Finance Committee - September 20, 2012 - Agenda · 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 July 19, 2012...

August 31, 2012

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING

FINANCE COMMITTEE

9:00 a.m. Thursday, September 20, 2012

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

R E V I S E D A G E N D A Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 September 20, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Finance Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 20, 2012 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 July 19, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Finance Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held July 19, 2012 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Cathy McLay and Tim Shaver, TransLink Subject: Federal Gas Tax Funds

4.2 Bob Paddon, TransLink

Subject: TransLink’s 2013 Base Plan 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region Designated Speaker: Jason Emmert / Ann Rowan That the Finance Committee receive for information the report dated August 27, 2012, titled “Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region”.

5.2 GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results

Designated Speaker: Peter Wishart That the Committee receive for information the report dated August 4, 2012 titled “GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results”.

5.3 Semi-Annual Report on GVS&DD Development Cost Charges Designated Speaker: Phil Trotzuk That the Finance Committee receive the report dated August 20, 2012 titled “Semi-Annual Report on GVS&DD Development Cost Charges” for information.

5.4 Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012

Designated Speaker: Tracey Husoy That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012”, dated July 30, 2012 for information.

5.5 Manager's Report

5.5.1 Monthly WWTP upgrade projects 5.5.2 Finance Committee Work Plan update

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Correspondence dated July 13, 2012 to Ms. Delia Laglagaron, Metro Vancouver from Mr. Ian Jarvis, Translink, regarding Amendments to the SCBCTA Act.

Item Added 6.2 Lions Gate and Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants –

Project Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.

9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Finance Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of September 20, 2012.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Finance Committee held on Thursday, July 19, 2012 Page 1 of 6

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Finance Committee held at 9:01 a.m. on Thursday, July 19, 2012 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Vice Chair, Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Michael Lewis, West Vancouver Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver (arrived at 9:04 a.m.) Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Councillor Brad West, Port Coquitlam ABSENT: None STAFF: Jim Rusnak, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administration Department Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board Secretariat and Corporate

Information Department 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 July 19, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 19, 2012 as circulated.

CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 June 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held June 21, 2012 as circulated.

CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

2.1

FIN - 3


4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 MFA Borrowing for Member Municipalities – GVRD Security Issuing

Bylaw 1170, 2012 Report dated June 19, 2012 from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, bringing forward a borrowing request from the Village of Belcarra for the 2012 MFA fall issue. The borrowing request of $4,441,330 is for water supply and distribution. It was MOVED and SECONDED a) That the GVRD Board, pursuant to Sections 182(1)(b) and 182(2)(a) of the Community Charter, give consent to the request for financing from the Village of Belcarra in the amount of $4,441,330; b) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1170, 2012” being a bylaw to authorize the entering into of an Agreement respecting financing between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, be introduced and read a first, second and third time; c) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1170, 2012” be reconsidered, passed and finally adopted; d) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1170, 2012” be forwarded to the Inspector of Municipalities for Certificate of Approval

CARRIED

5.2 MFA Borrowing for Member Municipalities – GVRD Security Issuing Bylaw 1171, 2012 Report dated June 19, 2012 from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, bringing forward a borrowing request from the District of Maple Ridge for the 2012 MFA fall issue. The borrowing request of $5,520,000 is for animal shelter, river road drainage and cemetery expansion. It was MOVED and SECONDED a) That the GVRD Board, pursuant to Sections 182(1)(b) and 182(2)(a) of the Community Charter, give consent to the request for financing from the District of Maple Ridge in the total amount of $5,520,000; b) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1171, 2012” being a bylaw to authorize the entering into of an Agreement respecting financing between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, be introduced and read a first, second and third time; c) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1171, 2012” be reconsidered, passed and finally adopted; d) That “Greater Vancouver Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1171, 2012” be forwarded to the Inspector of Municipalities for Certificate of Approval.

CARRIED

FIN - 4


5.3 Financial Projections for 2013 to 2017 Report dated July 13, 2012 from Delia Laglagaron, Interim Commissioner/Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department and Jim Rusnak, Interim Deputy Commissioner/Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, seeking Board’s review and endorsement of financial projections as part of the 2013 Program Planning and Budget Process.

9:04 a.m. Director Meggs arrived at the meeting.

In response to a request to revisit the rate smoothing strategy, members were informed that the role of pricing and best practices for building reserves will be best addressed during the discussion on the Financial Strategy in the fourth quarter of 2012. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board endorse the five year financial framework for 2013-2017 for budget and long range planning purposes as outlined in the report titled “Financial Projections for 2013 to 2017” dated July 6, 2012.

CARRIED Director Meggs absent at the vote.

5.4 Metro Vancouver Response to the Provincial Carbon Tax Review

Report dated July 13, 2012 from Eve Fichot, Air Quality Planner, and Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, outlining options for the Board to respond to the request for comment issued by the Province, pertaining to the B.C. carbon tax. Discussion ensued on: · The management of the carbon tax (contributions from the Lower

Mainland, the amount of the tax returning to the region and the amount of greenhouse gas reduction resulting from the investment)

· Whether the current, revenue neutral, carbon tax regime should be maintained or whether a revenue positive regime should be implemented (investing into projects that would actively reduce emissions)

· The effectiveness of the tax on greenhouse gases reduction · Dedication of the carbon tax for transportation projects and/or investing

the tax into other projects It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board send a letter to the B.C. Minister of Finance communicating Metro Vancouver’s support for the carbon tax as approved in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan and request the Province consult with Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities on any significant changes to the carbon tax subsequent to this current consultation period. With the consent of the Committee, the above motion was WITHDRAWN.

FIN - 5


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board request the Province extend the comment period for 90 days for the carbon tax review to allow local governments time to conduct a more thorough review of the impact of the carbon tax on the region, conduct more thorough stakeholder consultation and request the Province consult with Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities on any significant changes to the carbon tax subsequent to this current consultation period.

CARRIED Request of Staff Staff was requested to report back on questions raised by the Committee at its July 19, 2012 meeting.

5.5 Metro Vancouver Programs and Budget Consultation Report dated July 17, 2012 from Jim Rusnak, Interim Deputy Commissioner/Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, and Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department, providing the Board with information on the recent sub-regional Council of Councils discussions and next steps for municipal and public engagement on the 2013 Metro Vancouver programs and budget. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive the report titled “2013 Metro Vancouver Programs and Budget Consultation” dated July 17, 2012 for information.

CARRIED

5.6 Financial Performance Report to end of May 2012 Report dated July 10, 2012 from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, presenting the Finance Committee with an update on financial performance to May 31, 2012 and providing a forecast for the year. A member inquired about the surpluses generated by member municipalities. Request of Staff Staff was requested to canvass municipal members on the amount of surplus they operate to. The Committee requested that more information be provided on capital and operating budget drivers. Request of Staff Staff was requested to include in the future Financial Performance report information on major projects that are driving capital and operating surplus for each district. The Committee inquired about the allocation of the surplus generated by Metro Vancouver.

FIN - 6


Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide the Committee with information on surplus allocation. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Financial Performance Report as of May 2012”, dated July 6, 2012 for information.

CARRIED

5.7 Risk Advisory and Audit Services Status Update Report dated July 6, 2012 from Derrick Li, Risk Advisory and Audit Services Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, providing an update of the progress made against the 2012 Internal Audit Plan for the period between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Risk Advisory and Audit Services Status Update”, dated June 30, 2012 for information.

CARRIED

5.8 Tender/Contract Award Information – May 2012 Report dated June 22, 2012 from Tracey Husoy, Purchasing and Risk Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, providing the Finance Committee information with regard to contracts valued at or estimated at more than $250,000.00. Concerns were expressed about the ambiguity of the contract amendments reporting. Members requested that a broader context and additional information related to the contract amendments be inserted in the report. Request of Staff Staff was requested to revise the reporting on the tender/contract awards amendments. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Tender/Contract Award Information – May 2012”, dated June 22, 2012 for information.

CARRIED 5.9 Manager’s Report

5.9.1 Monthly WWTP upgrade projects

Jim Rusnak, Interim Deputy Commissioner/Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, informed the Committee about a press conference held at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, at which the new wastewater regulations were announced by the Provincial and Federal Minister of Environment. Metro Vancouver representatives spoke in support of the new legislation but highlighted the importance of a funding commitment for the Iona and Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades from the provincial and federal government.

FIN - 7


5.9.2 Finance Committee Work Plan update

6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Strategic Priority Funding Status Report

Correspondence dated June 20, 2012 from Tim Shaver, Co-Chair, Government Funding Working Committee, to Jim Rusnak, Interim Deputy Commissioner/Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, providing the reports on the Strategic Priority Funding status for the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (SCBCTA). Members requested that a TransLink representative be invited to the next Finance Committee meeting to provide additional information on the report. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee receive for information the correspondence dated June 20, 2012 titled “Strategic Priority Funding Status Report” and direct the Finance Committee Chair to invite appropriate TransLink staff to the next Finance Committee meeting to discuss the report in detail.

CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS The Committee was informed that a new Lincoln Station in Coquitlam was announced today in a media event held by the Federal Government and the City of Coquitlam.

8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.

9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance Committee conclude its regular meeting of July 19, 2012.

CARRIED (Time: 10:49 a.m.)

_____________________________________ ________________________________ Klara Kutakova, Richard Walton, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 6365664 FINAL

FIN - 8

Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012

To: Environment and Parks Committee Finance Committee From: Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist (Acting), CAO’s Office Date: August 27, 2012 Subject: Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region Environment and Parks Committee Recommendation: That the Environment and Parks Committee direct staff to further develop the actions related to the carbon tax as outlined in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and provide more detailed recommendations to the Province. Those actions include:

The return of carbon tax revenues to local governments to fund greenhouse gas reduction actions;

Adjustment of the future carbon tax rate, including measures to mitigate the impact on low income households; and

Encourage adoption of the carbon tax in other jurisdictions. Finance Committee Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive for information the report dated August 27, 2012, titled “Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region”. 1. PURPOSE To report on the revenue implications of the BC Carbon tax on Metro Vancouver residents and businesses, its effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to identify how Metro Vancouver could work with the Province to ensure that the tax achieves its objectives of reducing greenhouse gases. 2. CONTEXT On July 1st, 2008, the British Columbia government began to levy a carbon tax on the purchase and use of fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating fuel, propane and coal. The initial tax was $10/tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and was scheduled to rise by $5 increments until 2012. Because the carbon tax is assessed in dollars per tonne of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e), the taxation level varies according to the carbon intensity of the individual fossil fuel. As of July 1, 2012 the carbon tax is $30/tonne which translates into 7.2 cents per litre ($2.08 per

FIN - 9

wchan

Text Box

5.1

Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 7

gigajoule) of gasoline, 8.3 cents per litre ($2.15 per gigajoule) of diesel, and $1.50 per gigajoule of natural gas. The Province is currently reviewing the carbon tax and accepting written submissions from July 1 to August 31, 2012. This issue was discussed at the July 27 Board meeting and the attached letter was sent to the Minister of Finance. In the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP) Metro Vancouver states its support for improvements to the Carbon Tax that would increase its effectiveness as a disincentive to emit GHGs, mitigate its financial impact on low-income households, and the need to reinvest a portion of the carbon tax revenues in carbon reduction projects. How does the carbon tax work to reduce GHG emissions? A carbon tax places a ‘price’ on GHG emissions and should encourage users of fossil fuels to switch to fuels with little or no emissions. To be effective, a carbon tax has to meet two conditions: it must be sufficiently high to send a market signal that emissions have a cost and it has to be sustained to encourage the development and adoption of low emission technologies and transportation systems by businesses and residents. A carbon tax is an example of a market-based approach to achieving environmental objectives. Businesses and individuals can reduce the amount of tax they pay by reducing their use of fossil fuels, increasing their energy efficiency, switching to low or zero-emission fuel sources, and/or adopting new technologies that reduce or eliminate emissions. A carbon tax on transportation fuels provides an incentive for commuters to shift to low carbon modes of transportation – such as walking, cycling, carpooling and if it exists, taking transit. A carbon tax should also drive more innovations in the development and marketing of technologies that result in low or no carbon emissions such as hybrid or electric vehicles. Financial implications of the Carbon Tax: How much was collected from the region? In announcing B.C.’s carbon tax, the provincial government said it would be “revenue neutral” meaning that the revenues generated from the new tax would be offset by decreases in other provincial tax rates. The logic behind a “revenue neutral” tax is that undesirable activities, like those that result in emissions that lead to climate change, are taxed at higher levels while taxes on activities that produce social or environmental benefits, like job creation, are taxed less. In terms of the financial implications of the carbon tax for Metro Vancouver residents and businesses, the 2010/11 fiscal year was chosen as a case study. The provincial government reports that in 2010/11, $741 million was collected in carbon taxes across the province but does not provide details on the sources of this revenue by geography or sector. Using data on total fuel sales in 2010 in the Metro Vancouver region, staff estimate that residents in the region paid an estimated $120 million while the commercial/industry sector in the region paid an estimated $100 million in carbon taxes1 totaling $220 million. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the carbon tax by sector and emission source. Based on these estimates, on average, each household in the region paid $133 in personal carbon taxes.2 Since business energy use is highly dependent on the type and size of business, the carbon tax per business cannot be estimated with current data.

1 Estimates of carbon tax paid for the region are based on fuel sales data from the 2010 Community Energy and Emissions Inventory 2 Based on an estimate of 910,800 households in Metro Vancouver in 2010.

FIN - 10

Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 7

Financial Implications of the Carbon Tax: How much did the region receive in tax cuts and credits? To offset revenues from the Carbon Tax, the provincial government introduced three measures to reduce taxes on personal income and four to reduce business taxes. In terms of personal tax measures, the government reduced personal income tax rates by 5 per cent, introduced a climate action tax credit for low-income households and a northern and rural homeowner benefit. For businesses, there was a cut in the general corporate income tax rate and a corresponding cut in the small business corporate income tax. In addition, industrial property owners received a tax credit for school property taxes paid and lands with “farm” status benefitted from a reduction in school property taxes. The government also announced a one-time Climate Action Dividend of $100 payable to every resident of BC to “encourage the transition to a greener lifestyle.” According to data provided by the Province the Carbon Tax, as implemented, has been more than revenue neutral.3 While $741 million in carbon tax revenues were collected in the 2010/11 fiscal year, the Province received $846 million less in personal income and business taxes due to associated tax cuts, credits and benefits. In terms of reduced taxes, personal taxes were reduced by $372 million and business taxes were reduced by $475 million. Figure 1: Carbon Taxes Paid by the Household and Commercial/Industrial Sector in Metro Vancouver (2010)

Coal and Tires $8 million

Industrial Natural Gas

$17 million

Commercial Vehicles

$19 million

Commercial/Small-Medium Industrial Buildings

$29 million

Aircraft, Rail, Marine, and Non-Road

$33 million

Residential Buildings

$41 million

Passenger Vehicles

$80 million

PERSONAL CARBON TAX

COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL CARBON TAX

There is no provincial data available on the geographical distribution on tax cuts and credits so demographic data was used to estimate the personal tax credits returned to the region. In

3 “Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13-2014/15” http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2012/bfp/2012_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf , p. 66

FIN - 11


the 2010/11 fiscal year, it is estimated that households in Metro Vancouver received $93 million through reductions in the personal income tax rate.4 In addition, Metro Vancouver low income families received tax credits that were estimated at $38 million.5 Together the estimated total reduction in personal taxes in the region was $131 million.6 This is greater than the estimated $120 million residents paid in personal carbon taxes but the financial impact a household would depend on their particular income and household energy use. Estimating the tax benefits that Metro Vancouver small businesses and industries received under the revenue neutral framework is more difficult. The corporate tax structure, including the distinction between general corporate and small business tax rates, made a detailed analysis unfeasible without more geographically located tax data. However, because Metro Vancouver generates 53% of the B.C.’s GDP, we can reasonably guess that likely over half of the $475 million in business tax cuts and credits, or $238 million, were received by businesses across the Metro Vancouver region. Environmental Implications of the Carbon Tax: How effective was it in driving down emissions in the region? At this time, there isn’t enough available data to determine the full effectiveness of the carbon tax on driving down regional emissions. The carbon tax has only been in effect for four years, which does not provide enough years of data to analyze the long-term effect of the carbon tax on technological and behavior changes that drive emissions reductions. While the Province’s own review of the carbon tax notes that it is too soon for a definitive assessment of its effectiveness, it nonetheless offers this hopeful note:

“There are positive signs that B.C. is experiencing a shift toward less fossil fuel use and lower emissions while continuing to grow its economy. Emissions in B.C. went down by 4.5 per cent from 2007-2010, while GDP growth through 2011 was above the Canadian average. At the same time B.C. is attracting green investment and green technologies with twice the Canadian average adoption of hybrid vehicles, 20 per cent of all Canadian LEED gold building registrations since 2007, and a 48 per cent increase in clean technology industry sales from 2008-10.”i7

In 2010, Metro Vancouver commissioned a study by MK Jaccard and Associates (MKJA) which assessed the effectiveness of a number of policy measures at reducing GHG emissions. The study modeled the GHG reductions from existing government policies as well as other policy options including a carbon tax. The model predicted that the tax would have limited impact at $30/tonne (see Figure 2) but could play a more important role in reducing the region’s GHG emissions if the rate increased to $50/tonne. In combination with other policies, the carbon tax would support the implementation of technologies and building of infrastructure that would increase options for residents and businesses (e.g. incentives for energy efficiency retrofits for buildings, investment in walking/cycling infrastructure, plug-in hybrid regulation, etc.) to reduce their fossil fuel use and reduce the carbon tax paid. 4 In 2010, total personal income for Metro Vancouver residents was 45 per cent of the provincial total personal income (BC Stats – Community Facts). This percentage was applied to the Province’s estimate of reduction in personal taxes of $207 million to estimate the impact on Metro Vancouver residents (B. C. Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15). 5 This figure was calculated using data on the incidence of low incomes in Metro Vancouver and Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit rate of $105 per adult and $31.50 per child. The incidence of economic families is 17 per cent and for unattached individuals over 15 years it is 40 per cent in Metro Vancouver. Assuming that in each economic family had 1 child and 2 adults, the total low income tax credit was $24.7 million. 6 The credit for northern and rural homeowner benefit does not apply to residents of Metro Vancouver thus was not considered in the total 7 “Making Progress on BC’s Climate Action Plan”, June 27, 2012 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/pdfs/2012-Progress-to-Targets.pdf

FIN - 12



Although it is difficult to assess the overall impact of the carbon tax, there are a number of individual GHG reduction projects where the carbon tax helped provide a business case for the project. These projects are an indication of the incentive effect a carbon tax has on supporting the use of low carbon technologies and practices. One example is the new Bioenergy Energy Research and Demonstration Facility (BRDF) at University of British Columbia (UBC). The project will supply between 12-25% of UBC’s average heat and up to 4.5 per cent of its electricity demand to campus. The project business case was supported by the carbon tax and the carbon neutral requirements for public sector organizations. It will reduce UBC’s GHG emissions by 7,000 tonnes per year which will produce a savings in the carbon taxes paid by $214,000 each year. UBC is also saving $373,000 in carbon tax from converting the steam district energy system to a hot water system. This upgraded system heats over 100 buildings and will reduce GHG emissions by 12,000 tonnes per year. Overall, the system conversion will save UBC $4 million per year in energy and other costs. Figure 2: Effectiveness Various Policies on Reducing the Region’s GHGs8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Millions of tonnes of CO2e

Red

uction

LiveSmart subsidies

Walking/Cycling expansion

Plug‐in hybrid regulation

Transit expansion

Building etrofit regulation

Cap and trade

Distance‐based insurance

Vehicle emission standard

Renewable fuel standard

Commercial building retrofit incentive

Building code requirements

Carbon tax

Zero emissions buildings

Source: MK Jaccard and Associates – 2010. How has the carbon tax been invested in greenhouse gas reduction projects in the region?

8 “The Climate Action Plan in Metro Vancouver: Quantifying the Effect of British Columbian Climate Policy on Metro Vancouver’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Air Emission.” MK Jaccard and Associates. September 17, 2010.

FIN - 13


Since the carbon tax is revenue neutral the revenue collected has not been specifically invested in projects to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead, the revenue has been returned to residents and businesses with a larger portion being returned to businesses through the corporate and small business tax credits. Whether these tax savings have been invested in the means to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions is not being tracked. A small portion of the carbon tax, 0.6 per cent, has been returned to local governments through the Carbon Tax Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP). This is the tax that local governments have paid on fuels purchased directly for government operations. In 2010, Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities received $1.7 million in CARIP rebates which were then allocated to a variety of different projects to reduce emissions from municipal operations and in communities. Metro Vancouver, for example, used CARIP funding to conduct energy assessments for Metro Vancouver housing facilities to identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency at our housing facilities. Several municipalities have used CARIP funds to develop Community Energy and Emissions Plans (CEEP) and some have purchased electric vehicle plug-in stations. Review of the Carbon Tax The Metro Vancouver Board has recognized that B.C.’s Carbon Tax could be improved to further reduce GHG emissions. This recognition is reflected in the IAQGGMP and in a resolution that went to Union of B.C. Municipalities in 2010. The IAQGGMP identifies the need for the Provincial Government to continue to increase the carbon tax provided:

a) Impacts to low income households are mitigated, b) A portion of the funding is dedicated to a regional climate action funds for

greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in the region, and c) Local governments continue to receive CARIP funds.

The revenue neutrality of B.C.’s Carbon Tax was important to build public confidence that the tax would not add an unfair burden to residents and businesses. To date, that promise has been met. One question in moving forward is whether maintaining the strict revenue neutrality of the tax should be maintained or should carbon tax revenues be used to fund initiatives that provide households and businesses the options and tools necessary to reduce their emissions and carbon tax bill? By shifting the carbon tax revenues towards initiatives that directly reduce emissions, the effectiveness of the carbon tax can be enhanced. Securing a portion of the carbon tax revenues for region-specific GHG reduction programs/projects would help reduce emissions by supporting technology and infrastructure investments by local governments, businesses, residents and other community organizations. This could be achieved by directing a portion of carbon tax revenues to a regional fund. In order to illustrate the magnitude of the carbon tax paid by the residents and businesses in the region ($220 million) and the size of example GHG reduction projects:

Installing solar hot water systems on 5,000 rooftops costs $25 million Building 100 manure methane collection systems for medium-sized dairy

operations costs $70 million Lonsdale Energy Corporation District Energy System in City of North Vancouver

capital cost was $8 million in 2003 (saves approx 4000 tonnes of GHG / year) 9 9 http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/GBTF_NewBldg_Vancouver_Heating_Case_Study.pdf

FIN - 14



30 km of separated bike lanes cost $90 million10 Installing 1000 electric vehicle charging stations in public places costs $10

million Evergreen Line capital costs are $1.4 billion.

British Columbia demonstrated leadership in adopting a carbon tax and since then numerous other jurisdictions have considered implementing a similar tax and some have done so.11 However, the adoption of the carbon tax has not been as widespread as anticipated especially through the Western Climate Initiative. As a result, businesses based in British Columbia have raised concerns that a carbon tax negatively impacts their competitiveness. This is particularly true for businesses that compete with companies based in jurisdictions who do not have a carbon tax.12 Recognizing in the short term, a carbon tax can present challenges in competitive markets, in the long run the value of putting a tax on carbon today is that it provides an incentive for businesses to become more energy efficient and less reliant on fossil fuels as an energy source in what is generally recognized as a future where the price of fossil fuels will continue to climb. 3. ALTERNATIVES None presented. 4. CONCLUSION Based on estimates by staff, residents and businesses in the region have received more in tax credits as a whole then the carbon taxes they paid under the revenue neutral model. Although the overall impact of the carbon tax on regional GHG emissions is difficult to calculate at this time, there are examples in the region where the existence of the carbon tax provided the incentive to undertake projects to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, analysis by the MK Jaccard and Associates indicate that a sustained and higher carbon tax will be important for reducing GHG emissions in the Metro Vancouver region. For these reasons, Metro Vancouver should work with the Province to improve the effectiveness of B.C.’s Carbon Tax and to mitigate some of the challenges. ATTACHMENT Letter to Minister Falcon – “Metro Vancouver Response to Carbon Tax Review” dated August 15, 2012 (Doc. #6468359). 6435154

10 British Columbia Cycling Coalition- http://bccc.bc.ca/Documents/BCCC-Cycling_Investment_Recommendations.pdf 11 Australia brought in a $23/tonne carbon tax in 2012, Ireland passed a $26/tonne carbon tax in 2010, Switzerland has a $39/tonne (rising to $85/tonne) carbon tax brought in 2008, South Africa will have a $15/tonne carbon tax in 2013 and Quebec has a $3/tonne carbon tax from 2007. Others such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway have had carbon taxes since the early 1990s with rates ranging from $23-$106/tonne. Source: Pembina Institute 12 Responding to this argument, in its most recent budget the Province provided greenhouse vegetable and flower growers a $7.6 million grant to compensate them for the cost of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane consumption. The one-time cash infusion is intended to restore the competitive edge greenhouse growers, the most energy intensive segment of the agri-food sector, lost when the carbon tax was implemented.

FIN - 15

Office of the ChairTel, 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614

File: CP-02-02-GHGR-02

The Honourable Kevin Falcon. MinisterMinstry of FinanceP0 Box 9547 Stn Prov GovtVictoria. 30 V8W 905

Dear Minister Falcon:

Re: Metro Vancouver Response to B.C. Carbon Tax Review

In the context of your government’s review of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax, the Metro VancouverBoard considered a staff report on the carbon tax at its meeting on July 27, 2012. On behalf of theBoard, I am writing to express our support for the carbon tax as approved in Metro Vancouver’sIntegrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan.

This letter constitutes our initial input to your review of B.C.’s Carbon Tax, but we request theProvince extend the comment jeriod for 90 days beyond the AuQust 31, 2012 deadline to allowlocal governments time to conduct a more thorough review of the impact of the carbon tax on theregion and conduct more thorough stakeholder consultation. We also request the Province consultwith Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities on any significant changes to the carbon taxsubsequent to this current consultation period.

British Columbia demonstrated leadership on the world stage by adopting a tax that places a priceon emissions of greenhouse gases. The Board of Metro Vancouver has expressed its support fora carbon tax that will help achieve regional sustainability goals to reduce greenhouse gasemissions as articulated in two of our regional management plans.

One of the three goals of Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse GasManagement Plan (2011) is to “minimize the region’s contribution to global climate change”. Thestrategies and actions to achieve that goal are reinforced in Metro Vancouver’s Regional GrowthStrategy (2011). Metro Vancouver’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region are:

• 15°c below 2007 levels by 2015;• 33% below 2007 levels by 2020; and• 80°c below 2007 levels by 2050.

The Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan articulates Metro Vancouver’ssupport for a continuation of the carbon tax and it also identifies how the tax could be refined.Specifically, Metro Vancouver has requested that the Provincial Government:

p5388838

FIN - 16

gstanese

Text Box

5.7 ATTACHMENT

wchan

Text Box

Letter to Minister FalconMetro Vancouver Response to B.C. Carbon Tax ReviewPage2of2

• earmark a portion of the carbon tax revenues and other funding sources for localgovernment actions that will reduce community emissions; and

• continue to increase the carbon tax provided that:a) impacts to low income households are mitigated,b) a portion of the funding is dedicated to a regional climate action fund for greenhouse

gas emission reduction projects in the region, andc) local governments continue to receive CARIP funds.

Support for these actions was highlighted in a resolution Metro Vancouver put before the Union ofB.C. Municipalities in 2010 (see Attachment). This resolution, requesting that the Province providelocal governments with their per capita share of carbon tax revenues, was endorsed by the U8CM.As a region that is home to 52 per cent of the province’s population and where economic activityamounts to 53 per cent of the provincial GDP, the Metro Vancouver Board requests that theProvince conduct more thorough consultation on this issue, including with Metro Vancouver and itsmember municigalities, prior to making any significant changes to the B.C. Carbon Tax.

We look forward to working with the Province to further improve the B.C. Carbon Tax, enhancingour collective efforts to contribute to a more stable climate.

Yours truly,

GrChair, Metro Vancouver Board

GM/GR/ar

cc: Minister Terry Lake

End: Letter from Delia Laglagaron to Reiko Tagami, Union of B.C. Municipalities regarding “MetroVancouver Board Resolutions to Union of British Columbia Municipalities”, dated June 30, 2010

FIN - 17

‘p1 ‘‘ : C1:ofl., ft sflj b• ‘4 ‘,1

.1 .,a i Li

F1e14o A 2 a4 4

F ‘I agi”. MAS. FAL Sfcrmjtvi&Rpif J on 8’ r

of BC P/art ‘pat it’ Sbn bri c.Vij

rniBC V X,.dbO

U’”RiPo rrjau,

RE Metro Vancouver Boaid Resolutions to Union of British Cok.mbla Municipalities

At b .ynt.•r q Jurc 2 2”O, t Iic.tro ‘Ijn oua’ Bcarc psse6 the’ I 3avrg rcvlSo”s ‘x• nsioar’jt “ii Sy ti e U i ‘i I knt h C umb 3 Li ir i ioal’t.os:

ResolutIon 1: Provincial Actions to Enable Local and Regional Governments to MaximizeReductions in Gteenhouse Gas Emissions

VJHEREAS ‘mmber munic ai ft s In Me no Van ‘tuvcn have nade stoady progrc to rn-rn’ Innrecuroments cf the Local Coven “er tAm to rstabu’h greenhouse gas reduction (argUs 00 cies,and actlcrs iT’ offic’aI commta.tt p’ans,

AND v:HEREAS f.,rtr,er legsbt’ve a’t f’s:a’ act ons b t:e provinc1a’‘aDverrment are r.etessar/ to

enabIe bce1 and reg:onal govarmer: act’ens to maxmze redtctinns in roonPouse ys amssr3 !ntha bj:I:n’s :‘ancponactn jrc sc.’ waste se:tots:

V-IEREFORE BE :T RESOL”ED that the Un oh y &: si’ Cc’urbn r&nic’paLties nq ios:s t’eto, •n tie tcfrr’s seer. ac:e!ercte the ‘nodernization cJ 1% BC Buiaing Coc2e and

flrcaSe inr,ect’es and r’agu.it’:ns fo- res’den’a and corcmer&a! building retntnts: in thet’ansportaor srtcr. e”ab’e the ‘eg on at.d merter ‘nun:cipahL.es anc sm.iar ‘ocai ajthortes tornplemer: co’vprc!ensre traisporta’ oc cernanc managernen! meas•jres. cco’d’nate c::rectpt.n,rlnciqi rean”iniise gas en-.ss’cns stancirds for ‘!Gntduty en’cls w1th new1edera!s:anda”is, anti. ;rirease funding fo’ sastainiable trar3pOrtatOn 1 r.35.IJff aid tr.e Scrap-itPr’r,r: a the solid v.aste srttr. acc&erate ie3;satie measures to reduce waste and ep.,swr.’c p

r?c.jc’ :,!es. extencw! rrr :c tes;s•:fty ar packairg ard. estc’b ‘* s’s:’Ja’: 1: iS.scumptk.r c dim andtr—’c- g s:.’s 5, ‘.fl! iOS 3q rç na ri. tr no’.— e

rt cc• d;:tit’O.

i’

FIN - 18

t4e’r VentC ar €rdR so itor ‘oUio of&rtnhLc ur’bc na sr’I.tt•a r4

Resolution 2: Local Governinont Share of Provincial Carbon Tax Revcnues

• r’ Fr r •‘ rt arts ‘I’ r •‘V

r i .s ‘r Pr J / I lb

.. —: -.•

; r 2 •• — ‘“ . . —‘ •

•••• tr r..i 3 cr’r—rt fl,t - ‘—.. %r •“‘ - 4..

• 4r,p ecad tnt 9 nyr)Urt’” !v ‘sb it

t a_.P .r: i’ iy .1 9’tt. I tot.93 Jun

AND V:EFCAS gc..er’ e,ts r ru adl ‘c—S ‘s:.te2a’ces ‘. ‘ D !fl’qft r•.1,

-...d. e i’ ‘St-’’$r*. s’, sr.rrt rre. :ay e.isae se r rt..,.:’ tw;’tt

WE CC C’S ‘ RLa .%L t’ ‘ ayl fl4 tuk.. a L4u ‘‘uS .fr •

P:. ..‘ b 3r0.t!e rnur.cç;a1cJfer’rnfs tt. Ine” cc’ a t3 tree.. t-n. r ...T rr•2’

ro .n..es tr cii capg€n a’i oc€rat:rg USIa asscsat: i’;’tfl flt.7 r.r”ri;s.1 •;;.is C13S t”$

;c ...; ..r a:aur.s i’tPtsTP’ it’d .y kcl 93 .arru’13 3’2Q ‘; -. !r 1”cr, ‘a; ‘r• .: •: i; ti t: £rr-trrrvfl%IYL.Ji5Ia%dy .r s oy,red’ to’it e’s

Ba:-..tri Jnfym,jlw rj

cr; “awn frgn a ‘esour D3SSud h ‘h- t.’!r.. Vr’cije Scard .:n ‘ia, 2. O

r cattac cdi.

Ruse titsi 2 car i.’ut.ad ‘r m a r’o c,’uttc,n r iz b • the Usvrs C’.t.n,. I ‘n R@. )P•)l V3t 3. e’jø r

on Apn 22. 2009. request’r.g Ins Provnce to órect to TrarsL rg ne catc ; r.si pfl :.r

—quW?:nt finds generate-i f’om ha ctrea coered ry The Tre’sL.’k netto<

V . I

t-’-D°n LaglagaronD€n-t:, Ccrnrnssccor.De.,utv CHef Adr:n:s’atite Ocr

4b •

Alta r ‘rit‘:,;;‘a1!cr pass’d r. Ibe k.tr’. Varc.;e’ Board cr r:a 12, C1C

FIN - 19

Attachment

F•esoiutio•n passed by the Metro Vancouver Board Ofl May 12, 2010:

Th.at the Board:advISe the Provinctai i:1iolstnor of on vcroorrton atro Community and Rural Cev:F turf:

- a ‘r

a ie L.ooa Cu,’OOn’iOr’T ACt ra unfaIr/tsr: Pr( ronuuos aas re000ton Taruts. pr/rrzr’n

CC5-t’ aun Thuno unne”

and r:roic::ai yoveromeut actions to OaXrn/Ze reoucuons to preennouse uas e!”i55tun5 sucO as:

(H en the bu:;ooos sector.• aLv:uac The n:odornuraron or the BC Buildinq CooS. ano• ricrease :ocentives and regulations icr residentid;! and corntnuruiel hui/diq retuT/tIc,

(d :0 the transoortatiun sectOr,

• enable the rca/on and member rr:tinlrtV9I’/tieS afld shatter tocal aurrioritees to :rnptement

cOmVrErnerTSiye tu3nsnOrfatlofl oernand oianeaetnent measures.• coordinate current pro ymca! arc enho.:se ras enriss’ons standards tor !rr;tirourv

vehicles yntt; new ten/oral stanuarus. ann,

• increase fundeng for susta:nabie transportation infrastructure and The Scrap-it Program:

(Hi) in the soled waste’ sector, accelerating legislative 75ores to reduce waste aridcnassio mm> pron r’ fcc 7ctes and extended aroducer responsunlttj7 Cr achegtr,q

aria,

Cv) establishing stande:rd tools, assumpHdns da:ia, and .fbrecasting methods so That tone!and regional tirrgcts. policies, and actions are coordinated.

• recuesi tire Bcard’ Chair to. send a letter to: the Ministries, outtining initiatives taken by tonalgove:rnments in tire bo:iidings.. transpartation, solid isaste an:d other sectors to-data anrf rea:fti’rmihgthe need’ to ha:ve provihciai assistance id theSe sectors.

• direct s.taff to send a copy of the correspondence. to municipal councilS and sli’nilar local authoritiesin the Lower Mainiand,

FIN - 20

gstanese

Text Box

6468359

GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2011

Finance Committee Meeting Date: July19x, 2011 Page 1 of 9

Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: Sept 13, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: Sept 20, 2012 To: Zero Waste Committee

Finance Committee From: Peter Wishart, Senior Engineer Solid Waste Department Date: August 4, 2012 Subject: GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results Recommendation: That the Committee receive for information the report dated August 4, 2012 titled “GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results”. 1. PURPOSE To provide the 2011 financial results for the GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement to the Committee. 2. CONTEXT On December 20, 1996, the GVS&DD executed a 20-year Comprehensive Agreement with Wastech Services Ltd. that combined three fixed price contracts between the GVS&DD and Wastech into a single agreement. The Comprehensive Agreement includes operation of the Coquitlam Transfer Station, North Shore Transfer Station, Matsqui Transfer Station, Surrey Transfer Station and the Cache Creek Landfill. The Comprehensive Agreement allocates risks to the party best able to manage them. On this basis, Wastech took on the responsibility for the operations of the above facilities based on service levels set by the GVS&DD. To achieve the goal of sharing risks and benefits, a target Operating Ratio (ratio of eligible operating expenses over total revenues) approach was implemented as this provides incentive for both parties to work cooperatively and seek new efficiencies and economies on an ongoing basis. The target Operating Ratio was set at 0.89 on the basis of the net income margin that was earned by Wastech in the fixed price contracts prior to the Comprehensive Agreement, as well as industry standards in similar waste management agreements. Under this agreement, the GVS&DD receives secure long term waste management services, economies resulting from any increase in waste volumes and efficiencies from integration of multiple facility operations into one agreement. Wastech receives compensation for Eligible Operating Expenses (adjusted by the target Operating Ratio) related to receiving, transferring and disposal of waste, and resource recovery and

FIN - 21

wchan

Text Box

5.2

GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: Sept 13, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: Sept 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3 recycling. Excess revenues or expenditures are shared 50/50 between the GVS&DD and Wastech and are referred to in the Agreement as the Carry-Over Variance. The Comprehensive Agreement base rates were established in 2000 following a three year transition period (1997-1999) from the fixed price contracts. These rates are adjusted annually in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Under the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement, the parties conduct a review of the financial results of the operations for the immediately preceding operating year. For 2011, KPMG completed a detailed audit of Wastech’s financial records and reports. The audit report produced by KPMG, in condensed form, is presented as Attachment 1. Items audited or reviewed include revenues and expenditures, pass-through expenses, capital expenses, and waste and recycling flows. The 2011 Audit of the Comprehensive Agreement has confirmed the total waste and recycling flows handled by Wastech decreased by 66,702 tonnes compared to 2010. Further, the waste received and transferred to the Cache Creek Landfill decreased by 123,328 tonnes compared to 2010. In 2011, revenues decreased by $9,116,838 compared to 2010. The reduction in revenue is due to decreases in overall systemwastes including reduction in flows to Cache Creek, and resource recovery. In 2011, total eligible operating expenses decreased by $4,099,884 compared to 2010. The decrease in expenses is attributable to a reduction in labour, fuel and freight costs associated with the lower waste flows to Cache Creek. As noted in Attachment No.1, disputed revenues and costs in the approximate amounts of $237,000 and $646,000, respectively, are currently under negotiation between the two parties. Any change to these amounts would impact the Carry-Over Variance. Based on the audit, Wastech’s actual Operating Ratio for 2011 was 1.041. This resulted in an operating deficit of $5,655,931, fifty percent of which, or $2,827,966, is payable by GVS&DD as a Carry-Over Variance. Pass-Through expenses are those items, pre-approved under the Comprehensive Agreement, that are not to be marked up such as property taxes, post closure trust fund payments, permit related expenses, etc. There is no pass-through expense adjustment for 2011. Wastech receives compensation for eligible capital expenses incurred. Capital payments are estimated at the start of the year based on the approved Wastech capital plan and GVS&DD budget. There is no capital expenditure adjustment for 2011. Under the terms of the Agreement, a retroactive lump sum payment is made (without accrual of interest) which includes the Carry-Over Variance, the pass-through expense adjustment, and the capital expense adjustment. The adjustments resulting from the 2011 year end review total $2,827,966, payable from GVS&DD to Wastech. This amount was estimated and accrued in 2011 year-end financials. The Attachment also contains a statement of waste flows including long haul, short haul, and recycling volumes.

FIN - 22

GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2011 Financial Results Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: Sept 13, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: Sept 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3

6313980

3. ALTERNATIVES No alternatives presented. 4. CONCLUSION Based on the KPMG Audit of the Comprehensive Agreement for the year 2011, the net year end adjustment payable from GVS&DD to Wastech is $2,827,966. This represents 50% of the operating deficit. Disputed revenues and costs in the approximate amounts of $237,000 and $646,000, respectively, are currently under negotiation between the two parties. ATTACHMENT: Condensed Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Carry-Over Variance of GVS&DD and Wastech Services Ltd. Comprehensive Agreement – Year ended December 31, 2011 by KPMG.

FIN - 23

Attachment

FIN - 24

FIN - 25

FIN - 26

FIN - 27

FIN - 28

FIN - 29


To: Finance Committee From: Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Manager,

Finance & Administration Department Date: August 20, 2012 Subject: Semi-Annual Report on GVS&DD Development Cost Charges Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive the report dated August 20, 2012 titled “Semi-Annual Report on GVS&DD Development Cost Charges” for information. 1. PURPOSE To report on the 2012 GVS&DD Development Cost Charge revenues and any implications on their adequacy, as required in the Board’s policy. 2. CONTEXT Board policy requires that the adequacy of GVS&DD Development Cost Charge revenues be reported to the Committee on a semi-annual basis. This is the first of such reports for 2012. The revenues for the period January 1 to June 30 of this year are up approximately $2.49 million (30%) over revenues for the same period in 2011. This is reflective of increasing development in the Region over the last few years. The DCC revenues are shown below:

($ millions) Fraser Lulu N. Shore Vancouver Regional Total

2011 1st half 4.311 .110 .209 .612 3.039 8.281 2011 2nd half 4.490 .173 .304 .624 3.268 8.859 2012 1st half 4.826 ..395 .217 1.105 4.226 10.769 The annual DCC revenues continue to be in excess of our annual actual DCC debt funding requirements which, for the year ended 2011, were calculated and reported as shown below:

Fraser Lulu N. Shore Vancouver Regional Total 2011 DCC’s Applied 3.750 .257 .122 .301 1.849 6.279 It is important to note that Sewerage growth capital projects for which the DCC’s are received, are funded over a 15 year period (principal portion of long-term debt). Excess DCC revenues are maintained as deferred revenues for future application as required.

5.3

FIN - 30

Semi-Annual Report on GVS&DD Development Cost Charges Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 2 3. ALTERNATIVES N/A 4. CONCLUSION

The longer term adequacy of Development Cost Charge revenue to either directly or indirectly finance the growth capital program will always be somewhat sensitive to major fluctuations in the Liquid Waste capital program as it evolves. While the current DCC revenues continue to be substantial, so is the plan for future Liquid Waste growth capital works. The “Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan” has been approved by the Province. Following the update of current/long range capital plans, a review of future DCC requirements and the adequacy of DCC rates has recently commenced. This review of adequacy will incorporate the requirements under the new plan as well as the impacts of recent legislative changes regarding social housing. In the medium term, current revenues appear adequate. SF/wc Doc. 6448712

FIN - 31

Finance Committee Meeting Date: Sept. 20, 2012 To: Finance Committee

From: Tracey S. Husoy, Purchasing and Risk Manager, Finance and

Administration Department

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012 Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012”, dated July 30, 2012 for information. 1. PURPOSE To provide the Finance Committee information with regards to contracts with a total anticipated value at or in excess of $250,000.00 2. CONTEXT This report contains information regarding the award of contracts and standing offer agreements with an anticipated value at or in excess of $250,000.00. Contracts are awarded following approval of the annual budget and in accordance with the Delegation Bylaw both having been approved by the Board of Directors and in accordance with corporate policies. Capital projects often result in multiple contracts, but for the purpose of this report each contract is reported on its own merits. Some contracts include multiple phases of work whereby subsequent phases of the work cannot be adequately defined until previous phases of the work are complete. In other instances a contract may include options to extend the quantity or contract term as an incentive for good value and to leverage volume. In these instances the total anticipated value of the contract is included in the overall bid evaluation and is reported to the Committee. When/if subsequent phases of the work or the extension options are awarded those awards will not be reported as a contract amendment. The following contracts were awarded during the months of June and July 2012: (Details attached as APPENDIX A) 1. Fricia Construction Inc. $1,551,782.40 GVWD

Kennedy Park Reservoir Seismic Upgrade

2. JJM Construction Ltd. $11,868,276.00 GVS&DD

Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase 1 Upgrade – Secondary Clarifiers Ground Improvement and Preload

3. The Miller Hull Partnership $1,368,105.76 GVS&DD

Architectural and Community Integration Consulting Services for Lions Gate Secondary

5.4

FIN - 32

Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3

Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Report

4. B. Cusano Contracting (2007) Inc. $560,000.00 GVWD

Installation of Port Mann Main Tie-In-Piping – Phase 1

5. AECOM Canada Ltd. $3,604,073.10 GVS&DD

Engineering Consulting Services for Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Report

6. 0772497 BC Ltd. Aulona Painting & Restoration Ltd. New Life Painting & Decorating Ltd. Fine Touch Painting & Decorating Ltd. Atlas Painting & Restorations Ltd. ABC Enterprises

$30,240.00 $86,352.00 $136,371.20 $18,480.00 $12,134.08 $19,040.00

MVHC

Exterior Painting Services at Various Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Locations.

7. 7group, LLC $279,944.00 GVS&DD

Request for Qualifications – Integrated Design Facilitation Services for the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Upgrade Project Definition Phase

8. Acklands-Grainger Inc. $1,050,000.00 (over 5 years)

GVRD

Supply and Delivery of Safety Supplies, Equipment, Services and First Aid Supplies – Metro Vancouver

9. Brown and Caldwell Consultants Canada Ltd.

$70,480,396.00 (over 8 years)

GVS&DD

Annacis Island WWTP Stage V Expansion Engineering Services

10. Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. $580,708.80 GVS&DD

Installation of North Surrey Interceptor – 104 Avenue Extension

11. Pedre Contractors Ltd. $8,396,892.56 GVWD

Installation of Douglas Road Main No. 2 – Phase 6, Delta Avenue Section

12. AECOM Canada Ltd. $354,342.00 GVS&DD

Engineering Services – Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Gate Upgrades

13. Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects $586,947.20 MVHC

Heather Place Site Rezoning Consulting Services

14. BA Blacktop Ltd. $260,132.00 GVS&DD

North Shore Transfer Station Site Repaving

15. Tyco Valves and Controls Canada $1,041,926.95 GVWD

Supply and Delivery of Butterfly Valves – Port Mann Main No. 2 (Fraser River Tunnel Crossing)

FIN - 33

Tender/Contract Award Information – June and July 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3 16. Tervita Corporation $386,752.28 GVS&DD

South Cogeneration Facility Activated Carbon Filter Services

17. McRae’s Environmental Services $940,800.00 GVS&DD

Digested Sludge Hauling Services – NWLWWTP to AIWWTP

18. Petro-Canada Lubricants $988,289.10 GVRD

Supply and Delivery of Lubricants

The following previously reported contracts were amended during the month of June and July 2012: (Details attached as APPENDIX C)

Original, Previously or Anticipated Amended Value

Value of Amendment(s)

Total Amended or Anticipated Value of Contract

Amendment Type

1. Sylvis Environmental

$392,000.00 $386,400.00 $778,400.00 Additional Services

Covers the Management of an Additional 5,000 Bulk Tonnes Biosolids at the Rey Creek Forest Fertilization Project.

2. GCL Contracting $2,066,960.00 $304,600.80 $2,371,560.80 Additional Work

Covers additional work required to complete the project.

Attachments: APPENDIX A: Information with regard to newly awarded contracts APPENDIX B: Contracts amended to a value of more than $250,000 but not previously

reported to the Finance Committee (nothing to report) APPENDIX C: Previously reported contracts that have been amended APPENDIX D: List of tenders and proposals received but not awarded (presently being reviewed) APPENDIX E: List of current open tender/proposal calls for contracts anticipated to be

valued at greater than $250,000 Document 6298229

FIN - 34

Appendix A Page No. 1

AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-088 1. A contract was awarded June 12, 2012 for the GVWD

To: Fricia Construction Inc. In the amount of $1,551,782.40 (inclusive of HST) for the Kennedy Park Reservoir

Seismic upgrade. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Tenders were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 2, 2012. Closing Date: May 24, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

Fricia Construction Inc. $1,551,782.40 Kingston Construction $1,673,280.00 HRC Construction $1,678,713.12 Wilco Civil Inc. $1,698,943.68 Graham Construction $1,991,360.00 Alexander Construction Ltd. $2,272,486.72 Sea-Jae Builders Ltd. $2,577,383.89 Kenaiden Contracting Ltd. $2,948,288.00

4. Tenders reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Engineering and Construction Department Staff 5. Award was made to the lowest compliant bidder.

FIN - 35


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-002

1. A contract was awarded June 25, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: JJM Construction Ltd. in the amount of $11,868,276* (inclusive of HST) for the Northwest Langley Wastewater

Treatment Plant – Phase 1 Upgrade – Secondary Clarifiers Ground Improvement and Preload.

The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Tenders were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 7, 2012. Closing Date: June 14, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

JJM Construction $11,948,916.00 M2K Construction $12,268,575.00 Delta Aggregates $12,445,933.00 Tybo Contracting $12,884,217.00 Tritech Group $13,893,119.00 Timbro Contracting $15,989,272.00


*Does not include two provisional items as they were no longer required.

FIN - 36


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-044 1. A contract was awarded June 27, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: The Miller Hull Partnership in the total anticipated amount of $1,368,105.76* (inclusive of HST) for Architectural and

Community Integration Consulting Services for Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Report.

The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Three (3) firms were short listed as a result of RFQ 11-188, and invited to bid on RFP

No. 12-044. Closing Date: April 3, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Dialog BC Architecture, Engineering, Interior Design Planning Inc. $1,372,856.80 The Miller Hull Partnership $1,452,808.00 GEC Architecture with CEI Architecture $1,461,579.84

4. Proposals reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Utility Planning Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria

established in the RFP.

*Total price includes provisional items and negotiations as allowed for in the RFP.

FIN - 37


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-053

1. A contract was awarded June 20, 2012 for the GVWD

To: B. Cusano Contracting (2007) Inc. in the amount of $560,000 (inclusive of HST) for Installation of Port Mann Main Tie-In-

Piping – Phase 1. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Five (5) firms were short listed as a result of RFQ 12-052, and invited to bid on Tender

No. 12-053. Closing Date: June 12, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

B. Cusano Contracting (2007) Inc. $560,000.00 Pedre Contractors Ltd. $577,416.00 Merletti Construction Ltd. $669,838.40 Sandpiper Contracting LLP $785,360.80 Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. $1,338,400.00


FIN - 38


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-023 1. A contract was awarded June 26, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: AECOM Canada Ltd. in the amount up to $3,604,073.10* (inclusive of HST) for engineering consulting

services for Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – project definition report.

The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Three (3) firms were short listed as a result of RFQ 11-187, and invited to bid on RFP

No. 12-023. Closing Date: March 22, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

AECOM $2,798,068.00 The Hatch Mott MacDonald-Associated Engineering Joint Venture $2,885,195.04 Stantec Consulting Ltd. $3,434,790.24



*Total price includes provisional items and negotiations as allowed for in the RFP.

FIN - 39


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-101 1. Eight (8) contracts were awarded June 18, 2012 for the MVHC for exterior painting

services at various Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation locations. Contracts were awarded as follows (inclusive of HST):

# Company Location Price

1 0772497 BC Ltd. Ran Beamish $30,240.00 2 Aulona Painting & Restoration Ltd. Earl Adams Village $64,736.00 3 Aulona Painting & Restoration Ltd. Knights Bridge I & II $21,616.00 4 New Life Painting & Decorating Ltd. Moray Place $54,208.00 5 New Life Painting & Decorating Ltd. Somerset Gardens $81,163.20 6 Fine Touch Painting & Decorating Ltd. Kingston Gardens IV $18,480.00 7 Atlas Painting & Restorations Ltd. Lynden Court $12,134.08 8 ABC Enterprises Epsom Downs $19,040.00

Total: $302,617.28 The total price of all contracts is within the overall budget. 2. Tenders were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 14, 2012. Closing Date: May 29, 2012 3. Tenders were received from sixteen (16) firms with a total of eighty (80) bids for the 8

locations. 4. Tenders reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Housing Corporation Department Staff 5. Award was made to the lowest compliant bidder for each location.

FIN - 40


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFQ NO. 11-203 1. A contract was awarded June 27, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: 7group, LLC

in the amount of $279,944.00 (inclusive of HST) for Request for Qualifications – Integrated Design Facilitation Services for the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Upgrade Project Definition Phase

The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on January

10, 2012. Closing Date: February 2, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

7group, LLC Light House Sustainable Building Centre Morrison Hershfield Limited Summit Environmental Consultants Inc.


established in the RFQ. Due to the significant point difference between responses, MV entered into direct negotiations with the 7group, LLC.

FIN - 41


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 11-065 1. A contract was awarded July 3, 2012 for the GVRD

To: Acklands-Grainger Inc. in the anticipated amount of $1,750,000* (inclusive of HST) for supply and delivery of

safety supplies, equipment, services and first aid supplies – Metro Vancouver. The contract is for a period of five (5) years on an as-and-when required basis. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on August 26,

2011. Closing Date: October 13, 2011 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Estimated Amount Over Five (5) Years**

Acklands-Grainger Inc. $883,494.75 Guillevin International $1,039,431.15

4. Proposals reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Various Internal Stakeholders 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria

established in the RFP who coincidentally provided the lowest cost.

* The anticipated value of the contract is based in part on historical usage; however, actual expenditures are restricted by the Corporation’s actual needs and available funding as determined through the annual budget approval process. For this reason the anticipated value may exceed or be less than this amount within the 5 year term.

**A selection of items was used for the purposes of comparison.

FIN - 42


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 11-113 1. A contract was awarded July 4, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: Brown and Caldwell Consultants Canada Ltd. in the amount of $70,480,396* (inclusive of HST) for Annacis Island WWTP Stage V

expansion engineering services over an anticipated eight (8) year term. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Three (3) firms were short listed as a result of RFQ 11-011, and invited to bid on RFP

No. 11-113. Closing Date: October 13, 2011 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Vancouver Wastewater Partners $67,548,061.00 Brown and Caldwell Consultants Canada Ltd. $72,916,107.00 ABV Consultants Ltd. $75,225,119.00

4. Proposals reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Engineering & Construction Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria


*Total price includes negotiations as allowed for in the RFP.

FIN - 43


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-099 1. A contract was awarded July 10, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. In the amount of $580,708.80 (inclusive of HST) for the installation of North Surrey

Interceptor – 104 Avenue Extension. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. As a result of RFQ 12-064, four (4) firms were deemed qualified and invited to bid on

Tender No. 12-099. Closing Date: June 28, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. $580,708.80 Merletti Construction (2009) Ltd. $622,372.80 JJM Construction Ltd. $631,904.00 Pedre Contractors Ltd. $671,776.00


FIN - 44


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-058 1. A contract was awarded July 19, 2012 for the GVWD

To: Pedre Contractors Ltd. In the amount of $8,396,892.56 (inclusive of HST) for the installation of Douglas Road

Main No. 2 – Phase 6, Delta Avenue Section. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. As a result of RFQ 11-009, five (5) firms were deemed qualified and invited to bid on

Tender No. 12-058. Closing Date: July 5, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

Pedre Contractors Ltd. $8,396,892.56 Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. $9,936,024.00 B. Cusano Contracting (2007) Ltd. $10,780,000.00


FIN - 45


AWARD OF CONTRACT


To: AECOM Canada Ltd. in the amount of $354,342.00* (inclusive of HST) for Engineering Services –

Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Gate Upgrades. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on March 29,

2012. Closing Date: May 1, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST, base scope of services and all provisional items):

AECOM Canada Ltd. $431,511.00 Opus DaytonKnight (ODK) $543,439.00 CH2M Hill $1,190,315.00

4. Proposals reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff

Technical: Engineering & Construction and Operations & Maintenance Department Staff

5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria

established in the RFP, who coincidentally provided the lowest cost. *Includes base scope of services and a portion of provisional items.

FIN - 46


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-076 1. A contract was awarded July 17, 2012 for the MVHC

To: Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects in the amount up to $586,947.20* (inclusive of HST) for Heather Place Site Rezoning

Consulting Services. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 17,

2012. Closing Date: June 19, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

DYS Architecture $559,667.36 Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architect $605,668.00 Perkins & Will $986,979.84


Technical: Housing Corporation Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria


*Includes disbursements but does not include a $50,000.00 allowance for additional services.

FIN - 47


AWARD OF CONTRACT

TENDER NO. 12-114 1. A contract was awarded July 20, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: BA Blacktop Ltd. In the amount of $260,132.00 (inclusive of HST) for North Shore Transfer Station Site

Repaving. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on June 21,

2012.

Closing Date: July 12, 2012. 3. Tenders received (inclusive of HST):

BA Blacktop Ltd. $260,132.00 Winvan Paving Ltd. $283,357.20 Jack Cewe Ltd. $329,224.00

4. Tenders reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff Technical: Solid Waste Department Staff 5. Award was made to the lowest compliant bidder.

FIN - 48

Appendix A

Page No. 15 AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-031

2. A contract was awarded July 31, 2012 for the GVWD

To: Tyco Valves and Controls Canada in the amount up to $1,041,926.95 (inclusive of HST) for supply and delivery of butterfly

valves – Port Mann Main No. 2 (Fraser River Tunnel Crossing). The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on March 15,

2012. Closing Date: April 17, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Tyco Valves and Controls Canada $1,041,926.95 4. Proposals reviewed by: Contractual: Purchasing Division Staff

Technical: Engineering and Construction Department Staff 5. Award was made to the sole responding bidder found technically and commercially

compliant.

FIN - 49


AWARD OF CONTRACT


To: Tervita Corporation in the amount of $386,752.28 (inclusive of HST) for South Cogeneration Facility

Activated Carbon Filter Service. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 3,

2012. Closing Date: May 31, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Quantum Murray LP $293,267.52 Tervita Corporation $386,752.28


Technical: Wastewater Treatment Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria


FIN - 50

Appendix A

Page No. 17 AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-038

3. A contract was awarded July 31, 2012 for the GVS&DD

To: McRae’s Environmental Services in the anticipated amount of $1,568,000.00 (inclusive of HST) for Digested Sludge

Hauling Services – NWLWWTP to AIWWTP for five (5) years. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on May 31,

2012. Closing Date: June 26, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

McRae’s Environmental Services $1,568,000.00 JJM Construction $1,582,935.00 Veolia Canada Industrial Services Inc. $2,979,200.00


Technical: Wastewater Treatment Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria

established in the RFP, who coincidentally provided the lowest cost.

FIN - 51


AWARD OF CONTRACT

RFP NO. 12-033 4. A contract was awarded July 18, 2012 for the GVRD

To: Petro-Canada Lubricants Inc. in the anticipated amount of $988,289.10 (inclusive of HST) for supply and delivery of

lubricants. The total contract price is within the overall budget. 2. Proponents were invited by MV & BC Bid web sites and private invitation on March 13,

2012. Closing Date: April 3, 2012 3. Proposals received (inclusive of HST):

Parkland Fuel Corporation $835,669.05 Petro-Canada Lubricants Inc $988,289.10


Technical: Operations and Maintenance Department Staff 5. Award was made to the highest ranked proponent based on the evaluation criteria


FIN - 52

Appendix C

Page No. 1

AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY REPORTED CONTRACT PURCHASE ORDER NO. 118155/ Sole Source

Rey Creek Forest Fertilization Project for the GVRD

1. Name of Contractor: Sylvis Environmental

2. Date Contract Reported: July 2011

3. Original Anticipated Reported Value of Contract: $392,000.00

4. Amendment Number: 01

5. Value of Amendment: $386,400.00

6. Amendment Type: Additional Services

7. Total Revised Anticipated Amended Value of Contract: $778,400.00 8. Budget Status:

This contract is funded within the operating budget for this program. 9. Reason for Amendment to Contract:

Amendment No. 01 is for the management of an additional 5,000 bulk tonnes biosolids that will be produced as a result of the Northwest Langley (NWL) Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade project.

FIN - 53

Appendix C Page No. 2

AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY REPORTED CONTRACT PURCHASE ORDER NO. 119962

Coquitlam Landfill Gas Collection System Upgrade – Phase 1 Coquitlam Landfill Leachate Collection System Upgrade – Phase 1

for the GVS&DD

1. Name of Contractor: GCL Contracting & Engineering Inc.

2. Date Contract Reported: September 2011

3. Original Anticipated Reported Value of Contract: $2,066,960.00

4. Amendment Number: 01

5. Value of Amendment: $304,600.80

6. Amendment Type: Additional Work

7. Total Revised Anticipated Amended Value of Contract: $2,371,560.80 8. Budget Status:

This contract is funded within the approved capital budget for this program. 9. Reason for Amendment to Contract:

Amendment No. 01 covers additional scope of work and the final quantities for installation which could not be accurately estimated at the time of award.

FIN - 54

Appendix D As at July 30, 2012

Tenders/Proposals Received But Not Awarded

(Presently Being Reviewed)

Tender/RFP

Date Closed

RFP No. 12-019 Cost Consulting services for the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Upgrade Project Definition Phase (awarded at less than $250k)

March 8, 2012

Tender No. 12-042 North Shore Transfer Station Floor Topping Repair (awarded at less than $250k)

March 22, 2012

RFP No. 12-037 Cleveland Dam and Seymour Falls Dam 2012 – 2017 Dam Surveillance Program

March 22, 2012

RFP No. 12-033 Supply and Delivery of Lubricants

April 3, 2012

RFP No. 11-127 AIWWTP Cogeneration System Engineering Services

April 12, 2012

RFP No. 12-025 Supply & Delivery of Triple Offset Metal Seated Butterfly Valves – Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station

April 12, 2012

Tender No. 11-185 Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant- IPS VFD Replacement (awarded at less than $250k)

April 17, 2012

Tender No. 12-041 Metro Vancouver Head Office Reinforcing of the Loading Bay Concrete Slab (awarded at less than $250k)

April 24, 2012

Tender No. 12-021 Thickened Primary Sludge Pump Replacement – Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGWWTP) (awarded at less than $250k)

May 15, 2012

RFP No. 12-086 2012 Video Inspection of Sanitary Sewers (awarded at less than $250k)

May 17, 2012

Tender No. 12-077 Supply and Delivery of Bulkhead Gates for South Surrey Interceptor King George Boulevard Grit Chamber (awarded at less than $250k)

May 31, 2012

FIN - 55

Appendix D Page No. 1 cont.

Tender No. 12-107 Supply and Delivery of HDPE Pipe and Fittings for Coquitlam UV (awarded at less than $250k)

June 19, 2012

RFP No. 12-061 Consulting Engineering Services Related to the Vulnerability Assessment of Seymour Main No. 2 – Seymour Falls Dam to Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant

June 21, 2012

RFP No. 12-108 Beneficial Use Options for Class B Biosolids

July 12, 2012

RFP No. 12-112 Integrated Resource Recovery Study for the Vancouver Sewerage Area

July 12, 2012

RFP No. 12-062 Cathodic Protection Services

July 17, 2012

RFP No. 12-109 Operations and Maintenance Department Technical Training Program

July 11, 2012

RFP No. 12-118 Hauling Services for WWTP Grit and Screenings

July 12, 2012

RFP No. 12-119 Business and Project Advisory Services for Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Report

July 12, 2012

RFP No. 12-124 Conceptual Design of the Annacis Main No. 5 Water Supply Tunnel – Fraser River Crossing

July 31, 2012

RFP No. 12-139 Consulting Engineering Services Related to the Quantitative Risk Assessment and Conceptual/Preliminary Design of Mackay Creek Debris Flow Mitigation

August 9, 2012

FIN - 56

Appendix E As at July 30, 2012

Current Open Tender/Proposal Calls

for Contracts Anticipated to be Valued at Greater than $250,000

Tender/RFP Closing Date

Tender No. 12-134 Ozada Village – Building Envelope Renewal

August 21, 2012

RFP No. 12-016 Engineering Consulting Services for Solids Handling Upgrade Project at Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (IIWWTP)

August 28, 2012

RFP No. 12-136 Consulting Engineering Services Related to Design and Construction for the Sapperton Pump Station

September 6, 2012

FIN - 57

6485788


To: Finance Committee From: Jim Rusnak, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administration Department Date: September 4, 2012 Subject: Manager’s Report Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive the report titled “Manager’s Report”, dated September 4, 2012 for information. 1. Monthly WWTP upgrade projects. A verbal update will be provided to the Committee. 2. Finance Committee Work Plan update. An updated plan will be provided to the committee each meeting, with bolded items indicating completion. ATTACHMENT

5.5

FIN - 58

Finance Committee 2012 Work Plan

(as amended at the February 23, 2012 Finance Committee meeting)

1st Quarter

• Lions Gate and Iona Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) project update for Q1 • Waste to Energy (WTE) project update for Q1 • TransLink 2012/2013 Gas Tax funding process • Meet with FCM to determine Metro Vancouver’s involvement in the federal

government’s “Engagement Process for Developing a Long-Term Infrastructure Plan” • Recommend amendments to Board’s Remuneration By-law in respect of Electoral Area

A Director • Initiate formal application for funding by province and federal government for Lion’s

Gate WWTP upgrade (project definition phase) • MFA Annual meeting and election of Metro Vancouver trustees • Review status of TransLink and Metro Vancouver following Mayor’s Council discussion on

MOU with Province • Approve 2012 Risk Advisory and Audit Services (formerly Internal Audit) work plan for

2012

2nd Quarter

• Strategic presentation and discussion with Partnerships BC and/or Business Advisors on the potential role of P3’s as a financing/governance structure on major projects

• Review and recommend approval of audited 2010 Financial Statements, Audit Report and associated information, in compliance with new Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) 3150 standards

• Updated version of “Building Sustainable Financial Strategies” report, a long term financial view of Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and TransLink

• Endorse a formal “Financial Strategy” document, which will complement the suite of Metro Vancouver management plans

• Lions Gate and Iona Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) project update for Q2 • WTE project update for Q2 • An interim report on the Development Cost Charges program (April) • Pre-budget Board Workshop (April)

3rd Quarter

• Endorse an updated, 2012 version of “Building Sustainable Financial Strategies” report, and continue to use it as a focal point for discussion on financial sustainability for the region

• Participate in a thorough review of Metro Vancouver’s 10 year capital plan (Long Range Plan), and associated debt position, in advance of 2012 Budget approval

• Board pre-budget Workshop (July) (Sub-regional Council of Councils) • RAAC to report back to Finance Committee/Utilities Committee/Board, with recommendations

relating to the GVS&DD cost allocation model • Recommend 5 year targets for Board approval • Lions Gate and Iona Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) project update for Q3 • WTE project update for Q3 • New DCC By-law with updated rates, for GVS&DD • Consider a “rate smoothing” strategy for GVS&DD major projects • A symposium involving high level financial experts from the private and public sector is

convened to discuss future scenarios, opportunities and challenges

Attachment 1

FIN - 59

4th Quarter

• Presentations to MFA Ratings Agencies and/or investment syndicate • Provide direction on corporate insurance programs and associated risk • Review of 2012 Metro Vancouver budgets, and endorsement of same to Board Budget

Workshop • Lions Gate and Iona Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) project update for Q4 • WTE project update for Q4 • Strategic partnering within internal (Metro Vancouver) business units on organizational

effectiveness efforts and value added HR management systems • Provide input to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) on redevelopment plans • Lead discussion on alternative revenue generation, as per recommendations from discussion

paper by Professor Kitchen

FIN - 60

FIN - 61

wchan

Text Box

6.1

Utilities Committee Meeting Date: September 12, 2012


To: Utilities Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Project Manager, Wastewater Secondary Treatment Upgrades Marie Griggs, Public Involvement Division Manager, Engineering & Construction

Department Date: September 4, 2012 Subject: Lions Gate and Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants –

Project Update Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated September 4, 2012 titled “Lions Gate and Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants – Project Update”. 1. PURPOSE To update the Board on the work now underway to complete the Project Definition Phases for the Lions Gate and Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. 2. CONTEXT

2.1 Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant A project initiation report is being prepared for the Iona Island plant upgrade. This report will document the proposed approach for undertaking the project work, identify the project participants, indicate the project work breakdown structure and identify the project timeline and project funding need. The project initiation report will be developed with input and review by the Vancouver Sewerage Area member municipalities. Once the project initiation report is completed, recommendations on proceeding with the work will be brought forward for the Board’s consideration, currently being targeted for November.

2.2 Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant The technical work is now underway to complete the Project Definition Report by December 2013.

2.2.1 Integrative Design Team All contracts have now been awarded to the consultants comprising the Integrative Design Team.

wchan

Text Box

ADDITIONAL ITEM 6.2

6469363

2.2.2 Integrative Design Process Commencing September 11th and 12th a series of seven Integrative Design Workshops have been established for the project. The first workshop has a focus on alignment of the project participants as it relates to the project objectives and the roles and work tasks. In October a second workshop identifies the opportunities available for secondary treatment, sustainability objectives, integrated resource recovery opportunities and community enhancements. Decision making criteria will be established to aid in evaluation of the business cases and analysis associated with investigation of the options. The remaining workshops are:

December 2012 – Prioritize concept options January 2013– Evaluate concept options for short-list April 2013 – Selection of preferred option June 2013 – Preliminary design integration October 2013 – Finalize preliminary design

2.2.3 Utilities Committee Workshops Coordinated with the technical workshops, a series of four workshops are planned to review the project and receive direction from the Utilities Committee. These include:

November 2012 – Review of opportunities, plant scale, screening criteria and an initial overview of the range of design/procurement options that may be considered

March 2013 – Technology assessment and selection and screening of opportunities

June 2013 – Preliminary design and cost estimate formulation September 2013 – Preliminary design and cost estimate final assessment

The dates, timing and agendas for these workshops will be planned with the Committee.

2.2.4 Financial Status The project budget is summarized as follows: Project Project

Definition Phase Budget

Expended to Date

Committed to Date

Projected Final Cost

Lions Gate $20 M $8,000,000 $863,000 $5,180,000 $8,000,000 Iona Is.$16.5 M To be

determined

6469363

2.2.5 Funding Metro Vancouver continues to seek financial support from other levels of government for the Project Definition Phase of the Iona upgrade, since both the federal and provincial governments have indicated that there is no funding available for the Project Definition component of the Lions Gate project, given its shorter timelines. Metro Vancouver staff are also implementing an advocacy strategy. A key component of the strategy is the work being undertaken with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to influence the development of the federal government’s recently announced Long-Term Infrastructure Plan, or LTIP, which will replace the Building Canada Fund in 2014. Metro Vancouver Board Chair Greg Moore and Vice-Chair Raymond Louie both attended the regional LTIP roundtable held in Vancouver in early August, and Metro Vancouver is lobbying to have Chair Moore attend the national roundtable in Ottawa, which is tentatively scheduled for October. Metro Vancouver staff has scheduled staff-to-staff meetings later this month in Ottawa to discuss federal WWTP funding support with a key Assistant Deputy Minister at Infrastructure Canada, and Metro Vancouver has also confirmed a fall meeting with BC Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Ida Chong to engage on securing long-term provincial funding support for both the Lions Gate and Iona upgrades.

2.2.6 Lions Gate Potential Flow Diversion – Result of Previous Study The following summary is provided in response to the request of staff made at the June 13th Utilities Committee meeting requesting the background and assessment made regarding the potential diversion of wastewater from the North Shore to the Iona Island plant for processing. As part of the work related to the Liquid Waste Management Plan, studies were undertaken in 2005 on the treatment plant upgrades required for the Lions Gate and Iona plants. This included an assessment of diverting North Shore flows to Iona Island. Four potential routing options were assessed and compared to retaining wastewater treatment at a North Shore site. Relative to the capital cost to build on a new site on the North Shore, the diversion option capital costs were in the order of two times more expensive. There were also several complicating factors to a diversion option including limited land at the Iona Island site, the timing difference associated with the two projects, the seismic risk associated with a major marine crossing and the need to potentially provide a high degree of protection resulting in additional increased cost (which was not factored into the initial analysis), the increase in combined sewer overflows resulting from increased flow in the Vancouver Sewerage Area interceptors, the need to still require a site on the North Shore for a major pumping facility and to manage high wet weather flows with some level of treatment prior to discharge. The conclusion reached after completing this work was that a new North Shore site for a secondary treatment plant to serve the North Shore communities is the best and preferred option.

6469363

2.2.7 Engagement and Consultation Program The engagement and consultation program will focus on the following North Shore target audiences: the public, Metro Vancouver municipalities, First Nations, as well as government agencies. The engagement and consultation program is an opportunity to communicate with broader audiences the significance of the secondary upgrade. An informed and engaged community will be of considerable importance as the region advocates with other orders of government for project funding and seeks support from regional ratepayers in moving forward with the upgrades. A key next step in the process is the development of core messaging and visual identity that will provide the foundation for further development of web and print-based communications materials. 2.2.7.1 The Public

A public meeting will be held on the North Shore in late fall 2012. Metro Vancouver is pursuing innovative ways to support the engagement and consultation process, and encourage participation and input: e.g. increasing interactivity of the LGSWWTP website; multi-media presence at public meetings; and other social media tools to communicate regarding the project.

2.2.7.1.1 Key Engagement Activities Lions Gate Public Advisory Committee In collaboration with North Shore municipalities, the LGPAC membership (Attachment 1) has been confirmed. Since official appointment letters were mailed, two members have stepped down. The North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce will recommend two people from the business community for the vacant positions. The Terms of Reference (TOR) has been adjusted to reflect a related change in membership description. On June 26, 2012, LGPAC held their initial meeting. The TOR, roles of members and alternates, and the LGPAC Chair were reviewed. Discussion points included: the need vs. requirement for secondary treatment, integration with the community, integrated resource recovery, and innovation in public financing. The meeting summary is on the LGSWWTP webpage: found by visiting www.metrovancouver.org and searching “Lions Gate”. Members submitted their expressions of interest for the roles of Chair and Vice-Chair. As per the TOR, Metro Vancouver staff selected and appointed the individuals for these positions (see Attachment 1). Norgate Park Community Association Metro Vancouver will establish bi-annual meetings with Norgate.

6469363

Community Resource Forum Metro Vancouver is holding additional meetings, referred to as the Community Resource Forum (CRF), for individuals and representatives of organizations who desire more in-depth discussion on the issues associated with planning of the plant. At the first CRF meeting in May, attendees included individuals with a variety of backgrounds representing: environmental organizations, post-secondary institutions, and community associations. Interests included the IDP process, integrated resource recovery, costs, technological innovation, as well as potential community impacts such as odour. The meeting summary is on the LGSWWTP webpage: found by visiting www.metrovancouver.org and searching “Lions Gate”.

2.2.7.2 Technical Advisory Committees

Metro Vancouver Advisory Committees The following Metro Vancouver advisory committees will be reported to every quarter, and engaged in the IDP process at key junctures: Regional Administrative Advisory Committee, Regional Engineers Advisory Committee, Regional Finance Advisory Committee, and Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee.

Lions Gate Intergovernmental Advisory Committee The LGIAC has representation from North Shore municipalities. Federal, Provincial and First Nations representation is being sought. Metro Vancouver presented information to senior North Shore staff in February and June 2012. Bi-weekly email reports were initiated in July.

2.2.7.3 First Nations Squamish Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation staff will be invited to sit on the LGIAC and attend IDP workshops and separate meetings. Metro Vancouver will correspond with all potentially affected First Nations, advising them of the project milestones and engagement opportunities.

2.2.7.4 Provincial and Federal Government Agencies Government agencies will also be notified of the consultation process, and will be given opportunities to participate, including involvement in the LGIAC.

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

6469363

4. CONCLUSION A project initiation report for the Iona Island plant upgrade is being prepared with input from the Vancouver Sewerage Area member municipalities. It will be brought forward for the Board’s consideration, which is currently targeted for November. Work is now underway on the Project Definition Phase for the Lions Gate upgrade. A technical team is now in place and an Integrative Design Process has been established based on a series of seven workshops. Workshops with the Utilities Committee will also be established at key decision points in the design process. This report provides an update on the engagement and consultation activities completed to date for the Project Definition Phase of the LGSWWTP project. Metro Vancouver’s engagement and consultation program will be carried out in collaboration with North Shore municipalities, providing residents, First Nations, and those with a specific interest in the project with continued opportunities for input. ATTACHMENT 1. LGSWWTP Public Advisory Committee Members and Alternates list (6277796)

Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant

Public Advisory Committee

Membership List

www.metrovancouver.org

LOCAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONPosition Name Position Name

Primary and Vice-Chair Tracy Tilscher, Vice-Chair Alternate Arlene King

Primary Diana Sollner Alternate David Knee

ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTSPosition Name Position Name

Primary (North Shore) Darlene Clarke Alternate (North Shore) John Croockewit

Primary (North Shore) Adrian Rowland Alternate (North Shore) Brian Walker

Primary (Region) Christianne Wilhelmson Alternate (Region) David Lane

BUSINESS INTERESTSPosition Name Position Name

Primary and Chair Christine Banham, Chair Alternate TBD

Primary John Hunter Alternate Blair East

Primary TBD Alternate David Morton

NON-AFFILIATED CITIZENS Position Name

Primary Jan Timmer No alternate required

Primary Peter Thompson No alternate required

Primary Troy Vassos No alternate required

Updated: August 23, 2012

Attachment 1

Finance Committee - September 20, 2012 - Agenda · 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 July 19, 2012...

Documents

Transcript of Finance Committee - September 20, 2012 - Agenda · 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 July 19, 2012...