# Capital Alternatives Model

The previous numeric alternative ranges were removed because the public records do not contain enough information to justify them. This register now identifies lower-cost or staged alternatives without pretending that a cost is known when it is not.

## Costing rule

An alternative receives a dollar estimate only when the public record supplies a defensible unit cost, staff-hour requirement, contract price, device count, or comparable quote. Otherwise its cost is marked as **not costed from public records**.

The required comparison is:

`current eligible cost - alternative recurring cost - transition cost - support and maintenance cost = potential recurring net result`

## Functionality-equivalence rule

The City should define the required functions and measurable service level before specifying a product. If an open-source or lower-cost system provides the required functionality, accessibility, reliability, data control, and service level, it should be treated as an acceptable replacement. It does not need the same vendor, interface, or proprietary features.

Migration, data conversion, security, accessibility, training, support, hosting, integration, upgrades, and backups are cost items to price, not automatic reasons to reject the alternative. A rejection should identify the specific required function that is not met, the legal or operational evidence, and the quantified cost of meeting it. “Security,” “support,” or “procurement” alone should not close the review.

## Public-data alternatives

| Project | Current amount | Alternative to test | What is missing before costing |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| Citizen Satisfaction Survey 2027 | `$25,000` | Existing accessible web, assisted telephone, and resident-participation channels | Questions, sample, response method, staff hours, accessibility, procurement, analysis, and deliverables |
| Community Engagement Survey | `$25,000` | Combine with the other survey or run a smaller pulse using the same process | Distinct questions, sample, timing, overlap, and incremental work |
| Strategic plans | `$15,000` each | Replace standalone recurring consulting with a continuously maintained public forum, decision tracker, and reusable open-source public-information stack; use a short facilitated process only where a specific decision requires it | Staff capacity, moderation, accessibility, records retention, research, and deliverables |
| Digital signs | `$75,000` | Repair existing structures, use static/manual panels, or phase digital replacement | Sign condition, electrical scope, equipment, installation, maintenance, accessibility, and sponsorship |
| Downtown wayfinding | `$50,000` | Pilot highest-need routes using existing poles, static signs, maps, and QR information | Route and sign count, fabrication, installation, maintenance, accessibility, and grant conditions |
| Website transformation | `$50,000` | Stage accessibility, content, forms, and navigation improvements on existing or open/local tools | Platform contract, hosting, security, integrations, content inventory, staff hours, and acceptance criteria |
| Employee engagement | `$25,000` | Existing HR tools, anonymous pulse survey, facilitated sessions, and action tracker | Privacy, labour relations, facilitation, analysis, and follow-up requirements |
| Priorities dashboard | `$10,000` | Maintained CSV or accessible web page from existing reports and the decision tracker | Data sources, refresh frequency, accessibility, integration, hosting, and maintenance hours |
| Shared customer-service entrance | `$500,000` | Feasibility and accessibility study, then phased service-desk and existing-facility options | Site measurements, design, preservation, accessibility, capacity, operating cost, and funding |

The machine-readable register is [`capital-alternatives.csv`](capital-alternatives.csv). The current funding and tax-sensitive amounts are in [`capital-detail-review.csv`](capital-detail-review.csv).

No aggregate “alternative portfolio cost” is reported. Adding unpriced assumptions across projects would create a false savings number.

## High-confidence review targets

The strongest public evidence is currently in software and telecommunications, not because savings are proven, but because the budget names recurring costs, year-over-year changes, or specific future projects:

- 2026 IT software maintenance fees: `$696,756`, up `$123,053` from 2025. The budget note says this includes indexed existing agreements plus a new project-management application and EUNA budgeting software. The line is a high-confidence review target. The initial question is how much of it performs functions that an open or lower-cost system can provide, not whether a vendor can offer a reason to remain.
- Fleet management software: `$18,000` in 2026, compared with `$10,000` in 2024. The product, users, modules, and contract are not public, so the first step is an invoice and licence audit.
- Named future software projects total `$411,350` in the current 2027-2031 capital summary: HRIS `$248,000`, Mobile Technology + AVL `$52,800`, and Asset Management `$110,550`. Each should have a minimum-viable, open/local, phased, and total-cost-of-ownership comparison before procurement.
- Staff cell-phone capital is a genuine validation target. The later capital detail lists `$103,800` from reserves for 2030-2031, while the 2026 organizational work plan lists `$94,200` for 2026-2027. The public documents do not say whether these are separate replacement cycles, how many devices are involved, or the unit cost. The amount may be reasonable for the required fleet, or it may contain avoidable expansion; the public record cannot yet tell us.
- The telephone-system replacement is `$139,000` tax levy. The project record says the system is old, handles almost 200,000 calls annually, and has high operational impact if it fails. That supports an alternatives review, not an assumed cancellation.

The full evidence register is [`high-confidence-review-register.csv`](high-confidence-review-register.csv). A verified software saving requires the contract and licence inventory, usage, renewals, implementation history, and the documented cost of an equivalent alternative. The burden is on the proposed exception to show the unmet function and cost, not on open-source software to imitate a vendor's product unnecessarily.