City of London Executive Summary · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx ii...

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

Prepared by: AECOM300 – 285 King Street 519 673 0510 tel London, ON, Canada N6B 3M6 519 673 5975 fax www.aecom.com

Project Number: 60118887 (111562)

Date: May 2010

City of London

Executive Summary

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEWAECOM City of London Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:

are subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”) represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time

Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:

shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above for the specific purpose described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations with respect to the Report or any part thereof in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions geographically or over time

The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

as agreed, in writing, by Consultant and Client as required by law for use by governmental reviewing agencies

Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx

Distribution List

# of Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

Revision Log

Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description

AECOM Signatures

Report Prepared By: Tony Fediw, P. Eng.

Manager, Transportation

Report Reviewed By: John Haasen, PMP, CET

Vice-President, West District


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx 1

Table of Contents

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Distribution List Executive Summary

page

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................i

2. Context and Limitations of SWAP ..................................................................................................i

3. SWAP Technical Servicing Studies Summary .............................................................................. i

4. SWAP Phasing Strategy .................................................................................................................ii4.1 Phase 1 – Approved Area Plan Build-Out ............................................................................................ ii4.2 Phase 2 – Corridors and Nodes Expansion ......................................................................................... ii

4.2.1 Phase 2A ................................................................................................................................ iii4.2.2 Phase 2B ................................................................................................................................ iii4.2.3 Phase 2C ................................................................................................................................ iv

4.3 Phase 3 – Filling in the Gaps ............................................................................................................... iv4.4 Phase 4 – Long Term Growth .............................................................................................................. v4.5 Recommended Changes to the June 2008 GMIS ................................................................................ v

5. SWAP Phasing Plan Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................... vi

6. Revenue /Cost Analysis for Development Charges of SWAP .................................................. vii

7. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................xi

Appendices

Appendix A. Context and Limitations of SWAP


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx i

Executive Summary

1. Introduction The administration of the City of London was directed by Municipal Council to undertake the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP in fall of 2009. The plan was to be conducted though an open consultative public process and determine the preferred land use fabric, and location and timing of related servicing infrastructure, along with outlining a financial plan to implement and/or phase the build out of the area.

The SWAP is the first significant Area Plan undertaken by the City of London for quite a long period of time, and by design is a departure from previous area plans that were timed, directed, and at least partially funded by developers in order to comply with provincial and municipal regulations and policies for the development of a group of privately owned lands. These plans predicted impacts of alternative land use and related infrastructure on a local level. Generally, impacts of these area plans were small, and were presented in a passive manner. Specifically, they compared the impact of a few development alternatives upon an existing environment without consideration of synergies or opportunities and constraints created by other future developments. These smaller area plans usually required a short time to build out. However, given that many developer led area plans were undertaken across the City between 1993 and present day, a general lack of co-ordination was created. This led the City into an uncertain financial circumstance in which Development Charge revenues significantly lagged behind the spending on infrastructure, and a patch work quilt approach for emergent policies such as place making, communal energy generation, LEED initiatives, parks issues and creation of transit friendly nodes and links and the definition and vision of community commercial areas.

By comparison, the SWAP is a larger area of study that will investigate options and alternatives for land use and related servicing, broadening the impact analysis of both to a city wide focus. Additionally, given the scale of the SWAP and that based on current growth rate predictions it’s time for build out is estimated to be in the order of 50+years, then the SWAP is likely going to be the framework for coordinated planned growth that should offer the City stability and predictability of built form as the pieces fall into place in the future.

2. Context and Limitations of SWAP Prior to SWAP’s initiation parallel planning and engineering exercises had been previously undertaken and are built upon, revised and amended as part of this study. Appendix A of this report outlines the relationship between SWAP and other Engineering and Planning studies and is intended to provide the reader with context and limitations of SWAP.

3. SWAP Technical Servicing Studies Summary The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) technical servicing studies utilize previous growth reports and servicing master plans as its source data. The 2007 Clayton report is used as a basis for growth quantum, rates and trends over time, distributed over the various sectors. The 2009 Development Charges Study and the 2008 Growth Management Implementation Study (GMIS) were used to generate the timing of some required projects, cost estimates, and some cost allocations on a sector by sector basis. Additionally, a great amount of analysis has been drawn from technical reports undertaken to determine the physical constraints, opportunities and limitations of existing and future facilities.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx ii

Furthermore, a great amount of stakeholder input has been received and condensed over the last three (3) public meetings and individual submissions.

The resulting SWAP presents a more detailed distribution of land use, required services and a realistic phasing strategy for the area’s build out. Ultimately, bringing about refinement of past plans and reports with relatively minor adjustments made to areas that have not yet matured to draft plan status. The SWAP identifies both new projects and also recommends the deferral of other works.

The phasing and related servicing presented in this report is based on several physical constraints, engineering inputs and limitations, operational constraints distinctive to the Southwest Area and industry wide accepted planning principles.

The required servicing for each major service (Transportation, Sanitary, Water, and Stormwater Management) are presented through three separate reports, with the recommended phasing shown in each report being consistent throughout. This allows the reader to coordinate costs of servicing for a specific phase in a chronological manner across all services. However, it is noted that Transportation needs sometimes occur after a prolonged period of growth in an area, whereas pipe based infrastructure is usually required prior to, or in the earlier stages of development. Therefore infrastructure needs related to a specific development do not always occur at the same time or in the same proximity, but are progressed over time in a general area of influence of the development.

4. SWAP Phasing Strategy Phasing strategy, recommended as part of the SWAP is shown by Figure EX1. The Phases have been divided into four (4) main phases. Table EX1 summarizes the total servicing costs for the SWAP, which include the Transportation, Sanitary, Water and Stormwater Management related capital projects identified in the technical servicing reports. The total servicing cost for the SWAP is estimated to cost $604.5M and is expected to take 50+ years to build out if current growth rate trends continue as predicted by current studies (Clayton 2007).

4.1 Phase 1 – Approved Area Plan Build-OutThe first phase of development is based on the available sanitary servicing capacity of the Gordon Trunk Sewer and is consistent with policies adopted through the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy. Phase 1 growth will consist exclusively of development on lands already contemplated for urban uses within currently approved area plans. These plans consist of the community-focused North Talbot, Bostwick East and North Longwoods area plans; and the industrial employment focused Dingman area plan. The capital projects included in Phase 1 of the SWAP are shown by Figure EX2, with a total estimated cost of $85.7M.

4.2 Phase 2 – Corridors and Nodes Expansion Phase 2 represents two significant milestones in planning for and accommodating growth in the City of London: southwest London’s single largest expansion of developable urban land over the long term development of the study area (approximately 1,000 hectares of Urban Reserve lands re-designated for urban uses); and by correlation, construction and operation of the Southside PCP required to support said expansion. In light of the city-wide significance of these two events, the City of London will control the commencement of Phase 2 growth. Through the City’s careful monitoring and reporting of land uptake, both within the SWAP and throughout the City’s urban growth boundary, this phase will begin only when current Urban Reserve lands within the Southwest area are required to either:


DRAF

T

%$

%$

%$

%$

Phas

e 1

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

19,9

65,0

74$

72%

14,3

61,0

27$

28%

5,60

4,04

7$

66

%9,

536,

002

$

34%

4,82

5,02

5$

W

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

5,78

5,08

8$

37%

2,15

9,78

1$

63

%3,

625,

307

$

52%

1,12

3,09

5$

48

%1,

036,

686

$

SW

M S

ervi

cing

Cos

t38

,684

,310

$

47

%18

,111

,110

$

53

%20

,573

,200

$

47

%8,

491,

733

$

51%

9,19

9,37

7$

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

21,2

93,1

56$

98%

20,8

26,2

56$

2%46

6,90

0$

48%

9,99

6,60

3$

52

%10

,829

,653

$

To

tal P

hase

1 S

ervi

cing

Cos

t85

,727

,628

$

55

,458

,174

$

30

,269

,454

$

29

,147

,432

$

25

,890

,741

$

Phas

e 2

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost (

Sou

thsi

de)

87,8

04,4

73$

97%

85,5

47,2

73$

3%2,

257,

200

$

57%

48,7

61,9

45$

43%

36,7

85,3

27$

Phas

e 2A

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

2,75

6,87

6$

100%

2,75

6,87

6$

0%

-$

43%

1,18

6,74

0$

57

%1,

570,

135

$

Wat

er S

ervi

cing

Cos

t9,

168,

525

$

10

0%9,

168,

525

$

0%-

$

48

%4,

400,

592

$

52%

4,76

7,33

3$

S

WM

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

18,4

82,7

80$

100%

18,4

82,7

80$

0%-

$

48

%8,

871,

734

$

52%

9,61

1,04

6$

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

33,9

54,7

25$

91%

30,7

68,5

14$

9%3,

186,

211

$

48%

14,7

68,8

87$

52%

15,9

99,6

27$

$$

$$

$

Res

iden

tial

Non

-Res

iden

tial

Estim

ated

Cos

t$

Gro

wth

Non

-Gro

wth

TAB

LE E

X1C

ITY

OF

LON

DO

NSO

UTH

WES

T A

REA

PLA

N S

ERVI

CIN

G S

TUD

YTO

TAL

SER

VIC

ING

CO

ST S

UM

MA

RY

(Rev

ised

May

3, 2

010)

Tota

l Pha

se 2

A S

ervi

cing

Cos

t64

,362

,906

$

61

,176

,695

$

3,

186,

211

$

29,2

27,9

53$

31,9

48,1

41$

Phas

e 2B

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

36,7

16,0

83$

50%

18,4

22,1

71$

50%

18,2

93,9

12$

98%

18,0

15,4

35$

2%40

6,73

7$

Wat

er S

ervi

cing

Cos

t2,

466,

450

$

10

0%2,

466,

450

$

0%-

$

48

%1,

183,

896

$

52%

1,28

2,55

4$

S

WM

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

6,40

4,31

5$

24%

1,56

6,62

5$

76

%4,

837,

690

$

48%

751,

980

$

52

%81

4,64

5$

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

ervi

cing

Cos

t6,

995,

700

$

63

%4,

425,

923

$

37%

2,57

1,77

7$

48

%2,

123,

483

$

52%

2,30

0,44

0$

To

tal P

hase

2B

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

52,5

82,5

48$

26,8

81,1

69$

25,7

03,3

79$

22,0

74,7

94$

4,80

4,37

6$

Phas

e 2C

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

14,6

77,9

00$

88%

12,9

41,9

01$

12%

1,73

5,99

9$

82

%10

,667

,558

$

18

%2,

274,

343

$

Wat

er S

ervi

cing

Cos

t3,

354,

750

$

75

%2,

516,

063

$

25%

838,

688

$

48

%1,

207,

710

$

52%

1,30

8,35

3$

S

WM

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

8,47

0,62

0$

100%

8,47

0,62

0$

0%

-$

48%

4,06

5,89

8$

52

%4,

404,

722

$

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

ervi

cing

Cos

t55

,778

,675

$

89

%49

,735

,168

$

11

%6,

043,

508

$

48%

23,8

72,8

80$

52%

25,8

62,2

87$

Tota

l Pha

se 2

C S

ervi

cing

Cos

t82

,281

,945

$

73

,663

,752

$

8,

618,

195

$

39,8

14,0

46$

33,8

49,7

05$

Tota

l Pha

se 2

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

287,

031,

872

$

247,

268,

889

$

39,7

64,9

85$

139,

878,

738

$

107,

387,

549

$

Phas

e 3

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

68,2

56,2

10$

100%

68,2

56,2

10$

0%-

$

66

%45

,036

,510

$

34

%23

,220

,000

$

W

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

-$

0%-

$

0%

-$

0%-

$

0%

-$

SW

M S

ervi

cing

Cos

t18

,800

,435

$

10

0%18

,800

,435

$

0%

-$

48%

9,02

4,20

9$

52

%9,

776,

226

$

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

ervi

cing

Cos

t48

,619

,188

$

63

%30

,812

,265

$

37

%17

,806

,923

$

48

%14

,789

,887

$

52

%16

,022

,378

$

To

tal P

hase

3 S

ervi

cing

Cos

t13

5,67

5,83

3$

11

7,86

8,91

0$

17

,806

,923

$

68

,850

,606

$

49

,018

,604

$

Phas

e4

Phas

e4

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

38,5

05,8

38$

100%

38,5

05,8

38$

0%-

$

40

%15

,390

,000

$

60

%23

,115

,838

$

W

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

10,2

46,5

00$

50%

5,12

3,25

0$

50

%5,

123,

250

$

48%

2,45

9,16

0$

52

%2,

664,

090

$

SW

M S

ervi

cing

Cos

t18

,329

,305

$

10

0%18

,329

,305

$

0%

-$

48%

8,79

8,06

6$

52

%9,

531,

239

$

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

ervi

cing

Cos

t28

,962

,900

$

89

%25

,776

,981

$

11

%3,

185,

919

$

48%

12,3

72,9

51$

52%

13,4

04,0

30$

Tota

l Pha

se 4

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

96,0

44,5

43$

87,7

35,3

74$

8,30

9,16

9$

39

,020

,177

$

48

,715

,197

$

To

tal S

ervi

cing

Cos

t60

4,47

9,87

5$

50

8,33

1,34

7$

96

,150

,530

$

27

6,89

6,95

4$

23

1,01

2,09

1$


HWY

401

W

HWY 402 E

DINGMAN DR

EXETER RD

PACK RD

SOUTHDALE RD W

BRADLEY AVE

HWY 402 W

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

SCOTLAND DRW

HITE

OAK

RD

SOUTHDALE RD E

TON

RD

WELLIN

GTO

NR

DS

LONGWOODS RD

RR

D

WESTMINSTER DR

WHARNCLIF

FERD

S

VISCOUNT RD

JALNA BLVD

BOSTW

ICK

RD

SHARON RD

MU

RR

AYR

D

KILBOURNE RD

WILTON GROVE RD

ADELAID

EST

S

VIL

CO

LON

ELTALBO

TR

D

BARCLAY RD

GRE

KIRK DR

AVENU

ER

D

CLAYTON WALK

SCOTTSDALE ST

TD

R

DIANE CRES

RALEIGH BLVD

BOSTWICK RD

PON

DM

ILLSR

D

WH

ITEO

AKR

D

City of LondonSouth WestArea Plan

Figure EX1

Phasing Strategy

Scale: NTS

Date: April 2010 PN: 60118887

LegendStudy Area

PhasePhase 1

Phase 2A

Phase 2B

Phase 2C

Potential to be Included in Phase 2C

Phase 3

Phase 4

¹Datum: NAD 83UTM Zone 17N


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

SS28 45

0

SS28375

2.1

SS13A600

SS13A675

5.8

White Oak

SWMF 3

SS11 525

SS11600

B5750

Murry MarrSWMF 1

Dingman CreekOnline SWMF 2

Old OakSWMF 2

Dingman CreekWetland

Pincombe DrainChannel Remediation

Dingman CreekChannel Remediation

Murray MarrOnline SWMF 1

White Oak 1Sewer Works

Pincombe Drain 2

HWY

401

W

HWY 402 E

DINGMAN DR

EXETER RD

PACK RD

SOUTHDALE RD W

BRADLEY AVE

HWY 402 W

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

SCOTLAND

WH

ITEO

AKR

D

SOUTHDALE RD E

LING

TON

RD

WELLIN

GTO

NR

DS

LONGWOODS RD

BOLER

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

WHARNCLIF

FERD

S

VISCOUNT RD

JALNA BLVD

ON BASELINE RD

BOSTW

ICK

RD

SHARON RD

MU

RR

AYR

D

KILBOURNE RD

WILTON GROVE R

ADELA

IDE

ST

S

VILLAGE GREEN AVE

CO

LON

ELTALBO

TR

D

BARCLAY RD

G

KIRK DR

AVEN

UE

R

CLAYTON WALK

SCOTTSDALE ST

MO

UN

TD

R

DIANE CRES

SHAVER ST

ERIC

AC

RE

S

SOUTHLAND DR

TUMBLEWEED CRES

D

TILLMA

NN

RD

BOSTWICK RD

PON

DM

ILLSR

D

WH

ITEO

AKR

DWESTMINSTER DR


Figure EX2

Phase 1 Capital Works

Scale: NTS

Date: April 2010 PN: 60118887


Legend!( Phase 1 Future SWM Ponds

Phase 1 Channel Remediation

Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer

Phase 1 Transportation

Phase 1 Watermain

Study AreaPhase 1 Growth Area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx iii

Meet provincially mandated land supply targets, as established by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (20 year supply);

Provide a demonstrated need for providing market choice and diversity in order to keep London’s economy competitive; and/or

To maintain and/or provide industrial servicing to meet identifiable needs within the SWAP based on overall City Industrial Servicing flexibility, or provide such development as part of a strategic initiative such as the developing the 401/402/Wonderland Road areas as an example.

The capital projects included in Phase 2 of the SWAP are shown by Figure EX3, with a total estimated cost of $287.0M.

Phase Two is divided into 3 priority growth areas, as shown by Figure EX1: Phase 2A: the Wonderland Road, Wharncliffe Road and Exeter Road corridors, and adjacent development

parcels Phase 2B: new servicing and growth in Lambeth Phase 2C: the Bostwick Road corridor

Timing of Development for Phase 2:

Due to the lack of sanitary servicing capacity within the existing system and the dedication of new capacity to existing developments that have status (at least draft plan), the timing of development for Phase 2 is currently based on the construction of the Southside PCP. The Southside PCP is currently estimated to be constructed and operational by 2028/2029 based on the current growth assumptions internal and external to the Southwest study area. This tentative date is subject to the careful monitoring of flows in the Gordon Trunk Sewer/Greenway PCC and land uptake both within the Southwest study area and across the City of London in order to ensure land supply objectives and obligations are met.

4.2.1 Phase 2A

This phase consists primarily of the Wonderland Road gateway and the employment lands corridor along Exeter Road. Due to the ample capacity of industrial lands currently serviced in other areas of the City, the uptake in this area is expected to be almost entirely private sector driven given the City’s work at Skyway and Innovation industrial parks and a potential Gateway Initiative between Hwy. 401 and Hwy. 402 to accommodate heavy industrial development.

Triggers for Development: 1. The City of London shall determine when the Southwest area’s considerable urban reserve lands are

required to meet growth management objectives and responsibilities. 2. In anticipation of meeting Trigger #1, the City of London will construct and begin operation of the Southside

Pollution Control Plan in order to service planned growth on current urban reserve lands, or the existing Lambeth area.

4.2.2 Phase 2B

This phase consists primarily of providing servicing to the existing Lambeth area. The timing for growth within Phase 2B will be dependent on the need to provide sanitary servicing to the existing Lambeth area. At this time there is no regulatory need to provide sanitary servicing to the Lambeth area. However, if for any health reasons or an area wide septic system failure occur, then sanitary servicing in this area could be expedited. If servicing to the entire


#*

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

5.4i

SS14B450

North Lambeth

P1

5.4ii

4.5iii

6.5i

6.5ii

6.7

6.6ii

SS14B375

SS14B 525

SS26300

NorthLambeth P2

NorthLambeth P3

NorthLambeth P4

NorthLambeth P5

4.5ii\4.5iv

4.5i

6.6i

6.1i

6.2

6.3i\6.3iii

SS23300FM

SS14A825

SS13B675

SS12B 300 SS12B 3

75 SS12C 375S

S12A375

SS14A1500

SS3A825

SS25450

SS3B 82

5

SS2750

FM

A25600

A22600

A21600

A20 900

Pincombe

Drain 3

WhiteOak 4

Pincombe Drain 5

Pincombe Drain 4

NorthLambeth P6

NorthLambeth P10

HWY

401

W

HWY 402 E

DINGMAN DR

EXETER RD

PACK RD

SOUTHDALE RD W

BRADLEY AVE

HWY 402 W

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

SCOTLAND

WH

ITEO

AKR

D

SOUTHDALE RD E

LING

TON

RD

WELLIN

GTO

NR

DS

LONGWOODS RD

BOLER

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

WHARNCLIF

FERD

S

VISCOUNT RD

JALNA BLVD

ON BASELINE RD

BOSTW

ICK

RD

SHARON RD

MU

RR

AYR

D

KILBOURNE RD

WILTON GROVE R

ADELA

IDE

ST

S

VILLAGE GREEN AVE

CO

LON

ELTALBO

TR

D

BARCLAY RD

G

KIRK DR

AVEN

UE

R

CLAYTON WALK

SCOTTSDALE ST

MO

UN

TD

R

DIANE CRES

SHAVER ST

ERIC

AC

RE

S

SOUTHLAND DR

TUMBLEWEED CRES

D

TILLMA

NN

RD

BOSTWICK RD

PON

DM

ILLSR

D

WH

ITEO

AKR

DWESTMINSTER DR

BRADLEY AVE


Figure EX3


Scale: NTS

Date: April 2010 PN: 60118887


Legend

Phase 2 Watermain

Phase 2 TransportationPhase 2 Sanitary Sewer

Phase 2 Transportation - Intersection#*

!( Phase 2 Future SWM Ponds

Study AreaPhase 2 Growth Area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx iv

existing Lambeth area is required prior to 2028, the construction schedule for the Southside PCP would need to be adjusted to meet the servicing requirements for the existing Lambeth area.

In the event of a localized septic system failure within the existing Lambeth area prior to construction of the Southside PCP, servicing opportunities are available, via storage and SCADA controls at the Wonderland PS. The additional conveyance capacity provided by storage and real time controls will be confirmed via modeling and further analysis to determine the required storage volumes and the associated costs related to providing servicing to areas within the existing Lambeth which are experiencing septic system failure.

Triggers for Development: 1. The City of London shall determine when the Southwest area’s considerable Urban Reserve lands are

required to meet growth management objectives and responsibilities. 2. An area wide septic system failure or health related issues as directed by the MOE or Middlesex health unit

requiring sanitary servicing to be provided to the Lambeth Area.

In anticipation of meeting Trigger #1 or 2, the City of London will construct and begin operation of the Southside PCP in order to service planned growth on current urban Reserve lands.

4.2.3 Phase 2C

This area is structured around the re-alignment of Bostwick Road, which will evolve over time as a medium density corridor anchored at opposite ends by Southdale Road and Main Street, and a direct link between the North Talbot, South Talbot and Lambeth communities. The boundary to the west is based on sanitary and stormwater servicing boundaries, including property line boundaries and natural/proposed green space where possible.

From a servicing prospective, there is a potential to include the remainder of the North Talbot area within the Phase 2C boundary, as shown by Figure EX1 as the hatched area. Including this area into Phase 2C would allow for the logical extension of southwest London’s existing neighbourhoods so that adjoining development parcels contribute to establishing a cohesive and connected community.


required to meet growth management objectives and responsibilities.

In anticipation of meeting Trigger #1, the City of London will construct and begin operation of the Southside Pollution Control Plant in order to service planned growth on current urban Reserve lands.

4.3 Phase 3 – Filling in the Gaps Once current approved area plans are largely built out, and the study area’s corridors and nodes have begun to emerge as important destinations and meeting places, the third phase of development will focus on building out the remaining development parcels located at the western edge of the study area. This last community growth area will consist primarily of low to medium density residential development, and would be driven many factors such as, contemporary growth policies (50+ years into future), standards, and by market demand. The capital projects included in Phase 3 of the SWAP are shown by Figure EX4, with a total estimated cost of $135.7M.


#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

SS15A675

6.8

Talbot Village

E1

SS15B375

SS15A750

SS27 450

SS27300

SS15A825

4.5iv

4.5iv

4.5iv

6.6iii

6.4i

6.4ii

Dingman Tributary

B4

North Lambeth

P7

North Lambeth

P8

North Lambeth

P9

HWY

401

W

HWY 402 E

DINGMAN DR

PACK RD

SOUTHDALE RD W

BRADLEY AVE

HWY 402 W

SCOTLAND

WH

ITEO

AKR

D

SOUTHDALE RD E

LING

TON

RD

WELLIN

GTO

NR

DS

LONGWOODS RD

BOLER

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

VISCOUNT RD

JALNA BLVD

ON BASELINE RD

SHARON RD

MU

RR

AYR

D

KILBOURNE RD

WILTON GROVE R

ADELA

IDE

ST

S

VILLAGE GREEN AVE

CO

LON

ELTALBO

TR

D

BARCLAY RD

G

AVEN

UE

R

CLAYTON WALK

MO

UN

TD

R

DIANE CRES

SHAVER ST

ERIC

AC

RE

S

TUMBLEWEED CRES

D

TILLMA

NN

RD

PON

DM

ILLSR

D

WH

ITEO

AKR

DWESTMINSTER DR


Figure EX4


Scale: NTS

Date: April 2010 PN: 60118887


Legend

Study Area

!( Phase 3 Future SWM PondsPhase 3 Transportation - Intersection#*


Phase 3 Watermain

Phase 3 Growth Area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx v


required to meet growth management objectives and responsibilities. 2. The construction of a sanitary servicing connection through the existing Lambeth Area, including

decommissioning of the existing Southland STP.

4.4 Phase 4 – Long Term Growth The vacant lands within this existing employment and commercial area to the east will function as long-term employment land reserves for the City of London. This phase will be driven exclusively by growth and/or ongoing industrial development to meet the City’s requirement serviceable industrial lands. The capital projects included in Phase 4 of the SWAP are shown by Figure EX5, with a total estimated cost of $96.0M.


required to meet growth management objectives and responsibilities.

4.5 Recommended Changes to the June 2008 GMIS The first phase of the SWAP development identified above is consistent with the growth projections identified in the 2007 Clayton report for growth quantum, rates and trends over the 2008 to 2028 period. Based on the detailed analysis performed as part of this study, the growth projections from the Clayton report within the SWAP can be provided within the previously approved draft plan areas. This focused strategy on growth within the SWAP can allow for the reduction in capital projects currently scheduled between the 2008 and 2028 planning period, based on the current GMIS and the 2009 DC Updates.


!(

!(

!(

!(

Dingman Creek

Projected

SS10375

6.1ii

6.6iv

6.3iii

300

300

250

SS6 1050

B4 1050

Murray Marr 4

Murray Marr 2

Murray Marr 5

HWY

401

W

HWY 402 E

DINGMAN DR

PACK RD

SOUTHDALE RD W

BRADLEY AVE

HWY 402 W

SCOTLAND

WH

ITEO

AKR

D

SOUTHDALE RD E

LING

TON

RD

WELLIN

GTO

NR

DS

LONGWOODS RD

BOLER

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

VISCOUNT RD

JALNA BLVD

ON BASELINE RD

SHARON RD

MU

RR

AYR

D

KILBOURNE RD

WILTON GROVE R

ADELA

IDE

ST

S

VILLAGE GREEN AVE

CO

LON

ELTALBO

TR

D

BARCLAY RD

G

AVEN

UE

R

MO

UN

TD

R

DIANE CRES

SHAVER ST

ERIC

AC

RE

S

TUMBLEWEED CRES

D

TILLMA

NN

RD

PON

DM

ILLSR

D

WH

ITEO

AKR

DWESTMINSTER DR


Figure EX5


Scale: NTS

Date: April 2010 PN: 60118887


Legend

Study Area

!( Phase 4 Future SWM PondsPhase 4 Transportation - Intersection#*


Phase 4 Watermain

Phase 4 Growth Area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx vi

Based on SWAP recommendations with respect to phasing, the following projects have been identified as not being required to service growth within the 2008 to 2028 timeframe:

Servicing Type Project ID GMIS Total Cost GMIS Year Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS3A $ 7,600,000 2014* Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS12A (Oversizing) $ 17,658 0-20 years Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS12B $ 1,719,914 2018 Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS12C $ 1,013,124 2017 Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS13B $ 3,281,200 2018 Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS14A $ 2,910,728 2017 Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS14B $ 3,073,511 2025 SWM Facility Dingman Trib D SWMF 2 $ 1,311,120 0-20 years SWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 3 $ 1,731,120 0-20 years SWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 4 $ 5,127,690 2017 SWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 5 $ 1,731,120 2022 SWM Facility White Oaks SWMF 1 $ 3,136,660 2012** SWM Facility White Oaks SWMF 4 $ 3,442,690 2023 Transportation Southdale Road (5.4ii) $ 4,216,875 2028 Transportation Bostwick Road (2L) $ 2,429,375 2021

TOTAL $ 42,742,785

Notes:* Sanitary trunk sewer removed from Phase 1, this project could be included in the 20 year plan if there is a need to decommission Southland PCP/provide sanitary servicing to Lambeth ** The White Oak EA is currently ongoing, the recommended alternative at the time of this report identified the removal of this facility. Depending on the outcome of the final EA, this project could be included in Phase 1 of the SWAP.

More elaboration of details i.e. Res/I/C/I can be found in full table shown in Table EX2.

Based on SWAP recommendations with respect to phasing, the following projects have been identified required to service growth within the 2008 to 2028 timeframe, which were not identified in the GMIS:

Servicing Type Project ID SWAP Total Cost/Change in Cost

Service Area/ Change from GMIS

Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS28 $ 1,890,713 Talbot Village Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS13A $ 304,683 Change in Diameter SWM Facility Murray Drain SWMF 1 $ 1,991,120 Dingman North SWM Facility Old Oak SWM 2 $ 2,061,120 Dingman North SWM Facility Dingman Stream Rem. $ 3,000,000 SWAP

TOTAL $ 9,247,636

5. SWAP Phasing Plan Sensitivity Analysis Deviation from the phasing plan presented in the SWAP will generally lead to the incurrence of additional cost, without the generation of additional revenues. In anticipation of a request to gauge the amount of these additional


DRAFT

Servicing Type Project ID GMIS Total Cost Non-Growth Growth Net DC Recoverable

Amount

Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial GMIS Year

Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS3A $ 7,600,000 $ 304,000 $ 7,296,000 $ 7,296,000 $ 7,077,120 $ 72,960 $ 145,920 $ - 2014*Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS12A (Oversizing) $ 471,292 $ - $ 471,292 $ 17,658 $ - $ - $ 883 $ 16,775 0-20 yearsSanitary Trunk Sewer SS12B $ 1,719,914 $ - $ 1,719,914 $ 1,719,914 $ 1,685,515 $ - $ 34,398 $ - 2018Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS12C $ 1,013,124 $ - $ 1,013,124 $ 1,013,124 $ 992,861 $ - $ 20,262 $ - 2017S it T k S SS13B $ 3 281 200 $ 426 556 $ 2 854 644 $ 2 854 644 $ 2 826 097 $ $ 28 546 $ 2018

TABLE EX2CITY OF LONDON

SOUTHWEST AREA PLANREVISIONS TO THE GMIS(Revised May 3, 2010)

Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS13B $ 3,281,200 $ 426,556 $ 2,854,644 $ 2,854,644 $ 2,826,097 $ - $ 28,546 $ - 2018Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS14A $ 2,910,728 $ 320,180 $ 2,590,548 $ 2,590,548 $ 2,590,548 $ - $ - $ - 2017Sanitary Trunk Sewer SS14B $ 3,073,511 $ 338,086 $ 2,735,425 $ 2,735,425 $ 2,680,716 $ - $ 27,354 $ 27,354 2025SWM Facility Dingman Trib D SWMF 2 $ 1,311,120 $ - $ 1,311,120 $ 1,311,120 $ 1,075,118 $ 157,334 $ 78,667 $ - 0-20 yearsSWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 3 $ 1,731,120 $ - $ 1,731,120 $ 1,731,120 $ 1,419,518 $ 207,734 $ 103,867 $ - 0-20 yearsSWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 4 $ 5,127,690 $ - $ 5,127,690 $ 5,127,690 $ 4,204,706 $ 615,323 $ 307,661 $ - 2017SWM Facility Pincombe SWMF 5 $ 1,731,120 $ - $ 1,731,120 $ 1,731,120 $ 1,419,518 $ 207,734 $ 103,867 $ - 2022SWM Facility White Oaks SWMF 1 $ 3,136,660 $ - $ 3,136,660 $ 3,136,660 $ 2,572,061 $ 376,399 $ 188,200 $ - 2012**SWM Facility White Oaks SWMF 4 $ 3,442,690 $ - $ 3,442,690 $ 3,442,690 $ 2,823,006 $ 413,123 $ 206,561 $ - 2023Transportation Southdale Road (5.4ii) $ 4,216,875 $ 622,500 $ 3,594,375 $ 3,594,375 $ 2,659,838 $ 179,719 $ 395,381 $ 359,438 2028Transportation Bostwick Road (2L) $ 2,429,375 $ 528,125 $ 1,901,250 $ 1,901,250 $ 1,406,925 $ 95,063 $ 209,138 $ 190,125 2021

$ 43,196,419 $ 2,539,447 $ 40,656,972 $ 40,203,338 $ 35,433,548 $ 2,325,389 $ 1,850,706 $ 593,692 TOTAL


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx vii

costs and their impacts upon Development Charges rates and flexibility to take advantage of strategic future growth opportunities a sensitivity analysis has been provided in Table EX3.

The following points summarize the results of this analysis:

Phase 1 of the SWAP results in a net reduction of $33.5M infrastructure works when compared to the GMIS and the 2009 Development Charges Study. Due to a finer detailed analysis of existing draft plans, the amount of expected growth, and tributary service areas for infrastructure, the SWAP was able to delay the cost of works currently contemplated within the 20 year window out further into the future.

Counter balancing this reduction, the SWAP study is being undertaken in 2010 with a two year gap between it and the 2008 GMIS. The Southside PCP was contemplated to be undertaken in 2028 which would now fall within a 20 year window of inclusion should a new DC study be undertaken today (adding approximately $87.8M of work to the DC & 20 yr planning horizon).

Phasing is a significant and complex issue that initially focuses upon the availability of sanitary sewer servicing for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Bottlenecks in trunk sewers, limits to current treatment capacity quantity, and potential for both private system failures and requirements to provide services to emergent industrial opportunities require careful allocation of sanitary services to different growth sectors over time

The Phase 1 area represented in the SWAP is primarily on-going draft plans and subdivision agreements that best reflect the anticipated 20 year growth and therefore closely fit the GMIS. If more growth was to be allowed in Phase 1 of the SWAP then this would trigger a significant amount of additional municipal works without any increase in revenue source. Resulting in both an increase in Development Charges Rates and tax supported “non-growth” costs.

If the Central Longwoods area were to be included in Phase 1 of the SWAP, the accelerated capital costs to service this area would be approximately $106.2M. The affect on the DC rate to include Central Longwoods would be an increase of approximately $1,600 per single family home. Similarly, if the Wonderland Road corridor were to be included in Phase 1 of the SWAP, the accelerated capital costs to service this area would be approximately $144.0M. The affect on the DC rate to include Wonderland Road corridor would be an increase of approximately $2,200 per single family home.

Additionally, the City of London would lose flexibility to pursue current on-going industrial development initiatives as treatment capacity would be taken from reserves for this sector and re-distributed over community growth sectors. This enhancement to localized SWAP Community growth would be counter balanced by slower growth in other areas of the City that are likely unsuitable to support industrial growth.

The resulting effect then being a lost opportunity for industrial growth, and any related senior governmental subsidies related to production of employment lands.

6. Revenue /Cost Analysis for Development Charges of SWAP As mentioned in the Blue Ribbon Panel report in October 2006, the City of London is unique in Ontario in the light that it collected money to offset growth costs for many years prior to the establishment of development charges legislation. In the beginning these monies were deposited into a fund called the Urban Works Reserve Fund (UWRF) that has existed for over 35 years. In 1989, the province of Ontario enacted the Development Charges Act, 1989 as a tool to collect contributions from new development to offset the cost of capital works necessitated by growth. In 1997 the Act was amended and some elements of the formula were fine-tuned. These amendments did not fundamentally change the formula. As a result the City’s Development Charge is portioned into two separate funds, namely UWRF and the City Services Reserve Fund (CSRF).


DRAFT

Phase Development ChargeRelated Income

Growth AllocatedCosts

Surplus/Deficit forthe Phase

Net Surplus/ Deficit

Phase 1 97,880,492$ 55,458,174$ 42,422,319$ 42,422,319$Phase 2 $ 85,547,273$ (85,547,273)$ (43,124,954)$Phase 2A 81,781,583$ 61,176,695$ 20,604,888$ (22,520,067)$Phase 2B 6,223,296$ 26,881,169$ (20,657,873)$ (43,177,940)$Phase 2C 119,001,095$ 73,663,752$ 45,337,343$ 2,159,402$Phase 3 134,472,688$ 117,868,910$ 16,603,778$ 18,763,180$Phase 4 $ 87,735,374$ (87,735,374)$ (68,972,194)$

Total 439,359,153$ 508,331,347$ (68,972,194)$

Phase 1 97,880,492$ 55,458,174$ 42,422,319$ 42,422,319$Phase 2 $ 85,547,273$ (85,547,273)$ (43,124,954)$Phase 2A 61,112,099$ 61,176,695$ (64,596)$ (43,189,550)$Phase 2B 2,582,628$ 26,881,169$ (24,298,541)$ (67,488,092)$Phase 2C 44,727,672$ 73,663,752$ (28,936,080)$ (96,424,172)$Phase 3 52,813,054$ 117,868,910$ (65,055,856)$ (161,480,028)$Phase 4 $ 87,735,374$ (87,735,374)$ (249,215,402)$

Total 259 115 944$ 508 331 347$ (249 215 402)$

Proposed Land Use Densities

Current Land Use Densities


SOUTHWEST AREA PLANPRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

(Revised May 3, 2010)

Total 259,115,944$ 508,331,347$ (249,215,402)$


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx viii

There are many factors to be accounted for in arriving at the elements of the formula some of which are set by individual municipalities in their Development Charge By-laws. The formulas used by individual municipalities are subject to review, challenge and appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board.

The basic principle behind the Act is that costs are calculated by inputting the total value of growth related capital works anticipated over a defined area and defined time period and then dividing those costs by the growth that will occur over a stipulated period.

Capital Works Cost = Development Charge Rate Growth

The numerator and the denominator in this calculation are determined by undertaking a development charges background study. These studies vary in levels of detail and in style. To establish the numerator the City, needs to establish an area in which the charge will apply; the capital works that will be necessary to service the area: the time frame over which the capital works are to be installed and: the portion (if any) of service that benefits the existing community and development beyond the time frame in the study (post period growth).

Where any part of the cost of the capital work is exempted from inclusion in a development charge (either by provision of the Development Charges Act or at the City’s discretion in the Development Charge by-law, policy , or other administrative under taking) these monies must be paid through tax payer or other non development charge sources. To establish the denominator the City must conduct an analysis of anticipated residential population and non-residential floor space over the planning period and the services that are chosen in the numerator.

Dividing the denominator into the numerator results in a rate for development which is calculated on a sliding scale relative to housing form (i.e. singles, semis, apartments .etc) or the nature of the non-residential use (commercial, industrial, institutional).

Typically, the Development Charge By-law is amended at a frequency of once every five years or when required as determined by the individual municipality. Similarly the period of growth to be studied is also at the discretion of the municipality. Generally, in high growth areas short periods (10 years) are considered better representative of pace of growth than longer periods of review (30 years).

Over the last 6 years the City of London has studied and implemented several reforms to policy and procedures contained in the Development Charges By-law. Additionally, other City of London policy changes were reflected in the last Official Plan amendment. Specifically these were driven by changes to the Provincial Planning Strategy and lead to the consideration of shape of built form, density, sustainability, intrusion into green space and pace and affordability of growth.

The SWAP analysis included many of these new policy directions and generated options and alternatives for land use and related servicing, broadening the impact analysis of both to a city wide focus. Additionally, given the scale of the SWAP and that based on current growth rate predictions it’s time for build out is estimated to be in the order of 50+ years, then the SWAP is likely going to be the framework for coordinated planned growth that should offer the City stability and predictability of built form as the pieces fall into place in the future. Furthermore, SWAP’s longevity will cover several amendments to the Development Charge By-law since the DC by-law is revised at a minimum frequency of 5 years) then at a minimum 10 DC by-laws would be guided by SWAP.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx ix

Given the current benefiting period of growth defined in the 2009 Development Charges background Study is 20 years then SWAP may also span several benefiting periods of growth out lined in future background studies.

In order to provide the City with a sense of cost and affordability AECOM has provided an analysis that is NOT adevelopment charge background study, as several key components are not met (as listed in the limitations section), but the analysis mimics the methodology used for the creation of a development charge rate . In that, an estimated growth area is analyzed for costs and revenues based on the current 2009 rate and that City wide building rates are assumed to be the same as today (Clayton 2007 report).

The analysis similar to those preformed for smaller area plans predicts full build out costs and revenues, based on general building typology and density. This provides a sense of revenues using current rates as compared to monies invested in infrastructure to help the City strategize where and when to invest in an area relative to another competing area within the Urban Growth Boundary. It is noted that this analysis will need to be revisited to determine appropriate development charge rates in the future.

Limitations and Assumptions of the Faux DC analysis

The following list of assumptions has been used to generate an economic model to show cash flow needs and revenues:

Growth is estimated to be governed by an extension of the current Clayton study, currently estimated at 1900 residential units/year.

The SWAP is assumed to attract 25% of City wide growth. Existing cost data utilized in the 2009 Development Charge Background Study is pertinent. Uses the current 2009 Development Charge Rates, with the soft services costs removed. Residential densities mentioned in the SWAP will be realized in the future, beyond the first phase of

development. A sensitivity analysis was performed to see the affect on cash flow and revenue, if the City continues to

develop at the current land use densities as determined in the 2006 Official Plan Review Land Needs Background Study.

The City of London currently utilizes City wide charge calculations, it is reasonable to assume additional cost and revenues would be incurred due to re-development, intensification , or green field development elsewhere in the City. The analysis presented omits costs of City wide police stations, libraries, parks etc. that would be required in the future 50+ years.

Time lines suggested for the initiation of the phases in Table EX5 Preliminary Predicted SWAP Cash Flow Analysis are provided as a guide to show effects of density, predicted rate of growth and actual initiation time would depend upon Council policy/ direction.

Analysis

Table EX1 summarizes the total servicing costs for the SWAP, which include the Transportation, Sanitary, Water and Stormwater Management related capital projects identified in the technical servicing reports. The total servicing cost for the SWAP is estimated to cost $604.5M, of which $508.3M is growth related. These costs are estimates of servicing costs in 2009 dollars and will be incurred over several decades of development in the SWAP.

For the purpose of this study, the 2009 Development Charge Rates were used to calculate the anticipated revenues for the build-out of the SWAP. The breakdown for the 2009 Development Charge Rates are included in the table below. Since soft services (Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation, Transit, Library, Corporate Growth Studies, etc.) were not calculated as part of the costs of servicing the SWAP, these costs have been removed from the cash flow projection calculations.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx x

Land Use 2009 Development Charge

Soft Services Hard Services

Low Density Residential $ 22,921 $ 2,093 $ 20,828 Medium Density Residential $ 16,441 $ 1,500 $ 14,941 High Density Residential* $ 13,671 $ 1,252 $ 12,419 Commercial $ 168.60 $ 49.62 $ 118.98 Industrial $ - $ - $ - *Assumes units with 2 bedrooms or more.

To calculate the revenues for each phase of development, the total residential, commercial and industrial yields were taken from the SWAP draft report for Phases 1 to 3 of the SWAP.

The SWAP draft report recommends land use densities much higher than what is currently realized in the City of London, based on the 2006 Official Plan Review Land Needs Background Study. The differences between the recommended land use densities and what is currently realized in the City of London are highlighted in the table below.

Land Use SWAP Proposed Density

Current Density

Low Density Residential 30 units/ha 13 units/ha Medium Density Residential 75 units/ha 20 units/ha High Density Residential 150 units/ha 125 units/ha

Based on the land use yields for each phase of development, the expected revenue growth for each phase of development is calculated in Table EX4. The total revenue generated from the SWAP is estimated to be $439.4M. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effect on maintaining the current land use densities currently realized in the City of London, compared to those recommended in the SWAP. If the City of London maintains its current land use densities in the SWAP, the total revenue generated from the SWAP is estimated to be $259.1M, which results in a reduction of $180.3M compared to the recommended land use densities.

Table EX5 compares the expected revenue growth, as calculated in Table EX4 to the growth related expenses in Table EX1, to highlight the financing requirements for each Phase of the SWAP if the development charge rates remain unchanged. Based on the recommended land use strategy and densities as recommended in the SWAP draft report, the following growth related surplus in Development Charge related revenues, compared to growth related expenses are summarized for each Phase below:

Phase Surplus/Deficit for Phase

NetSurplus/Deficit

Phase 1 $42.4M $42.4M Phase 2 ($85.5M) ($43.1M) Phase 2A $20.6M ($22.5M) Phase 2B ($20.7M) ($43.2M) Phase 2C $45.3M $ 2.2M Phase 3 $16.6M $18.8M Phase 4 ($87.7M) ($69.0M)

To estimate the effects on financing required by the City of London on the SWAP, assumptions on the uptake of land within the SWAP and also the timing of each phase are required. For the purpose of this study and based on the recommendations of the SWAP draft report and the 2007 Clayton report, Phase 1 of the SWAP is anticipated to


DRAFT

DC Rate DC Income DC Rate DC Income

Low Density Residential1 3881 units 20,828$ 80,834,632$ 3881 units 20,828$ 80,834,632$

Industrial2 143003 m2 $ $ 143003 m2 $ $

Retail/Commercial3 143267 m2 118.98$ 17,045,860$ 143267 m2 118.98$ 17,045,860$

97,880,492$ 97,880,492$Low Density Residential 418 units 20,828$ 8,712,769$ 181 units 20,828$ 3,775,533$Medium Density Residential 691 units 14,941$ 10,330,581$ 184 units 14,941$ 2,754,822$

# of Units/m2 of floorspace

Current Land Use Densities5


SOUTHWEST AREA PLANPRELIMINARY SWAP DC REVENUE


Land Use Proposed Land Use Densities4

# of Units/m2 of floorspace

Phase1

Total Phase 1

Mixed Use (Residential) 3941 units 12,419$ 48,938,932$ 3284 units 12,419$ 40,782,444$

Mixed Use (Commerical) 112590 m2 118.98$ 13,395,958$ 112590 m2 118.98$ 13,395,958$General Industrial 230736 m2 $ $ 230736 m2 $ $Light Industrial 531024 m2 $ $ 531024 m2 $ $Retail/Commercial 3390 m2 118.98$ 403,342$ 3390 m2 118.98$ 403,342$

81,781,583$ 61,112,099$Low Density Residential 239 units 20,828$ 4,973,102$ 103 units 20,828$ 2,155,011$Medium Density Residential 75 units 14,941$ 1,121,696$ 20 units 14,941$ 299,119$Neighbourhood Retail 1080 m2 118.98$ 128,498$ 1080 m2 118.98$ 128,498$

6,223,296$ 2,582,628$Low Density Residential 784 units 20,828$ 16,334,720$ 340 units 20,828$ 7,078,379$Medium Density Residential 5700 units 14,941$ 85,162,579$ 1520 units 14,941$ 22,710,021$High Density Residential 806 units 12,419$ 10,014,682$ 672 units 12,419$ 8,345,568$Mixed Use (Residential) 433 units 12,419$ 5,372,459$ 361 units 12,419$ 4,477,050$Mixed Use (Commerical) 12360 m2 118.98$ 1,470,593$ 12360 m2 118.98$ 1,470,593$Retail/Commercial 5430 m2 118 98$ 646 061$ 5430 m2 118 98$ 646 061$

Total Phase 2BPhase2B

Phase2A

Phase2C

Total Phase 2A

Retail/Commercial 5430 m2 118.98$ 646,061$ 5430 m2 118.98$ 646,061$

119,001,095$ 44,727,672$Low Density Residential 3217 units 20,828$ 66,993,847$ 1394 units 20,828$ 29,030,667$Medium Density Residential 3839 units 14,941$ 57,363,355$ 1024 units 14,941$ 15,296,895$High Density Residential 788 units 12,419$ 9,779,963$ 656 units 12,419$ 8,149,969$Neighbourhood Retail 2820 m2 118.98$ 335,524$ 2820 m2 118.98$ 335,524$

134,472,688$ 52,813,054$

Light Industrial 372830 m2 $ $ 372830 m2 $ $

$ $

439,359,153$ 259,115,944$

Soft Services Hard ServicesSingle Family 2,093$ 20,828$Medium Density 1,500$ 14,941$

Hi h D i 6 1 252$ 12 419$

2009 DC Rate22,921$16,441$

13 671$

Phase3

Total Phase 3

Phase4

Total Phase 4Total

Total Phase 2C

High Density6 1,252$ 12,419$Non Residential 49.62$ 118.98$

Notes:1 Phase 1 Population Growth population from 2007 assuming 3.22/unit (low density residential)2 Dingman North Area Plan 1701 jobs @ 84.07 jobs/m2 of floorspace3 Phase 1 Employment Growth from 2007 excluding Dingman North assuming 54.35 jobs/m2 of floorspace4 Proposed Land Use Assumptions: Low Density 30 Units/Ha, Medium Density 75 Units/Ha, High Density 150 Units/ha5 Current Land Use Assumptions: Low Density 13 Units/Ha, Medium Density 20 Units/Ha, High Density 125 Units/ha6 Assumes Apartments with greater than or equal to 2 bedrooms

13,671$168.60$


DRAF

T

OverallCapitalN

eeds

11,529,260,400

$2009

SingleFamily

Reside

ntialRate/un

it22,921

$

Total

Notes

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

(17,420,739)

$W

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

$S

WM

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

(12,428,160)

$Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

(6,646,250)

$To

tal I

ncre

ase/

Dec

reas

e to

the

GM

IS O

vera

ll C

apita

l Nee

ds(36,495,149)

$%Ch

ange

totheDCRa

te2.39%

Affectto

theSingleFamily

Reside

ntialR

ate

(547)

$

Table1.1Affectthat

theSW

APrecommen

dation

sha

stheDCRa

tes

TAB

LE E

X3C

ITY

OF

LON

DO

NSO

UTH

WES

T A

REA

PLA

N S

ERVI

CIN

G S

TUD

YPH

ASI

NG

SEN

SITI

VITY

AN

ALY

SIS

(Rev

ised

May

3, 2

010)

2009

DCBa

ckgrou

ndInform

ation

Total

Notes

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

90,561,349

$Add

ition

oftrun

ksSS12

andtheSouthsidePC

PW

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

$S

WM

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

1,731,120

$Add

ition

ofPincom

beDrainSW

MF3

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

ervi

cing

Cos

t13,939,625

$Add

ition

of4.5i/ii

Tota

l Inc

reas

e/D

ecre

ase

to th

e G

MIS

Ove

rall

Cap

ital N

eeds

2106,232,094

$%Ch

ange

totheDCRa

te6.95%

Affectto

theSingleFamily

Reside

ntialR

ate

1,592

$

Total

Notes

San

itary

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

99,932,423

$Add

ition

oftrun

ks:SS13B

,SS13A

,SS23andtheSouthsidePC

PW

ater

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

3,354,750

$Add

ition

ofWatermainA25

SW

M S

ervi

cing

Cos

t6,858,810

$Add

ition

ofPincom

beDrainSW

MF3&

4Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Ser

vici

ng C

ost

33,871,625

$Add

ition

of4.5i/iiand

6.6i

Tota

l Inc

reas

e/D

ecre

ase

to th

e G

MIS

Ove

rall

Cap

ital N

eeds

2144,017,608

$%Ch

ange

totheDCRa

te9.42%

Affectto

theSingleFamily

Reside

ntialR

ate

2,159

$

Tabl

e 1.

2 A

ffect

on

the

Ove

rall

Cap

ital N

eeds

by

Incl

udin

g C

entr

al L

ongw

oods

Are

a in

to 2

0 Ye

ar G

row

th P

lan

Tabl

e 1.

2 A

ffect

on

the

Ove

rall

Cap

ital N

eeds

by

Incl

udin

g th

e W

onde

rland

Cor

ridor

into

20

Year

Gro

wth

Pla

n

Notes:

1Totalestim

ated

Costlessfuture

capitalgrants,subsidiesor

othe

rcontribu

tions

anticipated

andthepo

rtionfund

edinprioryears

2Doe

sno

tinclude

theaffectson

softservices

(Fire,Po

lice,ParksandRe

creatio

n,Transit,Library,Co

rporateGrowth

Stud

ies)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xi

occur between 2010 and 2028. Growth beyond Phase 1 is estimated to be governed by an extension of the current growth forecast (Clayton study), currently estimated at 1900 residential units/year and it is assumed that 25% of the growth within the City will occur within the SWAP. Based on these assumptions, this results in the construction of 475 units per year within the SWAP boundary. Therefore, based on an estimated 13,087 residential units within Phase 2 and 7,843 units within Phase 3, there is approximately 28 years of growth to build-out the Phase 2 boundary and 17 years of growth to build-out the Phase 3 boundary.

If Council decides to proceed with growth in the SWAP continually, with the Southside PCP plant being operational by 2029, the timing for build-out of the SWAP based on the assumptions mentioned above will be as follows:

Phase SWAP Proposed Density

Current Density

Phase 1 2010-2028 2010-2028 Phase 2 2029-2056 2029-2042 Phase 3 2057-2072 2043-2048 Phase 4 2073+ 2049+

Beyond the works identified in Phase 1 and the requirement for the construction of the Southside PCP to service future growth, the timing for the construction of works to service the future phases of the SWAP are unknown. Since the majority of services (SWM, storm drainage, water servicing, sanitary servicing, and wastewater treatment) are required prior to development, it is assumed that the capital projects for Phases 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4 outlined in Table EX1 will be constructed within the first third of the growth period. Revenues have assumed to be linear, with the Development Charge related income calculated in Table EX4 assumed to be collected evenly across the growth period for each Phase, identified previously.

The expected financing requirements for the SWAP, based on the previously identified assumptions are shown in Table EX6, with the financing requirements for the proposed land use densities highlighted in blue, the effect of the financing requirements, if current land use densities are used within the SWAP are highlighted in red. Based on the proposed land use densities and growth assumptions outlined previously, financing will be required to support the construction of servicing the SWAP between 2029 and 2051, peaking at $138.3M, with financing of growth required through almost the entire build-out of the SWAP based on the current DC rates. If the City continues to proceed with the current land use densities within the SWAP, the City will need to support growth with the SWAP from taxes, or increase development charges to fund growth with the SWAP.

7. Recommendations It being noted that the Southside PCP along with other infrastructure in Phase 2 will require a large amount of capital investment that is non-growth or funded by tax dollars. The servicing for Phase 2 will take multiple years to design and construct. The City may reduce these peaked (tax supported) cash flow needs by setting aside a capital levy prior to the initiation of Phase 2 developments. For instance, if monies were set aside at a rate of $3 million dollars a year for a period of 10 years prior to construction (during Phase 1) then almost half of the initial cost could be accrued through savings and interest.

To prepare for the large capital cost associated with other costs in Phase 2 Municipal Council would situate itself in a favorable position by setting a target date for Phase 2 many years prior to accepting, reviewing and approving draft plans, area plans, etc. This will encourage build out in other areas of the City.


DRAFT


SOUTHWEST AREA PLANPRELIMINARY PREDICTED SWAP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS


$

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

Predicted Cash Flow Analysis for the SWAP1

Start of Phase 2

Start of Phase 3Start of Phase 4

$(250,000,000)

$(200,000,000)

$(150,000,000)

$(100,000,000)

$(50,000,000)

$

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080


Current Densities

Proposed Densities

Start of Phase 2


Full Build Out

Notes/Assumptions:Phase Residential

UnitsUnits per Year Years of

GrowthGrowth Period

1 No Financing Costs (carrying costs) or post period benefits included.2 Assumes DC Rates rise with inflation over the study period

Phase 1 3881 216 18 2010 2028 3 Assumes 25% of residential growth within the City to occur in the SWAP. Current City growth assumed to be 1900 units per year.Phase 2 13087 475 28 2029 2056 4 Infrastructure for each phase of development will be constructed within the first 1/3 of the growth periodPhase 3 7843 475 17 2057 2072 5 UWRF and CSRF used to generate revenues ($21,644/Single Family Home)Phase 4 0 475 0 2073+ 6 UWRF and CSRF used to generate revenues ($21,644/Single Family Home)

Current Land Use Densities

Timing of Phases

Proposed Land Use Densities

$(300,000,000)

$(250,000,000)

$(200,000,000)

$(150,000,000)

$(100,000,000)

$(50,000,000)

$

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080


Current Densities

Proposed Densities

Start of Phase 2


Full Build Out

Phase 1 3881 216 18 2010 2028Phase 2 6665 475 14 2029 2042Phase 3 3074 475 6 2043 2048Phase 4 0 475 0 2049+


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xii

Temporary servicing strategies should not be employed to allow development prior to the “timed” phasing, if temporary servicing strategies were employed to allow Phase 2 developments to proceed prior to the construction of permanent facilities then those developments may reduce the amount of benefiting growth( population) to share the costs over. Appropriate development charge collection may be hindered if the developments are deemed to be “out of the period” leading to larger non-growth shares and higher future development charges for that development that did not proceed using temporary servicing. This will also assist in keeping the DC rate down by spreading the costs over a larger benefiting growth base. Coincidentally, the City is better positioned to encourage growth to occur in other areas where servicing has already been installed.

During subsequent Development Charge Background Studies careful consideration as to selection of growth period in co-ordination with SWAP phasing and future GMIS is required

The City should take necessary steps to ensure that the density recommendations mentioned in the SWAP are followed to create the sense of place and also to ensure financial stability of the development charge

All things being equal, when applying intensified densities (vs. current densities), and using current DC rates to project cost recovery, the analysis reflects that costs are recovered over a very long time frame (after 2045). This analysis does not include an interest component for monies carried, which would significantly reduce the net positive position. This therefore suggests that the required DC rate for the inclusion of this areas build out is likely greater than the current 2009.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xiii

Appendix AContext and Limitations of SWAP Prior to SWAP’s initiation parallel planning and engineering exercises had been previously undertaken and are built upon, revised and amended as part of this study. The following text outlines the relationship between SWAP and other Engineering and Planning studies and is intended to provide the reader with context and limitations of SWAP.

Official Plan Amendment 2009

During the 2009 Official Plan Amendment several changes were made by Municipal Council to update the current OP. Specifically, incorporated were recent changes to the Provincial Policy Statement, reforms to Bill 51, and interests in intensification, place making, a greener environment, support of enhanced public transit, adjustments to enhance and protect woodland and wetland boundaries and the introduction of a growth management strategy. Subsequent work on these policy directions is currently being under taken by several groups. However the 2009 OP amendments are under appeal and have yet to receive full approval from the MMAH.

Sanitary Sewer Servicing Study (SSSS) & Sanitary Master Plan

In the past, significant time, effort and public consultation has been undertaken to determine the location, depth, type, size and direction of flow for sanitary sewer trunks, and plant upgrades. These previously undertaken studies were presented, reviewed and approved in master plans many of which are still considered up to date from an age perspective and do not require a chronological update for several years.

Primarily, the determination of alternative designs and the selection of preferred alternatives for the sewers in these current master plans were based on ultimate flows, topography, environmental problems & opportunities, and available flexibility in the existing system or network.

So far, the SWAP has reviewed several alternative land use concepts for the area, and will investigate alternative options for servicing. Given that most of the original land use in the area was not finely defined though zoning and that previous master plans conservatively estimated densities for maximum flow generation scenarios based on City of London standards. Refinements made to land use through the SWAP study will likely have little effect upon the previously set sewer alignments, depth, type and direction of sewers as these are determined through the site’s topography, soil types, road alignments and avoidance of river crossings.

The SWAP will likely recommend variations in the time line for need of construction of infrastructure and small deviations in pipe size may occur. However, these variations in pipe size are so small (the order of 1 pipe size, or 150mm maximum) that they are assumed to be academic differences that would have likely been discovered during the detailed design phase of the Environmental Assessment. At the master plan level of detail there is expected to be no significant change in sanitary sewer, size, location, route, flow direction, type.etc

In summary, it is expected that there will be very little difference between SWAP sanitary servicing alternatives and those specified in previous master plans. The consultant reviewing the land use alternatives, and preferred alternative will review other reasonable alternatives to the existing preferred. However it is likely that all existing sanitary master plans will still contain relevant information to support the existing alternatives.

The SWAP will recommend a timeline that will likely be different to those previously envisioned.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xiv

Southside Pollution Control Plant (SSPCP)

The current Environment Assessment for the construction of the SSPCP has lapsed and will require an addendum. The timing envisioned for the City to complete this addendum, consultation, review period, and construction of the plant has not changed by Council’s acceptance of the SWAP

Water Servicing Master Plan

Similarly to sanitary above, in the past, significant time, effort and public consultation has been undertaken to determine the location, depth, type, and size of water mains, reservoirs, and plant upgrades. These previously undertaken studies were presented, reviewed and approved in master plans many of which are still considered up to date from a age perspective and do not require a chronological update for several years.

Primarily, the determination of alternative designs and the selection of preferred alternative for this infrastructure in these current master plans were based on ultimate flows, topography, environmental problems & opportunities, and available flexibility in the existing system or network.

So far, the SWAP has reviewed several land use alternatives for the area, and will investigate alternative options for servicing. Given that the original land use in the area was not finely defined though zoning and the previous master plans conservatively estimated densities for maximum flow generation scenarios based on City of London standards. Refinements made to land use through the SWAP study will likely have little effect upon the previously set water main alignments, depth, and type these are determined through the sites topography, soil types, road alignments and avoidance of river crossings. The Swap will recommend a time line that will likely be different to those previously envisioned.

Storm Water Management) and Existing Watershed Environmental Assessments

The Southwest Area Plan is completely within the Dingman Creek sub-watershed area, A sub -water shed study was completed 2005. Additionally the area includes four previous drainage studies that have EA status, (Murray Marr EA, Old Oak EA, Pincombe Drain EA, White Oak EA) and one community plan (Talbot Village) that has been used to site, size and coordinate the type, and interdependence of storm water management facilities in the area.

Three remnant areas fall within the Dingman sub watershed study, but outside areas covered by existing EA’s mentioned above, these are:

The Lambeth built up area of pre-existent settlement dating back to the 1850’s

1) An area defined as being “North Lambeth” situated south of Talbot village Drainage area east of Colonel Talbot Road and west of the Pincombe Drainage area.

2) The Thornicroft Drain

The SWAP study makes no change to existing preferred alternatives mentioned in existing EA’s and Area Plans. However, timing for the progression of those works is regimented through SWAP and future GMIS’s in a manner as to minimize resource expenditure, and maximize council and provincial objectives and initiatives such as: density targets, place making, a greener environment, support of enhanced public transit, adjustments to enhance and protect woodland and wetland boundaries.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xv

Work done by the DCSSU did not sufficiently detail all storm water quality needs, and did not identify all facility locations and sizes. Additional, detailed analysis will need to be undertaken for lands not covered by (the Murray Marr EA, Old Oak EA, Pincombe EA, White Oak EA, or Talbot Village Area Plan) in the future.

Given that all of the lands that are located within phase one of the preferred land use alternative are within areas covered by these completed EA’s then the additional detailed work should be undertaken prior to the initiation of Phase 2, 3 or 4.

2009 Development Charges By-Law

The 2009 Development Charges (DC) By-law set out a list of infrastructure that would be required to facilitate growth needs predicted by the 2007 Clayton report (and follow up addendum). Several new policies and definitions were identified in the DC background study and resulting DC bylaw, with significant reforms being made to the Urban Works Reserve Fund.

For the most part, the quantum of pipe works and their location, size and type remained similar to the previous 2004 DC study with a few pipes being deferred out of the benefiting period as growth slowed and was focused into certain areas of the City through the 2009 GMIS.

Given that the City of London had engaged a consultant to prepare a new Transportation Master Plan, and that the plan would model new significant parameters for transit usage, transportation demand management, and utilized a new trip generation survey then the list of transportation projects in the 2009 DC by-law was limited to those mentioned in the 2003 Transportation Master plan. This approach significantly lowered the quantum of eligible works but allowed the City to advance a DC by-law without fear of challenge at the OMB.

The DC bylaw will likely be revisited shortly after the public consultation process, and acceptance of the new 2012 TMP, as new infrastructure may be listed as required.

2012 Transportation Master Plan

AECOM and Urban Strategies Inc. were engaged to perform both the SWAP and the 2012 TMP. Co-ordination is possible as study materials emerge from both parallel studies. The transportation servicing component of SWAP is actually a subset of the TMP that is preceding the main study by a few months. The TMP may revisit the SWAP work but so far the parameters set and the resulting trends in data and public feedback are consistent with each other.

As milestones in each study are met, and public input and council direction provided a sensitivity analysis has been performed, and will be checked to ensure that changes made in one will not seriously or adversely affect or prejudice the other in the future.

As mentioned in the other servicing sections the SWAP is a larger area of study that will investigate options and alternatives for land use and related servicing, broadening the impact analysis of both to a city wide focus .So far, the SWAP has reviewed alternative land use concepts for the area, and will investigate alternative options for servicing the preferred land use alternative.

After the public consultation process, should Council accept the SWAP land use alternatives, the preferred land use alternatives, and related servicing at the master plan level, with the appropriate screening, and public review process, then those servicing alternatives that are selected as being the preferred concepts go forward


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xvi

in the SWAP and their required locations and size of footprints should be protected and held out of development. This will satisfy the first two phases of the Municipal Class EA

Future Environmental Assessment may be required to progress the project from a Phase 2 through to project completion.

2004 Transportation Master Plan

The concepts and parameters used to determine road widening needs and project future traffic growth in the 2004 TMP study generate a road system that is different than some of the alternatives being studied in the SWAP and 2012 TMP. Variations in land use, street patterns, built form and place making concepts, assumptions about street usage, adjustments to transit usage and percentage single vehicle occupancy effect some road widening needs.

Nevertheless, some road widening project needs remain and are generated due to:

A current lack of basic road network system in the area City wide growth and City wide connectivity needs Current river crossings, proximity of Highway 401 and 402 Restricted access through built up areas, and hydro corridors etc.

Consequently, the 2012 TMP and SWAP may results in the re-justification of some transportation projects that were mentioned in the 2004 TMP while other projects may be delayed or no longer pursued as being the preferred alternative.

2008 Growth Management Implementation Strategy

The GMIS is best thought of as a multi-year budget that can be adjusted as economic and growth conditions change over time. The original concepts for the GMIS are reference in the Board of Control report that introduce the June 8, 2008 GMIS. It was originally envisioned that Civic administration would report recommended changes to Council on a yearly basis. The GMIS was reviewed and amended during to 2009 Development Charges Background Study.

The current GMIS was created in June 2008 out of Council’s desire to better coordinate several individual efforts for development, while ensuring that new concepts mentioned in the Provincial Policy Statement, Bill51 and emergent growth related policies be incorporated while creating a vision for growth across the city. At that time, uncertain financial circumstance in which UWRF revenues significantly lagged behind the spending on infrastructure led to reforms to the DC By-law.

GMIS 2008 made several assumptions as to the progression and rate of growth in the South West of London, as to the availability of sanitary services, and treatment capacity.

The SWAP adjusts the 2008 GMIS:

1. for the two years of growth that has occurred between the two studies 2. the results of the Gordon Avenue Trunks sewer study and analysis of bottlenecks, and risks of

basement flooding 3. the analysis of sanitary sewer flow needs in current draft plan and subdivision agreement plans 4. the effect of building out all areas potentially serviced by 2008 GMIS works on a service by sub-area

basis


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx xvii

Future Growth Management Implementation Strategy

As with the existing GMIS mentioned above, future GMIS’s are medium term (5-20) multi-year spending plans that can be used by council, business interests and the general public to predict the pace and the shape of growth in the City. The GMIS provides a chronological based spending timeframe for specific infrastructure that is finely detailed in the first 5 years, and loosely ordered or prioritized in the last 15 years. The spending plans are subject tp approval through Council in the annual capital budget.

The SWAP offers a similar purpose but considers a longer time frame of 50+ years, and does not directly apply a specific year to a piece of infrastructure. Primarily, SWAP phasing considers factors that may trigger the City to pursue the construction of infrastructure to deal with larger servicing strategies in a sub-area of SWAP. For the southwest SWAP and GMIS exists in a parent child relationship in that one generally sets a conceptual direction, and provides detailed implementation of that direction. Consequently, they both should be in agreement with each other and for the first 10 years SWAP and future GMIS should coincide exactly.

Naturally, as build out progresses the GMIS will require frequent updates and alterations to adjust to global market trends. A suitable frequency will depend on Council desire to respond to changes as many trends are short lived, a certain amount of stability may be prudent.

Updates to SWAP may be required on a less frequent basis than those for GMIS and will depend upon global immigration and birth rate trends as determined by reports like Clayton 2007. The SWAP is a blue print for the future that provides order of progression or a priority list, while GMIS finely details the steps and timing required for implementation.

City of London Executive Summary · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx ii...

Documents

Transcript of City of London Executive Summary · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Intro Servicing Strategies-May5'10.Docx ii...