Sudbury: Social Concerns Downtown, the city’s Fiscal Imperative, and the Economic Opportunity
By: Austin Martin
Tags: Canadian Economy, Policy, Homelessness, Fiscal, Social Change

At the time of writing, the view of this essay is to highlight and describe opportunities and possibilities impartial to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, based on issues that were pre-existing that are presented herein. The conclusion highlights new developments up to the most recent point prior to publishing.

Since amalgamation took place in Sudbury under the Harris Administration, much of the benefits — both economically and socially — are yet to be seen, notably in the downtown core and in the residential areas where the majority of citizens live. This has been brought up many times since amalgamation took place on January 1, 2001 with requests and appeals from citizens for change largely falling on deaf ears. Taxpayers across Sudbury view their property taxes as implicitly paying for services, benefits, and other expenditures that they may not be taking advantage of — either they do not qualify for them, they do not need to take advantage of them, or do not use the service or benefit in question — and rightfully so.

Downtown Sudbury used to be a bustling core: department stores, notable historical buildings housing financial institutions, municipal and federal government outlets and offices, small businesses of various sorts, with minimal, or at the very least, controlled, social concerns. The streets would be filled with people shopping at local businesses regularly, visiting their favorite department store, or taking in delicious grub at one of the many restaurants. The businesses prospered and firms were able to survive a quiet period because they knew that it would rebound in the warmer months or when a recession let up. Certainly, a number of start-ups never took off, but the entrepreneurial spirit was there, and they chose downtown to locate for their headquarters or where they’d sell their goods. The citizens at that time — regardless of where they lived — knew where their tax dollars were being spent, and knew it was going into services that benefitted them as the resident. Not to mention amalgamation was not in place, though, their local economy looked different from what it is today.

The downtown core has faced a serious decline in quality and value since those pre-amalgamation days; not adapting to the times, poor political mistakes, unfocused city planning on downtown instead on the outskirts closer to where people lived, and undisciplined fiscal management. It’s not a matter of public finance, but simply assessing the fiscal responsibility regardless of your shape — a firm or municipality, the focus being the latter — is absolutely paramount when adapting to the current state while listening to your citizens who have good ideas, social requirements that are of the city’s responsibility, and focusing on greater economic prosperity.

A case in point is the issue downtown with people who have substance abuse issues, be it alcohol, non-medical use of prescription opioids and illicit drug use, and mental health needs. These may be people who need help but can’t find it or the help isn’t offered, and the reduced economic opportunities in an area of the city such as the downtown core. At the same time, the crime concerns are a deterrent to people to visiting downtown. Rightfully so, consumers won’t want to visit their favorite restaurant or shop with their family or friends if there’s even the slightest apprehension that they could be injured by someone with a weapon or pestered on the street with a homeless individual seeking proceeds. In the latter case, a lot of times it’s used to buy alcohol, illicit drugs, and other times it’s just because they need to eat, proceeds which would go back into the downtown core because they don’t have the means to travel beyond this area.

Beyond the downtown, though, there has been tremendous development of commercial opportunities, opportunities in which people are incredibly satisfied with, and long for more. As we move into the next pieces of what can be an opportunity grasped by small- and medium-sized enterprises, multinational firms, and regional establishments, Sudbury has the opportunity to do some important fiscal & economic growth liberties that could be difficult to attain in the future if we don’t set up the right course, now.

Modern Downtown Social Fundamentals

The downtown core has been argued by many as being “dead,” “there isn’t enough parking,” “there’s too much crime,” and “people don’t want to go down there.” All of these are valid arguments, and there is no doubt many more, but for brevity these are listed. Indeed, people won’t want to visit a downtown that has two stabbings in a week, as we witnessed in December 2020, used needles strewed on the ground and near a seniors’ center, the act of seeing someone “lifeless” when the drugs hit them: a greater focus on a safe, supervised site for use of non-prescription medical drugs. If people can’t park downtown, there is no way that people will be able to shop or dine downtown. While the public transportation argument is presented as a way to bring people downtown, the local bus terminal is where a large portion of the crime that takes place because individuals congregate near easy-to-access transportation.

There is a considerable concern that people could lay victim to any incident, whether the perpetrator knows them or not, and the way we need to solve this is through not merely affirmative action but referring these turbulent individuals to professional help. Despite the fact that a downtown for small cities is relevant, Sudbury is not what it was — a small city, measured by geography and population — and we can shift the dialogue to solving the social problems existing downtown, from finding ways to make it more vibrant that are the end result to the former.

Social Candor

In Bias et. al (2015), major institutions such as quality universities and local schools, and major companies also serve as “anchors” for downtowns. The spillover from these firms would benefit the downtown businesses, as seen with the placement of the McEwen School of Architecture. At the same time, federal and provincial government employees located in downtown Sudbury also spillover to businesses and restaurants; evidently noticed during the summer months when everyone is on lunch break. In this case, you see less of the homelessness likely because of all the foot traffic notwithstanding those few who still beg. The OECD (2020) discussed three different factors driving homelessness:

Structural factors. Some of the factors here would include a shrinking social safety net, labor market changes, and a reduction in housing allowances.

Institutional and systemic failures. This is referring to people who are coming out institutional settings (the criminal justice system, or hospitals and mental health facilities).

Individual circumstances. Job loss, eviction from a rental or subsidized housing, health issues or even child poverty, are all examples of the individual circumstances.

These structural factors all apply to Sudbury in some way or another. Even though institutions send the patient on their way back into society, we cannot put the blame solely on these benefitting institutions. Some of the homeless and drug users likely could have been born into it because of family circumstances, mental health issues, and the like, circumstances beyond many of our realms. In a lot of cases, these people want the help but can’t find it and therefore, end up back on the street after being in a mental health institution or a hospital setting. Indeed, Sudbury’s Off the Street Shelter, Homeless Network Day Centre, and the YMCA Overnight Warming Centre are valid options for temporary shelter, but don’t serve a permanent solution to the problem because those using the facility end up back on the street during the day or remain on the street if these facilities are at capacity. This discourages consumers from visiting the downtown and engaging in economic activity that is desperately needed to restore growth downtown; the homeless population are not a vexation but an opportunity to help those who need it most by fostering a re-entry into supporting municipal economic growth through employment and temporary housing.

Impacting our youth, the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth is an important facility to support our youth who more than ever are experiencing greater inequalities that we cannot allow them to grow into. With just four beds and seating for ten, available for ages 16 to 24, this won’t be enough to offer a solution that is adequate for a period of time longer than what is currently offered. The services that are available to them contain benefits: offering a place to stay during familial hardships and abuse can be or is the most comforting solution to their life at that point in time. The youth in our city need to be encouraged that we have solutions available and are ready for those youth to take advantage of them. Cultivating our youth so they do not end up in the same position as those older than them on the streets, is critical for our community to not reach future social obstacles that will be more difficult to diminish, and more costly, a situation our city is not prepared for.

One important community that has its own considerations is Sudbury’s First Nations people who are homeless downtown. In Sudbury alone, almost 43 percent who identified as Indigenous are homeless, compared with just over 9 percent of the general population who identify as Indigenous, according to 2018 homeless hub data. These numbers should be a wakeup call to policymakers that there is more than the Caucasian population who need affordable housing. It is true that Indigenous peoples arguably have more resources available to them including on-reserve housing, plus better access to community care through groups such as N’Swakamok Native Friendship Centre.

However, this does not detract from the importance of serving this part of the population with housing that would accommodate their culture while solving the homelessness situation. An example of this comes from Seattle, where a new building is being completed for the Native American community with 80 studios on seven floors for households at/below 30 percent of Area Median Income, with 60 units designated for homeless households and 10 units for veterans (Chief Seattle Club, 2020). There will also be a primary care clinic run by the Seattle Indian Health Board. In Sudbury, providing this same option by having that immediate access to primary care will help in two ways: 1. Solve some of the less serious health problems, and 2. Reduce the capacity of the emergency department at the local hospital, thus lowering costs to the taxpayer on a provincial tax basis. The $33.55 million project’s budget is funded with investor equity, grants, and loans from LIHTC, Capital Campaign, City of Seattle, and the Seattle Equitable Development Fund, to name a few (Beacon Development Group, 2020). This project was designed to reduce the homelessness among Native Americans in the City of Seattle: the native community in King County, which includes Seattle, makes up 1 percent of the population but 15 percent of the homeless population (Golden, 2020).

Further, as our country advances on the global scale with resounding social policies that citizens may or may not agree with, the existing social concerns facing downtown are an obvious issue that need to be addressed, but so does the non-medical use of prescription drugs. In many instances, these individuals are the same ones that are homeless, but this does not deter from those who are facing addiction issues but are not also homeless. In the study Canadian Substance Use Costs and Harms 2015–2017, it showed that the use of opioids cost the healthcare system $439 million (3.4 percent) despite the costs related to alcohol ($5.4 billion, 41.6 percent) and tobacco ($6.1 billion, 47.1 percent). On a per-person healthcare-cost basis, substance use of alcohol and tobacco were the highest at $149 and $168, in 2017, respectively. The healthcare cost related to opioids, per-person was $12. Related, the lost productivity cost of opioids use was $116 per-person in 2017, increasing 34.1 percent, and is the largest increase in per-person lost productivity cost, relatively speaking. In the same report, alcohol and tobacco lost, per-person, productivity costs of $184 and $161, respectively.

The focus here is not alcohol and tobacco because although it is ambitious to reduce the use of these two drugs (and they are drugs), the access is too great, therefore, unreasonable to assume that much can be done. Controlling opioids on the other hand, will have a much greater impact, not only because the cost to the healthcare system is less, but also because the cause of these deaths is more visible, and through smart regulation, can be solved.

As the previous issue is resolved, now there is focus on the future for the individual. Granted, homeless individuals will have greater difficulties in being employed, but the opportunity for firms to hire motivated candidates if help can be taken advantage of, and if the services can be offered for those seeking or mandated to pursue assistance, will give a bright spot in the dim lit area of economic prosperity. Kelly et. al (2005) compared a one- and five-year substance use and criminal recidivism outcomes among participants in each group and adjusted for a range of sociodemographic and dependence-related variables. In short, they found that the mandated group had a significantly lower-risk clinical profile compared with the comparison groups at baseline. Notably, after one year, participants mandated by the justice system for treatment had the highest reported level of abstinence from illicit drugs (61 percent) compared to those who were either voluntarily enrolled in treatment with justice system involvement (48.1 percent) or no involvement in the justice system yet still enrolled (43.8 percent).

This being said, using the justice system as a way to mandate rehabilitation may not be the most appropriate way, socially, to solve the opioid crisis and by implication the homeless problem downtown, but could possibly be used as an option for the most serious and most-reliant users of non-medical use of prescription drugs as a way to put them on a path to recovery.

Our Social Solution

Ultimately, the response to homelessness has to be structured, organized, and in coordination with all agencies, administrations, and the municipal government and to an extent, the provincial government. With respect to the entirety of teams for these agencies being involved, it does not require every single member or team to be part of it to make the change; having one or two representatives, agents, delegates, or deputies with the authority to make decisions & changes as needed to move initiatives forward is sufficient. Policy decisions need to be placed with those making the daily decisions specific to the project or initiative. It should be expressed clearly that these representatives from agencies, organizations, and other groups, are not by any means bypassing any sort of financial requirements that the municipality would like to participate in.

As we have seen with traditional government initiatives, they become bogged down with bureaucracy and inefficiency thereby limiting the impact they have on the community. While including these individuals as directed by their respective agency or otherwise as being part of the project, there’s a need to include young people in the project too because ultimately when administrators become involved, groupthink and haggling will drag down the process. By including a handful of young people, they can offer valuable insights based on their education or constructive ideas, which will foster the most important growth aspects of a project being undertaken. Not only this, but they are also the future of the community who are better able to relate to the issues at hand. Putting politics aside, forming a group of individuals who are not “community practitioners” or administrators, will encourage new ideas and give credibility to an issue that is greatly impacting the downtown core.

Thus far, community planning has focused substantially on New Sudbury and the South End, where a good portion of residents live. Indeed, we need to provide services and commercial opportunities to serve residents in these areas. Major chain stores are anchors for major strip malls and retail divisions of communities, as both of these areas of the city clearly demonstrate. Through encouragement of new business or entrepreneurs from across the province and country to show that Sudbury is a favorable, business-friendly city to establish, we can encourage employment of the homeless and create new opportunities for economic growth in the downtown core. One example of this is Barrie, Ontario’s creation of the Connected Core initiative, a collection of programs designed to support marginalized people downtown. This project is co-funded by the city, the Barrie police, and the local hospital. It includes initiatives such as naloxone training, and a bank of casual employment opportunities, primarily for downtown businesses.

Much like the spill-over effects described previously from key anchors and other institutions, businesses employing the homeless and with support groups to get these individuals into employment opportunities is a key component to reducing homelessness. Certainly, requirements have to be met by the individual to make them suitable for employment but if the resources are made available, the expectation should be taken that they will pursue the requirements accordingly. Establishing a new group that focuses on bringing new businesses downtown — not existing businesses in the city — will encourage opportunities to be created, drive economic growth, and reduce homelessness. This group should be composed of individuals not only trained in social issues such as homelessness and drug use, but also focuses on finance, economics, and education because the ultimate goal is to rebound downtown economic growth while encouraging new investment.

If we turn for a moment to the non-prescription drug use issue that troubled the downtown core, it’s important to note that this may not be the driving component of the homeless individuals. Particularly, a site for a safe injection clinic is an important measure in containing the illicit drug use downtown. The public health unit should move quickly with private investors for a safe injection site that would not be in harm’s way of other downtown patrons. As we have seen, used needles that have been strewn about on streets is no way to be encouraging downtown economic activity. Having a safe injection site is indeed one way to reduce the number of overdose deaths, at the same time, reducing visibility on the streets of the drug use. Increased police presence has somewhat helped but the police officers don’t have anywhere to direct these users to. By introducing a safe injection site, law enforcement will direct them to the site and provide better safety to the community, the focus of law enforcement.

Meanwhile, it will allow medical providers to refer substance users to treatment, counselling services, and medical guidance to getting sober. Whether or not this is to be mandatory should be decided collectively among site employees, the public health unit, and healthcare professionals; the public should not be involved in that discussion because the situation of the user is different, and that trust — between the counsellor/supervisor/medical professional and user — needs to be built without the influence of what the public has to say. Structurally, institutions in the city need to work with the site for promoting it as a safe location for users where they are not intimidated by their drug usage, rather, through supervision, and can put them on a path to recovery. As agreements become formal, the local hospitals and clinics will have to work together to promote the common goal of reducing non-medical use of prescription drugs. This is not a cost to the taxpayer — the service itself — but a policy issue that is agreed between two healthcare facilities.

The idea of a First Nations housing project to reduce homeless presents many viable benefits including targeting a group that has long been discriminated against, and puts the city — and as a whole, the country — on track to promote social inclusion of an ethnic group that has not always had a solid footing. This housing project should focus on accommodating only First Nations homeless individuals because by directing the attention that is needed, promotion of their well-being will give credibility to the project, show other homeless Indigenous individuals that they can have a place to stay, all the while creating a sense of community that is most desperately needed. Sources of funding could be through grants and loans provided by the federal government, the respective First Nation community itself who wishes to sponsor the project, and debt financing through financial institutions. First, by financing it through the city of Sudbury, there would be a lot of pushback from residents that will quash the project almost from the start even though the social mandate is present. Second, it allows the First Nation community or agency that surrounds Sudbury, whichever community or agency it may be, with the ability to promote Indigenous values. Third, it can give the downtown core the economic boost it requires through promotion of new business now that demand exists. Fourth, the project could allow a clinic to be developed right in the building with street access that has practitioners of the Indigenous beliefs to promote health and healing, as was done with the Chief Seattle Club “Home” plan. As well, a small retail business such as a café could serve as an employment opportunity for the residents, providing them with a jumpstart to their vitality and employment search. Similar to the Connected Core group, providing those with wrap-around support services that are necessary to find permanent housing, employment, and long-term stability for the community is vital.

A core group made up with select one or two individuals from agencies, groups (non-Business Improvement Area), and the municipal government, in addition to young professionals who will serve as part of the innovative task to tackle some of the crucial decisions will be important to supporting economic growth downtown. They will be the ones tasked with making the decisions that will serve the purpose of acting quickly to make economic and low-level fiscal decisions, decisions that do not require funds from the municipality. The current development corporation in the city needs a makeover and this is the way to do it. With this group in place, they’ll be tasked to work with public agencies and authorities, and private investors to focus on developing quality housing efforts to reduce the homelessness issue. This option can still be offered downtown on the edge of the core because it would alleviate traffic, focus on allowing residents from the suburbs of the city to be enticed to visit downtown, thus removing some of the social stigma attached to the homelessness and drug problem facing the downtown society.

Building affordable housing that exists in the downtown core but is on the perimeter will still allow these residents to access public transportation, other government services, and financial services that many rely on. A key benefit to be noted here is that we can stimulate economic growth because the issue of having homelessness and drug users on the main streets where consumers and pedestrians are frequent has been modified, thus boosting confidence in safety and consumer spending. Private investment with incentives such as property tax rebates and subsidizing the housing through provincial and federal — not municipal — government efforts, should be pursued. Removing the bureaucratic interest from the process will be important to the solution because it will not only promote Sudbury as a place for social impact investment, but also foster better social policies for the community.

As we have seen with the proposed real estate project for at-risk youth — a 38-unit apartment building — being given strong support from municipal government, Habitat for Humanity, the CMHA, and others, this will be one of the premier projects for reducing youth homelessness and giving our youth an important place to stay. Beyond the neighborhood where it will reside, it’s a symbol for our city’s youth by showing “we support our youth, and we are here to help.” Notably, the way the project is structured should be a blueprint for future housing initiatives and impact investing because from this project alone, $100,000 in property taxes and more than $400,000 in development charges will fuel further fiscal sustainability of the city of Greater Sudbury. Offering rent at 80 percent of market value has its merits, and while market rents are high, we also need to bear mind that these youth are the future of our city and supporting their financial well-being by possibly lower rents will help them enormously notwithstanding the prospect that the current plan offers. Private investment such as this undertaking is a foundational approach towards full-market-rent housing and giving our youth the positive promotion of making a living for themselves in Sudbury, with future revenue streams for current real estate developers and property managers in Sudbury.

Private investment to simply build the project is not necessarily the same as who manages it. While the city could be the prime candidate for collecting rent, it must ultimately be up to a third party to manage the property and maintenance through a bidding process. Furthermore, any red tape that stands in the way of a developer — regardless of where the firm is based — from pursuing a greenfield or brownfield project, needs to be minimized to a simple submission of a plan that covers economic impact, project budget, stringent safety plan, the project’s impact on the city, and how it will benefit social policies. Another option to solve the homelessness issue is to empower the Greater Sudbury Housing Corporation with the ability to issue debt for projects. Transferring the revenue raising and spending ability of this entity will give credibility to the project instead of the municipality itself because public support will adapt to when the ultimate overseer of the project can modify and make decisions without having to go through the bureaucracy that will bog down its mission. Similarly, transferring the revenue raising and spending ability of a private investor is a wise decision. The firm tasked with the social housing project — greenfield or brownfield — will be more fiscally apt to onboarding industry practitioners to complete the endeavor. As mentioned about a brownfield project, the point here is to use an existing facility currently owned by the municipality and can be reasonably converted to affordable housing.

The opportunity for sustainable and affordable housing has been in Sudbury for some time, but the changing social and financial landscape has required that the city pursue new opportunities that make it fiscally worthwhile for projects to be lifted off the ground. Coupled with the deteriorated economic rout of the downtown core, this has compounded the homelessness and use of non-prescription drugs that has clouded the city’s core for some time. By creating a group focused solely on the creation of affordable housing, who are empowered to make decisions with the absence of bureaucracy, and focusing on creating better social awareness of the dynamic that has yielded unfavorable dialogue, the downtown core will be better able to sustain a more dramatic fallout of social consequences. Pursuing affordable housing that accommodates the First Nations homeless, it will foster a community that is essential to the Indigenous way of life while maintaining their traditional values in healing, medicine, and health practices.

While the short-term housing (shelter) options are still valid, not enough transitional housing has been presented, although, new projects on the horizon are a leading response to this challenge. In addition to First Nations affordable housing, allowing private investment for social impact on general affordable housing projects will alleviate much of the stigma that taxpayers will be entirely on the hook for the cost of it; pursuing a partnership that makes better fiscal sense for the city will shift the social awareness in the right direction for projects to be deemed credible and worthwhile.

The Fiscal Imperative

Historically, the city of Sudbury has faced various financial situations that do not necessarily benefit the residents of Sudbury. However, the cost is surely felt by those same residents. Much of the spending that has taken place does not directly benefit the taxpayers, but it has almost, every single time, cost the taxpayers by this way: an increase on their property taxes. Indeed, Sudbury has a smaller taxable assessment (the denominator) that means the number by which the budget (the numerator) consistently falls short continues to rise, hence the amount increasing each year by taxpayers to pay in their annual property taxes. While zero-based budgeting will solve part of the problem, there needs to be fundamental check on the spending taking place.

With the increasing use of technology to perform transactions and tasks, traditional office space becomes a way of the past because of work-from-home (WFH), and workers increasingly engaging in “gig economy” jobs, these will have an impact on the municipal finance situation. Beyond the transfers received from the federal and provincial government, the only other revenue sources include residential and non-resident property taxes, development charges (the fees charged for new development to help pay for infrastructure required to service new growth), and user fees.

Consistently, infrastructure, namely roads and transit, have been a focus for some time that residents feel as though the construction related to these items are never ending. The short season for optimal construction with tight regulation supports this motive. With increased focus on jumpstarting the economy through infrastructure projects, this is a reason to focus on new opportunities for job creation and changing what needed to be done long ago but neglect and other focuses — not priorities — has meant deterioration leading to full revitalization. Public-private partnerships are the key to solving fiscal responsibility while creating a prosperous Sudbury. Additionally, the fiscal situation has long been a point of contention but as the financial results show, there is reason to believe that the city has solid financial footing to absorb further fiscal outlays.

How it’s Described to Alter

In a report from KPMG (2020), there were some important facts that should be seriously considered for the city to gain optimal performance in its delivery of core services to citizens and focus on reducing spending in areas that do not conform to the municipality’s fiscal situation. In fact, some of these opportunities have been pursued, either in early stages of implementation, process, or completed.

Facilities rationalization . This was discussed back in 2016 to reduce the overall footprint, establish best use of surplus space, and consider functional efficiency opportunities (City of Greater Sudbury, 2016). The report noted disposing of the resulting excess capacity across facilities and office buildings. The savings: $1 million. This is a tremendous amount of money that will benefit the city long-term by fully realizing key assets that have traffic to support their sustainability. Furthermore, from the same city report in 2016, it presented that opportunities exist to centralize administrative space and rationalize some operations. By doing so, we can reduce costs and find efficiencies in the structure. Furthermore, a lot of the assets described in the 2016 presentation were old and underutilized; underutilized assets should be offloaded as part of a larger restructuring to bring back in-line further fiscal capacity. The proceeds from the sale of these assets can be used towards expediting debt repayment or putting it towards facilities projects that are revenue generating, or as previously mentioned, converting it to an affordable housing projection.

. This was discussed back in 2016 to reduce the overall footprint, establish best use of surplus space, and consider functional efficiency opportunities (City of Greater Sudbury, 2016). The report noted disposing of the resulting excess capacity across facilities and office buildings. The savings: $1 million. This is a tremendous amount of money that will benefit the city long-term by fully realizing key assets that have traffic to support their sustainability. Furthermore, from the same city report in 2016, it presented that opportunities exist to centralize administrative space and rationalize some operations. By doing so, we can reduce costs and find efficiencies in the structure. Furthermore, a lot of the assets described in the 2016 presentation were old and underutilized; underutilized assets should be offloaded as part of a larger restructuring to bring back in-line further fiscal capacity. The proceeds from the sale of these assets can be used towards expediting debt repayment or putting it towards facilities projects that are revenue generating, or as previously mentioned, converting it to an affordable housing projection. Digitalization. For the city to move forward with several initiatives and remain competitive with other municipalities, digitalizing citizen, business, and corporate processes will support growth. Similar to the facilities rationalization recommendation, municipal services are offered across the city instead of one location. While the municipality has moved forward with placing Tom Davies Square as a “one-stop shop,” more needs to be done. Restructuring the municipality to have a full digital platform of everything from filing building and business permits to infrastructure updates to emergencies and security to economic development and community engagement, will serve the residents of the City of Greater Sudbury well and provide efficiency in public administration. The savings: $600,000, and it could be more.

As a matter of citizen engagement, residents want to know what’s happening in their city because it’s their tax dollars paying for the initiatives in the city and they should know as fast as the policymakers what’s happening in the city. Creating a digital platform can free local businesses from red tape that will contribute to an efficient local economy and stimulate entrepreneurial endeavors. Plus, a firm from anywhere in Ontario will be able to see clearly there are other cities welcoming new investment and see Northern Ontario through a new lens. Through a properly crafted and deployable marketing plan with targeted financial resources behind it, exceptional professional talent, and a structured plan that has clear goals, we can invigorate new growth that will ultimately yield increased investment. Focusing on creating jobs for developers (tech) and actively recruiting from the local university and college to put in place this infrastructure will help with job growth and create a holistic approach to encouraging innovation in Sudbury notwithstanding the increase in wages and benefits.

Furthermore, digitalization will encourage our municipal government to be more transparent by making minutes and council meetings — finance, planning, recreation — widely available the moment the meeting is done; it shows that the city has the capacity to provide information without delay to residents. At the same time, we can foster a community that moves beyond single-sector ideas and lays the groundwork for future economic opportunities, namely in tech. For example, in a 2018 McKinsey Global Institute report, they found that municipal digitalization will encourage local business growth and building skills that make people more employable. Similar to the social instances above, creating a digital environment to help the homeless in developing their skills for permanent employment will draw a new talent pool for businesses, SMEs and large corporates.

User Fees & Cost Recovery. Currently, fitness centers, other recreation interests, and youth centers are deemed at standard service level. However, these are directly competing with private entities, and the city should have zero involvement in these types of businesses. This is not the city’s expertise, these are businesses at the very heart of their existence, and is not the mandate of a municipality. Indeed, offering a low-cost option as a way to bring citizens to the facility with the same offerings is the imperative of supply and demand, although, it’s a drag on the fiscal capabilities of the municipal budget not to mention the municipality has no expertise in this area. To promote healthy community living, the resources directed to these facilities should be redirected to green spaces or sidewalk infrastructure in residential neighborhoods for a few reasons: it will help the city meet climate goals; it will create a space for families and pets to spend time outdoors in natural landscapes; and encourage residents to get outside for exercise in their neighborhood. If these costs aren’t adjusted, the facilities will fall behind in their maintenance and eventually larger cost outlays to update them will result in higher tax levy that residents will not support. Building on the discussion of competing with private, the trailer parks are competing directly with private, and resources would be more sensibly spent in aspects of key projects. This sector is still private and should remain that way, meaning the city should privatize these entities.

Beyond the KPMG report, there is a notable item that should be discussed here in brevity as it is consistently brought up by residents: wages and benefits. The important thing to note here — per the financial statements for the City of Greater Sudbury (2019) — is that about $30 million of the $268 million (11 percent) is from general government, but 32 percent is from protection services ($87 million) and almost 25 percent is from health and social services (~$65.5 million), which also includes Pioneer Manor. Reducing the latter two services would likely result in a few issues: increased violence downtown and across the city, reduced mental health services, lowered service of ambulance, and lower health services that are attributable to almost all City of Greater Sudbury residents such as the Health Unit. On a dollar basis, protection services increased $8.3 million compared to wages and salaries that increased by a little more than half ($4.6 million). If cuts were to be made, start digging into what protection services is and if it’s more than just policing services. Although zero-based budgeting is time consuming, you could implement it for this division to find savings despite the presumed difficulty that would take place to find these savings.

Building on privatizing the areas that directly compete with private, recreation and cultural services accounted for roughly $44 million or 7 percent of budget revenues with expenditures reaching 8 percent of total budget expenses (net loss of almost $3 million). This division of City of Greater Sudbury revenues has not turned a profit since FY2015, the last year the division it turned a profit of nearly $4 million (FY2020 has not been released but it can be assumed that there is no difference from the last 3 fiscal years). With that being said, refocusing on pools and libraries, where the city does not compete, should be its main focus and not on recreation centers and the like.

In assessing the debt capacity of the city, a lot of the judgements made are overstated. For example, when we look at long-term liabilities, the bulk of it is debentures. For a city, this is normal because even though they aren’t backed by collateral, it’s difficult and extremely unlikely for a municipality — in Canada or Ontario, anyhow — to declare bankruptcy since municipalities are agents of the province; in Sudbury’s case, the province of Ontario, and borrowing is approved by the province, and not freely decided by a municipality to declare to issue millions in debt.

In addition, suppose Sudbury pursued borrowing long-term. They can do so only for capital investments, but the annual repayment limit (ARL, also known as debt service) is 25 percent of annual “own source” revenue (property taxes, user fees, investment income) less annual long-term debt servicing costs and annual payments for other long-term financial obligations (Ontario, 2020). Of course, revenue will be unlikely to disappear because the majority of it is made up of property taxes, and unless every single household upped and left, it won’t go away. Sudbury’s outstanding debentures at 31 December 2019 was under $45 million, and issued no new debt in FY19.

On the whole, net debt was a little over $210.7 million, positioning the municipality quite well compared to other municipalities such as Barrie whose net debt is roughly $154 million (The Corporation of Barrie, 2019). In addition, reserves were bolstered in FY19 with more than $55 million set aside compared to Barrie with less than $24 million set aside for the same fiscal year. In assessing the debt service coverage, Sudbury’s is just over 2 percent of taxation, the main “own source” of revenue, noting this would be far less as a percent of total revenues; Barrie’s debt service was over 17 percent. This would put Sudbury in a much better position to meet short term debt obligations especially with new capital projects on the horizon despite some of the ignorance surrounding Sudbury’s financial capacity. One other important operating measure that is especially attributable to Sudbury is their ability to pay operating costs. At FY19, Sudbury reported 17.4 percent of cash and cash equivalents available to pay operating costs, if it were needed. Barrie on the other hand reported almost 27 percent noting $25 million is from an available line of credit, although, it’s not encouraged by the Ontario government to borrow for operating costs. Most residents assume that because their taxes are going up it’s because of the debt, and that’s not the case. Largely, it’s to maintain service levels but also because the city is mandated by provincial law to balance the budget.

Modifying the Fiscal Future

Public-private partnerships (PPP) are probably the most important ways for Sudbury to maintain its fiscal responsibility while leaving key aspects of the project to the private sector. Although the focus of this paper is not on the PPP model, it’s to highlight some of the benefits that can be realized from pursuing this type of arrangement for projects not yet taken off the ground and if necessary, to revisit the project structure. In particular, the library planned for The Junction project would be deemed a social infrastructure project, and the Kingsway Entertainment District, which has two distinct components: the infrastructure (transportation, energy, water & waste), and the facility (economic/social). Private involvement in the project should be left to strictly the private sector without any municipal involvement, other than the city focused on approving any permits quickly with deregulating the process to allow for less bureaucracy and focus on bringing the project online quickly.

For example, noted in Gatti (2018), through a build, operate, transfer (BOT) contract, the private sector would build the facility (arena, conference center, performing arts center, library, etc.) that meets some standards requirements with the municipality; manages for a period of time then transfers to the municipality at the end of the concession period (ownership remains with the municipality), with the project repaying the investment throughout the concession period (roughly 10 to 15 years, perhaps longer). With a build, own, operate, transfer (BOOT) contract — the main suggestion — the private sector builds/designs/operates/maintains the facility (see above examples of facilities/outlets) with financing provided by the private sector and retains the revenues during the concession period. Naturally, this period has to be long enough for the private sector to attain an adequate ROI and pay back the investment; facility ownership is transferred to the public sector at the end.

Through a PPP, government budget restraints are lifted and should ultimately prove to generate public support given taxation would be minimized if at all present. Ultimately, the project needs to have a strong IRR in order for it to be deemed reasonable and undertaken. The NPV should also be favorable but especially for infrastructure, it’s usually not above percent, rarely near 15 percent, and equity IRR at some 10 percent or more would be highly attractive for the private sector involvement. Since much of the budget — $107 million in FY19 — being attributable to roads infrastructure, pursuing PPP agreements will support the reduction in cost for these projects and putting into the agreement the quality standards to be in place, an essential component in any PPP. This would alleviate much of the financial strain on the budget that could be otherwise directed to capital projects or revenue generating opportunities, beyond city owned enterprises per above.

Let’s see some of the capital projects that are key and a lightning rod.

The Junction Project/Greater Sudbury Convention and Performance Center. Capital investment: $65.5 million, annual net loss of $272,000 by year 5; municipal taxes of $830,000. Total revenue of ~$4.1 million by 2023 (CBRE, 2018). Since the majority of the revenues will be derived from the events space, you could balance financially via either of these two avenues:

1. Charge less in the early years to support demand with a focus on service that could supporting breaking-even on the costs, with the expectation in future years 10 percent to 20 percent in additional revenues will come from the existing parties that booked historically with the center, thus you’ll make up some sort of shortfall.

2. Raise the price charged to space users to cover the expenses so the project payback period is shortened, and payoff is largely through years 1 to 3. The funding sources are from federal and provincial sources but also private.

The city should be involved as little as possible when it comes to the financing piece, and largely allow federal and provincial grants to do the work or the private sector, as described above. For example, focus can be towards the Ontario Arts Council for partial funding related to infrastructure noting their budget is only roughly $70 million; the Northern Ontario Development Program for the technical services/studies/plans; the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation for its ability to fund projects related to economic growth and job creation, which perfectly aligns with this capital project; and the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, for a vast portion of government funding (provincial and federal combined).

Beyond public sources of funding, attention should be drawn to private sources through private investment. Using a PPP to create this project will not only be a benefit for the city to transfer the design, build, finance, operate, and maintain aspects of the project to private, it’ll help make the project more sustainable long-term given the financial backing of the “private sector partner” to make sure the resources are well spent. Municipal involvement on the financing piece would create disparities in deployment of funds that would delay the project, given it would have to be approved by municipal council. An example of PPP usage for an entertainment site is the Shenkman Arts Centre in Ottawa. The Orléans Town Centre Partnership secured a nearly $28 million loan at a preferred interest rate, and it followed the design, build, finance, operate, and maintain PPP method (City of Ottawa, 2020). The same can be applied to The Junction project. All of this being said, if the NPV of the project is negative or a low positive, it shouldn’t be pursued even with its community benefits. Suppose this project receives the funding it needs, and the project looks good for a few years and is on track to reduce its debt load by 80 percent by year three (hypothetically speaking). Now, there’s a federal and or provincial government change and spending cuts take place including the grants that the library and performing arts center need to operate. The project no longer becomes viable and likely the city would bail it out, which is not what the taxpayer should be on the hook for nor should the city borrow to finance the operations of this initiative. If the funding model in place doesn’t work, it needs to be transferred to private for them to manage and operate. Simply start out using the method above, and the project demand risks are transferred to the private entity.

Kingsway Entertainment District . A lot has been said about this project since its inception in 2018 at municipal council that will be briefly discussed here because it is a key capital project, if not the only one that has been sought-after by residents. The city being involved while may have seemed ideal at the time because it’s a project that residents supported, it should’ve been left to private from the start and here’s why: the project has faced setbacks leading the discussion to the overall cost of the taxpayer, and a revived discussion (throughout the whole process) of keeping it downtown. Since the private sector would have been the only participant in a BOOT framework (the proposed idea here), the project could have started and possibly near completion when it was approved back in 2018. As well, the capital from the municipality for this project could have gone to others that are revenue generating that required little time to complete, that directly benefit the residents. While a cost sharing agreement in principle has its benefits, it places the municipality in a position to never stop funding an events center because it’s owned by the municipality. Through private ownership, not only would service levels and operating optimization materialize, but the private sector would be better able to attract major concert performances, large scale events, and massive entertainment productions that would likely be stalled by municipal involvement. Instead, private has an incentive to pursue these avenues because their goal is to make a profit and generate ROI; the city is focused on the well-being and policymaking of the municipality, and not seeking profit motives because the city is not a for-profit entity, and neither should it take ownership of one.

. A lot has been said about this project since its inception in 2018 at municipal council that will be briefly discussed here because it is a key capital project, if not the only one that has been sought-after by residents. The city being involved while may have seemed ideal at the time because it’s a project that residents supported, it should’ve been left to private from the start and here’s why: the project has faced setbacks leading the discussion to the overall cost of the taxpayer, and a revived discussion (throughout the whole process) of keeping it downtown. Since the private sector would have been the only participant in a BOOT framework (the proposed idea here), the project could have started and possibly near completion when it was approved back in 2018. As well, the capital from the municipality for this project could have gone to others that are revenue generating that required little time to complete, that directly benefit the residents. While a cost sharing agreement in principle has its benefits, it places the municipality in a position to never stop funding an events center because it’s owned by the municipality. Through private ownership, not only would service levels and operating optimization materialize, but the private sector would be better able to attract major concert performances, large scale events, and massive entertainment productions that would likely be stalled by municipal involvement. Instead, private has an incentive to pursue these avenues because their goal is to make a profit and generate ROI; the city is focused on the well-being and policymaking of the municipality, and not seeking profit motives because the city is not a for-profit entity, and neither should it take ownership of one. Elgin Street Greenway. The idea of this project has always been interesting, and it would offer a terrific area of the downtown core a place to bring consumers and pedestrians to enjoy. While the project’s vision is attractive, some aspects of it contain financing that could be better utilized elsewhere. For example, focusing on the “rock star element,” focus should be solely on making it green, and moving that “element” to the project previously mentioned. Placing trees, shrubs, and additional greenery will go a long way to harnessing the city’s focus on being climate friendly and reinforcing the natural landscape that the city has long been a foundation for and will be a lot more attractive and fully realize the project’s viability. In addition, the Nelson Street bridge component should likely be done separately given it is a key piece of infrastructure, that is, a bridge that connects area residents and serves as a mode of transportation. It was reported in September 2020 that it would cost the municipality $1 million for a refurbishing or painting (CBC, 2020). If it’s a matter of painting, something is seriously wrong with the estimates, and should be reconsidered. The “work needed for the bridge isn’t quite at the point yet” tells residents that municipal administrators are waiting for something seriously wrong to happen before the bridge is repaired. Taking the proactive approach and pursuing a PPP will alleviate some of the financial pressures that the city clearly is concerned about. Moreover, once the bridge collapses, it’ll end up on the CP Rail tracks, and the city would expose itself to negligent behavior.

Altogether, some of the fiscal concerns raised by residents are indeed valid and some are with merit. It should be emphasized, however, that the municipal taxes charged through property taxes, user fees, and development charges are important tools in sustaining future capital projects that the municipality directly sustains, and the fiscal state of the municipality is not as bad as it seems compared to the next closest city of comparable size by population. Sudbury’s fiscal measures are by and large quite good.

At the same time, the opportunity to focus on public-private partnerships for new infrastructure, events center, and entertainment/recreation is immense and must be considered; the cost-sharing arrangement currently in place has its benefits but allowing the private sector to bear the financial cost would make the project more feasible to sell to the residents. Furthermore, we’ve seen that the residents desperately want these capital projects to occur, as they should because they benefit the overall economic activity and social support throughout the city. As the infrastructure of the city continues to be a major part of the budget, pursuing a PPP for transportation infrastructure will alleviate much of the resources taken on by the municipal budget and allow the private sector to retain these risks while achieving improved infrastructure. There are many key capital projects on the horizon for the municipality that will benefit the overall community and are economic or social based. The projects will not only support future economic growth but are an economic opportunity for the city of Greater Sudbury.

The Heart of the Economy

The City of Greater Sudbury has been a pioneer in mining and mining services for a very long time. In fact, you could easily state the city has been like this since the city’s founding. With the discussion on climate change taking a front seat that is a serious concern for Sudbury and Canada as a whole, we can find ways to improve our economic opportunity by directing our focus on new sectors or promoting sectors that would help meet this challenge. Moreover, focusing on economic diversity in the city will stimulate new economic growth that will challenge our current standing but improve on our foundation. One example is clean energy, the process of using renewable and non-emitting sources to create energy that is now clean. Furthermore, we have an opportunity to attract non-durable goods industries to do their manufacturing in Northern Ontario, in city boundaries, that will support diversity in our economy.

In addition to mining, our economy is made up of education and healthcare that has meaningful employment, whether it’s administrative or in some other professional manner (professor, researcher, scientist, doctor, etc.) According to the Canada 2016 census, 15 percent and 9 percent were employed in healthcare and education, respectively, and nearly 14 percent were employed in retail. It’s safe to assume that in each of these three industries, the number of people employed has grown. By finding new sectors for the municipal economy to grow, we can offset job losses related to changing dynamics in the national economy to new sectors that will help reduce unemployment and attract new talent to Northern Ontario.

The Economic Opportunity

Financial services have always played a key role in growing the Canadian economy for employment. According to The Conference Board of Canada (2020), they found that the financial services sector is the largest private sector in Ontario and the third largest in Canada. Financial services exports reached $14 billion in 2018, and according to the WEF, Canada’s banking system has been the most sound in the G7 since 2007.

At the local level, there are a few impressive programs that offer grants & incentives to encourage development, redevelopment, and promotion of job creation and economic growth in the region. First, the Community Economic Development Fund is geared towards not-for-profit entities within the City of Greater Sudbury whose project has an economic benefit to the community and must align with the Economic Development Strategic Plan (Invest Sudbury, 2020). One of the key aspects of the strategic direction is “to create 10,000 jobs by 2025, Greater Sudbury must also become…a community that embraces diversity, innovation and entrepreneurship as key values that will create new economic opportunity” (City of Greater Sudbury Community Development Corporation, 2015). By promoting new businesses from those that are locally sourced or from across Ontario, we need to take a more advanced approach to creating these new opportunities. Through this fund, stimulating locals who have an idea that will benefit Sudbury, then we can deploy capital to assist them in this mandate, which will contribute to the strategy to create 10,000 new jobs.

Another fund that is compelling is the Sudbury Catalyst Fund. As of now, there are more than $5 million in VC funds to help entrepreneurs scale-up their business. Investing at the pre-seed stage or seed stage, we can promote innovation in the areas of technology and other products that will contribute to good economic growth while creating local jobs and strengthen the local entrepreneurial ecosystem (Invest Sudbury, 2020). This should encourage new grads or current students to be creative in how they apply their studies or solutions to the current trends of technological advancements. Indeed, the Sudbury Catalyst Fund is compelling because it also targets advanced manufacturing (NORCAT, 2020), and Sudbury and the surrounding area is probably not in short supply of workers to support this sector. Creating a new product that will suffice new manufacturing capacity, we’ll not only stimulate employment growth, but also diversify our economy with new entrants in venture capital and manufacturing.

In addition, by attracting new VC firms to Sudbury, stimulation for new ventures will likely increase resulting in fresh innovation and economic growth. This should be part of the mandate of key local organizations to attract these firms to Sudbury. Beyond financial services, services as a whole are a great way for Sudbury’s economy to grow because we have fresh grads looking for employment, and this offers a platform in growing their career. By promoting Sudbury as a place for firms to locate both front- and back-office operations it will help the youth employment situation and could be a way for introducing our homeless back into the labor market.

If we turn to the capital projects that are being discussed or planned to take shape in the next years, we see that there are sound benefits. The Kingsway Entertainment District would have some $75 million in total GDP impacts in Sudbury, and could reach direct employment impacts of 495, and up to 850 (PwC, 2017). For Sudbury, these numbers are important because the total GDP impacts in Ontario would reach nearly $4 million with almost $3 million in employment income impacts in Ontario. The increase in income would then support discretionary spending for small businesses and other retailers, restaurants, and leisure goods, to name a few beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Greater Sudbury Convention and Performance Center has some important economic factors. The total GDP impact from this project is estimated to be $29.7 million and more than $21 million in employment income and roughly 265 jobs (CBRE, 2018). Although the municipal taxes would be roughly $830,000, this number could obviously change if a formal agreement and new vision takes shape for the capital project. When assessing the operations aspect of the project per the CBRE report, the employment income would be almost $3.3 million, which will in turn stimulate economic growth through consumer spending on goods mentioned above.

These two projects are revenue generating not only for the city but for the private sector. To cap off the three main projects in focus, the Elgin Greenway has been on the horizon for some time. This project is not revenue generating but helps achieve social impact goals such as making the city climate friendly and furthering the green expansion the city has been a foundation for; beautifying the downtown core; and improving the well-being of residents. The project would have $934,000 in federal and provincial grants with annual operating budget impacts of $67,500, which is 0.01 percent of the $630 million annual operating budget for the City of Greater Sudbury. Part of the Elgin Greenway is the improvement of the Nelson Street bridge with $750,000 requested, and has an amount attached to it of $1.6 million made up of third party, 2022 outlook funding & donations of $1.4 million; infrastructure for the project was approved for $194,000 (City of Greater Sudbury, 2018). Even though this project is not revenue generating, the spending effects will go towards local businesses for the purchasing of materials such as the stonework, trees, plants, and shrubs along with the hiring of local businesses for installation of the project. Those spending effects while they may be small, it increases employment and supports job growth and gives people experience that can help their career and employment search, if they were to find another job.

In sum, the economic prosperity in Sudbury has good foundations and strong support for major projects approved in the last two years and social goals that can support economic opportunity. With government spending in capital projects that will achieve employment growth, consumer spending, and business investment, the economy has the potential to contribute positively to provincial economic growth, the province that is the economic engine of Canada. Focus on mining & mining supply services has its roots in Sudbury and continues to be a recruiter for local job seekers while continued business investment in manufacturing and new technologies are ways for the economy to diversify. Services of all sorts including financial services, will be courses of business investment to support local graduates and grow their operations concurrently. The large-scale capital projects that are poised to improve the well-being of residents and deliver economic prosperity are projects that residents should anticipate in the form they were first approved. For policymakers, even though some doubts have been raised over the course of the last few years, the tenacity of these projects held by residents has seen support that has not been seen in a very long time, and would be momentous to pursue them as such.

The New Prospect

As Canada and Sudbury has grown, we find ourselves at an important point in history: working for the people to solve our current social, fiscal, and economic effectiveness that provides a future of godsend and well-being. The City of Greater Sudbury has seen pushback on issues that are now out of question and form our present opportunity. City planning aspects have not entirely been balanced, but have shaped how we can form our city for the future that will provide our residents with the new prospect. Much inaction has beleaguered our city to perform meaningful growth socially and, on the whole, fiscally, where corrections can help our municipal direction. Forming robust committees that are empowered to make decisions where crucially necessary to advance the social divide that exists in our downtown core, will be fundamental in policy making for future hope. Beyond the decisions that might make use of municipal resources, approving projects and initiatives that are meaningful — both in terms of impact and thoroughness — will serve an important statement to creating a cohesive mandate that can serve as a platform for other municipalities across Ontario and the country, similar to what has already been introduced. Including the private sector in meeting housing requirements for those most at need will not only support social union, but also fiscal and economic importances.

With our fiscal situation intact, we have the capabilities to deliver for the residents of Sudbury the ability on meeting our capital projects. Compared to other municipalities across Ontario, we have a strong financial foundation that will allow the municipality to expand on its current platform of improving the welfare of its residents while creating new opportunities for economic growth. Leading the city with a solid plan to attract new private investment and firms will allow our economy to diversify that will support our youth employment and our educated professionals. Promoting the City of Greater Sudbury as a place to invest with a well-crafted, structured, and measured plan, we can shape new opportunities that will function as a platform for new economic growth. The planned projects in the municipality are an image of what will be sustainable and focus on targeted ways to meet the wants and needs of residents in their current approved form. Working with the private sector, the municipality has the capabilities to reform and improve the bureaucracy that has bogged down project development. The City of Greater Sudbury can make its mark on provincial and national mandates as it has for so many years, now we only have to get down to work and make the effort count.

New Developments

As of late, we have seen that site for the Kingsway Entertainment District been under — by many accounts — hypothetical revisions. At the time of the project’s inception, it would be located where the project bears its name: the Kingsway. As described, this capital project has been fought for it to be placed in the downtown core, and the same two themes keep coming up: lack of parking and unpleasant conditions in the downtown core as a whole, and now there is a consideration on the table for reviewing all options for the site of the event and sports center. Obviously, there are some very serious issues that need to be addressed first, and have been noted in sections one and two of this essay. For every project that has been talked about lately is the parking. It’s a trivial issue but a novel solution is this: build a parking garage. If you can’t go “out” go “up.” It seems as though this has been forgotten. The cost is the cost, but noted with a PPP model, or allowing private entirely to develop it with reasonable fees for parking, this concern can be alleviated. I don’t think we’re in the position of having to charge $25 per hour for parking; demand will suffice for the site’s intended purpose and ample parking spots will support payback from the investment.

Focusing long-term will transition our way of looking at what the current dynamic is now to what will be two to three years in the future. Keep in mind: no capital projects — with exception to the Place des Arts project — have begun; no shovels in the ground have taken place. I didn’t mention the Place des Arts project in the essay because it’s near completion at the time of this writing. I hope the project is self-sustaining and improves the lives of those who take advantage of its proposed benefits, and improves the overall arts and culture segment. By beginning the construction of these prominent capital projects as they were initially approved, it will diminish the apathy of residents towards elected officials, and demonstrate that placing the entertainment zone on its intended site, and the same for The Junction project, will focus long-term growth for the City of Greater Sudbury. Returning to the first section, the task force created seems to have been created for the sake of optics but doesn’t have practical significance. In addition to the proposals above, changing the focus for most of these groups, committees, and the task forces to have more significance, a clear plan, plain direction, set obligations, and targeted & measurable goals, we can a better response to the social, fiscal, and economic uncertainties facing us today.

—

Austin Martin is a Master in Corporate Finance graduate from SDA Bocconi School of Management in Milan, Italy, and previously earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree specialized in Finance with Honors from Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada.

—

References

?“?Ál?Al ‘Home.’” Chief Seattle Club, 2019, chiefseattleclub.org/alalhome.

Beacon Development Group. “Chief Seattle Club | Beacon Dev Group.” Beacon Development Group, 2019, beacondevgroup.com/locations/chief-seattle-club.

Bias, Thomas K., et al. “Exploring Policy-Maker Perceptions of Small City Downtowns in the USA.” Planning Practice & Research, vol. 30, no. 5, 2015, pp. 497–513. Crossref, doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1023074.

Canadian Observatory on Homelessness. “Sudbury | The Homeless Hub.” Homeless Hub, 2016–2019, www.homelesshub.ca/community-profile/sudbury.

Canadian Substance Use Costs and Harms Scientific Working Group. (2020). Canadian substance use costs and harms 2015–2017. Print. 16 January 2021.

City of Barrie. 2019 Consolidated financial statements of The Corporation of the City of Barrie, 2019. Print. 16 January 2021.

City of Greater Sudbury. 2019 consolidated financial statements and Independent Auditors’ Report, 2019. Print. 16 January 2021.

City of Greater Sudbury, City of Greater Sudbury 2018 Capital Budget, 2018. Print. 16 January 2021.

City of Ottawa. “Shenkman Arts Centre | City of Ottawa.” City of Ottawa, 2018, ottawa.ca/en/business/doing-business-city/public-private-partnerships-p3s/shenkman-arts-centre#how-partnership-works.

Cecutti, Tony. pp. 2–49, Facility Rationalization Report.

Gatti, Stefano. Project Finance in Theory and Practice: Designing, Structuring, and Financing Private and Public Projects. Third ed., Academic Press, 2018.

Golden, Hallie. “As Homelessness Rises in Seattle, So Does a Native American Housing Solution.” Bloomberg CityLab, 17 Dec. 2020, www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=a61df840-5bf1-11eb-97ac-9b2c0d57aca3&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAyMC0xMi0xNy9hLWJvbGQtZml4LWZvci1uYXRpdmUtYW1lcmljYW4taG9tZWxlc3NuZXNzP3NyZWY9SWhYRDZyRG0=.

“Grants and Incentives.” Invest Sudbury, 15 Dec. 2020, investsudbury.ca/incentives-and-programs/grants-and-incentives/#Community-Improvement-Plans.

Hindle, Thomas. The Impact of Toronto’s Financial Sector. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2020.

Hohol, Fran, and Rebecca Godfrey. CBRE, 2018, pp. 1–139, Business Plan for Greater Sudbury Convention and Performance Center.

Juric, Sam. “Updating Sudbury’s Aging Nelson Street Bridge Part of Stalled Elgin Street Greenway Project, City Says.” CBC, 2 Sept. 2020, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/sudbury-nelson-street-bridge-elgin-street-greenway-project-1.5708070.

Kelly, John F., et al. “Substance Use Disorder Patients Who Are Mandated to Treatment: Characteristics, Treatment Process, and 1- and 5-Year Outcomes.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, vol. 28, no. 3, 2005, pp. 213–23. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.10.014.

McLean, Jacinda, et al. City of Greater Sudbury Community Development Corporation, 2015, pp. 1–70, A Community Economic Development Strategic Plan: From The Ground Up 2015–2025.

OECD (2020), “Better data and policies to fight homelessness in the OECD”, Police Brief on Affordable Housing, OECD, Paris, http://oe.cd/homelessness-2020. Print. 13 January 2021.

PwC, 2017, pp. 1–98, Proposed Sports and Entertainment C Entre Feasibility and Business Case Assessment.

Rolfe, Kelsey. “How One Ontario City Is Tackling Homelessness and the Opioid Crisis.” TVO.Org, 1 Oct. 2020, www.tvo.org/article/how-one-ontario-city-is-tackling-homelessness-and-the-opioid-crisis.

Rolfe, Nick, et al. KPMG, 2020, pp. 2–192, The City of Greater Sudbury Core Services Review.

“Sudbury Catalyst Fund.” Sudbury Catalyst Fund | NORCAT Innovation, www.norcat.org/innovation/Sudbury-Catalyst-Fund.html.

Statistics Canada. “Census Profile, 2016 Census Sudbury [Population Centre], Ontario and Ontario [Province].” Census Profile, 2016 Census — Sudbury [Population Centre], Ontario and Ontario [Province], Government of Canada, 9 Aug. 2019, www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=0904&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&SearchText=Sudbury&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Labour&TABID=1&type=0

“Understanding Municipal Debt.” Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, www.ontario.ca/document/tools-municipal-budgeting-and-long-term-financial-planning/understanding-municipal-debt.

Woetzel, Jonathan, et al. McKinsey & Company, 2018, pp. 3–144, SMART CITIES: DIGITAL SOLUTIONS FOR A MORE LIVABLE FUTURE.