Downtown River Precinct - 900 Block of 1st Avenue West - Fortress Area
The Downtown River Precinct project successfully transformed neglected areas into safe, vibrant spaces highlighting nature and community identity. While previous phases revitalized the east side with boardwalks and trails, a 'fortress' wall on 9th Street remains an exclusionary barrier preventing full access to river lots. Despite public support for removing this visual divide to create inclusive gathering spots like benches and tables, funding cuts have halted design work for Phase 3, leaving the community divided by concrete rather than connected.
Page 668 of 692 Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and place-making processes to create places and spaces that contribute to complete communities for existing residents, future residents and tourists. Previous Report/Authority: PowerPoint Presentation - March 13, 2018 - Follow-up to Public Meeting PowerPoint Presentation - June 25, 2018 Report OP-18-032 - Phase 1 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment – Recommendation of Preferred Alternatives Report CR-19-043 - Award RFT – DRP Phase 1 (RFT-19-014) Report CR-23-029 - Award RFT – DRP Phase 2 (RFT-23-001) Report CS-23-079 - Downtown River Precinct – Revised Project Scope and Budget Estimate "THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-23-079 respecting Downtown River Precinct Phase 2 – Revised Project Scope and Budget Estimate, City Council: 1. Approves capital budget project 22C.2 (Attachment 1) with an amended budget of $2,010,000 with the additional $134,000 to be allocated from the Kerr Reserve, Red Reserve and Land Sale Reserve; and 2. Directs staff to include the option of a second column at both entranceways in the tender." Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 2 of 7 Page 669 of 692 "THAT in consideration of the presentation provided on June 23, 2025 from the Manager of Corporate Services respecting the 2026 2030 MultiYear Capital Plan Update, City Council directs staff to bring forward a report respecting options for enhancements to the area on the west side of the 1st Avenue West between 9th Street and 10th Street known as "the fortress" at the time of the December Multi Year Capital Plan Update." Background: In 2000, the City approved a master plan framework for the entire downtown area of the City. This master plan study and the execution of the phases completed to date (the “Big Dig”) have set a positive direction and climate for redevelopment in the downtown. The plan states: ‘Communities prosper when places are livable, and people enjoy being there’. One of the key master plan strategies is to “strengthen the image and identity of Owen Sound’s Harbour and Downtown”. This includes a phased implementation of improvements to the physical environment based on clear master plan design criteria and a new approach to marketing to build on and reinforce downtown themes. Over several years, many phases of the “Big Dig” have been implemented on a block-by-block basis beginning in the early 2000s. Streets are one of the most important public spaces, and how we plan for them has a significant impact on the urban environment. This is particularly true in downtowns where we work to create a welcoming and safe environment for all people. “If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places” (Kent, Project for Public Spaces). “When streets are great places, they encourage people to socialize and to experience the culture and character of a particular street” (A. MacKenzie, 2015). With this type of thinking in mind, in August 2012, Northwood Associates Landscape Architects were retained to prepare a conceptual and schematic design plan for the Downtown River Precinct area. The project goals were: To improve the character and perception of the project area; Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 3 of 7 Page 670 of 692 To make it an inviting, accessible, and inclusive public space, strengthening the image and identity of the downtown; and To embrace and highlight the natural environment of the Sydenham River. The Downtown River Precinct is a 4-block area, from 8th to 10th Streets on both sides of the Sydenham River. The first phase of the plan was implemented in 2019 with construction in the 800 block of 1st Avenue East. The impact of this project has had real and positive results, and the design and implementation of Phase 2 built on the momentum and success of the first phase. The space has become an area where people want to be, where people feel safe, the natural environment of the river is highlighted, and the space has an evolving new identity. Since the 2012 concept, the River District Action Plan reconfirmed the need for this placemaking project: Residents’ current views of Owen Sound's downtown indicated that they had positive associations when asked to describe the area’s atmosphere and personality. They used language such as “friendly, artistic, eclectic, beautiful, quaint, charming, historical, and that the area is full of potential. There was a notable shift to a combination of responses (both positive and negative) when residents were asked to describe the current state of the area. Frequent adjectives such as “vacant, scary, unclean, in need” were contrasted alongside “potential, beautiful, charming, small town.” (Excerpt from River District Action Plan). Based on the Citizen Satisfaction Survey, we understand that investment in downtown revitalization has a higher impact on overall citizen satisfaction. The first phase, DRP I, the 800 block of 1st Avenue East including the Farmers’ Market was completed in 2019/2020 at a cost of $3,100,000. Phase 1 of the Downtown River Precinct project included realigning 1st Avenue East from the west side of the Market building to the east side of the Market building and converting traffic to a one-way southbound operation. The work included reconstruction of the road, City Hall parking lot, hardscaping the Market Square and River Promenade, landscaping along the top of the riverbank, a new sidewalk on the east side of the road, replacement of the Market building canopy, drainage/stormwater improvements, and a new watermain. The second phase, the 900 Block of 1st Avenue East was completed in 2024/2025. This narrow 12.2 metre (40 foot) right-of-way and former rail Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 4 of 7 Page 671 of 692 corridor had been neglected and presented a significant opportunity for transformation as a result of implementation. The 900 block was complicated by the river lots, which were subject to a crown patent dating to 1897. These lots have now been transferred back to the adjacent owners on 2nd Avenue East. From the time of the initial project budget estimate, Council had given direction that the river lots be included in the design area. This allowed the addition of the boardwalk along the river, which is critical in highlighting the natural environment and ensuring accessibility. Analysis and Options: The first two blocks of this 4-block project have been completed. Following the implementation of Phases 1 and 2, Council made a motion removing Phases 3 and 4 from the Multi-Year Capital Plan. A motion from the Special meeting of Council respecting the capital budget in June of 2025 requested: "THAT in consideration of the presentation provided on June 23, 2025 from the Manager of Corporate Services respecting the 2026 2030 MultiYear Capital Plan Update, City Council directs staff to bring forward a report respecting options for enhancements to the area on the west side of the 1st Avenue West between 9th Street and 10th Street known as "the fortress" at the time of the December Multi Year Capital Plan Update." As this project has been removed from the capital plan, staff have not undertaken any further design work for future phases. The 900 block of 1st Avenue West was included in the overall concept plan approved by Council as part of the 2018 Environmental Assessment and support for the overall design concept. In general, the 900 block of 1st Avenue West features (see attachment 1): Continuous trail linking the harbour to the mill dam; Creating landings for short-term boat tie-up and launching canoes/kayaks; Change of the street to one-way north; strengthening existing pathways and creating more pedestrian walkways and nodes; and Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 5 of 7 Page 672 of 692 Removing the fortress (visual barrier) and adding benches, trees, tables, and places for people. In 2025, staff elevated the tree canopy in this area and removed scrubby vegetation, in part to improve the aesthetic of the space from the new boardwalk on the east side. The removal of the fortress wall and replacement/refurbishment of the concrete landing with a railing would require a budget estimated in excess of $50,000 - $75,000, and given that there is no capital budget allocation to this project, the design and costing of removal and restoration have not been advanced, and staff resources are focused on funded capital projects. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The approved Multi-Year Capital Plan does not include funds that support Phases 3 or 4 of the Downtown River Precinct Plan at this time based on direction from Council. Human Resources Staff resources are designated to support funded capital and operational needs and are not allocated to projects that do not have funding. Time and Scheduling Phases 3 and 4 are not scheduled at this time due to funding. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: There are no anticipated climate or environmental impacts. Communication and Engagement: The public process in 2018 toward the approval of the Environmental Assessment for the 4-block Downtown River Precinct Plan included significant public input. Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 6 of 7 Page 673 of 692 Report Developed in Consultation With: N/A. Attachments: Illustration of 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services at pcoulter@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1252. Staff Report CS-26-044: Downtown River Precinct – 900 Block of 1st Avenue West Fortress Area Page 7 of 7 Page 674 of 692 Downtown River Precinct: Conceptual Design Page 675 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-049 Subject: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-049 respecting the proposed resurfacing of the Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court, City Council requests an update and further options for lifecycle extension of the courts at the next capital budget update. Highlights: The tennis courts at Harrison Park are a well-used recreational asset within the Community Hall, Tennis/Pickleball Court, Upper Meadow, and Pool Area functional area of the Park. Harrison Park is the City’s largest park and a significant municipal and heritage asset. The existing court surface was upgraded in 2018 and has deteriorated and requires resurfacing to maintain safe play conditions, extend the life of the asset, and avoid more significant future rehabilitation costs. The 2024 Harrison Park Master Plan emphasizes asset renewal, accessibility and inclusion, and the continued investment in existing park infrastructure rather than the development of new assets. Those principles support the proposed resurfacing project. Staff will work to do interim repairs to open the courts in 2026 and undertake additional research on the best option for a Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 1 of 7
6.d Report CS-26-049 from the Director of Community Services Re: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing
Harrison Park's tennis and pickleball courts in Owen Sound are deteriorating from age and non-standard use like cricket, prompting staff to recommend safety closures while seeking funding between $60,000 and $200,000 for resurfacing that extends asset life without increasing maintenance burdens. Staff advise against high-cost acrylic surfaces that strain municipal resources. Concurrently, 4th Avenue West reconstruction is paused until the 2027 construction season following an April 2026 Council pause; however, detailed designs on underground utilities continue to advance within Vision 2050 priorities despite uncertain future financial direction from upcoming public proceedings. Staff request approval to keep engineering work moving while awaiting final decisions between a modernized status quo option and a traffic-calming alternative that narrows the road but improves snow removal efficiency by eliminating on-street parking conflicts, even if it reduces neighbourhood connectivity via removed sidewalks. Both pathways incur additional staff costs without triggering immediate public consultations or new information centres unless Council directs otherwise, with all work coordinated across multiple departments to prepare tender-ready documents for the next season under current Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund constraints while ensuring aging water and storm utilities are still addressed regardless of road layout choices.
Page 676 of 692 refurbishment of this asset based on an analysis of cost, maintenance, and lifecycle. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: The recommendation contributes to core service delivery or a corporate initiative that enables service delivery for one or more strategic priorities. Previous Report/Authority: Harrison Park Master Plan Background: Harrison Park is a significant City and heritage asset Harrison Park is located within the valley area of the City on the Sydenham River at the southeast end of Owen Sound. The Park is unique among City parks with its diversity, including streams and rivers, gardens, forests, playgrounds, bridges, and trails located in the centre of the City. In 2012, Harrison Park was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape. Harrison Park is the largest park in the City, consisting of 60.7 hectares (150 acres) and classified as a City park. The Park represents almost 2 per cent of the City’s entire land area. The 150-acre Park is divided into nine functional areas: 1. West Park Entry; 2. West Woodland and Escarpment Lands; 3. Island and Pleasure Grounds; 4. Inn, Good Cheer Rink, and Bandshell Area; 5. Community Hall, Tennis/Pickleball Court, Upper Meadow, and Pool Area; 6. Campground Area; 7. Bird Area and Parks Operations Yard; 8. The Mile Drive; and Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 2 of 7 Page 677 of 692 9. Toboggan Hill, Commemorative Forest Grove, Fitness Trail, and Northeast Woodland. The tennis/pickleball courts are located in Area 5. This is described as follows in the plan: This 27,891 square metre (6.9 acre) area forms the southwest portion of the park. It extends from the south boundary of the east-west park road and includes 2 roads: one southbound road that provides mixed pedestrian/vehicle access to the pool and hall, as well as a northbound one-way road that exits the pool to the EW park road located in area 4. To the west of the southbound drive, there is a small watercourse. The in and outbound roads are divided by a natural treed area. The area includes a small parking area adjacent to the Tennis/Pickle Ball area and an open space meadow that is used for overflow camping. There is a historic shuffleboard close to the Tennis court oneway northbound road. The campground is the east boundary of this section. At the southern end of section 5 is the Harrison Park Outdoor pool, and pool buildings and associated parking area. This area provides pedestrian access to Weaver’s Creek and the boardwalk. Section 8 of the Master Plan includes five overarching principles: 1. Conflicting and Competing Uses/Overuse – The recommendations of this Master Plan recognize conflicting and competing uses as well as the carrying capacity of the park. 2. Natural Amenities and Slopes – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize the importance of protecting and enhancing the park’s natural amenities, waterways, and slopes. 3. Accessibility and Inclusion – Accessibility and inclusion are important considerations and have been a focus for much of the capital work in the Park in the last 20 years and should remain an important consideration for Park development and infrastructure renewal moving forward. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 3 of 7 Page 678 of 692 4. Cultural Heritage Landscape – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize and support cultural heritage attributes that are important to the Park. 5. Asset Renewal and Reconciliation – The recommendations of the Master Plan focus on asset renewal and reconciliation of assets rather than the development of new assets. There are no specific recommendations from the plan for this area of the Park that are relevant to the tennis/pickleball courts. In particular, the Master Plan overarching principles note that future work in the Park should focus on renewing existing assets rather than developing new ones. These principles support reinvestment in the tennis courts through resurfacing. The Harrison Park tennis courts are an important recreation asset The tennis courts at Harrison Park provide outdoor recreation opportunities for residents and visitors and form part of the broader recreational amenities offered within the Park. As part of a heavily used public park, the courts contribute to active living opportunities and support community use during the outdoor recreation season. The courts are well used by residents as well as campers. Analysis and Options: The court surface has deteriorated and requires resurfacing The existing tennis court surface has deteriorated over time due to age, regular use, and exposure to seasonal weather conditions (see attachment). Abuse by uses not intended for this space, such as cricket, has exacerbated the deterioration of the surface. Surface cracking and wear negatively affects playability, user experience, and the ongoing condition of the asset. The current condition of the asset has resulted in closure due to risk. In 2025, staff added signage to the site to restrict use to tennis and pickleball. Work is required to restore the courts to an acceptable condition, maintain safe use, and protect the City’s investment in the facility. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 4 of 7 Page 679 of 692 Options Interim Repair – 2026 Regardless of the longer-term solution selected by Council, staff are working to find a short-term solution to open the two courts safely for the 2026 season with the minimum investment of funds while ensuring safety. It is expected that this will cost not more than $5,000. Longer-Term Solution A number of options are presented here with further options under review. Further options with more analysis will be presented with the second capital update in this cycle. At that time, further options, information, and analysis will have been completed toward a preferred option with pricing so that Council can make an informed decision. The options will be evaluated based on initial capital investment, lifespan, and ongoing maintenance costs. Complete Asphalt Replacement and New Lines One option would be to completely remove the surface and lay a new asphalt surface on the courts. This option would be expected to cost approximately $60,000. Staff have received a firm quote for this project; however, this would be subject to design specifications and tender of the project. New lines would be added to the asphalt. An important part of asset management is well-timed investment to extend the life of the asset. This investment would reuse the existing fencing, posts, and nets and extend the life of the asset by 20+ years. The maintenance of this system would be less than a membrane type surface. This approach would be similar to the Owen Sound District Secondary School tennis court refurbishment completed in 2024. New Asphalt plus New Acrylic Surface This approach would remove the existing surface and asphalt underneath. The asphalt would be replaced along with a new acrylic surface and lines. The estimated cost of this approach is $195,000. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 5 of 7 Page 680 of 692 The ongoing maintenance of this type of surface is more costly and not recommended for this type of municipal, no-cost public court. This would have a warranty of five years and an anticipated life of 35 years. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The 2026 maintenance repair will be funded from the Parks Operating budget. The future capital cost is estimated to be between $60,000 and $200,000 with funding to be determined once the timing and scope are confirmed. Human Resources The project would be managed by Community Services staff, including the Manager of Parks and Open Space. The City’s Purchasing and Claims Coordinator would support procurement relating to this project. This staffing approach is consistent with the internal support model described in the report. Time and Scheduling Subject to Council approval and procurement, the resurfacing project may be scheduled for completion during for 2027 construction season. The work would be timed to minimize disruption during the outdoor recreation season as much as possible; however, given the date currently, there will be a disruption. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Communication and Engagement: Notice regarding temporary court closures would be provided in advance of construction through the City’s regular communication channels. As this Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 6 of 7 Page 681 of 692 project involves resurfacing an existing facility and does not materially change its use, no broader public engagement is proposed. Report Developed in Consultation With: Manager of Parks and Open Space Director of Corporate Services Attachments: Photos of Current Conditions Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services at pcoulter@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1252. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 7 of 7 Page 682 of 692 Tennis Court Existing Conditions Page 683 of 692 Page 684 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works and Engineering Meeting Date: May 25, 2026 Report Code: OP-26-031 Subject: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report OP-26-031 respecting the next steps for the 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street), City Council directs staff to proceed with the detailed design of Option 1A – Status Quo with Modernization, to support preparation of construction tender documents for issuance in advance of the 2027 construction season. Highlights: The 4th Avenue West Reconstruction project remains a priority infrastructure renewal project focused primarily on the replacement of aging underground utilities that are at or beyond their useful lives. Staff proposed Option 3, with a multi-use path and narrowed road cross-section, as the option that best meets the community’s needs for a comparable cost. At the April 27 Council meeting, Council deferred construction of the project to 2027. While additional design work and cost will be required to advance Option 1A (Status Quo with Modernization), a portion of the engineering completed to date can continue to be used, particularly related to the underground infrastructure design. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 1 of 8 Page 685 of 692 This report seeks direction to proceed with detailed design development for Option 1A in preparation for tendering and construction. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: A City that Moves – Facilitating sustainable transportation options and creating community connectivity. City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and placemaking processes to create places and spaces that contribute to complete communities for existing residents, future residents, and tourists. Green and Resilient City – Strengthening the City’s environmental, social, and economic ability to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Also, leveraging the city’s natural resources and infrastructure to support healthy lifestyles. Previous Report/Authority: Reference Document Cited within this report: Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy PRT 001. This project has been approved as part of the Capital Program, project 25P.2. The award of the Engineering Contract was approved on September 8, 2025, by Council through Report CR-25-114 “Award of RFP-25-004 Engineering Services for 4th Ave W Reconstruction - 15th St W to 20th St W”. Two Public Information Centres were held on February 3, 2026, and on March 19, 2026. Report OP-26-004 – 4th Ave. West Reconstruction (15th St to 20th St) Preliminary Design Options Presentation by WSP Canada Inc. on recommended alternative – March 19, 2026 Operations Committee meeting The project was presented to the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee on April 17, 2026. No actionable comments were received from the Committee. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 2 of 8 Page 686 of 692 Background: The City is undertaking a full infrastructure reconstruction of 4th Avenue West between 15th Street West and 20th Street West, including replacement of underground water, wastewater, and storm infrastructure as well as road and surface works. The corridor serves an important residential area and provides connectivity to schools, parks, daycares, and the City’s west-side neighbourhoods. Over the course of the project development process, staff and the City’s consultant evaluated several design alternatives, balancing such considerations as accessibility, active transportation, traffic calming, parking, maintenance requirements, lifecycle costs, and neighbourhood connectivity. Public Information Centres and community engagement activities were undertaken to gather feedback from residents and stakeholders. At its meeting held on April 23, 2026, the Operations Committee recommended approval of Option 3, integrating a multi-use path, as the preferred design alternative. Subsequently, at its April 27, 2026, meeting, Council considered the recommendation but did not approve the motion. Council instead approved a motion deferring the project to 2027. As the project is currently at approximately the 60 per cent design stage, further direction from Council is required respecting the preferred option to proceed with before staff can advance an amended detailed design and prepare tender-ready construction documents. This report is intended to obtain that direction to advance the project and maintain readiness for a planned 2027 construction schedule. Analysis and Options: The project has not progressed beyond 60 per cent design completion as staff seek additional clarification from Council. The pre-qualification bid that was underway has been cancelled. This does not mean, however, that the project carries no ongoing cost. The principal motivation for this project is the replacement of aging underground infrastructure at or beyond its expected service life. While significant discussion has occurred respecting the preferred surface configuration and active transportation features, as discussed with Council, Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 3 of 8 Page 687 of 692 the majority of project costs relate to the underground utility replacement, which is required regardless of the final cross-section selected. To minimize wasted effort, time, and cost and maintain alignment with the City’s broader capital planning and procurement timelines, staff are seeking direction to proceed with detailed design development based on Option 1A. 1A was chosen for the recommendation of this report as it seemed to be the most aligned with Council’s opinions at the meeting on April 27. However, as outlined further in this report, an alternative option has been presented which Council may wish to consider, that would reduce the redesign effort and address some of the stated concerns. Advancing detailed design at this stage will allow staff and the consultant to prepare tender-ready drawings and specifications in advance of the 2027 construction season. Proceeding with detailed design does not commit the City to immediate construction tender award; instead, it ensures the project remains positioned to move forward within the available construction window and minimizes the risk of further schedule delays. This approach also enables the refinement of project details through the design process while maintaining progress on the broader infrastructure renewal objectives associated with the corridor. Potential Cross-Section Options path, although the sentiments expressed appeared to convey that impression. As such, staff have removed that option from the list of possible solutions. Staff also do not recommend Option 2, with bicycle lanes, due to the increased pavement width and maintenance burden, and since the priority appeared to be maintaining on-street parking. Bicycle lanes are not compatible with on-street parking in this case. Staff have added another potential option, however, that provides a narrower road for traffic calming but maintains a 1.5m-wide sidewalk on the east side of the road to reduce the impact on front yards and driveways. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 4 of 8 Page 688 of 692 As such, the new options are: Option 1A: “Status Quo with Modernizations” o o o Reconstruction to Existing Road Cross Section and Right-ofWay Layout (one 3.5m wide lane, one 5m wide lane, with onstreet parking, 1.5m sidewalk on both sides) Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing) Option 2A: “Traffic Calming Alternative” o o o Reconstruction using 3.5m Lane Width, No Parking, No Bicycle Lanes, 1.5m wide concrete sidewalk on both sides Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing) Parking There were some concerns raised around the elimination of on-street parking in favour of a traffic calming cross-section. While it was not given as the primary reason Option 3 was rejected, staff did consider it in drafting this report. In the weeks since the meeting on April 27, casual observations do not suggest that on-street parking is widely used, so Council may still want to consider a reduced width, provided in Option 2A. Traffic Speed While staff are prepared to execute Option 1A, staff would be remiss not to state once more, that leaving such a wide surface on a road with known speeding concerns may lead to increased speeding, both by the differential with which motorists are exceeding the posted speed as well as a larger percentage of vehicles exceeding the limit at all. Go-to options that the public will ask for as traffic calming devices include stop signs and speed bumps. Neither of these solutions are appropriate for this section of road. This is primarily why the constricted road profile was chosen over other designs: to prevent public upset and requests for ineffective or difficult-to-implement traffic-calming measures. Much more explanation on this topic can be found in the City’s adopted Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 5 of 8 Page 689 of 692 Operations and Maintenance Option 2A would be superior from the perspective of winter maintenance; one of Council’s noted concerns on April 27. As there would not be on-street parking, even during the day, plows would not have to negotiate around parked cars, if any were present. Due to the smaller sidewalk width, at 1.5m wide rather than 2.7m for the path, in addition to the slightly narrower road, there would be ample snow storage between the curb and the sidewalk. Table 1 – Comparison of Winter Maintenance Advantages Option 1A Pro/Con On-street parking. Plows may have to negotiate around parked cars. Pro Boulevard snow storage. Con Extra-wide lane width; would require a second pass to clear the parking lane. Pro/Con On-street snow storage. Affects on-street parking; can result in vehicles too far into the road if parked when there is a large windrow. Plows can't clear behind parked cars. Option 2A Pro Boulevard snow storage. Pro Extra boulevard snow storage. Pro Easy to plow – one pass each way. Cost Between the two remaining options, Option 2A will have a lower cost, as more of the surface design will be preserved, and it has a narrower road platform. Long-term operational costs will be higher for Option 1A. This is due to the wider pavement; it has more surface area to clear and will have a higher end-of-life and replacement cost. With Option 2A, more sod damage from sidewalk snow removal is likely, as the sidewalk is only nominally wider than the equipment itself. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 6 of 8 Page 690 of 692 Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The project is currently anticipated to be funded entirely through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). As previously identified, the majority of the project cost relates to the replacement of the underground water, wastewater, and storm infrastructure, which remains necessary regardless of the preferred surface configuration selected. Proceeding with Option 1A will require additional engineering and design work to revise the surface design and finalize tender-ready documents. However, because a significant portion of the engineering work completed to date relates to underground infrastructure and base corridor design, substantial elements of the existing design work can continue to be leveraged as the project advances. The estimated additional design cost associated with revising and completing the Option 1A detailed design is approximately $15,000-$20,000. As the main difference between the previously proposed design and Option 2A is the width of the pedestrian corridor on the east side of the road, the required redesign effort is minimized. However, there may be additional opportunities to improve the existing design to address conflicts (i.e. utility, tree, etc.) that may have arisen from the extra 1.2m of walkway width in the old design. Both options will have redundant costs, both in staff time and consulting fees, relating to reissuing the prequalification bidding phase and repeating the mid-stages of the detailed design. It is assumed that staff are not required to undertake follow-up notifications with the neighbourhood’s occupants to make them aware of the design changes. As such, those costs have not been considered. Human Resources Staff resources from Public Works and Engineering, Procurement, and Finance will continue to support coordination of detailed design development, procurement preparation, utility coordination, stakeholder communication, and contract administration activities associated with the project. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 7 of 8 Page 691 of 692 Time and Scheduling Subject to Council direction, staff will proceed with detailed design development immediately following approval of this report. The intent is to complete tender-ready documents in sufficient time to support issuance of a construction tender and commencement of construction activities during the 2027 construction season. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Communication and Engagement: Public engagement and consultation have already formed a significant component of the project development process through Public Information Centres, the project website, and Council and Committee discussions. Further communication respecting project timing, construction impacts, and detailed design elements will continue as the project advances toward tender and construction. Staff do not, however, propose to undertake another Public Information Centre to advertise the final approved design. Should Council wish staff to undertake such an event, direction should be provided, as there will be additional cost implications. Report Developed in Consultation With: Manager of Public Works and Engineering Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer Manager of Corporate Services Attachments: None. Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works and Engineering at lwiddifield@owensound.ca or 519-3764440 ext. 1201. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 8 of 8 Page 692 of 692
7.a Council Resolution No. R-260526-006 Postponed from the May 25, 2026 Regular Council Meeting Re: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps
Council has instructed staff to advance designs prioritizing Option 1A, which maintains existing lane widths and on-street parking while modernizing aging underground utilities between 15th and 20th Streets West for a potential 2027 construction season. This approach seeks to address critical infrastructure needs without immediately committing funds to widen paths that might disrupt current community usage of road space for vehicles or pedestrians alike. Although an Operations Committee previously favoured replacing lanes with a multi-use path, the Council deferred approval until next year's window opens. Staff emphasizes that significant engineering work on subterranean systems remains valuable regardless of whether Option 1A or the financially cheaper but operationally heavier Option 2A is selected later; Option 2A would offer superior winter maintenance capabilities and lower initial costs by utilising a narrower road platform, yet it demands higher long-term clearing expenses. The project relies on Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund resources to cover unavoidable underground infrastructure costs while staff continues detailed design development in public works and engineering. No new Public Information Centre will be organised unless Council explicitly directs one, keeping associated community engagement costs under review for the upcoming season's start.
Attachment: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps - OP-26-031.pdf
Source: https://pub-owensound.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=52922
Staff Report
Report To: City Council
Report From: Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works and Engineering
Meeting Date: May 25, 2026
Report Code: OP-26-031
Subject: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Recommendations:
THAT in consideration of Staff Report OP-26-031 respecting the next steps
for the 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street), City
Council directs staff to proceed with the detailed design of Option 1A –
Status Quo with Modernization, to support preparation of construction tender
documents for issuance in advance of the 2027 construction season.
Highlights:
The 4th Avenue West Reconstruction project remains a priority
infrastructure renewal project focused primarily on the replacement
of aging underground utilities that are at or beyond their useful
lives.
Staff proposed Option 3, with a multi-use path and narrowed road
cross-section, as the option that best meets the community’s needs
for a comparable cost.
At the April 27 Council meeting, Council deferred construction of
the project to 2027.
While additional design work and cost will be required to advance
Option 1A (Status Quo with Modernization), a portion of the
engineering completed to date can continue to be used, particularly
related to the underground infrastructure design.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 1 of 8
This report seeks direction to proceed with detailed design
development for Option 1A in preparation for tendering and
construction.
Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment:
Strategic Plan Priority:
A City that Moves – Facilitating sustainable transportation options
and creating community connectivity.
City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and place-
making processes to create places and spaces that contribute to
complete communities for existing residents, future residents, and
tourists.
Green and Resilient City – Strengthening the City’s environmental,
social, and economic ability to mitigate and adapt to the climate
crisis. Also, leveraging the city’s natural resources and
infrastructure to support healthy lifestyles.
Previous Report/Authority:
Reference Document Cited within this report: Neighbourhood Traffic
Calming Policy PRT 001.
This project has been approved as part of the Capital Program, project
25P.2.
The award of the Engineering Contract was approved on September 8,
2025, by Council through Report CR-25-114 “Award of RFP-25-004 -
Engineering Services for 4th Ave W Reconstruction - 15th St W to 20th
St W”.
Two Public Information Centres were held on February 3, 2026, and on
March 19, 2026.
Report OP-26-004 – 4th Ave. West Reconstruction (15th St to 20th St)
Preliminary Design Options
Presentation by WSP Canada Inc. on recommended alternative – March
19, 2026 Operations Committee meeting
The project was presented to the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory
Committee on April 17, 2026. No actionable comments were received from
the Committee.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 2 of 8
Background:
The City is undertaking a full infrastructure reconstruction of 4th Avenue West
between 15th Street West and 20th Street West, including replacement of
underground water, wastewater, and storm infrastructure as well as road
and surface works. The corridor serves an important residential area and
provides connectivity to schools, parks, daycares, and the City’s west-side
neighbourhoods.
Over the course of the project development process, staff and the City’s
consultant evaluated several design alternatives, balancing such
considerations as accessibility, active transportation, traffic calming, parking,
maintenance requirements, lifecycle costs, and neighbourhood connectivity.
Public Information Centres and community engagement activities were
undertaken to gather feedback from residents and stakeholders.
At its meeting held on April 23, 2026, the Operations Committee
recommended approval of Option 3, integrating a multi-use path, as the
preferred design alternative. Subsequently, at its April 27, 2026, meeting,
Council considered the recommendation but did not approve the motion.
Council instead approved a motion deferring the project to 2027.
As the project is currently at approximately the 60 per cent design stage,
further direction from Council is required respecting the preferred option to
proceed with before staff can advance an amended detailed design and
prepare tender-ready construction documents. This report is intended to
obtain that direction to advance the project and maintain readiness for a
planned 2027 construction schedule.
Analysis and Options:
The project has not progressed beyond 60 per cent design completion as
staff seek additional clarification from Council. The pre-qualification bid that
was underway has been cancelled.
This does not mean, however, that the project carries no ongoing cost.
The principal motivation for this project is the replacement of aging
underground infrastructure at or beyond its expected service life. While
significant discussion has occurred respecting the preferred surface
configuration and active transportation features, as discussed with Council,
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 3 of 8
the majority of project costs relate to the underground utility replacement,
which is required regardless of the final cross-section selected.
To minimize wasted effort, time, and cost and maintain alignment with the
City’s broader capital planning and procurement timelines, staff are seeking
direction to proceed with detailed design development based on Option 1A.
1A was chosen for the recommendation of this report as it seemed to be the
most aligned with Council’s opinions at the meeting on April 27. However, as
outlined further in this report, an alternative option has been presented
which Council may wish to consider, that would reduce the redesign effort
and address some of the stated concerns.
Advancing detailed design at this stage will allow staff and the consultant to
prepare tender-ready drawings and specifications in advance of the 2027
construction season.
Proceeding with detailed design does not commit the City to immediate
construction tender award; instead, it ensures the project remains positioned
to move forward within the available construction window and minimizes the
risk of further schedule delays. This approach also enables the refinement of
project details through the design process while maintaining progress on the
broader infrastructure renewal objectives associated with the corridor.
Potential Cross-Section Options
Council’s resolution did not specifically eliminate Option 3, with the multi-use
path, although the sentiments expressed appeared to convey that
impression. As such, staff have removed that option from the list of possible
solutions.
Staff also do not recommend Option 2, with bicycle lanes, due to the
increased pavement width and maintenance burden, and since the priority
appeared to be maintaining on-street parking. Bicycle lanes are not
compatible with on-street parking in this case.
Staff have added another potential option, however, that provides a
narrower road for traffic calming but maintains a 1.5m-wide sidewalk on the
east side of the road to reduce the impact on front yards and driveways.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 4 of 8
As such, the new options are:
Option 1A: “Status Quo with Modernizations”
o Reconstruction to Existing Road Cross Section and Right-of-
Way Layout (one 3.5m wide lane, one 5m wide lane, with on-
street parking, 1.5m sidewalk on both sides)
o Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners
o Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing)
Option 2A: “Traffic Calming Alternative”
o Reconstruction using 3.5m Lane Width, No Parking, No Bicycle
Lanes, 1.5m wide concrete sidewalk on both sides
o Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners
o Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing)
Parking
There were some concerns raised around the elimination of on-street parking
in favour of a traffic calming cross-section. While it was not given as the
primary reason Option 3 was rejected, staff did consider it in drafting this
report.
In the weeks since the meeting on April 27, casual observations do not
suggest that on-street parking is widely used, so Council may still want to
consider a reduced width, provided in Option 2A.
Traffic Speed
While staff are prepared to execute Option 1A, staff would be remiss not to
state once more, that leaving such a wide surface on a road with known
speeding concerns may lead to increased speeding, both by the differential
with which motorists are exceeding the posted speed as well as a larger
percentage of vehicles exceeding the limit at all.
Go-to options that the public will ask for as traffic calming devices include
stop signs and speed bumps. Neither of these solutions are appropriate
for this section of road. This is primarily why the constricted road profile was
chosen over other designs: to prevent public upset and requests for
ineffective or difficult-to-implement traffic-calming measures.
Much more explanation on this topic can be found in the City’s adopted
Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 5 of 8
Operations and Maintenance
Option 2A would be superior from the perspective of winter maintenance;
one of Council’s noted concerns on April 27.
As there would not be on-street parking, even during the day, plows would
not have to negotiate around parked cars, if any were present.
Due to the smaller sidewalk width, at 1.5m wide rather than 2.7m for the
path, in addition to the slightly narrower road, there would be ample snow
storage between the curb and the sidewalk.
Table 1 – Comparison of Winter Maintenance Advantages
Option 1A
On-street parking. Plows may have to negotiate around
Pro/Con
parked cars.
Pro Boulevard snow storage.
Extra-wide lane width; would require a second pass to clear
Con
the parking lane.
On-street snow storage. Affects on-street parking; can result
Pro/Con in vehicles too far into the road if parked when there is a
large windrow. Plows can't clear behind parked cars.
Option 2A
Pro Boulevard snow storage.
Pro Extra boulevard snow storage.
Pro Easy to plow – one pass each way.
Cost
Between the two remaining options, Option 2A will have a lower cost, as
more of the surface design will be preserved, and it has a narrower road
platform.
Long-term operational costs will be higher for Option 1A. This is due to the
wider pavement; it has more surface area to clear and will have a higher
end-of-life and replacement cost.
With Option 2A, more sod damage from sidewalk snow removal is likely, as
the sidewalk is only nominally wider than the equipment itself.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 6 of 8
Resource Alignment:
Financial Resources
The project is currently anticipated to be funded entirely through the Ontario
Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). As previously identified, the majority
of the project cost relates to the replacement of the underground water,
wastewater, and storm infrastructure, which remains necessary regardless of
the preferred surface configuration selected.
Proceeding with Option 1A will require additional engineering and design
work to revise the surface design and finalize tender-ready documents.
However, because a significant portion of the engineering work completed to
date relates to underground infrastructure and base corridor design,
substantial elements of the existing design work can continue to be
leveraged as the project advances. The estimated additional design cost
associated with revising and completing the Option 1A detailed design is
approximately $15,000-$20,000.
As the main difference between the previously proposed design and Option
2A is the width of the pedestrian corridor on the east side of the road, the
required redesign effort is minimized. However, there may be additional
opportunities to improve the existing design to address conflicts (i.e. utility,
tree, etc.) that may have arisen from the extra 1.2m of walkway width in the
old design.
Both options will have redundant costs, both in staff time and consulting
fees, relating to reissuing the prequalification bidding phase and repeating
the mid-stages of the detailed design.
It is assumed that staff are not required to undertake follow-up notifications
with the neighbourhood’s occupants to make them aware of the design
changes. As such, those costs have not been considered.
Human Resources
Staff resources from Public Works and Engineering, Procurement, and
Finance will continue to support coordination of detailed design development,
procurement preparation, utility coordination, stakeholder communication,
and contract administration activities associated with the project.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 7 of 8
Time and Scheduling
Subject to Council direction, staff will proceed with detailed design
development immediately following approval of this report. The intent is to
complete tender-ready documents in sufficient time to support issuance of a
construction tender and commencement of construction activities during the
2027 construction season.
Climate and Environmental Impacts:
The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change
Adaptation Plan.
Communication and Engagement:
Public engagement and consultation have already formed a significant
component of the project development process through Public Information
Centres, the project website, and Council and Committee discussions.
Further communication respecting project timing, construction impacts, and
detailed design elements will continue as the project advances toward tender
and construction. Staff do not, however, propose to undertake another Public
Information Centre to advertise the final approved design. Should Council
wish staff to undertake such an event, direction should be provided, as there
will be additional cost implications.
Report Developed in Consultation With:
Manager of Public Works and Engineering
Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Manager of Corporate Services
Attachments:
None.
Submission approved by:
Tim Simmonds, City Manager
For more information on this report, please contact Lara Widdifield, Director
of Public Works and Engineering at lwiddifield@owensound.ca or 519-376-
4440 ext. 1201.
Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th
Street) Next Steps
Page 8 of 88 MOTION THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RISE AND REPORT FORMAL SESSION
The City transitions from reactive repairs to a proactive, standardized playground renewal strategy funded by $1.53M over five years. This approach replaces aging assets in specific parks between 2027 and 2031 using modular designs that reduce long-term maintenance risks while preserving neighbourhood character through community engagement.
Page 656 of 692 Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and place-making processes to create places and spaces that contribute to complete communities for existing residents, future residents and tourists. Previous Report/Authority: CS-26-015 Parks Service Levels for Playgrounds Background: In April 2026, Council received Staff Report CS-26-015 respecting Parks Service Levels for Playgrounds, which provided a comprehensive review of the City’s playground inventory, condition assessments, lifecycle planning, service levels, and long-term capital renewal strategy. The report reinforced that playgrounds are more than recreational amenities. They are important neighbourhood assets that support physical activity, child development, social connection, accessibility, and equitable access to recreation opportunities across the community. As part of the service level review, staff completed a detailed inventory and condition assessment of the City’s playground assets. The review confirmed that a significant portion of the existing playground inventory has exceeded its expected useful lifecycle and that many playgrounds were constructed under older standards and regulatory frameworks. The condition assessments further identified that many existing playgrounds are now in poor condition and require either significant rehabilitation or full replacement. In response, the broader playground service level review established a longterm capital renewal framework intended to improve safety and accessibility, reduce lifecycle maintenance pressures, improve operational efficiency, and create a more predictable and sustainable replacement program. A key component of the recommended approach was the development of more standardized playground configurations for neighbourhood and community parks. While each playground would continue to reflect the character and needs of its surrounding neighbourhood, the use of consistent core design elements and accessibility features is expected to create operational and Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 2 of 7 Page 657 of 692 financial efficiencies over time through more consistent procurement, inspections, maintenance, and lifecycle planning. This approach is consistent with broader project delivery research and studies examining why some infrastructure programs consistently succeed while others struggle with cost escalation, delivery delays, and operational inefficiencies. Studies show that organizations are generally more successful when they avoid unnecessary complexity and instead focus on repeatable, scalable, and modular project delivery approaches. The research highlights that repeated delivery of similar projects allows organizations to build institutional knowledge, improve forecasting accuracy, strengthen procurement practices, reduce delivery risk, and create more reliable longterm outcomes. The proposed playground renewal strategy reflects these principles. Rather than approaching each playground replacement as a completely unique project, the program establishes a repeatable framework that can be refined over time while still allowing site-specific customization where appropriate. This approach supports better long-term asset management, improves staff familiarity with installation and maintenance requirements, and creates a more sustainable and manageable capital renewal program overall. Analysis and Options: The proposed approach aligns with broader infrastructure and project delivery principles that show organizations achieve better outcomes when they reduce unnecessary complexity and focus on repeatable, scalable project delivery models. Research, including the work of Dan Gardner in How Big Things Get Done, highlights that repeated delivery of similar projects improves forecasting, strengthens procurement and project management practices, and reduces overall delivery risk through accumulated organizational experience. The proposed playground renewal strategy applies these principles through the development of a standardized playground design framework that can be adapted to individual parks while maintaining consistent core components, accessibility standards, and maintenance expectations. This approach is expected to create efficiencies in procurement, project delivery, inspections, repairs, staff training, lifecycle planning, and replacement part management over time. Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 3 of 7 Page 658 of 692 The broader service level review recommended a staggered replacement strategy intended to balance lifecycle requirements with annual capital affordability and staff delivery capacity. This report focuses on the next phase of that strategy and includes: Development of a standardized playground design framework in 2027; Replacement of the Parkview Park playground in 2027; Replacement of the Alexandra Park playground in 2028; Replacement of the Westmount Park playground in 2029; Replacement of the 28th Street West Tot Lot playground in 2030; Replacement of the Ed Taylor Park playground in 2031; and Future refinement of the standard design framework based on operational experience and evolving accessibility standards. Overall, the proposed approach supports a more sustainable and manageable capital renewal program by improving predictability in funding, reducing deferred maintenance pressures, improving operational efficiency, and transitioning playground infrastructure from a reactive replacement model toward a more proactive lifecycle renewal strategy. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The proposed playground replacement program includes approximately $1,530,000 in capital funding over the next five years within the City’s capital plan and is funded through the City’s annual dedicated capital levy strategy. The program represents a shift toward a more proactive and sustainable lifecycle replacement approach for playground infrastructure. As identified through the Parks Service Level Review, a significant portion of the City’s existing playground inventory has exceeded its expected useful life, creating growing maintenance, operational, and risk management pressures. The planned investment over the next five years will materially reduce the current infrastructure gap related to playgrounds, however it will not eliminate it entirely. The City currently maintains 21 playground locations across the municipality. With an estimated average replacement cost of approximately $246,000 per playground reflected in the capital plan, several additional years of continued investment will still be required before the City fully transitions to a proactive lifecycle replacement model. From an asset management perspective, Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 4 of 7 Page 659 of 692 establishing a predictable and repeatable annual replacement program improves long-term financial forecasting, reduces deferred maintenance pressures, supports more efficient project delivery, and creates greater stability in annual capital funding requirements over time. Human Resources Projects of this nature typically require staff resources across several functional areas, including project management, procurement, contract administration, parks operations, accessibility compliance review, financial administration, and communications support. Standard activities generally include development of design and tender documents, coordination of procurement processes, stakeholder and public engagement, construction oversight, inspection and deficiency management, financial tracking, and ongoing operational coordination related to future maintenance requirements. While operational efficiencies are anticipated through the implementation of a standardized playground renewal strategy, those efficiencies will be realized over time and are expected to follow a gradual curve rather than being immediate. In the early years of the program, additional staff time will be required to establish standard design templates, prepare repeatable tender and contract documents, refine specifications, and oversee construction administration as the new program structure is implemented. As the City begins repeatedly delivering similar playground renewal projects, efficiencies are expected to improve through increased staff familiarity, streamlined procurement and project management processes, and economies of scale associated with repeated modular delivery. Over time, this approach is expected to reduce the overall staff effort required to administer individual playground replacement projects while improving consistency and predictability in delivery outcomes. Time and Scheduling Upon approval of the multi-year capital plan, staff will be able to commence preparation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the standardized playground design framework, with delivery targeted for early 2027. Establishing the standard design and specifications early in the program will support the preparation and issuance of construction tenders for the initial playground replacement projects, beginning with Parkview Park. The proposed timeline anticipates that the Parkview Park playground replacement tender will be awarded and substantially completed by the end Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 5 of 7 Page 660 of 692 of 2027. Future playground replacement tenders will be scheduled to support construction during the Spring and Fall shoulder seasons in subsequent years of the program. Delivering projects during these periods is anticipated to improve contractor availability, reduce conflicts with peak summer park usage, and support more efficient coordination of staff and operational resources throughout the construction program. Technology and Infrastructure All infrastructure requirements associated with the proposed playground replacements will be incorporated into the scope of each individual project. This includes items such as accessibility features, drainage improvements, protective surfacing, pathways, edging, and any associated site servicing or grading requirements necessary to support the playground installations and comply with current standards. As a result, there are no additional standalone technology or infrastructure requirements associated with this program beyond those already contemplated within the individual capital project scopes. Climate and Environmental Impacts: There are no anticipated climate or environmental impacts. Communication and Engagement: Community input will form part of the design process for each playground replacement project to help ensure the playgrounds reflect the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods while still aligning with the City’s standardized design framework. While the program is intended to improve consistency and operational efficiency through repeatable design principles, site-specific considerations and public feedback will continue to influence the final layout, accessibility features, and overall play experience within each park. This approach aligns with the broader service level review, which recognized the importance of playgrounds as neighbourhood gathering spaces that support community connection, accessibility, inclusion, and resident satisfaction. The broader playground service level review also identified the importance of continued communication and public reporting related to playground operations and maintenance. Staff will continue to promote use of the City’s “Report a Concern” tool to support efficient identification and tracking of playground-related issues. In addition, opportunities to leverage partnerships Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 6 of 7 Page 661 of 692 with community organizations and external groups will continue to be explored as part of future playground development and enhancement opportunities. Report Developed in Consultation With: Director of Community Services Manager of Parks and Open Space Attachments: None. Reviewed by: Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Kate Allan, Director of Corporate Services at kallan@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1238. Staff Report CS-26-043: Playground Replacement Strategy Page 7 of 7 Page 662 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Ryan Gowan, Manager of Arena Operations Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-056 Subject: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-056 respecting the Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Replacements, City Council receives the report for information puposes. Highlights: The ice cover and seats are original to the Bayshore Community Centre from 1983. A purpose-built ice cover is recommended to replace the 40-yearold plywood floor. The seats would be replaced with the same style and colour of seats from the Bayshore expansion in 2003. The old plywood floor and seat parts will be recycled or reused through resale and scrap metal processes. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and place-making processes to create places and spaces that contribute to complete communities for existing residents, future residents and tourists. Staff Report CS-26-056: Bayshore Ice Cover and Bowl Seating Capital Replacements Page 1 of 5
9 MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The assembly moves to adopt proceedings in committee of the whole.
9 MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
10 BY-LAWS
The by-laws confirm council meeting proceedings from June 23, 2026.
10 BY-LAWS BY-LAWS 10.a By-law No. 2026-077 "A By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Special Meeting of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Owen Sound held on the 23rd day of June, 2026"
10.a By-law No. 2026-077 "ABy-law to confirm the proceedings of the Special Meeting of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Owen...
Harrison Park's tennis and pickleball courts require renewal due to cracking surfaces damaged by weather and unauthorized cricket use; staff face a choice between short-term repairs funded at $60k–$200k for 2027 construction or prioritizing the park's current facilities over new infrastructure. Meanwhile, Fourth Avenue West reconstruction is stalled until 2027 due to unresolved debates on road width and parking. Staff present two design paths: Option 1A keeps existing pavement with minimal engineering costs but increases winter maintenance needs, while Option 2A proposes a narrower road without street parking that could lower lifecycle costs despite potential sidewalk sod risks or utility conflicts from added pedestrian space. Both options incur redundant consulting fees if details must be rebid mid-stage, and management assumes notifying neighbours of these changes is unnecessary to save money. The project aims for tender-ready documents before the 2027 construction season without committing immediately to final funding or execution specifics; detailed redesign work begins upon council direction while avoiding extra public information centres unless explicitly requested, aligning climate goals but sidestepping further engagement expenses that would add cost without inferring specific reasons behind these particular choices.
Page 676 of 692 refurbishment of this asset based on an analysis of cost, maintenance, and lifecycle. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: The recommendation contributes to core service delivery or a corporate initiative that enables service delivery for one or more strategic priorities. Previous Report/Authority: Harrison Park Master Plan Background: Harrison Park is a significant City and heritage asset Harrison Park is located within the valley area of the City on the Sydenham River at the southeast end of Owen Sound. The Park is unique among City parks with its diversity, including streams and rivers, gardens, forests, playgrounds, bridges, and trails located in the centre of the City. In 2012, Harrison Park was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape. Harrison Park is the largest park in the City, consisting of 60.7 hectares (150 acres) and classified as a City park. The Park represents almost 2 per cent of the City’s entire land area. The 150-acre Park is divided into nine functional areas: 1. West Park Entry; 2. West Woodland and Escarpment Lands; 3. Island and Pleasure Grounds; 4. Inn, Good Cheer Rink, and Bandshell Area; 5. Community Hall, Tennis/Pickleball Court, Upper Meadow, and Pool Area; 6. Campground Area; 7. Bird Area and Parks Operations Yard; 8. The Mile Drive; and Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 2 of 7 Page 677 of 692 9. Toboggan Hill, Commemorative Forest Grove, Fitness Trail, and Northeast Woodland. The tennis/pickleball courts are located in Area 5. This is described as follows in the plan: This 27,891 square metre (6.9 acre) area forms the southwest portion of the park. It extends from the south boundary of the east-west park road and includes 2 roads: one southbound road that provides mixed pedestrian/vehicle access to the pool and hall, as well as a northbound one-way road that exits the pool to the EW park road located in area 4. To the west of the southbound drive, there is a small watercourse. The in and outbound roads are divided by a natural treed area. The area includes a small parking area adjacent to the Tennis/Pickle Ball area and an open space meadow that is used for overflow camping. There is a historic shuffleboard close to the Tennis court oneway northbound road. The campground is the east boundary of this section. At the southern end of section 5 is the Harrison Park Outdoor pool, and pool buildings and associated parking area. This area provides pedestrian access to Weaver’s Creek and the boardwalk. Section 8 of the Master Plan includes five overarching principles: 1. Conflicting and Competing Uses/Overuse – The recommendations of this Master Plan recognize conflicting and competing uses as well as the carrying capacity of the park. 2. Natural Amenities and Slopes – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize the importance of protecting and enhancing the park’s natural amenities, waterways, and slopes. 3. Accessibility and Inclusion – Accessibility and inclusion are important considerations and have been a focus for much of the capital work in the Park in the last 20 years and should remain an important consideration for Park development and infrastructure renewal moving forward. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 3 of 7 Page 678 of 692 4. Cultural Heritage Landscape – The recommendations of the Master Plan recognize and support cultural heritage attributes that are important to the Park. 5. Asset Renewal and Reconciliation – The recommendations of the Master Plan focus on asset renewal and reconciliation of assets rather than the development of new assets. There are no specific recommendations from the plan for this area of the Park that are relevant to the tennis/pickleball courts. In particular, the Master Plan overarching principles note that future work in the Park should focus on renewing existing assets rather than developing new ones. These principles support reinvestment in the tennis courts through resurfacing. The Harrison Park tennis courts are an important recreation asset The tennis courts at Harrison Park provide outdoor recreation opportunities for residents and visitors and form part of the broader recreational amenities offered within the Park. As part of a heavily used public park, the courts contribute to active living opportunities and support community use during the outdoor recreation season. The courts are well used by residents as well as campers. Analysis and Options: The court surface has deteriorated and requires resurfacing The existing tennis court surface has deteriorated over time due to age, regular use, and exposure to seasonal weather conditions (see attachment). Abuse by uses not intended for this space, such as cricket, has exacerbated the deterioration of the surface. Surface cracking and wear negatively affects playability, user experience, and the ongoing condition of the asset. The current condition of the asset has resulted in closure due to risk. In 2025, staff added signage to the site to restrict use to tennis and pickleball. Work is required to restore the courts to an acceptable condition, maintain safe use, and protect the City’s investment in the facility. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 4 of 7 Page 679 of 692 Options Interim Repair – 2026 Regardless of the longer-term solution selected by Council, staff are working to find a short-term solution to open the two courts safely for the 2026 season with the minimum investment of funds while ensuring safety. It is expected that this will cost not more than $5,000. Longer-Term Solution A number of options are presented here with further options under review. Further options with more analysis will be presented with the second capital update in this cycle. At that time, further options, information, and analysis will have been completed toward a preferred option with pricing so that Council can make an informed decision. The options will be evaluated based on initial capital investment, lifespan, and ongoing maintenance costs. Complete Asphalt Replacement and New Lines One option would be to completely remove the surface and lay a new asphalt surface on the courts. This option would be expected to cost approximately $60,000. Staff have received a firm quote for this project; however, this would be subject to design specifications and tender of the project. New lines would be added to the asphalt. An important part of asset management is well-timed investment to extend the life of the asset. This investment would reuse the existing fencing, posts, and nets and extend the life of the asset by 20+ years. The maintenance of this system would be less than a membrane type surface. This approach would be similar to the Owen Sound District Secondary School tennis court refurbishment completed in 2024. New Asphalt plus New Acrylic Surface This approach would remove the existing surface and asphalt underneath. The asphalt would be replaced along with a new acrylic surface and lines. The estimated cost of this approach is $195,000. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 5 of 7 Page 680 of 692 The ongoing maintenance of this type of surface is more costly and not recommended for this type of municipal, no-cost public court. This would have a warranty of five years and an anticipated life of 35 years. Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The 2026 maintenance repair will be funded from the Parks Operating budget. The future capital cost is estimated to be between $60,000 and $200,000 with funding to be determined once the timing and scope are confirmed. Human Resources The project would be managed by Community Services staff, including the Manager of Parks and Open Space. The City’s Purchasing and Claims Coordinator would support procurement relating to this project. This staffing approach is consistent with the internal support model described in the report. Time and Scheduling Subject to Council approval and procurement, the resurfacing project may be scheduled for completion during for 2027 construction season. The work would be timed to minimize disruption during the outdoor recreation season as much as possible; however, given the date currently, there will be a disruption. Technology and Infrastructure N/A. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Communication and Engagement: Notice regarding temporary court closures would be provided in advance of construction through the City’s regular communication channels. As this Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 6 of 7 Page 681 of 692 project involves resurfacing an existing facility and does not materially change its use, no broader public engagement is proposed. Report Developed in Consultation With: Manager of Parks and Open Space Director of Corporate Services Attachments: Photos of Current Conditions Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Pamela Coulter, Director of Community Services at pcoulter@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1252. Staff Report CS-26-049: Harrison Park Tennis/Pickleball Court – Proposed Resurfacing Page 7 of 7 Page 682 of 692 Tennis Court Existing Conditions Page 683 of 692 Page 684 of 692 Staff Report Report To: City Council Report From: Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works and Engineering Meeting Date: May 25, 2026 Report Code: OP-26-031 Subject: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report OP-26-031 respecting the next steps for the 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street), City Council directs staff to proceed with the detailed design of Option 1A – Status Quo with Modernization, to support preparation of construction tender documents for issuance in advance of the 2027 construction season. Highlights: The 4th Avenue West Reconstruction project remains a priority infrastructure renewal project focused primarily on the replacement of aging underground utilities that are at or beyond their useful lives. Staff proposed Option 3, with a multi-use path and narrowed road cross-section, as the option that best meets the community’s needs for a comparable cost. At the April 27 Council meeting, Council deferred construction of the project to 2027. While additional design work and cost will be required to advance Option 1A (Status Quo with Modernization), a portion of the engineering completed to date can continue to be used, particularly related to the underground infrastructure design. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 1 of 8 Page 685 of 692 This report seeks direction to proceed with detailed design development for Option 1A in preparation for tendering and construction. Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: A City that Moves – Facilitating sustainable transportation options and creating community connectivity. City Building – Enhancing urban development, planning and placemaking processes to create places and spaces that contribute to complete communities for existing residents, future residents, and tourists. Green and Resilient City – Strengthening the City’s environmental, social, and economic ability to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Also, leveraging the city’s natural resources and infrastructure to support healthy lifestyles. Previous Report/Authority: Reference Document Cited within this report: Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy PRT 001. This project has been approved as part of the Capital Program, project 25P.2. The award of the Engineering Contract was approved on September 8, 2025, by Council through Report CR-25-114 “Award of RFP-25-004 Engineering Services for 4th Ave W Reconstruction - 15th St W to 20th St W”. Two Public Information Centres were held on February 3, 2026, and on March 19, 2026. Report OP-26-004 – 4th Ave. West Reconstruction (15th St to 20th St) Preliminary Design Options Presentation by WSP Canada Inc. on recommended alternative – March 19, 2026 Operations Committee meeting The project was presented to the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee on April 17, 2026. No actionable comments were received from the Committee. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 2 of 8 Page 686 of 692 Background: The City is undertaking a full infrastructure reconstruction of 4th Avenue West between 15th Street West and 20th Street West, including replacement of underground water, wastewater, and storm infrastructure as well as road and surface works. The corridor serves an important residential area and provides connectivity to schools, parks, daycares, and the City’s west-side neighbourhoods. Over the course of the project development process, staff and the City’s consultant evaluated several design alternatives, balancing such considerations as accessibility, active transportation, traffic calming, parking, maintenance requirements, lifecycle costs, and neighbourhood connectivity. Public Information Centres and community engagement activities were undertaken to gather feedback from residents and stakeholders. At its meeting held on April 23, 2026, the Operations Committee recommended approval of Option 3, integrating a multi-use path, as the preferred design alternative. Subsequently, at its April 27, 2026, meeting, Council considered the recommendation but did not approve the motion. Council instead approved a motion deferring the project to 2027. As the project is currently at approximately the 60 per cent design stage, further direction from Council is required respecting the preferred option to proceed with before staff can advance an amended detailed design and prepare tender-ready construction documents. This report is intended to obtain that direction to advance the project and maintain readiness for a planned 2027 construction schedule. Analysis and Options: The project has not progressed beyond 60 per cent design completion as staff seek additional clarification from Council. The pre-qualification bid that was underway has been cancelled. This does not mean, however, that the project carries no ongoing cost. The principal motivation for this project is the replacement of aging underground infrastructure at or beyond its expected service life. While significant discussion has occurred respecting the preferred surface configuration and active transportation features, as discussed with Council, Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 3 of 8 Page 687 of 692 the majority of project costs relate to the underground utility replacement, which is required regardless of the final cross-section selected. To minimize wasted effort, time, and cost and maintain alignment with the City’s broader capital planning and procurement timelines, staff are seeking direction to proceed with detailed design development based on Option 1A. 1A was chosen for the recommendation of this report as it seemed to be the most aligned with Council’s opinions at the meeting on April 27. However, as outlined further in this report, an alternative option has been presented which Council may wish to consider, that would reduce the redesign effort and address some of the stated concerns. Advancing detailed design at this stage will allow staff and the consultant to prepare tender-ready drawings and specifications in advance of the 2027 construction season. Proceeding with detailed design does not commit the City to immediate construction tender award; instead, it ensures the project remains positioned to move forward within the available construction window and minimizes the risk of further schedule delays. This approach also enables the refinement of project details through the design process while maintaining progress on the broader infrastructure renewal objectives associated with the corridor. Potential Cross-Section Options path, although the sentiments expressed appeared to convey that impression. As such, staff have removed that option from the list of possible solutions. Staff also do not recommend Option 2, with bicycle lanes, due to the increased pavement width and maintenance burden, and since the priority appeared to be maintaining on-street parking. Bicycle lanes are not compatible with on-street parking in this case. Staff have added another potential option, however, that provides a narrower road for traffic calming but maintains a 1.5m-wide sidewalk on the east side of the road to reduce the impact on front yards and driveways. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 4 of 8 Page 688 of 692 As such, the new options are: Option 1A: “Status Quo with Modernizations” o o o Reconstruction to Existing Road Cross Section and Right-ofWay Layout (one 3.5m wide lane, one 5m wide lane, with onstreet parking, 1.5m sidewalk on both sides) Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing) Option 2A: “Traffic Calming Alternative” o o o Reconstruction using 3.5m Lane Width, No Parking, No Bicycle Lanes, 1.5m wide concrete sidewalk on both sides Accessibility and geometric upgrades at corners Pedestrian cross-over (protected crossing) Parking There were some concerns raised around the elimination of on-street parking in favour of a traffic calming cross-section. While it was not given as the primary reason Option 3 was rejected, staff did consider it in drafting this report. In the weeks since the meeting on April 27, casual observations do not suggest that on-street parking is widely used, so Council may still want to consider a reduced width, provided in Option 2A. Traffic Speed While staff are prepared to execute Option 1A, staff would be remiss not to state once more, that leaving such a wide surface on a road with known speeding concerns may lead to increased speeding, both by the differential with which motorists are exceeding the posted speed as well as a larger percentage of vehicles exceeding the limit at all. Go-to options that the public will ask for as traffic calming devices include stop signs and speed bumps. Neither of these solutions are appropriate for this section of road. This is primarily why the constricted road profile was chosen over other designs: to prevent public upset and requests for ineffective or difficult-to-implement traffic-calming measures. Much more explanation on this topic can be found in the City’s adopted Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 5 of 8 Page 689 of 692 Operations and Maintenance Option 2A would be superior from the perspective of winter maintenance; one of Council’s noted concerns on April 27. As there would not be on-street parking, even during the day, plows would not have to negotiate around parked cars, if any were present. Due to the smaller sidewalk width, at 1.5m wide rather than 2.7m for the path, in addition to the slightly narrower road, there would be ample snow storage between the curb and the sidewalk. Table 1 – Comparison of Winter Maintenance Advantages Option 1A Pro/Con On-street parking. Plows may have to negotiate around parked cars. Pro Boulevard snow storage. Con Extra-wide lane width; would require a second pass to clear the parking lane. Pro/Con On-street snow storage. Affects on-street parking; can result in vehicles too far into the road if parked when there is a large windrow. Plows can't clear behind parked cars. Option 2A Pro Boulevard snow storage. Pro Extra boulevard snow storage. Pro Easy to plow – one pass each way. Cost Between the two remaining options, Option 2A will have a lower cost, as more of the surface design will be preserved, and it has a narrower road platform. Long-term operational costs will be higher for Option 1A. This is due to the wider pavement; it has more surface area to clear and will have a higher end-of-life and replacement cost. With Option 2A, more sod damage from sidewalk snow removal is likely, as the sidewalk is only nominally wider than the equipment itself. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 6 of 8 Page 690 of 692 Resource Alignment: Financial Resources The project is currently anticipated to be funded entirely through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). As previously identified, the majority of the project cost relates to the replacement of the underground water, wastewater, and storm infrastructure, which remains necessary regardless of the preferred surface configuration selected. Proceeding with Option 1A will require additional engineering and design work to revise the surface design and finalize tender-ready documents. However, because a significant portion of the engineering work completed to date relates to underground infrastructure and base corridor design, substantial elements of the existing design work can continue to be leveraged as the project advances. The estimated additional design cost associated with revising and completing the Option 1A detailed design is approximately $15,000-$20,000. As the main difference between the previously proposed design and Option 2A is the width of the pedestrian corridor on the east side of the road, the required redesign effort is minimized. However, there may be additional opportunities to improve the existing design to address conflicts (i.e. utility, tree, etc.) that may have arisen from the extra 1.2m of walkway width in the old design. Both options will have redundant costs, both in staff time and consulting fees, relating to reissuing the prequalification bidding phase and repeating the mid-stages of the detailed design. It is assumed that staff are not required to undertake follow-up notifications with the neighbourhood’s occupants to make them aware of the design changes. As such, those costs have not been considered. Human Resources Staff resources from Public Works and Engineering, Procurement, and Finance will continue to support coordination of detailed design development, procurement preparation, utility coordination, stakeholder communication, and contract administration activities associated with the project. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 7 of 8 Page 691 of 692 Time and Scheduling Subject to Council direction, staff will proceed with detailed design development immediately following approval of this report. The intent is to complete tender-ready documents in sufficient time to support issuance of a construction tender and commencement of construction activities during the 2027 construction season. Climate and Environmental Impacts: The recommendation supports the City's Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Communication and Engagement: Public engagement and consultation have already formed a significant component of the project development process through Public Information Centres, the project website, and Council and Committee discussions. Further communication respecting project timing, construction impacts, and detailed design elements will continue as the project advances toward tender and construction. Staff do not, however, propose to undertake another Public Information Centre to advertise the final approved design. Should Council wish staff to undertake such an event, direction should be provided, as there will be additional cost implications. Report Developed in Consultation With: Manager of Public Works and Engineering Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer Manager of Corporate Services Attachments: None. Submission approved by: Tim Simmonds, City Manager For more information on this report, please contact Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works and Engineering at lwiddifield@owensound.ca or 519-3764440 ext. 1201. Staff Report OP-26-031: 4th Avenue West Reconstruction (15th Street to 20th Street) Next Steps Page 8 of 8 Page 692 of 692
11 ADJOURNMENT
The session concluded with an adjournment.
11 ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT