Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de
l'urbanisme
and Council / et au
Conseil
March 29, 2011 / le 29 mars 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource :
Michael Murr, Manager/Gestionnaire, Sustainability Planning &
Development/Planification et développement de la viabilité
(613) 580-2424 x 25195,
Michael.Murr@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
OBJET
:
|
That Planning Committee
recommend Council:
1.
Receive
the report entitled Underground Wiring Policy: Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework
as prepared by HDR Corporation, dated 11 March 2011, a copy of which is on file
with the City Clerk; and
2.
Direct
that the undergrounding of overhead wires on City right-of-ways be undertaken
only when the full cost of burial is paid for by the requesting party.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au
Conseil :
1.
De recevoir le rapport intitulé Politique sur le
câblage souterrain – Cadre de l’analyse coûts-avantages, tel que rédigé par HDR
Corporation, en date du 11 Mars 2011, une copie duquel ayant été déposée auprès
bureau du greffier municipal;
2.
De demander que l’enfouissement des câbles aériens sur
les emprises de la Ville ne soit entrepris qu’une fois que le coût total de la
mise en terre aura été payé par la partie requérante.
Assumptions
and Analysis:
Council directed staff to develop a formal policy for the burial of overhead wires and new power lines on City roadways. This direction was in response to a number of requests the City had received for burial, the high cost of undergrounding, and the recognized need to formalize the City’s approach so that it is clear to all.
The burial of existing overhead electrical systems is very expensive with the cost being typically $2-5M per kilometre or four to ten times more than rebuilding an overhead system. There can also be significant costs to abutting property owners and to third parties, such as telecommunication companies. Moreover, the funding mechanisms through which underground conversions and installations can be done are limited, and for those that do exist, there may not be a willingness or ability to pay. Currently, burial of existing overhead wires is only funded at the expense of the requestor (generally a developer or households/businesses in some cases).
A cost-benefit analysis of eight sample streets considered to be representative of the main street types and profiles in Ottawa was undertaken. Based on net present value, the results show that the undergrounding of overhead wires cannot be justified based on direct financial return on investment (ROI), either as a stand-alone project or in combination with other street work. When broader socio-economic benefits and costs are included, the undergrounding of overhead wires is justified in some cases, with Traditional Main Streets (represented by Elgin and Bank at Glebe) and Mixed Use (represented by St. Joseph) having a strong NPV compared to other street sections.
The cost of
undergrounding should also be considered in the context of the City’s ability
to meet its existing infrastructure renewal needs and other funding priorities.
A review of
potential funding options shows that while there are a few financial tools
available to the City, none should be considered ‘new’ and therefore could not
be used without impacting either general property tax rates or other City
spending priorities.
Given the high cost associated with undergrounding, the on-going challenge to meet current infrastructure renewal needs and other priority needs, and in the absence of any new City funding source, it is recommended that the City should only consider the burial of overhead wires when the full cost is paid for by the requesting party.
Legal/Risk
Management Implications:
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.
Technical Implications:
N/A
Financial Implications:
The report recommends that undergrounding of overhead wires on City right-of-ways be undertaken only when the full cost of burial is paid for by the requesting party. If Planning Committee and Council approve this recommendation, there is no financial impact on the City.
Public
Consultation/Input:
The project steering committee comprised of five City Councillors, development industry representatives, Hydro Ottawa staff and City staff has been consulted during this project.
A meeting with Bell Canada representatives was also held to discuss the project.
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le Conseil municipal a chargé le
personnel de rédiger une politique officielle sur l’enfouissement des câbles
aériens et des nouvelles lignes électriques dans les rues de la Ville. Ce
mandat se veut une réponse à un certain nombre de demandes d’enfouissement
reçues par la Ville, compte tenu du coût élevé du câblage souterrain et de la
nécessité établie de systématiser l’approche de la Ville afin qu’elle soit
claire pour tous.
L’enfouissement des
réseaux électriques aériens existants coûte très cher, soit habituellement de 2
à 5 millions de dollars par kilomètre ou de quatre à dix fois le coût de la
reconstruction d’un réseau aérien. Des coûts importants peuvent s’ajouter à
cela pour les propriétaires de terrains adjacents ou pour des tierces parties,
comme des entreprises de télécommunications. Par ailleurs, les mécanismes de
financement des conversions et des installations souterraines sont limités, et
lorsqu’ils existent, ils ne s’accompagnent pas toujours de la volonté ou de la
capacité de payer. À l’heure actuelle, l’enfouissement des câbles aériens
existants se fait uniquement aux frais de la partie requérante (habituellement
un promoteur immobilier ou, dans certains cas, des ménages ou des entreprises).
Une analyse
coûts-avantages de huit rues témoins considérées comme représentantes de divers
types et profils de rue à Ottawa a été entreprise. D’après la valeur actuelle nette
(VAN), les résultats montrent que l’enfouissement des câbles aériens ne peut
pas se justifier en fonction du retour sur l’investissement financier (ROI)
direct, qu’il s’agisse d’un projet autonome ou en conjonction avec d’autres
travaux de voirie. Si l’on inclut de plus vastes avantages et coûts
socio-économiques, l’enfouissement des câbles aériens se justifie dans certains
cas, les rues principales traditionnelles (représentées par Elgin et Bank, dans
le Glebe) et à vocation mixte (représentée par Saint-Joseph)
ayant une VAN élevée par rapport à d’autres tronçons de rues.
Le coût de l’enfouissement doit également être
envisagé dans le contexte de la capacité de la Ville à répondre aux besoins de
renouvellement de son infrastructure et d’autres priorités de financement. Un examen des options de financement possibles montre que si la Ville a
certains outils financiers à sa disposition, aucun d’entre eux ne doit être
considéré comme « nouveau » et ne pourrait donc être utilisé sans
avoir d’incidence sur les taux d’impôts fonciers généraux ou sur d’autres
priorités de dépenses municipales.
Étant donné le coût élevé lié à
l’enfouissement, le défi continu de répondre aux besoins actuels en
renouvellement des infrastructures et d’autres besoins prioritaires, et en
l’absence de nouvelle source de financement pour la Ville, il est recommandé
que la Ville envisage uniquement l’enfouissement des câbles aériens lorsque la
partie requérante en assume totalement le coût.
Incidences juridiques / concernant
la gestion des risques :
Aucun obstacle lié aux incidences juridiques ou à la gestion des risques
n’empêche la mise en œuvre des recommandations contenues dans ce rapport.
Incidences techniques :
Sans objet.
Répercussions financières :
Le rapport recommande que l’enfouissement des
câbles aériens sur les emprises de la Ville soit entrepris seulement lorsque le
coût au complet de l’enfouissement est assumé par les parties requérantes. Si
le Comité d’urbanisme et le Conseil municipal approuvent cette recommandation,
elle n’aura aucune répercussion financière sur la Ville.
Consultation publique /
commentaires :
Le comité de direction du projet qui se compose
de cinq conseillers municipaux, de représentants de l’industrie du
développement immobilier, de membres du personnel d’Hydro Ottawa et d’employés
de la Ville a été consulté au cours de ce projet.
De plus, une réunion avec des représentants de
Bell Canada a eu lieu pour discuter du projet.
In October 2009, Council directed staff to develop a formal policy for the burial of overhead wires and new power lines on City roadways (ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0033). This direction was in response to a number of requests the City had received for burial, the high cost of burial, and the recognized need to formalize the City’s approach so that it is clear to all.
Currently, burial of existing overhead power lines is only funded at the expense of the requesting party, which is normally a developer or in some cases households/businesses.
The specific direction to staff was as follows:
1. Develop
a formal policy, guided by the objectives set out in the City’s Official Plan,
that establishes criteria and priority for the burial of:
a. Existing
overhead power lines within the City; and,
b. New
power lines on the City’s roadways.
2. Direct staff to conduct public
consultations as part of the development of the policy described in
Recommendation 1, and
3. Direct staff to work with both Hydro Ottawa
and Hydro One to identify funding models for any incremental costs associated
with Recommendation 1 above, including contributions from the electricity
companies, project requestors, the municipality, and other sources.
It should be noted that the scope of this work did not include undergrounding in new residential greenfield subdivisions and new collector roadways which is already being done. In this case, Developers install the ducts and transformer bases and pay Hydro Ottawa for all electrical installation. In return, the Developers receive a Net Present Value credit related to anticipated revenue to Hydro Ottawa from the new residential customers. This formula for cost allocation is per an Ontario Energy Board formula.
In accordance
with Council direction the following actions have been undertaken to date:
·
A
project steering committee was established to guide the work, comprised of five
City Councillors, Development Industry representatives, Hydro Ottawa staff, and
City of Ottawa staff. A full list of steering committee members is attached as
Document 1.
·
HDR
Corporation was engaged to develop a cost-benefit analysis framework for the
burial of overhead wires and illustrate its application for a set of streets
considered to be representative of the main streets types and profiles in
Ottawa.
·
A review
of potential funding options was undertaken for the burial of overhead wires.
This report presents
the findings of the cost-benefit analysis, reviews the funding options that
were examined, and in absence of any identified new City funding source,
provides the rationale for why the City should only consider the burial of
overhead wires when the full cost is covered by the requesting party.
Requests to bury existing overhead wires generally relate to either aesthetic concerns, or to the development of properties that have wires in close proximity. In a number of cases, the ability to implement intensification and smart growth policies at the site level have been constrained by the costs and complexities associated with the burial of overhead wires.
A policy to bury overhead wires
generally takes into account three main perspectives – affordability, desirability, and technical feasibility. The cost is often the most prominent
consideration as burying overhead wires is very expensive, typically in the
range of $2-5 M per kilometre, or four to ten times more than the cost to
rebuild an overhead system. There can also
be significant costs to abutting property owners and third parties such as
telecommunication companies. Moreover,
the funding mechanisms through which underground conversions and installations
can be done are limited, and for those that do exist, the willingness and
capacity to pay must also be considered.
The desirability of undergrounding is also a key factor. For this report, desirability is being assessed by modeling the various costs and benefits associated with undergrounding. Technical feasibility is also important, as there may be times when there are constraints within the right-of-way or timing issues relative to other City works that may make undergrounding unfeasible.
Currently, burial of existing overhead wires is funded by the requesting party. On a very limited basis, there are times when Hydro Ottawa will contribute to the cost of undergrounding but only in situations when the existing overhead infrastructure has reached its end-of-life. In such cases, Hydro Ottawa may pay what would have been the cost to rebuild the overhead infrastructure with the requestor paying the difference.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Framework and Analysis
To
help understand the desirability and economics of undergrounding, HDR
Corporation was retained to develop a cost-benefit analysis framework for the
burial of overhead wires, and to use this framework to evaluate a set of sample
streets that were considered to be representative of the main street categories
in Ottawa.
For this assignment, HDR Corporation used its sustainable return on investment (SROI) framework which evaluates a wide spectrum of benefits and costs over the project’s lifecycle. All costs and benefits were classified as either:
·
Financial – where there is an immediate flow of
cash (either positive or negative) to an affected stakeholder; or
·
Sustainable – which captures the broad community/societal impacts of a project,
including welfare and other non-financial impacts on organizations, people, and
the environment.
This classification of costs and benefits leads to two sets of results and evaluation metrics. The metrics corresponding to the first category of costs and benefits are referred to as financial return on investment, and the metrics corresponding to the combined first and second category of costs and benefits are referred to as sustainable rate of return on investment, or SROI.
The principal output of the analysis is the Net Present Value (NPV), which shows the present-day value of the project’s net benefits (i.e. present value of benefits minus present value of costs) over the entire project life-cycle stream. An NPV larger than zero indicates that the project is worthwhile as it generates benefits in excess of total costs. An NPV less than zero means the opposite, as the benefits generated by the project do not outweigh the associated costs. Other frequently used evaluation metrics derived from the values of costs and benefits include rate of return over project life, average annual rate of return, internal rate of return, cost-benefit ratio, and discounted payback period.
Evaluation Criteria
A total of eleven evaluation
criteria were identified and included in the cost-benefit assessment - five
benefits and six costs. The project steering committee felt that this combination of
financial and sustainable criteria represent the main factors that would
contribute to the cost-benefit of undergrounding.
The
following five benefit criteria were used for modeling purposes:
·
Improved streetscape aesthetics due to
removal of overhead wires (sustainable)
Generally determined by the increase in average
property value within the neighbourhood.
·
Reduction in tree trimming costs (financial)
Trees growing under power lines no longer
need to be trimmed once they reach mature size in order to avoid contact with the
wires and potential damage to the wires that this may cause.
·
Reduction in number of outages and
improvement in reliability of power supply to residential and non-residential
customers (sustainable)
Reviewed studies tend to agree that
underground systems generally have fewer interruptions and outages.
·
Intensification of redevelopment
(sustainable)
The property owner is not limited by the
setback requirements associated with overhead wires, and utilize the property
as effectively or intensively as in the absence of the wires.
·
Reduction in service restoration costs
(sustainable)
Undergrounding of the power distribution
system should prevent most outages due to severe weather events.
The following six cost criteria were used:
·
Initial capital costs of
construction/installation (financial)
Represents a range of costs, such as:
excavation and civil works; removal of existing infrastructure; surface
restoration; transformers and other equipment needed for service provisions; and,
customer service connections.
·
Travel time disruption costs during
construction when traffic is obstructed (sustainable)
Travel delays may result during the
construction period, in particular if construction requires lane reductions, or
entire street closure.
·
Additional operation and maintenance costs
(financial)
Additional operation
and maintenance costs associated with an underground system compared to an
overhead system.
·
Additional utility easement rental costs
(financial)
Undergrounding of overhead
utility lines requires easements and transmission vaults to provide appropriate
operation and maintenance services.
·
Installation of dedicated street lights
(financial)
Given that some
utility poles also support city street lights, when overhead wires are buried
underground and utility poles removed, new poles for dedicated street lights,
traffic lights, and signage will have to be installed.
·
Additional mapping and graphing of
underground utilities (financial)
Represents initial
one-time cost of mapping and graphing the wires that were just buried so as to
create reference maps for any future plans and work that may involve digging
the ground.
It should also be
noted that a number of criteria were identified but ultimately not used, as
they had a very small impact, were difficult to quantify, or had very low
probability. Examples of these criteria include motor vehicle collisions,
accidents involving overhead wires, utility relocation costs, impacts on
parking revenue, impact on street trees and future utility coordination
costs. These criteria and the rationale
for why they were not used are described in more detail in the HDR report.
Sample
Streets
Eight sample streets considered to be representative of the main street types and profiles in
Ottawa were selected for the analysis. The specific streets analyzed were as
follows (classified by category):[1]
· Central Area: Metcalfe Street (Isabella St to Nepean St)
· Traditional Main Streets:
o Elgin Street (Lisgar Street to Catherine Street)
o Bank St (McLeod St to Rideau Canal)
· Arterial Main Streets: Bank Street (Rideau Canal to Queensdale Ave)
· Mixed Use/Town Centre/Suburban Arterial:
o St. Joseph Boulevard (Belcourt Boulevard to Maisonneuve Street)
o Strandherd Drive (Jockvale Road to Longfields Drive)
o Eagleson Road (Queensway to Terry Fox Drive)
· Rural Village: Perth Street (Lundys Lane to Rochelle Drive), Richmond Village.
Two model scenarios were developed:
1) undergrounding as a stand-alone project; and
2) undergrounding in combination with other street work.
The specific data for each cost and benefit input was provided by Hydro Ottawa and various departments in the City of Ottawa. All future costs and benefits were discounted at an annual real discount rate of five per cent.
The cost-benefit model was estimated over a period of 31 years.[2] Uncertainty as to the values of various inputs to the cost-benefit model is accounted for using risk analysis techniques which takes into account the probability distribution of model inputs. In its essence, the risk analysis process involves an analysis and assumptions regarding the probability distribution of each uncertain model input (its average value, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, degree of skeweness, etc.) based on all available information. The final model outcomes are produced with traditional mean values as well as ranges of the corresponding probability distribution.
Results
of Cost-Benefit Analysis
The following tables show the results of the analysis, by street, based on net present value (NPV) in $millions per km. Each table has been further divided into financial return on investment and overall sustainable return on investment (which includes both financial ROI and broader community benefits and costs). A full summary of the results are shown as part of the HDR cost-benefit analysis framework executive summary in Document 2 attached.
Cost-Benefit
Analysis Outcomes, Undergrounding as a Stand Alone Project
Evaluation Metrics |
Central Area |
Traditional Main Streets |
Arterial Main Streets |
Mixed Use/ Town Centre/ Suburban
Arterial |
Rural Village |
||||
Metcalfe |
Elgin |
Bank @Glebe |
Bank St. S. |
St. Joseph |
Strandherd |
Eagleson |
Perth |
||
Stand Alone
Undergrounding - FINANCIAL ROI |
|||||||||
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
-$7.03 |
-$6.40 |
-$6.19 |
-$5.53 |
-$3.80 |
-$4.03 |
-$3.17 |
-$2.19 |
|
Stand Alone Undergrounding
- SUSTAINABLE ROI |
|||||||||
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
$0.94 |
$7.39 |
$4.88 |
$2.39 |
$9.68 |
-$0.35 |
$0.07 |
-$0.08 |
|
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Outcomes, Undergrounding in combination with other Street Work
Evaluation Metrics |
Central Area |
Traditional Main Streets |
Arterial Main Streets |
Mixed Use/ Town Centre/ Suburban
Arterial |
Rural Village |
||||
Metcalfe |
Elgin |
Bank @Glebe |
Bank St. S |
St. Joseph |
Strandherd |
Eagleson |
Perth |
||
Undergrounding with
Other Work - FINANCIAL ROI |
|||||||||
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
-$6.47 |
-$5.60 |
-$5.55 |
-$4.86 |
-$2.85 |
-$3.28 |
-$2.99 |
-$1.72 |
|
Undergrounding with
Other Work - SUSTAINABLE ROI |
|||||||||
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
$1.50 |
$8.20 |
$5.51 |
$3.06 |
$10.64 |
$0.40 |
$0.26 |
$0.39 |
|
Overall, the results show that the undergrounding of overhead wires cannot be justified based on only financial ROI, either as a stand-alone project or in combination with other street work. This can be seen in the negative NPV for all street sections.
When broader socio-economic benefits and costs are included (i.e. sustainable ROI), the undergrounding of overhead wires is justified in some cases. The main observations are as follows:
· Metcalfe, Elgin, Bank at Glebe, Bank Street S., and St. Joseph all have a positive sustainable NPV under both scenarios. Traditional Main Streets (represented by Elgin and Bank at Glebe) and Mixed Use (represented by St. Joseph) have a particularly strong NPV compared to other street sections ($8.20, $5.51 and $10.64 respectively).
· Strandherd and Perth have a negative sustainable NPV if undertaken as a stand-alone project, and are only marginally positive if undertaken with other City works.
· Eagleson has a marginally positive sustainable NPV under both scenarios.
While not shown in the table, the results of the analysis indicate that for both scenarios, the biggest benefit criteria are:
· Reduction in number of power outages and cost-avoidance to non-residential customers;
· Intensification of redevelopment; and
· Value of improved streetscape aesthetics to non-residential customers.
In contrast, other categories of benefits are very small with only a few exceptions that relate to the value of increased streetscape aesthetics to residential customers on some of the street sections.
When looking at the costs of undergrounding, the analysis shows that the single biggest cost criteria is, not surprisingly, the initial capital cost of construction/installation which accounts for nearly all of the total costs. Other costs are relatively small. When done in conjunction with other street work, the costs of undergrounding are somewhat smaller than the costs for stand-alone projects, with the difference due to the avoidance of street reinstatement costs and travel disruption costs.
Based on the cost-benefit analysis, streets with a high potential for strong benefits have one or more of the following characteristics:
o Significant potential for redevelopment as manifested by a large number of redevelopment properties (or properties slated and designated as potential redevelopment properties);
o Space limitations on the street section as manifested by a relatively small size of the redevelopment properties, and in particular a relatively small depth of those properties; and
o Large number of existing businesses, commercial or non-commercial/industrial establishments.
The above characteristics are likely to lead to high redevelopment benefits (due to a relatively large increase in the amount of space that could effectively be built up by residential units) and high benefits due to more reliable power supply.
Review of Potential Funding Options
In parallel with the cost-benefit modeling, work was also undertaken to identify the range of funding options that are either available now, not available, or could be available if certain conditions were met. It is important to note that these funding options do not address the willingness or capacity to pay, only whether there is a financial mechanism to do so.
A total of fourteen options were identified. A summary of the funding options is attached as Document 3 which outlines the type of funding option; who would pay; whether the option is currently available for either “retrofit” or “greenfield” locations; what would be required to use the option; and if available, an example of where the option has been used.
Options Not
Available
A number of options that were identified as being available in the past to support undergrounding activity are no longer possible as the Ontario legislative environment would not permit their use today. Examples of these funding options include a specific levy within a municipal development charge fee for the cost of burying overhead wires (#1); and those options where Hydro Ottawa would pay for the conversion or retro-fitting of overhead wires to underground wires or for new Greenfield underground wire construction (#11 and #12).
In the case of Hydro Ottawa, the Ontario Energy Board Act, which governs local power utilities, explicitly outlines that these entities cannot increase rates amongst its ratepayers, or collect any levies or development charges from a requestor interested in burying wires along their properties, for the purposes of funding burial of overhead lines. Therefore, when a request is made to Hydro Ottawa, the requester must pay 100 per cent of the costs, as per the terms set out in Hydro Ottawa’s Conditions of Service.
Available
Options
Three of the
funding options involve using provisions under the Planning Act, as part of a Community Improvement Plan (#4) or under
the Municipal Act to provide either
financial assistance to encourage the undergrounding as part of a development
grant application or through the use of a special service levy applied against
all benefitting properties in a petition area (Local Improvement Charge) to pay
for the project undergrounding costs (#3, #5).
Some of the funding options identify third parties being directly responsible for undergrounding. Three include developers (Greenfield and retrofit locations) paying (# 5, #6) and in a limited way, Hydro Ottawa Ltd. for system rebuild at the end of asset life of overhead wires in very limited circumstances (#13).
A range of four options involve the City paying for the undergrounding funded through property taxes, either directly or through city-wide capital reserves (#7, #8); through the use of the Hydro Ottawa Ltd. Dividend (#9); or through cost-sharing with other funding parties (#10).
The final option identifies the possible opportunistic use of Federal or Provincial grants or loans if and when they become available (#14).
It is important to note that many of the options could involve the City being a co-shared funding partner even though only one option is identified as such.
During
the course of the financial review, staff was unable
to identify a City of Ottawa funding source that would be considered ‘new’ and
that therefore could be used without impacting either general property tax
rates or other City funding priorities.
Capacity of the City to Fund Underground Wiring
While
there are a number of financial tools that are available for the City to
support the burial of overhead wires, the capacity
of the City to fund this activity also needs to be considered. As previously mentioned, the cost to bury
overhead wires is very expensive. For
example, the estimated capital cost to bury overhead wires on the sample
streets chosen for this study is approximately $100M. This cost does not include additional costs
for abutting property owners and third parties such as telecommunication
providers.
Even
if the City considered only the streets with a strong sustainable NPV (e.g.
Elgin, Bank at Glebe and St. Joseph) the cost would still be more than
$18M. This estimate does not include other
streets within the traditional main street designation or mixed use areas that
still have overhead wires.
Street Segment Name |
Estimated Total Cost ($) |
Length of Street Section (km) |
Estimated (Initial) Capital Cost,
With Other Street Work, $/km |
Metcalfe |
$6,930,000 |
0.95 |
$7,295,000. |
Elgin |
$5,766,000 |
0.912 |
$6,322,000. |
Bank @ Glebe |
$11,190,000 |
1.77 |
$6,322,000. |
Bank St. S |
$43,964,000 |
6.62 |
$6,640,000. |
St. Joseph |
$1,150,000 |
0.35 |
$3,290,000. |
Strandherd |
$4,478,000 |
1.17 |
$3,830,000. |
Eagleson |
$23,347,000 |
6.10 |
$3,830,000. |
Perth |
$3,071,000 |
1.43 |
$2,150,000. |
Total |
$99,896,000 |
19.300 |
N/A |
The cost of undergrounding should also be considered in the context of the City’s ability to meet its existing infrastructure renewal needs and other funding priorities. For example, over 20 per cent of roads are in need of resurfacing or reconstruction and the annual budget typically allows less than two per cent of these needs to be addressed. Without a new source of funding, adding the cost of hydro burial would further impact the City’s ability to plan and carry out infrastructure renewal projects in a timely manner or fund other City Capital and service delivery priorities.
Given the high cost associated with undergrounding, the on-going challenge to meet current infrastructure renewal needs and other funding priorities, and in the absence of any new City funding source, it is recommended that the City should only consider the burial of overhead wires when the full cost is paid for by the requesting party.
Implications
for City Planning Policy
Consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under the Planning Act, the City’s Official Plan identifies a minimum overall intensification target and has designated Intensification Target Areas to accommodate projected intensification. Several of the target areas include Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets and Mixed-Use Centres, with existing overhead power lines and poles.
As per provincial regulations, Hydro Ottawa requires a five-metre setback between new buildings and overhead wires. In many target areas, this setback requirement, when combined with a smaller lot fabric, often makes it difficult for developers to meet the City’s intensification goals and urban design objectives.
While the City will not be actively removing overhead wires, it is not expected to have a significant impact on the City’s ability to meet its intensification targets. The City will continue to work with developers and other interested parties to encourage the undergrounding of overhead wires.
As in the urban area, the undergrounding of overhead wires in the rural area will be undertaken only when the full cost of burial is paid for by the requesting party.
The project steering committee, comprised of five City Councillors, development industry representatives, Hydro Ottawa staff and City staff has been consulted during this project.
A meeting with Bell Canada representatives was also held to discuss the project.
Further public consultation has not been undertaken to date given the very high cost of burial and the recommendation being made.
The Councillors on the project steering committee (Councillors Bloess, Harder, Holmes, Monette
and Qadri) appreciate the work
completed in this review and while we are disappointed that no alternate
funding source could be identified and that a pilot project couldn't be
completed we are realistic in understanding the high cost of underground wiring
and the City's limited financial resources.
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.
This initiative is aligned with both the Planning and Growth Management priority and Sustainable Finances priority.
N/A
The report recommends that undergrounding of overhead wires on City right-of-ways be undertaken only when the full cost of burial is paid for by the requesting party. If Planning Committee and Council approve this recommendation, there is no financial impact on the City.
Document 1 – Underground Wiring Policy – Project Steering
Committee Members
Document 2 – HDR Corporation Results of Cost-Benefit Modeling – Executive Summary
Document 3 – Summary of Funding Options
Subject to approval of this report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability staff in consultation with the appropriate electrical distributor (Hydro Ottawa or Hydro One) will report back to Planning Committee on the intake process developed to consider requests for burial from interested property owners.
UNDERGROUND WIRING POLICY – PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS DOCUMENT 1
Underground Wiring Policy – Project Steering Committee
Name |
Organization |
City
Councillors |
|
Councillor
Jan Harder (Chair) |
City of
Ottawa |
Councillor
Rainer Bloess |
City of
Ottawa |
Councillor
Diane Holmes |
City of
Ottawa |
Councillor
Bob Monette |
City of
Ottawa |
Councillor
Shad Qadri |
City of
Ottawa |
City
Staff |
|
John Moser,General Manager Planning
and Growth Mgmt. |
City of
Ottawa |
Alain Gonthier, Manager Asset
Management |
City of
Ottawa |
Michael Murr, Manager Sustainability
Plan. and Dev. |
City of Ottawa |
Development
Industry |
|
Ian
Donnelly Director |
Brookfield
Properties |
Cal
Kirkpatrick Vice
President |
Colonnade
Development |
Jack
Stirling Vice
President |
Minto |
Hydro
Ottawa |
|
Rosemarie Leclaire President
and CEO |
Hydro
Ottawa |
Norm
Fraser Chief
Operating Officer |
Hydro
Ottawa |
Updated 30 Sep 2010
Technical Committee
Linda Carkner Program Manager |
Utility Develop Co-ordinator |
Casey Malone |
Hydro Ottawa |
HDR CORPORATION RESULTS OF COST-BENEFIT MODELING –
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DOCUMENT 2
City
of Ottawa
Underground
Wiring Policy: Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework
Executive Summary
Prepared
by:
HDR
Corporation
March 11, 2011
HDR Corporation has been engaged by the City of Ottawa to develop a cost-benefit analysis framework for the burial of overhead wires and illustrate its application on a set of sample streets that are considered to be representative of the main street categories in Ottawa.
METHODOLOGY
The cost-benefit analysis uses a sustainable return on investment (SROI) framework to evaluate a wide spectrum of benefits and costs of an investment project over the investment life cycle. The principal output of the analysis is the Net Present Value (NPV), which represents the present value of total benefits minus present value of total costs. Other frequently used evaluation metrics derived from the values of costs and benefits include rate of return over project life, average annual rate of return, internal rate of return, cost-benefit ratio, and discounted payback period.
In this cost-benefit framework, all costs and benefits
were classified as either: (1) “Financial”, or (2) “Sustainable”. A financial benefit
or cost is an impact that results in an immediate flow of cash (either positive
or negative) to an affected stakeholder. A sustainable
cost or benefit is an effect that captures broader impacts attributable to a
project, including welfare and other non-financial impacts on organizations,
people, and the environment. A
“sustainable” impact is thus an impact that includes all effects that would be
considered important for sustainable communities and is consistent with the
concept of sustainability. Such impacts can be quantified and monetized using
additional assumptions and methodological approaches
This classification of costs and benefits leads to two sets of results and evaluation metrics. The metrics corresponding to the first category of costs and benefits are referred to as financial return on investment, and the metrics corresponding to the combined first and second category of costs and benefits are referred to as sustainable return on investment, or SROI.
The benefits of
burying overhead wires that were identified, quantified, monetized and taken
into account in the cost-benefit analysis framework include the following:
·
Improved
streetscape aesthetics for residents and businesses due to removal of unsightly
overhead wires;
·
Reduction
in tree trimming costs to accommodate the wires;
·
Reduction
in number of outages and improvement in reliability of power supply to
residential and non-residential customers;
·
Intensification
of redevelopment due the removal of safety set back requirements and increase
in lot area that can effectively be built up; and
·
Reduction
in service restoration costs following major events (storms).
The costs of
undergrounding that were identified and taken into account include the
following:
·
Initial
capital costs of construction/installation of underground wiring (adjusted for
avoidance of future renewal costs of overhead wiring);
·
Travel
time disruption costs during construction when traffic is obstructed;
·
Additional
operation and maintenance costs;
·
Additional
utility easement requirements and rental space for utility vaults inside
buildings for installation of various equipment;
·
Installation
of dedicated street lights, traffic lights, signage that is necessary when
utility poles supporting street lights and signage are removed, and
·
Additional
mapping and graphing of underground utilities.
The above analysis was
implemented for a sample of streets considered to be representative of the main
street types and profiles in Ottawa. The specific streets analyzed included the
following (classified by category):[3]
· Central Area: Metcalfe Street (Isabella St to Nepean St)
· Traditional Main Streets:
o Elgin Street (Lisgar Street to Catherine Street)
o Bank St (McLeod St to Rideau Canal)
· Arterial Main Streets: Bank Street (Rideau Canal to Queensdale Ave)
· Mixed Use/Town Centre/Suburban Arterial:
o St. Joseph Boulevard (Belcourt Boulevard to Maisonneuve)
o Strandherd Drive (Jockvale Road to Longfields Drive)
o Eagleson Road (Queensway to Terry Fox Drive)
· Rural Village: Perth Street (Lundys Lane to Rochelle Drive), Richmond Village.
The cost-benefit model was estimated over a period of 31 years.[4] Uncertainty as to the values of various inputs to the cost-benefit model is accounted for using risk analysis techniques which take explicitly into account probability distribution of model inputs. In its essence, the risk analysis process involves an analysis and assumptions regarding the probability distribution of each uncertain model input (its average value, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, degree of skeweness, etc.) based on all available information. The final model outcomes are produced with traditional mean values as well as ranges of the corresponding probability distribution.
Two model scenarios were considered explicitly: (1) undergrounding as a stand-alone project, and (2) undergrounding in combination with other street work. The specific data for the various cost and benefit inputs was provided by Hydro Ottawa and various departments in the City of Ottawa. All future costs and benefits were discounted at an annual real discount rate of 5%.
RESULTS
The outcomes of the cost-benefit analysis for the two scenarios evaluated with the various evaluation metrics are shown in Summary Table 1 and Summary Table 2 below. The upper section in each table shows the results for financial costs and benefits, or financial return on investment metrics. The bottom section in each table shows the results for the combined financial and sustainable costs and benefits, or sustainable return on investment (SROI) metrics.
The tables demonstrate that based only on financial benefits and costs undergrounding of overhead power lines cannot be justified, either as a stand-alone project or in combination with other street work. This can be seen in the negative net present value for all street sections and poor outcomes for other metrics. Including sustainable benefits and costs in the accounting of costs and benefits justifies projects for some streets. Specifically, the tables show the following:
· Metcalfe, Elgin, Bank and Glebe, Bank Street, and St. Joseph all have a positive sustainable NPV under both the scenarios considered.
· Strandherd and Perth have a negative sustainable NPV under the stand-alone project scenario and are marginally positive under the second scenario.
· Eagleson has a marginally positive sustainable NPV under both scenarios.
Among the streets that have a positive sustainable NPV, the table demonstrates the following:
· The two street sections in the Traditional Main Streets category and St. Joseph (in the Mixed Use category) have a particularly strong NPV compared to other street sections, strong rate of return over project life, strong average annual rate of return, and a relatively fast payback period.
· The other streets with a positive NPV have a somewhat lower rate of return and a longer payback period.
The results of the analysis also show that for both scenarios considered the biggest benefit categories are:
· Reduction in number of outages and cost-avoidance to non-residential customers;
· Intensification of redevelopment; and
· Value of improved aesthetics to non-residential customers.
In contrast, other categories of benefits are very small with only a few exceptions that entail the value of increased aesthetics to residential customers on some of the street sections.
Regarding costs of undergrounding, the analysis shows that the single biggest cost category is the initial capital cost which accounts for nearly all or most of the total costs of undergrounding projects. Other costs are relatively small. Costs of undergrounding conducted with other street work are somewhat smaller than the costs for stand-alone projects with the difference due avoidance of street reinstatement costs and the travel disruption costs.
Summary Table 1:
Cost-Benefit Analysis Outcomes, Undergrounding as a Stand Alone Project
Evaluation Metrics |
Central Area |
Traditional Main Streets |
Arterial Main Streets |
Mixed Use/ Town Centre/ Suburban
Arterial |
Rural Village |
|||
Metcalfe |
Elgin |
Bank @Glebe |
Bank St. South |
St. Joseph |
Strandherd |
Eagleson |
Perth |
|
Stand Alone Undergrounding
- FINANCIAL ROI |
||||||||
Total Net Present Value, NPV, $M |
-$6.68 |
-$5.84 |
-$10.95 |
-$36.60 |
-$1.33 |
-$4.72 |
-$19.33 |
-$3.14 |
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
-$7.03 |
-$6.40 |
-$6.19 |
-$5.53 |
-$3.80 |
-$4.03 |
-$3.17 |
-$2.19 |
Rate of Return over Project Life, % |
-99.8% |
-99.9% |
-100.0% |
-99.9% |
-99.9% |
-99.6% |
-99.9% |
-99.8% |
Average Annual Rate of Return,
Post-Construction, % |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.1% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
Internal Rate of Return, % |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Benefit-Cost Ratio |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Discounted Payback Period, Years |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Stand Alone Undergrounding
- SUSTAINABLE ROI |
||||||||
Total Net Present Value, NPV, $M |
$0.89 |
$6.74 |
$8.63 |
$15.84 |
$3.34 |
-$0.41 |
$0.45 |
-$0.11 |
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
$0.94 |
$7.39 |
$4.88 |
$2.39 |
$9.54 |
-$0.35 |
$0.07 |
-$0.08 |
Rate of Return over Project Life, % |
13.2% |
113.0% |
77.3% |
40.5% |
218.4% |
-8.7% |
2.3% |
-3.2% |
Average Annual Rate of Return,
Post-Construction, % |
6.1% |
10.6% |
8.7% |
8.1% |
14.2% |
4.2% |
4.8% |
5.3% |
Internal Rate of Return, % |
6.9% |
30.1% |
21.3% |
10.4% |
68.9% |
3.2% |
5.5% |
4.6% |
Benefit-Cost Ratio |
1.1 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
1.4 |
3.2 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Discounted Payback Period, Years |
19.2 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
9.1 |
3.6 |
30.1 |
15.1 |
28.1 |
Summary Table 1: Cost-Benefit
Analysis Outcomes, Undergrounding in Combination with Other Street Work
Evaluation Metrics |
Central Area |
Traditional Main Streets |
Arterial Main Streets |
Mixed Use/ Town Centre/ Suburban
Arterial |
Rural Village |
|||
Metcalfe |
Elgin |
Bank @Glebe |
Bank St. South |
St. Joseph |
Strandherd |
Eagleson |
Perth |
|
Undergrounding with
Other Work - FINANCIAL ROI |
||||||||
Total Net Present Value, NPV, $M |
-$6.15 |
-$5.10 |
-$9.83 |
-$32.19 |
-$1.00 |
-$3.84 |
-$18.22 |
-$2.46 |
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
-$6.47 |
-$5.60 |
-$5.55 |
-$4.86 |
-$2.85 |
-$3.28 |
-$2.99 |
-$1.72 |
Rate of Return over Project Life, % |
-99.8% |
-99.9% |
-100.0% |
-99.9% |
-99.9% |
-99.5% |
-99.9% |
-99.8% |
Average Annual Rate of Return,
Post-Construction, % |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.1% |
0.3% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
0.3% |
Internal Rate of Return, % |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Benefit-Cost Ratio |
0.002 |
0.001 |
0.000 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.005 |
0.001 |
0.002 |
Discounted Payback Period, Years |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Undergrounding with
Other Work - SUSTAINABLE ROI |
||||||||
Total Net Present Value, NPV, $M |
$1.42 |
$7.47 |
$9.75 |
$20.26 |
$3.72 |
$0.47 |
$1.57 |
$0.56 |
Net Present Value per km, NPV per km, $M |
$1.50 |
$8.20 |
$5.51 |
$3.06 |
$10.64 |
$0.40 |
$0.26 |
$0.39 |
Rate of Return over Project Life, % |
22.9% |
143.0% |
97.0% |
58.4% |
325.5% |
12.0% |
8.4% |
19.9% |
Average Annual Rate of Return, Post-Construction,
% |
6.6% |
12.0% |
9.7% |
9.1% |
18.5% |
5.1% |
5.1% |
6.4% |
Internal Rate of Return, % |
8.4% |
37.7% |
26.2% |
12.4% |
93.8% |
7.4% |
6.8% |
7.3% |
Benefit-Cost Ratio |
1.2 |
2.4 |
2.0 |
1.6 |
4.3 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.2 |
Discounted Payback Period, Years |
15.1 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
9.0 |
3.5 |
14.6 |
14.6 |
15.7 |
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The cost-benefit analysis conducted leads to the following general conclusions:
· Based only on financial costs and benefits, undergrounding of overhead power lines cannot be justified, whether undertaken as a stand-alone project or in conjunction with other City works.
· Including sustainable, or socio-economic, costs and benefits in the cost-benefit analysis justifies undergrounding projects in some cases.
· Analysis of sustainable benefits and costs helps in street ranking, or identification of streets with a high potential for overall beneficial outcomes. Streets with a high potential for strong benefits have one or more of the following characteristics:
o Significant potential for redevelopment as manifested by a large number of redevelopment properties (or properties slated and designated as potential redevelopment properties);
o Space limitations on the street section as manifested by a relatively small size of the redevelopment properties, and in particular a relatively small depth of those properties, and
o Large number of existing businesses, commercial or non-commercial/industrial establishments.
· The above characteristics are likely to lead to high redevelopment benefits (due to a relatively large increase in the amount of space that could effectively be built up by residential units) and high benefits due to more reliable power supply.
The above analysis leads then to the following recommendations:
· Each street contemplated for an undergrounding project should be assessed separately using the cost-benefit analysis framework developed in this engagement as each street appears to represent its own unique case.
· In the situation of time or budgetary limitations, certain prioritization of undergrounding projects could also be considered: Traditional Main Streets should be recommended as first priority followed by streets within Mixed Use Centres.
SUMMARY TABLE OF FUNDING OPTIONS DOCUMENT 3
|
Funding
Option |
Description |
Who
Pays? |
Currently
Permitted? |
Currently
Permitted? |
What
would be required to use? |
Example |
|
Greenfield |
Retrofit |
|||||
1. |
Municipal
Development Charges |
A
specific levy within the development charge fee for the cost of burying
overhead power lines |
Developer
as part of a development application generally at time of building permit |
No |
No |
The
development-related cost of electrical substations, distribution system and
rolling stock is no longer eligible for development charge recovery. Bill 35,
which received Royal Assent on October 30, 1998, required restructuring of
municipal hydro utilities to business corporations within two years of
proclamation (November 7, 1998). Since this has occurred, neither the new
municipal electrical corporation, nor the municipality on its behalf can levy
a development charge for this purpose, primarily because the new corporation
is not a "local board," under any Act. |
Was
available prior to changes to Electricity
Act |
2. |
Special
Services Levy |
Imposition
of a special service levy to properties within a benefitting area |
Initially
funded from City debt but repaid through the special service levy against all
properties in benefitting area |
Yes |
Yes |
Available
under Section 326 of the Municipal Act. Requires
approval by Council |
Burying
of Hydro Lines on Kanata Avenue approved by Council May
25, 2010 |
3. |
Local
improvement charge |
Levy
a local improvement charge (LIC) for specified works (which can include
electrical buried conduit and wires), generally on the basis of metres of frontage
though can be by zone/lot assessment or a combination thereof. |
Initially
funded from City but repaid through a levy against benefitting properties in
the petition area. |
Yes |
Yes |
Available
under Part XII (Section 400) of the Municipal
Act & O. Reg. 586/06. Implementation
of a LIC requires approval of the majority of benefitting property owners. To
be successful a petition requires support of two thirds of the property
owners representing 50% of the value of all lands in the petition area. |
Former
City of Nepean used an LIC for the Carleton Industrial Park for street
lighting and Hydro installation. Manotick
sanitary sewer installation program used a LIC. Approved by Council April 23,
2008 |
4. |
Community
Improvement Plan |
Once
a CIP has been approved for a CIP project area allows City to offer grants or
loans to property owners to assist with improvement activities in the project
area to encourage redevelopment, rehabilitation of land and buildings and
improvements to works which could burying of overhead wires. |
City
though direct grants or loans or
through property tax rebates (TIEG) based on tax increment equivalent
financing[5] |
No |
Yes |
Available
under Section 28 of the Planning Act. Requires
approval by Council. |
Development
Incentive Grant Program offered within the St. Joseph Blvd CIP, adopted by
City Council Jan 28, 2009. Eligible
costs can include burial of hydro service on and off-site. |
5. |
Developer
Pays- Greenfield - initial
construction as part of subdivision |
Compel
developer to pay for the cost of burying wires at time of construction of
subdivision for the burial of wires outside
of internal subdivision roads which would include to the site and along
collector/arterial roads. |
Developer |
No
policy established |
Establish
a policy and implementation strategy which could include changes to the
subdivision approval process and the establishment of a site-specific private
proponent cost sharing & recovery program. |
|
|
6. |
Developer
Pays-Retrofit- as part of
redevelopment project |
Compel
developer to pay for the cost of burying wires at time of construction |
Developer |
No
policy established |
Establish
a policy and implementation strategy. Note
that some developers do undertake the burial of wires voluntarily as a
selling feature of the project (aesthetics) or due to technical limitations
posed by overhead wires to the building design and location on infill sites.
The benefits are project & site- specific and do not address broader
community regarding burial of overhead wires. |
Bank
Street at Gladstone Avenue. Central I and II (Urban Capital) project includes
burial of wires. |
|
7. |
City
Pays-capital project- financed directly
through property taxes |
City
would budget and pay for burial of wires as a capital project part of an
infrastructure renewal initiative. An increase in taxation to cover the
funding for the wiring. |
City |
No
policy established |
Develop
a Council policy and long-term Implementation Strategy |
|
|
8. |
City
Pays-capital project- financed through use of City-Wide Capital Reserves |
City
would budget and pay for burial of wires as a capital project part of an
infrastructure renewal initiative. Use a portion of the existing contribution
base to fund this new requirement (effectively, less funds available for
normal capital rehab/growth program) |
City |
No
policy established |
Develop
a Council policy and long-term Implementation Strategy. This
option is essentially the same as the property tax option. A portion of the
property tax gets contributed to the capital reserve fund and then gets used
to fund capital projects. |
|
|
9. |
City
Pays-capital project- financed through use of dividends collected from Hydro
Ottawa Ltd. |
City
would budget and pay for burial of wires as a capital project part of an
infrastructure renewal initiative |
City
using Hydro Ottawa Ltd. dividends |
No
policy established |
Develop
a Council policy and long-term Implementation Strategy. Currently
the City uses the Hydro dividends as a general
revenue to reduce the amount raised from property taxes. Using the
dividends as a funding source for underground wiring purposes would create a
tax pressure. If
the amount of the dividend were increased to cover these projects, the
Ontario Energy Board and interveners would probably notice it thorough
Hydro’s rate filing and request to stop such funding allocation. |
. |
|
10. |
City
cost-shares with other interested funding parties |
City
would share in the wire burial costs with third party funding sources such as
BIA/Developer(s)/others/ /Hydro Ottawa? |
City
and other funding participants in the program to bury wires |
No
policy established |
Develop
a Council policy and long-term Implementation Strategy |
U.
of Ottawa and the former City of Ottawa cost-shared some of the burial costs
within the campus c.1984 |
|
11. |
Hydro
Ottawa Ltd. Pays -Greenfields |
Hydro
would pay for the new underground construction outside of the internal
subdivision. |
Hydro
Ottawa |
Not
supported by Hydro Ottawa’s technical standards and distribution system
operating codes under the Electricity
Act and the Ontario Energy Board
Act and with Ontario Energy Board’s regulated rate structure regime. |
Changes
to the Ontario Energy Board Act and
maybe to the Electricity Act |
|
|
12. |
Hydro Ottawa Ltd. Pays-Retrofit |
Hydro
would pay for the conversion from overhead to underground construction in
existing built-up areas. |
Hydro
Ottawa |
Not
supported by Hydro Ottawa’s technical standards and distribution system
operating codes under the Electricity
Act and the Ontario Energy Board
Act and with Ontario Energy Board’s regulated rate structure regime. |
Changes
to the Ontario Energy Board Act and
maybe to the Electricity Act |
|
|
13. |
Hydro
Ottawa Ltd. Pays-System Rebuild at end of asset life |
Apply
Hydro Ottawa overhead system rebuild funding (end of asset life within the
next 10 years) for that specific street to the underground conversion
project. |
Hydro
Ottawa |
No
policy established. |
? |
|
|
14. |
Senior
Levels of Government- Special Funding (grants or loans) |
Time
to time special funding and loan programs offered to encourage infrastructure
renewal and/or provide an economic stimulus |
Government
of Canada Province
of Ontario |
Grants
not currently available. Loans
may be available from Infrastructure Ontario to eligible municipalities and
municipal corporations which could include costs for burial of wires. |
Grant
funding is unpredictable and may not include the burial of electrical wires.
Difficult to develop an implementation plan in the abstract. Would
have to be prepared for the possibility and be opportunistic. Requires
Council to endorse a strategy in the context of possible competing
infrastructure priorities. May still require residual funding from the City
or repayment if in the form of a loan. |
Federal
and Provincial Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (2009)~
though burial of wires was not an eligible project under this program. Infrastructure
Ontario loans to municipalities and municipal corporations (Hydro Ottawa?)
can include burial of wires. |
[1] New and residential streets were not studied.
[2] The analysis period of 31 years
selected for this cost-benefit model is based on the typical life of underground
wiring systems (estimated to be about 30 years) extended by one year that
accounts for preliminary planning, design, and coordination that takes place in
the first year of construction before the actual road work and electrical
engineering work start.
[3] New and residential streets were not studied.
[4] The analysis period of 31 years
selected for this cost-benefit model is based on the typical life of
underground wiring systems (estimated to be about 30 years) extended by one
year that accounts for preliminary planning, design, and coordination that
takes place in the first year of construction before the actual road work and
electrical engineering work start.
[5] A Tax increment equivalent grant (TIEG) is a grant equal to the full amount or a portion of the amount of the estimated property tax increase after the property is redeveloped.