SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES …€¦ · 10. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Regional Water Service [370] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

R1 Budget Meeting Thursday, February 5, 2015

SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:00 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda

REPORTS

2. Manager, Transit and Fleet – Public Transit [310] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal Annex A Pages 1-6

3. Manager, Transit and Fleet – Fleet [312] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal Annex B pp. 7-9

4. Manager, Transit and Fleet – Regional Street Lighting [320-342] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex C p. 10

5. Manager, Transit and Fleet – Ports [345] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal Annex D pp. 11-15

6. Manager, Transit and Fleet – Langdale Dock [346] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex E p. 16

7. Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery – Regional Solid Waste [350-353] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex F pp. 17-25

8. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex G pp. 26-30

9. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex H pp. 31-36

10. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Regional Water Service [370] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex I pp. 37-42

11. Manager, Utility Services and Operation Support Technician – Regional Water Service [376, 377, 378] – 2015 Annual Capital Programs

Annex J p. 43

12. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Waste Water Treatment Plants [381-394] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex K pp. 44-50

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R1 Budget February 5, 2015 Page 2

13. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Regional Sustainability [136] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal

Annex L pp. 51-52

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services

14. Budgets – Transportation and Facilities Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[310] Public Transit .................................................................................... 84 [312] Maintenance Facility ......................................................................... 87 [345] Ports ................................................................................................ 112 [346] Langdale Dock ................................................................................. 115

15. Budgets – Street Lighting Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[320] Regional Street Lighting .................................................................... 90 [322] Langdale Street Lighting ................................................................... 92 [324] Granthams Street Lighting ................................................................ 94 [326] Veterans Street Lighting ................................................................... 96 [328] Spruce Street Lighting ...................................................................... 98 [330] Woodcreek Street Lighting ............................................................... 100 [332] Fircrest Street Lighting ..................................................................... 102 [334] Hydaway Street Lighting .................................................................. 104 [336] Sunnyside Street Lighting ................................................................ 106 [340] Burns Road Street Lighting .............................................................. 108 [342] Stewart Road Street Lighting ........................................................... 110

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Utility Services Operations Support Technician

16. Budgets – Water and Sewer Pink Tab

Page #

[365] North Pender Harbour Water Services ............................................. 133 [366] South Pender Harbour Water Services ............................................ 137 [370] Regional Water Services (RWS) ...................................................... 141 [376] RWS: New Connections ................................................................. 145 [377] RWS: Mains Replacement .............................................................. 147 [378] RWS: New Construction ................................................................. 149 [381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant ................................................... 151 [382] Woodcreek Park Waste Water Plant ................................................ 153 [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant ......................................................... 156 [384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant ........................................................ 158 [385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 161 [386] Lee Bay Waste Water Plant ............................................................. 164 [387] Square Bay Waste Water Plant ....................................................... 167 [388] Langdale Waste Water Plant ........................................................... 170

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R1 Budget February 5, 2015 Page 3

[389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 173 [390] Merrill Crescent Waste Water Plant ................................................. 175 [391] Curran Road Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 177 [392] Roberts Creek Cohousing Treatment Plant ...................................... 179 [393] Lily`s Lake Waste Water Plant ......................................................... 181 [394] Panted Boat Waste Water Plant ...................................................... 183

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

17. Budgets – Solid Waste Pink Tab

Page #

[350] Regional Solid Waste ...................................................................... 117 [351] Pender Harbour Solid Waste ........................................................... 120 [352] Sechelt Solid Waste ......................................................................... 123 [353] Regional Recycling .......................................................................... 126 [354] Landfill Closure ................................................................................ 129 [355] Refuse Collection ............................................................................. 131

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services

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

Page #

[135] Corporate Sustainability Services ..................................................... 38 [136] Regional Sustainability Services ....................................................... 41

ADJOURNMENT

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5A-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 310 Transit FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: January 20, 2015

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 5, 2015

FROM: Rob Williams, Manager, Transit and Fleet

RE: TRANSIT [310] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “Transit [310] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND

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

DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($68,373)

Reason(s):

Over projected fare revenue on the Annual Operating Agreement (AOA), cost of mandatory unbudgeted fare box ($15,000), and increased maintenance expenses. It is recommended that half of the deficit be covered by the operating reserve and half be covered by 2015 taxation.

Options (select as appropriate):

X Transfer from Reserves to cover deficit (-$34,186)

Transfer to Rate Stabilization

Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. ________)

Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)

As per Section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

1

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"A"

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding Budget Proposals Page 2 of 6


2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 1 Proposed Enhancement / Project /

Reduction Lease new mobile heavy-duty vehicle lifts for transit buses.

Rating: MANDATORY - Imminent Asset Failure Geographical / Electoral Area affected Regional excluding Area A 2015 Funding Implications: $6,000 (this is a cost-share item and therefore

BC Transit will pay approximately 50% of the cost so the SCRD’s portion would be about $3,000 annually. There is a 7 year lease term so the SCRD’s total lease contribution would be $21,000)

Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Funds will be required for ongoing preventative

maintenance which will be covered within the operating budget.

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

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduced single occupancy vehicle mode share and an increase in transit and other sustainable transportation mode shares.

Staff Capacity: Coordination of procurement with BC Transit and installation will be by existing staff.

Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

Last fare review was completed in 2009. A fare review is part of the transit function work plan for 2015.

Rationale / Service Impacts: The SCRD currently owns and operates a heavy-duty vehicle lift that is used to maintain both transit and SCRD corporate fleet. However the lift is beyond its expected lifecycle and is starting to become a liability. Further, it is a very labour intensive process to continually adjust the lift settings in order to accommodate the varying vehicle sizes that make up the fleet. This process is causing significant stress on this aging piece of equipment which is resulting in increased breakdowns.

Fortunately staff have been able to negotiate with BC Transit on the cost-share for the lease of portable heavy-duty vehicle lifts. This 50/50 cost-share agreement will result in major cost savings to the SCRD. Failing to proceed with this will result in increased pressure on the existing lift and may cause service issues if buses cannot be maintained as scheduled. These portable lifts will also provide increased flexibility in terms of where vehicles can be maintained potentially increasing efficiency and allowing more vehicles to be maintained at once.

2



2 Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Increase Transit Base Budget

Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure Geographical / Electoral Area affected Regional excluding Area A 2015 Funding Implications: $85,000 Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Increase to Base Budget. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?


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


Rational / Service Impacts: Actual transit fares realized in 2014 were comparable to 2011. This dip in ridership over 2013 figures has contributed to the majority of the 2014 transit deficit. As such, revenue projections for 2015 have been adjusted to a more conservative level for 2015 resulting in a $40,000 revenue shortfall. While it is hard to pinpoint the exact reason for flattening 2014 ridership, challenges with ferry connections and decreasing fuel prices are likely contributors.

Staff and BC Transit will be implementing several marketing initiatives in an effort to increase awareness of the transit service and boost ridership. A fare review is also scheduled in 2015 in order to ensure the right fare structure is in place to maximize ridership and revenues.

In addition to a reduction in fares, there are SCRD administrative and operating expenses outside the BC Transit Annual Operating Agreement (AOA) that are not cost-shared. Staff conducted a thorough budget review and have determined the total amount for 2015 to be $45,000.

In summary, the 2015 fare revenue adjustment and additional SCRD non-cost share expense has resulted in a base budget increase of $90,000. This is a mandatory budget request in order to maintain transit service levels. On a positive note, while this is an annual additional cost to the SCRD, the 2015 percentage cost difference has decreased over 2014 as the additional SCRD expenses do not increase in proportion to inflationary and expansion service costs.

3




Implement transit marketing initiatives

Rating: +2 Enhancement to Existing Service

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

Regional excluding Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $10,000 (this is a cost-share item with BC Transit so the SCRD’s contribution would be roughly 50%, or $5,000)

Funding Source(s): Taxation/Fares

Future Financial Implications: Initiatives should result in increased revenue which could help to reduce tax requisition.



Staff Capacity: Coordination with BC Transit and implementation will impact Manager of Transit and Fleet capacity.



Rationale / Service Impacts: Increased marketing of the SCRD transit system is highlighted several times throughout the Transit Future Plan in order to build community awareness of the service and increase ridership. This has been further endorsed by SCRD Board resolution:

539/14 Rec No. 2 Transit [310]

THAT, for 2015 Round 1 budget discussions, staff present a budget proposal for the following project listed on Transit [310] – 2015 Proposed Initiatives:

• Transit Marketing Initiatives.

Specific transit marketing initiatives being considered include the distribution of transit bookmarks that include a 50% ride coupon, a rider appreciation day where staff/politicians will hand out coffee and cookies onboard buses on a specific day, and entering into the Gibsons Sea Cavalcade and Sechelt Canada Day parades. An education outreach campaign will also be implemented in order to reach out to local seniors regarding the handyDART service.

4



4 Proposed Enhancement / Project /

Reduction Increase Transit Service Person FTE by 0.5

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

Regional excluding Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $32,000 Funding Source(s): Taxation/Fares Future Financial Implications: Additional FTE will become part of future year

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


Staff Capacity: Increase Transit Service Person FTE by 0.5 Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):


Rational / Service Impacts: The transit service person position is integral to the overall transit operation. This position is responsible for ensuring the buses are pre-tripped each day as per CVSE regulations. In addition, this position is responsible for refueling, as well as internal and external cleaning of all buses prior to the start of daily service. The service person position is also responsible for light-duty shop maintenance and utilized for bus stop shelter installations, maintenance, and repairs.

Overall transit service hours have increased approximately 18%, bus fleet by over 33% (10 to 14 buses), and bus shelters by 5% over the past five years. However the FTE count for the Service Person position has remained unchanged at 1.25 over this period. This has resulted in work not being completed by this position as there are not enough hours available. Specifically, the majority of shift time is spent trying to complete CVSE pre-trip bus inspections and ensuring the buses meet BC Transit service standards. Several poor operator inspections from BC Transit have resulted from this situation. Further, that there is no time available within the allotted daily shift to perform required shop maintenance which has resulted in the Fleet Function subsidizing the Transit Service Person Position.

5



Failure to act on this will jeopardize the SCRD’s obligation as a transit operator to meet CVSE and BC Transit safety requirements as well as result in the Fleet Function further subsidizing the transit service person wages. Bus stop infrastructure will also deteriorate beyond repair resulting in the need for significant capital replacement funds.

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

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 67,511 $ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

-$ 34,185 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ 33,326 $ 33,326

2014 Operating DeficitOtherClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions Surplus

Note: Function also has a small capital reserve in the amount of $750. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Lease new heavy-duty vehicle lifts for transit buses 2. Increase Transit Base Budget 3. Implement Transit Marketing Initiatives 4. Increase Transit Service Person FTE by 0.5

6

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5B-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 312 Fleet FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: FLEET [312] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “Fleet [312] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposal” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $24,904

Reason(s): On budget.

Additional unbudgeted revenues as well as a slight savings on the expense side of the budget.


X Transfer to Reserves





7

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"B"

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding Budget Proposal Page 2 of 3



Reduction Increase Mechanic FTE by 0.4


Regional (100% cost recovery function)

2015 Funding Implications: $32,500 Funding Source(s): Internal cost recovery Future Financial Implications: Additional FTE will become part of future year

base budgets. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

NA

Staff Capacity: Increase mechanic FTE by .4 Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

The fleet shop rate is assessed annually to determine the hourly charge out rate required in order to cover expenditures.

Rational / Service Impacts: Transit maintenance makes up the largest percentage of fleet revenue recovery at approximately 35% of the total budget. As such, whenever the transit service increases it places more demand on the fleet division, specifically mechanic staff time. This can benefit the fleet revenue recovery and help keep the shop rate down for other internal functions. However, in order to ensure all service requests are being satisfied across the organization requires that we maintain a sufficient number of mechanic FTE’s. Similar to the transit analysis, transit service hours have increased along with the number of buses and corporate vehicles while the mechanic FTE has not changed from 2.5 since 2008. Further, that a large portion of the corporate fleet are aging and past due for replacement resulting in increased maintenance.

It is recommended that the mechanic FTE count be increased by 0.4 to ensure fleet services has the proper amount of mechanics at all times to meet service demands. Providing these additional resources will not only help ensure all transit and corporate vehicles are safely maintained in a timely manner but will also provide mechanic coverage the majority of the time the transit service is in operation helping with service reliability. This will also result in reduced OT costs (estimated $2,000) due to off-shift mechanic call outs. Further mechanic resources may be required for the 2016 service expansion that requires the addition of 6 medium-duty buses.

8

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding Budget Proposal Page 3 of 3


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

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 85,900 $ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 22,757 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 50,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 58,157 $ 58,157

2014 Carryforward (lighting)OtherClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Increase mechanic FTE by 0.4


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

$ 19,568 $ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 24,904 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 44,472 $ 44,472

BuildingOtherClosing Balance in Reserve


9

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5C-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 320-342 Regional Street Lighting.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee–February 5, 2015


RE: STREET LIGHTING [320-342] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “Street Lighting [320-342] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposal” be received.

BACKGROUND

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

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) [320] Regional

[322] Langdale [324] Granthams [326] Veterans [328] Spruce [330] Woodcreek [332] Fircrest [334] Hydaway [336] Sunnyside [340] Burns [342] Stewart

$329 surplus (32) deficit (32) deficit (2) deficit 24 surplus (127) deficit (6) deficit (3) deficit 8 surplus (3) deficit (6) deficit

Reason(s): Many deficits are a result of hydro rate increase of 9%, which many went over budget. Options (select as appropriate):

Transfer to Reserves





10

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"C"

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5D-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 345 Ports FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: PORTS [345] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “Ports [345] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION


Reason(s):

The majority of the ports operating budget surplus is attributed to a lower expenditure of wages due to building maintenance staff vacancies throughout the year. As such, several of the operating accounts are also under budget due to work not being completed.







11

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"D"

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Reduction 2015 Ports Capital Work Plan

Rating: MANDATORY - Imminent Asset Failure


Area B, D, E, F

2015 Funding Implications: $120,000

Funding Source(s): Taxation/Reserves ($100,000 from taxation and $20,000 from the capital reserve)

Future Financial Implications: None


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

Staff Capacity: Existing staff used for contract management and oversee contractor work.


As per the service establishing bylaw only commercial operators using SCRD docks are required to pay user fees. Charging general users to access the docks has previously been explored but issues around collection of funds and the net financial benefit prevented any such program from being implemented.

Rational / Service Impacts: In order to extend the useful life of the ports assets the following capital repairs are required. The list has been extrapolated from the ongoing major inspections for each dock. Failure to complete these required repairs will result in increased liability to the SCRD as well as dock restrictions and ultimately closures due to deterioration and safety concerns.

Dock Repair Cost Eastbourne $20,000

Keats Landing $10,000 Halkett Bay 2014 Carry Forward

Halfmoon Bay $50,000 Vaucroft $21,000 West Bay $11,000

Hopkins Landing $8,000 Total $120,000

12




Bylaw Amendment Regarding Ports Funding Allocation

Rating: MANDATORY - Regulatory Compliance


Area B, D, E, F


Funding Source(s): Taxation



NA

Staff Capacity: Existing administrative staff.



Rational / Service Impacts: The SCRD recently passed a resolution (#503/14 No. 8) to amend the existing Ports Establishing Bylaw to reflect an agreed to new funding allocation, as well as establish a new service enhancement function for Electoral Areas B & F. This project has been added to the Administrative Services 2015 work plan and requires additional funds to facilitate an alternative approval process to create the new service function. This includes funds to cover extra staff time, advertising, legal expenses, materials/supplies, etc.

13




Annual Ports Capital Reserve Contribution

Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure


Area B, D, E, F


Funding Source(s): Taxation

Future Financial Implications: Ongoing contributions to the capital reserve is required in order to ensure an adequate ports reserve is available.


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

Staff Capacity: Existing finance staff



Rational / Service Impacts: The current reserve balance is $171,535 which is below the past practice $200,000 limit set by the SCRD. It is vital that a sufficient capital reserve be maintained for this function considering the large capital repairs associated with this service. Large unbudgeted emergency repairs are not uncommon due to extreme winter weather events and, therefore, contingency funds need to be available to respond to such incidents. Note, the current total insured value of all ports assets is over $7 million dollars.

14



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

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 226,500 $ 209,500 $ 234,500 $259,500 $ 284,500 $ 58,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 -$ 55,000 $ - $ - $ - -$ 25,000 -$ 20,000 -$ 25,000 -$ 25,000 -$ 25,000 $ - $ 209,500 $ 234,500 $ 259,500 $284,500 $ 309,500

Carry ForwardsCapital RepairsClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions and surplus


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 73,900 $ 58,900 $ 68,900 $ 78,900 $ 88,900

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 -$ 25,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,900 $ 68,900 $ 78,900 $ 88,900 $ 63,900

Major InspectionsOtherClosing Balance in Reserve


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. 2015 Ports Capital Repairs 2. Ports Bylaw Amendment 3. Annual Ports Capital Reserve Contribution

15

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5E-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 346 Langdale Dock FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: LANGDALE DOCK [346] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “Langdale Dock [346] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposal” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECT YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($1,406)

Reason(s):

Deficit related to difference in 2014 budgeted amount for BC Ferries agreement and actual for taxes that are required to pay on agreement per CRA; 2015 budget has been corrected.


Transfer to Reserves (Reduce Transfer to Reserves in 2015)





16

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"E"

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5F-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 350-353 Regional Solid Waste FINAL-v2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Robyn Cooper, Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

RE: REGIONAL SOLID WASTE [350-353] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery’s report titled “Regional Solid Waste [350-353] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) Regional Solid Waste $44,845

Pender & Sechelt Landfill $244,366 Regional Recycling (deficit) ($7,643) Total Surplus $281,568

Reason(s):

Landfills Surplus is attributed to higher than budgeted revenues, especially at the Pender Landfill, and lower expenses, such as wages, contracts operating costs. Regional Solid Waste and Recycling Lower than budgeted expenditures due primarily to staff vacancies (2.5 months Manager, 3 months Solid Waste Coordinator). MMBC Revenue based on tonnage and material type to be determined. Options (select as appropriate):

x Transfer to Reserves ($100,000 To Landfill Closure Reserve and $65,068 to Operating Reserve)

Transfer to Rate Stabilization x Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11) x Repay Outstanding Debt (Pay for the PH Landfill Transfer Station through surplus

versus debt in the amount of $ 70,000) As per Section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

17

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"F"




Reduction Sechelt Landfill Guardrails and Curbs Installation – budget increase.

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

Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $20,000 Funding Source(s): Surplus Future Financial Implications: One-time maintenance cost item. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

No

Staff Capacity: Minimal staff resources required for contract management and site coordination.


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

Rational / Service Impacts: Risk assessment survey for insurance provider identified guardrails as safety risk for users or vehicles on raised ramps accessing drop-off bins at landfill. The current approved budget is $30,000 based on preliminary estimates. However, updated estimates are $50,000.


Reduction Sechelt Landfill Hydrogeological Characterization

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

Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $10,000 Funding Source(s): Surplus Future Financial Implications: One-time funding required pending approval by

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

Hydrogeological Characterization is required under the Operating Certificate as approved by the BC Ministry of Environment. Project supports the core value of Environmental Responsibility identified in We Envision by ensuring landfill operations are monitored for environmental impacts.

Staff Capacity: Minor impacts on staff time for consultant liaison.



Rational / Service Impacts: Sechelt Landfill’s Operational Certificate issued by the BC Ministry of Environment requires SCRD to report on the hydrogeological characterization in 2015.

18




Reduction Sechelt Landfill Leachate Management Plan



Regional


Funding Source(s): Surplus

Future Financial Implications: One-time funding required pending approval by BC Ministry of Environment.


Leachate Management Plan is required under the Operating Certificate as approved by the BC Ministry of Environment. Project supports the core value of Environmental Responsibility identified in We Envision by ensuring landfill operations are monitored for environmental impacts.




Rational / Service Impacts: Sechelt Landfill’s Operational Certificate issued by the BC Ministry of Environment requires SCRD to provide a leachate management plan.


Reduction Sechelt and Pender Landfill Annual Reporting



Regional


Funding Source(s): Tipping Fees

Future Financial Implications: Base Budget Increase of approximately $5,000 is required ($2,500 per landfill).


Annual reporting is required under the Operating Certificate as approved by the BC Ministry of Environment for Sechelt and Pender Harbour Landfills. Project supports the core value of Environmental Responsibility identified in We Envision by ensuring landfill operations are monitored for environmental impacts.

Staff Capacity: Minor increase in staff time for consultant liaison.



19



Rational / Service Impacts: Both the Sechelt and Pender Harbour Landfill’s Operational Certificate issued by the BC Ministry of Environment requires SCRD to prepare an annual report. Required reporting parameters have increased resulting in additional work to complete the reports.


Reduction Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Construction

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

Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $935,000 Funding Source(s): Closure reserves Future Financial Implications: Post closure costs TBD as required by BC

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

Yes

Staff Capacity: Major impact to staff time for Manager and Solid Waste Management Coordinator.


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: The closure reserve is currently $670,000 with an additional $300,000 from 2015 contributions to fund the required closure of Pender Harbour Landfill in 2015. See closure reserve plan on page 10.


Reduction Sechelt Landfill Vehicle Replacement

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

Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $6,000 Funding Source(s): Surplus Future Financial Implications: Ongoing maintenance required for the duration of

vehicle use until replacement is required. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

n/a

Staff Capacity: Existing Fleet and Purchasing staff to assist with the vehicle transfers.



20



Rational / Service Impacts: Repurposing of one retired 2003 pick-up truck from the Utilities Division and internal transfer of one 2004 Tracker from the Building Division to replace the imminent asset failure of two vehicles at the Sechelt Landfill. Results in a net reduction of one fleet vehicle within the organization.


Reduction Residential Waste Composition Audit – Phase 2


Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $30,000 Funding Source(s): Zero Waste Initiative Operating Reserve (Eco-

fee) Future Financial Implications: In approximately five years, funding would be

required to complete an additional waste composition study. Throughout Regional Districts in BC, waste composition studies are completed every 3-7 years.


Yes – Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) Initiative #5, Waste Control System and solid waste data management best practices.



n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: Phase 2 of the waste composition audit would include the residential drop-off bins at the Sechelt and Pender Harbour Landfills. The audit would provide essential baseline data against which to evaluate existing, new and enhanced recycling and diversion programs.


Reduction Residential Household Hazardous Waste Roundup Event



Regional


Funding Source(s): Eco-fees

Future Financial Implications: One-time event. Equivalent funding would be required if event is offered in the future.

21




To support the Solid Waste Management Plan’s waste diversion goals as well as supports environmental responsibility for safe disposal and recycling of residential hazardous materials.

Staff Capacity: In 2015 work plan, however, do not anticipate staff capacity to carry out tender and event organization in 2015.


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: A one day event hosted concurrently in three communities on the Coast to collect residential household hazardous waste (HHW) for safe disposal and recycling. HHW targeted for the event are not part of a stewardship program and the collection event prevents HHW from being deposited in the landfill or dumped illegally. Funds cover contractor and disposal costs.

Recommend deferral to 2016.


Reduction Waste Reduction Initiatives Grant Program



Regional


Funding Source(s): Eco-fees

Future Financial Implications: $5,000 annually from Eco-fees


To support the Solid Waste Management Plan’s waste diversion goals.

Staff Capacity: Minor staff impact to develop and administer program.


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: Individuals, community groups and non-profit organizations, including school groups would be eligible to apply for funding for projects that contribute to waste reduction that may otherwise not proceed or proceed with a smaller scope.

22




WildSafe BC Program Funding



Regional


Funding Source(s): Tipping Fees

Future Financial Implications: $5,500 annually

Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

No

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


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: The Sunshine Coast WildSafe BC Community Coordinator presented a 2014 program summary report to ISC on December 4, 2014. A funding request of $5,500 for 2015 be referred to Round 1 of the budget was approved at the Regular Board Meeting on December 11, 2014, 584/14 Recommendation No. 1. The SCRD has provided the base funding for the WildSafeBC Program from Regional Solid Waste in 2006 – 2008 and 2012-2014. Since 2012, the base funding amount provided was $2,500 with an estimated $4,300 in-kind.


Reduction Increased Photo-Voltaic capacity at Sechelt Landfill



Regional


Funding Source(s): Surplus

Future Financial Implications: Reduced propane fuel costs by $1,500 annually for the on-site generator at Sechelt Landfill.


Consistent with financial sustainability and relates to the core values of environmental responsibility listed in We Envision. Aligns with the corporate energy and emissions plan and the sustainable energy management plan.

Staff Capacity: Minor impact on staff time to coordinate purchase and installation. (Corporate Energy Manager)

23





Rational / Service Impacts: Goal is to reduce on-site generator run time to decrease fuel costs by adding photo-voltaic capacity. Expected return on investment is 2 to 3 years at current fuel rate. If the Sechelt Landfill Gas Capture Project proceeds (pending pump test results), the project completion is estimated to be in 2017, at which time the return on investment will have been reached and the photo-voltaic capacity would continue to offset costs in the form of electricity as opposed to fuel.

Currently, the budget for propane is $7,000 with 2014 expenses of $7,500. The estimated savings is $1,500 per year, resulting in a base budget decrease of the same value.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 645,000 $ 110,000 $ 410,000 $ 710,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 935,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 110,000 $ 410,000 $ 710,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,310,000

BuildingPender Harbour ClosureClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve

Annual ContributionContribution Surplus

The closure reserve plan above assumes reserve contributions are $300,000 per year (contingent on achieving waste diversion targets and extending life of Sechelt Landfill to 2031). Actual costs of closure work may vary. Additional closure work anticipated in the year 2022 and beyond.

Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (Regional Solid Waste [Taxation Function]

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 24,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 OtherClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2014 Surplus

The operating reserve plan above assumes no further surplus contributions.

24



Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (Landfills)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 36,695 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 25,068 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 $ 61,763 OtherClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2014 Surplus

The operating reserve plan above assumes no surplus contributions are available. Reserve contributions will be recommended should surplus be available.

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


$ 115,000 $ 58,000 $ 72,000 $ 82,000 $ 88,000 $ 56,000 $ 52,000 $ 48,000 $ 44,000 $ 40,000 -$ 113,000 -$ 38,000 -$ 38,000 -$ 38,000 -$ 38,000 $ 58,000 $ 72,000 $ 82,000 $ 88,000 $ 90,000

50% ZW Coord. Wages + BP #8, #9

Closing Balance in Reserve


The Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve is funded from the $5 per tonne eco-fee charged on municipal solid waste received at landfills. The plan above reflects the approved use of $38,000 towards the Zero Waste Coordinator’s wages in 2015 and approximately $38,000 in future years per the approved funding formula for this position. Additionally, for 2015, Budget Proposals #8 and #9 equate to a total of $75,000. The decline in annual contributions to the reserve reflects the anticipated drop in municipal solid waste tonnages received at landfills as new diversion programs are implemented.

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): BP #1 – Safety guardrails and curbs at Sechelt drop-off bins (increased costs) BP #2 – Sechelt Landfill Hydrogeological Characterization BP #3 – Sechelt Landfill Leachate Management Plan BP #4 – Sechelt & Pender Landfill Annual Reporting BP #5 – Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Construction BP #6 – Sechelt Landfill Vehicle Replacement BP #7 – Residential Waste Composition Audit Phase 2 BP #9 – Waste Reduction Initiatives Grant Program BP #10 – Wildsafe BC Program Funding BP #11 - Increased Photo-Voltaic capacity at Sechelt Landfill

And recommend deferral of BP#8 - Residential Household Hazardous Waste Roundup Event to 2016.

25

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5G-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 365 North Pender Harbour Water FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 27, 2014

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee - February 2015

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

RE: NORTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [365] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report titled “North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) 12931

Reason(s):

Small projected surplus attributed primarily to lower than budgeted operating salaries, wages, and benefits as a result of work charged to capital projects in the region (i.e. universal metering project).







26

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"G"

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Reduction Chlorination System Upgrades

Rating: MANDATORY - Safety


Area A


Funding Source(s): Operating Reserves

Future Financial Implications: No material increases in future operating budget expenses.


This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.11 of the Financial Sustainability Policy.

Staff Capacity: Water technical and SCADA technician staff involvement in design and implementation of chlorination upgrades.


A parcel tax and user fee increase of 5% for 2015 was adopted by the Board on December 11, 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: The following two chlorination system upgrades are being recommended for 2015:

1. There is currently a temporary re-chlorination system in place at Daniel Point reservoir to reintroduce chlorine into the treated water. Staff is recommending that a permanent “building” be placed on site to house the chlorination equipment and enhance security. Project costs will include the purchase and placement of a container unit as well as staff time involvement with chlorine equipment setup and reconfiguration.

2. The Garden Bay UV/Pump Station is in need of a chlorination system upgrade to improve safety at the site and offer redundancy in the case of a failure in the existing pump. This will involve the purchase and installation of a duplex pump system and improvements to the containment area and ventilation system.

27




FCM/GMF Project Reporting Requirement

Rating: MANDATORY – Condition of FCM/GMF Grant Reporting Agreement


Area A


Funding Source(s): FCM/GMF Project Reporting Grant – 100%



This report is related to projects identified in the Area “A” Water Master Plan and is identified in Section 4.5 of the Strategic Plan.

Staff Capacity: 3rd party consultant to prepare report. Some administrative and technical staff involvement in collating and submitting water and financial data.



Rational / Service Impacts: In 2011, the SCRD was successful in its application for grant and loan funding for multiple projects in Area A related to water system upgrades and demand management initiatives.

A condition of funding is that the SCRD must engage a third party consultant to prepare a Project Completion Report and Environmental Results Report after substantial completion of all milestones identified in the grant application has been achieved.

The grant includes thirty thousand ($30,000) for use by the SCRD solely for the purpose of providing FCM with the above mentioned reports.

The reports will cover projects completed in both the South and North Pender Harbour Water Service Areas therefore report expenses and funding are to be budgeted 50/50 between the two budget functions.

28




Increase to Net Operating Budget


Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $11,700 Funding Source(s): Existing User Fees Future Financial Implications: Net annual increase to operating budget of

$11,700 Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Although this proposal is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan it does relate to Section 4.6.2 of the Financial Sustainability Policy by recognizing the rising cost of existing services.

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


Rational / Service Impacts: The North Pender Harbour Water Service Area has been faced with annual rising costs of goods and services combined with trending increases in consumable costs such as fuel, chemicals, insurance and electricity.

In prior fiscal periods, staff have looked for efficiencies within operations and have managed to mitigate increases to the net operating budget.

It is recommended that in order to meet current service levels and maintain sustainable levels of annual contributions to reserves that the net operating budget be increased in 2015 by $11,700. This increase would be used to amend various base budget expense categories, including a $4,000 increase to the annual budget for electricity spending (above and over the Board approved allowable 6.75% inflationary increase for 2015).

An increase to water user rates and parcel taxes of 5.0% for 2015 was adopted by the Board on December 11, 2014 and will be used to offset the proposed increase to the net operating budget.

The net operating budget has only increased by $363 since 2011.

29



Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 83,000 $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 77,721 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 160,721 $ 160,721

Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 20,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 13,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,000 -$ 15,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000

ItemOpening Balance in Reserve 2014 Surplus


ContributionsBudget Proposal No.1


ItemOpening Balance in ReserveContributions

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Chlorination System Upgrades 2. FCM/GMF Project Reporting Requirement 3. Increase to Net Operating Budget

30

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5H-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 366 South Pender Harbour Water FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 27, 2014

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 2015


RE: SOUTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [366] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report titled “South Pender Harbour Water Service [365] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION


Reason(s):

Surplus primarily attributed to lower than anticipated operating budget and debt payments as a result of the delay in commissioning of the South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant.







31

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"H"

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Reduction McNeill Lake Dam Upgrades – Project Funding Increase



Area A





This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.10 of the SCRD’s Financial Sustainability Policy – Capital Maintenance and Replacement.

Staff Capacity: Staff involvement in managing the project includes ongoing inspections, regular communication with engineering consultants and contractors, contract administration, budget management, and environmental monitoring.



Rational / Service Impacts: In 2012, a dam safety review carried out by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. revealed necessary stability and repairs/upgrades to meet current standards and safety requirements for the McNeill Lake Dam.

Board approved budget proposals in 2013 and 2014 allocated $143,000 in funding towards the combined work.

During the stability improvements carried out in fall 2014, unexpected voids were discovered under the dam which required considerable instances of additional grouting, re-drilling, and increasing hole depths. In addition to these unplanned extras for the stability work, revised cost estimates for the various safety upgrade repair items (i.e. slide gate, debris boom, staff gauge, etc) have also increased.

The revised anticipated costs for the completion of the combined dam work is $218,000 and it is therefore being recommended that the capital budget be increased by $75,000, to account for these changes.

32




Reduction Wesjac Road Watermain Replacement


Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $120,000 Funding Source(s): Operating Reserves Future Financial Implications: None Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?


Staff Capacity: Project design and management to be carried out by SCRD staff. Installation work primarily carried out by third party.



Rational / Service Impacts: Capital asset replacement of a problematic water line on Wesjac Rd.

This water main is in poor condition and has experienced several recent ruptures and requires immediate replacement to avoid costly O&M costs and service disruption(s) in future years.


Reduction Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Upgrade – Sunshine Coast Highway


Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $20,000 Funding Source(s): Operating Reserves Future Financial Implications: None Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?


Staff Capacity: SCRD staff to install and engineer design of replacement PRV system.



33



Rational / Service Impacts: The main PRV that reduces water pressure for the entire South Pender Harbour Water Service Area is in extremely poor mechanical condition and requires immediate remediation.

As proposed, SCRD technical and operation staff would conduct preliminary design work and carry out the installation of the replacement PRV.


Reduction FCM/GMF Project Reporting Requirement

Rating: MANDATORY – Condition of FCM/GMF Grant Reporting Agreement


Area A

2015 Funding Implications: $15,000 Funding Source(s): FCM/GMF Project Reporting Grant – 100% Future Financial Implications: None Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

This report is related to projects identified in the Area “A” Water Master Plan and is identified in Section 4.5 of the Strategic Plan.

Staff Capacity: 3rd party consultant to prepare report. Some administrative and technical staff involvement in collating and submitting water and financial data.



Rational / Service Impacts: In 2011, the SCRD was successful in its application for grant and loan funding for multiple projects in Area A related to water system upgrades and demand management initiatives.

A condition of funding is that the SCRD must engage a third party consultant to prepare a Project Completion Report and Environmental Results Report after substantial completion of all milestones identified in the grant application has been achieved.

The grant includes thirty thousand ($30,000) for use by the SCRD solely for the purpose of providing FCM with the above mentioned reports.

The reports will cover projects completed in both the South and North Pender Harbour Water Service Areas therefore report expenses and funding are to be budgeted 50/50 between the two budget functions.

34




Reduction Vessel Operation Restrictions for McNeill and Harris Lakes



Area A





This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Goal 4.3 To seek more local authority and control over community drinking watersheds.

Staff Capacity: Considerable staff effort to design and carry out the mandatory public process. Minor impact to install signage. Future impact on staff time to coordinate enforcement with RCMP and other authorized agencies.



Rational / Service Impacts: Board direction to add this item to the 2015 Work Plan (Res. 455/14 #13).

McNeill Lake is the primary drinking water source for South Pender Harbour residents and Harris Lake is utilized during periods of drought or operational disruption. Adding these lakes to the Vessel Operation Restrictions Regulation will restrict motorized vehicle use (including float planes) on the lake and, therefore, decrease the risk of source water contamination.

Past experience with float plane landings on Garden Bay Lake has shown that being registered in the VORR doesn’t necessarily increase awareness, enforcement agencies are reluctant to enforce, and the violation penalty is only $200.

35




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 50,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 95,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 585,000 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 71,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 225,000 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 431,500 $ 431,500

ItemOpening Balance in Reserve2014 Surplus

Closing Balance in ReserveBudget Proposals #1,2,3,5


ItemOpening Balance in ReserveContributions

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. McNeill Lake Dam Upgrades – Project Funding Increase 2. Wesjac Road Watermain Replacement 3. Pressure Reducing Valve Upgrade – Sunshine Coast Highway 4. FCM/GMF Project Reporting Requirement 5. Vessel Operation Restrictions for McNeill and Harris Lakes

36

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5I-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 370 Regional Water FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 3, 2014



RE: REGIONAL WATER SERVICE [370] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report titled “Regional Water Service [370] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION

2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $560,000 – Operating

$75,000 – Capital

Reason(s):

The operating surplus is mainly due to lower than budgeted salaries and wages associated with delays in filling vacant positions as well as higher than anticipated revenue generated from water user fees. Capital surplus is due to slightly lower than anticipated spending within capital accounts.







37

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"I"

TaraC

Typewritten Text



2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER)


Soames Well Chlorination Project



Area F


Funding Source(s): Parcel Taxes (existing)

Future Financial Implications: No material change in net operating budget.


This project relates to Section 4.6.2 of the Strategic Plan in supporting the SCRD’s continued effort to ensure water quality for drinking water wells on the coast.

Staff Capacity: Staff time in preparing RFP for design and construction services; internal water technical staff and management to oversee project.


An increase to 2015 parcel taxes, user fees, and metered user rates (1.28%, 6.40%, 15.29%) was adopted by the Board on December 11, 2014.

Rational / Service Impacts: The Soames Point well is the primary drinking water source for the residents of the Soames Point area. Current methods of chlorinating the well water are entirely manual.

Staff is recommending an upgrade to the well supply system. This includes twinning the water line from the well head to the reservoir, placement of a permanent building/container to house chlorination equipment and automating the disinfection process.

The work proposed will improve disinfection consistency and enhance operational efficiencies in the management of water supply for the area.

38




Zone 2 Reservoir Repairs



Regional

2015 Funding Implications: $75,000 (estimate)

Funding Source(s): Parcel Taxes (existing)




Staff Capacity: Contracted service for the reservoir repair work; staff to oversee project and support primary contractor where required.



Rational / Service Impacts: The Zone 2 Chapman Creek Reservoir is a 16,000,000 litre buried two cell concrete tank reservoir that was built in 1996 and had a roof system added in 2001.

The SCRD commissioned Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. in March 2014 to inspect cracks that had been identified by staff, report on their findings and recommend solutions.

A number of small holes and expansion cracks on the floor slab and partition walls were identified and it is recommended that the SCRD hire a specialized contractor to perform the remediation work. This will involve grouting, filling and sealing the holes/cracks identified. Once completed, this project will reduce treated water loss and extend the useful life of the asset.

39




Condition Review of Exposed Watermains



Regional


Funding Source(s): User Fees (existing) & Potential Grant

Future Financial Implications: Anticipated future costs associated with addressing remediation recommendations that result from this review.



Staff Capacity: Engineering consultant to work with SCRD technical staff.



Rational / Service Impacts: In order to minimize risk of failure, it is recommended that all exposed watermain crossings undergo an engineering assessment.

The review will involve detailed visual inspections of all bridge and aerial stream crossings and the completion of an inspection report summarizing asset condition, photographs, and recommendations for remedial work.

40




Universal Water Metering – Phase 1 – Planning and Outreach



Regional


Funding Source(s): User Fees (existing)

Future Financial Implications: Future staff report(s) will address project costs and funding mechanisms for the installation phase of this multi-year project.


This project is identified in We Envision as a strategic direction of ‘Water Stewardship’: “Implement universal water metering and a user-pay rate structure in all water systems.”

In addition, section 4.3 of the Strategic Plan addresses metering in the Regional Water System.

Staff Capacity: Significant staff involvement in project planning, communication campaign, financial analyses, RFP process, etc.



Rational / Service Impacts: The implementation of a universal water metering program has been identified in the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan as a necessary demand management initiative that will improve water conservation and will reduce and defer capital spending related to system capacity upgrades.

The first phase of this project will involve preliminary outreach and communication efforts, engaging citizens within the Regional Water Service Area and providing information and education about water metering.

The budget identified above is to contract an experienced individual to assist in the delivery of an outreach campaign which

41



will involve public engagement, advertising, mail outs, etc. As proposed, expenses related to this project that are not funded through existing revenue streams are: *Contracted Professional Services: $42,000

Education & Outreach Expenses: $8,000

Total: $50,000

Included in this planning and preparatory phase will be continued field work by SCRD water staff to identify and map service locates, financial analyses related to project budgeting and funding, and preparation and issuance of RFP and tender documents. *21hrs/week x 50 weeks x $40/hr



$ 2,700,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000 $ 3,625,000



$ 970,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 560,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 Closing Balance in Reserve


ContributionsClosing Balance in Reserve


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Soames Well Chlorination Project 2. Zone 2 Reservoir Repairs 3. Condition Review of Exposed Watermains 4. Universal Water Metering – Phase 1 – Planning and Outreach

42

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 3, 2014



RE: REGIONAL WATER SERVICE [376,377,378] – 2015 ANNUAL CAPITAL PROGRAMS

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report titled “Regional Water Service [376,377,378] –2015 Annual Capital Programs” report be received.

BACKGROUND

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

A major component of the Regional Water Service’s annual work plan involves preventative and reactive capital projects across the entire Sunshine Coast, including water main upgrades or replacements, new water meter and service connections, and hydrant installations. These annual programs are funded through the base budget via transfers to various capital budget accounts.

DISCUSSION

The table below summarizes the base budget capital programs and corresponding budget values for 2015:

Function Capital Program 2015 Budget 376 New Service Connections $56,353 377 Water Mains Replacements $721,960

378

Hydrant Program $20,800 Minor Capital Upgrades $80,000 New Meter Installations $100,000 Staff Labour $99,000

Total $1,078,113

43

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"J"

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5K-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 381-394 WWTP FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 24, 2014 TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 2015


RE: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS [381-394] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager, Utility Services’ report titled “Waste Water Treatment Plants [381-394] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposals” be received.

BACKGROUND As part of the Base Budget Process, staff are to report potential Budget adjustments to the Board based on Budget Proposals that will allow the Board to make informed decisions regarding funding projects or service enhancements, as well as a way to reduce the budget. DISCUSSION 2014 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) Greaves Rd [381] - $376

Woodcreek Park [382] - $3,961 Sunnyside [383] - $959 Jolly Roger [384] - $3,438 Secret Cove [385] - $2,289 Lee Bay [386] - $19,133 Square Bay [387] - $9,776 Langdale [388] - $6,963 Canoe Rd [389] - $721 Merrill Crescent [390] – $0 Curran Rd [391] - $0 Roberts Creek Cohousing [392] - $1,973 Lily Lake [393] - $3,079 Painted Boat [394] - $2,751

Reason(s): Merrill Crescent incurred higher than anticipated operating expenses related to control panel upgrades and associated staff wages. Curran Road incurred higher than anticipated operating expenses related to salaries associated with managing third party expansion. Options (select as appropriate):

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


44

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"K"

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text




Reduction [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Treatment Plant – Septic Tank Repair



Area E


Funding Source(s): Capital Reserves



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

Staff Capacity: Work to be completed by SCRD water and waste water staff; 1-2 days staff labour.


Last annual rate review was done in 2014. Last rate increase was in 2011.

Rational / Service Impacts: The disposal field septic tank at Sunnyside has tree roots entering the tank from a nearby Willow tree via the space between the lid and the tank itself.

The budget identified above will cover the remediation costs associated with the removal of the tree roots, tank repairs, staff labor, landscaping, and some preventative work to avoid future root infiltration.

45




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



Area B


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

$5,000 – Capital Reserves (Secret Cove)



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

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


Last annual rate review for both service areas was done in 2014.

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

Rational / Service Impacts: The Jolly Roger and Secret Cove waste water treatment plants currently share an 800 metre submarine ocean outfall to disperse treated effluent from their respective treatment facilities.

Since 2013, the SCRD has coordinated both reactive and scheduled re-anchoring of the outfall pipe and as of May 2014 the outfall pipe has been re-anchored over its full length from the shore to just inshore of the terminus with new collar concrete anchors

There remains a 185 metre section of outfall piping that currently has anchors spaced less than the pipe manufacturer’s prescribed spacing. It is has been recommended that the SCRD install a final 8-10 anchors in this near shore area to achieve the prescribed anchor intervals and remove the risk of pipe abrasion and to prevent it being lifted off the bottom due to possible environmental influences or vessel anchor snags.

46




[387] Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant – Perimeter Fencing Replacement



Area B


Funding Source(s): Capital Reserves



This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but is consistent with Section 4.11 of the Financial Sustainability Policy as it relates to capital project funding.

Staff Capacity: Minimal staff capacity required. As proposed, the installation would be carried about by a professional fencing contractor.


Last annual rate review was done in 2014.

There have not been any increases to rates in over ten years.

Rational / Service Impacts: The existing fencing that encloses the treatment facility at Square Bay is in extremely poor condition.

In consideration of safety and security issues it is being recommended that the existing fence be removed and new perimeter fencing be erected.

47




[387] Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant – Condition Assessment Study



Area B


Funding Source(s): $15,000 - Operating Reserves



Although not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan this project is consistent with Section 3.4 of the Plan in that we are pursuing non-taxation revenue sources as a funding mechanism for this study.

Staff Capacity: Minimal staff capacity required.

3rd party engineering consultant to prepare report. Technical staff to provide required data (i.e. flows, effluent quality, etc.).



There has not been any increases to rates in over ten years.

Rational / Service Impacts: The existing waste water treatment facility in Square Bay is an extended aeration package plant that presently serves 81 properties. The existing plant was purchased used from the District of Squamish in the early seventies, is in poor condition, and in need of replacement.

An initial review of the Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant was completed in 2008 by Dayton & Knight Consulting Engineers.

It is being recommended that an updated condition assessment be completed to refresh the cost estimates for 2015 dollars, address the current state of the facility, report on upgrade/replacement options for the aged facility, and address technological and design options as well as mechanisms for funding.

SCRD Infrastructure Staff will be applying for an Infrastructure Planning Grant, and if successful in its application could receive up to $10,000 to help offset the costs of this project.

48




[392] Roberts Creek Co-Housing Waste Water Treatment Plant – Treatment System Modification


Area D

2015 Funding Implications: $4,000 Funding Source(s): Capital Reserves Future Financial Implications: It is expected that the recommendations outlined

below will reduce annual hydro costs and sampling/delivery expenses.


This project is consistent with Section 4.8.2 of the Financial Sustainability Policy by identifying and working towards realizing efficiencies within existing operations.

Staff Capacity: Engineering technician staff involvement with design and project implementation. Utilities Superintendent to manage project. Some internal labour and on-site reconfiguration work. Total staff engagement estimated at 20-25 hrs.



The last rate increase was in 2014 when user rates were increased from $375 to $475.

Rational / Service Impacts: The waste water plant at Roberts Creek Co-Housing is a Fixed Activate Sludge Treatment (FAST ®) facility that services 31 homes.

Working in collaboration with the original engineer of the system, the SCRD has identified a number of system design changes that will improve the treated effluent quality as well as mitigate electricity consumption at the facility.

The treatment facility is currently over designed for the volume of waste water that passes through the plant. The budget identified above will fund staff labour and material costs associated with ‘right-sizing’ the treatment facility. It is anticipated that these changes will realize reductions in annual electricity expenses, reduced effluent testing costs, and improvements in treated effluent quality.

49



FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER IF APPLICABLE) *Refer to Section 1b – Reserve Balances STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2015 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Treatment Plant – Septic Tank Repair 2. [384]/[385] Jolly Roger/Secret Cove Waste Water Treatment Plant – Marine Outfall Re-

Anchoring 3. [387] Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant – Perimeter Fencing Replacement 4. [387] Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant – Condition Assessment Study 5. [392] Roberts Creek Co-Housing Waste Water Treatment Plant – Treatment System

Modification

50

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5L-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 136 Regional Sustainability FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services

RE: REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY [136] – 2015 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s report titled “Regional Sustainability [136] – 2015 R1 Budget Proposal” be received.

BACKGROUND


DISCUSSION


Reason(s):

Less than planned advertising expended due to later than anticipated start to the Regional Roundtable on Sustainability initiative. Surplus will offset Support Services charges in 2015 budget.


Transfer to Reserves

X Transfer to Rate Stabilization




51

TaraC

Typewritten Text

"L"

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text


N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\5L-2015 R1 Budget Proposal 136 Regional Sustainability FINAL.docx


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331

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

$ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331 $ 7,331

BuildingOtherClosing Balance in Reserve


No Budget Proposals for 2015.

52

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Documents

SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES …€¦ · 10. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Regional Water Service [370] 2015 R1 Budget Proposal