finance & intergovernmental committee ...2016/10/03 · monday, october 17, 2016 4:30 pm -...

FINANCE & INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEEAGENDA

Regular MeetingMonday, October 17, 2016

4:30 PM - Heritage Room2580 Shaughnessy Street

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

2.1 Adoption of October 17, 2016 Finance and IntergovernmentalCommittee Meeting AgendaRecommendation: That the October 17, 2016 Regular Finance andIntergovernmental Committee Agenda be adopted.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

3.1 Minutes of October 3, 2016Recommendation: That the Minutes of the Finance and IntergovernmentalCommittee Meeting of October 3, 2016 be adopted.

4. REPORTS

4.1 2017 Water and Sewer RatesRecommendation: That the water and sewer budgets be prepared to includethe phased implementation of the reduction of indirect overhead costs overfour years.

4.2 2017 Solid Waste RatesRecommendation: That the solid waste budget be prepared consistent withprior years, funded through a combination of user fees and general taxes.

4.3 Argue Street Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Recommendation: That the City’s 2016 – 2020 Financial Plan be amendedto include an additional $80,000 from the Sewer Reserve to the ArgueSanitary Pump Station capital budget.

4.4 Sun Valley Spray ParkRecommendation: That the Sun Valley Spray Park rehabilitation project beincreased by $50,000, funded by accumulated surplus, and that the2016-2020 Financial Plan be amended accordingly.

1

5. VERBAL REPORTS

5.1 Resolution Regarding Asset ManagementRecommendation: That the City of Port Coquitlam

1) Has identified Infrastructure as one of our top-three priorities, and

2) Supports the development of an asset management plan, and recognizesthe importance of asset management in ensuring the long term sustainabilityof municipal infrastructure, and

3) Is committed to providing overall grant management for the UBCM AssetManagement Grant, if received.

6. ADJOURNMENT

6.1 Adjournment of the Finance and Intergovernmental Committee Meetingof October 17, 2016Recommendation: That the Finance and Intergovernmental CommitteeMeeting of October 17, 2016 be adjourned.

2

Minutes of the Meeting of the Finance & Intergovernmental Committee

Held on October 3, 2016

FINANCE & INTERGOVERNMENTAL

COMMITTEE MINUTES OF

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2016

To review all matters referred to the Committee that are related to the

overall administration of the City including human resources, the City's

finances including audit, and other government organizations.

A meeting of the Finance & Intergovernmental Committee of the Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam

was held in the Heritage Room, City Hall, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, on October 3, 2016 at

8:55 pm.

PRESENT:

Mayor Greg Moore

Councillor Laura Dupont

Councillor Darrell Penner

Councillor Glenn Pollock

STAFF REPRESENTATIVES:

John Leeburn, Chief Administrative Officer

Lori Bowie, Director of Recreation

Nick Delmonico, Fire Chief

Karen Grommada, Director of Finance

Braden Hutchins, Manager of Corporate Office & Land

Rob Kipps, Deputy Chief

Bryon Massie, Inspector

Kristen Meersman, Director of Engineering and Public Works

Laura Lee Richard, Director of Development Services

Steve Traviss, Director of Human Resources

Robin Wishart, Director of Corporate Support

3

Minutes of the Meeting of the Finance & Intergovernmental Committee

Held on October 3, 2016

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 It was moved and seconded:

That the Agenda of the October 3, 2016 Finance and Intergovernmental Committee meeting be

adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.1 It was moved and seconded:

That the Minutes of the September 12, 2016 Finance and Intergovernmental Committee

meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

3. REPORTS

3.1 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

It was moved and seconded:

That KPMG LLP be appointed auditors for the City of Port

Coquitlam for the years ending December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2020

under the terms negotiated with KPMG LLP, in response to the City’s Request

for Proposal No. 2016-28.

CARRIED

4. CORRESPONDENCE

4.1 LETTER TO MINISTER STONE REQUESTING INCREASED CYCLING INVESTMENT


That a letter be sent to Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure

requesting increased cycling investment.

CARRIED

5. ADJOURNMENT


That the Finance & Intergovernmental Committee meeting of October 3, 2016 be adjourned at 8:56 pm.

CARRIED

________________________________ ____________________________________

Greg Moore Karen Grommada

Mayor Director of Finance

The official Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Finance & Intergovernmental Committee Meeting are not read and adopted until certified correct by the Committee

Chairperson.

4

Report to FIG

Committee Date:

September 29, 2016

To:

Finance and Intergovernmental Committee

From:

Kristen Meersman, P.Eng, MBA

Director of Engineering and Operations

Karen Grommada, CPA, CMA

Director of Finance

Subject: 2017/2018 Water and Sewer Rates Direction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As part of the 2016 utility rate discussion, Committee reviewed the indirect overhead costs funded by

the water and sewer utilities. The review recommended a reduction in indirect overhead costs by

approximately $800,000, and recommended the correction be phased over a four year transition period,

mitigating the average tax impact to approximately 0.35% annually. Committee directed staff to bring

this item forward for discussion prior to preparation of the 2017 utility budgets and rates, and this report

seeks direction on this item, and recommends we proceed with the phased correction.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the water and sewer budgets be prepared to include the phased implementation of the reduction of

indirect overhead costs over four years.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

A high level analysis of the water and sewer budgets was undertaken in 2015 in order to prepare the

budgets for 2016. Through this review, and work done through the National Benchmarking exercise,

staff identified that a disproportionate amount of overhead was being allocated to the water and sewer

utilities and proposed a strategy to end this practice starting in 2017. The current practice results in the

use of water and sewer funds to fund general operations. The report also outlined areas for further study

for 2016. The November 16, 2015 report is attached to this report for reference.

The largest item discussed in the report was the indirect overhead costs that were allocated to the water

and sewer utility from other areas of the City, namely Engineering and Finance/Administration..

Committee will recall the proposal was to reduce the current combined overhead of $2.4 Million to $1.6

Million each year, a reallocation of approximately $400 thousand each from water and sewer to general

taxation.

5

September 29, 2016 Page 2

Staff recognize this is a significant (approximately 1.4%) one-time tax increase to correct, and given the

other financial pressures on the organization, it was recommended that this be adjusted over a period of

4 years, proposed to start in 2017, which would result in an annual increase in tax collection of

$200,000, or approximately 0.35% increase for a typical single family dwelling. This phased approach

was designed to ensure we are moving in the right direction, while minimizing the impact to the tax

payer in any given year. This would then also make additional utility funds available to invest in

infrastructure renewal, save for future rate stabilization, or offset increases to the user rates. At the

meeting, Committee endorsed the recommendation; however they directed staff to bring the topic back

for discussion prior to preparation of the 2017 water and sewer budgets. This report seeks direction on

the proposed implementation plan.

The previous report also identified the need to review the rate structure in 2016, prior to development of

the 2017 rates. The objective was to ensure the various sectors were paying the appropriate share of the

cost to service them. Some preliminary analysis on this has been completed, but due to the vacancies in

the Engineering Department, the full review was unable to be completed in time for this budget cycle. It

is recommended this study be deferred to the 2017 work plan.

It is noted that staff have not yet received projections from Metro Vancouver for increases to the bulk

water and sewer rates. Once we receive this information, combined with the direction sought by

Committee in this report, the full budgets and draft rates will be provided in Council’s budget binders

for their consideration. However similar to previous years, in order to prepare the utility bills on time

Council will need to make the rate decision by December, in order for the rate bylaws to be brought

forward to Council in January.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS:

For Council’s information, the potential 2017 tax increase, based on prior commitments and inflationary

increases, is currently approximately 3% not including the proposed 2017 utility fee transition of 0.35%.

OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to prepare the utility budgets including the phased transition of the reduction in

overhead rates commencing in 2017 (recommended), or

2. Direct staff to prepare the utility budgets and defer the phased transition for a future budget, or

3. Direct staff to bring forward additional information.

____________________________

Kristen Meersman, P.Eng., MBA Karen Grommada, CPA, CMA

Director of Engineering and Operations Director of Finance

Attachment: 2015 11 16 Utility Rates

6

Report to FIG

Committee Date:

November 16, 2015

To:


From:




Director of Finance

Subject: 2016 Water and Sewer Rates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A high level analysis of the water and sewer budgets was undertaken in 2015 in order to prepare the

budgets for 2016. Through this review, and work done through the National Benchmarking exercise,

staff have identified that a disproportionate amount of overhead was being allocated to the water and

sewer utilities and this report proposes a strategy to end this practice (starting in 2017) and thus decrease

the use of water and sewer funds that are being used to fund general operations. In addition, the review

identified that excess funds were being budgeted for bulk water purchase, and provides options for re-

purposing these funds. And finally for consideration in the 2016 rates, the report brings forward a

recommendation to include a $20,000 public outreach budget funded by water rates. The report

recommends that the 2016 rates be kept at the 2015 levels, and that the additional funds within the

budget be re-directed to the appropriate capital reserves for future infrastructure investment or rate

stabilization. In addition, the report then outlines the areas of further study for 2016.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the 2016 Water and Sewer utility rates remain at 2015 levels and that the savings identified in the

2016 budget process are directed to the appropriate Water Capital and Sewer Capital reserves, and

That the Utility Rate Bylaws be brought forward to Council accordingly.


Each year, updates to the Water and Sewer Rate Bylaws are brought forward to Council in advance of

the regular budget process, in order to ensure that the next years utility bills are mailed out to property

owners in February (with a due date of March 31st). Staff had hoped to complete a full analysis of the

rate structure in 2015, but due to other higher priorities, we were unable to complete this task and will

carry this item forward to 2016. However, even without the comprehensive review, staff have identifed

a number of potential improvements to the budget for this year, as well as identified areas that will be

further reviewed and discussed in 2016. Staff are seeking direction on these items prior to bringing

forward the rate bylaws to Council.

7

November 16, 2015 Page 2

Overhead Rates and Benchmarking Results

Council will recall earlier this year when Engineering staff presented the National Benchmarking

Results, that the overhead allocated to the water and sewer utility were significantly higher than other

peer municipalities. The Engineering and Finance Department have reviewed the operation, and have

determined the current appropriate amounts, and both are shown in the following tables:

Water

Current Proposed Decrease

Engineering Overhead 675,900 479,200 (196,700)

Finance and Administration Overhead 540,000 329,300 (210,700)

1,215,900 808,500 (407,400)

Sewer

Current Proposed Decrease

Engineering Overhead 658,000 479,200 (178,800)

Finance and Administration Overhead 566,600 329,300 (237,300)

1,224,600 808,500 (416,100)

Consistent with the findings of the National Benchmarking exercise, the current overhead rates are

higher than required, and thus the utility rates are contributing more to the overall operation than they

should. To correct this however, would require the balance of approximately $800,000 to be made up

by property taxes, which would be a significant (approximately 1.4%) tax increase. Give the other

financial pressures on the organization, it is recommended that this be adjusted over a period of 4 years,

starting in 2017, which would result in an annual tax increase of $200,000, or approximately 0.35%

increase for a typical single family dwelling. This phased approach will ensure we are moving in the

right direction, while minimizing the impact to the tax payer in any given year. This then frees up utility

funds to either invest in infrastructure renewal, save for future rate stabilization, or decrease the user

rates.

The Nation Benchmarking results showed that we are renewing our infrastructure at a rate of 1%,

meaning that our infrastructure would need to last 100 years. We know the average life is closer to 60-

70 years, and as a result we know we need to be spending more on renewal. In addition, based on the

current Metro Vancouver forecasts there are large increases to our water and sewer costs on the horizon,

and an additional contribution to the rate stabilization reserve will help mitigate any future large

increases to our rate payers. It is therefore recommended that the rates not be reduced, and rather that

the funds are re-directed to capital infrastructure replacement and future rate stabilization. The transfers

to the two reserves would then be as follows by 2020:

Current Proposed Increase

Contribution to Water Reserve 1,098,500 2,434,100 1,335,600

Contribution to Sewer Reserve 582,900 1,042,300 459,400

1,681,400 3,476,400 1,795,000

Should Council wish to reduce the rates instead, it is recommended that this be considered for the 2017

rates, once the full rate review is conducted and the impacts between the various sectors (single-family,

multi-family, ICI etc) can also be assessed, as will be discussed below.

8


Water Fund Surplus

In addition to the reduction in overhead, there is also additional surplus available in the budget due to

historical over-budgeting for bulk water purchase from Metro Vancouver. This line item in the budget

has traditionally been increased annually at a consistent rate; however water usage has been relatively

flat in the years past (aside from this year, which was unseasonably hotter and drier). This has resulted

in a consistent surplus in the water budget of approximately $800,000 annually (likely to be $400,000 in

2015 due to high water consumption). Surplus in the water utility is captured in the Water Accumulated

Surplus. Council will recall our discussions about maintaining this reserve at 12% of the annual

revenues (for emergency purposes), and the current balance well exceeds this threshold. This will be

further discussed as part of the year end process.

Using the same logic as noted above, it is also recommended that this excess budget be re-directed to the

appropriate reserves for future infrastructure investment or rate stabilization, at least until 2016 when the

full review can be completed. It is also noted that our ability to do more water infrastructure renewal

will be contingent on our long term capital plan, and appropriate funding being available for roads,

drainage, sewer etc.

Rate Structure

The primary objective of the 2016 rate review will be to analyze the amount of revenue being generated

from the various sectors, relative to the volume of water that they utilize and the cost to service them.

For example, municipalities that meter their residential sectors have shown that on average, multi-family

dwelling units use about 50% of the water used by single-family homes due to their smaller size, fewer

occupants and lower irrigation / lawn sprinkler usage. However, the current rate for a multi-family unit

in Port Coquitlam is set at 89% of the rate for a single-family unit. In addition, a secondary suite in a

single-family home is charged the same rate despite the fact that it is likely to have a much lower water

consumption than the primary unit. A full analysis of the charges to the various sectors, including the

metered ICI (Industrial, Institutional and Commercial) sector, will ensure the user-pay utility model is

recognized in our rate structure.

Water Ambassadors

At the Council meeting on October 26,2015, staff presented the findings from our water conservation

efforts this summer, which relied heavily on a group of seasonal water ambassadors. We were able to

react to the unseasonably hot and dry weather due to the fact that we had already hired seasonal

temporary staff to undertake our roll-out of the bear locks earlier in the summer. Council authorized

$10,000 and the program ran through the month of August, and while it was difficult to quantify the

direct impact from a water consumption perspective, staff feel the ambassadors made a positive impact

given the low re-offence rates that were experienced. The data they gathered wil also be useful for

future conservation efforts. As a result, staff had requested that Council consider $20,000 in ongoing

funding to continue this program in future years. It is anticipated that this funding, in combination with

the funding for solid waste outreach, could be used to create a seasonal outreach program that could

react to both ongoing solid waste and water conservation messaging. Consistent funding of this program

would allow us to plan to have the appropriate resources in place including the right staff and materials,

and would allow us to build relationships in the community to continue our efforts to keep rates low

through reduced water consumption and solid waste contamination. The cost of the program would cost

less than $1/household (on the water rate), and is proposed to be funded through the budget changes

noted above (reducing the reserve transfer) while keeping the water rates flat.

9


Proposed 2016 Rates:

The cost of Metro Vancouver services is expected to continue to escalate for the next ten years,

primarily due to their upcoming capital infrastructure requirements. For 2016, Metro Vancouver is

predicting an approximate 2% increase in water charges and less than 1% for sewer charges. The Port

Coquitlam costs are similar to other budgets in the City, and are driven by inflation, collective

agreements, and other cost pressures, and are offset to some extent with additional revenue from new

users. Both of these potential impacts for 2016 are included in the proposed budget.

The historical water rates are as follows:

Staff are recommending that water rates remain flat again in 2016, until a full rate review can be

completed, and the infrastructure renewal strategy can be developed with the Budget and Infrastructure

Committee. Currently the City has $727,000 in the rate stabilization reserve, and has budgeted to

contribute a further $80,000 in 2016. The water utility rates also continue to fund a 1% contribution to

long term reserves. Metro Vancouver has committed to providing long range forecasts in 2016 which

will be used to prepare a five year rate projection and will be brought forward to Council with the 2016

Utility Rate Review.

Sewer Rates

The historical sewer rates are as follows:

The major cost driver of sewer rates in the next five years is Metro Vancouver’s sewer treatment charges

as shown in Attachment 2, which are based on the City’s water consumption from the prior year. Our

lower flow levels as compared to the region have resulted in a smaller increase than the regional

average. The rates also continue to fund a 1% contribution to long term reserves.

Similar to the water utility, staff are recommending that the sewer rates remain flat again. The City

established a rate stabilization reserve for sewer in 2015 and we are budgeted to contribute an additional

$80,000 in 2016. Metro Vancouver has committed to providing long range forecasts in 2016 which will

be used to prepare a five year rate projection and will be brought forward to Council with the 2016

Utility Rate Review.

Senior’s Discount

In 2015 the seniors discount was given to seniors whose income did not exceed $23,547 or had a

household income that did not exceed $29,440. These thresholds were based on Statistics Canada

Rate Class/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Single Family Dwelling $368 $393 $417 $427 $427

Secondary Suite $368 $393 $417 $427 $427

Townhouse $345 $369 $391 $400 $400

Apartment $328 $351 $371 $380 $380

Rate Class/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Single Family Dwelling $280 $296 $306 $306 $306

Secondary Suite $280 $296 $306 $306 $306

Townhouse $263 $278 $287 $287 $287

Apartment $249 $263 $272 $272 $272

10


Low-Income Threshold and will be updated with 2016 thresholds. The 2016 proposed rates and bylaw

continue to provide for this discount of 50% of the levies for seniors who qualify for this discount.

OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to prepare the utility rate bylaw with the rates remaining flat at 2015 levels including

the $20,000 budget for water outreach (recommended), or

2. Direct staff to prepare the utility rate bylaw with the rates remaining flat at 2015 levels,

excluding the $20,000 budget for water outreach, or

3. Direct staff to bring forward additional information, as directed

____________________________



11

Report to FIG

Committee Date:

October 8, 2016

To:


From:




Director of Finance

Subject: 2017/2018 Solid Waste Rates Direction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As part of the 2016 solid waste rate discussion, Committee reviewed and discussed the proposal to shift

to a self-funded user-pay solid waste utility for garbage, green waste and recycling. However at the

time, the tax impact to the average single family dwelling was felt to be too significant to proceed at this

time, due to the other financial pressures in the City. As a result, the 2016 rates were prepared

consistent with prior years, with a combination of funding from user fees and general taxation. This

report seeks support from Committee to prepare the 2017 and 2018 rates with the same approach, given

the financial pressures that will be on the single-family sector in the next few years.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the solid waste budget be prepared consistent with prior years, funded through a combination of

user fees and general taxes.


As part of the solid waste rate review completed in 2015, staff was directed to create a self-funded user-

pay solid waste utility for garbage, green waste and recycling that would include cost recovery rates for

the single family residential sector, and market based rates for the remaining sectors. The rates were

proposed to be based on the quantity and volume of carts provided, rather than the type of customer.

At the December 7, 2015 meeting, draft rates were brought forward for review by Committee prior to

the preparation of the solid waste rate bylaw. The average cost for a single family dwelling in 2015 was

$182.60, and was proposed to increase to $225 for 2016, and to $247 in 2017, which would be the

desired cost-recovery rate for the average single family home. Due to the other financial pressures on the

single family sector, Committee instead directed the rates to be prepared consistent with prior years

through the combined user-fee and taxes, and the 2016 solid waste rates were kept flat. The December

7, 2015 report is attached for reference.

12

October 8, 2016 Page 2

Prior to preparation of the 2017 and 2018 solid waste rates, staff wish to confirm that Committee wishes

to stay this course. This approach could be reconsidered in 2019, once some of the other financial

pressures on this sector have subsided.

It is also noted that staff have not yet received projections from our external processors (Harvest Power

and Metro Vancouver). Once we receive this information, combined with the direction sought by

Committee in this report, the full budgets and draft rates will be provided in Council’s budget binders

for their consideration. The draft rates could also be impacted by a number of decision packages that

will be coming forward related to the solid waste functions, such as residential glass pick-up or bulky

item pick-up.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS:

For Council’s information, the potential 2017 tax increase, based on prior commitments and inflationary

increases, is currently approximately 3%.

OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to prepare the solid waste budget consistent with prior years (recommended), or

2. Direct staff to prepare the solid waste budget in accordance with the December 7, 2015 report,

creating a self-funded utility, or

3. Direct staff to bring forward additional information.

____________________________



Attachment: 2015-12-07 2016 Solid Waste Rates

13

Report to FIG

Committee Date:

December 7, 2015

To:


From:




Director of Finance

Subject: 2016 Solid Waste Rates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At the September 14, 2015 FIG Committee, Council directed staff to adjust the solid waste rates for

recycling, green and garbage, to create a self-funded user-pay solid waste utility. Committee also

directed staff to spread the impact of the transition over two-years, to mitigate the impact to single-

family residents. In accordance with this direction, staff has prepared the draft 2016 and 2017 solid

waste rates for Council’s consideration. The change for 2016 will result in a reduction to general taxes

of $270,000, and a further $165,000 in 2017. The average cost for a single family dwelling will increase

from $182.60 in 2015, to $225 in 2016.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the 2016 Solid Waste rates be set at the rates outlined in this report, and

That the Solid Waste Bylaw be brought forward to Council accordingly.


At the Finance and Intergovernmental meeting on September 14, 2015, Committee directed staff to:

Create a self-funded user-pay solid waste utility for garbage, green waste and recycling;

and

Generate cost recovery rates for the single family residential sector, based on the quantity

and volume of carts provided; and,

Generate market-based rates for the remaining sectors based on the quantity and volume

of carts provided.

Committee also directed staff to phase in the implementation over two years, to mitigate the impact to

single-family dwellings.

14

December 7, 2015 Page 2

Consistent with these resolutions, the following rates are proposed for 2016:

2016 Proposed Rates

Proposed Single Family

Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

90 120 145 75 90 100 15 25

Proposed Multi- Family Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

90 120 145 85 95 105 30 50

Proposed ICI Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

100 120 145 115 140 165 75 90

Garbage Green Recycling



The average cost for a single family dwelling in 2015 was $182.60, and this will increase to $225 for

2016. The draft 2017 rates are also shown (prior to any inflationary or labor increases) below, which

will achieve the desired user-pay solid waste utility, and increases the single family dwelling rate to

$247. The rate increase is higher in 2016 to ensure sufficient revenue is generated in the event that some

of the multifamily/ICI customers may choose to cancel their service due to the rate increase.

2017 Proposed Rates

Proposed Single Family

Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

90 125 150 80 90 100 32 52

Proposed Multi- Family Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

90 125 150 100 120 140 32 52

Proposed ICI Rates

120L 240L 360L 120L 240L 360L 240L 360L

110 125 150 125 150 175 80 95




ANALYSIS:

The proposed rates achieve the desired outcome of a self-funded user-pay utility by 2017. The rates

have also been created to encourage the green organics bin as an alternative to the grey garbage bin for

single-family residential. This methodology was not applied to the multi-family and ICI sectors, as the

garbage revenues are used to offset the green revenues in the single-family market, and many of our

multi-family and ICI customers have only green organics collection, and thus generate no revenue from

garbage to offset the organics.

15

December 7, 2015 Page 3

While most communal multi-family customers (apartments or townhouses that have group collection,

not individual carts per unit) will see a decrease in their organics waste costs, all of the ICI and Multi-

family customers may be surprised to see a new charge for recycling collection, as they currently pay for

this service within their property taxes and thus the City has offered this collection as “free” (no

additional charges) to customers in the past. However, the new specifically billed cost will be

significantly offset by the decreased taxes that would have been collected for this function, and

communication of this change will be critical to demonstrate the net impact. It is difficult to list an

example of this, due to the varying range of assessments for the ICI sector.

Council will also note that there is no longer a charge for secondary suites, and as a result, the secondary

suite waivers will be eliminated in 2016 and all solid waste charges will be based on the type of cart,

type of property and size of the carts being used.

OPTIONS:

1. Direct staff to set the 2016 Solid Waste rates at the rates outlined in this report and bring the

Solid Waste Bylaw forward for Council consideration accordingly (recommended), or

2. Direct staff to bring forward additional information, as directed

____________________________



Attachments: September 14, 2015 FIG Report on Solid Waste Rate Review

16

grahaml

Stamp

Report to FIG Committee

DATE:

October 6, 2016

TO:


FROM:

Lee-Anne Truong, P.Eng., PMP.

Manager of Capital Projects

Subject: Argue Street Sanitary Sewer Pump Station

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The 2016 Capital Budget included the works associated with the rehabilitation and upgrades of the

Argue Street Sanitary Sewer Pump Station at a budgeted value of $480,000 funded from the Sewer

Reserve. The tender closed on October 3rd

, 2016 and three bids were received. All three bids were

consistently high; the low bid was from EarthCo Ltd, with a total contract value of $524,475.00 (taxes

excluded). With approximately $32,000 of the project budget already utilized for design and tender

preparation, the project requires an additional $80,000 to proceed. This report recommends the project

proceed, and that the shortfall be funded from the Sewer Reserve.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the City’s 2016 – 2020 Financial Plan be amended to include an additional $80,000 from the Sewer

Reserve to the Argue Sanitary Pump Station capital budget.

BACKGROUND:

The Argue Street sanitary pump station was installed in 1993 and services approximately 250 homes in

south Citadel and the Argue Street neighbourhood south of the Mary Hill Bypass. This pump station

collects sanitary discharge from these areas and pumps it through a forcemain to the main system where

it can flow by gravity to Metro Vancouver’s pipe system. At 23 years old, it now requires rehabilitation

and upgrades. The work includes replacement of the existing sanitary pumps, internal piping,

appurtenances, couplings, new valve chambers, new bypass manholes, new pump station hatch for

safety, a new electrical kiosk, distribution equipment, control panel, and replacement of the existing

electrical genset. This work will ensure that the pump station operates efficiently for the next 20 years.

Council approved this project as part of the 2016 Capital Budget, at a budgeted value of $480,000

funded from the Sewer Reserve. The Engineer’s construction estimate was $447,645.00. The tender

closed on October 3rd

, 2016 and three bids were received, as follows:

EarthCo Ltd. $524,475.00

West Port Construction Ltd. $542,850.00

Merletti Constructin Ltd. $633,123.75

17

October 17, 2016

Argue Sanitary Pump Station Upgrades

Page 2

2016 10-17 - Argue Pump Station Tender Recommendation FIG

All three bids were consistently high; the low bid was from EarthCo Ltd, with a total contract value of

$524,475.00 (taxes excluded). Approximately $32,000 of the project budget has been utilized to date to

fund consulting fees for the design of the pump station upgrades and to prepare tender drawings and

documents. Contract administration of the project will be completed in-house. It is recommended that

the project budget be increased by the shortfall of $80,000 to allow the project to proceed.

Alternatively, the project scope could be reduced to stay within the project budget, however reducing the

scope now may require additional funds be spent in the near future to reduce the probability of system

failures in the future (sanitary sewer over flows) and safety concerns for our maintenance crews.

The higher than expected contract prices could be a result of tendering later in the year, and/or a result of

inadequate scoping of the project prior to setting the budget. As the tender received three competitive

bids and it cannot be guaranteed that the bids will be lower in 2017 with anticipated escalation, delaying

the project and retendering in 2017 is not recommended. It is noted that staff is working on developing

a two year capital process in which design occurs in one year and construction in the subsequent year to

both ensure that projects are adequately scoped and estimated prior to Financial Plan approvals, as well

as ensure projects can be strategically tendered throughout the year (and possibly over multiple years) to

achieve the most competitive pricing.

OPTIONS:

1. Proceed with the project by increasing the budget by $80,000

2. Reduce the scope of the project to what can be achieved within the current budget

___________________________

Lee-Anne Truong, P.Eng., PMP.

Manager of Capital Projects

18

Report to Committee

DATE:

October 11, 2016

TO:

Financial & Intergovernmental Committee (FIG)

FROM:

Lori Bowie, Bsc, MA

Director of Recreation

SUBJECT:

SUN VALLEY SPRAY PARK REHABILITATION PROJECT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In July 2015 the City was notified that our application for a matching grant of $125,000 from

the Canada 150 Infrastucture program for the Sun Valley Spray Park rehabilitation capital

project was successful. ISL Engineering was awarded a design build contract on June 10, 2016.

The contract was valued at $249,933, which offered the best value within the City`s project

budget of $250,000. The proposed scope of work focused primarily on achieving the safety

improvements and environmental benefits associated with the upgrade. ISL also proposed a

number of value-added optional components that staff are recommending be included in the

project, at an additional cost of $50,000. These additional elements will increase the customer

experience and improve operational efficiencies. It is recommended this work be funded from

accumulated surplus.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Sun Valley Spray Park rehabilitation project be increased by $50,000, funded by

accumulated surplus, and,

That the 2016-2020 Financial Plan be amended accordingly.

BACKGROUND:

The Canada 150 grant program was announced in July 2015. Staff brought forward a number of

possible projects, and on June 1, 2016 Council passed a resolution endorsing the application to

upgrade Sun Valley Spray Park. The park is 27 years old; renewal of the park will ensure

community safety, lessen the environmental impact through waste water reduction and increase the

interactive water play area by 30%.

19

The project budget was set at $250,000, based on a preliminary estimate that van der Zalm and

Associates provided in collaboration with the Manager of Parks Planning and Design, in order to

meet the grant deadline of June 17, 2015. Once the grant funding was confirmed, an RFP was

issued for a design build contract to achieve the most objectives within the budgeted amount, (i.e.

what can you accomplish for the project budget of $250,000.) Grant funding was availalbe as of

April 1, 2016. On June 10, 2016 the City awarded the contract to ISL Engineering Ltd. for

$249,993, which represented the best overall value, and focused on the safety retrofits and

environmental benefits of the waste water reduction. This scope of work, which included an above

ground filtration room, slip free pad, reduced slope for water drainage and a UV system was also

supported by Fraser Health. With these enhancements, Sun Valley will become one of the first

spray parks with a circulatory filtration system in the Metro Vancouver Region. The inclusion of

these components was also essential to meet the new Fraser Health safety standards for pool

operation and to pass future inspections required for the annual operating permit. At present, only

$7,500 of the project budget is for new play features.

In addition to their bid of $249,993 for the work described above, ISL presented a list of optional

upgrades to the scope of the project that would further reduce operating costs, enhance the life span

of the spray park and provide a greater user experience. The staff project team reviewed the options

in consultation with maintenance staff. On August 17, 2016 the project team and ISL completed a

thorough review of the options suggested and prioritized the preferred scope enhancements. The

project is currently in the conceptual design phase with construction set to begin in early March

2017.

The final list of additional /upgrade options total $50,000 and would feature the following items:

$22,000 net increase for water spray features (four interactive features including one

large multi-play focus feature. See attached) – Greater customer experience and added

visual indication that the spray park was upgraded

$4,000 for concrete seat expansion and paint - Supports the features and the contours of

the Park; enhances seating capacity, park safety and customer experience

$8,000 enhanced UV system - Enhanced one bulb system provides a cost savings reduces

bulb replacement by approximately $1,000/yr over the life span; upgraded from system

proposed in original project scope

$11,000 Rain diverter debris trap - Captures debris on a daily basis, reducing staff time

spent removing debris daily, maintenance on filtration system, and extending the life

span

$5,000 Electrical panel upgrade - The existing 60 amp electrical needs to be upgraded to

120 amp to support the additional water spray features and filtration system upgrade.

Total Increase = $50,000

Families with young children need accessible recreation opportunities within their community and

local neighbourhoods. The addition of $50,000 to further upgrade and expand the very well-used

Sun Valley Spray Park will enhance leisure and family opportunities, improve operating efficiency

and extend the life of an existing community asset. In addition, there are economies of scale to

20

having this work completed in conjunction with the current project. Staff therefore recommend the

additional scope of work be approved, funded by accumulated surplus.

Options :

1. Approve all of the features listed above;

2. Approve a selection of options, but not all of the features listed above;

3. Deny additional options; maintain current scope of project within the approved $250,000

budget.

Respectfully Submitted by,

______________________________

Lori Bowie, Director of Recreation

Prepared by: Glenn Mitzel, Area Recreation Manager

Concurrence: Lee-Anne Truong, Manager of Capital Projects

Attachment 1: Sun Valley Spray Park Expansion Renderings

21

Sun Valley Spray Park Original Play Features

1. Waterbug #2

2. Waterbug #3

3. Aqua Dome #1

Sun Valley Spray Park Proposed Play Features

1. Flower #9

2. Tot Twister

3. Waterbug #2

4. Aqua Dome #1

22

World leader in aquatic play solutions with over 6,000 installations worldwide

vortex-intl.com • [email protected]

1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

You may also like

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

• Predict and anticipate which of the dumping water flowers will

spill over first

• Encourages communicative and interactive experiences

• Provides a visual experience by casting colorful shadows with

the Seeflow™

Get ready; this

flower will get

you wet!

Ideal age group: 2 years and up

FLOWER N°9VOR 7541

• Flower N°6(VOR 7558)

• Flower N°8(VOR 7560)

• Bloom N°1(VOR 7486)

23



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

H/W/L

153/94/76 in

389/239/193 cm

Pressure

5–10 PSI

0.34–0.69 BAR

Flow

9–15 GPM

34.07–56.78 LPM

Smartflow

–

–

VORTEX EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGIESThis product features the following technologies that are unique to Vortex.

1

Color Choices: Vortex colors or polished

Spray Zone

1

TOEGUARDTM

• Soft-touch Elastomer

• Protects children’s toes from anchoring hardware

• Durable, vandal resistant, resistant to chemicals

• Infused with a UV resistant bright color

• Available in one or two pieces ensuring tight fit to post

WATER EFFECTS• Dumping water flower (3)

2

2 SEEFLOWTM

• Impact-resistant polymer

• Resistant to UV rays and chemicals

• Colorful reflections are created with the combination of bright colors, water, and sunlight

• Manufactured with up to 40% pre-consumer recycled materials

• Reusable at the end of life

294” (748 cm)

287” (729 cm)

24



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

This feature twist!

Ideal age group: 4 years and up

TOT TWISTERVOR 7030

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

• Rotate with 360° rotation with no pinch point for interactive

play

• Helps develop motor skills

You may also like

• Bloom NÁ1 (VOR 7486)

• Leaf NÁ2 (VOR 7657)

• Orbit(VOR 7398)

• Flower NÁ2 (VOR 7550)

25



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

H/W/L

27/13/13 in

69/33/33 cm

Pressure

10-20 PSI

0.69-1.38 BAR

Flow

10-20 GPM

37.9-75.7 LPM

Smartflow

–

–



Spray Zone

WATER EFFECTS• Interactive soft stream (12)

1

2

1 TOEGUARDTM






TURNTECTM

• Easy turning for kids of all ages and abilities

• Lead-free brass for maximum durability - unaffected by heat

• 360° rotation - no mechanical stops to break

• Internal spray zone adjust

• Corrosion and chemical resistant

2

ø 144” (ø 366 cm)

26



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/Canada) • +1.514.694.3868 (International)

Ideal age group: For all ages

You may also like

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

• Mesmerizing laminar bell shaped water effect

• Encourages different types of game playing

Fall into the spell of

its water effect!

AQUA DOME N°1VOR 0555

• Tube N˚1 (VOR 0220)

• Spray Loop (VOR 0519)

• Spray cannon (VOR 0201)

27



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/Canada) • +1.514.694.3868 (International)

TOEGUARDTM






H/W/L

45/14/14 in

114/36/36 cm

Pressure

5 –10 PSI

0.3 –0.7 BAR

Flow

10 –18 GPM

38 –68 LPM

Smartflow

–

–


1


Spray Zone

1

ø 12’ (ø 367 cm)

WATER EFFECTS• 360˚ laminar water (1)

REVISED: 06/05/2016

28



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

• Waterbug N°4 (VOR 7661)

• Crab N°2 (VOR 7220)

• Snail N°4 (VOR 7217)

You may also like

WATERBUG N°2VOR 7581

Ideal age group: 0 - 6 years

Play with this

Waterbug!

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

• Different water effects keep kids captivated


• Pressing the two PodspraysTM will amplify the main

spray’s water effect

• Waterbug N°3 (VOR 7582)

29



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

Spray Zone

H/W/L

22/18/20 in

57/46/51 cm

Pressure

5-10 PSI

0.3-0.7 BAR

Flow

5-7 GPM

19-27 LPM

Smartfl ow

-

-


TOEGUARDTM





• Available in one or two pieces ensuring tight fi t to post

1

1

PODSPRAYTM

• Simply press to send water to another nozzle on the same feature

• Combine multiple pods and features to create team play

• Lead-free brass for maximum durability

2

2

Color Choices: Vortex colors

ø 11’6” (ø 351 cm)

WATER EFFECTS• Gentle jet stream (6) • Interactive Podspray™ (2)

Features, anchoring systems and hardware are made of 100% recyclable stainless steel, including at least 25% post-consumer recycled content.

30



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

• Waterbug N°4 (VOR 7661)• Waterbug N (VOR 7661)

• Frog N°1 (VOR 7200)

• Snail N°4 (VOR 7217)

You may also like

WATERBUG N°3VOR 7582

Ideal age group: 0 - 6 years

This Waterbug isall about fun!

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

• Different water effects keep kids captivated


• Pressing the PodsprayTM will amplify the other sprays’ water

effect

• Waterbug N°1 (VOR 7580)• Waterbug N (VOR 7580)

31



1.877.586.7839 (free USA/CND) • +1.514.694.3868 (Intl.)

Spray Zone

H/W/L

22/18/20 in

57/46/51 cm

Pressure

5-10 PSI

0.3-0.7 BAR

Flow

5-7 GPM

19-27 LPM

Smartfl ow

-

-


TOEGUARDTM





• Available in one or two pieces ensuring tight fi t to post

1

1

PODSPRAYTM

• Simply press to send water to another nozzle on the same feature

• Combine multiple pods and features to create team play

• Lead-free brass for maximum durability

2

2

Color Choices: Vortex colors

ø 12’ (ø 366 cm)

WATER EFFECTS• Gentle jet stream (6) • Interactive Podspray™ (1)

Features, anchoring systems and hardware are made of 100% recyclable stainless steel, including at least 25% post-consumer recycled content.

32

finance & intergovernmental committee ...2016/10/03 · monday, october 17, 2016 4:30 pm -...

Documents