· special corporate and administrative services committee r2 budget meeting tuesday, february 18,...

SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

R2 Budget Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014

SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:00 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda

ROUND 1 BUDGET DEBRIEF Treasurer

DELEGATIONS AND PETITIONS

2. Chad Hershler, Deer Crossing – The Art Farm Re: FUSE and Ignite 2014 Project Deliverables

3. Jenna Bedore, South Coast Conservation Program Re: Species and Ecosystems at Risk Project Update

REPORTS

4. Manager, Legislative Services – General Government Services [110-112] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex A Pages 1-3

Budget p. 2

5. Rural Areas Grants-in-Aid 2014 Budget Annex B pp. 4-7

Budget pp. 20-34

6. General Manager, Infrastructure Services and Treasurer – Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal for Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation

Annex C pp. 8-11

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

Annex D pp. 12-13

8. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Corporate Sustainability [135] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex E pp. 14-18 Budget p. 39

9. Corporate Energy Manager – Status Update of Potential Projects 2014 – Corporate Energy

Annex F pp. 19-21

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R2 Budget Page 2

10. General Manager, Infrastructure Services and Sustainability and Education Coordinator – Regional Sustainability [136] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal for Regional Round Table on Sustainability

Annex G p. 22

11. General Manager, Infrastructure Services – Regional Sustainability [136] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex H pp. 23-25 Budget p. 41

12. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Public Transit [310] 2013 Budget Deficit

Annex I p. 26

13. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Public Transit [310] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex J pp. 27-31 Budget p. 79

14. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Regional Street Lighting [320-342] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex K pp. 32-33

Budget pp. 85-105

15. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Ports [345] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex L pp. 34-35

Budget p. 107

16. Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery – Options for Funding Landfill Deficit - Updated

Annex M pp. 36-47

17. Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery – Regional Solid Waste [350-353] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex N pp. 48-51

Budget p. 112

18. Manager, Utility Services and Operations Support Technician – Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant [387] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex O pp. 52-53

Budget p. 162

19. General Manager, Planning and Development – Animal Control [290] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex P pp. 54-55 Budget p. 76

20. General Manager, Planning and Development – Regional Planning [500] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex Q pp. 56-57

Budget p. 187

21. General Manager, Planning and Development – Building Inspection [520] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex R pp. 58-59

Budget p. 200

22. Economic Development Budgets by Area Spreadsheet Annex S p. 60

Budget pp. 203-211

23. General Manager, Community Services – Gibsons and District Fire Protection [210] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex T pp. 61-63 Budget p. 58


24. Treasurer – Community Recreation Requisition Limit Annex U pp. 64-66

25. Treasurer and General Manager, Community Services - Recreation Funding Issues Update

Annex V pp. 67-84

26. Manager, Recreation Services – Recreation Services [616-621] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex W pp. 85-103

Budget pp. 217-231

27. Manager, Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre – Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre (PHAFC) [625] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex X pp. 104-105

Budget p. 233

28. General Manager, Community Services – Community Parks [650] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex Y pp. 106-115

Budget p. 247

29. General Manager, Community Services - Bicycle and Walking Paths [665] 2014 R2 Budget Proposal

Annex Z pp. 116-121

Budget p. 251 BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Treasurer

30. Budgets – General Government Services Light Orange Tab (100) Medium Purple Tab (500) Page # [110] General Government (R2 & BP) ........................................................ 2 [111] Legislative Services (R2) .................................................................. 3 [112] Administrative Services (R2) ............................................................. 4 [113] Financial Services (R2) ..................................................................... 7 [114] Administrative Offices Building Maintenance (Adoption) .................. 10 [115] Human Resources (Adoption) .......................................................... 13 [117] Information Services (Adoption) ....................................................... 15 [506] Property Information and Mapping Services (Adoption) ......... 193 [510] House Numbering (Adoption) ................................................ 196 [118] Sunshine Coast Regional Hospital District Administration (R2) ........ 18 [121] Grants-In-Aid (Area A Only) (R2) ..................................................... 20 [122] Grants-In- Aid (Area B Only) (R2) .................................................... 22 [123] Grants-In-Aid (Areas E and F Only) (R2) .......................................... 24 [125] Grants-In-Aid (Community Schools) (R2) ......................................... 26 [126] Greater Gibsons Community Participation (R2) ................................ 28 [127] Grants-In-Aid (Area D Only) (R2) ..................................................... 30 [128] Grants-In-Aid (Area E Only) (R2) ..................................................... 32 [129] Grants-In-Aid (Area F Only) (R2)...................................................... 34 [130] UBCM / AVICC Electoral Area Services (R3) ................................... 36 [131] Elections – Electoral Area Services (R3) .......................................... 37 [140] Member Municipality Debt (Adoption) .............................................. 43 [150] Feasibility Studies – Regional (Adoption) ......................................... 45 [151] Area A Feasibility (Adoption) ............................................................ 47 [155] Area F Feasibility (Adoption) ............................................................ 49 [540] Hillside Development Project (R2) ................................................... 213

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R2 Budget Page 4 BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services

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

Page #

[135] Corporate Sustainability Services (R2 & BP) .................................... 39 [136] Regional Sustainability Services (R2 & BP) ..................................... 41

32. Budgets – Transportation and Facilities Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[310] Public Transit (R2 & BP) .................................................................. 79 [312] Maintenance Facility (Adoption) ....................................................... 82 [345] Ports (Formerly Adoption – now new BP) ........................................ 107 [346] Langdale Dock (Adoption) ............................................................... 110

33. Budgets – Street Lighting Dark Orange Tab

Page #

[320] Regional Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .................................................. 85 [322] Langdale Street Lighting (R2 & BP) ................................................. 87 [324] Granthams Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .............................................. 89 [326] Veterans Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .................................................. 91 [328] Spruce Street Lighting (R2 & BP) ..................................................... 93 [330] Woodcreek Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .............................................. 95 [332] Fircrest Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .................................................... 97 [334] Hydaway Street Lighting (R2 & BP) ................................................. 99 [336] Sunnyside Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .............................................. 101 [340] Burns Road Street Lighting (R2 & BP) ............................................ 103 [342] Stewart Road Street Lighting (R2 & BP) .......................................... 105

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Utility Services Operations Support Technician

34. Budgets – Water and Sewer Pink Tab Page # [365] North Pender Harbour Water Services (Adoption) ........................... 128 [366] South Pender Harbour Water Services (Adoption) .......................... 132 [370] Regional Water Services (RWS) (Adoption) .................................... 136 [376] RWS: New Connections (Adoption) ............................................... 140 [377] RWS: Mains Replacement (Adoption) ............................................ 142 [378] RWS: New Construction (Adoption) ............................................... 144 [381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ................................. 146 [382] Woodcreek Park Waste Water Plant (Adoption) .............................. 148 [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ....................................... 151 [384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ...................................... 153 [385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant (Adoption) .................................... 156 [386] Lee Bay Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ........................................... 159


[387] Square Bay Waste Water Plant (formerly Adoption – now new BP) 162 [388] Langdale Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ......................................... 165 [389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant (Adoption) .................................... 168 [390] Merrill Crescent Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ............................... 170 [391] Curran Road Waste Water Plant (Adoption) .................................... 172 [392] Roberts Creek Cohousing Treatment Plant (Adoption) .................... 174 [393] Lily`s Lake Waste Water Plant (Adoption) ....................................... 177 [394] Panted Boat Waste Water Plant (Adoption) .................................... 179

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

35. Budgets – Solid Waste Pink Tab

Page #

[350] Regional Solid Waste (R2 & BP) ..................................................... 112 [351] Pender Harbour Solid Waste (R2 & BP) .......................................... 115 [352] Sechelt Solid Waste (R2) ................................................................ 118 [353] Regional Recycling (R2 & BP) ........................................................ 121 [355] Refuse Collection (R2) .................................................................... 126

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Community Services

36. Budgets – Protective Services Medium Orange Tab

Page #

[210] Gibsons and District Volunteer Fire Department (R2 & BP) .............. 58 [212] Roberts Creek Volunteer Fire Department (Adoption) ...................... 61 [216] Halfmoon Bay Volunteer Fire Department (Adoption) ....................... 64 [218] Egmont Volunteer Fire Department (Adoption) ................................. 67 [220] Emergency Telephone 911 (R3) ...................................................... 70 [222] Sunshine Coast Emergency Planning (Adoption) ............................. 73

37. Budgets – Parks Light Purple Tab

Page #

[400] Cemetery (Adoption) ....................................................................... 182

Dark Purple Tab

Page #

[630] School Facilities – Joint Use (R3) 237 [650] Community Parks (R2 & BP) 247 [665] Bicycle and Walking Paths (R2 & BP) 251 [667] Area A Bicycle and Walking Paths (R2) 254 [680] Dakota Ridge Recreation Service Area (R3) 258

Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – R2 Budget Page 6 BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Manager, Recreation Services

38. Budgets – Recreation and Culture Dark Purple Tab Page # [615] Community Recreation Facilities (R2 & BP) .................................... 215 [616] Gibsons Aquatic Centre (R2 & BP) ................................................. 217 [617] Gibsons and Area Community Centre (R2 & BP) ............................ 221 [620] Sechelt Arena (R2) ......................................................................... 225 [621] Sechelt Aquatic Centre (R2 & BP) ................................................... 229 [625] Pender Harbour Pool (R2 & BP)...................................................... 233 [670] Regional Recreation Programs (R2 & BP) ...................................... 256

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Treasurer

39. Budgets – Recreation and Cultural Services (Libraries and Museums and Health) Dark Purple Tab Page # [640] Gibsons and District Public Library (R3) .......................................... 239 [645] Halfmoon Bay Library Service (R3) ................................................. 241 [646] Roberts Creek Library Service (R2) ................................................ 243 [648] Museum Service (R2) ..................................................................... 245

Light Purple Tab Page # [410] Pender Harbour Health Care Clinic (Adoption) ................................ 185

BUDGET INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW General Manager, Planning and Development

40. Budgets – Planning Services Medium Orange Tab (200) Medium Purple Tab (500) Page # [200] Bylaw Enforcement (Adoption) ......................................................... 51 [204] Halfmoon Bay Smoke Control (Adoption) ......................................... 54 [206] Roberts Creek Smoke Control (Adoption) ........................................ 56 [290] Animal Control (R2 & BP) ................................................................ 75 [500] Regional Planning (R2 & BP) .......................................................... 187 [504] Rural Planning (R3) ........................................................................ 190 [515] Heritage Conservation Service (Adoption) ...................................... 198 [520] Building Inspection Services (R2 & BP)........................................... 200

Budgets – Economic Development Portion of General Government Services Medium Purple Tab Page # [531] Economic Development “A” (R2) ..................................................... 203 [532] Economic Development “B” (R2) ..................................................... 205 [533] Economic Development “D” (R2)..................................................... 207 [534] Economic Development “E” (R2) ..................................................... 209 [535] Economic Development “F” (R2) ..................................................... 211

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: January 25, 2014

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Service Committee (R2) – February 18, 2014

FROM: Angie Legault, Manager, Legislative Services

RE: GENERAL GOVERNMENT [110-112] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Legislative Service’s report regarding General Government [110-112] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND

Following is a summary of the Round 1 2014 Budget meeting recommendations:

• 2013 Surplus-[Transferred to Reserves; Funded BP # 1 – Consultant to assist with EDMS project and 6 – Board meeting in community

• BP#1- Consultant to assist with Electronic Document Management System project Approved in R1 from surplus

• BP#2 - Squamish Nation Servicing Agreement – Legal Fees – approved in R1 from surplus

• BP#3- Laptops for Directors - Deferred to Round 2 (with suggestions to accommodate, in a limited functionality, the Municipalities in the purchase of laptops based on the current legislation).

• BP#4 - Citizen Survey - Deferred to Round 3

• BP#5 - Video Streaming Meetings - Deferred to 2015

• BP#6 - Board Meeting in the Community – approved in R1 from surplus

1

TaraC

Typewritten Text

A

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Corporate and Administrative Services Committee 2014 R2 Budget Proposal Report Page 2

2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (IN PRIORITY ORDER)

3 Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Laptops for Directors

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

Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $12,000 ($15,000 for touch capability) Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Replace on 3 year cycle Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Assists with Zero Waste objective in Sustainability Plan by reducing the amount of paper used (i.e. agendas).

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

Not applicable

Rationale / Service Impacts: Laptops may assist Directors with the execution of their duties, meeting scheduling and electronic agenda distribution.

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

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 30,787 $ 36,787 $ 12,787 $ 18,787 $ 24,787 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 30,000 $ - $ -

$ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 36,787 $ 12,787 $ 18,787 $ 24,787 $ 30,787

Vehicle ReplacementContribution (base budgetClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions Surplus

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

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 86,364 $ 86,364 $ 6,364 $ 6,364 $ 6,364 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 86,364 $ 6,364 $ 6,364 $ 6,364 $ 6,364

EDMS AcquisitionOtherClosing Balance in Reserve


2


ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan(use table illustrating capital contributions and expenditures, if available)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 79,880 $ 136,440 $ 66,440 $ 66,440 $ 66,440 $ 56,560 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 70,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ 136,440 $ 66,440 $ 66,440 $ 66,440 $ 66,440

EDMS AcquisitionOtherClosing Balance in

ItemOpening Balance in Contributions Surplus

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 3. Laptops for Directors

3

Surplus/DeficitRural Areas Grants-In-Aid 2014

Updated 13/02/2014

2 - 2014 R2 GIA-Budgets-by-Area-February

Area A Egmont Pender Harbour Total Line Item 01-2-121-212 $93,285.00 Budget

2014 Discretionary Grant Funds (to be distributed) $20,764.00Committed:Committed:Committed: Rural Grants-In-Aid

SUBTOTAL uncommitted discretionary funds as at February 2014 $20,764.00

Grants Committed:PH Community School $40,000.00Youth Outreach Worker (per 2013 MOU and Res #083/13 #30) $7,742.00Sechelt Library Operating Grant $23,679.00Pender Harbour Reading Room $500.00Bursaries' Contribution ($3,000 total) $600.00

$0.00

Area B Halfmoon Bay Total Line Item 01-2-122-212 $26,755.00 Budget



Grants Committed:Bursaries' Contribution ($3,000 total) $600.00Youth Outreach Worker (per 2013 MOU and Res #083/13 #30) $6,559.00Halfmoon Bay Hall Contingency not paid in 2011, 2012 and 2013 $1,000.00

$0.00

4

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

B

TaraC

Typewritten Text


Updated 13/02/2014


Areas E & F Elphinstone/West Howe SoundTotal Line Item 01-2-123-212 $10,000.00 Budget


SUBTOTAL uncommitted discretionary funds as at February 2014 $10,000.00$0.00

Grants-In-Aid - Community SchoolsTotal Line Item 01-2-125-212 $50,000.00 Budget

Grants Committed:Community School $50,000.00

$0.00

Greater Gibsons Community Participation (GGCP), Area E & FTotal Line Item 01-2-126-212 $50,472.00 Budget



Grants Committed:Gibsons Tennis Courts not paid in 2011, 2012 or 2013* Remainder not paid in 20 $17,339.00 Carryforward from 2012

2014 allocation to Gibsons Tennis Courts not paid in 2013 $7,662.00* 2012 a portion allotted to Andy Bay Road Project $0.00

5


Updated 13/02/2014


Area D Roberts CreekTotal Line Item 01-2-127-212 $34,928.00 Budget



Grants Committed:Bursaries' Contribution ($3,000 total) $600.00Youth Outreach Worker (per 2013 MOU and Res #083/13 #30) $6,593.00Community Use Room Roberts Creek School (total $4,000 - $1,200 pd 2013) $2,800.00 PAID JanuaryCommunity School Garden not paid in 2011, 2012 or 2013 $6,000.00 *

*$4,000 CF & $2,000 added in 2013 $0.00

Area E Elphinstone Total Line Item 01-2-128-212 $17,612.00 Budget



Grants Committed:Bursaries' Contribution ($3,000 total) $600.00Youth Outreach Worker (per 2013 MOU and Res #083/13 #30) $6,157.00

$0.00

6


Updated 13/02/2014


Area F West Howe Sound Total Line Item 01-2-129-212 $35,112.00 Budget



Grants Committed:Bursaries' Contribution ($3,000 total) $600.00Youth Outreach Worker (per 2013 MOU and Res #083/13 #30) $7,422.00Anavets Park Memorial Wall & Garden (CF not required) -Gospel Rock contingency not paid in 2011, 2012 or 2013 $5,000.00 Carryforward from 2012

$0.00

Anavets paid in 2013 at $3,200 no further payments required - project 100% complete in 2013 per Contractor.

7

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\3 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability BP4 Asset Management Cover Report v2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 6, 2014

TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 18, 2014

FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Tina Perreault, Treasurer

RE: CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY [135] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s and Treasurer’s report regarding Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal for Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation be received.

BACKGROUND

This cover report supports the Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation Round 2 Budget Proposal.

The following recommendation was made at the January 22, 2014, Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Round 1 budget meeting (to be adopted by the Board at the February 13, 2014, regular Board meeting):

Recommendation No. 45 Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be deferred to 2014 Round 2 Budget with a comprehensive plan on moving forward for asset management plan to be in place by the end of 2014:

• Budget Proposal 4 – Asset Management Plan – Gap Analysis, $30,000 funded from Support Services.

The Round One staff report was based on the hiring of a consultant to carry out an Asset Management Gap Analysis that would document where the organization is at with asset management, where it needs to be, and maps out a plan, with timeline and funding requirements, on the steps that need to be taken to bridge the gap. The development of the Asset Management Plan itself would begin in 2015.

As captured in the Committee recommendation above, the Committee expressed a high level of urgency to fast track the development of an Asset Management Plan by the end of 2014. This report provides a plan that outlines how a basic Asset Management Plan that meets grant funding requirements can be developed by the end of 2014, complete with the resourcing and funding requirements necessary to carry it out, as well as what will be required to further develop the Asset Management Plan and maintain it in future years.

8

TaraC

Typewritten Text

C

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee RE: BP for Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation Page 2 of 4


DISCUSSION

There has been much focus paid to the national infrastructure deficit that highlights the significant funding gap that many local governments are facing as their physical assets age and need replacing. Infrastructure asset management has been identified by the Federal and Provincial governments as a priority and it is anticipated that local governments will need to have an asset management plan in place for any future grant funding consideration.

The SCRD’s infrastructure is valued at roughly $160 million (2012) based on historical value, with replacement value being significantly higher (e.g. water assets replacement value is estimated at $167 million alone). A formalized asset management plan will identify the annual maintenance needs to ensure the useful life of the assets are optimized and the sustainable funding requirements to ensure that the assets can be replaced upon retirement without dramatic fluctuations in year to year tax rates and fees.

As presented in the June 24, 2013, staff report on “Developing an Asset Management Plan”, Asset Management BC has produced a Roadmap Diagram (Attachment A) that clearly outlines the steps necessary to develop an organizational wide asset management plan. The Roadmap is broken into three levels: Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. A realistic goal for 2014 is to complete most of the components to meet the Basic Level, as highlighted in pink in the Roadmap. The general scope for 2014 would include:

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

2. Consolidate the information into a single asset management data base

3. Determine the replacement costs for all assets;

4. Estimate the replacement timing for all assets (based on age)

5. Prepare the first level (base) Asset Management Plan (AMP); that details level of capital re-investment required on an annual basis to be sustainable. Includes rate analysis.

6. Develop standardized asset management procedures to ensure all new assets are incorporated into the asset management system.

By the end of 2014 the SCRD will have a complete inventory of its assets, complete with their value and projected life expectancy, a structured process to ensure that all new assets are incorporated into the asset management system, annual funding requirements to ensure the assets can be replaced upon their retirement, and a financial plan outlining the impacts of the asset management plan on rates. It is anticipated that this would satisfy the grant application requirements for future senior government grant programs.

9



Future years would focus on completing all aspects of the Basic Level and progressing through the Intermediate to the Advanced Levels. This would involve considerable work on developing a computerized maintenance management system that would complete the information loop on asset condition and maintenance, that would in turn identify sustainable operation and maintenance funding levels that ensure that the assets we are maintained to optimize their life cycle cost. This would include:

1. Detailed analysis of current operating and maintenance costs and service levels.

2. Condition assessments of assets to fine tune replacement timing projections.

3. Formalize maintenance schedules, policies and procedures. Incorporate expanded use of computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) throughout the organization. Complete shift from reactive to proactive maintenance.

4. Tie maintenance costs to the asset to enable full life cycle cost accounting and analysis.

5. Ensure all new assets have complete maintenance management plans and are incorporated into CMMS.

As acknowledged during Round 1, in order for the asset management program to succeed there needs to be a champion that has both the knowledge and authority to move the program forward. An Asset Management Coordinator staff position is recommended as there is significant value in knowledge retention as the position inventories and assesses all assets within the organization, and builds the processes and systems to manage those assets. The knowledge retention would not be as comprehensive nor easily transferable if a consultant is brought in to develop the asset management plan, and a consultant would need to be embedded into the organization through a secondment, therefore, costs would be significantly higher.

The Asset Management Coordinator will lead a team of existing key staff that would in turn lead the integration of the corporate asset management processes into their respective operating areas, such as Parks, Recreation, Utilities, Ports, Transit, Solid Waste, Finance, and Information Technology.

In order to meet the end of 2014 timeline, a Technician position to assist with data collection, entry and management has also been identified as there is currently limited capacity (if any) built into each service function to carry out the data collection and management needs coming from the asset management processes. The Technician position will initially be required to assist the Asset Management Coordinator to build the basic datasets in the first year, and will then be required to assist with the collection and management of data through the maintenance management stages to the completion of the Intermediate Level. Once the initial datasets are complete and asset management processes are in place, it is anticipated that the Technician position would no longer be required as the updating of the datasets and processes will be able to be maintained by the Asset Management Coordinator and the team leaders in their respective functional areas.

10



Fiscal Implications

The following calculations are based on the addition of two staff positions: Asset Management Coordinator and Asset Management Assistant.

It is desirable to retain an Asset Management Coordinator that is well trained and experienced in the Asset Management field, that would be able to lead the development and implementation of an Asset Management Plan with limited oversight. Similar positions posted on CivicInfo by other local governments show a range in salary from a low of $72,000 per annum for a technician to over $120,000 for a Professional Engineer. A salary of $80,000 is used for budgeting purposes. A salary equivalent to an Accounting Technician II is used for the Asset Management Assistant position.

In addition to salary and benefits, additional budget will be required for office expenses including furniture, computer, telephone, as well as a small budget for training and meeting expenses.

The following table details the proposed 2014 and future years budget requirements:

Budget Item 2014 Budget (May to Dec)

2015 Annual Budget

2016+ Annual Budget

Asset Management Coordinator $53,333 $80,000 $80,000 Asset Management Assistant $34,700 $52,000 $0 Benefits (@29% of wages) $25,500 $38,300 $23,200 Office Expenses $10,000 $1,500 $1,500 Asset Management Software2 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Training/Travel3 $10,000 $2,000 $2,000

Total $136,033 $176,300 $109,200

Notes: 1. All figures in 2014 dollars. 2. NAMS.PLUS2 software annual licensing fee. 3. 2014 training includes attendance for team leaders to attend NAMS.PLUS2 training.

The positions will be funded through Support Services under a revised cost allocation based on the value of assets managed by each function. Support Services is funded through approximately 65% taxation and 35% through user fees and other sources. The Support Service policy would need to be revised for the change.

11

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\4 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability Cover Report Final v.2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Shane Laye, Corporate Energy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S)

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

BACKGROUND

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

The proposed budget of $20,000 would allow the SCRD to procure data acquisition equipment ($10,000) and reporting software ($10,000) to enable the timely reporting on corporate energy management practices and organizational and departmental energy performance. As such, it is proposed that the two items be shared (in use and cost) across multiple functions.

Notably, an annual software license fee of $1,500 would be required in subsequent years. Additional metering equipment should also be acquired in future years to facilitate an amplified understanding of the energy systems and accommodate an increased reporting rigour.

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

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

practices • Upgrade its existing facilities with energy conservation measures.

12

TaraC

Typewritten Text

D

TaraC

Typewritten Text

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

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\4 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 135 Corporate Sustainability Cover Report Final v.2.docx

RATIONALE / SERVICE IMPACTS

The SCRD is in need of data acquisition equipment and software that can accept, hub, and analyze data to enable accurate regular reporting of progress and successes of corporate energy management initiatives. The SCRD’s current commitments to regularly report on energy management initiatives are impeded by existing systems.

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

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

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

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

The metering equipment proposed for 2014 could be mobilized to various facilities, to measure and verify (M&V) the energy conservation measures implemented throughout the organization. Working together the software would accept the data generated at the various meter points to allow the regular reporting of both departmental and organizational energy performance.

There are additional benefits to be realized through a single reporting system. For example, energy usage, fuel usage, water consumption, transit ridership, waste diversion by waste streams, landfill weights are all data sets which facilitate the evaluation and reporting of initiatives identified in the strategic plan. Each data set is unique and provides valuable information, yet together they amplify their significance, in support of the strategic plans.

Similarly, the data used for corporate performance is independent of community performance. For example, corporate energy reduction initiatives do not directly affect community waste diversion initiatives. Despite the potential synergies to be realized by using the corporate software for reporting community focused initiatives the various data sets are unique, and therefore, independent of each other.

The acquisition of new software and metering equipment is needed to enable a cohesive understanding of the organization’s approach to meeting strategic objectives and regularly reporting on progress and successes to all stakeholders. In addition, this level of analysis and reporting would provide the SCRD with insight to more strategically target information and engagement campaigns. Furthermore, the software and metering equipment could work in concert to provide the “whole picture” of how the organization is progressing towards the reduction targets identified in the Sustainable Energy Management Plan.

13

SCRD STAFF REPORT



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

RE: CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY [135] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Corporate Sustainability [135] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• BP#1- Corporate Energy Manager- [Approved in R1]

• BP#2- Corporate Sustainability Report Card - deferred to Round 2

• BP#3 – Citizen Engagement Framework Toolkit and Training – deferred to Round 2

• BP#4 – Asset Management Plan – Gap Analysis – deferred to Round 2 with the following direction:

Recommendation No. 45 Corporate Sustainability [135] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be deferred to 2014 Round 2 Budget with a comprehensive plan on moving forward for asset management plan to be in place by the end of 2014:

14

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

E

TaraC

Typewritten Text


2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 2 Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion

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

Regional

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

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

Yes.

2013-2014 Strategic Plan

Sections 1.4-1.5, 2.1-2.3, 3.2-3.3, 4.3, 5.2, & 6.8

We Envision

Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP)

Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP)

Please see attached covering report. Staff Capacity: Existing staff resources: primarily Corporate

Energy Manager and Sustainability & Education Coordinator.

Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: Please see attached covering report for rationale. The proposed budget would allow the SCRD to: • Measure success of the SCRD (corporate)

sustainability framework against performance indicators, aligned with We Envision targets;

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

• provide supporting data that will assist with the promotion of corporate sustainability success stories around transit ridership, fuel usage, energy usage, water consumption, waste diversion by waste streams, landfill weights, etc..

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

15


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

3 Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, TOOLKIT, TRAINING


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $7,500 Funding Source(s): Support Services Future Financial Implications: To be determined on annual basis Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

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

16


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


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: The need to do thorough and meaningful community engagement work is on the rise. The anticipated benefits of doing professional engagement work include: - Citizens understand how they can effectively

participate in their local government processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The SCRD improves its issues management abilities

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

This budget proposal ($7500) will cover: 1) the completion of the community engagement

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

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

17

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Project / Reduction Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: $136,000 (based on May start date): Revised amount from Round 1 BP of $30K for consultant

Funding Source(s): Support Services: 65% Taxation 35% User Fee

Future Financial Implications: $176,000 in 2015, reduced to $109,000 annually (depending on support staff required)

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

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

Staff Capacity: Require new dedicated staff position to lead the development and continued operation of a corporate wide asset management plan and support for data collection and entry. There will still be significant impact to existing staff in all divisions that manage capital assets to assist with data collection and implementation of new asset management practices and processes.


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

Rational / Service Impacts: See attached report. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Corporate Sustainability Report Card and Promotion 3. Citizen Engagement Framework, Toolkit, Training 4 Asset Management Plan Development and Implementation

18

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 13, 2014 TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 18, 2014 FROM: Shane Laye, Corporate Energy Manager RE: STATUS UPDATE OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS 2014 – CORPORATE ENERGY RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Corporate Energy Manager’s report entitled “Status Update of Potential Projects 2014 – Corporate Energy” dated December 17, 2013 be received for information;

BACKGROUND

A list of potential projects for 2014 was presented to the SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee on December 5, 2013, for consideration for round one of 2014 budget. As a result of round one budget discussions, proposed projects were moved to R2, R3, or deferred to 2015.

DISCUSSION

As requested by the Board this report presents an updated list of energy conservation initiatives that could be undertaken over the next year (2014) to achieve, in part, the short and long term corporate energy reduction targets (Attachment A). Although some items do not directly generate energy savings, they are vital to the organization progressing from its current ability to manage energy. For example, the acquisition of metering equipment is of high priority because it enables the organization to isolate systems within a facility and confirm both the actual energy savings and cost avoidances realized from a particular energy conservation measure (ECM). The ability to measure and verify the benefits of a particular ECM can help to provide assurances and credibility. The energy studies are also important because they both identify energy conservation opportunities and enable the organization to develop future projects.

Despite some projects not offering a direct payback (e.g. energy studies) the combined energy projects exhibit a payback of approximately 4.7 years (Attachment B). The Of the projects still to be considered in Round 2 (or deferred to 2015), Chaster (Mahlman) Fire Hall and Frank West Community Hall can benefit in many ways by combining the project scopes. It should also be noted that the Draft Sustainable Energy Management Plan projects a 2.3% energy reduction year over year to achieve the short term and long term organizational targets.

19

TaraC

Typewritten Text

F

TaraC

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

Table 1. Status Update of Year 1 Potential Projects

1 CF – Carry Forward is already included within the corresponding 2014 departmental work plan. A – Approved for 2014 Budget R2 – Item referred to Round 2 2015 – Item deferred to 2015

Potential Projects

YearSee

Footnote1

Department Facility Name Description

Potential Total SvgsEnergy + O&M

Projected Total Cost

Potential Incentives

GHGReduction

(tCO2e)

% CorporateHydro (kWh) Reduction

% CorporateekWh

Reduction

Simple Payback

IRR5 Year

IRR10 Year

IRR20 Year

1 CF Utilities Water Services Micro-Hydro Feasibility $ 20,000 $ 20,000

CF Utilities Water Services Micro-Hydro Demonstration $ 5,000 $ 20,000 4.0 8% 21% 25%

A Utilities Water Services Energy Study (Pumping) $ 20,000 $ 10,000

A Recreation PHAFC Energy Study (Solar Thermal) $ - $ 6,000 $ 3,000

A Utilities Chapman Water Treatment Lighting Retrofit $ 8,410 $ 43,493 $ 11,364 1.3 0.8% 0.52% 3.1 18% 29% 32%

A Transit / Fleet Transit Bldg. Lighting Retrofit $ 9,121 $ 67,077 $ 14,512 1.6 1.0% 0.64% 4.6 3% 17% 21%

A Recreation GACC Energy Study (Building) $ 20,000 $ 10,000

R2 Recreation Sechelt Aquatic Centre Lighting Retrofit - Phase 2 $ 15,509 $ 80,470 $ 25,878 2.9 1.8% 1.12% 2.7 23% 34% 35%

R2 Corporate Metering/Data Management $ 20,000

R2 Community Services Chaster Fire Hall Lighting Retrofit $ 746 $ 6,283 $ 1,363 0.2 0.1% 0.06% 5.2 -1% 14% 19%

2015 Community Services Frank West Hall Lighting Retrofit $ 1,269 $ 11,170 $ 1,280 0.1 0.1% 0.06% 6.7 -9% 8% 14%

Subtotal $ 40,055 $ 314,493 $ 97,397 6.1 3.8% 2.40% 3.9 9% 22% 26%

Utility Rate Increase Over 5 years

20

ATTACHMENT B

Figure 1. Projected Net Cash Flow for Projects Proposed in 2014

$(200,000)

$(150,000)

$(100,000)

$(50,000)

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

2014 Project Payback Schedule

21

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\7 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 136 Regional Sustainability Cover Report.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



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

RE: REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY [136] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR REGIONAL ROUND TABLE ON SUSTAINABILITY

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Regional Sustainability [136] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal for Regional Round Table on Sustainability be received for information.

BACKGROUND

At the time of submission deadline for R2 budget proposals, staff were working to touch base with organizations that were involved in the development and consultation of the We Envision plan to secure their interest in participation in the round table.

The budget proposal itself remains unchanged, attached. If sufficient contact is made with organizations by the time of Round 2 meetings, staff will present a verbal report with this budget proposal. If more time is required, it is requested that budget proposal 136 be referred to Round 3.

22

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

G

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Service Committee – February 18, 2014

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

RE: REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY [136] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Infrastructure Service’s report regarding Regional Sustainability [136] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• BP#1- Regional Round Table and Tools – deferred to Round 2


Project / Reduction REGIONAL ROUND TABLE and TOOLS


Regional (all areas)

2014 Funding Implications: $10,500*

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

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

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

Yes.

2.1 Implementing the Regional Sustainability Plan, We Envision, is a prominent objective in the SCRD’s 2013-2014 strategic plan.

1.2 – 1.5 The process of implementing We Envision, via the regional roundtable will improve communication, information sharing and understanding between local governments, First Nations, School District 46 and other local organizations.

23

TaraC

Typewritten Text

H

TaraC

Typewritten Text


2.1-2.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.2, 6.4 Targets from the Community Energy and Emissions Plan, the Corporate Energy and Emissions, Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, Zero Waste Management Plan, Integrated Transportation Study (etc) were embedded in the development of We Envision. Implementing We Envision also satisfies the implementation of many other plans.

6.1, 6.3, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9 Implementing the Land use section of We Envision addresses a variety of the SCRD’s corporate goals regarding region-wide planning.

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


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: See cover report for more information.

The regional round table is proposed to be a dynamic team of leaders from organizations across the Sunshine Coast who have the mandate and influence to implement the specific actions of the We Envision plan, as well as work together to achieve the plan’s ambitious 2020 goals.

Similar to the development of the We Envision plan, the regional round table and implementation process is designed to enable many organizations to take responsibility, within their existing mandates, to implement the actions of the plan and monitor the results. The success of this approach is built on deep engagement that recognizes, celebrates and leverages the actions of many, extending the positive impacts and awareness of the regional sustainability plan well beyond the reaches of the SCRD team.

This approach exemplifies the SCRD’s core principle of COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP by convening and mobilizing action, resources, leadership and monitoring across many organizations.

The proposed budget will cover the roundtable’s ‘start-up’ responsibilities: development and communication of annual priority actions, development of measurement indicators that

24


correspond with goals in all plan areas, development of a monitoring system, promotion of the plan, current actions and local success stories. The proposed $10,500 budget will cover: meeting expenses, promotional materials, professional services for developing sustainability indicators. Again, this budget proposal would need to be increased by $5,000 if the software proposal in 135 is declined.

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

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

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

BuildingOtherClosing Balance in Reserve


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Regional Round Table and Tools

25

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Rob Williams, Manager, Transit and Fleet

RE: PUBLIC TRANSIT [310] - 2013 BUDGET DEFICIT

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleets’ report regarding Public Transit [310] – 2013 Budget Deficit be received for information.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to provide an update and explanation of the Public Transit [310] year end budget deficit for 2013.

DISCUSSION

At the October 24th, 2013 CAS meeting staff presented a 3rd quarter (nine month period ending September 30, 2013) variance report for the SCRD Public Transit Function. At that time it was noted that fare revenues were tracking above 2012 figures but were going to fall short of 2013 budget projections. It was also noted that vehicle maintenance and fuel accounts were at 79% and 78%. A year end balanced budget was projected.

During year end reconciliation of revenues and expenses it was confirmed that total fare revenues did fall short of anticipated projections and recoveries from BC Transit were also lower than expected that resulted in an overall deficit. The main reason for lower BC Transit recoveries was unforeseen mandatory corrosion work to buses S8083 and S8093 that was identified as a safety issue through routine maintenance. Additional lease fees for the delivery of 3 new ARBOC community buses also contributed to the deficit. The following is a breakdown of the transit budget deficit and recommendation for the Round 2 Budget Process.

Deficit Item Deficit Amount $ Recommendation

1. Additional Fleet Lease Fees (3 ARBOC community buses) $25,000 Transfer funds from operating

reserve.

2. Mandatory Corrosion work to Buses S8083 and S8093. $21,000 Cover through taxation.

Total $46,000 -

26

TaraC

Typewritten Text

I

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: TRANSIT [310] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report regarding Transit [310] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND Following is a summary of the Round 1 2014 Budget meeting recommendations:

• BP#1 - Reconfigure West Sechelt Service (Sept. 2014)] - Approved in R1

• BP#2 - Add up to six weekday trips to #90 – Sechelt/Langdale Ferry Express (Sept. 2014)] - Approved in R1

• BP# 3 - Limited Service to Botanical Gardens (June 2014) - Approved in R1

• BP#4 - Divert Service via Chatelech School (Sept. 2014) - Deferred to Round 2

• BP# 5 - New Glass Shelter in Davis Bay - Included in Base Budget

• BP#6 - New Log Bus Shelter at St. Mary’s Hospital - Deferred to Round 2

New

• BP#7 – Operating Reserve Transfer

• BP#8 – Fuel Budget Increase 2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($46,000) Reason(s): Additional fleet lease fees due to the delivery of 3 new community buses as well as mandatory safety corrosion work required on buses S8083 and S8093. Options (select as appropriate):

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

As per Section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

27

TaraC

Typewritten Text

J

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Project / Reduction Divert Service via Chatelech School (Sept. 2014)


District of Sechelt

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

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

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

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


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This project is identified as Service Priority #3 in the Transit Future Plan. The Transit terminus at Trail Bay Mall is not within easy walking distance to the Chatelech Secondary School and surrounding neighborhood. A change in the #2 West Sechelt routing to use the new road corridor past Chatelech School would provide convenient service. This is consistent with the ITS objective to increase local feeder service. Fare revenue estimates are based on 60% of current ridership on the route to account for time to build ridership. The exact date of when Cowrie Street will connect with Norwest Rd. is unknown and subject to the real estate market and therefore in the interim the service can still be provided through a restructuring of an existing local route (#2, 3, or 4). This would be a temporary loop route service with approximately 3 after school trips provided during weekdays.

28

TaraC

Typewritten Text



New Log Bus Shelter at St. Mary’s Hospital


Sechelt Indian Government District

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

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

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


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This location is not identified as a priority shelter location in the staff report dated January 18, 2012, due to low boarding numbers and that this is primarily a inbound drop stop. Cost estimate is based on the same shelter design fronting the Raven Cry Theatre (see attached photo), which is substantially higher than typical shelter designs. Staff have made contact with Community Forest, West Coast Log Homes and the Sechelt Indian Band for funding assistance or in-kind support, however, no firm commitments have been received other than the donation of the bench from West Coast Log Homes.


Project / Reduction Operating Reserve Transfer


District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Gov’t District, Area B, D, E, F

2014 Funding Implications: $25,000 to cover 2013 fleet lease fee increase and $10,000 to reduce 2014 annualized expense, $35,000 total transfer from reserve.

Funding Source(s): Operating Reserve Future Financial Implications: Reduction in operating reserve and reduction in

2014 tax requisition. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes.

29


Staff Capacity: n/a Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):

2009

Rational / Service Impacts: This outstanding expense is related to increased lease fees associated to the delivery of 3 new Arboc community buses in the Spring/Summer 2013. An operating reserve was established in 2012 in order to help cover anticipated fleet lease fee increases. It is therefore recommended that $25,000 be transferred from the operating reserve to cover this portion of the 2013 deficit as well $10,000 be taken from the reserve and added to the 2014 based budget to reduce the annualized lease fee expense.


Project / Reduction Fuel Budget Increase

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

District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Gov’t District, Area B, D, E, F

2014 Funding Implications: $12,000 Funding Source(s): Property Tax Future Financial Implications: The 2014 fuel increase will be part of the 2015

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

Consistent with We Envision goal to reduce GHG emissions through reduction in car use in favour of transit and other modes.


2009

Rational / Service Impacts: Fuel prices continue to be very volatile and therefore make it extremely difficult to project annual costs. It is recommended that the fuel budget be increased $12,000 to match the 2013 actual fuel expense.

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

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 103,000 $ 68,000 $ 44,000 $ 17,000 $ 17,000

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

-$ 35,000 -$ 24,000 -$ 27,000 $ - $ - $ 68,000 $ 44,000 $ 17,000 $ 17,000 $ 17,000


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions

NOTE: THE “OTHER” AMOUNTS LISTED FOR 2015 AND 2016 ARE ESTIMATED LEASE FEE INCREASES.

30


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 4. Divert Service via Chatelech School (Sept. 2014) 7. Operating Reserve Transfer 8. Fuel Budget Increase 6. New log Bus Shelter at St. Mary’s Hospital

31

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\11 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 320-345 Regional Street Lighting.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee–February 18, 2014


RE: STREET LIGHTING [320-342] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report regarding Street Lighting [320-342] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND

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

During Round 1 budget discussions on January 22, 2014, the following recommendation was made by the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee:

Recommendation No. 42 (in part) Street Lighting [320-342]

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the budgets for Street Lighting Functions as follows be deferred to 2014 Round 2 Budget pending a review of hydro costs:

In addition, the Board passed the following resolution (261/13) at its regular meeting on June 13, 2013:

THAT staff proceed with the installation of 150 watt HPS full cut off street light on New Brighton Road at the New Brighton government dock;

AND FURTHER THAT the annual cost of $200.00 be charged to the Regional Street Lighting function (#320).

This budget proposal relates to the 2013 surplus/deficit in each of the street light functions. In general functions in a deficit position resulted from increases in BC Hydro costs.

32

TaraC

Typewritten Text

K

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Special Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding 2014 R2 Budget Proposals Page 2 of 2

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\11 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 320-345 Regional Street Lighting.docx

2013 YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) [320] Regional

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

$68 surplus (7) deficit (7) deficit 19 surplus 30 surplus 426 surplus 14 surplus 9 surplus (33) deficit 10 surplus 15 surplus

Reason(s): The surplus in [330] Woodcreek is a result of a onetime account credit from BC Hydro. Deficits are recovered through taxation in 2014 and surpluses will decrease taxation.

2013 R1 BUDGET PROPOSAL (IN PRIORITY ORDER)

1. Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Increase to Hydro Costs

Rating (see Diagram +3 to -3): +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure If Mandatory specify category above: Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

Regional Lighting and Local Service Areas

2013 Funding Implications: [320] Regional [322] Langdale [324] Granthams [326] Veterans [328] Spruce [330] Woodcreek [332] Fircrest [334] Hydaway [336] Sunnyside [340] Burns Rd. [342] Stewart Rd.

$2,544 135 135 13 3 41 12 3 71 3 12

Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Increase to base budget. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project is consistent with the Financial Sustainability policy in relation to budgeting for the cost of external services and recognizing inflationary increases.

Staff Capacity: N/A Last Fee Schedule Review: N/A Rational / Service Impacts: Increase in service level per resolution

261/13 for [320] Regional Street Lighting plus a BC Hydro rate increase of 9% effective April 1, 2014.


1. Increase BC Hydro costs for regional lighting and local street light service areas.

33

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 13, 2014 TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Service Committee – February 18, 2014

FROM: Rob Williams, Manager, Transit and Fleet RE: Ports [345] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report regarding Ports [345] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.


• 2013 Surplus - Transferred to Reserves

• BP#1 - Routine maintenance Increase to Offset building maintenance allocations - Approved in R1

• BP#2 - West bay Bearing Pile Replacement - Approved in R1

• BP#3 – Keats Landing Bearing Pile Replacement – Approved in R1

New

• BP#4 – Glass Shelter Installations at Keats Landing and Vaucroft Docks 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (IN PRIORITY ORDER)


Glass Shelter Installations at Keats Landing and Vaucroft Docks


Areas B and F

2014 Funding Implications: $14,000 Funding Source(s): Capital Reserve Future Financial Implications: Ongoing maintenance required. Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?

No

Staff Capacity: Can be accommodated within existing staff work plans.


Public user fees were discussed during the 2012 budget process but were not pursued.

Rational / Service Impacts: Staff have noted that the existing shelter located at Keats Landing is a liability and safety concern due to its dilapidated state. Residents have requested a new glass shelter be installed similar to the one at the Eastbourne Dock. The Vaucroft dock shelter is also scheduled for removal and the glass shelter would replace that structure.

34

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

L

TaraC

Typewritten Text


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

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 348,000 $ 314,000 $ 237,000 $ 154,000 $ 69,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

-$ 20,000 -$ 77,000 -$ 83,000 -$ 85,000 -$ 85,000 -$ 14,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 314,000 $ 237,000 $ 154,000 $ 69,000 -$ 16,000



STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 4. Glass Shelter Installations at Keats Landing and Vaucroft Docks

35

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\13 - 2014Feb13 R2 Landfill shortfall & Green Waste.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Jeremy Valeriote, Manager of Waste Reduction and Recovery Tina Perreault, Treasurer

RE: OPTIONS FOR FUNDING LANDFILL DEFICIT - UPDATED

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager of Waste Reduction and Recovery Report regarding Options for Funding Landfill Deficit - Updated be received;

BACKGROUND

The following resolutions were adopted by the Board on the dates indicated:

March 14, 2013 - Res. 110/13 No. 26

THAT the Manager, Sustainable Services’ report titled “Regional Solid Waste [350-353] – 2013 R3 Budget Proposal” be received;

AND THAT the following budget proposal be approved and included in the 2013 Budget:

• Budget Proposal 9 – Funding 2013 Landfill Cost Increases as follows:

Landfill Cost Increases $171,500 Town of Gibsons Green Waste $51,400 TOTAL Landfill Cost Increases $222,900

• Funded per the following Model:

a) by Service Reductions (Sechelt Landfill closed Mondays Year Round and Pender Harbour Landfill closed Tuesdays Year Round):

2013 start September 1 $30,000 2014 $95,000

b) by Tipping Fee Increase ($25/tonne):

2013 start September 1 $85,000 2014 $190,000

36

TaraC

Typewritten Text

M

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Round 2 Budget Options for Funding Landfill Deficit Page 2 of 12


c) by 2013 Operating Reserve $55,000

d) by 2013 Required Revenue $55,000;

AND THAT Town of Gibsons Green Waste component be included in the 2013 Landfill budget;

AND THAT staff report to the May Infrastructure Services Committee Meeting regarding a feasibility study for looking at separating Green Waste into its own function and the possibility of leaving the Islands out of the function;

AND FURTHER THAT staff develop a communication plan to advise the public of the Service Reductions and Tipping Fee Increases.

May 09, 2013 - Res. 210/13 No. 4

THAT the Manager of Sustainable Services, Manager of Legislative Services and Treasurer’s report entitled “Feasibility for New Green Waste Function” be received;

AND THAT staff report back on options for separating the green waste program out as a separate accounting under Regional Solid Waste (funded from taxation) and advising if islands residents can be excluded and showing what benefits the islands would receive if they cannot be excluded.

June 13, 2013

Res. 261/13 No. 4

THAT the Acting Manager of Sustainable Services’ report entitled “Including Green Waste Program within Regional Solid Waste Function” be received;

AND THAT this report be referred to the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons and Sechelt Indian Government District requesting their feedback.

Res. 261/13 No. 5

THAT a report be brought back to a future committee meeting providing information pertaining to equity costs to residents in Area F (and islands) that would pay for this service but may not receive any benefits of the service, and if the islands were removed from the function what would be the effect on other funding areas.

Res. 261/13 No. 6

THAT the Manager of Legislative Services provide a report to the June Community Services Committee meeting on logistics around an AAP to create a new Green Waste Service, including timelines and whether the process can be completed in time to be incorporated in the 2014 budget.

Res. 262/13 No. 21

THAT the report from the Manager of Legislative Services regarding Establishing a Green Waste Service be received;

37

TaraC

Typewritten Text



AND THAT this report be forwarded to the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt, and Sechelt Indian Government District with a request for comments to come back in time for the July 4, 2013 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting.

July 11, 2013 – Res. 307/13:

The Infrastructure Services Committee recommended that the Acting Manager of Sustainable Services’ report entitled “Options for Shifting Green Waste Program Costs to Taxation Funding” be received;

AND THAT the Acting Manager of Sustainable Services’ report entitled “Options for Shifting Green Waste Program Costs to Taxation Funding” be referred to the July 11th Community Services Committee meeting with all previous reports on the subject attached;

AND THAT the cost of service to the Area F Islands for Islands Cleanup, garbage collection services at mainland docks, and how much the islands are already contributing in function 350, be included in the report;

AND THAT the report lists what options are available if an Alternative Approval Process (AAP) to create a new taxing function for green waste fails.

AND FURTHER THAT the staff report requested at the July 11 Community Services Committee meeting on the Green Waste Service Area also identify potential benefits of disposing of invasive species through a Green Waste program and include options identifying how a Green Waste program might assist with the disposal of invasive plants, particularly in the more remote areas.

July 25, 2013 – Res. 356/13:

THAT the report from the Manager of Waste Reduction and Recovery regarding Options for Shifting Green Waste Program Costs to Taxation Funding be received;

AND THAT Option No. 2 “to create a new green waste function funded by all participants excluding Area F Islands” be pursued for the 2014 budget be deferred.

AND THAT staff prepare a report defining the potential new green waste service area; include information on how this could be done differently for onsite green waste chipping; look at funding from landfill fees to assist with costs; and, alternate ways of servicing the islands for green waste.

November 28, 2013 – Res. 536/13:

THAT staff report to a future ISC meeting on options of funding landfill cost increases; establishing $110,000 required revenue and not increasing tipping fees or taxation.

LANDFILL FUNDING MODEL

Until 2007, costs for the Regional Recycling budget were largely funded from tipping fee surpluses generated at landfill sites. In 2008, landfill revenues dropped and were insufficient to meet budgeted contributions to the Regional Recycling program, resulting in a $116,000

38



deficit for that year. Recognizing the risks associated with relying on uncertain landfill revenues to fund recycling, by 2009 only a small portion of the Regional Recycling costs were funded from landfill tipping fees. The SCRD Board has since supported the policy of avoiding the use of tipping fee revenues to fund recycling services as it is considered financially unsustainable and leaves the function vulnerable to unforeseen deficits.

Many jurisdictions in BC subsidize landfill operating through taxation, for example:

• Regional District of North Okanagan began requisitioning $400,000 per year from property taxes in 2012 for capital projects to address a future unfunded liability of $26M and a 2011-2015 revenue shortfall of $3.6M;

• Alberni-Clayoquot funds 3% of the costs of one landfill from taxation, and 16% of the costs of another landfill;

• Cowichan Valley Regional District funds 45% of the cost of its waste export to a Washington state facility from taxation;

• Regional District of Nanaimo funds zero waste program support from $350,000 in taxation (4% of solid waste budget);

• Mount Waddington Regional District generates 50% of its solid waste operating revenue from tax requisition; and,

• Capital Regional District, notable in that it currently is one of the few Regional Districts that operates a landfill from tipping fees alone, plans to introduce taxation funding in 2016.

In 2011, consultants completed Part 1 of a financial analysis to estimate the impacts of proposed zero waste initiatives on landfill funding, in terms of:

• increase in landfill site life • cost savings resulting from delay in closing existing landfill and constructing a new

landfill • required annual closure reserve contribution.

In presenting Part 1 of the analysis, staff noted that Part 2 of the analysis “will consider the economic impacts of implementing increased waste diversion on all revenues and expenditures related to the landfill (full cost accounting), on future tipping fees and on annual operating budgets. It is expected that the full cost analysis…will show that as landfill tonnages and associated revenue streams decline, the overall net cost of continuing to operate the landfill will increase substantially and require further tipping fee increases in order to offset costs.”

Staff recommend that the financial analysis be updated with current information.

39



CURRENT LANDFILL DEFICIT POSITION

For the 2013 budget, the Board approved landfill cost increases of $222,900 associated with the following:

Wage reallocation from recycling function $45,000 Environmental monitoring $10,000 Treated wood, roofing and asbestos sampling and disposal costs

$17,000

Increased contribution to closure reserves (from Part 1 Financial Analysis)

$55,000

Green waste processing $44,500 Town of Gibsons green waste facility contribution

$51,400

TOTAL $222,900 The funding model for the cost increases was: Service reductions $30,000 Tipping fee increases $85,000 Operating reserve drawdown $55,000 Required revenue $55,000 TOTAL $225,000

Despite these efforts, the Landfills have incurred a deficit in 2013 and have projected funding shortfalls for 2014. They are as follows: 2013 2014 Total Landfill Deficit (Functions 351 & 352)

($135,000) ($135,000)

Required Revenue – Approved Budget Proposals

($115,000) ($115,000)

Overstated Projected Revenues

($200,000) ($200,000)

TOTAL ($135,000) ($315,000) ($450,000) Anticipated operating cost savings from service reductions implemented in September 2013 were not fully realized, but 2013 expenditures were still 3% under budget.

However, tipping fee revenues were $175,000 (10%) below budgeted levels due to reduced tonnages arriving at the landfill, as shown in Figure 1. Decreased revenues have created a deficit of $135,000. Figure 1 below compares revenues by month at Sechelt landfill from 2011 to 2013.

40



Figure 1. 2011-2013 total inbound tonnage at Sechelt landfill (corrected for green waste)

These lower tonnages are likely due to a combination of economic factors and the success of diversion efforts; some may be associated with reduced landfill operating days and/or increased tipping fees. Analysis of the root cause is ongoing and will be included in an updated financial analysis; in the meantime, budgeted 2014 tipping fee revenues should be reduced to near 2013 levels. Figure 1. Revenues by month at Sechelt landfill, 2011-2013.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2011

2012

2013

Total inbound LF Tonnage, corrected for Green Waste 2011: 13560 t 2012: 12810 t 2013: 11860 t

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

$160,000

$170,000

$180,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2011

2012

2013

Total SLF revenue 2011: $1,523,000 2012: $1,569,000 2013: $1,555,000 Budgeted in 2013: $1,729,000

41



ONGOING COST PRESSURES

It is expected that cost pressures will continue to intensify due to the following factors:

• Decreasing tipping fee revenues associated with successful diversion; • Cost increases to meet regulatory requirements (several Operational Certificate

requirements were delayed to 2015); • Cost increases for specific waste materials such as asbestos and contaminated wood

that tipping fees may not fully fund; • Increased closure reserve requirements (Part 1 financial analysis called for closure

reserve contributions to increase to $250,000 in 2015 – SCRD Financial Plan currently shows annual contributions of $150,000 for 2014-2016);

Based on current disposal tonnage trends, tipping fees, and anticipated expenditures the revenue shortfall for 2014 will be over $300,000.

LANDFILL FUNDING MITIGATION OPTIONS

Services currently funded from landfill tipping fees include the following:

• Landfill staff wages and benefits; • Landfill operating and maintenance contracts; • Waste material transport and processing costs (including free green waste dropoff

program) • Landfill regulatory requirements (operations, planning and monitoring); • Operating expenses including utilities, repairs, equipment and supplies.

Waste material tipping fees streams are designed to be user pay. The only material to which this principle does not apply is green waste. The green waste dropoff program cost $185,000 in 2013, for which no tipping fees were charged. As such, this program is an obvious target for removal from tipping fee funding, with other options presented below:

Option 1. Shift green waste program costs to taxation (Function 350 or new function). Option 2. Fund landfill shortfalls from general Function 350 taxation. Option 3. Reduce closure reserve contributions for 2013 and 2014.

Other options such as reducing landfill operating hours or a further increase in tipping fees, as well as a re-examination of Pender Harbour solid waste services, were considered and set aside.

Modifications to the Green Waste dropoff program to reduce costs and/or establish revenues were also considered. They would not be able to address the 2013-2014 shortfall, but are brought forward here for future consideration.

42



With the pending development of enhanced resource recovery, it is expected that green waste program costs will be reduced by moving the Gibsons green waste facility to a staffed site in the near future. A supervised dropoff facility will reduce tonnages by restricting use to residential self-haul users only (as the program is intended), and may reduce facility operation and material shipping costs, which were over $100,000 in 2013.

Other options to reduce program costs are:

1. decrease limits on green waste quantity accepted (currently 5 metric tonnes per dropoff ($150 in value) and an unlimited number of dropoffs to make them more consistent with typical residential self-haul;

2. reduce free dropoff to limited seasonal periods to discourage burning; 3. introduce a coupon system with an annual tonnage or dropoff limit; or 4. include green waste in the existing Coast Cleanup coupon program, for which there is a

total 450-kg limit.

Charging a tipping fee for green waste would generate revenue to offset the costs of the program. A user-pay tipping fee would be in the order of $50/tonne, or $10-20 for the average full pickup truck. Installation of a scale would likely be required at the Gibsons facility. Curbside collection may also be considered as part of an organic waste collection service. Further analysis would be required to pursue these options.

OPTION 1 – SHIFT GREEN WASTE TO TAXATION

The Board has expressed support in principle for funding the green waste program from taxation instead of tipping fees, as the green waste program is more closely aligned with household recyclables for which no tipping fee is charged, and which is funded by taxation under the Regional Recycling function.

The taxation shift has two sub-options 1a and 1b. Under these two options, green waste program costs would be assigned as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Taxation Funding Options for Green Waste Program

Area or Municipality

Option 1a – Existing Function

350

Option 1b – New Function Year 1 Future years

SCRD Electoral Areas

A $ 29,267 $ 32,869 $ 32,044 B $ 21,534 $ 22,210 $ 21,653 D $ 17,205 $ 19,355 $ 18,870 E $ 12,432 $ 13,974 $ 13,623 F – Mainland $ 23,189 $ 26,022 $ 25,369 F - Islands $ 9,297 - - Subtotal - SCRD Electoral Areas $ 112,924 $ 114,430 $ 111,559

43



Municipalities

SIGD $ 4,440 $ 5,054 $ 4,927 District of Sechelt $ 46,842 $ 52,635 $ 51,315 Town of Gibsons $ 20,794 $ 23,376 $ 22,790 Subtotal - Municipalities $ 72,076 $ 81,065 $ 79,032 TOTAL $ 185,000 $ 195,495 $ 190,592

Option 1a is the most administratively simple and cost-effective, and avoids the introduction of a new taxation function. As a statutory function, there is no mechanism for excluding Area F Islands from Regional Solid Waste Function 350, so Area F Islands would be paying into a function that includes a service they do not typically use, but that may benefit them in terms of improved regional air quality due to less open burning of green waste.

Option 1b requires an Alternate Approval Process (AAP) to establish a new function. The estimated $10,000 cost of this AAP is included in the above table under Year 1. If successful, a new function provides greater equity for the green waste program in isolation. Pursuing Option 1b through an AAP increases demands on staff time at the expense of other projects, and may not succeed given general public opposition to new taxation. The service area for this new function would simply be locations that are accessible by road to the green waste dropoff facilities. This option was deferred at the July 25, 2013 Board meeting.

For the Regional Solid Waste function as a whole, Area F Islands residents currently receive equitable service levels through the Islands Cleanup program and dock collection and disposal services, as detailed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Function 350 - Area F Islands Taxation and Expenditures

2013 Area F Islands Taxation Portion $ 44,357 Proposed Increase for Green Waste Program Funding $ 9,297 Total Area F Islands Taxation for Function 350 (with proposed increase) $ 53,654 2013 Regional Solid Waste Services to Area F Islands Islands Cleanup – Area F portion1 $ 44,500 Garbage Containers and Disposal (Gibsons and Langdale Docks) $ 10,767 2013 Total Value Services to Area F Islands $ 54,267

1 Area F Islands Cleanup costs differentiated from overall Islands Cleanup program based on barge hours and material tonnage; includes contractor charges, tipping fees, estimated staff coordination time and advertising costs.

44



OPTION 2 – FUND LANDFILL SHORTFALLS FROM TAXATION

This option would involve an annual transfer from the Regional Solid Waste general taxation function adjustment to cover landfill funding shortfalls, as an ad valorum or parcel tax. It would not be tied strictly to the green waste program, to address future scenarios where funding shortfalls cannot be mitigated only through a green waste cost shift.

OPTION 3 - REDUCE 2013-2014 CLOSURE RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS

The existing financial analysis defines closure reserve contributions required to fund landfill closure, a regulatory requirement that carries financial liability.

On this basis, 2013 and 2014 closure reserve contributions are budgeted at $150,000 annually and should be increased to $250,000 in 2015. A reduction of $100,000 in the 2013 and 2014 contributions would reduce the current landfill funding deficit. This is a short-term solution that may create a shortfall in Pender Harbour landfill closure funding in 2015. Temporary reductions in closure reserve contributions will need to be incorporated into a financial analysis update and compensated for in future years.

ADDITIONAL MITIGATION OPTION – ZERO WASTE INITIATIVES OPERATING RESERVE (ECO FEE)

The July 1, 2011 landfill tipping fee increase of $10 per tonne designated $5/tonne as an eco fee “towards implementation of zero waste initiatives under the Solid Waste Management Plan”.

As a result, approximately $55,000 per year is contributed to the Zero Waste Initiatives Reserve via tipping fees. Of this, 50% of the Zero Waste Coordinator position is committed annually; resource recovery implementation work has also been committed for 2014. Other projects that will be proposed in Round 3 Budget are briefly summarized in Table 3 below; drawdown of this operating reserve to mitigate landfill deficit is a short-term option that does not strictly comply with the intention of the reserve to fund zero waste implementation, but is considered here in the context of other implementation `projects

45



Table 3. Zero Waste Initiative Operating Reserve

2014 Opening Balance $198,500 Existing Funding Commitments: 50% of Zero Waste Coordinator Salary & Benefits

$36,900

Pender Harbour Resource Recovery - Preliminary Design

$9,000

Regional Resource Recovery Centres – Detailed Design

$35,000

Subtotal – 2014 Funding Commitments $80,900 Net Balance (Uncommitted)

$117,600

Proposed 2014 Projects (Round 3 Budget):

Waste Composition Audit $35,000 Illegal Dumping Cleanup and Education $20,000 C&D Waste Pilot Program / Zero Waste Initiatives Outreach

$10,000

Proposed Net Balance

$52,600

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend a combination of Option 1 (shift green waste to taxation), Option 3 (reduce closure reserve contributions) and the additional option (zero waste initiatives operating reserve drawdown) to mitigate 2013-2014 landfill deficits. Two different combinations of these options are presented in Tables 4 and 5 below.

Table 4. Landfill Deficit Mitigation – Combination A (with 2014 Zero Waste Initiative Implementation Projects)

2013 2014 Total Deficit

($135,000)

($315,000)

($450,000)

Recommended Mitigation Options

Option 1 - Shift Green Waste Costs to Taxation $200,000 $200,000

Option 3 - Reduce Closure Reserve Contribution

$100,000 $100,000 $200,000

Additional Mitigation – Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve

$35,000 $15,000 $50,000

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

46



Table 5. Landfill Deficit Mitigation – Combination B (without 2014 Zero Waste Initiative Implementation Projects) 2013 2014 Total Deficit

($135,000)

($315,000)

($450,000)

Recommended Mitigation Options

Option 1 - Shift Green Waste Costs to Taxation $150,000 $150,000

Option 3 - Reduce Closure Reserve Contribution

$100,000 $100,000 $200,000

Additional Mitigation – Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve

$35,000 $65,000 $100,000

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

47

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\14 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 350-353 Solid Waste FINAL.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Jeremy Valeriote, Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery

RE: REGIONAL SOLID WASTE [350-353] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSALS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Waste Reduction and Recovery’s report regarding Regional Solid Waste [350-353] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• BP #1 – Sechelt Landfill Guardrails – Approved in R1;

• BP #2 - Landfill Monitoring Lab Analysis – Approved in R1 (2014 only);

• BP #3 – Wood Waste Processing - Approved in R1 (2014 only);

• BP #4 - Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Detailed Design – Deferred to R2;

• BP #5 – Pender Harbour Transfer Station Installation – Deferred to R2;

• BP #6 - Recycling Depot Collection Services – Deferred to R2 pending confirmation of “status quo tax implications”;

• BP #7 - Curbside Recycling Collection Services – Deferred to R3 with funding breakdown for Electoral Areas B and D (Report to February ISC);

• BP #9 - Bear Aware / Wildsafe BC Program Funding - Approved in R1 (2014 only).

48

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regarding Budget Proposals Page 2 of 4


2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSALS (IN PRIORITY ORDER) 4 Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Detailed Design

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

Area A

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

Yes – Initiative #22, Pender Harbour Landfill Upgrades (closure of the landfill and conversion to a transfer station)

Staff Capacity: Moderate impacts on staff time for consultant liaison


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: A preliminary closure plan including engineering cost estimates will be delivered by the SCRD’s landfill engineering consultant in February 2014. The detailed design phase will proceed in 2014, with closure construction in 2015 (MOE only stipulates ceasing discharge to the landfill by the end of 2014). Previous financial plans budgeted $670,000 for closure and $330,000 for transfer station capital; interim cost estimate for closure is $735,000 including contingency, to be finalized at detailed design.


Project / Reduction Pender Harbour Transfer Station Installation


Area A

2014 Funding Implications: $350,000 (estimated capital) $10,000 (AAP)

Funding Source(s): Debt funded from tipping fees Future Financial Implications: $200,000 annual operating costs (expenditures

over expected revenue, not including debt servicing)


Solid Waste Management Plan Initiative #22: Pender Harbour landfill upgrades (conversion of the landfill to a transfer station, while continuing to offer resource recovery services) Strategic Plan 5.2 : To enhance and improve recycling in all areas

49



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

Last Fee Schedule Review: Tip fee for residual waste increased Sep 16, 2013 from $125 to $150 per tonne.

Rational / Service Impacts: Preliminary engineering cost estimates for transfer station were delivered early February; design options to be considered at March ISC.


Project / Reduction Recycling Depot Collection Services


Regional

2014 Funding Implications: Status quo base budget funding for operating contracts – report on service levels will be brought to March ISC

Funding Source(s): Taxation/Stewardship Program Revenue Future Financial Implications: To be determined depending on selected

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

Solid Waste Management Plan Initiative #16 : Enhanced Drop-off/Resource Recovery Facilities in Pender Harbour, Gibsons and Sechelt Strategic Plan 5.2 : To enhance and improve recycling in all areas

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


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: Existing taxation revenue and expected revenue from stewardship programs (primarily MMBC) will cover the base costs of recycling collection depots. Enhanced resource recovery services will be added on a cost-benefit basis in consultation with contractors and the Board (update report coming to March ISC).

Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (Landfill Closure Reserves)


$ 701,000 $ 701,000 $ 151,000 $ 401,000 $ 651,000 $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

-$ 50,000 -$ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 701,000 $ 151,000 $ 401,000 $ 651,000 $ 901,000

BuildingDrawdownClosing Balance in Reserve


The closure reserve plan above assumes reserve contributions are capped at $250,000 per year (contingent on achieving waste diversion targets and extending life of Sechelt Landfill to

50



2031). Actual costs of closure work may vary. Additional closure work anticipated in the year 2022 and beyond. Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (Regional Solid Waste [Taxation Function] Operating Reserve)


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

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

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


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2013 Surplus

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


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

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

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


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions 2013 Surplus

The operating reserve plan above assumes no surplus contributions are available based on existing cost pressures. Five-Year Zero Waste Initiatives [Eco-fee Function] Operating Reserve


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

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



The Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve is funded from the $5 per tonne eco-fee charged on municipal solid waste received at landfills. The plan above reflects the approved use of $36,000 towards the Zero Waste Coordinator’s wages in 2014 and approximately $36,500 in future years per the approved funding formula for this position, in addition to $35,000 approved for Resource Recovery Centre detailed design carried forward from 2013. The decline in annual contributions to the reserve reflects the anticipated drop in municipal solid waste tonnages received at landfills as new diversion programs are implemented. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): BP #4 – Pender Harbour Landfill Closure Detailed Design BP #5 – Pender Harbour Transfer Station Installation

51

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT



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

RE: SQUARE BAY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT [387] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager of Utility Service’s report regarding Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant [387] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND

The Truman Rd Lift Station Project is a multi-year capital project involving the installation and commissioning of a new sewer lift station for the Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant. 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (IN PRIORITY ORDER)


Truman Rd. Lift Station (Square Bay WWTP) – Project Funding Increase


Area B

2014 Funding Implications: $15,000 Funding Source(s): Capital Reserves Future Financial Implications: None Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

This project is not specifically identified in the Strategic Plan but the replacement of infrastructure and funding sources for capital projects are outlined in section 4.10 and 4.11 of the Financial Sustainability Policy.

Staff Capacity: Utility services staff involvement with project management and installation/construction.


Last annual rate review was done in 2013. There have been no increases to user rates or frontage charges in over 10 years. The current annual user rate and frontage charge is $330.00 and $100.00 respectively.

Rational / Service Impacts: The installation of the sewer lift station for the Square Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant encountered higher than anticipated capital expenses in 2013.

52

TaraC

Typewritten Text

O


Large concentrations of bedrock and a site relocation have resulted in increased blasting, paving and project management expenses related to the completion of this project. To date this project has cost approximately $125,000 and it is anticipated that there will be an estimated funding requirement of approximately $15,000 to balance the capital budget in 2014 for this function. Current unallocated capital reserves for the Square Bay Waste Water Treatment total $52,095 and it is therefore being recommended that the increased project budget be offset by a transfer of capital reserves. [The operating reserve balance for this function is $71,180].

Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 52,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096 -$ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096 $ 37,096

Truman Rd Lift Station Funding RequirementClosing Balance in Reserve

ItemOpening Balance in Capital Reserve

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 1. Truman Rd Lift Station (Square Bay WWTP) – Project Funding Increase

53

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Special Corporate and Administrative Service Committee – February 18, 2014 FROM: Steven Olmstead, General Manager, Planning and Development

RE: ANIMAL CONTROL [290] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the General Manager, Planning and Development’s report regarding Animal Control [290] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.


AND THAT the 2013 Surplus be distributed as follows: • $2,000 to Capital Reserve-Vehicle Replacement • $8,000 to Operating Reserves • $8,000 used to offset taxation;

AND THAT the budget be reviewed for other modifications or further reductions;

AND FURTHER THAT the budget for Animal Control [290] be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget as amended.


Project / Reduction Base budget reduction

Rating: -1 Reductions to Achieve Economies Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

B, D, E and F (excluding islands) and SIGD

2014 Funding Implications: $5,982 Funding Source(s): remove legal ($5,202) and building rental ($780)

line items Future Financial Implications: Maintain an adequate operating reserve to cover

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

Consistent with Financial Sustainability Policy with respect to efficiencies.


n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: If SCRD needs to pursue legal action with respect to dangerous dogs funds from operating reserves could be used.

54

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

P


Five-Year Vehicle Aquisition Reserve Plan2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 18,109 $ 20,109 $ 22,109 $ 24,109 $ 26,109 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,109 $ 22,109 $ 24,109 $ 26,109 $ 28,109

Vehcile ReplacementClosing Balance in Reserve


Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 29,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

-$ 8,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658 $ 21,658

Rate StabilizationClosing Balance in Reserve



1. BP1 - Base Budget Reduction of $5,982

55

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\17 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 500 Regional Planning.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Steven Olmstead, General Manager, Planning and Development

RE: REGIONAL PLANNING [500] – 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Planning and Development’s report regarding Regional Planning [500] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


…THAT the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget for further explanation of the expenditure of 2013 budget for Invasive Species:

• Budget Proposal 1 – Establishment of Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Council, $1,000 funded through Taxation;

AND FURTHER THAT the budget for Regional Planning [500] be referred to 2014 Round 2 budget meetings as presented.

The 2013 expenditure for invasive species supported a “tail gate” information session for operational staff (1/2 day session). Thirty staff from the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Band and SCRD’s Infrastructure Services and Parks Departments attended. Ernie Sellentin, the project coordinator from the Coastal Invasive Species Council (Victoria), presented as well the Ministry of Transportation’s invasive plant control contractor Tyler Lambert (Powell River).

DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) $8,000 Reason(s): Primary source of surplus is in salaries and benefits. Due to staff turnover. Options (select as appropriate):

X Transfer to Reserves Transfer to Rate Stabilization

X Use for One-time Expenditure (Budget Proposal No. __1______) Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases)


56

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Q

TaraC

Typewritten Text


N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\CAS - Budget - Current\17 - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal 500 Regional Planning.docx

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

Project / Reduction Establishing of Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Council


All SCRD, including Islands

2014 Funding Implications: $1,000 Funding Source(s): 2013 Surplus Future Financial Implications: Potential grant in aid requests to support the

activities of the SC Invasive Species Council Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Invasive Species Council not directly identified. Strategic Plan – Item 6.4(3) references completing a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Transportation on short term priority initiatives such as invasive plants

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

n/a

Rational / Service Impacts: One time expenditure to cover expenses such as advertising and meeting expenses.

Operating Reserve Plan


$ - $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -

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

$ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000


ItemOpening Balance in reserve Contributions Surplus-2013

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): BP#1 - Establishing of Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Council ($1,000)

57

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning & Development

RE: Building Inspection [520], 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager’s report regarding Building Inspection [520] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• THAT the budget for Building Inspection [520] be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget as presented.

DISCUSSION

2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($34,969) Reason(s): Total Building Division revenue in 2013 was down 9.5 percent ($50,000) over the 2012 and fell 8 percent short of the budget value set for 2013. Building permit revenue was 95 percent ($25,000 short) of projected in the 2013 budget but permit renewal revenue was only 9 percent of the revenue projected ($1,400 actual revenue, $16,000 budgeted). Together, these items account for $40,000 in budget shortfall. Permit renewal revenue will be adjusted downward in the 2014 budget to better reflect recent years’ average revenues. Steps were taken to mitigate the implications of the revenue shortfall. These included closer scrutiny and reduced spending on training and development, travel, purchase of materials & supplies and office expenses. Savings in these items totalled about $5,000. Options (select as appropriate):

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


58

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

R

TaraC

Typewritten Text


Five-Year Vehicle Aquisition Reserve Plan2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 24,559 $ 30,559 $ 36,559 $ 42,559 $ 18,559 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000

$ - $ - $ - -$ 30,000 $ - $ 30,559 $ 36,559 $ 42,559 $ 18,559 $ 24,559

Vehicle ReplacementClosing Balance in Reserve


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSAL IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): n/a

59

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Description Basis of Allocation Area A [531] Area B [532] Area D [533] Area E [534] Area F [535] TotalsDiscretionary Uncommitted Funds 6,130 11,280 1,455 8,292 27,091 54,248 Committed Funding

Sunshine Coast Tourism Assessment 5,125 4,314 3,045 2,280 5,236 20,000 G&DCC - Travel Ambassador 300 300 300 300 300 1,500 G&DCC - Visitor Information Centre Assessment 1,972 4,528 6,500 G&DCC - Economic Development Initiatives 3,700 3,700 Pender Harbour & Egmont Chamber of Commerce 14,585 14,585 Deer Crossing - Fuse Community Work Hub 1,000 1,000 Deer Crossing - Ignite 2014 Project 500 500 Community Resource Centre - The Progress Plan Pilot Project 4,880 4,880 9,760

Totals 31,020 20,774 10,000 12,844 37,155 111,793

G&DCC - Gibsons & District Chamber of Commerce

2014 Round 2 Budget

60

TaraC

Typewritten Text

S

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Economic Development $15,000 (Investor Website Hosting $5,000, Economic Development Inquiries $3,000, Economic Gardening $4,000, Car Free Tourism and Other Tourism Initiatives $3,000)

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Paul Fenwick, General Manager, Community Services

RE: GIBSONS AND DISTRICT FIRE PROTECTION [210] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Community Services` report titled “Gibsons and District Fire Protection [210] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal” be received.

BACKGROUND


• 2013 Surplus – Applied to Approved Budget Proposals with remaining Transferred to Reserves;

• BP #1 – Turn-Out Gear – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #2 – Volunteer Training Enhancements, $5,000 funded through Taxation – pending discussion at Gibsons and District Fire Protection Commission Meeting on February 17, 2014 – VERBAL UPDATE to be provided at 2014 Round 2 Budget;

• BP #3 – Mould Remediation at North Road Fire Hall – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #4 – Increase Reserve Contribution – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #5 – Outdoor Training Facility – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #6 – Lighting Retrofit at C. Mahlman Fire Hall, $6,000 funded from 2013 Surplus with potential for rebate ($1,500) – pending discussion at Gibsons and District Fire Protection Commission Meeting on February 17, 2014 and taking into account the Sustainability Energy Management Plan Report – VERBAL UPDATE to be provided at 2014 Round 2 Budget.

In Community Parks [650] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal Report, BP #14 Lighting Retrofit at Frank West Hall was deferred to 2015, BP #6 above (Lighting Retrofit at C. Mahlman Fire Hall) was referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget. Based on the shared wall space and economies of scale, perhaps the Committee would consider the portion of BP #14 pertaining to Frank West Hall in conjunction with BP #6 [210] or to defer both projects to coordinate the entire building.

61

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

T

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Project / Reduction Enhanced volunteer training.


Areas E and F and Town of Gibsons

2014 Funding Implications: $5,000 Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Add to Base Budget and continue to grow to

$20,000 ($3,000 2015). Note: Letter from TOG regarding $12,000 enhancement. The budget recommendation phases in additional training.


Fire Commission received a related report outlining needs for more training due to volunteer turnover and to meet standards.

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

Not applicable

Rational / Service Impacts: See above.


C. Mahlman Fire Hall – Lighting Retrofit


Areas E and F and Town of Gibsons

2014 Funding Implications: $6,000 with potential $1,500 rebate Funding Source(s): 2013 Surplus / Grants Future Financial Implications: Utility rates are expected to increase. By

reducing the energy consumed at this facility, the SCRD will not only save money on the energy reductions achieved, but will also avoid potential costs associated with increasing utility rates. With utility rates increasing 28% over the next five years, the project would offer a simple payback of 5.2 years.


Yes. Strategic Plan: This project addresses Section 2.3 to develop Sustainable Energy Management Plan. Corporate Energy and Emissions Plan (CorpEEP): The identification of energy conservation

62


measures (ECMs) are in alignment with Section 3.3 of the CorpEEP. Powersmart Partnership with BC Hydro: On March of 2012, the SCRD working in partnership with BC Hydro.

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

Rational / Service Impacts: The lighting technology that currently exists is energy inefficient, offers a short life cycle, and is nearly obsolete. The current system incurs maintenance costs that could be avoided if replaced with new technology. The longevity of new technology would reduce the amount of maintenance required. The efficacy of the new technology would both reduce energy consumption and increase light output.

63

TaraC

Typewritten Text

N:\Finance\1880 Reports, Statistics - Financial\1880-01 Reports - General\2014-FEB-18 CAS STAFF REPORT - Recreation Requisition Limit.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 2014

TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee – February 18, 2014

FROM: Tina Perreault, Treasurer

RE: COMMUNITY RECREATION REQUISITION LIMIT

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Treasurer’s report titled “Community Recreation Requisition Limit” be received;

AND THAT the Community Recreation requisition limit by law be increased 25% to $1.15 per $1000/assessment.

BACKGROUND

Bylaw 1058 is for “the purpose of providing for the construction, capital improvements, operation and maintenance of a new Aquatic Centre in the District of Sechelt, a new Ice-Based Community Centre in the Town of Gibsons, the Sechelt Arena and the Gibsons Aquatic Centre.” This bylaw was established in 2005 with the following limits (excerpt below) for operational recovery of costs. Debt is recovered through Parcel Tax, and is included in the tax rate.

Maximum Cost In accordance with Section 800.1(1)(e) of the Local Government Act, the maximum annual amount that may be requisitioned for the cost of the Service is the greater, at the time of requisition, of: (a) Three Million Five Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand ($3,595,000) Dollars; or (b) A property value tax rate of $0.92/$1000 applied to the net taxable value of land and

improvements in the Service Area.

DISCUSSION

At the start of 2014 base budget, the bylaw limit had over $631,571 available. Once revised assessments figures were received, the limit shrunk to $521,759. In the Round One budget, over $325,000 worth of projects were approved and the 2013 deficit grew to $147,000. Therefore, the limit by law has become critical, with only $51,523 remaining, at the start of

64

TaraC

Typewritten Text

U

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Staff Report to Corporate & Administrative Services Committee COMMUNITY RECREATION REQUISITION LIMIT Page 2 of 3


Round 2 and Staff recommends that we increase the limit by 25% in time for the 2014 Requisition. A summary of the existing and projected increase are below.

[615] Recreation Facilities Bylaw 1058

2014 Base Budget

2014 w/ Revised Assessments 2014 at start R2

2014 Proposed 25% Increase

Taxation 3,529,268 3,529,268 4,005,089 4,005,089 Parcel Tax 1,579,756 1,579,756 1,574,191 1,574,171 Total Requisition 5,109,024 5,109,024 5,579,260 5,579,260

Rate By Law (L & I) per $1,000 0.920 0.920 0.920 1.150

Additional Taxation Available 631,571$ 521,759$ 51,523$ 1,459,219$

Community Recreation budgets over the next five years are projected to do the following, depending on what options are chosen to fund capital maintenance:

2014 @ R2 (includes 200K for legal)

2014 Projected Final

2015 2016 2017 2018

Operational Budget 1

$3,803,325 $3,853,325 $3,700,000 $3,774,000 $3,849,480 $3,926,470

Capital Maintenance 2 (2015-18 Proposed)

$201,764 $340,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000

Taxation $4,005,089 $4,193,325 $4,450,000 $4,524,000 $4,599,480 $4,676,470

Parcel Tax3 $1,574,191 $1,574,191 $1,574,191 $1,574,191 $1,574,191 $1,574,191

Total $5,579,260 $5,767,516 $6,024,191 $6,098,191 $6,173,671 $6,250,661

Taxation Limit 4 $5,627,783 $7,038,479 $7,038,479 $7,038,479 $7,038,479 $7,038,479

Requisition Limit Remaining

51,523 $1,270,963 $1,014,288 $940,288 $864,808 $787,818

Assumptions: 1. Operating budget will increase 2% over prior year 2015-2018 2. Capital will be funded as ‘pay as you go’ per Capital funding report 3.Parcel Tax remains constant 4.Assessment remains static, which is unlikely. Increase in assessments has a positive effect and decrease in

assessments have a negative effect.

65

Staff Report to Corporate & Administrative Services Committee COMMUNITY RECREATION REQUISITION LIMIT Page 3 of 3


The requisition limit remaining in the above table assumes that assessments will remain the same as the 2014 revised roll. If we experience an overall drop in assessment like 2014, this could reduce the limit to below a million very quickly. A 2% drop in assessments means a reduction of approximately $100,000 in the limit. The 25% increase is more than is required for the short term, but provides flexibility to increase capital maintenance funding or additional debt for facility enhancements.

66

TaraC

Typewritten Text

STAFF REPORT- Recreation Funding Options



FROM: Tina Perreault-Treasurer &

Paul Fenwick- GM of Community Services

RE: Recreation Funding Issues Update

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report entitled “Recreation Funding Issues Update” be received; AND THAT the SCRD Board determines how it wishes to fund major capital needs for Recreation Facilities and initiate steps as a high priority in 2014; AND THAT serious consideration be given to the Pay and You Go Option for Recreation Capital funding outlined in this report.

BACKGROUND

At the January 23, 2014 Board meeting, the following resolution was passed:

047/14 Recommendation No. 9 Recreation Funding Issues 2014

THAT the staff report regarding Recreation Funding Issues 2014 be received;

AND THAT the SCRD Board determines how it wishes to fund major capital needs for Recreation Facilities and initiate steps as a high priority in 2014;

AND THAT staff prepare a report prior to Round 2 of the Budget that lays out a plan to have an AAP or Referendum in 2014 and discusses in more detail a Capital Plan for the four recreation facilities including use of reserve funds to raise anticipated revenues needed in a 20-year period;

AND FURTHER THAT the report also address the potential cost for enhancements in the 20-year period.

Attachment 1 is the previous report dated January 9, 2014. This new report provides an update to give more details on capital needs and potential funding options.

REPORT

Details of Capital Expenditures

The previous report provided order of magnitude expected costs for the four recreational facilities for a twenty year period and provided some specific estimates for the shorter term costs. Attachment 2

Link

67

TaraC

Typewritten Text

V

TaraC

Typewritten Text

R e c r e a t i o n F u n d i n g U p d a t e R e p o r t P a g e | 2

N:\Finance\1700 Budget Information\1700-02 Planning\Recreation\Copy of Facility Operations 20 Year Capital Plan 2013-Sept-04 - Bruce Ken.xlsx

The table below and Attachment 2 presents both short term and long term (20 year) outlook for capital repairs and maintenance.

The five year (2014 – 2018) capital requirement is contained in the twenty year figures. Scenario 1 assumes the Gibsons pool being operated for a longer time and therefore requires a higher need for capital maintenance. Scenario 2 assumes the Gibsons Aquatic facility will be re-built in the near future and therefore repairs would be conditional upon the facility being replaced or enhanced.

The twenty-year total cost estimate is projected at $9,814,900. The Board may wish to add a contingency factor of 15 percent giving a total of $11.2 million. All these figures may change once a comprehensive facility audit is re-done or tenders are received. Attachment 2 does not include costs for major enhancements to Gibsons Pool or the Sunshine Coast (Sechelt) Arena.

SCRD Recreation 5 Year Capital Maintenance/Repair Costs- Scenario 1

5 Year Capital Maintenance/Repair

Costs-Scenario 2


Costs Gibsons & District Aquatic Centre 1,589,800 $311,000 $1,887,300

Gibsons & Area Community Centre 234,500 234,500 $3,301,500

Sunshine Coast Arena 1,722,500 1,722,500 $2,009,500

Sechelt Aquatic Centre

293,500 293,500 $2,866,600

Total Costs 3,840,300 $2,561,500 $10,084,900

Funding Options

There are a few options to fund the capital repairs for the short and longer term. As a prior report outlines, the requisition limit must be increased before any further projects can be approved to be funded from taxation (see previous report on Community Recreation Bylaw Limit). The funding options are as follows:

1. Pay/Fund as you go- This means we would fund projects each year through a combination of taxation and possible user fees. A capital plan would have to be developed to deal with the most critical assets and deferred maintenance items.

2. Debt Funding- Short term borrowing is not recommended as discussed below. It must be stressed that the older recreation facilities are at a critical level for deferred maintenance therefore it is necessary to “catch up” to fund projects due to significant reserves not being established in earlier years. Borrowing for short term and only addresses immediate needs and not future funding requirements. Staff recommend that debt not be used for capital maintenance, but is appropriate for capital enhancements.

68


5 Year Capital Maintenance/Repair Costs- Scenario 1


Costs-Scenario 2


Costs

Pay as you go-(average cost per year)

$768,060 $512,300 $490,745

Debt 10 year 10 year 20 year

Cost per year (principle & interest)

$459,385 $306,256 $727,112

3. AAP/Referendum for 5- 10 year Funding

The previous report (Attachment 1) contained information about this option. The option creates uncertainty regarding the significant current needs and could be preserved for future consideration once the public engagement for Gibsons Pool has occurred. Enhancements would require a referendum and long term borrowing. Today the 2014 local economy does not appear to be robust enough to take on debt for major enhancements. A new pool would be approximately $10 million and a major refurbishment to the existing pool (depending on scope) would be at least $3 million. Sechelt Arena enhancements costs would also depend on the scope. Debt for the two new facilities doesn’t expire until years 2025/2026, which is currently a payment of $1,574,065.

DISCUSSION

Staff recommend the ‘pay as you go’ option, with a range of between $500,000 and $750,000 per year. This would smooth out the cost for deferred maintenance and the higher range would bring us in line of where we need to be in terms of saving for capital reserves for the future.

It is still recommended that an amount be set aside for capital reserves based on a more in depth review of the capital needs of all four facilities.

The Board asked for an analysis of reserve funds to raise anticipated revenues over a 20-year period. Going into the last referendum, $125k annual contribution was indicated that did not materialize. Parks and Recreation Master Plan

The Master Plan advocates establishing a larger on-going capital reserve. It notes that a plan is needed with consultation to address the future of the aging Gibsons Pool. The Master Plan also contains comments to monitor use of the Sechelt Arena. Older facilities will have growing costs due to age but may be less attractive to the public compared to the newer ones if refurbishments are not completed. The arena does benefit from new glass, boards and lighting. Gibsons Pool will be refreshed with new flooring and other immediate planned items. These do not add amenities to this pool. The data attached to this report gives details of what the facilities need over time.

69


Budget Impacts & Recovery Options By the end of the 2014 budget, it is anticipated Recreation will have over $500,000 worth of projects and $147,000 from the 2013 deficit, for a total $647,000. 2015 will not include a deficit or the $200,000 for the legal claim for Sechelt Aquatic, which total over $347,000. It is hopeful the deficiency costs will be recovered through settlement in the future. A review of 2014 budget is as follows:

2014 Items Already Approved Amount (tax funded) Gibsons Aquatic $80,000 Gibsons & Area Community Centre $35,000 Sechelt Arena $10,000 Sechelt Aquatic $200,000 Approved R1 $325,000 Projects to come 2013 Deficit $147,000 Gibsons Aquatic $185,000 Gibsons & Area Community Centre $45,000 Sechelt Arena $17,500 Sechelt Aquatic $76,500 To come at R2/R3 $471,000 Total $796,000

The 2014 approved and proposed budget proposals already include approximately $340,000 worth of capital maintenance items listed in Attachment #2. Some projects, such as lighting projects, have payback periods and will reduce future operating costs.

Impacts to the taxpayer for the ‘pay as you go’ option, using the two different Five Year Scenarios are included below:

Recovery Options/Costs

5 Year Capital Maintenance/Repair Costs-

Scenario 1

5 Year Capital Maintenance/Repair Costs-

Scenario 2

Pay as you go $750,000 $500,000

Increase in rate per $100K $3.74 $3.74

Increase in Rate over 2014 R2 per $100K

$9.36 n/a

Increase over 2013 rate $25.58 $16.22 Parcel Tax increase over 2013

$54.87 $36.58

Therefore, a ‘pay as you go” in the low range, would result in a lower tax rate than the 2014 final. The higher range would increase the rate by $9.50 to $10. Parcel tax as a source of funding is not recommended at this time, but would be a funding option for future borrowing.

70


Summary Short-term capital needs (5 years) are estimated between $2,561 million and $3,840 million, which could be funded by optional means as noted above. It is recommended a pay as you go plan be approved with 2014 projects approved per Board direction and that up to $750,000 be included in the 2015 Financial Plan for capital maintenance repairs ($625,000) and that $125,000 be included as a contribution to reserves for future/ongoing capital needs.

71

GDAF 20 Year Capital Plan - Scenario 1

Gibsons & District Aquatic Centre

Items 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Roof (Completed 2011) 250,000HVAC replacement (Roof top unit) 100,000$ Replace HVAC Ducting 20,000$ Pool Filters - Replace 15,000$ Stereo System / PA 30,000$ New counter Tops / sinks 15,000$ Replace glass in guards room and lobby 15,000$ Replace sound baffles. (127 x 2' x 4' x1.5") 25,000$ Repaint metal ceilings and ducting. 40,000$ Replace Side Walks 15,000$ Water Storage Tank 15,000$ Pool Equipment- Chair lift / Douphine vacuum 6,000$ Patio Replacement 8,000$ Exterior Doors and Frames - Steel Exits 4,500$ Lockers - Replace staff lockers (Completed 2011) 2,500$ Lockers - Public (106=53 double lockers ) 31,800$ Flooring - Tile vs. existing type. 125,000$ Interior Door Hardware 3,000$ Interior Doors and Frames (Wood) 5,000$ Fire Alarm System 15,000$ Electrical Upgrades 15,000$ Interior Florescent Fixtures (65x350) 20,000$ Interior Metal Halide (Pool Deck Lights x 8) 20,000$ Sprinklers and Fire Protection 150,000$ General HVAC Controls (Thermostats&dampers)General Exhaust and Ventilation 15,000$ 15,000$ General Auxiliary Equipment Mechanical RoomBoiler Replacement x 3 boilers 150,000$ Heat Exchangers 120,000$ New Pumps and Valves 60,000$ Energy Recovery UnitsReplace Toilets 4,500$ Install Auto Flush on Urinals 3,000$ Asphalt (Not in lease) 250,000$ Fences, gates, Cable and Bollard 4,000$ Hot Tub Replacement / main pool under water lights. 200,000$ Code issues-barrier free access-handicap (Completed 2013) 70,000$ Storage container 10,000$ Emergency shower / Eye Wash 10,000$ Chemical Controllers (Chlorine) 20,000$ Mechanical Room Ventilation 10,000$

Yearly Total 374,500$ 653,500$ 207,000$ 276,800$ 78,000$ 45,000$ 2,500$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0

To 2018 1,589,800$ Total 20 Year 1,887,300$

72

GDAF 20 Year Capital Plan - Scenario 2

Gibsons & District Aquatic Centre

Items 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Roof (Completed 2011) 250,000HVAC replacement (Roof top unit)Replace HVAC DuctingPool Filters - ReplaceStereo System / PA 30,000$ New counter Tops / sinks 15,000$ Replace glass in guards room and lobbyReplace sound baffles. (127 x 2' x 4' x1.5")Repaint metal ceilings and ducting.Replace Side WalksWater Storage TankPool Equipment- Chair lift / Douphine vacuum 6,000$ Patio ReplacementExterior Doors and Frames - Steel ExitsLockers - Replace staff lockers (Completed 2011) 2,500$ Lockers - Public (106=53 double lockers )Flooring - Tile vs. existing type. 125,000$ Interior Door HardwareInterior Doors and Frames (Wood)Fire Alarm System 15,000$ Electrical Upgrades 15,000$ Interior Florescent Fixtures (65x350)Interior Metal Halide (Pool Deck Lights x 8)Sprinklers and Fire ProtectionGeneral HVAC Controls (Thermostats&dampers)General Exhaust and VentilationGeneral Auxiliary Equipment Mechanical RoomBoiler Replacement x 3 boilersHeat Exchangers 120,000$ New Pumps and Valves Energy Recovery UnitsReplace ToiletsInstall Auto Flush on UrinalsAsphalt (Not in lease)Fences, gates, Cable and BollardHot Tub Replacement / main pool under water lights.Code issues-barrier free access-handicap (Completed 2013)Storage containerEmergency shower / Eye Wash 10,000$ Chemical Controllers (Chlorine) 20,000$ Mechanical Room Ventilation

Yearly Total 260,000$ 16,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ -$ 45,000$ 2,500$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0

To 2018 311,000$ Total 20 Year 608,500$

73

GACC 20 Year Capital Plan

Gibsons & Area Community Centre

Items 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Zamboni Replacement 180,000Zamboni Batteries 15,000 20,000Zamboni on demand heaters 10,000Water Storage Tanks 12,000Heat Exchangers - Domestic Water 8,000Zamboni Tires 3,000HVAC Equipment (12 + 2 hrv) 210,000Mechanical Edger 6,000Redo 219 floor 40,000All other floors up stairs 100,000Redo Court Floors 5,000 15,000Redo Gym Floors 25,000Carpets 12,000Rubber Flooring - Arena 60,000Sheet Vinyl Flooring - all rooms 40,000Boiler Replacement 60,000Arena Lights 60,000Interior Lights 60,000Exterior Lights 20,000Solarium for courts. 15,000Shutter and Door 219 kitchen 10,000Bathroom Counters / Sinks 6,000Kitchen Cabinets/counters 12,000Reception Cabinetry / counter 35,000Condenser Replacement 100,000Chiller Replacement 90,000Compressor and motor Replacement 100,000Replace plant heat exchangers 60,000Desiccant Dehumidifier Replacement 100,000Replace Toilets 5,000Replace Urinals 5,000Replace Ceiling Tile 20,000Repaint exterior overhangs 30,000Replace Roof. 750,000Replace skylights 10,000Replace interior doors 50,000Replace exterior doors 100,000Power Panel - Main Breakers 5,000Transformer Replacement 25,000Ice Install Equipment 7,500Side Walk From Teen Centre (Safety) 5,000New Desiccant Wheel for Dehumidifier 20,000Safety Items 15,000Retile Showers up and down. 50,000Upgrade Plumbing and New Fixtures 50,000DDC System Upgrades 150,000Replace Plant Safety Valves 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000Snow Pit Heat Exchangers 50,000Furniture - New Couches-Tables and Chairs 20,000Ammonia Alarm and Exhaust to Generato 15,000219 Court Flex Walls 150,000Brine Pump VFD 10,000Asphalt - Repave parking lot . 250,000Totals 81,500 20,000 57,000 3,000 73,000 115,000 210,000 465,000 447,000 115,000 150,000 150,000 1,190,000 20,000 75,000 0 100,000 0 25,000 5,000To 2018 234,500Total Cost 20 years 3,301,500

74

SA 20 Year Capital Plan

Sechelt ArenaBased on 20 year facility replacement.

Items 2010 Audit 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Water Treatment for boiler 3,500Tractor Replacement 35,000Replace Chiller 80,000Replace Roof - torch on lower roofs 50,000Repaint Roof and siding, 50,000Replace roof - metal roofing - or possibly repaint. 300,000Ice Edger 6,000Mycom Compressor 50,000 50,000Structural Review (Safety) 5,000Zamboni Replacement (Electric) 180,000Zamboni Tires 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Install radiant heaters above bleachers 50,000Automatic Doors Upgrade x 2 35,000Exterior Clad Walls 2,000 200,000Windows - aluminum 15,000 25,000Multiple fixed seating 4,000 Delay.Staff Office - Window Treatment / upgrade 200 5,000Equipment and Furnishings - Servery - Upper Floo 8,000 HoldFixed furnishings - washrooms 8,000 8,000Movable furniture - Tables and chairs. 3,000 10,000Score clock 8,500 15,000Code issues - Barrier Free Access 30,000 70,000General Suspended Ceilings - replace ceiling tiles. 2,000 10,000metal ceilings - upper floor - Lounge Ceiling only 7,500 10,000Resilient Flooring - sheet - Banquet Room Lyno. 3,000 10,000Rubber flooring - All rubber flooring down stairs. 25,000 60,000Replace all doors and hardware. 2,500 60,000Other Coatings and finishes -reflective insulation. 10,000 10,000Wall Plastering-Redo lounge walls. 10,000 10,000Wood Paneling-replace all wall paneling. 10,000 10,000Upgrade remaining equipment to 600 volt. 30,000General Exterior Lighting 3,000 5,000Interior lights and emergency lights 10,000General HVAC / DDC Controls 1,000 75,000Condenser Replacement 70,000 75,000HVAC - Humidity Control - new desiccant. 50,000 140,000Specialties - tanks - free heaters plant room 5,000 12,000Plumbing upgrades 10,000Asphalt Parking Lot - Repair back shop and entran 10,000 40,000Asphalt Parking Lot - Repave entire lot 15,000 110,000Septic Disposal System 30,000 30,000Portable and Mobile Buildings 1,000 5,000Sprinkler Compressor Replacement 5,000Safety Items: Lift, Eyewash, Shower, fall Protect. 40,000Storage Container 10,000

Totals 298,000 411,000 408,500 195,000 410,000 3,000 155,000 110,000 10,000 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0To 2018 1,722,500Total Costs 20 year 2,009,500

75

SAC 20 Year Capital Plan

Sechelt Aquatic Centre

Items 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

New Chair Lift 11,000Pool Filters - Replace 100,000Re -Re wood floor 15,000Repaint ceilings walls and ducting. 100,000Replace Rubber Flooring 30,000Roof Top HVAC Replacement (5) 100,000Main HVAC / Heat Exchanger 25,000Sound Baffles (99x4x6) 40,000Locker Replacement (296 x ) 100,000Replace Main Ductwork 40,0005 year Water Slide Annual 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Replace Steam Generator 10,000 1,100Heat Exchangers (4) 35,000Copper Piping Pump Room (Replace) 10,000Valves / ControlsFilter Maintenance (sand and laterals) 6,000Cedar (Refurbish) 35,000Boilers 100,000Grounds and LandscapeBoiler Replacement 4 IBC 60,000Boiler (Large non-condensing) 25,000Replace Grates around 25m pool 14,000Replace cedar in sauna 10,000Replace sauna heater 4,000Roof Replacement 500,000Diving Board (Board and stand) 20,000Replace Water Slide 500,000Replace carpets / vinyl flooring 10,000Replace all cabinetry / counters 35,000Chemical Controller (ACU-trol 3 pools) 25,000Repaint interior walls and ceiling 150,000UV Light Replacement (Hanovia) 50,000UV light Replacement (ETS) 2 60,000Replace PVC Piping - Pump Room 7,000Desks and Chairs 7,000Replace Heat Pumps and Dehum 300,000DDC 5 Year Annual Maintenance 7,500Grouting Pools 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Caulking Pools - Belzona 50,000Water Slide Tower / Slide Reconstruction 200,000

Total 10,000 60,000 80,000 61,000 82,500 67,000 170,000 100,000 153,000 450,000 500,000 11,000 600,000 204,100 315,000 0 0 0 3,000 0

To 2018 293,500Total 20 Year 2,866,600

76

TaraC

Typewritten Text

STAFF REPORT- Recreation Funding Options

DATE: January 9, 2014 TO: Community Services Committee – January 16, 2013 FROM:

Paul Fenwick, GM Community Services Tina Perreault, Treasurer Bruce Bauman, Recreation Service Manager John France, CAO RE: Recreation Funding Issues 2014

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report entitled “Recreation Funding Issues 2014” be received; AND THAT the SCRD Board determines how it wishes to fund m ajor capital needs fo r Recreation Facilities and initiate steps as a high priority in 2014; AND THAT serious consideration be given requesting a staff report prior to Round 2 of the Budget that la ys out a plan to have an AAP or Referendum in 2014 for up to $5.3 million (including legal or other special costs) and dis cusses in more detail a Capital Plan for the four recreation facil ities including use of reserve funds to raise anticipated revenues needed in a 20-year period; AND FURTHER that this recommendation come out of In Camera.

BACKGROUND

At the December 12th Community Services Committee meeting, the following resolution was passed:

Recommendation No. 8 Recreation Work Plan and Budget Proposal

The Community Services Committee recommended that the report from the Recreation Services Manager regarding the Recreation Work Plan and Budget Proposal be received;

AND THAT budget proposals be prepared for 2014 Round 1 Budget Meetings for the 2014 items listed in Table 1 as follows:

Electrical Panel for Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility; Tables and Chairs for Sunshine Coast Arena; Flooring Replacement at Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility; Dehumidification Wheel for Gibsons and Area Community Centre; Heat Exchangers for Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility; Fitness Components Replacement; Increase Base Budget Water Gibsons and Area Community Centre; Legal Claim – Sechelt Aquatic Centre; Community Development Training.

AND THAT Table 1 for 2015 Proposals be referred to the 2014 Round 1 Budget Meetings;

77

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

I n C a m e r a S t a f f R e p o r t - R e c r e a t i o n F u n d i n g O p t i o n s P a g e | 2

AND FURTHER THAT staff report to January Community Services Committee meeting regarding options for capital funding, prior to Round 2 of the 2014 Financial Plan.

This report addresses the latter part of the above recommendations i.e. options for capital funding. It builds on previous reports since 2011.

In writing this report, based on capacity and Draft Master Plan findings, the following options are eliminated:

pay as you go for significant projects as the magnitude and taxation impact are too high. liability under agreement (LUA internal borrowing) as that option is exhausted. short term facility closures to build up equity. extra fees as fees are already higher than average.

A complicating factor is unfunded projects from 2013 i.e. Gibsons Pool accessibility and the Sechelt Aquatic legal claim costs, all totaling $67,000 which will have to be recovered in 2014 as a deficit from the previous year.

This report provides background information and cost data according to current knowledge.

Previous Reports

1. February 9, 2011 Recreation Capital Funding Options – this report discussed an Alternative Approval Process (AAP) with a ten to twenty year borrowing term for approximately $2 million to deal with emerging capital issues in 2011. Under rates of the day the parcel tax would have increased between $11.00 and $18.00 depending on the term. At that time approximately $500,000 was suggested for Gibsons Pool and $600,000 for Sechelt Arena. Since then some work has been done in the older facilities (see separate report regarding Gibsons Pool which lists major work done in the pool since SCRD took it over). The arena had glass and boards and electrical work done in 2013. Since this report GACC has had the sound attenuation done. Similarly, the energy project was done for SAC through grants and LUA. Today both Gibsons Pool and Sechelt Arena still require capital works to ensure they may stay open.

2. January 18, 2013 Recreation Funding Options— at the time of this report it was known the Sechelt Arena slab had failed. The Board wanted some background information i.e. FFE leases ($37,900 reduction in 2012 and another $103,000 in 2014), and summary of internal borrowing ($1.2 million approved and $173 k not used at the time of the report). This report discussed significantly addressing older facilities needs through an AAP for $8.1 million or in stages starting with a $5.3 million AAP for asset preservation. The parcel tax would increase from $117 (2012 figure) to $145 (20 year borrowing) or $162 (ten year borrowing). Staff recommended that an AAP be considered when grant funding options were known and after the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Since then we have received grants for energy in SAC, sound attenuation in GACC, and accessibility improvements in both pools. We also had funding for the slab and glass at SA through insurance but unfortunately experienced some unexpected costs at SA. The Master Plan is in the final stages for adoption.

3. February 13, 2013 Recreation Funding Models & Options—this report was requested by the Board to outline “a phased-in program of priorities of the recreation facilities’ capital projects… as well as a program for funding under Liabilities Under Agreement over time.” This report identified priorities and gave internal borrowing and MFA LUA options

78


to achieve $1.2 million. The cost of this debt was calculated at $7.71 per $100k of assessment. The report also discussed an Alternative Approval Process or an AAP/LUA blend.

4. February 27, 2013 Recreation Funding Options Update—this report provided an update on costs for SA perimeter drains, SA compressor room ventilation and electrical. It confirmed that the GACC sound attenuation cost $132,000 and the grant application had been submitted. We also applied for a grant for Gibsons Pool for mechanical/boiler works (ultimately unsuccessful) and staff were also working on repairing the GDAF tot pool using LUA funds.

5. March 6, 2013 Recreation Facilities Moving Forward and Sechelt Arena Strategies Noted by Sechelt Council—This report reviewed kinds of capital expenditures (emergency repairs, major maintenance due to lifecycle issues, energy projects, major preventative maintenance, and enhancements. It discussed the degree of taxpayer willingness to absorb costs and provided some history regarding Sechelt arena. It also noted the 2013 study of Gibsons Pool by Shape Architecture. The report suggested that enhancements are difficult to envision at this time (i.e. major upgrade or additions to existing facilities) given the pressures for the other categories of capital needs.

6. April 23, 2013 Recreation Funding Into 2014—This report (as mentioned above) noted 2013 decisions create financial pressures into 2014 i.e. the SA will re-open, the Gibsons Pool (our share) accessibility project was not funded in 2013, the legal process for SAC has created costs and they continue. Other pressures arise from the collective agreement (wages) and pressures to base budget e.g. rising utility costs. The latter has shown savings in natural gas in SAC but rising hydro costs due to shift in equipment and rates.

7. November 29, 2013 Recreation Work Plan & Budget Proposals—this is the report that the Committee dealt with on December 12th and led to the recommendation generating this report. Proposed capital projects for 2014 include the electrical panel GDAF, table and chairs SA, flooring replacement GDAF, dehumidification equipment GACC, heat exchanger GDAF as well as lighting projects under the SCRD energy program. Operating costs include training, water utilities, legal claim, fitness equipment components and the business review (Activenet). Total 2014 proposals (operating and capital projects) i.e. $460,000 are seen as essential to keep services and to meet Board objectives. Total proposed 2015 costs are $515,000. These costs are based on an effort to keep the budget tight and do not address all potential costs (see below) that will emerge over time.

REPORT

Timing of Expenditures

Round 1 of the 2014 budget will identify immediate (2014) costs for works already commenced like Gibsons Pool and for high priority immediate needs in the facilities (approximately $240k).

In the near term, approximately five years (2015-2020), other expenditures will be needed based on the condition of buildings and equipment (energy projects, mechanical, roofing and the like—approx $5 million depending on how 2014 costs are paid i.e. included in an AAP or not).

79


Based on reviews by staff and external consultants other major repairs are expected as facilities age (2020-2034- approx $3 million) which could be raised by an AAP or through building reserves.

At some time, a decision needs to be made regarding keeping or replacing Gibsons Pool and whether enhancements are wanted for Sechelt Arena (2019-2034) with the Gibsons Pool being more critical (see separate report).

List of Anticipated Capital Costs (2014-2034)

Best efforts are made to anticipate and plan for capital costs and this work will continue as the SCRD becomes more proactive in asset management. Surprises do happen like equipment prematurely failing or lasting much longer than normal. Operational staff do look after equipment with the aim of getting the most out of the expected life of the equipment. Or, in some cases equipment is replaced if there is a good pay back from reduced operating costs like energy.

Related to recent studies and reports like the Recreation Review and Master Plan, operational staff have outlined anticipated expenditures over the next twenty years.

This list does not include major enhancements or facility replacement like a new pool. The specific timing for the expenditures depends on how critical it is and whether the Board has approved a capital budget in a given year:

1. Gibsons Pool ($2 million—not including major enhancement)

new flooring $125,000 (2014) electrical panel $15,000 (2014) heat exchanges $120,000 total cost and already partially funded (2014) lighting $40,000 less grant (2015) boiler ($175,000) and related (additional) (2015) misc (chemical shed, other mechanical, walls, valves, decorative, filters, sound baffles,

painting, lockers, UV system, fire protection etc.) hot tub replacement

(Note: see separate report regarding enhancements or replacement for Gibsons Pool)

2. GACC ($2-4 million)

exterior painting $25,000 continue sound attenuation $30,000 energy $50,000+ dehumidification equipment $25,000 flooring $6,000 rooftop mechanical Zamboni exhaust system and other safety Zamboni replacement condenser compressor DDC misc (major maintenance, shelving, other painting, spare pumps, other mechanical, fall

protection, 5 year instrument calibration)

80


FFE replacements vehicle and equipment replacements lighting other energy projects roofing

3. Sechelt Arena ($2 million not including major enhancement)

tables and chairs $10,000 (2014) ceilings new platforms and dehumidification $140,000+ (2015) parking lot and driveway $30,000 Zamboni ramp $15,000 Zamboni water system $212,000 Roof replacement compressors other mechanical score clock doors and hardware sprinkler system to code backups and alarms misc (tile work, drinking fountain, plumbing, septic, storage, misc equipment and FFE) replace Zamboni replace tractor and other vehicle (Note: this does not include enhancements like second floor refurbishment, bleachers, bleacher heating or additional dry floor use)

4. Sechelt Aquatic ($600,000 to $800,000)

lighting/energy $80,000 less grant (2015) new cedar $6,000 re-grout $15,000 caulking replace sound baffles rooftop mechanical misc (flooring, outside painting, mechanical, pumps, valves, fall protection, interior paint

and walls, grates, filters, controllers, boilers, UV replacement) Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan

The draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan and updates contain to this plan contain recommendations related to this report and note that some major capital works have already been completed since the Master Plan commenced.

The Master Plan advocates establishing a larger on-going capital reserve. It notes that a plan is needed with consultation to address the future of the aging Gibsons Pool (see related report). The Master Plan also contains comments to monitor use of the Sechelt Arena. Older facilities may have growing costs due to age but may be less attractive to the public compared to the newer ones if refurbishments are neglected. The arena does benefit from new glass, boards and lighting. Gibsons Pool will be refreshed with new flooring.

81


The Master Plan found that residents are largely satisfied with the condition and nature of the indoor recreation facilities but would like some attention for the Gibsons Pool. The Master Plan notes facilities should be adequately maintained and capital improvements made in a timely fashion. Chapter 9 contains order of magnitude costs for capital projects.

Funding Options

Smaller expenditures could be handled on a pay as you go basis. The challenge is that there are already pressures for containing the base budget (e.g. legal and utility costs) despite some falling away of costs (FFE) and savings from energy projects.

As noted above an AAP (or Referendum) appears to be the answer to meeting capital funding needs. A public approval process for funding could look ahead five, ten or more years. A public process to achieve needed funding is becoming more urgent as other options are limited. Under the existing bylaw, any debenture debt must be recovered from Parcel Tax. The SCRD could consider a change to the establishment bylaw which would be required by way of a public approval process for Ad Valorem tax for debt recovery. This would shift the funding for new borrowing to be recovered on assessment versus a flat rate per parcel. The parcel tax was used before due to the financial impact of Ad Valorem (for Recreation Facilities) on major industry and waterfront assessments and may still be desired as the taxation structure. An APP could theoretically be used for all present and future capital funding requirements however timing to meet immediate capital (2014) needs has not been confirmed. Should the public approval process not be successful it will be difficult to maintain services thus a good communication plan is needed for an AAP/referendum. As noted in several previous reports funds raised by AAP (or Referendum) could be drawn upon in ways to manage net annual taxation increases, currently in the parcel tax. Along with a good communications plan an AAP would require more work to more precisely identify and estimate the timing for costs. Based on a previous report, $8.1 million would potentially look after many of the capital needs. The change per parcel using, 2012 data, was as follows (Note: this would be insufficient to rebuild Gibsons Pool adjacent to GACC or to add significant enhancements to Sechelt Arena): $8.1 million 2012 Rate 10 Year AAP 20 Year AAP Parcel Tax $117.18 $186.14 $160.06 Change from 2012 $68.96 $42.88 Yearly Debenture Debt Payment* $929,806 $578,192

*At Current MFA Rates 10yr-3.15% & 20yr- 3.78% Alternatively, 2 different AAP’s could be done if there was apprehension that a large AAP would fail or if there was desire to raise more from capital reserve contributions vs. debt.

82


One AAP/Referendum could be done as soon as possible for $5.3 million for asset preservation and the other at a later date for additional funds for later expenditures and/or for potential enhancement projects. The 10 year mark of the initial $19.3 million borrowing for the new facilities will occur in 2015/16. Debenture debt lending rates with MFA are set for a period of 10 years. At year 10, the lending rate is reset for the next 5 years, and this “5 year reset process” will continue as required (i.e. until loan obligations mature). The Recreation debentures were set at rates of 4.17% and 4.66%. If interest rates remain low, it is possible the MFA interest re-set rate will be lower, resulting in a reduction in debt payments. The impact would be a lower Parcel Tax. This will not be known until 2015 and may not materialize. A previous report also noted the cost for an initial AAP/Referendum for $5.3 million: $5.3million 2012 Rate 10 Year AAP 20 Year AAP Parcel Tax $117.18 $162.30 $145.24 Change from 2012 $45.12 $28.06 Yearly Debenture Debt Payment* $608,392 $378,323

*At Current MFA Rates 10yr-3.15% & 20yr- 3.78% Bylaw Limit Based on 2014 assessments, the SCRD could add $521,759 in taxation for recreation facilities before reaching the taxation limit of $0.92/$1,000. Every 1% change in assessment in 2014 will impact that value by $6,316.

83


Summary For 2014, capital expenditures must be kept as small as possible as an AAP could not be resolved in time to assist the 2014 budget. Nevertheless some capital needs are urgent and there are some other unfunded costs from 2013. Now that the Master Plan is virtually completed and the capital needs are better understood, an AAP appears to be the most viable option to provide for funding 2015 to 2025. The AAP could be done in stages to address enhancements or later repairs at a later time.

↓

* 2.8M repairs/and maintenance– or less if reserves used 7.1M GAAC Pool 2.1M Sechelt Arena Upgrades—include in 2019 referendum or defer depending on public input

It is clear that to keep the four facilities operating, significant capital funds must be found. Prior to embarking on a major new facility or upgrade (2019) a public process to consult is appropriate. Some engagement regarding the Gibsons Pool is already planned once the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is adopted. The above diagram notes the potential timing for seeking approvals from the public where borrowing is involved. Subject to the bylaw limits, it is also possible to tax more annually to build capital reserves. The staff recommendation is that an AAP/Referendum be considered in 2014 and that more details be provided for Round 2 of the Budget Process.

2014 AAP/Referendum $5.3M

2019 AAP/Referendum TBD *

84

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager, Recreation Services

RE: RECREATION SERVICES [616/617/620/621] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Recreation Services’ report regarding Recreation Services [616/617/620/621] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received as information.

BACKGROUND


• BP#1 - Business Review Process [$8,500 Expenditure $8,500 Revenue]- Referred to R2

• BP#2 - Flooring Replacement GDAF [$125,000] – ($40,000 Reserves, $85,000 Taxation) - Approved in R1 Referred to R3

• BP #3 - Capital Maintenance (Various Projects) [$115,000] – ($115,000 Taxation) - Approved in R1 and Incorporated in R2

• BP #4 - Fitness Equipment Maintenance [$10,000] - Referred to R2

• BP #5 - Increase Base Budget Water GACC/GDAF [$10,000] – Referred to R2

• BP #6 - Base Budget Increase Hydro/Gas GACC [$15,000] - Referred to R2

• BP #7 - Sechelt Aquatic Legal Claim [$200,000] – ($200,000 Taxation) -Approved in R1 and Incorporated in R2

• BP #8 - Community Development Training [$10,000] – Referred to R2

• BP #9 – Public Approval Process AAP and/or Referendum $TBD – Referred to R2

• BP #10 – Energy Upgrade Gibsons Aquatic [$40,000] – Deferred to 2015

• BP #11 – Energy Upgrade Sechelt Aquatic [$80,000] – Referred to R2

• BP #12 – Energy Study Gibsons Community Centre[$20,000] – ($10,000 Grant, $10,000 Taxation) – Approved in R1 and Incorporated R2

• BP #13 – Staffing Increase 1.2 FTE [$60,000] - Referred to R2 as two separate BP’s

85

TaraC

Typewritten Text

W

TaraC

Typewritten Text


2013 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) Projected Year-End Surplus / (Deficit) ($146,605) deficit

Reason(s):

This section explains the deficit and includes a strategy to fund it.

The SCRD Board approved $66,667 items in 2013 that required funding in 2014 and therefore created deficit pressure. They were the Sechelt Aquatic Centre (SAC) Legal Expenses ($50,000) and Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility (GDAF) Accessibility ($16,667). The additional $79,938 deficit was a result of additional capital and legal costs at SAC plus some shortfalls in revenue as now explained.

Upon legal advice, and Board direction from 2010, repairs were to be made prior to pursuing costs in the legal claim. For 2011 and 2012, these costs were charged through the budget and funded through LUA. However, in 2013 the residual work turned out to be significantly more than anticipated and occurred late in the year. A moisture problem with the exterior panels for example was also found (report pending) and some Phase 2 work for the boilers and controls overlapped into 2014 expectantly. In addition, negative air pressure had not been achieved in the natatorium which is a required operating condition and will be part of the legal claim. These issues occurred in an absence of an identified budget as the factors were unknown and unable to be fully absorbed in the operating budget.

The solution to funding these expenditures would have been the same as now recommended using the LUA. (Note: for 2014 budget, a decision package # 16 is now included for the known remaining deficiency work for SAC like the exterior panels review so this is planned upfront for the budget unlike 2013). Again, the legal claim is aimed to recover costs—timing unknown.

If the panels require further repair this will be reported later.

In addition, facility revenue shortfalls, some increased utility costs, and higher leisure access subsidy expenses contributed to the deficit for 2013. Throughout the year, staff deferred several expenses in repairs and maintenance to mitigate potential deficit, but this was still not sufficient to cover all the costs. The Leisure Access Program is under review and staff will report to the Board in 2014. Deficits per facility are as follows:

2013 surplus/(deficits) Explanation GDAF (616) (53,180)-(16,667

approved deficit) Revenue Shortfall, LAS, Salaries/Wages increased costs

GACC (617) (4,079) Revenue Shortfall, LAS , utility increased costs

SA (620) (64,985) Revenue Shortfall SAC (621) (24,361)-(50,000

approved deficit) Revenue Shortfall, LAS increased costs, Overall reduced expenditures

Total (146,605) Less approved Deficit

66,667 $50,000 Legal Fees and $16,667 Gibsons Accessibility

Additional deficit (79,938) Additional Capital and Legal Fees to the costs noted above

86


Staff recommend the following to cover the 2013 deficit and to reduce 2014 taxation impacts: 1. Use $10,000 of uncommitted capital reserves toward capital expenditures 2. Use $58,000 of un-used LUA (internal borrowing from water reserves) 3. Remaining 2013 deficit of $79,000 to be covered by 2014 taxation 4. In 2014, use $50,000 from 5% recovered from HST conversion toward 2014 capital

projects, such as the Gibsons Aquatic flooring replacement (See BP#2), to reduce tax funded projects.

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

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


Business Practice Review

February 20, 2014 CAS: Recommendation No. 11 Recreation Services [616, 617, 620, 621] –Business Practice Review

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that staff provide a report to 2014 Round 2 Budget showing the funding allocation for the Business Practice Review across all Recreation functions;

AND THAT the information specify, where the Park’s Department uses Activenet, if there should be an allocation to this function;

AND FURTHER THAT the Software Consultant, in sourcing software and the required applications, be asked to review the potential for expanding the use of the software to partner organizations such as School District 46 and the Municipalities, for managing field and facility bookings.

Staff report sent to February 13, 2014 CSC Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")

DoS, SIGD, ToG, Areas B, D, E and F

2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 Total Project Costs, $10,000 Revenue Increase anticipated in 2014 to offset costs.

This figure includes all Regional Recreation (616/617/620/621) functions plus Pender Harbour (625) & Parks (650) (see table below under rational and BP report 650)

87


Funding Source(s): 2014 Fees and Charges

Future Financial Implications: The expenditure would be included in 2014 base budget ONLY. Revenue increases would be included in 2014 and beyond.


During the Corporate Software Review it was determined that there was no feasible alternative to ACTIVENET. The Parks and Recreation Community Survey and the Recreation Service Review suggest that SCRD Recreation customer registrations requires enhancement and the software is a key tool. In addition KPI reporting is paramount to our business operations. ACTIVENET is relied on for KPIs.

In 2007 (original work) staff met with ACTIVENET professionals and set up the parameters for the present recreation software. Since that time there have been some upgrades to the software system with more significant upgrades being promised for 2014.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Recreation Service Review, patron and staff comments have all identified it is prudent and timely to re-examine our recreation business processes and use of ACTIVENET. The goals of this review are:

1) Improve Customer Service (i.e. view or book facilities online and at the counter in the facilities)

2) Standardize and improve data capture and KPI reporting (use of software to create and use the KPIs)

3) Achieve more revenue online (Web page presence and increase efficiency/capacity)

4) Increase overall revenue (move more customer service decisions to front line staff as a business practice)

The adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan states as recommendation 65: “Create a process to confirm Activenet data Integrity”

Staff Capacity: Existing staff and Software Consultant


Spring 2013. 2014 fee review presently in process.

Rational / Service Impacts: While costing Regional Recreation $7,500 we are aiming for an equal annual gain to be realized from this review. This would cover the onetime

88


expense in 2014. The PH Aquatic Facility & Parks use ACTIVENET and is proposed to co-fund (additional $2,500) and be involved in this project with equal increased revenues.

Ongoing, increased revenues will be realized through rentals, memberships and programs in the various functions as we move to streamline and enhance offerings and customer service. For 2014 the following adjustments will need to be made to the specific function financial plans.

Function Expense Revenue GDAF (616) $1,500 $1,500

GACC (617) $2,250 $2,250

SA (620) $1,500 $1,500

SAC (621) $2,250 $2,250

PHAFC (625) $1,500 $1,500

Parks (650) $1,000 $1,000


Project / Reduction Flooring Replacement Gibsons and District Aquatic Centre Recommendation No. 12 Recreation Services [616, 617, 620, 621] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 3 Budget:

• Budget Proposal 2 – MANDATORY - Flooring Replacement at Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility, $125,000 funded $85,000 through Taxation and $40,000 from Reserves;

AND THAT a letter be sent to BC Provincial Health Authority before February 2014 advising that the Sunshine Coast Regional District will be replacing the flooring at the Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility in 2014, once the final budget numbers have been approved in March 2014;

AND FURTHER THAT staff produce an appropriate Tender Process for approval at 2014 Round 3 Budget.

Rating: MANDATORY - Regulatory Compliance

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


89


2014 Funding Implications: $125,000

Funding Source(s): $85,000 Taxation / $40,000 Reserves

Future Financial Implications: This repair will enable the facility to remain open to the public in 2014 and beyond. A report on the Gibsons and District Aquatic Centre is forthcoming in January 2014 to CSC.


In keeping with the Parks and Recreation Master plan this expenditure will allow this service to continue.

Staff Capacity: Existing staff to administer.


Rational / Service Impacts: A Facility Audit was conducted on this facility in 2010. It identified a number of significant capital expenditures that are required. Since that time, some expenditures have occurred (roof / showers, etc. as per the report referenced above. The SCRD must respond to BC Provincial Health concerns regarding repair / replacement of flooring prior to the end of February 2014 as per their letter of September 5, 2013 (presented to CSC). Failure to have a plan in keeping with the requirements of the BC Provincial Health Authority could lead to closure of this facility in 2014.

In addition, to the above information presented at R1 it is not feasible to produce a tender prior to R3. As a consultant is required to develop a scope of work a quantitative review can occur so that a firm number can be contained in the 2014 financial plan in R3.


Project / Reduction Increase Base Budget GACC/SAC – Fitness Equipment Maintenance

February 20, 2014 CAS: Recommendation No. 16 Recreation Services [616, 617, 620, 621] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal


• Budget Proposal 4 – Increase Base Budgets for Fitness Equipment Maintenance at Gibsons and Area Community Centre and Sechelt Aquatic

90


Centre, $10,000 ($5,000 per facility) funded through Taxation;

AND THAT staff provide a report to 2014 Round 2 Budget outlining the 2013 expenditures for fitness equipment maintenance at each facility, and addressing the feasibility of adding a separate line to the 2014 budget for fitness equipment maintenance expenditures.

Staff report sent to February 13, 2014 CSC

Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure

Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if “Islands”)


2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 ($7,500 SAC and $2,500 GACC)—the 75/25 split has been adjusted from a 50/50 split from Round 1 to acknowledge the use of equipment in the two facilities (GACC/SAC).

Funding Source(s): Taxation

Future Financial Implications: This is an amount for a base budget increase for fitness equipment to replace components as needed. This includes monitors, cables, motors, treads, belts etc. The equipment is aging hence more maintenance is needed.


Financial Sustainability Plan




Rational / Service Impacts: Without increased funding equipment will unavailable which will negatively impact revenues and customer satisfaction. The equipment is of a high standard and with this extra care will offer several more years of service.

91



Increase Base Budget – Gibsons and Area Community Centre (GACC) and Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility (GDAF) Water


The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget pending clarification regarding Town of Gibsons water cost increases:

Budget Proposal 5 – Increase Base Budgets for Water at Gibsons and Area Community Centre and Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility, $10,000 ($7,500 GACC and $2,500 GDAF) funded through Taxation.

Staff report sent to February 13, 2014 CSC Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure



2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 (GACC $7,500/GDAF $2,500). The split has been determined based on 2013 actual amounts.


Future Financial Implications: Due to water rates / usage and the installation of meters in Gibsons in 2014 we have seen an increase in costs due to rate increases. Consumption of water is in keeping with the norm for these facilities. In 2013 there was an increase in rates with a further rate increase expected for 2014. 2013 year end actual figures were $9,900 GACC (2013 Budget $6,120) and $3,175 GDAF (2013 Budget $2,000). A further rate increase in 2014 coupled with 2013 actuals requires an increase of $10,000 to base budget distributed between the Gibsons & District Aquatic Centre and the Gibsons and Area Community Centre.*.

Is project identified in the Strategic Plan?





Rational / Service Impacts: Rates and Consumption have been reviewed. Consumption is at an acceptable level. Rate pressure requires this increase to the Base Budget.

92



Project / Reduction Increase Base Budget – GACC Hydro & Natural Gas


The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget with inclusion of details on expected energy costs:

Budget Proposal 6 – Increase Base Budget for Hydro and Natural Gas at Gibsons and Area Community Centre, $15,000 funded through Taxation.







Future Financial Implications: Due to rate increases and insufficient budget to cover actual costs. 2014 should see reduced costs due to a full operational year of the Sunshine Coast Arena. 2013 Year End actuals are:

Natural Gas $29,246 (2013 Budget $20,000)

Hydro $98,505 (2013 Budget $84,000)


Financial Sustainability Policy




Rational / Service Impacts: Rates and Consumption have been reviewed. Consumption is at an acceptable level. Rate pressure requires this increase to the Base Budget. Longer term more energy saving strategies to be investigated.

93



Community Development Training

November 13, 2013 CAS : Recommendation No. 5 Community Development Training – Recreation Services [616-621 – 2014 Proposed Initiatives

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that in Recreation Services [616-621] – 2014 Proposed Initiatives, Item #19 Recreation Master Plan – Community Development Training be considered a priority project;

AND THAT the Purpose – Description be changed to “Community Development Training for Recreation and Parks staff” and in Recommended 2014 Budget chance “Defer to 2015” to “Budget Proposal to determine how 2014 funds will be utilized”.



• Budget Proposal 8 – Community Development Training, $10,000 funded through Taxation;

AND THAT staff provide a report to 2014 Round 2 Budget showing the funding allocation for the Community Development Training across all Recreation functions, the Park’s function and the Pender Harbour Pool function.


Rating: +2 Enhancement to Existing Service





Future Financial Implications: This training is in keeping with the recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Training will create a common understanding of “Community Development” principles as they apply to Parks and Recreation. The training will enhance the tool kit for staff to engage the public in programs and services.

94



Recreation Services is better positioned to meet the needs of our community in the 4 roles as identified in the Master Plan of Planner, Protector, Community Builder and Provider. Community development is consistent with “We Envision”.

Staff Capacity: Outside Consultant. Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):


Rational / Service Impacts: Development techniques are utilized to meet the needs of the community as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.


Project / Reduction Public Approval Process – Recreation Services Capital Funding and/or—AAP and/or Referendum


The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget pending results of the February 2014 Community Services Committee Meeting report:

* Budget Proposal 9 – Public Approval Process – Recreation Services Capital Funding (AAP and/or Referendum), $TBC funded through Taxation.

See separate report for R2




2014 Funding Implications: TBD – see related report


Future Financial Implications: Needs are outlined in the FAME 2010 Audit of the old facilities and the 20 year capital plan for all Recreation. Future impact depends on the funding model selected.



Staff Capacity: Staff and potential other resources depending on model selected.



Rational / Service Impacts: See related report

95



Project / Reduction Energy Upgrade Lighting Gibsons and District Aquatic Centre (2014 or 2015)


The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be deferred to 2015 Budget pending further discussions regarding the future of the Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility (GDAF):

• Budget Proposal 10 – Energy Upgrade (Lighting) at Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility, $40,000 funded through Taxation with a potential rebate ($8,000);

AND THAT the Energy Upgrade (Lighting) option be considered in future discussions regarding GDAF;

AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to research the potential energy grant opportunities.




2014 Funding Implications: $40,000 w/ potential $8,000 rebate—recommend no cost option by deferring until after the public engagement process planned for 2014.

Funding Source(s): Taxation / Grant

Future Financial Implications: This expenditure would be in keeping with the SCRD Strategic directions for reducing energy costs.

With utility rates increasing 28% over the next five years, the project would offer a simple payback of 5.1 years and a 10 year IRR of 15%.


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

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

96


related projects to be addressed in the future.

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

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

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

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

• Upgrade its existing facilities with energy conservation measures.

Staff Capacity: Staff and potential outside consultant.



Rational / Service Impacts: There would be no service impacts as these projects would be done during our annual maintenance closures. Prior to these expenditures grant opportunities need to be examined.


Project / Reduction Energy Upgrade Lighting Sechelt Aquatic Centre (2014 or 2015)



• Budget Proposal 11 – Energy Upgrade (Lighting) at Sechelt Aquatic Centre, $80,000 funded through Taxation with a potential rebate ($26,000);

AND THAT staff include options of alternate sources of funding in the Budget Proposal 11.


97





2014 Funding Implications: $80,000 w/ potential $26,000 rebate

Funding Source(s): Taxation / Grant

Future Financial Implications: This expenditure would be in keeping with the SCRD Strategic Plan for reducing energy costs.

With utility rates increasing 28% over the next five years, the project would offer a simple payback of 2.7 years and a 10 year IRR of 34%.


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

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

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

Powersmart Partnership with BC Hydro: On March of 2012, the SCRD working in partnership with BC Hydro, committed to the following: • Doing its part to save energy and create a

culture of sustainability • Adopt the principles of energy efficiency into

the organization’s ongoing business practices • Upgrade its existing facilities with energy

conservation measures.

Staff Capacity: Staff and potential outside consultant.



98


Rational / Service Impacts: There would be no service impacts as these projects would be done during our annual maintenance closures. Prior to these expenditures grant opportunities need to be examined. The work is essential to meet corporate energy goals.

There are financial incentives offered by both BC Hydro and FortisBC, to encourage comprehensive energy studies to identify potential energy conservation measures and reduce the organizations demand for resources.

Upon application approval to conduct the energy study, 50% of the costs will be covered by BC Hydro. Those ECMs identified in the study which target natural gas conservation may be eligible for additional rebates through FortisBC.

The energy study will look to identify ECMs and make recommendations in all aspects of the facility, including its refrigeration plant (to make ice), heating plant (to melt ice and provide hot water), heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and lighting.

By identifying the opportunities, the SCRD inherently develops future projects which enhance the existing facility and generate cash flow to encourage continual growth and development.


Project / Reduction Increased staff .6 FTE (Facility Operations) in keeping with Recreation Service Review


The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget as two separate budget proposals, one for each position listed:

• Budget Proposal 13 – Increase staff 1.2 FTE (per Recreation Service Review – Operations 0.6 FTE and Programmer 0.6 FTE), $60,000 funded through Taxation – noting that this amount is only partial for 2014;

AND THAT for the Operations 0.6 FTE budget proposal explain the benefits to the Maintenance Program.


99


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


2014 Funding Implications: $36,000 – 2014 only—$50,000 increase 2015 and beyond.

Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: This expenditure would be in keeping with the

SCRD Recreation Service Review. This would see a 0.6 FTE in Operations / Maintenance. This $36,000 in 2014 is for a partial year including wages/benefits. This would increase in 2015 to $50,000 in 2015 to be included in base budget.


Recreation Service Review, Parks and Recreation Master Plan

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


Rational / Service Impacts: This will enhance the capability to undertake prescribed preventative maintenance.


Project / Reduction Increased staff .6 FTE Community Development/Program Coordinator in keeping with Recreation Service Review February 20, 2014 CAS: Recommendation No. 25 Recreation Services [616, 617, 620, 621] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to 2014 Round 2 Budget as two separate budget proposals, one for each position listed:

• Budget Proposal 13 – Increase staff 1.2 FTE (per Recreation Service Review – Operations 0.6 FTE and Programmer 0.6 FTE), $60,000 funded through Taxation – noting that this amount is only partial for 2014;

AND THAT for the Operations 0.6 FTE budget proposal explain the benefits to the Maintenance Program.



100




2014 Funding Implications: Defer to 2015 as per February 13, 2014 CSC report —$50,000 increase 2015 and beyond. Training in community development would be a priority in 2014 along with Master Plan quick wins.

Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: This expenditure would be in keeping with the

SCRD Recreation Service Review. This would a .6 FTE for a Community Development/Program Coordinator. In 2015 this expenditure will be offset partially by additional program revenues from the new staff efforts in keeping with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Strategic Directions


Recreation Service Review, Parks and Recreation Master Plan

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


Rational / Service Impacts: The programmer liaises with the community and offer additional programs in keeping with Recreation Service Review and Parks & Recreation Master Plan.


Project / Reduction SAC Deficiency Items/Legal Claim




2014 Funding Implications: $25,000 in total costs. Engineering studies regarding structure ($20,000) and remaining adjustments to HVAC systems to achieve negative air ($5,000).


Future Financial Implications: The expenditure would be included in 2014 base budget ONLY. Any costs for remediation will be in addition with information forthcoming to the Board prior to proceeding. All deficiency costs would be added to our legal claim.

101



Previous In-Camera Board Resolutions

Staff Capacity: Consultants/Contractors



Rational / Service Impacts: All costs incurred will be added to our legal claim for reimbursement.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 107,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336

Contributions to Reserve $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 -$ 50,000 -$ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 56,000 -$ 50,000 -$ 50,000 -$ 50,000 -$ 50,000 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336

Building from Capital Reserve (GDAF Floor)Other from Capital Reserve (2013 Carry Fwd) Closing Balance in Reserve

ItemEst Opening Balance in reserve–Capital

Contributions from Surplus/(Deficit)

NOTE: AMOUNTS IN THE ABOVE CHART ARE ONLY REFLECTIVE OF THE ANNUAL AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO RESERVES THROUGH THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION OF 5% OF SALES FROM SELECT SALES. STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): PRIORITY BP# DESCRIPTION ROUND 1 STATUS 1 2 Flooring Replacement Gibsons and District

Aquatic Centre $125,000 - $40,000 Reserve, $85,000 Taxation (Subject to architect evaluation and costing)

REFER TO R3

2 16 DEFICIENCIES SAC $25,000 NEW BP 3 7 Sechelt Aquatic Legal Claim ($200,000) APPROVED

4 3 Capital Maintenance Projects $115,000 Taxation

APPROVED

5 5 Increase Base Budget GACC & GDAF Water Charges $10,000 Taxation

REFER R2

6 6 Increase Base Budget GACC for Hydro & Natural Gas $15,000 Taxation

REFER R2

7 1 Business Review Process $8,500 Expenditure $8,500 Revenues (Net Zero)

REFER R2

8 4 Increase Base Budget GACC/SAC – Fitness Equipment Maintenance $10,000 Taxation

REFER R2

102


9 8 Community Development Training $10,000 Taxation

REFER R2

10 12 Gibsons and Area Community Centre – Comprehensive Energy Study $20,000 ($10,000 Taxation and $10,000 Grant)

APPROVED

11 11 Energy Upgrade Lighting Sechelt Aquatic $80,000 ($54,000 Taxation and $26,000 Grant)

REFER R2

12 14 Staffing Increase .6 FTE $36,000 (2014) – Facility Operations/Maintenance

NEW BP

13 9 Public Approval Process AAP and/or Referendum TBD

REFER R2

14 15 Staffing Increase .6FTE Program Coordinator $50,000 (2015)

DEFERRED TO 2015

15 10 Energy Upgrade Lighting Gibsons Aquatic $40,000 ($32,000 Taxation and $8,000 Grant) (defer to 2015 following Gibsons Aquatic Public Engagement)

DEFERRED TO 2015

16 13 Staffing Increase 1.2 FTE NEW BP ABOVE FOR R2

103

TaraC

Typewritten Text

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Deb Cole, Manager, Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre

RE: PENDER HARBOUR AQUATIC AND FITNESS CENTRE [625] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager, Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre’s report regarding Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre [625] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• 2013 Surplus-$21,733 Funded BP 1, Transferred to Reserves

• BP #1- Hot Tub Refurbishment [$20,000]- Approved in R1

• BP #2- Lease Costs with SD 46 [$4,200]- Approved in R1

• BP #3- Energy Study [$6,000 with potential $3,000 rebate] -Approved in R1

• BP #4- Contribution to Capital Reserve [$15,000]- Approved in R1

• BP #5- Gym Equipment Replacement [$3,500]- Approved in R1

• BP #6- Business Practise Review [$1,500]-Referred to R2

• BP #7- Enabling Accessibility Grant [$67,000 with potential $50,000 grant]- Approved in R1 (And That staff apply for accessibility grant, if the program becomes available , and if successful to tax in the subsequent year.)

104

TaraC

Typewritten Text

X



Project / Reduction Business Practice Review (see related report Recreation Round 1 as this is the PH Aquatic share)


Area A

2014 Funding Implications: $1,500 (Area A share) Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: This expenditure would be included in 2014 base

budget only. Revenue increases would be included in 2014 and beyond.


Refer to BP #1 Recreation [616/617/620/621]

Staff Capacity: Existing staff and Software consultant


Previous review April 2013, will occur in first quarter 2014

Rational / Service Impacts: Refer to BP #1 Recreation [616/617/620/621] Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (or longer, if applicable)(use table illustrating capital contributions and expenditures, if available)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount $ 38,567 $ 30,067 $ 1,567 $ 8,067 $ 14,567 $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 -$ 20,000 -$ 50,000 -$ 15,000 -$ 15,000 $ - -$ 3,500 -$ 3,500 -$ 3,500 -$ 3,500 -$ 10,000 $ 30,067 $ 1,567 $ 8,067 $ 14,567 $ 29,567



The above capital plan shows progressive replacement of the Gym equipment. It includes the hot tub refurbishment for 2014 and would allow for major servicing like periodically painting the pool tank. For 2015, an amount is included for energy projects. This figure is tentative pending studies planned for 2014. Source of funding for the energy project would include grants. Efforts are needed to maintain some reserves. (Note: if an energy project is fast tracked the Financial Plan could be ammended.) STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Hot Tub Refurbishmnet $20,000- Prior Year Surplus 2. Lease Costs $4,200- Taxation 3. Energy Study $6,000 (potential Grant of $3,000) – Taxation/Grant 4. Annual Capital Funding $15,000- Taxation 5. Replacemnt of Gym Equipment $3,500- Capital Reserve 6. Business Review Process $1,500- Taxation 7. Enabling Accessibility Grant $67,000 – Taxation/Potential Grant

105

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Paul Fenwick, General Manager, Community Services

RE: COMMUNITY PARKS [650] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Community Services` report titled “Community Parks [650] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• 2013 Surplus – Applied to Approved Budget Proposals with BP#8 Pending;

• BP #1 – Katherine Lake Aging Infrastructure – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #2 – Replace Husky Mower – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #3 – Fleet Vehicle Replacement – 2003 F250 Truck – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #4 – Area B Beach Access at Fullerton Road – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #5 – Grantham’s Hall Septic Replacement – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #6 – Fleet Vehicle Replacement – 2004 F250 Truck – Deferred to 2015 Budget;

• BP #7 – Sand for Top-Dressing Sports Fields – Approved in Round 1

• BP #8 – Restore and Stain Beams at Eric Cardinall Hall $15,000 funded from 2013 Surplus – Report on February 13, 2014 Community Services Committee Agenda (see extracted report attached) – VERBAL UPDATE to be provided at 2014 Round 2 Budget;

• BP #9 – Contribution to Reserves for Replacement of Parks Hut at Mason Road – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #10 – Sir Thomas Lipton Park, $9,000 funded through Taxation (referred to Round 2) – Report on February 13, 2014 Community Services Committee Agenda (see extracted report attached) – VERBAL UPDATE to be provided at 2014 Round 2 Budget;

106

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Y

TaraC

Typewritten Text


• BP #11 – Additional Gambier Island Trail / Parks Works – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #12 – Pets in Park Policy – Abandoned for 2014;

• BP #13 – Community Consultation and Park Plan for Property behind Roberts Creek Hall (5 acres) – Approved in Round 1;

• BP #14 – Lighting Retrofits at Cliff Gilker Amenity Building and Frank West Hall – Referred to 2015 Budget;

• BP #15 – Coopers Green Hall Redevelopment – Referred to 2015 Budget;

• NEW: BP #16 – Business Process Review - In Recreation Services [616/617/620/621] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal Report – BP #1 Business Process Review 2014 Funding Implications $1,000 has been allocated to come from Community Parks [650].

NOTE: see Gibsons and District Fire Protection [210] – 2014 R2 Budget Proposal Report for information pertaining to BP #6 Lighting Retrofit at C. Mahlman Fire Hall and BP #14 above.


Project / Reduction Restore and stain beams of Eric Cardinall Hall


F

2014 Funding Implications: $15,000 Funding Source(s): Prior year surplus Future Financial Implications: Potential development and implementation of

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

No

Staff Capacity: Asset Preservation Last Fee Schedule Review): Rational / Service Impacts: Since the Eric Cardinall Hall was built there

hasn't been a re-staining of the beams and under soffits of the hall. They are presently mildew and water damaged and require sanding and painting. This work will require a contractor with proper equipment including a lift.

107



Sir Thomas Lipton Park


Area F/Islands

2014 Funding Implications: $9,000 Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Ongoing maintenance required from Base

Budget Example: Bridge Decks, Outhouse, Trails and Danger Trees.


No

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

Rational / Service Impacts: Full report was at Sept Community Services Meeting. The park consists of eight hectares with three creeks. Most of the park is undeveloped passive space; however, there is a small outhouse, and an informal day use area near the water. A trail (road) with three bridges crosses the park where BC Hydro and TELUS run their lines under the trail and bridges. At the time of the subdivision, MoTI would not take the trail (road) as road right of way dedication, therefore the SCRD assumed responsibility for the trail and bridges. At this time the park is in need of the following basic maintenance: • Repairs to bridge decks including

replacement of some decking wood – $3000;

• Replacement of trail aggregate materials and the addition of water bars - $2000;

• Removal of danger trees - $3000; • Outhouse upgrade – $1000.

108



Business Practice Review

February 20, 2014 CAS: Recommendation No. 11 Recreation Services [616, 617, 620, 621] –Business Practice Review

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that staff provide a report to 2014 Round 2 Budget showing the funding allocation for the Business Practice Review across all Recreation functions;

AND THAT the information specify, where the Park’s Department uses Activenet, if there should be an allocation to this function;

AND FURTHER THAT the Software Consultant, in sourcing software and the required applications, be asked to review the potential for expanding the use of the software to partner organizations such as School District 46 and the Municipalities, for managing field and facility bookings.

Staff report sent to February 13, 2014 CSC Rating: +1 Enhance both Revenue and Expenditure Geographical / Electoral Area affected (specify if "Islands")


2014 Funding Implications: $1,000 Total Project Costs, $1,000 Revenue Increase anticipated in 2014 to offset costs.

This figure includes Parks (650) portion (see table below under rationale and BP2 Report for Recreation Services)

Funding Source(s): 2014 Fees and Charges

Future Financial Implications: The expenditure would be included in 2014 base budget ONLY. Revenue increases would be included in 2014 and beyond.


During the Corporate Software Review it was determined that there was no feasible alternative to ACTIVENET. The Parks and Recreation Community Survey and the Recreation Service Review suggest that SCRD Recreation customer registrations requires enhancement and the software is a key tool. In addition KPI reporting is paramount to our business operations. ACTIVENET is relied on for KPIs.

In 2007 (original work) staff met with ACTIVENET professionals and set up the parameters for the present recreation software. Since that time there have been some upgrades

109


to the software system with more significant upgrades being promised for 2014.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Recreation Service Review, patron and staff comments have all identified it is prudent and timely to re-examine our recreation business processes and use of ACTIVENET. The goals of this review are:

1) Improve Customer Service (i.e. view or book facilities online and at the counter in the facilities)

2) Standardize and improve data capture and KPI reporting (use of software to create and use the KPIs)

3) Achieve more revenue online (Web page presence and increase efficiency/capacity)

4) Increase overall revenue (move more customer service decisions to front line staff as a business practice)

The adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan states as recommendation 65: “Create a process to confirm Activenet data Integrity”

Staff Capacity: Existing staff and Software Consultant Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details):


Rational / Service Impacts: While costing Regional Recreation $7,500 we are aiming for an equal annual gain to be realized from this review. This would cover the onetime expense in 2014. The PH Aquatic Facility & Parks use ACTIVENET and is proposed to co-fund (additional $2,500) and be involved in this project with equal increased revenues.

Ongoing, increased revenues will be realized through rentals, memberships and programs in the various functions as we move to streamline and enhance offerings and customer service. For 2014 the following adjustments will need to be made to the specific function financial plans.

Function Expense Revenue GDAF (616) $1,500 $1,500 GACC (617) $2,250 $2,250 SA (620) $1,500 $1,500 SAC (621) $2,250 $2,250 PHAFC (625) $1,500 $1,500 Parks (650) $1,000 $1,000

110


STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): 8. Restore and stain beams of Eric Cardinall Hall 10. Sir Thomas Lipton Park 16. Business Practice Review

111

N:\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2014 Feb Prks Island Funding R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 6, 2014 TO: Community Services Committee February 23, 2013

FROM: Paul Fenwick, GM Community Services Committee

RE: Community Parks Islands Projects

RECOMMENDATION THAT the Community Services Committee receives the report Community Parks Islands Projects; AND THAT the Committee refers to Round 2 Financial Plan discussions specifically earmarking funds for Islands Projects in the Base Budget totaling $15,000. BACKGROUND At the Round 1 meeting the following recommendation was adopted: Recommendation No. 29 Community Parks [650] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal


• Budget Proposal 10 – Sir Thomas Lipton Park, $9,000 funded through Taxation;

AND THAT staff report to 2014 Round 2 Budget on the current use of Parks [650] base budget for islands issues (directly and indirectly) and whether a change to base budget may be necessary to accommodate future island maintenance requirements.

REPORT The current Base Budget (2014) has direct funding earmarked as Cost Center 267, Gambier Island. Given the growing assets on the Islands and consultation with Islands representatives, the base budget should be increased to contracts operating (262) from $2,000 to $6,000 for activities like trail, bridge and stair repairs, drainage improvements and brushing. For other outdoor maintenance (415) Gambier/Keats another increase would be justified from $3000 to $9,000 to ensure Thomas Lipton and other parks assets are looked after going forward (total of $10,000 increase to base budget for Gambier/Keats parks and trail projects). The amounts given here are not the only resources applied to the Islands as other line items and salaries are applied on an as needed basis.

112

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Attachment to BP 2 Report

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Community Parks [650]

Island Funding Community Parks Page 2 of 2

N:\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2014 Feb Prks Island Funding R2.docx

Base Budget Proposed Contracts Operating (Gambier Island Conservation Association) 01-2-650-262 $2,000 $6,000

Outdoor Maintenance 01-2-650-415 $3,000 $9,000

Earmarked as CC 267

$15,000

113

N:\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2014 Feb EricCardinallHall.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Community Services Committee, February 13, 2014

FROM: Trevor Fawcett, Parks Planning Coordinator

RE: Restore and Stain Exterior Woodwork at Eric Cardinall Hall

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Community Services Committee receives for information the Parks Planning Coordinator’s report entitled ‘Restore and Stain Exterior Woodwork at Eric Cardinall Hall’;

AND THAT the Community Services Committee recommends that the work be completed by a certified contractor at an estimated cost of $15,000;

AND THAT funds be sourced from the 2013 surplus $8500.00 and from Parks GL Account #403, “Building Repairs and Maintenance”.

BACKGROUND

At the January 23, 2014 regular meeting of the Board, the following recommendation was adopted:

Recommendation No. 44 Community Parks [650] – 2014 R1 Budget Proposal

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the following budget proposal be referred to the 2014 Round 2 Budget pending consultation with volunteers on working in collaboration on the repair:

• Budget Proposal 8 – Restore and Stain Beams at Eric Cardinall Hall, $15,000 funded from 2013 Surplus;

AND THAT $8,500 remaining 2013 Surplus be transferred to reserves for this project.

DISCUSSION

Eric Cardinall Hall is located on the grounds of Shirley Macey Park in Area F. The front and roof of the building are constructed of exposed logs in a post and beam design. The posts and the two primary beams are approximately three feet in diameter, the roof support beams are approximately 18” in diameter. The front of the building, facing the soccer fields, is approximately 10 metres off the ground.

114

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Attachment to BP 2 Report Community Parks [650]

Staff Report to Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Restore and Stain Exterior Woodwork at Eric Cardinall Hall Page 2 of 2

N:\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2014 Feb EricCardinallHall.docx

This restoration project involves removing old stain on the posts, beams and soffits by sanding or sand/ice blasting to remove water stains and applying a new coat of stain. Due to the fact that the work height is over 3 metres, WorkSafe regulations require a fall protection plan and that all workers have completed Fall Arrest Protection Training. WorkSafe regulations also require workers to wear appropriate safety clothing, footwear, eye and head protection. The work involved on this project is quite specialized due to safety and knowledge requirements.

Parks operations staff would not be completing this restoration work because of the resources required. The estimated time to complete this work is three weeks with work being completed in the summer during periods of warm, dry weather. Parks crews do not have the resources to commit staff to a long term project.

The recommendation made by the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee suggests involving volunteers on this project. Incorporating volunteers on this project would require the SCRD to provide Fall Arrest Protection Training, safety clothing, training on specialized equipment and full time supervision. Trained and equipped volunteers would be covered by the SCRD’s insurance policy but not by Workers Compensation.

Generally the Parks Division encourages volunteers to participate in the maintenance and upkeep of parks facilities. The Gibsons Garden Club now does an excellent job maintaining the gardens at Shirley Macey Park.

SUMMARY

Eric Cardinall Hall is a complex design that does not easily accommodate exterior maintenance by untrained volunteers. The effort to involve volunteers for this kind of work exceeds the potential benefits and puts them and the SCRD at risk.

Because of the risk and complexity of this project, it is recommended that volunteers not be used and that a qualified contractor be hired to complete the work. The estimated cost of this project is $15,000.00 to be funded as noted in the staff recommendation.

115

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Parks Staff

RE: BIKEWAYS/WALKWAYS [665] - 2014 R2 BUDGET PROPOSAL

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Parks Staff’s report regarding Bikeways/Walkways [665] - 2014 R2 Budget Proposal be received.

BACKGROUND


• 2013 Surplus – [Transferred to Reserves]

• BP # 1 – Area B- Brooks to Redrooffs (along Hwy 101)– Referred to Round 2 (with a request for clarification on project location and coordination of project areas) Referred to R2;

• BP # 2 - Area D- Roberts Creek-- Beach Ave, to Cedar Grove (walking path) – Referred to Round 2 (with a request for further clarification on status of the project see BP 2);

• BP # 3 - Area F from Granthams, past and including Ruffum Road Bike Path/Pedestrian Path – Deferred to Round 2 (Request for meeting with staff see attached report);

• BP # 4 – Area E – Gower to Gibsons – Approved in Round 1 from Gas Tax;

• BP # 5 – Area B – Hwy 101 to Mintie (project is along Redroofs Road)– Referred to Round 2 (with a request for clarification on project location and coordination of project areas see attached report);

• BP # 6 – NEW – 665 Operating Reserve Contribution

• BP # 7 – NEW Project – Area E Hwy 101 maintenance repairs – east of Poplars Park Phase 1

• BP # 8 - NEW Carry Forward – Area B Redroofs Driveway Repair $12,000

116

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

TaraC

Typewritten Text

Z

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Project / Reduction Area B- Brooks to Redrooffs (along Hwy 101)

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

B

2014 Funding Implications: Remaining Gas Tax funds (after Driveway and Mintie planning projects) estimated $84,000

Funding Source(s): Gas tax Future Financial Implications: None, assumes maintenance by MoTI Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Identified as Community Priority in SCRD Parks Division Trail Network Plan 2007. Assists in providing alternative transportation to reduce community emissions.


N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: Is a cooperative project with MOTI along Hwy 101 starting at Brooks Road and continuing to Redrooffs (approximately 1km). Planning details, cost sharing, and permit to construct to be resolved in this project.


Project / Reduction Area D- Roberts Creek - Beach Ave. to Cedar Grove - walking path Beach Ave along difficult section.


D

2014 Funding Implications: $175,000 Funding Source(s): Gas tax Future Financial Implications: Maintenance Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?



N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: 1000m of Active Transport enhancement, along Beach Ave. Area Director was updated on project status. Project to be an unpaved section.

117



Area F from Granthams, past and including Ruffum Road Bike/Pedestrian Path

Rating: +3 Expansion of Existing Service

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

F

2014 Funding Implications: $90,000 est.

Funding Source(s): Gas tax

Future Financial Implications: Maintenance


Identified as Community Priority in SCRD Parks Division Trail Network Plan 2007.

Assists in providing alternative transportation to reduce community emissions.

Staff Capacity: Engineering consultant to manage and prepare design


N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: A meeting was held on January 28th to discuss internally a process to resolve Area F projects for 2014. The top priority is the Marine Drive Project (discussions and site review continue with MOTI therefore the scope of the project is still under review as is the cost). Budget Proposal #3 i.e. Ruffum Road should be included in the 2014 Financial Plan but determined once more information is known for the top priority Marine Drive Project. Staff are however looking the intersection of Ruffum and Marine to see if a small project could be done soon in conjunction with other paving that will occur on Ruffum Road.

118

TaraC

Typewritten Text



Area B – Hwy 101 to Mintie (along Redrooffs Rd. Planning and Engineering, surveying project).


B

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



N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: Approximately 300m of Planning Bicycle/Walking Path - Geotechnical report to be completed on difficult sections with creek crossing and road alignment issues. Starts at the starts at the west junction of Redrooffs and Hwy 101 to Mintie.


Project / Reduction 665 Operating Reserve


B,C,D,E,F

2014 Funding Implications: $10,000 Funding Source(s): Taxation Future Financial Implications: Recurring Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?

Assists in maintaining alternative transportation to reduce community emissions.


N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: Currently there is $2,528,505 in assets under the 665 function and $18,105 in operational reserve to maintain those assets. This reserve was created from budget surplus over the last two years. Many assets have been added over the last seven years and maintenance costs are expected to rise over time.

119



Area E Hwy 101 maintenance repairs – east of Poplars Park phase 1


E

2014 Funding Implications: $18,000 preliminary estimate subject to consultation with MoTI

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



N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: Currently the posts and chains which help protect pedestrians from the ravines are being undermined and require repairs in a phased in approach. These two ravines are located along Hwy 101 just east of the Poplars Park in Area E.


Project / Reduction Area B Carry Forward from 2013—Redrooffs Driveway Repair Project.


B

2014 Funding Implications: $12,000 approved in previous financial year. Funding Source(s): Gas Tax Future Financial Implications: Maintenance Is project identified in the Strategic Plan (explain consistency with Financial Sustainability Policy and relation to Core Values in We Envision)?



N/A

Rational / Service Impacts: Fixes an unacceptable condition previously approved in 2013.

120


Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan (or longer, if applicable)2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Item Amount Amount Amount Amount AmountOpening Balance in reserve – C $18,000 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000Contributions /Surplus $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000Poplars Hwy 101 Maint. ($18,000)Closing Balance in Reserve $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PROPOSALS IN 2014 (IN PRIORITY ORDER): Priority BP # Description Status

1 7 Area E – Hwy 101 Maintenance Repairs – East of Poplars Park ($18,000 Operating Reserve)

New

2 6 Operating Reserve ($10,000 Taxation) New

3 8 Carry Forward Area B Driveway Repair ($12,000 Gas Tax Previously Approved)

Proposed Carry Forward

4 1 Area B - Brooks to Redrooffs (along Hwy 101) ($84,000 Gas Tax)

Referred to R2

5 2 Area D Beach Ave to Cedar Grove Walking Path ($175,000 Gas Tax)

Referred to R2

6 3 Area F - Granthams/Ruffum Road Bike Path/Pedestrian Path ($90,000 Gas Tax)

Deferred to R2

6 4 Area E - Gower to Gibsons ($10,000 Gas Tax) Approved in R1

7 5 Area B – Redrooffs to Mintie ($20,000 Gas Tax) Referred to R2

121

TaraC

Typewritten Text

· special corporate and administrative services committee r2 budget meeting tuesday, february 18,...

Documents