meeting 4 of 8 greater vancouver sewerage …...greater vancouver sewerage and drainage district...

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT (GVS&DD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGULAR BOARD MEETING Friday, November 25, 2016

9:00 A.M. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

Membership and Votes

R E V I S E D A G E N D A1

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. November 25, 2016 Regular Meeting AgendaThat the GVS&DD Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled forNovember 25, 2016 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. October 28, 2016 Regular Meeting MinutesThat the GVS&DD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meetingheld October 28, 2016 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item.

1. UTILITIES COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.1 Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – Regional Wipes Campaign”, dated October 28, 2016.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

Meeting 4 of 8

November 22, 2016

Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District - 1

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/membership/board-members/Pages/GVSDD.aspx

GVS&DD Board Agenda November 25, 2016 Agenda of 3

1.2 Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M

Hill Canada Limited resulting from RFP No. 16-083 for Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Phase 1 – Project Definition and Staging; and

b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

1.3 Award of Contract Extension for Utility Residuals Hauling Services That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) A contract amendment in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) to the

current contractor, Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for utility residuals hauling services; and


1.4 Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area: The Chines Integrated Stormwater Management Plan That the GVS&DD Board adopt the objectives and GVS&DD actions as identified in the Port Moody/Coquitlam Integrated Stormwater Management Plan titled “The Chines, Backyard Habitat Alive”.

1.5 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw – Staff

Appointment That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007, appoint Kristen Beattie as a Municipal Sewage Control Officer.

2. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS

2.1 GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review

That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to proceed with public and stakeholder consultation on the proposed changes to the Development Cost Charge Program following the adoption of the 5-year financial plan in March 2017 and direct staff to report back, prior to the consultation, on phasing of and potential strategies to mitigate the impact of the rate increases.

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN I. OTHER BUSINESS J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

Revised


GVS&DD Board Agenda November 25, 2016 Agenda of 3

K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the GVS&DD Board close its regular meeting scheduled for November 25, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) (g) and (i) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if

the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district;

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including

communications necessary for that purpose”. L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the GVS&DD Board adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of November 25, 2016.


GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held at 9:15 a.m. on Friday, October 28, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Port Coquitlam, Chair, Director Greg Moore Vancouver, Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie Burnaby, Director Sav Dhaliwal Burnaby, Director Colleen Jordan Coquitlam, Director Craig Hodge Coquitlam, Director Richard Stewart Delta, Director Lois Jackson Electoral Area A, Director Maria Harris Langley City, Director Rudy Storteboom Langley Township, Director Charlie Fox Langley Township, Director Bob Long Maple Ridge, Director Nicole Read New Westminster, Director Jonathan Coté North Vancouver City, Director Darrell Mussatto North Vancouver District, Director Richard Walton Pitt Meadows, Director John Becker Port Moody, Director Mike Clay

Richmond, Director Malcolm Brodie Richmond, Director Harold Steves Surrey, Director Bruce Hayne Surrey, Director Linda Hepner Surrey, Director Mary Martin Surrey, Director Barbara Steele Surrey, Director Judy Villeneuve Vancouver, Director Heather Deal Vancouver, Director Kerry Jang Vancouver, Director Geoff Meggs Vancouver, Director Andrea Reimer Vancouver, Director Gregor Robertson Vancouver, Director Tim Stevenson West Vancouver, Director Michael Smith White Rock, Director Wayne Baldwin Commissioner Carol Mason (Non-voting member)

MEMBERS ABSENT: Burnaby, Director Derek Corrigan

STAFF PRESENT: Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. October 28, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDEDThat the GVS&DD Board adopt the revised agenda for its regular meetingscheduled for October 28, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, October 28, 2016 Page 1 of 7

Section B 1


B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. September 23, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes 2. October 21, 2016 Metro Vancouver Joint Board Budget Workshop Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held September 23, 2016 and the minutes for the Metro Vancouver Joint Board Budget Workshop held October 21, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS No items presented. D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. E. CONSENT AGENDA

At the request of Directors, the following items were removed from the Consent Agenda, in the order which they were pulled, for consideration under Section F. Items Removed from Consent Agenda: 2.1 Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-Family and

Commercial/Institutional Sectors 4.1 Delegations Received at Committee October 2016

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the October 28, 2016 GVS&DD Board Consent Agenda: 1.1 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16-029: Sperling Pump Station

Upgrading Project 1.2 Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment – 20030 8th Avenue – Township of Langley 2.2 Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy

Facility 3.1 Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments 4.2 2017 GVS&DD Budgets – Liquid Waste and Solid Waste

CARRIED The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

1.1 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16-029: Sperling Pump Station Upgrading Project Report dated September 30, 2016 from Tracey S. Husoy, Purchasing and Risk Management Division Manager, Financial Services, advising the GVS&DD Board of the results of Tender No. 16-029: Sperling Pump Station Upgrading Project,



and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $6,720,000 (exclusive of taxes) to NAC Constructors Ltd. Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $6,720,000 (exclusive of taxes) to NAC

Constructors Ltd. resulting from Tender No. 16-029 for construction of the Sperling Pump Station Upgrading Project; and

b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. Adopted on Consent

1.2 Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment – 20030 8th Avenue – Township of Langley

Report dated September 27, 2016 from Ed von Euw, Policy Planning and Analysis Senior Engineer, Liquid Waste Services, responding to the request from the Township of Langley, seeking GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) to include 20030 8th Avenue (Lot 5, Sec. 2, Township 7, NWD, Plan NWP33264) in the Township of Langley. Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the property located at 20030 8th Avenue in the Township of Langley as shown on District Drawing SA-2376 Sheet 89.

Adopted on Consent

2.2 Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility Report dated October 14, 2016 from Zero Waste Committee, together with report dated October 6, 2016 from Chris Allan, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board authorization to award a contract, in the amount of $5,897,843 (excluding taxes), to Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC to construct a non-ferrous metal recovery system at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility. Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award to Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC, the construction of the

non-ferrous metal recovery system at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at a cost of $5,897,843 (excluding taxes), under the terms and conditions of existing Contract 98106; and

b) the Commissioner and Corporate Officer to execute any necessary documents.

Adopted on Consent

3.1 Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments Report dated October 1, 2016 from Megan Gerryts, Corporate Projects Coordinator, CAO Executive Offices, seeking Board approval of the amended Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy.



Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board approve the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy as presented in the report titled “Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments” dated October 1, 2016.

Adopted on Consent 4.2 2017 GVS&DD Budgets – Liquid Waste and Solid Waste

Report dated October 21, 2016 from Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer, seeking GVS&DD Board approval of the 2017 Revenue and Expenditures Budgets, use of Reserves, and Capital Expenditures. Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board approve the 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Budgets, use of Reserves, and Capital Expenditures as shown in the following schedules: A1 Revenue and Expenditure Summary A4 2017 Budget - Proposed Application of Reserves B6 GVS&DD Liquid Waste 2017 Budget B8-B11 GVS&DD Liquid Waste 2017 Capital Programs & Project Details B12 GVS&DD Solid Waste 2017 Budget B14 GVS&DD Solid Waste 2017 Capital Programs & Project Details B15 GVS&DD Solid Waste 2017 Equipment Capital Plan

Adopted on Consent

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA The items removed from the Consent Agenda were considered in numerical order.

2.1 Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-Family

and Commercial/Institutional Sectors Report dated October 7, 2016 from Karen Storry, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, updating the GVS&DD Board on the municipal programs and policies in place in the region to encourage recycling in the multi-family and commercial/institutional sectors. Staff was requested to correct Attachment 3 of the report to reflect the Township of Langley’s Multi-Family and Commercial/Institutional recycling and organics programs, prior to distributing the report. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board: a) receive the report dated October 7, 2016, titled “Municipal Programs and

Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors” for information, with corrections identified at the October 28, 2016 meeting; and

b) send a copy to all member jurisdictions and to the provincial Ministry of Environment.

CARRIED



4.1 Delegations Received at Committee October 2016 Report dated October 17, 2016 from Kelly Hardy, Office Supervisor, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services, reporting to the Board on delegation activities at Committee for October 2016. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated October 17, 2016 titled “Delegations Received at Committee October 2016” containing submissions received from the following delegates: a) Dean Drysdale, Board Chair, FoamOnly Recycling Corp. b) Cynthia Shore, on behalf of Joe Casalini, Director of Business Development,

RABANCO c) Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot

Association CARRIED

G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

1.1 Cost Apportionment Bylaw Amendment Report dated September 26, 2016 from Dean Rear, Financial Planning and Operations Director, Financial Services, seeking GVS&DD Board adoption of Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Cost Apportionment Amending Bylaw No. 301, 2016. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Cost Apportionment Amending Bylaw No. 301, 2016.

CARRIED

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board pass and finally adopt Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Cost Apportionment Amending Bylaw No. 301, 2016.

CARRIED

2.1 GVS&DD Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016 Report dated October 14, 2016 from the Zero Waste Committee, together with report dated October 7, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board adoption of Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016 to be implemented January 1, 2017. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board: a) approve the following provisions in the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw effective

January 1, 2017:



I. Tipping Fees to remain the same as in 2016 with the following exceptions: i. Recycling Fee for Source-Separated Organic Waste, Green Waste

and Clean Wood at North Shore Transfer Station to be reduced from $71 per tonne to $67 per tonne;

ii. Surcharge for Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials and Product Stewardship Materials to increase from $50 to $65 per occurrence; and

iii. Recycling Fee for Gypsum to be $150 per tonne, with a minimum $15 fee (including Transaction Fee);

II. Ability for General Manager of Solid Waste Services to waive fees and charges for loads from non-profit or volunteer community clean-up projects on public land in certain circumstances;

III. GVS&DD’s costs of providing dedicated recycling depots at the North Shore and Coquitlam Transfer Stations are to be apportioned among participating municipalities on a population basis;

IV. Weigh scales precision improved to 5 kg increments; and V. Peak Hours definition change to exclude Statutory Holidays;

b) approve the following provisions in the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw effective July 1, 2017:

I. Surcharge threshold for Food Waste to change from 25% to 5%; II. Surcharge threshold for Clean Wood to change from 10% to 5%; III. New Surcharge for Unsecured Load: 50% of the applicable tipping fee

to a maximum of $50; IV. Personal Hygiene Products making up 10% or more of a load and not

properly contained added to Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials; and

V. Removal of ban exemption for Wax Paper/Cardboard; and c) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016.

CARRIED

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board pass and finally adopt Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016.

CARRIED H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented. I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.



J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented. K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board close its regular meeting scheduled for October 28, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e), (g), (i) and 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or

improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district;

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,

including communications necessary for that purpose; and 90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) No items presented. M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board adjourn its regular meeting of October 28, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 9:19 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

Greg Moore, Chair

19827005 FINAL



To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Date: October 28, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – Regional Wipes Campaign”, dated October 28, 2016. PURPOSE To update the Committee and the GVS&DD Board on the results of the 2016 regional campaign to reduce the flushing of wipes, conducted in the spring and summer of 2016. BACKGROUND Flushing of wipes and other materials causes problems for the regional and municipal sewer systems and can result in clogs, damage to equipment and sewage overflows. A pilot project conducted with the City of Pitt Meadows in 2015 tested a number of approaches focused on reaching female wipes users, using a range of channels and the theme “Adult Toilet Training” with the tagline “Never Flush Wipes”. 2016 WIPES REGIONAL CAMPAIGN The 2016 regional campaign built on the pilot project conducted with the City of Pitt Meadows. Results of this pilot project were reported out to the Committee and Board in April 2016. Using the “Adult Toilet Training” with the tagline “Never Flush Wipes”, the campaign ran from April 21 to June 12, with additional outreach on social media from August 15 to September 11. Campaign Elements and Approach The 2016 campaign used approaches shown to be successful in the pilot project, adding new elements to keep the campaign fresh. The tone of the campaign remained light and humorous and focused on reaching women in public washrooms, which was shown to be one of the most effective channels used in the pilot. The main elements of the campaign included (see Attachment 1 for samples):

• posters and decals in women’s washrooms, including a new series of Adult Toilet Training tips posters

• shortened whiteboard video shown in movie theatres • pink port‐a‐potty with wipes messaging at community events around the region • online advertising, new online “toilet training” quiz and series of humorous video tips • social media engagement through Twitter, Facebook and blogs • signage in Shoppers Drug Mart stores across the region

Section E 1.1


In July 2016, the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association awarded Metro Vancouver the Utility Excellence Award, under the “Community Outreach – Large Utility” category for its wipes outreach.

Collaboration with Member Municipalities The campaign received support from member municipalities who were involved through the campaign’s planning stage. Members posted campaign materials in washrooms in their municipal facilities, hosted the pink port‐a‐potty at events and disseminated materials through their social media channels. Over 1200 posters were placed in municipal facilities by ten Members, while additional Members supported the campaign through their social media channels. Pink port‐a‐potties with wipes messaging attended 21 events in 13 municipalities, with a total of 147 port‐a‐potties deployed during the campaign.

Evaluation To assess the campaign’s effectiveness, Metro Vancouver conducted a post‐campaign survey (Attachment 2) and has been tracking the number of wipes entering the Baynes Road pump station in Pitt Meadows. Metro Vancouver has also been monitoring social media activity, website traffic and earned media.

An online regional survey of 1472 women was conducted from June 22 to July 13, 2016. The results were generally positive and showed that:

• Roughly 18% of women surveyed said they had seen or heard Metro Vancouver’s advertisingabout disposing of wipes.

• Posters in washrooms were by far the most successful channel used, with 64% of womenseeing the campaign there. This was followed by movie theatres (25%) and social media (23%).

• The majority of people (48%) who saw messaging about disposing of wipes recalled, withoutprompting, the primary message to not flush wipes. In addition, 41% remembered related messages about clogging, sewer systems, wipes not breaking down, and putting wipes in the garbage.

• Nearly all residents who saw the advertising say they would now dispose of wipes in thegarbage. Of the ones who say they are flushing wipes less, 13% said this was due to the campaign. A further 61% of this group say they understand where wipes should or should not be disposed. (Note: Many residents said they were already disposing of wipes in the garbage, which supports previous findings that a minority flush wipes).

Plans are underway to develop a regional campaign in 2017 focusing on other unflushables (dental floss, hair, feminine hygiene products, etc.) subject to Board approval of the 2017 Liquid Waste Services Budget.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign budget is $200,000. These costs were included in the 2016 Liquid Waste Services Communications Program budget.


SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The flushing of wipes and other materials is a widespread problem for Metro Vancouver and most cities that can damage equipment, contribute to sewer clogs and cause sewage to overflow into the environment. The approaches used to encourage people, women in particular, to not flush wipes have been tested in the 2015 Pitt Meadows pilot project with encouraging results, and form the key elements ‐ “Adult Toilet Training” with the tagline “Never Flush Wipes”, of the 2016 regional campaign and have been shown to be generally effective. These approaches will be expanded and improved in the planned regional campaign to include a range of unflushable products in 2017. Attachments:

1. Sample of campaign artwork and advertising materials 2. 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign – Post Campaign Survey Results

19597803


Sample of Campaign Artwork and Advertising Materials

Adult Toilet Training “tips” poster (for inside of bathroom stalls)

Attachment 1


Washroom decal for posting on sanitary receptacle


Social media post on local government website

Wipes messaging in Shoppers Drug Mart store


Mirror cling in cinema washroom

Pink port-a-potties with wipes messaging at community events

19823501


Regional Wipes Campaign

A SURVEY OF METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

July 2016

ATTACHMENT 2


Table of Contents

Introduction 03

Sampling 04

Observations 05

Executive Summary 06

Research Findings 12

Where Should We Dispose of Waste? 13

Where Do We Dispose of Waste? 23

Wipes Usage 33

Wipes Disposal 49

Wipes Advertising 65

Demographic Profile 84

2 Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District - 19

Overview

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Metro Vancouver operates and maintains a regional sewer system and treatment plants.

The incorrect disposal of wet wipes is a serious problem for the operation of this system. In April 2016 Metro Vancouver launched an advertising campaign to inform Metro Vancouver residents about where to dispose of wet wipes.

Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research with the goal of exploring usage and disposal behaviours among women that use wet wipes and awareness of their advertising campaign. Specifically, the research answers the following questions:

• How do residents dispose of various household waste?• What types of wipes are used?• How are various wipes disposed?• Did residents see or hear the wet wipes ads?• Do residents recall the message of the ads?• Where did residents see or hear the ads?

Introduction

Methodology

Surveys 1,472 adult female residents.Field dates: June 22 to July 13, 2016.Population: The table on the following slide displays

the areas sampled for this study. Methodology: Online.Weighting: The final data were weighted to match

age and gender characteristics and regional distribution of adult female Metro Vancouver residents.

Languages: Surveys were conducted in English.Margin of error: The total sample is representative of 950

Metro Vancouver residents. A probability sample of 950 carries a margin of error +/-3.2 percentage points 95% of the time.


The table below displays the areas sampled for this study.

Sampling

Areas Sampled Sample size Margin of error

Central: Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Electoral Area A 400 +/- 4.9

North West: West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver,Lions Bay, Bowen Island

154 +/- 7.9

North East: Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows

301 +/- 5.7

South West: Delta (includes Ladner and Tsawwassen), Richmond, Tsawwassen First Nation 304 +/- 5.6

South East: Township of Langley, City of Langley, Surrey, White Rock 313 +/- 5.5

Total1,472

Equates to 950n/a

+/- 3.2

A note on weighting: At the request of the client, several regions were oversampled to allow reasonable separate analysis of these regions. After weighting of oversampled areas the total sample is representative of a random sample of 950 Metro Vancouver residents.


ObservationsMetro Vancouver’s wipes advertising campaign has reached nearly two-in-ten adult female Metro Vancouver residents. The campaign, which primarily utilized posters in public restrooms, movie theatres, social and other online media, and community events was most successful among female residents ages 18 to 44 years. While there are no significant differences in awareness regionally, recall of the campaign is directionally highest within the North East (Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and area) and North West (North Shore) areas, and lowest in the Central area (of City of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Electoral Area A).

The campaign utilized a diverse set of advertising media. While ads in public washrooms garner the highest recall, the campaign connects with a smaller proportion of female residents through over a half-dozen additional media promoting the “don’t flush wipes” message to its target audience. The campaign

primarily utilized visual media to take advantage of the eye-catching design.

Residents recall the main message and their behaviour has been impacted. A small majority of female residents who saw the ads recall, without prompting, the primary message, “don’t flush wipes”. Nearly all residents would now dispose of wet wipes in the garbage. A sizable proportion who now “more often” dispose of wet wipes in the garbage cite the influence of the campaign or additional knowledge about appropriate wipes disposal.

Disposing wipes into the toilet is a relatively uncommon behaviour among adult female Metro Vancouver residents. A small minority dispose of at least one type of wipe in the toilet. Among all the types of wet wipes covered in this survey, personal hygiene wipes are most likely to be disposed of into the toilet.


Summary


Executive SummaryWaste disposal perceptionsWhere should we dispose of waste?Below are the top ways women in Metro Vancouver (“female residents”) believe the following types of waste should be disposed:Dental floss: Garbage (88%); food scraps bin (5%); toilet (2%).Face tissues: Garbage (52%); food scraps bin (34%); toilet (11%).Tampons: Garbage (65%); toilet (27%).Wet wipes: Garbage (84%); food scraps bin (6%); toilet (4%).

What do we think should go into our toilet or drain?Looking specifically at drains and toilets, over one-quarter (27%) residents believe tampons should be disposed of via the drains and/or toilets that lead to the region’s sewer system. One-in-ten (11%) residents feel face tissues should be disposed of via the toilet. Nearly all residents do not feel wet wipes or dental flossshould be disposed of that way.

Waste disposal behaviourWhere do we dispose of different types of waste?Wet wipes users typically dispose of the following waste types in different ways:Dental floss: Garbage (91%); toilet (4%).Face tissues: Garbage (63%); food scraps bin (22%); toilet (13%).Tampons: Garbage (54%); toilet (28%).Wet wipes: Garbage (81%); toilet (5%).

What do we dispose in our toilets or drains?Looking specifically at the drains and toilets, the largest proportion (28%) of residents claim they dispose tampons in drains or toilets that lead to the region’s sewer system. Thirteen percent (13%) say they dispose of face tissues via the toilet. A small minority say they dispose wet wipes (5%) or dental floss (4%) this way.


Executive Summary (cont’d)

Wet wipes usersDo we use wet wipes?Seven-in-ten (70%) female residents have used wet wipes in the past month. Wet wipes usage decreases with age:• 18 to 34 (81%)• 35 to 44 (78%)• 45 to 54 (67%)• 55 to 64 (61%)• 65 and older (56%)

What type of wet wipes do we use?Seven-in-ten (71%) wet wipes users used wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning at least once over the past month. Sixteen percent (16%) used them at least daily.Just over six-in-ten (62%) used wipes for makeup removal, including over one-quarter (27%) who used them at least daily.Forty-five percent (45%) used personal hygiene wipes for adults, including sixteen percent (16%) who used them at least daily. Four-in-ten (40%) used wipes for babies, two-in-ten (20%) who used them at least daily. Residents under 45 years old are most likely to use these products (50% versus 24% to 32% among older age groups).One-third (34%) used other types of wipes.

Where we use wipesWhere do we use wipes most frequently?The majority (64%) of wipes users use them most frequently in their bathroom, followed by the kitchen (20%). Six percent (6%) use them most frequently in the bedroom.

Wipes disposalWhere do we dispose of different types of wipes?Nearly all (94%) residents who use wipes for makeup removal use the garbage for disposal; 2% in the toilet.The vast majority (93%) of residents who use wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning dispose of them in the garbage; 2% in the toilet.Nine-in-ten (90%) residents who use baby wipes dispose of them in the garbage; 7% in the toilet. A strong majority (86%) of residents who use other types of wipesuse the garbage for disposal; 2% in the toilet.Just over three-quarters (77%) of residents who use adult personal hygiene wipes dispose of them in the garbage; two-in-ten (20%) dispose of them in the toilet.


Executive Summary (cont’d)

Do we dispose of wipes in the garbage more or less often now than two months ago?Three-quarters (76%) of wipes users dispose of wet wipes into the garbage about as often as they did two months ago. Thirteen percent (13%) do so more often (a lot + a little). The top reason for this is increased awareness that wipes should not be disposed of into the drain, some of which is due to Metro Vancouver’s ad campaign. Wipes users that recall Metro Vancouver’s wipes advertising are more likely to be disposing of wipes into the garbage more often (18% versus 11% among those who haven’t seen the ads).

One-in-ten (9%) of residents dispose of wet wipes in the garbageless often. This is due, to a significant extent, to reduced wet wipes consumption.

These findings are relatively consistent among all subgroups of interest.

Advertising awarenessHave we seen or heard any advertising about disposing of wet wipes?Two-in-ten (19%) residents say they have seen or heard advertising about how to dispose of wet wipes in the past two months.

What was the wet wipes advertising like?Forty-eight percent (48%) of residents who saw this advertising recall that the ads encouraged viewers not to flush wipes down the toilet. Other messages include wipes clog pipes (22%), wipes don’t break down in the water (10%), and wipes should be thrown into the garbage (9%).

Who sponsored the advertising?Thirteen percent (13%) of residents who saw the wet wipes advertising correctly identify Metro Vancouver as the sponsor. This equates to 2% of all adult women in Metro Vancouver. Fifty-four percent (54%) of female residents who saw or heard the ads are unsure who sponsored the advertising.

Have we seen or heard any advertising utilizing the theme “adult toilet training”?One-quarter (24%) of female residents who have seen or heard wet wipes advertising recall advertising with the theme “adult toilet training”.


Executive SummaryHave we seen or heard any advertising with the message “never flush wipes”?Eighteen percent (18%) of female residents recall the advertising materials used in Metro Vancouver’s wet wipes campaign shown to them or similar ads. These often included the message “never flush wipes” and are set on a pink background.

Recall is higher among younger female residents:• 18 to 34 (23% aware)• 35 to 44 (21%)• 45 to 54 (15%)• 55 to 64 (18%)• 65+ (9%)

Regionally, female residents in the Central area are least likely to have seen the ads:

• Central (15% aware)• North East (18%)• South West (19%)• South East (20%)• North West (22%)

Where did we see this advertising?Among female residents who saw the advertising, it was most commonly seen in the following media:

• Posters in public washrooms: 64% total; including 38% unaided.

• Movie theatres: 25% total; including 6% unaided.• Social media: 23% total aided; including 8% unaided.• Other websites: 21% total aided; including 4% unaided.• Community events: 15% total aided; including 1% unaided.• Newspapers: 13% total awareness; including 6% unaided.• Online news article or blog: 12% total awareness; 0%

unaided.• Youtube: 12% total aided; including 2% unaided.• Drug store: 9% total, 0% unaided.

Impact of advertisementsDid we learn anything from these advertisements?Most (64%) female residents say they learned something from the Metro Vancouver wet wipes advertisements they were shown.

Where would we now dispose of wipes?Nearly all (93%) female residents say they will now dispose of wipes into the garbage. Two percent (2%) say they will use the toilet or drain.


Executive Summary cont’d

Advertisement evaluationAre the ads easy to understand?Nine-in-ten (89%) female residents agree (strongly + somewhat) that the ads are easy to understand, including two-thirds (68%) who “strongly agree”.

Do the ads provide useful information?A large majority (85%) of female residents agree (strongly + somewhat) that the ads provide useful information, including over one-half (53%) who “strongly agree”. A very small minority (4%) disagree (strongly + somewhat).

Are the ads fun and playful?A small majority (57%) of female residents agree (strongly + somewhat) that the ads are fun and playful, including one-quarter (26%) who “strongly agree”. One-in-ten (10%) disagree (strongly + somewhat); three-in-ten (33%) “neither agree nor disagree”.

Strong agreement decreases with age:• 18 to 44 (34% strongly agree)• 45 to 54 (23%)• 55+ (15%)

Are the ads memorable?Six-in-ten (61%) of female residents agree (strongly + somewhat) that the ads are memorable, including over one-quarter (27%) who “strongly agree”. Twelve percent (12%) disagree (strongly + somewhat); one-quarter (27%) “neither agree nor disagree”.


Research Findings


Where Should We Dispose of Waste?


A1. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

27%

11%

4%

3%

Tampons

Face tissues

Wipes

Dental floss

What should we dispose of into the drain?



Base: Total.

88%

5%

2%

<1%

<1%

0%

6%

Garbage

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Toilet

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of dental floss?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 87% 91% 88% 88% 91% 88%

Food scraps bin like a yard waste bin, or Green Bin

7% 2% 5% 4% 3% 5%

Toilet 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%


<1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

Don’t Know 4% 4% 5% 7% 4% 4%

Where should we dispose of dental floss?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

52%

34%

11%

<1%

<1%

0%

3%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of face tissues?


Central North West North East South West South East Total

Garbage 49% 54% 53% 56% 54% 52%


35% 33% 32% 32% 32% 34%

Toilet 11% 11% 12% 9% 10% 11%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 0% 0% <1% 0% <1% <1%

Other 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 4% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Where should we dispose of face tissues?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

65%

27%

2%

0%

<1%

<1%

5%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of tampons?



Garbage 63% 63% 66% 70% 65% 65%

Toilet 28% 30% 26% 24% 29% 27%


3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 0% 0% 0% <1% 1% <1%

Other <1% 0% 0% 0% <1% <1%

Don't use 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t Know 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5%

Where should we dispose of tampons?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

84%

6%

4%

0%

<1%

<1%

5%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 83% 81% 87% 85% 86% 84%


6% 8% 3% 6% 5% 6%

Toilet 4% 6% 6% 4% 3% 4%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator <1% 0% 0% 1% 0% <1%

Other 0% 0% <1% 0% 1% <1%

Don't use 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t Know 6% 4% 3% 4% 5% 5%

Where should we dispose of wipes?


Base: Total.


Where Do We Dispose of Waste?



Base: Total.

28%

13%

5%

4%

Tampons

Face tissues

Wipes

Dental floss

What do we say we dispose of into the drain?


B2. How do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

91%

4%

2%

<1%

<1%

0%

1%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of dental floss?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 91% 93% 89% 92% 92% 91%

Toilet 4% 2% 6% 3% 3% 4%


2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%


0% 1% <1% 0% <1% <1%

Other 1% 1% 0% 0% <1% 1%

Don't use <1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%

Where do we dispose of dental floss?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

63%

22%

13%

<1%

<1%

0%

0%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of face tissues?



Garbage 64% 62% 59% 61% 64% 63%


20% 23% 23% 27% 23% 22%

Toilet 14% 12% 16% 10% 11% 13%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator <1% 0% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Other 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Don't use <1% 1% <1% 0% 0% <1%

Don’t Know 1% 1% 0% 1% <1% <1%

Where do we dispose of face tissues?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

54%

28%

1%

<1%

<1%

10%

7%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of tampons?



Garbage 53% 52% 52% 58% 57% 54%

Toilet 30% 29% 28% 24% 27% 28%


<1% 1% 1% 1% <1% 1%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator <1% 0% 0% <1% 1% <1%

Other 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1%

Don't use 9% 11% 9% 9% 11% 10%

Don’t Know 7% 6% 10% 8% 5% 7%

Where do we dispose of tampons?


Base: Total.



Base: Total.

Where do we dispose of wipes?

81%

5%

3%

<1%

1%

6%

4%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 81% 75% 84% 83% 82% 81%


5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5%

Toilet 3% 5% 2% 3% 4% 3%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

Other 6% 11% 5% 4% 6% 6%

Don't use 5% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4%

Don’t Know 81% 75% 84% 83% 82% 81%

Where do we dispose of wipes?


Base: Total.


Wipes Usage


In the past month, have you used any pre-moistened disposable wipes? This includes those for baby care, personal hygiene, make up removal, and house cleaning.

Base: Total.

Do we use wipes?

Yes, 70%

No, 30%


In the past month, have you used any pre-moistened disposable wipes? This includes those for baby care, personal hygiene, make up removal, and house cleaning.

Base: Total.

70%

72%

72%

70%

69%

67%

Overall usage

South East

North East

Central

South West

North West

Do we use wipes?


What types of wipes do we use? OVERALL SUMMARY (PAST MONTH)

C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be…

Base: Wipes users.

71%

62%

45%

40%

35%

Wipes for kitchen and bathroomcleaning

Wipes for makeup removal

Personal hygiene wipes foradults

Baby wipes

Other types of wipes



Base: Used wipes in past month.

14%

6%

7%

5%

7%

59%

1%

Several times a day (over thepast month)

Once a day (over the pastmonth)

Several times a week (over thepast month)

Once a week (over the pastmonth)

Less often (over the past month)

Not at all (over the past month)

Don't know

How often do we use baby wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Several times a day (over the past month)

11% 10% 18% 15% 16% 14%

Once a day (over the past month) 8% 0% 5% 6% 6% 6%

Several times a week (over the past month)

6% 3% 11% 8% 8% 7%

Once a week (over the past month)

5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 5%

Less often (over the past month) 9% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7%

Not at all (over the past month) 59% 73% 55% 58% 57% 59%

Don't know 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%

How often do we use baby wipes?






6%

10%

8%

6%

15%

53%

2%







Don't know

How often do we use personal hygiene wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


5% 3% 5% 10% 6% 6%



9% 10% 7% 7% 9% 8%


6% 10% 4% 5% 7% 6%



Don't know 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%

How often do we use personal hygiene wipes?






7%

9%

15%

19%

20%

29%

<1%







Don't know

How often do we use wipes for cleaning the kitchen or bathroom?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


8% 7% 8% 6% 15% 7%



15% 15% 16% 13% 19% 15%


22% 18% 20% 21% 7% 19%



Don't know <1% 1% 0% 0% 1% <1%

How often do we use wipes for cleaning the kitchen or bathroom?






5%

22%

12%

7%

16%

38%

<1%







Don't know

How often do we use wipes for makeup removal?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


6% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5%



12% 6% 10% 13% 12% 12%


6% 8% 9% 9% 7% 7%



Don't know 0% 3% 1% <1% 1% 1%

How often do we use wipes for makeup removal?






4%

6%

6%

7%

11%

55%

11%







Don't know

How often do we use other types of wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


3% 4% 5% 9% 3% 4%



7% 3% 7% 8% 4% 6%


5% 13% 8% 9% 7% 7%



Don't know 11% 13% 11% 10% 10% 11%

How often do we use other types of wipes?




C3.Where in your home do you use disposable wipes most frequently?


64%

20%

7%

8%

1%

Bathroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

Other (please specify):

Don't know

Where do we use wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Bathroom 65% 68% 60% 57% 67% 64%

Kitchen 21% 15% 22% 26% 17% 20%

Bedroom 5% 6% 9% 6% 9% 7%

Other 9% 9% 7% 11% 7% 8%

Don't know 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Where do we use wipes?

C3.Where in your home do you use disposable wipes most frequently?



Wipes Disposal



C4. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home?

D9. Even if you are not a regular wipes user, how would you now dispose of wipes now that you’ve seen the advertising?

Base: Total.

Do we dispose of wipes into the drain?

Yes, 13%

No, 87%



C4. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home?


Base: Total.

13%

15%

13%

12%

12%

10%

Overall awareness

South East

North West

Central

South West

North East

Do we dispose of wipes into the drain?


C4.And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home?

Base: Use baby wipes.

90%

7%

2%

1%

1%

Garbage

Toilet

Recycling

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of baby wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 89% 86% 93% 90% 89% 90%

Toilet 7% 11% 4% 9% 6% 7%

Recycling 2% 0% 1% 1% 4% 2%

Elsewhere <1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1%

How do we dispose of baby wipes?


Base: Use baby wipes.



Base: Use personal hygiene wipes.

77%

20%

2%

0%

1%

Garbage

Toilet

Recycling

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of personal hygiene wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 79% 73% 85% 78% 71% 77%

Toilet 18% 27% 14% 21% 24% 20%

Recycling 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2%

Elsewhere 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% <1%

Don’t Know 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

How do we dispose of personal hygiene wipes?


Base: Use personal hygiene wipes.



Base: Use wipes for cleaning.

93%

4%

2%

1%

<1%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of wipes for cleaning kitchen and bathroom?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 94% 89% 96% 95% 91% 93%

Recycling 4% 5% 2% 3% 6% 4%

Toilet 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%

Elsewhere 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% <1%

How do we dispose of wipes for cleaning kitchen and bathroom?


Base: Use wipes for cleaning.



Base: Use wipes for makeup removal.

94%

3%

2%

<1%

<1%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of wipes for makeup removal?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 93% 94% 96% 98% 93% 94%

Recycling 4% 5% 1% 2% 3% 3%

Toilet 3% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2%

Elsewhere 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% <1%

Don’t Know 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

How do we dispose of wipes for makeup removal?


Base: Use wipes for makeup removal.



Base: Use other types of wipes.

86%

4%

2%

1%

8%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of other types of wipes?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 87% 88% 86% 93% 79% 86%

Recycling 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 4%

Toilet 2% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2%

Elsewhere 1% 6% 3% 0% 1% 1%

Don’t Know 8% 2% 6% 4% 12% 8%

How do we dispose of other types of wipes?


Base: Use other types of wipes.


C5. Are you now disposing these wipes into the garbage more often or less often than two months ago?

Base: Wipes users.

Do we dispose wipes in the garbage more often or less often?

7%

5%

13%

9%

76%

3%

More often

Less often

About the same

Don’t know

A lot | A little


C6. Why do you dispose wipes into the garbage more/less often?

Base: Wipes users .

Top reasons why dispose of wipes in the garbage more or less often

Dispose into the garbage more often (total) 13%

Understand wipes belong in garbage 8%

Recall ads/communication about proper disposal 2%

Other 3%

Dispose into the garbage less often (total) 9%

Use less often 4%

Recycle instead 1%

Other 4%


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

A lot more often 7% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7%

A little more often 4% 8% 4% 5% 6% 5%

About the same 77% 69% 79% 73% 75% 76%

A little less often 3% 6% 4% 5% 5% 4%

A lot less often 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5%

Don’t know 4% 4% 2% 5% 1% 3%

A lot more often 7% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7%

Do we dispose of wipes in the garbage more or less often?

C5. Are you now disposing of these wipes into the garbage more often or less often than two months ago?

Base: Wipes users.


Wipes Advertising


D1. Now thinking about wipes for babies, personal hygiene use, and cleaning, in the past two months, have you seen or heard any advertising about disposing of wipes?

Base: Total.

Have we seen advertising about disposing of wipes?

Yes, 19%

No, 81%


D1. Now thinking about wipes for babies, personal hygiene use, and cleaning, in the past two months, have you seen or heard any advertising about disposing of wipes?

Base: Total.

19%

27%

20%

20%

19%

17%

Overall awareness

North West

North East

South West

Central

South East

Have we seen advertising about disposing of wipes?


D2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message? Please be specific.

Base: Saw or heard wipes advertising.

What was the advertisement’s message?

48%

22%

10%

9%

7%

2%

5%

18%

Don't flush the wipes in the toilet

They clog pipes / Sewer systems

They don’t break down in water

They should be thrown in the garbage

Ad was about disposal of wipes

Advertisement states that wipes areflushable

Others

Don't know


What was the advertisement about?

North East

North West

South East

South West Central Total

Don't flush the wipes in the toilet 48% 51% 61% 52% 38% 48%

They clog pipes / Sewer systems 23% 28% 25% 21% 18% 22%

They don’t break down in water 12% 14% 6% 6% 9% 10%

They should be thrown in the garbage 10% 7% 5% 2% 15% 9%

Ad was about disposal of wipes 8% 0% 2% 10% 9% 7%

Advertisement states that wipes are flushable 3% 3% 0% 2% 3% 2%

Others 5% 5% 6% 4% 8% 5%

Don't know 15% 22% 20% 19% 19% 18%

D2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message? Please be specific.



D3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?


Who sponsored the advertisement?

13%

10%

10%

3%

1%

1%

<1%

9%

54%

Metro Vancouver

City of Vancouver

Local Govt orMunicipality

Pampers

Huggies

City of Surrey

City of Pitt Meadows

Others

Don't know


Who sponsored the advertisement?

North East

North West

South East

South West Central Total

Metro Vancouver 15% 15% 17% 11% 7% 13%

City of Vancouver 16% 15% 5% 6% 2% 10%

Local Govt or Municipality 8% 9% 11% 12% 12% 10%

Pampers 2% 0% 2% 3% 4% 3%

Huggies 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

City of Surrey 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1%

City of Pitt Meadows 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% <1%

Others 9% 7% 6% 14% 10% 9%

Don't know 48% 54% 56% 54% 64% 54%

D3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?



D4.These advertisements may also have utilized the theme “adult toilet training”. Prior to this survey, do you recall seeing or hearing this theme?


Do we remember the “Adult Toilet Training” campaign?

Yes, 24%

No, 76%


D4.These advertisements may also have utilized the theme “adult toilet training”. Prior to this survey, do you recall seeing or hearing this theme?


24%

30%

30%

24%

23%

19%

Overall awareness

South East

South West

North West

North East

Central

Do we remember the “Adult Toilet Training” campaign?


D5. Now we are going to show you some advertising. Do you recall these advertisements or advertising with these messages?

Base: Total.

Do we recall seeing these advertisements?

Yes, 18%

No, 82%


D5. Now we are going to show you some advertising. Do you recall these advertisements or advertising with these messages?

Base: Total.

18%

22%

20%

19%

18%

15%

Overall awareness

North West

South East

South West

North East

Central

Do we remember these advertisements?


D6. Where did you see or hear this advertising?

D7. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Aware of advertising.

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED AND UNAIDED

38%

6%

8%

4%

6%

2

64%

25%

23%

21%

15%

13%

12%

12%

9%

Posters in public washrooms /restrooms

Movie theatre

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Otherwebsites/internet/online/google

Community and public events

Newspaper / Magazines

Online news article or blog post

YouTube

Drug store

Total unaided Total aided


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Posters in public washrooms 55% 72% 75% 69% 65% 64%

Movie theatre 25% 24% 28% 26% 23% 25%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 29% 20% 15% 33% 18% 23%

Other websites/internet/ online/google

19% 17% 20% 30% 21% 21%

Community and public events 14% 20% 19% 14% 13% 15%

Newspaper 6% 15% 15% 16% 19% 13%

Online news article or blog post 9% 15% 10% 25% 11% 12%

YouTube 11% 12% 7% 13% 15% 12%

Drug store 7% 9% 9% 11% 9% 9%

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED

D7. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Aware of advertising.


D8. Did you learn anything from these advertisements?

Base: Total.

Did we learn something from the advertisements?

Yes, 64%

No, 37%


D8. Did you learn anything from these advertisements?

Base: Total.

64%

64%

64%

61%

61%

55%

Overall

South East

Central

South West

North West

North East

Did we learn something from the advertisements? YES SUMMARY



Base: Total.

93%

2%

1%

3%

Garbage

Toilet or drain

Elsewhere

Don't know

How would we dispose of wipes after seeing the advertisement?


Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Garbage 95% 93% 93% 92% 91% 93%

Toilet or drain 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2%

Elsewhere <1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%

Don't know 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%



Base: Total.



Base: Total.

93%

2%

1%

3%

Garbage

Toilet or drain

Elsewhere

Don't know



What do we think about the advertisement?

D11. Please rate your agreement with these statements about the advertisement.

Base: Total.

68%

53%

27%

26%

21%

32%

35%

31%

3%

7%

6%

4%

4%

9%

11%

27%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The ads are easy for me tounderstand

The ads provide usefulinformation

The ads are memorable

The ads are fun and playful

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Neither/don't know


Demographic Profile


Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Dispose of wipes into toilet

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

Demographic profile

Demographics Overall

Dispose of wipes into

toilet

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Age

18-34 28% 28% ▲37%

35-44 19% ▲22% ▲23%

45-64 34% 32% 31%

65+ 18% 18% ▼9%

Residents in household

1 24% ▲31% 24%

2 37% ▼33% 35%

3 or more 38% 36% 41%


Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Dispose of wipes into toilet

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

Demographic profile cont’d

Demographics Overall

Dispose of wipes into

toilet

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Type of home

Detached house 39% 39% 38%

Apartment/Condo 39% ▲43% 41%

Townhouse 15% 15% 15%

Semi-detached 4% ▼2% 3%

Other 4% 5% 3%

Region

North East 13% ▼10% 13%

North West 8% 8% 10%

South East 25% ▲31% ▲29%

South West 13% 12% 14%

Central 41% 41% ▼34%


Justason Market Intelligence Inc. | Vancouver Focus®Barb Justason [email protected] JustasonMI.com 1156 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z1V8 +1 604 638 1121

metro vancouver


Section E 1.2

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management Financial Services Department

Date: October 26, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016

Subject: Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill Canada Limited

resulting from RFP No. 16-083 for Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Phase 1 – Project Definition and Staging; and


PURPOSE This report is to advise the GVS&DD Board of the results of RFP No. 16-083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (NLWWTP) project, and to recommend award of a contract for Phase 1 - Project Definition and Staging in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill Canada Limited.

BACKGROUND Pursuant to the GVS&DD Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 284, 2014 and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy, procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board of Directors.

This report is being brought forward to the Utilities Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVS&DD Board to award a contract for consulting engineering services to be undertaken for the NLWWTP expansion.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION To address the long-term regional growth projections in the Fraser Sewerage Area, a comprehensive servicing and facility planning study was recently completed. The study recommended expansion of NLWWTP to accommodate diversion of flows from the Cities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge which are currently serviced by the Annacis Island Waste Water Treatment Plant. This new servicing plan is projected to yield approximately $280 million in savings in servicing costs over the next 30 years.

The East Fraser Servicing and Treatment project, with an estimated cost of $800 million over the next 10 years, is a significant undertaking which will entail flow diversion from Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to the NLWWTP. To facilitate the flow diversion will require expansion of the NLWWTP and outfall, a new pump station in Maple Ridge, a new river crossing and sewer overflow storage facility.


Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

Utilities Committee Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Page 2 of 3

Under RFP No. 16-083, the consultant will complete a project definition report for the NLWWTP expansion and the new conveyance system. Project Definition is required to define the scope of work including an indicative design, staging plan, project schedule and cost estimates for the new works in order to provide all relevant information necessary to form the basis to advance the project to the design phase. The RFP also included scope for some design work and the overall project management; however, this work is not being included at this time.

As a result of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 15-209 that was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver’s and BC Bid web sites, four experienced firms were shortlisted and invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 16-083). The RFP closed on May 26, 2016 and all four firms responded. Prices are summarized below:

Proponent Proposed Cost (exclusive of taxes)

CH2M Hill Canada Limited $6,283,193

CDM Smith Canada ULC $8,069,590

AECOM $5,910,703

Stantec Consulting Ltd. $5,445,085

The technical component of the proposals was evaluated by staff from Liquid Waste Services and the financial component was evaluated by staff from the Purchasing Division. The proposal from CH2M Hill Canada Limited obtained the highest overall score.

Following identification of CH2M Hill Canada Limited as the highest ranked proponent, negotiations were initiated to determine the actual cost of the services. The base proposal of $6,283,193 was increased to $6,675,530 to include the new pump station as part of the scope for project definition. The pump station will deliver flows equivalent to about 90% of the expanded treatment plant capacity so it is important that it be included in the project definition work to ensure compatibility. The proposed hours have been reviewed and deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Metro Vancouver negotiation team.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

a) Award of a contract in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill CanadaLimited resulting from RFP No. 16-083 for Consulting Engineering Services for NorthwestLangley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Phase 1 – Project Definition and Staging;and

b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.2. That the GVS&DD Board terminate RFP No. 16-083: for Consulting Engineering Services for

Northwest Langley Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion and direct staff to report back tothe GVS&DD Board with options for an alternate course of action.


Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

Utilities Committee Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approve Alternative 1, a contract will be awarded to CH2M Hill Canada Limited in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to complete the Project Definition and Staging work. This amount is within the budget allocated for the project.

The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1 but staff will need further direction in relation to the project. Alternative 2 will result in a delay to the project schedule that may impact the ability to accommodate increased sewage flows resulting from growth in the East Fraser Sewerage Area.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION A Request for Proposal was issued for Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. CH2M Hill Canada Limited was identified as the highest ranked proponent and the cost is within the budget allocated for the project. Based on the evaluation of the proposals, it is recommended that the GVS&DD Board authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to award and execute a contract to CH2M Hill Canada Limited in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes).

Attachment: East Fraser Sewerage Area Servicing and Treatment Plan (19749101).

19049613


Outfall

Pump Station

River Crossing

Northwest LangleyWastewater Treatment Plant

SSO Storage Tank

Katzie Pump Station

NEast Fraser Servicing and Treatment

Attachment


Section E 1.3

To: Utilities Committee From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management Financial Services Department Date: October 18, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Award of Contract Extension for Utility Residuals Hauling Services RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) A contract amendment in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) to the current

contractor, Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for utility residuals hauling services; and b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. PURPOSE This report is to request authorization by the GVS&DD Board to amend the current contract to exercise the possible three-year extension with Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. for utility residuals hauling services in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) as allowed for in the contract. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the “Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 284, 2014” (the Bylaw) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (the “Policy”), procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board. This contract was initially awarded in 2012 prior to the adaptation of the current Bylaw and Policy and was reported to the then Finance Committee, at their meeting held on April 19, 2012. The report indicated that the contract was awarded as a result of a request for proposals, that the anticipated value of the contract over an eight year term was $26,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) and that a contract for the first five years, at an estimated value of $16,000,000 (exclusive of taxes) had been awarded. This report is being brought forward to the Utilities Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVS&DD Board to amend the existing contract for utility residuals hauling services. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Utility Residuals Management is responsible for the continuous removal and subsequent beneficial use or disposal of the region’s biosolids from the five wastewater treatment plants and drinking water treatment residuals from the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant. In 2012 as a result of an RFP that was publicly advertised on MV and BC Bid web sites three firms responded. Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. was identified as the highest ranked Proponent who coincidentally provided the lowest cost. The RFP specified that the initial term of the resulting contract would be for five years with a possible three year extension.


Award of Contract Extension for Utility Residuals Hauling Services Utilities Committee Meeting Date: November 10, 2016

Page 2 of 2

Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s biosolids hauling needs, standards and expectations as shown in their annual performance evaluations, and are in agreement with up to a 3 year contract extension.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

a) A contract amendment in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) to the currentcontractor, Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for utility residuals hauling services; and

b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.2. That the GVS&DD Board terminate the contract for utility residuals hauling services and direct

staff to report back to the GVS&DD Board with options for an alternate course of action.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approve Alternative 1, a contract amendment will be made to Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for a three-year contract extension, in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) for utility residuals hauling services work. This will result in a contract with Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. in the overall value of $26,800,000 for these services. This amount is within the respective Liquid Waste Services and Water Services operating budgets allocated for this work.

The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1 but staff will need further direction in relation to the project. Continuous removal of biosolids and drinking water treatment residuals from Metro Vancouver’s treatment plants is critical for the operation of these facilities, as there is no operational storage capacity available at any of the sites. A delay associated with Alternative 2 will significantly impact the ability of the wastewater treatment plants and the Seymour- Capilano Filtration Plant to operate and require temporary on-site storage of biosolids and residuals, which will create odour issues and could lead to rewetting of the material, resulting in higher hauling costs when the material is removed.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2012 a contract in the amount of $16,000,000 was awarded to Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. for utility residuals hauling services for a five year term with a possible three-year extension. The contract was awarded as a result of an RFP and the successful contractor has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s biosolids and drinking water treatment residuals hauling needs, standards and expectations. It is recommended that the GVS&DD Board authorize an amendment to the contract with Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) for total contract value of $26,800,000 for utility residuals hauling services and to authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation.

19744775


To: Utilities Committee From: Mark Wellman, Senior Project Engineer, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste

Services Date: October 11, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area: The Chines Integrated Stormwater

Management Plan RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board adopt the objectives and GVS&DD actions as identified in the Port Moody/Coquitlam Integrated Stormwater Management Plan titled “The Chines, Backyard Habitat Alive”. PURPOSE The Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam and Metro Vancouver have recently completed an Integrated Stormwater Management Plan (ISMP) for the Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area, titled “The Chines, Backyard Habitat Alive” (Attachment 1). Port Moody and Coquitlam Councils have endorsed the Plan. This report seeks adoption by the Board of the objectives and GVS&DD actions within the ISMP to prioritize future works within this GVS&DD Drainage Area. BACKGROUND The Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP), approved by the BC Ministry of Environment in 2011, requires that the GVS&DD and its member municipalities develop and implement ISMPs for their watersheds within Metro Vancouver. An ISMP has been developed for the Port Moody Coquitlam Drainage Area and this report recommends adoption of the objectives and actions specific to the GVS&DD. A similar plan and adoption process was completed in 2007 for the Still Creek /Brunette River Drainage Area with actions specific to the GVS&DD, Vancouver and Burnaby. CHINES INTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN HIGHLIGHTS Generally, ISMPs are completed by member municipalities for watersheds within their boundaries. The GVS&DD becomes involved only when the watersheds are within the GVS&DD Drainage Areas – in this case, the Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area (PMCDA). The PMCDA is one of three mandated drainage areas in which the GVS&DD has a role to maintain and operate major drainage facilities on behalf of its member municipalities. The PMCDA covers an area of approximately 8 km2 within the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam and is located on the south shore of the Port Moody Arm of Burrard Inlet (Attachment 2). The study area is known locally as the Chines. The area contains a number of streams which remain in a relatively natural state on forested escarpment slopes, such as Schoolhouse Creek and Williams Creek. Within the upland and lowland areas, where there is substantial residential and industrial development, the watercourses are piped and routed to centralized discharges into Burrard Inlet. The GVS&DD’s mandate for this drainage area is to operate and maintain the major waterways from Coquitlam through Port Moody to Burrard Inlet and associated infrastructure such as debris basins,

Section E 1.4


Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area: The Chines Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Utilities Committee Meeting Date: November 10, 2016

Page 2 of 3

grills and major drainage pipes. The GVS&DD manages this major infrastructure on behalf of the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam, while the remaining minor drainage infrastructure in the drainage area including most pipes, catch basins and smaller waterways remain the responsibility of the municipalities.

Objectives The overall objective of the plan is to gradually improve the health of the watershed and prevent further degradation resulting from new development. The key objectives of this ISMP are to:

• manage runoff to reduce erosion in the ravines;• implement measures to improve water quality;• enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat, including identification of long term strategies for

stream daylighting;• identify opportunities for and recommend the use of green infrastructure;• provide improvements in aesthetics/livability;• address flood risks; and,• address impacts of impervious surfaces and runoff through on-site rainfall management.

GVS&DD Action Items Key actions specific to the GVS&DD are: maintain flow conveyance capacity within the channels and piping system and improve conveyance and reduce high flows to the ravines, conduct a study to determine if the existing debris basins are adequate, and upgrade the existing hydrometric monitoring stations with real time on-line telemetry.

Examples of collaborative actions for the GVS&DD and the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam include:

• pursue channel conveyance and stability improvements;• seek potential daylighting opportunities for the pipe system within Port Moody;• improve fish access by creating new habitat, pools and riffles;• add spawning gravel to creeks;• assess and upgrade inadequate hydraulic structures as they near the end of their serviceable

life and capacity;• employ bio-engineering measures where appropriate to reduce erosion and improve habitat;

and,• coordinate O&M practices between the municipalities and Metro Vancouver.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board adopt the objectives and GVS&DD actions as identified in the Port

Moody/Coquitlam Integrated Stormwater Management Plan titled “The Chines, Backyard Habitat Alive”.

2. That the Board receive for information the report titled “Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area:The Chines Integrated Stormwater Management Plan” dated October 11, 2016 and provide alternate direction to staff.


Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area: The Chines Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Utilities Committee Meeting Date: November 10, 2016

Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Most of the GVS&DD specific and collaborative action items identified in the ISMP are already within the GVS&DD mandate and programs and as such are included in the annual drainage budget. Therefore, no significant increase in the annual Liquid Waste Services drainage budget is anticipated. Two specific action items identified in the ISMP may require a one-time increase in the future budget. A study to review the debris basins is estimated at $50,000 and will be considered for the 2018 budget. A review of the hydrometric stations in this drainage area will determine if an upgrade of current equipment is necessary. Should the review determine that all 3 stations require replacement, then a total cost of $120,000 over five years would be anticipated. For the long term, through the GVS&DD asset management program, the regional storm sewer systems will be reviewed and replaced as they approach the end of their serviceable life cycle. The ISMP report identified such long-term GVS&DD storm sewer replacement with an estimated total costs of $250,000. These future improvements will be brought forward at the appropriate time through the annual budget process. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As required by the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam and the GVS&DD have recently completed an ISMP for the Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area. The objectives and action items are contained in the report entitled “The Chines, Backyard Habitat Alive”. There are no significant short-term impacts to the GVS&DD budget from these actions as most are already within the O&M program of the GVS&DD. Port Moody and Coquitlam Councils have endorsed the ISMP. To provide clear direction and help set priorities for the future management of the Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area, staff recommend Alternative 1. Attachments and References 1. The Chines: Habitat Backyard, Alive – Chines Integrated Stormwater Management Plan 2. Map of Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area 18497800



From: Ray Robb, Division Manager, Environmental Regulation and Enforcement, Legal and Legislative Services Department

Date: October 5, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016

Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw – Staff Appointment

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007, appoint Kristen Beattie as a Municipal Sewage Control Officer.

PURPOSE To update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act (the Act) and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Bylaw).

BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Regulatory Program supports the goals of the Liquid Waste Management Plan through regulation of the discharge of non-domestic wastes to the region’s sanitary sewer systems. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 delegates authority to Board-designated Officers to advance liquid waste management goals.

Municipal Sewage Control Officers may enter property, inspect works, and obtain records and other information to promote compliance with the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Liquid Waste Management bylaws.

A recent change in Metro Vancouver environmental regulatory staff has resulted in a need to update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. In accordance with Section 29 of the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Control Officers must be appointed by the Board.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007, appoint Kristen Beattie as a Municipal Sewage Control Officer.

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled, “Greater Vancouver Sewerageand Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw – Staff Appointment” dated October 5, 2016 and providealternate direction to staff.

Section E 1.5


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications for expenditures as the new Metro Vancouver appointment is a recent hire filling a recently vacated position.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Recent changes in staff have resulted in a need to update staff appointments under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. Staff recommend that the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 adopt alternative 1.

19608247


To: GVS&DD Board of Directors

From: Intergovernment and Finance Committee

Date: November 21, 2016 Meeting Date: November 25, 2016

Subject: GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review

INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to proceed with public and stakeholder consultation on the proposed changes to the Development Cost Charge Program following the adoption of the 5-year financial plan in March 2017 and direct staff to report back, prior to the consultation, on phasing of and potential strategies to mitigate the impact of the rate increases.

At its November 18, 2016 meeting, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee considered the attached report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review”, dated November 10, 2016. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style.

Attachment: “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review”, dated November 10, 2016.

20012572

Section E 2.1

Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District - 115-1

To: Intergoverment and Finance Committee

From: Utilities Committee



RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to proceed with public and stakeholder consultation on the proposed changes to the Development Cost Charge Program, as presented in the November 10, 2016 report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review”.

At its November 10, 2016 meeting, the Utilities Committee considered the attached report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review”, dated November 4, 2016, and were provided a presentation on the GVS&DD Development Cost Charge (DCC) Program Review.

Concerns were expressed about the cost of separating sewers in some communities, the loss of DCC revenue due to the proposed phased approach, the option of including interest in the DCC rate, and disparity among residential per-unit rates given the difference in dwelling size and sewer impact.

Comments were offered about consideration being given to: a shorter implementation period; exploring other methods to determine per-unit rates (such as number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, or water use); the need to further define property types to ensure equitable rates; DCC waivers for non-market housing; and potential implications for laneway housing and secondary suites.

The Committee directed staff to forward its comments and the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for its consideration.

Attachment: (Doc #19835775) “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review” dated November 4, 2016

19964459


Attachment


From: Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer



RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee: a) Receive for information the report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review”,

dated November 4, 2016; and b) Forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for consideration prior to

directing staff to proceed with public and stakeholder consultation on the proposed changes.

PURPOSE To present and receive comments from the Utilities Committee on the development cost charge (DCC) program policy framework, rate adjustments and the transition plan for implementation of the program amendments for purposes of consultation with the Province and community stakeholders.

BACKGROUND In 1997, a DCC Program was implemented in the Liquid Waste function of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD). The purpose of the implementation of the DCC Bylaw was to ensure that new development in the region would fund the cost of the liquid waste infrastructure expansion required to service that development. The DCC Program is separated into four sewer areas: Vancouver, Lulu Island, North Shore and Fraser. While the policy aspects of the program are consistent across the function, each sewer area has a separate unique fee structure based on the requirements of that sewer area.

At the inception of the program in 1997, rates were set based on development plans of member municipalities and the necessary infrastructure expansion required to service that development. The DCC rates have not been updated since inception despite the influx of significant development, the increasing need for system expansion and the increasing cost of infrastructure.

A review of the program was commenced in 2014 and this report is part of that review process.

DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES REVIEW PROCESS The DCC review process commenced with the development of a model to calculate required rates. A DCC Review Committee comprising both Metro Vancouver and municipal staff within the disciplines of planning, engineering and finance held its first meeting November 26, 2015. The review process includes the following steps:

ATTACHMENT

19835775


Liquid Waste Development Cost Charge Program Review Utilities Committee Meeting November 10, 2016

Page 2 of 6

Step Timeframe 1. DCC Committee - Review of current program November 2015 – July 2016 2. Policy framework consultation with Regional Administrator’s

Advisory Committee (RAAC)November 2015 – July 2016

3. DCC Committee - Rate calculation and review draft rates November 2015 – July 2016 4. DCC Committee - Transition implementation plan November 2015 – July 2016 5. Rate and transition consultation with regional advisory committees:

administrators, engineers, planning staff and finance staffSeptember – October 2016

6. Consultation with Utilities Committee and GVS&DD Board December 2016 – March 2017 7. Consultation with Province December 2016 – March 2017 8. Community Stakeholder consultation December 2016 – March 2017 9. Board approval – Updated DCC Bylaw March – April 2017

This report will address step 6 of the process through a review with the Utilities Committee, Intergovernment and Finance Committee and GVS&DD Board of the underlying policy framework, the draft DCC rates and the proposed transition plan for implementation of the amended program prior to commencing the broader consultation with the Province and community stakeholders.

DCC POLICY FRAMEWORK The DCC policy framework includes land use categories, units for charging DCC’s, DCC waivers and assist factors. These were all discussed by the DCC Review Committee and the Committee’s conclusions were endorsed by RAAC.

Land Use Categories. The existing DCC Bylaw charges DCC’s based on four separate land use categories: single-family dwelling, townhouse, apartment and non-residential. The DCC Review Committee discussed the following options around the land use categories on which DCC’s will be charged.

1. Single-family detached rate , townhouse rate, apartment rate and non-residential rate2. Residential rate and non-residential rate3. Single-family detached rate, multi-family rate and non-residential rate

After some discussion, the Committee concluded that maintaining the existing categories is appropriate noting that the current categories are administratively efficient and appropriate for the region. The definitions of the land use categories are proposed to remain as follows:

Single-family - a detached building or structure that contains one principal dwelling unit and may contain one smaller dwelling unit.

Townhouse - a dwelling unit in a building or structure that contains or may contain four or more dwelling units, whereby each dwelling unit has a direct exterior entrance.



Page 3 of 6

Apartment - a dwelling unit in a building or structure that consists or may consist of two or more storeys and contains or may contain four or more dwelling units, whereby the building or structure has a principal exterior entrance used in common for access to the dwelling units.

Non-residential - any building or structure or any portion of any building or structure that is not an Apartment dwelling unit, Residential dwelling unit or Townhouse dwelling unit.

Units for charging DCC’s. After concluding the land use categories on which to base DCC’s, the committee then discussed whether the DCC should be charged on a per unit or on a floor-area basis. Under the existing bylaw a DCC for a residential development is per unit while a DCC for a non-residential development is per square meter.

The discussion focused on the premise of equity while maintaining the objective that DCC’s should be charged based on the overall impact to the liquid waste system. The municipalities believe that the three residential categories are effective in determining the impact on the system while the size of the dwelling under each of the residential categories did not materially change that impact. In other words, while there are exceptions, there is little correlation between the size of the dwelling and number of residents or system impact.

The committee concluded that maintaining the existing approach of charging DCC’s per unit for residential and on a floor-area basis for non-residential is appropriate. In addition to the reasoning outlined above, while many municipalities collect residential DCC’s on a floor area basis, the method of determining that floor area often differs. As a result, charging the regional DCC on a per unit basis for residential allows for the simplest and most consistent application.

DCC Waivers. The existing DCC Bylaw includes a waiver for the development of affordable housing which is consistent with the Region’s Affordable Housing Strategy. In addition, DCC’s are not payable on one secondary suite or laneway house as part of a single-family dwelling. These waivers were added in an attempt to encourage the development of affordable housing in the region. A commitment was made to the Board that the waivers for affordable housing would continue to be part of the DCC Bylaw and that, as part of this review, the definitions and criteria would be updated to clearly define this desired development.

Assist Factors. The assist factor is the portion of the growth project that is funded from the sewer user fees (levy) rather than DCC’s. Increasing the assist factor shifts more of the cost of system expansion (growth) from DCC’s to the sewer levy. The existing DCC Bylaw included a 1% assist factor which is the minimum assist factor allowed under legislation.

The committee was in favour of maintaining the minimum assist factor of 1% thus supporting the concept that development should pay for the costs of system expansion to meet the demands of population growth.



Page 4 of 6

DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES As noted above, DCC rates established by sewer area are per unit for residential and per square foot for non-residential.

Existing DCC Rates – Fund 99% Principal only on growth related long-term debt The existing DCC rates, in effect since 1997, are as follows:

Sewer Area Single-Family Townhouse Apartment Non-Residential Vancouver $ 944 $ 826 $ 590 $0.443 sq ft Lulu Island $1,077 $ 942 $ 673 $0.505 sq ft North Shore $1,291 $1,129 $ 807 $0.605 sq ft Fraser $1,731 $1,515 $1,082 $0.811 sq ft

Proposed DCC Rates A 30 year financial model was developed which projects the DCC’s required to fund the Liquid Waste infrastructure expansion for population growth, in conjunction with the planned development within a given sewer area. This development includes the following types of land use: single-family detached, townhouses, apartments, and non-residential development. The DCC requirements are based on the funding long-term debt on the growth related infrastructure expenditures and includes future funding on existing debt as well as funding for projected debt.

The existing Bylaw allows for DCC’s to fund only the principal portion of long-term debt related to growth related capital expenditures. As part of the review, DCC rates were calculated as follows:

• 30 Year - Fund 99% Principal only on growth related long-term debt• 30 Year - Fund 99% Principal and interest on growth related long-term debt

30 Year – Fund 99% Principal only on growth related long-term debt The DCC rates projected to fund the principal portion only on growth related long-term debt based on the current financial model over the next 30 years are as follows:

Sewer Area Single-Family Townhouse Apartment Non-Residential Vancouver $1,824 $1,629 $1,079 $0.93 sq ft Lulu Island $2,234 $1,933 $1,401 $1.06 sq ft North Shore $2,525 $2,280 $1,555 $1.32 sq ft Fraser $5,451 $4,715 $3,546 $2.68 sq ft

30 Year – Fund 99% Principal and interest on growth related long-term debt The DCC rates projected to fund the principal and interest on growth related long-term debt based on the current financial model over the next 30 years are as follows:

Sewer Area Single-Family Townhouse Apartment Non-Residential Vancouver $2,205 $1,970 $1,305 $1.13 sq ft Lulu Island $2,840 $2,458 $1,781 $1.35 sq ft North Shore $3,219 $2,906 $1,982 $1.69 sq ft Fraser $6,340 $5,484 $4,125 $3.12 sq ft



Page 5 of 6

Funding both principal and interest is consistent with how infrastructure projects are financed. These rates with interest included are on average 16% higher than if interest was not included.

While the opinions of the DCC Review Committee and members of the various advisory committees were varied, many acknowledging that including interest is more consistent with funding the true cost and with the concept of development pays for growth. However, in the final analysis, the majority supported maintaining the existing approach of funding principal only given the financial impact of including interest in the DCC rates.

TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In light of the significant increases in DCC rates, the DCC Review Committee undertook a discussion of possible transition measures that could be undertaken to mitigate the impact of these rate increases. The discussion was surrounding two primary alternative approaches: a reasonable notice period after which the new rates would become effective or a phase-in period of 3 to 5 years.

While the DCC Review Committee was generally supportive of a notice period with subsequent implementation, the consensus was, however, since the rate increases are significant, in order to lessen the impact, a phase-in period approach was appropriate. The Committee recommended a 3 year phase-in due to concerns that a longer period would result in insufficient DCC revenue to fund the required infrastructure projects. This approach was also supported by the advisory committees.

CONSULTATION PROCESS The consultation process to date has involved feedback from the regional advisory committees of administrators, engineers, planning and finance. Good feedback was received and there was general support for the policy framework, proposed DCC rates and the transition plan.

With this report, the proposed amendments to the DCC Program will be reviewed with the Metro Vancouver standing committees and with the GVS&DD Board prior to engaging in the broader consultation with community stakeholders over the next three months.

The next steps in the consultation process will include consultation with the Province, meetings with affected stakeholders including the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, regional Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce, and the initiation of a broad public consultation and engagement process.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Utilities Committee:

a) Receive for information the report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge ProgramReview”, dated November 4, 2016; and

b) Forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for consideration priorto directing staff to proceed with public and stakeholder consultation on the proposedchanges.

2. That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “GVS&DD DevelopmentCost Charge Program Review”, dated November 4, 2016 and provide alternate direction.



Page 6 of 6

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Utilities Committee approves alternative 1, the report will be forwarded to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for consideration prior to being forwarded to the GVS&DD Board for approval. The cost of the public and stakeholder engagement and consultation process will be funded through the liquid waste function budget. If the Utilities Committee approves alternative 2, the Committee may wish to recommend changes to the proposed approach and adjust the proposed DCC rates or other aspects of the program, further analysis may be required to determine the resulting financial impacts. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Liquid Waste DCC Program review is overdue as DCC rates have not been adjusted since they were originally set in 1997. A DCC Review Committee comprising engineering, planning and finance representatives from Metro Vancouver and member municipalities, reviewed the policy framework, updated rates and other components of the DCC Program. The conclusions were as follows:

• Maintain per unit residential rates for single-family, townhouses and apartments with a per square foot rate for non-residential development

• Maintain waivers where development includes affordable housing • Maintain the assist factor at the minimum 1% • Update DCC rates for funding of 99% of the principal component of long-term debt on growth

related infrastructure • Phase in the rate increases over a 3 years period

It is recommended that the proposed DCC rates, based on the principles described above, be forwarded for consultation to the public and to key stakeholders, as presented in alternative one. 19835775


meeting 4 of 8 greater vancouver sewerage …...greater vancouver sewerage and drainage district...

Documents