… · SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE . SERVICES COMMITTEE . R1 Budget Meeting . Wednesday...

SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

R1 Budget Meeting Wednesday January 22, 2014

SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:00 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda

REPORTS

2. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Public Transit [310] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex A Pages 1-7

3. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Fleet [312] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex B pp. 8-10

4. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Ports [345] 2014 Proposed Initiatives Work Plan

Annex C pp. 11-12

5. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Ports [345] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex D pp. 13-15

6. Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery – Regional Solid Waste [350-353] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex E pp. 16-23

7. Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery – Refuse Collection [355] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex F pp. 24-25

8. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex G pp. 26-28

9. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex H pp. 29-31

10. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Regional Water Service [370] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex I pp. 32-41

11. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Waste Water Treatment Plants [381-394] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex J pp. 42-47

12. General Manager, Infrastructure Services, Corporate Energy Manager and Sustainability and Education Coordinator – Corporate Sustainability [135] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal for Corporate Sustainability Report Card and

Annex K pp. 48-49

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Promotion

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R1 Budget Page 2

13. General Manager, Infrastructure Services, Corporate Energy Manager and Sustainability and Education Coordinator – Corporate Sustainability [135] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex L pp. 50-57

14. General Manager, Infrastructure Services and Sustainability and Education Coordinator – Regional Sustainability [136] 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex M pp. 58-60

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services

15. Budgets – Transportation and Facilities Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[310] Public Transit .................................................................................... 79 [312] Maintenance Facility ......................................................................... 82 [345] Ports ................................................................................................ 107 [346] Langdale Dock ................................................................................. 110

16. Budgets – Street Lighting Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[320] Regional Street Lighting .................................................................... 85 [322] Langdale Street Lighting ................................................................... 87 [324] Granthams Street Lighting ................................................................ 89 [326] Veterans Street Lighting ................................................................... 91 [328] Spruce Street Lighting ...................................................................... 93 [330] Woodcreek Street Lighting ................................................................ 95 [332] Fircrest Street Lighting ...................................................................... 97 [334] Hydaway Street Lighting ................................................................... 99 [336] Sunnyside Street Lighting ................................................................ 101 [340] Burns Road Street Lighting .............................................................. 103 [342] Stewart Road Street Lighting ........................................................... 105

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Utility Services Operations Support Technician

17. Budgets – Water and Sewer Pink Tab

Page #

[365] North Pender Harbour Water Services ............................................. 128 [366] South Pender Harbour Water Services ............................................ 132 [370] Regional Water Services (RWS) ...................................................... 136 [376] RWS: New Connections ................................................................. 140 [377] RWS: Mains Replacement .............................................................. 142 [378] RWS: New Construction ................................................................. 144 [381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant ................................................... 146 [382] Woodcreek Park Waste Water Plant ................................................ 148

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R1 Budget Page 3

[383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant ......................................................... 151 [384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant ........................................................ 153 [385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 156 [386] Lee Bay Waste Water Plant ............................................................. 159 [387] Square Bay Waste Water Plant ....................................................... 162 [388] Langdale Waste Water Plant ........................................................... 165 [389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 167 [390] Merrill Crescent Waste Water Plant ................................................. 169 [391] Curran Road Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 171 [392] Roberts Creek Cohousing Treatment Plant ...................................... 173 [393] Lily`s Lake Waste Water Plant ......................................................... 176 [394] Panted Boat Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 178

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

18. Budgets – Solid Waste Pink Tab

Page #

[350] Regional Solid Waste ...................................................................... 112 [351] Pender Harbour Solid Waste ........................................................... 115 [352] Sechelt Solid Waste ......................................................................... 118 [353] Regional Recycling .......................................................................... 121 [355] Refuse Collection ............................................................................. 126

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services

19. Budgets – General Government Services (Sustainability) Light Orange Tab

Page #

[135] Corporate Sustainability Services ..................................................... 39 [136] Regional Sustainability Services ....................................................... 41

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-1-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 310 Transit Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 4, 2013

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – January 22, 2014

FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services

RE: TRANSIT [310] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Services’ report regarding Transit [310] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND

As part of the Base Budget Process, staff are to report potential Budget adjustments to the Board based on Budget Proposals that will allow the Board to make informed decisions regarding funding projects or service enhancements, as well as a way to reduce the budget.

DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $10,000 Reason(s): Management staff vacancies and long term leave. Options (select as appropriate): Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. 5) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)

As per Section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

1

TaraC

Typewritten Text

A

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Corporate & Administrative Services Committee Regarding Budget Proposals Page 2 of 7


2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 1 Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Reconfigure West Sechelt Service (Sept. 2014)

Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

District of Sechelt, Area B

2014 Funding Implications: $6,000 Funding Source(s): Property Tax Future Financial Implications: Full year of costs in 2015 and beyond will add an

additional $12,000 in property tax to Base Budget.

Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes. Consistent with the Integrated Transportation Plan (ITS) that recommends providing more local feeder service.

Staff Capacity: Increase in drivers of 0.15 FTE based on an additional 340 hours annually. (0.05 FTE in 2014)

Last Fee Schedule Review: 2009 Rational / Service Impacts: This project is identified in the Transit Future

Plan as Quick Win #1. The route changes reduce duplication between Route 2 and 4 and improve coverage in West Sechelt. Fare revenue estimates are based on 60% of current ridership on the route to account for time to build ridership.

2 Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Add up to six round trips weekdays to #90 – Sechelt/Langdale Ferry Express (Sept. 2014)

Rating: +2 Enhancement to Existing Service Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Area B, District of Sechelt, Area D, E, F and Islands and Town of Gibsons (Area B and Islands through improved connections only)

2014 Funding Implications: $38,000 Funding Source(s): Property tax Future Financial Implications: Full year of costs in 2015 and beyond will add an

additional $76,000 in property tax to base budget.


Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes. Consistent with the ITS that recommends an increase in service frequency between Sechelt and Langdale to every 30 minutes.

Staff Capacity: Increase in drivers by 1.25 FTEs based on an additional 2,500 hours of service annually. (0.42 FTE in 2014)

2



Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This project is identified as Phase 1 of Service Priority #1 in the Transit Future Plan. The main focus of the Transit Future Plan is to improve the backbone service between Sechelt and Langdale Ferry Terminal. The MOU signed with BC Transit is based on the addition of one low floor bus and increased service hours. Fare revenue estimates are based on 60% of current ridership on the route to account for time to build ridership.


Project / Reduction Limited Service to Botanical Gardens (June 2014)


District of Sechelt

2014 Funding Implications: $0 Funding Source(s): n/a Future Financial Implications: n/a Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes. Consistent with the ITS that recommends providing more local feeder service.

Staff Capacity: No change Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This service improvement is identified as Quick Win #2 in the Transit Future Plan. Some buses that currently operate “not in service” between the Mason Road yard and Trail Bay Mall in Sechelt would operate in service. This service would then become revenue service for the purposes of the agreement with BC Transit. Because the buses are already travelling via the Botanical Gardens to/from the Mason Road yard there is no net cost for this improvement.

3



4 Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Divert Service via Chatelech School (Sept. 2014)


District of Sechelt

2014 Funding Implications: $3,300 Funding Source(s): Property tax Future Financial Implications: Additional $6,700 taxation in 2015 and then part

of base budget Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes. Consistent with the ITS that recommends providing more local feeder service.

Staff Capacity: Increase in drivers by 0.1 FTE’s based on a additional 200 hours of service annually. (0.03 FTEs in 2014)


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This project is identified as Service Priority #3 in the Transit Future Plan. The Transit terminus at Trail Bay Mall is not within easy walking distance to the Chatelech Secondary School and surrounding neighborhood. A change in the #2 West Sechelt routing to use the new road corridor past Chatelech School would provide convenient service. This is consistent with the ITS objective to increase local feeder service. Fare revenue estimates are based on 60% of current ridership on the route to account for time to build ridership.


Project / Reduction New Glass Bus Shelter at Hwy !01 and Davis Bay Road (Eastbound)


District of Sechelt

2014 Funding Implications: $???? Funding Source(s): Prior Year Surplus Future Financial Implications: Nominal impact to annual maintenance costs Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Aligned with We Envision Transportation strategic direction by increasing infrastructure to support transportation diversity and promote alternative transportation modes.

4



Staff Capacity: Impact on building maintenance staff to oversee construction.


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: Identified as eastbound priority #1 location for new bus shelters in the staff report dated January 18, 2012. Materials already purchased and in stock. Budget is required for installation.


Project / Reduction New Log Bus Shelter at St. Mary’s Hospital


Sechelt Indian Government District

2014 Funding Implications: $25,000 Funding Source(s): Property tax Future Financial Implications: Nominal impact to annual maintenance costs Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Aligned with We Envision Transportation strategic direction by increasing infrastructure to support transportation diversity and promote alternative transportation modes.

Staff Capacity: Impact on building maintenance staff to oversee construction.


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: Staff were requested to bring this project forward, however, this location is not identified as a priority shelter location in the staff report dated January 18, 2012, due to low boarding numbers. Cost estimate is based on the same shelter design fronting the Raven Cry Theatre (see attached photo), which is substantially higher than typical shelter designs.

Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 103,000 $ 103,000 $ 103,000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 80,000 $ - $ -

$ 103,000 $ 103,000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000

BuildingOtherClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions Surplus

5



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Reconfigure West Sechelt Service (Sept. 2014) 2. Add up to six round trips weekdays to #90 – Sechelt/Langdale Ferry Express (Sept. 2014) 3. Limited Service to Botanical Gardens (June 2014) 4. Divert Service via Chatelech School (Sept. 2014) 5. New Glass Shelter at Hwy 101 and Davis Bay Road (Eastbound)

6



Example of bus shelter design proposed for St. Mary’s Hospital bus stop location.

7

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-2-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 312 Fleet Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: FLEET [312] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Services’ report regarding Fleet [312] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $0 Reason(s): Options (select as appropriate):

Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


8

TaraC

Typewritten Text

B




Project / Reduction Transit Building Lighting Retrofit

Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure

Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $67,000 w/ potential $16,500 rebate Funding Source(s): Capital reserves Future Financial Implications: No future implications. Short term decrease in

capital reserve balance will be replenished in part through energy savings to meet hoist replacement schedule.


Yes. Strategic Plan: This project addresses Section 2.3 to develop Sustainable Energy Management Plan and business cases for energy efficiency upgrades for all SCRD facilities.

Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP): The identification of energy conservation measures (ECMs) are in alignment with section 3.3 of the CorpEEP. Identifying potential ECMs will also help in the development of energy related projects to be addressed in the future.

We Envision: Relating to the core values of environmental responsibility, the SCRD is committed to protecting “…our culture and the future of our environment by minimizing our consumption of energy, resources and our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.” (We Envision).

Relating to the core values of economic sustainability, the project will support local trades and the labour sector.

Powersmart Partnership with BC Hydro: On March of 2012, the SCRD working in partnership with BC Hydro, committed to the following:

• Doing its part to save energy and create a culture of sustainability

• Adopt the principles of energy efficiency into the organization’s ongoing business practices

• Upgrade its existing facilities with energy conservation measures.

9



Staff Capacity: Corporate Energy Manager to manage project. Work carried out by contractor.


2012

Rational / Service Impacts: The lighting technology that currently exists within the Transit Building is energy inefficient and nearly obsolete. The current system incurs annual maintenance costs that could be avoided if replaced with new technology. With utility rates increasing 28% over the next five years, the project would offer a simple payback of 4.6 years and a 10 year IRR of 17%. Savings from reduced electricity costs will be contributed back towards the capital reserve in order to build it back up to the appropriate amount for its intended purpose – to fund future hoists replacements.

Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (or longer, if applicable)(use table illustrating capital contributions and expenditures, if available)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 72,000 $ 21,500 $ 36,500 $ 51,500 $ 21,500 $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000

-$ 50,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 45,000 $ -

$ 21,500 $ 36,500 $ 51,500 $ 21,500 $ 36,500



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Transit Building Lighting Retrofit

10

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-3-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 345 Ports Cover Report.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: PORTS [345] – 2014 PROPOSED INITIATIVES WORK PLAN

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager of Infrastructure Services’ report regarding Ports [345] – 2014 Proposed Initiatives Work Plan be received for information;

AND THAT the 2013 West Bay Dock Stringer and Decking Replacement project and associated funding be included in the 2014 Provisional Budget.

BACKGROUND

Following pre-budget discussions, the Board adopted the following resolution at its November 28, 2013, regular meeting:

536/13 Recommendation No. 6 Ports Processes and Funding

THAT a Special Infrastructure Services Committee Meeting be arranged in December to discuss current Ports work plan, processes and future options, including funding for 2013 and funding available for 2014 and how it will be utilized;

AND THAT the Ports [345] 2013 Current Year Departmental Work Plan, 2014 Proposed Initiatives and Carry-forward Request Report be deferred for discussion to the December Special Infrastructure Services Committee Meeting.

A Special Infrastructure Services Committee meeting was held on December 10, 2013, leading to the following budget related recommendations (to be considered for adoption by the Board at the January 9, 2013 regular Board meeting):

Recommendation No. 2 Ports Priorities for 2014

The Infrastructure Services Committee recommended that the carry forwards and new arising priorities based on safety issues be reviewed for priority and applicability and brought back to a future budget meeting;

AND THAT the West Bay float project be carried forward to 2014.

11

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

C

Staff Report to Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding Ports [345] – 2014 Proposed Initiatives Work Plan Page 2 of 2

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-3-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 345 Ports Cover Report.doc

Recommendation No. 3 Ports Operating Budget

The Infrastructure Services Committee recommended that the SCRD maintain existing ports operating budget and increase capital funding from reserves up to a maximum of $47,000 for 2014.

DISCUSSION

The 2014 Proposed Initiatives work plan presented at the pre-budget meetings included five 2013 carry forward projects, valued at $70,000, and four new projects valued at $85,000. Of the 2013 projects, the Board has already approved the $35,000 West Bay Float budget to be carried forward to 2014 as the project is currently progress. As directed by the Board, the remaining projects have been reviewed and re-prioritized using safety and asset integrity as the primary criteria.

The attached 2014 Proposed Initiatives work plan provides a summary of the recommended capital maintenance projects for 2014 Round 1 budget consideration, including:

2013 Carry Forward Project West Bay Stringer/Decking replacement $18,000

2014 New Projects West Bay Bearing Pile Replacement $10,000 Keats Landing Bearing Pile Replacement $10,000

The West Bay Stringer/Decking replacement project was not identified in the 2013 Work Plan but was initiated on an emergency basis when routine pressure washing maintenance uncovered significant structural deficiencies that needed urgent repair. A purchase order for this work has been issued, however, the work will not be completed by the end of fiscal 2013 and the funding needs to be carried forward to 2014.

The New Projects are based on the engineering assessments that are carried out on each dock on a five year rotation and are considered critical to maintaining the continuous and safe operation of the docks. Details of each project are presented in the Ports budget proposal report.

Fiscal Implications

The West Bay Stringer/Decking replacement project is funded through the 2013 capital budget and will not require additional funding in 2014.

The total budget required to carry out the two new projects is $20,000, which is within the $47,000 target set at the Special Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. The $47,000 is based on the reserve balance of $247,000 that was previously presented to Committee, to ensure that the capital reserve balance did not fall below the $200,000 policy limit.

12

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-4-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 345 Ports.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: PORTS [345] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Services’ report regarding Ports [345] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $30,000 Reason(s): Surplus resulting primarily from staff vacancies and long term leave (Transit and Ports Manager, Transportation and Facilities Manager (one month). $6,500 also budgeted annually but only expended every other year for major engineering assessments. Options (select as appropriate):

Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. 1) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


13

TaraC

Typewritten Text

D

TaraC

Typewritten Text



2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 1 Proposed Enhancement / Project

/ Reduction Routine Maintenance Increase to Offset Building Maintenance Allocations



All docks

2014 Funding Implications: $13,000 Funding Source(s): Prior Year Surplus Future Financial Implications: None. One time expenditure. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

No.

Staff Capacity: No impact to existing staff capacity. Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

Discussions during 2012 budget considered public user fees but that option was not pursued.

Rational / Service Impacts: Dock routine maintenance is carried out primarily by Building Maintenance staff. The Building Maintenance budget is allocated to the various departments based on prior year usage, which will result in an increase of $13,000 to the Ports function in 2014 as more routine maintenance work was carried out in 2013 versus 2012.

2 Proposed Enhancement / Project

/ Reduction West Bay bearing pile replacement



F Islands

2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 Funding Source(s): Capital reserve Future Financial Implications: None except through capital asset maintenance

plan. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes through the maintenance of capital assets which contributes to financial sustainability by reducing the likelihood of major unforeseen repairs. This project is also consistent with the Ports capital maintenance plan.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff in place for contract management and oversee contractor installation.



Rational / Service Impacts: This replacement was identified through scheduled major inspections.

14



3 Proposed Enhancement / Project

/ Reduction Keats Landing bearing pile replacement



F Islands

2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 Funding Source(s): Capital reserve Future Financial Implications: None except through capital asset maintenance

plan. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes through the maintenance of capital assets which contributes to financial sustainability by reducing the likelihood of major unforeseen repairs. This project is also consistent with the Ports capital maintenance plan.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff in place for contract management and oversee contractor installation.



Rational / Service Impacts: This replacement was identified through scheduled major inspections.


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 279,000 $259,000 $182,000 $ 99,000 $ 14,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 20,000 -$ 77,000 -$ 83,000 -$ 85,000 -$ 85,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 259,000 $182,000 $ 99,000 $ 14,000 -$ 71,000



Note: Additional funding will be required starting in 2015 to maintain the capital reserve above the $200,000 minimum set by Board policy. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Routine maintenance increase to offset building maintenance allocations 2. West Bay bearing pile replacement 3. Keats Landing bearing pile replacement

15

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-5-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 350-353 Solid Waste FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: January 13, 2014

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee - January 22, 2014

FROM: Jeremy Valeriote, Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

RE: REGIONAL SOLID WASTE [350-353] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery’s report regarding Regional Solid Waste [350-353] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) Deficit position report will be on February

ISC agenda for both landfills (tipping fee funded functions) and regional solid waste and recycling (tax funded functions)

Reason(s): Landfills Deficit is expected at landfills due to lower than budgeted revenues. Regional Solid Waste and Recycling Lower than budgeted expenditures due primarily to staff vacancies (2 months Manager, 4 months Zero Waste Coordinator). Options (select as appropriate):



16

TaraC

Typewritten Text

E

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Project / Reduction Installation of guardrails and curbs at Sechelt landfill drop-off bins

Rating: MANDATORY - Safety Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $30,000 Funding Source(s): Tipping Fees Future Financial Implications: One-time maintenance cost item Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

No

Staff Capacity: Minimal staff resources required Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

Tip fee for residual waste increased Sep 16, 2013 from $125 to $150 per tonne.

Rationale / Service Impacts: Risk assessment survey for insurance provider identified guardrails as safety risk for users or vehicles on raised ramps accessing drop-off bins at landfill.


Project / Reduction Landfill Monitoring – Equipment and Lab Analysis

Rating: MANDATORY - Regulatory Compliance Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Regional (all areas)

2014 Funding Implications: $25,000 Funding Source(s): Tipping Fees Future Financial Implications: $25,000 annually funded from tipping fees Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Additional sampling parameters are required under the new Sechelt Landfill Operating Certificate as approved by the Ministry of Environment. Project supports the core value of Environmental Responsibility identified in We Envision by ensuring landfill operations are monitored for environmental impacts.

Staff Capacity: Minor increase in demands on existing staff time required to complete additional sampling as required by MoE.



Rational / Service Impacts: MoE has increased the number of expensive Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) analyses required. Sechelt Landfill’s new Operational Certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment requires SCRD to conduct quarterly sampling for these parameters.

17




Project / Reduction Wood Waste Processing


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $30,000 (estimated) Funding Source(s): Tipping Fees Future Financial Implications: $30,000 annually funded from tipping fees Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with Zero Waste initiatives, the process would add chipped wood waste as a carbon source for reclamation soil mix, instead of being used for boiler fuel.

Staff Capacity: Minor impacts on staff time – contract management and site coordination


Last tip fee increase for wood waste was 2009 ($135 to $140/tonne). An increase in tipping fees for wood waste is not justified based on processing cost or fee comparison.

Rational / Service Impacts: Risk assessment survey for insurance provider identified the clean wood waste stockpile as safety risk for landfill users. Responses to an October 2013 RFP for wood waste processing yielded prices for clean wood waste much higher than previously seen, due mostly to HSPP’s increasingly stringent specifications for wood waste used as boiler fuel. A shift to composting clean wood waste for reclamation soil mix is both environmentally and economically the best proposed option. Some of the additional cost can be mitigated by using a portion of chipped wood waste at the landfill site as cover material, however a tipping fee increase may also be required. Wood waste and green waste have previously been a combined budget line item; these two streams will be separated to clarify any required increase to the clean wood waste tipping fee to cover the processing cost increases.

18




Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Detailed Design

Rating: MANDATORY - Regulatory Compliance Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Area A

2014 Funding Implications: $50,000 Funding Source(s): Closure Reserve Future Financial Implications: n/a Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes

Staff Capacity: Moderate impacts on staff time for consultant liaison

Last Fee Schedule Review: n/a Rational / Service Impacts: A preliminary closure plan including engineering

cost estimates will be delivered by the SCRD’s landfill engineering consultant in January 2014. The detailed design phase will proceed in 2014, with closure construction in 2015 (MOE only stipulates ceasing discharge to the landfill by the end of 2014). Previous financial plans budgeted $670,000 for closure and $330,000 for transfer station; these figures will be updated.


Project / Reduction Pender Harbour Transfer Station Installation


Area A

2014 Funding Implications: To be brought to Round 2 Funding Source(s): Debt (Tipping Fees) Future Financial Implications: To be determined - awaiting consultant report Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes - identified in Solid Waste Management Plan.

Staff Capacity: High impacts on staff time for design, tender, contract management and construction liaison



Rational / Service Impacts: Preliminary engineering cost estimates for transfer station will be delivered by the SCRD’s landfill engineering consultant in January 2014. Previous financial plans budgeted $330,000 for transfer station; these figures will be updated.

19




Project / Reduction Recycling Depot Collection Services


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $380,000 (base budget for operating contracts) Funding Source(s): Taxation/Stewardship Program Revenue Future Financial Implications: To be determined depending on selected

enhanced resource recovery services Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes – identified in Solid Waste Management Plan

Staff Capacity: High impacts on staff time for service parameter definition, budgeting and contract management

Last Fee Schedule Review: n/a Rational / Service Impacts: Existing taxation revenue and expected revenue

from stewardship programs (primarily MMBC) will cover the base costs of recycling collection depots. Enhanced resource recovery services will be added on a cost-benefit basis in consultation with contractors and the Board.


Project / Reduction Curbside Recycling Collection Services

Rating: +3 Expansion of Existing Service Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Areas B and D

2014 Funding Implications: Approximately $130,000 in annual contracts - detailed funding estimate will be brought to Round 2

Funding Source(s): Stewardship Revenue/User Fees Future Financial Implications: To be determined Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes – identified in Solid Waste Management Plan

Staff Capacity: High impacts on staff time for tender, implementation, and contract management


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: Expressions of interest for curbside recycling in Areas B and D will be received in February 2014. A financial analysis of the impacts of establishing the service will be brought to ISC.

20




Project / Reduction Refuse Collection [355] Fee Increase


Areas B, D, E, F

2014 Funding Implications: Approximately $65,000 in increased disposal costs added to base budget

Funding Source(s): User Fees/Operating Reserve Future Financial Implications: 5% annual increase Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Financial Sustainability

Staff Capacity: Minor Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

2013

Rational / Service Impacts: The financial plan call for a 5% increase reviewed on an annual basis. Landfill tipping fees were increased by 20% in September 2013, requiring an additional $65,000 for residential waste disposal.


Project / Reduction Bear Aware/Wildsafe BC Program Funding


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $2,500 Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: $2,500 annually Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

No

Staff Capacity: Low impact on staff time for application and coordination


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: The Wildsafe BC coordinator presented the 2013 report to ISC in December; the Board resolved that the $2,500 Bear Aware funding request for 2014 be referred to Round 1 of the budget.

21



Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (Landfill Closure Reserves)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

$ 600,000 $ 740,000 $ 270,000 $ 520,000 $ 770,000 $ 190,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 50,000 -$ 670,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 740,000 $ 270,000 $ 520,000 $ 770,000 $ 1,020,000



The closure reserve plan above assumes reserve contributions are capped at $250,000 per year (contingent on achieving waste diversion targets and extending life of Sechelt Landfill to 2031). Actual costs of closure work may vary. Additional closure work anticipated in the year 2022 and beyond. Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (Regional Solid Waste [Taxation Function] Operating Reserve)


$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2013 Surplus

The operating reserve plan above assumes no further surplus contributions. Five-Year Landfill [Tipping Fee Function] Operating Reserve Plan


$ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2013 Surplus

The operating reserve plan above assumes no surplus contributions are available based on existing cost pressures.

22



Five-Year Zero Waste Initiatives [Eco-fee Function] Operating Reserve


$ 200,000 $ 185,000 $ 200,500 $ 212,000 $ 219,500 $ 56,000 $ 52,000 $ 48,000 $ 44,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

-$ 71,000 -$ 36,500 -$ 36,500 -$ 36,500 -$ 36,500 $ 185,000 $ 200,500 $ 212,000 $ 219,500 $ 223,000


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions

The Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve is funded from the $5 per tonne eco-fee charged on municipal solid waste received at landfills. The plan above reflects the approved use of $36,000 towards the Zero Waste Coordinator’s wages in 2014 and approximately $36,500 in future years per the approved funding formula for this position, in addition to $35,000 approved for Resource Recovery Centre detailed design carried forward from 2013. The decline in annual contributions to the reserve reflects the anticipated drop in municipal solid waste tonnages received at landfills as new diversion programs are implemented. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): BP #1 – Safety guardrails and berms at Sechelt drop-off bins BP #2 – Equipment and Lab Analysis for landfill monitoring BP #3 – Increased Wood Waste processing costs BP #4 – Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Detailed Design BP #5 – Pender Harbour Transfer Station Installation BP #6 – Recycling Depot Collection Services BP #7 – Curbside Recycling Collection Services BP #8 – Refuse Collection Fee Increase BP #9 – Wildsafe BC Program Funding

23

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-6-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 355 Refuse Collection.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Jeremy Valeriote, Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery Brad Wing, Accounting Technician III RE: REFUSE COLLECTION [355] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery’s report regarding Refuse Collection [355] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $25,000 Reason(s): Budgeted contribution to operating reserves reduced to balance budget. Options (select as appropriate):



24

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

F

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text


N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-6-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 355 Refuse Collection.docx


Project / Reduction $65,000 increase to net operating base budget for refuse disposal costs (line item 01-2-355-316).


Refuse Collection Service Area - Electoral Areas B, D, E and F

2014 Funding Implications: $65,000 Funding Source(s): User rates, operating reserve Future Financial Implications: Permanent base budget increase Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with section 4.6 of the Financial Sustainability Policy which states that the cost of existing services at existing service levels must be recognized.

Staff Capacity: N/A Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

Report to Infrastructure Services Committee on January 9, 2014 recommended a 5% rate increase for 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: The base budget for refuse disposal costs was last increased in 2011; actual values have been higher than budgeted since that time. An increase of $65,000 (35%) is required to offset landfill tipping fee increases totaling $40 per tonne (36%) implemented in 2012 and 2013.

Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (or longer, if applicable)(use table illustrating contributions and withdrawals, if available)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 53,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 7,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000 $ 71,000

OtherClosing Balance in Reserve


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): BP#1 - $65,000 increase to net operating base budget for refuse disposal costs (line item 01-2-355-316).

25

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-7-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 365 North Pender Harbour Water Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager, Utility Services Bobby Rebner, Operations Support Technician RE: NORTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [365] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Service’s report regarding North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $24,000 Reason(s): Lower than anticipated debt payments; nominally lower than anticipated O&M expenses Options (select as appropriate):

X Transfer to Reserves (Operating) Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


26

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

G

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Project / Reduction Potts Lane Waterline Replacement


Area A

2014 Funding Implications: $40,000 Funding Source(s): $22,653 – Appropriate Surplus

$17,347 – Deferred Revenue (unallocated) Future Financial Implications: No future financial implications Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.10 of the SCRD’s Financial Sustainability Policy – Capital Maintenance and Replacement which states that, ‘A plan must be implemented to keep the infrastructure in a proper state of repair to avoid costly failures’.

Staff Capacity: Project to be administered by SCRD staff; some contract work


The last fee schedule review was presented to the Board on the December 5, 2013 ISC report titled: ‘North Pender Harbour Rate Bylaw Amendment‘. The result was an approved annual user rate and parcel tax rate of 7.0% for 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: Capital asset replacement of a 2” PVC waterline located on Potts Lane in Garden Bay. This problematic waterline has experienced approximately 7-10 ruptures over the last 2 years and requires immediate replacement to avoid costly O&M costs in future years.

The North Pender Harbour Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan, currently in development, includes a detailed cash flow projection table that has been updated to reflect current reserve levels and future reserve requirements and contributions. The tables below are based on the most current cash flow and reserve projections for the next five years as proposed in the draft Ten Year Waterworks Plan for North Pender Harbour. Assumptions involving future proposed rate increases, inflationary pressures, debt repayment and system growth are built into the values projected below.

27



Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 128,000 $ 86,100 $ 116,100 $ 131,100 $ 131,100 $ 60,000 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ 5,000 -$ 101,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 86,100 $ 116,100 $ 131,100 $ 131,100 $ 136,100

Universal Metering (2013 CF)Closing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 102,004 $ 71,004 $ 106,004 $ 141,004 $ 176,004 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 24,000 -$ 90,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 71,004 $ 106,004 $ 141,004 $ 176,004 $ 216,004

Universal Metering (2013 CF)Closing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions2013 Surplus

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Potts Lane Waterline Replacement

28

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-8-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 366 South Pender Harbour Water Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager, Utility Services Bobby Rebner, Operations Support Technician RE: SOUTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [366] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Service’s report regarding South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $95,000 Reason(s): Delay of the commissioning of the SPH Water Treatment Plant resulted in lower than anticipated spending related to O&M of system, debt payments, and salaries and wages. Options (select as appropriate):

X Transfer to Reserves (Capital) Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


29

TaraC

Typewritten Text

H

TaraC

Typewritten Text



2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 1 Proposed Enhancement / Project /

Reduction McNeil Lake Dam – Stability Improvement Project


Area A

2014 Funding Implications: $95,000 Funding Source(s): Operating Reserves Future Financial Implications: No future financial implications Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.10 of the SCRD’s Financial Sustainability Policy – Capital Maintenance and Replacement which states that, ‘A plan must be implemented to keep the infrastructure in a proper state of repair to avoid costly failures’.

Staff Capacity: Staff to oversee engineering design and construction operations by 3rd party consultants and contractor(s).


The last fee schedule review was presented to the Board on the December 5, 2013 ISC report titled: ‘South Pender Harbour Rate Bylaw Amendment‘.

The result was an approved annual user rate and parcel tax rate of 7.0% for 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: In July 2013, the SCRD retained Tetra Tech Inc. to perform a detailed stability analysis of McNeil Lake Dam in accordance with the requirements of the British Columbia Dam Safety Regulation and the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) guidelines.

The purpose of this study was to analyze whether required stability criteria were being met and if instabilities were confirmed, to recommend the necessary restoring forces that would be required to meet the CDA criteria.

The results of the engineering assessment performed in this study were that the main buttresses and the wing wall of the dam did not meet the required criteria under flood and seismic load conditions and require a retrofit.

Remediation measures to meet the required stability conditions involve the installation of steel tie-down anchors installed through the dam into the foundation rock. Site mobilization, construction and detailed engineering design work has been estimated at $95,000 based on the analysis provided by consulting engineers, Tetra Tech.

The South Pender Harbour Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan, currently in development, includes a detailed cash flow projection table that has been updated to reflect current reserve levels and future reserve requirements and contributions.

30



The tables below are based on the most current cash flow and reserve projections for the next five years as proposed in the draft Ten Year Waterworks Plan for South Pender Harbour. Assumptions involving future proposed rate increases, inflationary pressures, debt repayment and system growth are built into the values projected below. Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan


$ 188,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 95,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 130,000 $ - $ - $ - -$ 48,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000

Universal Metering (2013 CF)McNeil Lake Dam Upgrades (2013 CF)Closing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve 2013 Surplus

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. McNeil Lake Dam – Stability Improvement Project


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 571,524 $ 551,524 $ 566,524 $ 566,524 $ 531,524 $ 75,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - -$ 95,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 35,000 -$ 45,000

$ 551,524 $ 566,524 $ 566,524 $ 531,524 $ 486,524 Closing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve

McNeil Lake Dam Stability Upgrades (BP#1)Contributions

Transfer from Operating

31

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-9-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 370 Regional Water Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager, Utility Services Bobby Rebner, Operations Support Technician RE: REGIONAL WATER SERVICE [370] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Service’s report regarding Regional Water Service [370] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $150,000 (Capital)

$350,000 (Operating) Reason(s): The operating surplus is mainly due to lower than budgeted salaries and wages associated with delays in filling vacant positions and hiring new staff. The capital surplus is due to nominally lower than budgeted expenses related to various capital programs. Options (select as appropriate):

X Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


32

TaraC

Typewritten Text

I

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Project / Reduction Meter Installations


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $100,000 Funding Source(s): Parcel Taxes (existing) Future Financial Implications: $100,000 annually as a base budget item Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes. This project relates to Objective 4.3.4 in the Strategic Plan: ‘To continue to install metering in the regional water system with the rural areas being the priority areas’.

It is consistent with the SCRD’s strategic direction of Water Stewardship in ‘We Envision’ by working towards implementing a universal water metering and user-pay structure in all water systems.

Staff Capacity: This program is maintained as a part of base operations by internal staff.


The last fee schedule review was presented to the Board on the December 5, 2013 ISC report titled: ‘Regional Water Service Plan – Business Plan and Rates Development ‘.

Result was an approved annual user rate increase of 7.63%, parcel tax increase of 2.04% and an ICI meter rate increase of 18.76%.

Rational / Service Impacts: This annual program provides for the installation of water meters on new water service connections and on existing water service connections when a cost effective opportunity (service locates, repairs, etc) exists during the course of normal operation.

The proposal to include this as a base budget item is based on its inclusion in the budget since 2005. Staff recommend that this be officially adopted as an annual program similar to the hydrant installation program, water main replacement program and the minor capital upgrade program which are included in the base budget.

No additional rate increases are required to fund this program as it has historically been funded by existing parcel taxes through a transfer to the

33



Regional Water Service function 378 (Capital – New Construction).

As identified by the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, the entire Regional Water Service Area (RWSA) will eventually be outfitted with water meters. Although funding options/source(s) for this upcoming initiative are currently undecided, it is anticipated that once water meters have been installed in the entire RWSA, the scope and annual cost of a meter installation program may change.


Project / Reduction Regional Water DCC Review


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $30,000 Funding Source(s): User Fees (existing) Future Financial Implications: No future financial implications Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes. This project as presented relates to Section 4.1 of the Strategic Plan. It contributes to both finalizing the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan (CRWP) and forms an important part of the development of a business plan and updated revenue structure for the Regional Water service area.

Staff Capacity: Can manage within existing staffing levels. 3rd party consultant and GM to coordinate




Rational / Service Impacts: The final stage of the CRWP process that reviews and updates the Regional Water Service Area Development Cost Charge structure and rates based on the growth related component of the 25 year capital improvement program, in accordance with the Provincial best practices. The project includes a public process that will involve the development community.

34




Pump Station Energy Optimization Study


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $30,000 Funding Source(s): $15,000 – User Fees (existing)

$15,000 – BC Hydro Rebate Future Financial Implications: Upon completion of the study, recommendations

for improving mechanical equipment energy efficiency will result.


Yes. This study addresses Section 2.3 of the Strategic Plan: To have established the methods for data tracking the organization’s energy and emissions.

The identification of energy conservation measures (ECMs) are in alignment with section 5.3 of the Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) which calls for water system audits to be conducted.

This project relates to the core values of Environmental Responsibility in the ‘We Envision’ document by, “...protect(ing) our culture and the future of our environment by minimizing our consumption of energy, resources and our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.

As a Powersmart Partner (BC Hydro), the SCRD has made an Energy Conservation Pledge and committed to the following:




Staff Capacity: 3rd party consultant study; Corporate Energy Manager to act as project manager; some coordination with internal SCADA technician, water technician(s) and IT department.



Result was an approved annual user rate

35



increase of 7.63%, parcel tax increase of 2.04% and an ICI meter rate increase of 18.76%.

Rational / Service Impacts: This energy study will look to identify ECMs at existing pump stations that consume more than 50,000 kWh annually.

The study will look to make ECM recommendations in all aspects of pump station operations including soft-start capabilities, pump right sizing, and the frequency and duration of pump operation. Included in the recommendations from this comprehensive study will be costing and payback calculations to implement the ECMs recommended.

By identifying energy saving opportunities and implementing future projects related to this study, the SCRD will reduce the organization’s total demand for electrical resources and mitigate energy costs in future years.

BC Hydro offers financial incentives that support studies that identify ECMs and reduce an organization’s demand for electrical resources. Upon application approval, 50% of the costs will be covered by BC Hydro.

In addition, future projects related to ECMs identified in this study may be eligible for further financial rebates offered by BC Hydro.

36




Chapman Lake Intake Zone Access Control – SARP Initiative


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $20,000 Funding Source(s): Parcel Taxes (existing) Future Financial Implications: No future financial implications Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project relates to Section 4.4 of the Strategic Plan in that it an action item contained the Source Assessment Response Plan (SARP) submitted to the Province.

Staff Capacity: Can manage within existing staffing levels; contractor to install fencing.




Rational / Service Impacts: The Chapman Creek Source Assessment Response Plan (SARP) identified human access to the Chapman Creek intake and access points as a potential high risk to water quality and intake integrity.

The SARP recommends installing security fencing at or near the intake (Zone 10) to restrict human access and reduce the risk of vandalism and/or pathogenic contamination of the drinking water source.

This proposed initiative is part of a multi-staged response plan to address intake and assessment area vulnerability in the Chapman Creek Watershed.

37




Chapman Treatment Plant Lighting Retrofit


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $45,000 Funding Source(s): $33,500 Parcel Taxes (existing)

$11,500 BC Hydro Rebate Future Financial Implications: Utility rates are expected to increase. By

reducing energy consumed at this facility, the SCRD will not only save money on the energy reductions achieved, but will also avoid potential costs associated with increasing utility rates.

With utility rates increasing 28% over the next five years, the project would offer a simple payback of 3.1 years, a 5-year IRR of 18% and a 10 year IRR of 29%.


Yes. This study addresses Section 2.3 of the Strategic Plan: To develop a Sustainable Energy Management Plan and business cases for energy efficiency upgrades for all SCRD facilities. The identification of energy conservation measures (ECMs) are in alignment with section 5.3 of the Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) which calls for water system audits to be conducted.

This project relates to the core values of Environmental Responsibility in the ‘We Envision’ document by, “...protect(ing) our culture and the future of our environment by minimizing our consumption of energy, resources and our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.

As a Powersmart Partner (BC Hydro), the SCRD has made an Energy Conservation Pledge and committed to the following:




38



Staff Capacity: No extra staffing required. 3rd party contractor to complete hardware replacement; Corporate Energy Manager as project lead; Senior Water Technician to coordinate w/ contractor.




Rational / Service Impacts: The lighting technology that currently exists within the Chapman Water Treatment Plant is energy inefficient, and offers a short life cycle. The current system incurs annual O&M costs that could be substantially reduced if replaced with new technology.

Best practice supports the replacement of current lighting with LED lighting technology solutions. The longevity of new technology would reduce the amount of maintenance required and both reduce energy consumption and increase light output, making each space brighter and more conducive to occupy. Furthermore, the installation of a more reliable system would also ensure a safer environment for users that may currently experience poor lighting conditions due to frequently failing lamps.

39




Vehicle Replacement of Unit #389

Rating: MANDATORY - Imminent Asset Failure Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $35,000 Funding Source(s): Capital Reserves Future Financial Implications: No material future financial implications;

replacement of existing fleet and service costs Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

No. Consistent with Section 4.10.1 of the Financial Sustainability Policy in that it directly relates to the maintenance and replacement of existing assets.

Staff Capacity: N/A




Rational / Service Impacts: The SCRD Fleet Maintenance Supervisor has recommended the replacement of the following unit with a pickup or sport utility vehicle:

• #389 – 2003 Ford Ranger 4x4 (Gas)

The vehicle was scheduled for replacement in 2011 but was in reasonable condition and the service life was extended for two years.

The updated Comprehensive Regional Water Plan identifies revenue requirements to fund rehabilitation and capital upgrades/replacement over the next 25 years. The majority of future rehabilitation expenses will be funded from capital reserves and long term debt, although presently the funding sources and timing of capital projects are still under review.

Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 1,683,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127 $ 1,798,127

2013 SurplusVehicle Replacement (BP#6)Closing Balance in Reserve


40



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Meter Installations 2. Regional Water DCC Review 3. Pump Station Energy Optimization Study 4. Chapman Lake Intake Zone Access Control – SARP Initiative 5. Chapman Treatment Plant Lighting Retrofit 6. Vehicle Replacement of Unit #389

Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 630,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000 $ 980,000

2013 SurplusClosing Balance in Reserve


41

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-10-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 381-394 WWTP Budget Proposal FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager, Utility Services Bobby Rebner, Operations Support Technician

RE: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS [381-394] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report regarding Waste Water Treatment Plants, [381-394] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) Greaves Rd [381] - $1,000

Woodcreek Park [382] - $11,000 Sunnyside [383] - $1,000 Jolly Roger [384] - $2,000 Secret Cove [385] - $2,200 Lee Bay [386] - $13,000 Square Bay [387] – ($2,000) Langdale [388] - $1,000 Canoe Rd [389] - $800 Merrill Crescent [390] - $2,200 Curran Rd [391] - $7,500 Roberts Creek Cohousing [392] – ($1,900) Lilly’s Lake [393] - $1,500 Painted Boat [394] - $6,500

Reason(s): Square Bay incurred higher than anticipated operating expenses related to repairs and maintenance on its marine outfall. Roberts Creek Co-housing is expected to be in deficit due to increased expenses related to hydro and salaries and wages. Waste Water Treatment facilities in surplus were mainly due to lower than anticipated spending on wages and O&M expenses.

42

TaraC

Typewritten Text

J

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Options (select as appropriate): X Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)

As per Section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy. 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER)


[388] Langdale Waste Water Treatment Plant – Connection to Camp Elphinstone (YMCA) System

Rating: MANDATORY - Imminent Asset Failure Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Area F

2014 Funding Implications: $20,000 Funding Source(s): Operating Reserves Future Financial Implications: Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.10.1 of the Financial Sustainability Policy in that it directly relates to the maintenance and replacement of existing assets.

Staff Capacity: Project to be administered by SCRD staff; contracted engineering and contracted services.


Last annual rate review was done in 2013. Last rate increase was in 2004 when user rates were increased from $405 to $450 per user.

Rational / Service Impacts: Due to aging infrastructure and concerns with a gradually failing dispersal field, SCRD staff have been in discussions with existing Langdale WWTP customers and the YMCA Camp to transfer existing Langdale WWTP customers’ sewage flow to the new YMCA Treatment Plant located in the area. Currently, staff are in the process of drafting a business plan and finalizing an agreement with both parties that will detail all financial and logistical considerations involved with the merger of the two systems. Costs associated with the construction component of connecting the two facilities has been estimated at $20,000. This estimate includes all costs associated with materials (piping), contracts, engineering, and SCRD staff labour.

43




[384]/[385] Jolly Roger/Secret Cove Waste Water Treatment Plant – Outfall Re-Anchoring

Rating: MANDATORY - Imminent Asset Failure


Area B

2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 Funding Source(s): $5,000 – Capital Reserves (Jolly Roger)

$5,000 – Capital Reserves (Secret Cove) Future Financial Implications: $10,000 annual capital replacement program until full

length of outfall has been re-anchored (approximately 3-5 years)


This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.10.1 of the Financial Sustainability Policy in that it directly relates to the maintenance and replacement of existing assets.

Staff Capacity: 3rd party diving contractors to perform re-anchoring; Utilities Superintendent to manage project


Last annual rate review was done in 2013. Last rate adjustment for [384] Jolly Roger was in 2005 when annual frontage charges were reduced from $100 to $20. Secret Cove [385] has not seen a rate change since 1999.

Rational / Service Impacts: The Jolly Roger Waste Water Treatment Plant and Secret Cove Waste Water Treatment Plant currently share an 800 meter submarine ocean outfall to disperse treated effluent from the respective waste water treatment plants. In both April and August of 2013, emergency repairs were made to the outfall pipe network to re-anchor concrete ballast weights that had failed. In October/November of 2013 a large scale 320 meter section of the outfall was replaced. During the repair work done this year, Pelagic Technologies identified multiple areas of the marine outfall that require re-anchoring. Given the recent history of repairs and likelihood of future infrastructure failures, it is being recommended that a proactive annual marine outfall re-anchoring program be implemented to replace the anchoring for the remaining 400m of piping. The proposed amount of $10,000 will fund the re-anchoring of approximately 100 meters of pipe annually.

44




[391] Curran Rd Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating Budget



Area B

2014 Funding Implications: None Funding Source(s): N/A Future Financial Implications: $3,100 increase to net operating budget (offset by a

$3,100 reduction to planned contributions to reserves) Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Although this proposal is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan it does relate to Section 4.6 of the Financial Sustainability Policy by recognizing the rising cost of existing services.


Last annual rate review was done in 2013. Curran Rd Waste Water Treatment Plant has not seen rate increases in over 10 years.

Rational / Service Impacts: Due to a recent expansion of the waste water facilities at Curran Rd, electricity expenses are estimated at doubling in 2014. Combined with a 9.0% BC Hydro rate increase next year it is being recommended that the net operating budget be increased to fund the rising costs of this and other uncontrollable NOB expense accounts. To offset this increase in net operating expenses, a reduction to the budgeted contributions to reserves in 2014 is being recommended.

4 Proposed Enhancement / Project /

Reduction [392] Roberts Creek Co-Housing Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating Budget



Area D

2014 Funding Implications: None Funding Source(s): N/A Future Financial Implications: $347 increase to the net operating budget. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?



Last annual rate review was presented at the December 5, 2013 ISC meeting; result was Board Resolution (578/13 No.11): AND THAT the Sewage Treatment Facilities Bylaw

45



428, Schedule “C” be amended to increase the user charges for Lillies Lake Village Waste Water Plant to $450 and to increase the user charges for Roberts Creek Waste Water Plant to $450 for 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: Due to rising expenses such as electricity costs, insurance premiums and telephone/alarm spending, it is being recommended that the net operating budget be raised by $347 to account for these increases. To help offset this increase in net operating expenses (and for other reasons), user fees were increased by $75 per user from $375 to $450 for 2014 (see resolution above).

5 Proposed Enhancement / Project /

Reduction [393] Lillies Lake Village Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating Budget



Area A

2014 Funding Implications: None Funding Source(s): N/A Future Financial Implications: $1837 increase to net operating budget Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?



Last annual rate review was presented at the December 5, 2013 ISC meeting; result was Board Resolution (578/13 No.11): AND THAT the Sewage Treatment Facilities Bylaw 428, Schedule “C” be amended to increase the user charges for Lillies Lake Village Waste Water Plant to $450 and to increase the user charges for Roberts Creek Waste Water Plant to $450 for 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: Due to rising net operating expenses such as electricity costs, insurance premiums, telephone/alarm, and deliveries it is being recommended that the net operating budget be raised by $1837 to account for the increases. To help offset this increase in net operating expenses (and for other reasons), user fees were increased by $75 per user from $375 to $450 for 2014 (see resolution above).

FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER, IF APPLICABLE) *REFER TO RESERVE ACCOUNT INFORMATION IN SECTION 1

46



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. [388] Langdale Waste Water Treatment Plant – Connection to Camp Elphinstone (YMCA)

System 2. [384]/[385] Jolly Roger/Secret Cove Waste Water Treatment Plant – Outfall Re-Anchoring 3. [391] Curran Rd Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating Budget 4. [392] Roberts Creek Co-Housing Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating

Budget 5. [393] Lillies Lake Village Waste Water Treatment Plant – Increase to Net Operating Budget

47

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-11-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability Cover Report Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee - January 22, 2014

FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Shane Laye, Corporate Energy Manager Julie Clark, Sustainability and Education Coordinator

RE: CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY [135] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT CARD AND PROMOTION

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal for Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion be received.

BACKGROUND

This covering report serves as a backgrounder to the budget proposal titled “Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion.”

The proposed budget of $20,000 would allow the SCRD to procure data acquisition equipment and develop a corporate sustainability framework with performance indicators to support strategic organizational and departmental targets. As such, the software license is proposed to be shared (in use and cost) across multiple functions.

This proposal closely aligns with significant corporate and regional sustainability plans, including We Envision, the Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) and the Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP). Furthermore, the SCRD working in Partnership with BC Hydro on March of 2012, committed to the following:

• Doing its part to save energy and create a culture of sustainability • Adopt the principles of energy efficiency into the organization’s ongoing business

practices • Upgrade its existing facilities with energy conservation measures.

RATIONALE / SERVICE IMPACTS

The SCRD is in need of data acquisition equipment and software that can accept, hub, and analyze data to enable accurate regular reporting of progress and successes of corporate and community sustainability initiatives. The SCRD’s current commitments to report on sustainability targets and progress are impeded by reporting structures and systems that are long outdated, and often manually entered.

48

TaraC

Typewritten Text

K

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Corporate & Administrative Services Committee RE: BP for Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion Page 2 of 2

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-11-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability Cover Report Final.docx

The SCRD employs data collection systems and processes designed to support key systems (i.e. financial, service, maintenance). Corporate and community sustainability plans also require the same degree of data collection/processing and reporting rigour, as the other systems mentioned, to be successful.

For example, the SCRD is currently able to monitor and report on energy consumption only at the facility level. Not having the granulation to isolate a particular sub-system within the facility limits the organizations ability to measure and verify (M&V) and report the energy savings actually realized. The accurate reporting of energy savings provides valuable feedback to the organization, including the following:

• The information may help to adjust the design or process to further improve savings, achieve greater persistence of savings over time, and lower variations in savings.

• Increases the transparency and credibility in reporting the outcome of investments, which in turn increases the confidence in future projects.

• There is strong potential to see savings in staff time and departmental budgets result from the better tracking of activities and efforts.

There are benefits to be exploited through a single sustainability reporting system as each department possesses unique, but valuable information to supporting the sustainability of our organization and community. The acquisition of new software and metering equipment is required to enable a more cohesive understanding of the organization’s approach to sustainability and comprehension of how transit ridership, fuel usage, energy usage, water consumption, waste diversion by waste streams, landfill weights all contribute to our strategic plan. Individually, each aspect is important, yet together they present synergies to amplify their significance.

49

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-12-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Shane Laye, Corporate Energy Manager Julie Clark, Sustainability & Education Coordinator

RE: CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY [135] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $9,700 Reason(s): Lower than expected wages due to delay in hiring Options (select as appropriate):

Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization

X Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ___1_____) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


50

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

L

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Project / Reduction Corporate Energy Manager


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $34,000 Funding Source(s): 2013 Surplus and CARIP Future Financial Implications: 3 months in Financial Plan. Require funding for

remaining 9 months. Matching funding provided by BC Hydro. BC Hydro to issue (2014) contract extension by mid-December.


Yes. Strategic Plan: This position aligns with Section 2.3 to develop Sustainable Energy Management Plan (SEMP) which looks to improve the organization’s ability manage and regularly report on corporate energy consumption and GHG emissions. Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP): Maintaining an accurate emissions and energy inventory is in alignment with the CorpEEP. We Envision: Relating to the core values of environmental responsibility, the SCRD is committed to protecting “…our culture and the future of our environment by minimizing our consumption of energy, resources and our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.” (We Envision). Powersmart Partnership with BC Hydro: On March of 2012, the SCRD working in partnership with BC Hydro, committed to the following:




Staff Capacity: Maintains current staffing levels. Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

2013 budget process included funding for 2014 Q1.

51



Rational / Service Impacts: The SCRD needs a Corporate Energy Manager (CEM) to champion the organization’s pursuit of reducing its demand for energy resources and GHG emissions. The role of the CEM is to develop and implement a Sustainable Energy Management Plan (SEMP) to address the five key areas set out in the Energy Management Assessment, which include:

1. Policy 2. Targets / Reporting 3. Plans / Actions 4. Teams / Committees 5. Employee Awareness / Training

A draft SEMP projects that a 3% energy reduction year over year will avoid $729,000 by 2018. The plan proposes projects for 2014 that offer a simple payback of 4.8 years and a 10 year IRR of 19%. It will be difficult to move these projects forward without this position.


Project / Reduction Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $20,000 Funding Source(s): Support Services Future Financial Implications: The annual license fee to use the software is

approximately $1,500. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes. 2013-2014 Strategic Plan Sections 1.4-1.5, 2.1-2.3, 3.2-3.3, 4.3, 5.2, & 6.8 We Envision Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP) Please see attached covering report.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff resources: primarily Corporate Energy Manager and Sustainability and Education Coordinator.


n/a

52



Rational / Service Impacts: Please see attached covering report for rationale. The proposed budget would allow the SCRD to:

• develop SCRD (corporate) sustainability framework and indicators, aligned with We Envision targets;

• reduce staff resources to accurately collect data and regularly report on baselines;

• promote the SCRD's corporate sustainability success stories around transit ridership, fuel usage, energy usage, water consumption, waste diversion by waste streams, landfill weights, etc..

• analyze corporate sustainability challenges and recommend appropriate actions. (Streamlined, consistent, user-friendly data collection is critical to accurate analysis, reporting, and more strategic future action).

The software acts as a repository to store and analyze data to allow for a better understanding of the sustainable systems managed. For example, the SCRD is currently able to monitor energy consumption only at the facility level. Not having the granulation to isolate a particular sub-system within the facility, limits the organization’s ability to measure and verify (M&V) the energy savings actually realized. This software license is proposed to be shared (in use and cost) across multiple functions. This software purchase is also proposed to be leveraged with the monitoring of the regional sustainability plan.

53




CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, TOOLKIT, TRAINING


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $13,000 Funding Source(s): Support Services Future Financial Implications: $6,000 annually Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes. Strategic Plan: 1.4 To listen and improve two way communication with the general public: - to creative effective ways of connecting with all groups and sectors - to enhance resident and business understanding of SCRD goals/objectives, programs and services. 1.2 To improve communication, information sharing and understanding between local governments, school district and other local organizations. 3.3.1 To develop a communication and engagement program for all communities regarding the annual budget in order to implement an effective annual budgeting process We Envision Core Values: The core values of We Envision are possible to operationalize with an organizational commitment to authentic, meaningful engagement provided by staff and leaders at all levels that are professionally trained in engagement methods.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff resources plus external trainers. Sustainability and Education Coordinator, Communications Officer, Human Resources Staff.


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: The need to do thorough and meaningful community engagement work is on the rise. The anticipated benefits of doing professional engagement work include:

- Citizens understand how they can effectively participate in their local government processes

54



- Citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate and provide input on decisions that affect them

- Citizens can observe / track how their input influences decision-making

- The SCRD has the opportunity to listen and learn from citizen ideas

- The SCRD improves its ability to tell its stories of success and learning as an organization

- The SCRD’s role in the community is better understood

- The SCRD builds trust with citizens, improves reputation & credibility in the community

- The SCRD improves its issues management abilities

1 hour of professional “upstream” community engagement work can save 8 hours of staff time “downstream” of a decision-making process. Ultimately, professional community engagement work saves staff and citizens’ time and money, increases understanding, and provides a stronger platform for thoughtful community discussion, negotiation and leadership in decision-making.

This budget proposal ($13,000) will cover: 1) the completion of the community

engagement toolkit with input and review and workshop for all departments. In addition,

2) a series of staff trainings to build capacity and understanding at all levels of the SCRD to implement corporate engagement activities

3) external corporate engagement activities, for example – budget process, who we are and what we do

55




Asset Management Plan- Gap Analysis


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $30,000 Funding Source(s): Support Services Future Financial Implications: $100,000- Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes-Financial Sustainability; Section 3.1 (2)- To develop the Asset Management & Renewal Program by December 2014

Staff Capacity: For 2014, use internal resources to work with consultant for Gap Analysis with the plan to creating and Asset Management position in 2015 (business case to follow at 2015 Budget).


Support Service review done in Fall 2013 and is reviewed annually per policy

Rational / Service Impacts: As a first step in the SCRD’s asset management initiative it is proposed to undertake a high level review of all the Districts’ assets to begin answering the following questions:

1. Ensure we have detailed data on what we currently own.

2. What is the remaining life of these assets?

3. Developing maintenance plans? 4. How much will they cost to replace? 5. When will we need to replace them? 6. How much should we be investing on an

annual basis to be sustainable?

The outcome would be a first step in developing an Asset Management Plan (AMP). The AMP will provide the answers to the above questions and forms a common knowledge base on which discussions between the various stakeholder groups can occur (staff, Board, Public).

The overall scope would include:

1. Collect existing asset information for all core asset types (GIS data, capital plans,

56



TCA, etc) 2. Consolidate the information into a single

asset management data base 3. Determine the replacement costs for all

assets; 4. Estimate the replacement timing for all

assets (based on age) 5. Prepare the Asset Management Plan

(AMP); and, 6. Prepare a presentation and

communication materials to communicate the findings.

This is also in line with federal and provincial grant requirements.



$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Corporate Energy Manager 2. Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion 3. Citizen Engagement Framework, Toolkit, Training 4. Asset Management Plan – Gap Analysis

57

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\22-13-2014 R1 Budget Proposal 136 Regional Sustainability Final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Julie Clark, Sustainability and Education Coordinator

RE: REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY [136] – 2014 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Regional Sustainability [136] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($2,900) Reason(s): Increased salary/benefits costs due to department restructuring following departure of Manager of Sustainable Services. No increase in FTEs, however, small portion of GM salary now charged to this function. Options (select as appropriate):



58

TaraC

Typewritten Text

M

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Project / Reduction REGIONAL ROUND TABLE and TOOLS


Regional (all areas)

2014 Funding Implications: $10,500* *This project has been leveraged with proposals in 135, Corporate Sustainability. This project will need $5,000 more if the 135 proposal for software is not accepted.

Funding Source(s): Regional taxation Future Financial Implications: $7,000 annually assuming software license in

135 is approved. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Yes. 2.1 Implementing the Regional Sustainability Plan, We Envision, is a prominent objective in the SCRD’s 2013-2014 strategic plan. 1.2 – 1.5 The process of implementing We Envision, via the regional roundtable will improve communication, information sharing and understanding between local governments, First Nations, School District 46 and other local organizations. 2.1-2.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.2, 6.4 Targets from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan, the Corporate Energy and Emissions, Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, Zero Waste Management Plan, Integrated Transportation Study (etc) were embedded in the development of We Envision. Implementing We Envision also satisfies the implementation of many other plans. 6.1, 6.3, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9 Implementing the Land use section of We Envision addresses a variety of the SCRD’s corporate goals regarding region-wide planning.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff resources, primarily the Sustainability and Education Coordinator, with support from the Communications Officer.


n/a

59

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Rational / Service Impacts: The regional round table is proposed to be a dynamic team of leaders from organizations across the Sunshine Coast who have the mandate and influence to implement the specific actions of the We Envision plan, as well as work together to achieve the plan’s ambitious 2020 goals. Similar to the development of the We Envision plan, the regional round table and implementation process is designed to enable many organizations to take responsibility, within their existing mandates, to implement the actions of the plan and monitor the results. The success of this approach is built on deep engagement that recognizes, celebrates and leverages the actions of many, extending the positive impacts and awareness of the regional sustainability plan well beyond the reaches of the SCRD team. This approach exemplifies the SCRD’s core principle of COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP by convening and mobilizing action, resources, leadership and monitoring across many organizations. The proposed budget will cover the roundtable’s ‘start-up’ responsibilities: development and communication of annual priority actions, development of measurement indicators that correspond with goals in all plan areas, development of a monitoring system, promotion of the plan, current actions and local success stories. The proposed $10,500 budget will cover: meeting expenses, promotional materials, professional services for developing sustainability indicators. Again, this budget proposal would need to be increased by $5,000 if the software proposal in 135 is declined.

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Regional Round Table and Tools

60

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Date post:	25-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

… · SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE . SERVICES COMMITTEE . R1 Budget Meeting . Wednesday...

Documents