|
That, on the recommendation of the Managing
Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the
following actions be taken with regard to the implementation of the Official
Plan growth management policies applicable to the financing of growth-related
infrastructure works:
a)
the
Growth Management Implementation Strategy Infrastructure Project Evaluation
Framework outlined in Appendix ‘A’ to the staff report dated June 9, 2016 BE
ENDORSED to inform the timing of future growth infrastructure projects for
the 2017 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update and subsequent
Updates; it being noted that the Framework aims to provide a future 3-year
supply of single family residential lots in each greenfield area of the City
through investments in major infrastructure;
b)
the
2017 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as attached
in Appendix ‘B’ to the staff report dated June 9, 2016; it being noted that:
i)
trunk
sanitary sewer SS15A Phase 2 will be rescheduled from 2016 to 2018;
ii)
Parker
SWM will be rescheduled from 2017 to 2018;
iii)
Sunningdale
SWM E1 will be rescheduled from 2018 to 2020;
iv)
Stoney
Creek SWM 10 will be rescheduled from 2018 to 2022;
v)
Fox
Hollow SWM 1 Phase 2 will be rescheduled from 2019 to 2022;
vi)
Hyde
Park SWM 6 will be scheduled in the GMIS for 2022;
vii)
Stoney
Creek SWM 7.1 will be rescheduled from 2018 to 2023;
viii)
White
Oaks SWM 3 will be rescheduled from 2017 to 2023;
ix)
Pincombe
Drain SWM 4 will be rescheduled from 2018 to 2020;
x)
North
Lambeth P6 will be rescheduled from 2020 to 2026;
xi)
Old
Oak SWM 1 (formerly Contingency Facility A) will be scheduled in the GMIS for
2027;
xii)
White
Oaks SWM 4 will be rescheduled from 2017 to 2027;
xiii)
Stoney
Creek SWM 8 will be rescheduled from 2024 to 2027;
xiv)
Pincombe
Drain SWM 5 will be rescheduled from 2022 to 2028; and,
xv)
an
Environmental Assessment for Southdale Road West (Farnham to Pine Valley)
will be commenced in 2017.
c)
the
2017 Growth Management Implementation Strategy BE USED to adjust the 10-year
capital program for growth infrastructure, to be reflected in the 2017 Multi-Year
Capital Budget Update;
it being noted that the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) received the attached
presentation from the Manager, Development Finance, with respect to this
matter;
it being further noted that the SPPC
received the following written submissions with respect to this matter:
a)
a
communication dated May 26, 2016 from W. Kinghorn, President, The Urban
League of London;
b)
a
communication dated June 7, 2016 from L. Langdon, Executive Officer, London
Home Builders’ Association;
c)
a
communication dated June 8, 2016 from J. Kennedy, President, London
Development Institute; and
d)
the
attached communication from P. Masschelein, Vice President,
Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited;
it being pointed out that the following individuals
made oral submissions at the public participation meeting held in connection
with this matter:
W. Kinghorn, President, The Urban League of
London – indicating that while he is new to development finance, The Urban
League of London has over 20 years of experience in these matters;
referencing the detail contained in his written submission noted above; and
thanking the City for the deep level of engagement in the process.
J. Kennedy, President, London Development
Institute – thanking staff for the involvement in the process; asking if now
is the time to cut off potential funding; referencing the detail contained in
his written submission noted above, which includes various suggestions;
pointing out that the modelling was based on previous years and we should
revisit the information yearly; and noting that while there are a number of
financial aspects, this is a decision for Council to make as to whether there
is an opportunity to get some infrastructure in now, particularly given
current interest rates.
L. Langdon, Executive Officer, London Home
Builders’ Association – thanking City staff for allowing the London Home
Builders’ Association to be involved in the process; indicating that this is
the first year they have been able to participate in the GMIS review and
referencing the detail contained in her written submission noted above.
M. Moussa – indicating that he thought he
would come here and see about storm and sanitary sewers across the City;
asking if this was only about newly-developable land, was the GMIS a physical
geographical area, or was it for all growth; advising that there is a need
for works for Downtown and that there needs to be a contingency in the fund
to fix what is already in existence; referencing a letter from the City related
to work scheduled to be done; enquiring about what is going to happen with
services that are already in the ground and need replacing; and noting that
work is not being done until the Budget is approved and he doesn't think the
work should be waiting for that.
|