special corporate and administrative services …€¦ · h:\fin\budget 2012\r2\r2 final dec...

$: SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES …€¦ · H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\370 376-378 Regional Water R2.docx SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7, 2012 TO: Corporate$
SPECIAL CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

R2 BUDGET MEETING Monday, February 13

th, 2012

SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 8:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of Agenda IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with section 90 (1) (c) of the Community Charter – “labour relations or other employee relations”.

ROUND 1 BUDGET DEBRIEF

REPORTS

2. Manager, Utility Services – Regional Water Service [370, 376-378] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex A Pg 1-4

Budget Pg 131

3. Manager, Utility Services – North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex B Pg 5-9

Budget Pg 123

4. Manager, Utility Services – South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex C Pg 10-15

Budget Pg 127

5. Manager, Utility Services – Waste Water Plants [381-394] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex D Pg 16-23

Budget Pg 141

6. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Regional Street Lighting [320] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex E Pg 24

Budget Pg 81

7. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Ports [345] 2012 R2 Decision Package

Annex F Pg 25-27

Budget Pg 103

8. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Fleet Maintenance [312] 2012 R2 Decision Package

Annex G Pg 28-33

Budget Pg 78

R2 Budget Meeting February 13th, 2012 Agenda Page 2 of 3

9. Manager, Transportation and Facilities – Transit [310] 2012 R2 Decision Package

Annex H Pg 34-37

Budget Pg 75

10. Manager, Sustainable Services – Regional Solid Waste [350-353] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package

Annex I Pg 38-54

Budget Pg 108

11. Chief Building Inspection and Bylaw Manager – Building Division [520] 2012 R2

Budget Decision Package Annex J

Pg 55 Budget Pg 190

DELEGATION (Afternoon)

Derek (Rick) Negus – Zero Waste policies

BUDGET INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services Manager, Utility Services

12. Budgets – Regional Water Pink Tab

Page # [370] Regional Water Services (RWS) ................................................................. 131 [376] RWS: New Connections ................................................................................ 135 [377] RWS: Mains Replacement ............................................................................. 137 [378] RWS: New Construction ................................................................................ 139

13. Budgets – Water & Infrastructure

[365] North Pender Harbour Water Service ....................................................... 123 [366] South Pender Harbour Water Service ........................................................ 127

[381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant ............................................................. 141 [382] Woodcreek Park Waste Water Plant.......................................................... 143 [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant .................................................................... 146 [384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant ................................................................... 148 [385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant ................................................................. 150 [386] Lee Bay Waste Water Plant ....................................................................... 152 [387] Square Bay Waste Water Plant .................................................................. 155 [388] Langdale Waste Water Plant ...................................................................... 158 [389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant ................................................................ 160 [390] Merrill Crescent Waste Water Plant ........................................................... 162 [391] Curran Road Waste Water Plant ................................................................ 164 [392] Roberts Creek Cohousing Treatment Plant ............................................... 166 [393] Lilly’s Lake Waste Water Plant ................................................................... 169 [394] Painted Boat Waste Water Plant ................................................................ 172

BUDGET INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW General Manager, Infrastructure Services Manager, Transportation and Facilities

14. Budgets – Street Lighting 2nd Orange Tab [320] Regional Street Lighting .............................................................................. 81

R2 Budget Meeting February 13th, 2012 Agenda Page 3 of 3

[322] Langdale Street Lighting ............................................................................. 83 [324] Granthams Street Lighting .......................................................................... 85 [326] Veterans Street Lighting ............................................................................. 87 [328] Spruce Street Lighting ................................................................................ 89 [330] Woodcreek Street Lighting ......................................................................... 91 [332] Fircrest Street Lighting ................................................................................ 93 [334] Hydaway Street Lighting ............................................................................. 95 [336] Sunnyside Street Lighting ........................................................................... 97 [340] Burns Road Street Lighting ......................................................................... 99 [342] Stewart Road Street Lighting ...................................................................... 101

15. Budgets – Transportation 3rd Orange Tab

[345] Ports ............................................................................................................ 103 [346] Langdale Dock ............................................................................................ 106 [312] Maintenance Facility ................................................................................... 78 [310] Public Transit .............................................................................................. 75

BUDGET INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW Manager, Utility Services Community Energy Manager

16. Budgets – Solid Waste Pink Tab [350] Regional Solid Waste ................................................................................... 108 [351] Pender Harbour Solid Waste ........................................................................ 111 [352] Sechelt Solid Waste ...................................................................................... 114 [353] Regional Recycling ....................................................................................... 117 [354] Landfill Closure Costs ................................................................................... 119 [355] Refuse Collection .......................................................................................... 121

17. Budgets – Protective Services 2nd Purple Tab

[520] Building Inspection ........................................................................................ 190

NEW BUSINESS IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with section 90 (1) (c) of the Community Charter – “labour relations or other employee relations”.

AD JOURNMENT

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\370 376-378 Regional Water R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 7, 2012

TO: Corporate and Administrative Service Committee (R2) – February 13, 2012

FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services

RE: REGIONAL WATER SERVICE [370, 376-378] 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION

PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Regional Water Service [370, 376-378], 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package report be received for information; AND THAT Decision Package 6, Source Assessment Response Plan Additional Funding be approved and incorporated into the 2012 Round 3 budget; AND THAT Decision Package 7, 4% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase be approved and incorporated into the 2012 Round 3 budget; AND THAT Schedule B of Bylaw No. 422 be amended to increase land charges, user fees and meter rates by 4% for 2012.

BACKGROUND Following is a summary of the Round 1 2012 Budget meeting recommendations:

• Decrease to net operating budget of $16,909 (1.4%) – Approved in R1

• Transfer 2011 operating and capital surplus to capital reserves – Approved in R1

• The following decision packages were approved and incorporated into the 2012 base budget:

o DP#1 - Minor Capital Upgrades - $80,000 o DP#5 – Toilet Rebate Program - $30,000

• The following decision packages were approved and incorporated into the 2012 Round 2

budget:

o DP#2 – Eastbourne Capital - $20,000 o DP#3 – Meter Installations - $200,000 o DP#4 – Vehicle Replacements - $122,000

In addition, two new decision packages are being presented for consideration by the Committee in Round 2:

1

Annex A

Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Regional Water Service [370, 376-379] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package Page 2 of 4

• DP#6 - Source Assessment Response Plan Additional Funding • DP#7 - 4% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase

Furthermore, two decision packages for projects included in resolution 439/11 No. 5 were deferred in Round 1; an update on those deferrals is provided below:

Additional Sunshine Coast Highway Main Replacement

This decision package was deferred so that a detailed analysis of the most recent phase of this project could be completed. That analysis confirmed that the base budget funding for water main replacement is sufficient to complete the final phase of this project and as such, a decision package will not be brought forward.

Egmont Water System

This decision package has been deferred until the following resolution (439/11 No. 5) has been satisfied:

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to a future Infrastructure Services meeting on the history of how new water areas have been consolidated into the Regional Water Service, as well as the current process.

At this time, it is anticipated that the report will be presented to the Infrastructure Services Committee at its meeting on March 1, 2012 with a decision package to follow in Round 3.

2012 R2 DECISION PACKAGES (IN PRIORITY ORDER) Definition of Mandatory Projects involves: 1) Safety; 2) Imminent Asset Failure; and/or 3) Regulatory Compliance Issues 6. Proposed Enhancement

Source Assessment Response Plan Additional Funding

Rating: +2 – Special Project

2012 Financial Implications:

$18,500 (02-2-370-387) broken down as follows:

$4,500 – completion of response plan $5,500 – open house facilitation services $8,500 - additional scope

Funding Source(s)

Transfer from Operating Reserves (02-1-370-145)

Future Financial Implications:

No future financial implications

Is this consistent with the Financial Sustainability Policy?

Yes.

2


Is this project identified in the Strategic Plan?

Yes.

How does this relate to the core values expressed in the “We Envision” document?

Water Stewardship: Local control of watersheds will ensure access to high quality drinking water to meet present and future needs.

Last Fee Schedule Review

February 2011; result was a 4% increase in user fee and land charge rates.

Rationale / Service Impacts: The total project budget for the Source Assessment Response Plan was $50,000 in 2011. In addition, the following resolution (457/11 No. 1) was adopted by the Board at its regular meeting on November 24, 2011:

AND THAT the project budget be amended to include payment for the consultant to attend [the workshop] by conference call;

The total amount paid to consultants in 2011 was $12,326 more than the approved project budget due in large part to meeting facilitation services that were not part of the original project plan. Approximately 70% of the project deficit was funded from the base budget allocation for professional fees (02-2-370-387) with the remainder covered by surpluses in other line items. Given that funding was available in the net operating budget; the project budget did not require amendment per the above resolution. As this project is not part of base budget and there was no approved funding available for carry forward to 2012, it is recommended that a contribution from operating reserves be approved to fund the items identified in the 2012 financial implications section of this decision package. 7. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction 4% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase

Rating:

+1


$193,000 - Contribution to Capital Reserves (02-2-370-485)

Funding Source(s)

$98,000 – Land Charges (02-1-370-003) $95,000 – User Fees (02-1-370-093)


Increased annual cost of approximately $17.00 for a single family residential dwelling.


Section 4.2 – Fees and Charges


Provides potential funding for projects identified in the strategic plan including, but not limited to, the extension of universal metering to all areas and implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan.

3


How does this relate to the

core values expressed in the “We Envision” document?

N/A

Last Fee Schedule Review February 2011; result was a 4% increase in user fee and land charge rates.

Rationale / Service Impacts: It is recommended that land charge, user fee and meter rates be increased by 4% for 2012. This increase would amount to an additional $193,000 in revenue at an increased annual cost of approximately $17.00 for a single family residential dwelling. The additional revenue will be contributed to capital reserves to fund future capital projects, specifically those relating to implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan which is currently in development.

FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER IF APPLICABLE) The Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, currently in development, will include a detailed analysis of future funding requirements for a 10 year period, based on a 25 year planning horizon. This analysis and accompanying business plan will be used as the basis for development of a capital reserve plan.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Item Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

Opening balance 942,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$

In Reserve - Cap

Contributions

Surplus 193,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Building 0 0 0 0 0

Water Main Replacement 0 0 0 0 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$ 1,135,427$

The current uncommitted reserve and deferred revenue account balances for the Regional Water Service are as follows: Operating Reserve $263,887 Land Reserve 13,715 Capital Reserve 942,427 Development Cost Charges 352,214 Total $1,572,243

4

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\365 North Pender Harbour Water R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: NORTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [365] 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION

PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the North Pender Harbour Water Service [365], 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package report be received for information; AND THAT the 2011 surplus be transferred to capital reserves; AND THAT Decision Package 1, $351,000 for Universal Metering be deferred to 2013 budget discussions; AND THAT Decision Package 3, 10% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase be approved and incorporated into the 2012 Round 3 budget; AND THAT Schedule D of Bylaw No. 422 be amended to increase land charges, user fees and meter rates by 10% for 2012.


• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating- Max Dollar Amount: $1,276- Amount taken: $242. – Approved in R1

• DP#1 - Universal Metering. Deferred to Round 2

• DP#2 – Garden Bay Lake Control Structure – Approved in R1 as follows:

o 2012 Budget - $11,000 in additional capital funding o 2013 Financial Plan - $30,000 to design a 5 year habitat monitoring program o 2014-2019 Financial Plan - $10,000 annually for habitat monitoring

In addition, one new decision package is being presented for consideration by the Committee in Round 2:

• DP#3 - 10% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase

5

Annex B

Corporate and Administrative Services Committee North Pender Harbour Water Service [365] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package Page 2 of 5

DISCUSSION Decision Package 1 – Universal Metering The decision package for universal metering was referred to the second round of budget discussions so that staff could bring back more information on funding options for approximately $103,780 (increased from R1 value of $93,500 based on actual 2011 surplus) of the estimated project costs. After review, it is evident that the funding options are limited to drawing down capital and operating reserves to near zero, an approximate 35% rate increase or, a combination of both. As these options are not desirable, staff reviewed the status of this project and the utility services work plan as a whole and determined that the best course of action would be to defer this project to 2013. Deferral will allow for completion of the UV Treatment project and Bathroom Fixture Replacement Program which may free up committed grant funding that is eligible to be applied to Universal Metering. Other potential funding which may become available as a result of deferring the project include rate increases and any operating surplus generated in the 2012 fiscal year. 2011 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS/DEFICIT Projected Year-end Surplus / (Deficit)

$ 37,220

Reason(s) for: Deferral of long term debt for Garden Bay UV project; lower than anticipated salaries and wages and net operating costs. Options: (Select as appropriate) _ X _ Transfer to Capital Reserves _____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization __ __ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. 1) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.


Universal Metering

Rating: Mandatory – Condition of Grant Agreement with Federation of Canadian Municipalities (Deadline December 31, 2013).


$351,000 ($1,000 per connection; 122 of 473 connections currently have meters installed)

Funding Source(s)

$200,000 – Approved Long Term Debt $10,000 – Green Municipal Fund Grant $37,220 – 2011 Surplus

6


$103,780 – Capital/Operating Reserves Future Financial

Implications:

Water meters have an estimated useful life of 20 years. It is recommended that once meters are installed, an annual meter replacement fee of at least $20 be levied against all metered properties with the resulting funds deposited into a meter replacement reserve fund. In addition, staffing levels will need to be increased (incrementally by an estimated 0.1 FTE’s) to support meter maintenance, meter reading and billing; other operating costs such as bank charges, postage, office expenses, software licensing, advertising and administrative services (payment processing) are expected to incur nominal increases due to the increased number of billing cycles. The minimum estimated increase to annual operating costs is estimated at approximately $10,000, although this figure could vary significantly, particularly in the first year, as there are a number of unknown variables related to the implementation of regular meter reading and billing of residential customers.


Yes. Section 4.11.1 states that the full initial costs of a capital project plus future operating and replacement costs must be clearly stated and a source of sustainable funding for such costs has to be demonstrated.


Yes. This project satisfies the objective to reduce water consumption through the implementation of universal metering and the objective to implement the Area A Master Plan.


Water Stewardship: Relates to environmental responsibility by reducing consumption of water resources.


February 2011; result was a 10% increase in user rates and land charges.

Rationale / Service Impacts: The implementation of universal metering is an initiative identified in the Area A Water Master Plan. This plan was used to secure grant funding from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Green Municipal Fund, to be used in supporting the implementation of the initiatives identified in the plan. As a condition of the grant agreement, the SCRD must provide proof that a water metering system has been implemented. 3. Proposed Enhancement /


Rating:

+1


$26,500 - Contribution to Capital Reserves.(02-2-365-485)

Funding Source(s)


7







Provides funding for projects identified in the strategic plan, specifically Universal Metering.


N/A

Last Fee Schedule Review February 2011; result was a 10% increase in user rates and land charges.

Rationale / Service Impacts: It is recommended that land charge, user fee and meter rates be increased by 10% for 2012. This increase would amount to an additional $26,500 in revenue at an increased annual cost of approximately $38.70 for a single family residential dwelling. The additional revenue is required to fund future capital projects, namely universal metering, for which current funding is insufficient. As such, it is recommended that the additional revenue be contributed to capital reserves. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER IF APPLICABLE) The North Pender Harbour Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan, currently in development, includes a detailed cash flow projection table that, once adopted, will identify existing and future required contributions to capital reserves and specific capital projects for which those funds will be allocated. The table below is based on the cash flow projection table contained in the draft Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening balance 29,236$ 29,236$ 9,236$ 9,236$ 9,236$

In Reserve - Cap

Contributions

Surplus -$ -$ -$ -$

Water Main Replacement 0 (20,000) 0 0 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 29,236$ 9,236$ 9,236$ 9,236$ 9,236$

8


The current uncommitted reserve and deferred revenue account balances for the North Pender Harbour Water Service are as follows: Operating Reserve $88,707 Capital Reserve 29,236 Development Cost Charges 39,928 Total $157,871

9

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\366 South Pender Harbour Water R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: SOUTH PENDER HARBOUR WATER SERVICE [366] 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION

PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package report be received for information; AND THAT Decision Package 1, South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant Estimated Operating Budget, be incorporated into the 2013 -2016 Financial Plans as presented in Appendix 1; AND THAT the 2013 HR Plan be amended to include a new 1.0 FTE Water Technician 2 position; AND THAT Decision Package 2, 10% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate increase be approved and incorporated into the 2012 Round 3 budget; AND THAT Schedule E of Bylaw No. 422 be amended to increase land charges, user fees and meter rates by 10% for 2012.


• Decrease to net operating budget of $3,519 (2.7%) – Approved in R1

• Transfer 2011 surplus to rate stabilization reserve – Approved in R1

The Round 1 report also indicated that the estimated operating expenditures (Appendix 1) associated with the new treatment facility would be incorporated into a detailed financial plan (Appendix 2) and brought forward to Round 2. This detailed plan has resulted in two new decision packages for consideration by the Committee:

• DP#1 - South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant Estimated Operating Budget

• DP#2 - 10% Land Charge, User Fee and Meter Rate Increase.

10

Annex C

Corporate and Administrative Services Committee South Pender Harbour Water Service [366] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package Page 2 of 5

DISCUSSION The South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant (SPHWTP) is currently at 90% design and is expected to be fully operational by 2013. The decision package presented in 2011 for construction of the plant identified up to $250,0001 in estimated annual operating and maintenance costs as a future financial implication. Given the value of these estimated costs, staff feel it is important to incorporate them into the financial plan in years 2013 through 2016. Appendix 1 – Estimated Operating Budget The estimated SPHWTP operating budget presented in Appendix 1 is based on estimates provided by staff, engineering consultants and the actual operating costs of the Chapman Water Treatment Plant (CWTP), adjusted as appropriate for the reduced scale of the SPHWTP. In addition, a 1.5% annual inflationary increase has been applied in each subsequent year. Details of how line items exceeding $5,000 were estimated are listed below:

• Administrative Services – calculated at 12% of the total estimated operating expenditures.

• Salaries & Wages, Benefits – based on the Water Technician 2 position wage rate, 1.0

FTE new permanent staff plus an additional 0.75 FTE reallocated from the Regional Water Service in the first year of operation only.

• Insurance – based on estimated replacement cost and current insurance rate

• Chemicals – calculated by multiplying the annual cost of chemicals used at the CWTP

by the ratio of water produced in each system plus an additional 25%.

• Hydro – consulting engineers estimate

It is important to note these costs are estimates only. The actual value and timing of the expenditures may differ significantly from what has been presented. Nevertheless, they present a starting point to forecast required rate increases and utilization of the rate stabilization fund to ensure that the service is adequately funded to operate and maintain the new treatment facility. Appendix 2 – Detailed Financial Plan The detailed financial plan presented in Appendix 2 incorporates the estimated operating budget (Appendix 1) of the SPHWTP into the current base budget beginning in 2013. An annual 1.5% inflationary increase has also been applied to the base budget values beginning in 2013. Incorporation of the estimated operating expenditures allows for forecasting of required rate increases and utilization of the rate stabilization fund. These are presented at the bottom of the table and have also been incorporated into the detailed financial plan. The table is designed so that it can be easily updated to incorporate revised estimates and timelines as necessary.

1 Based on estimate of $175,000 to $250,000 contained in the South Pender Harbour Water Treatment

Plant BCF Grant Agreement Report (page 2), Corporate & Administrative Services Committee, February 25, 2010.

11


As presented, rate increases of 10%, 8%, 7%, 6% and 4% are proposed for 2012 through 2016 respectively which would allow for full utilization of the rate stabilization fund and result in a fully funded operating budget in 2016. The estimated annual combined land charge and user fee rate of $677 in 2016 is less than the February 2010 projection of $731 to $8062 when the grant contribution agreement was signed. 2012 R2 DECISION PACKAGES (IN PRIORITY ORDER) Definition of Mandatory Projects involves: 1) Safety; 2) Imminent Asset Failure; and/or 3) Regulatory Compliance Issues 1. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant Estimated Operating Budget

Rating:

+3 – New Services


$0

Funding Source(s)

Rate Increases / Rate Stabilization Fund


2013 - $245,900 2014 - $164,924 2015 - $167,397 2016 - $169,908 Refer to Appendix 1 for details.


Section 4.7 – New Services and Major Enhancements Section 4.11 – Capital Projects


Yes.


Water Stewardship: Ensures the continual supply of high quality drinking water to meet present and future needs.


Rationale / Service Impacts: Given the material impact of the estimated operating costs associated with the new treatment facility, it is important that they be included in the 2013-2016 financial plan in anticipation of the facility being commissioned.

2 South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant BCF Grant Agreement Report (page 3), Corporate &

Administrative Services Committee, February 25, 2010

12


2. Proposed Enhancement /


Rating:

+1


$43,607 - Contribution to Rate Stabilization (02-2-366-519) $8,754 – Reduction in Required Revenue (02-1-366-146)

Funding Source(s)







Provides funding for increased operating costs associated with projects identified in the strategic plan, specifically, the South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant.


N/A


Rationale / Service Impacts: It is recommended that land charge, user fee and meter rates be increased by 10% for 2012. This increase would amount to an additional $52,361 in revenue at an increased annual cost of approximately $48.30 for a single family residential dwelling. The additional revenue is required to fund the increased operating costs associated with the new South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant.

FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER IF APPLICABLE) The South Pender Harbour Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan, currently in development, includes a detailed cash flow projection table that, once adopted, will identify existing and future required contributions to capital reserves and specific capital projects for which those funds will be allocated. The table below is based on the cash flow projection table contained in the draft Ten Year Waterworks Upgrading Plan.

13


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening balance 184,093$ 184,093$ 84,932$ 84,932$ 30,445$

In Reserve - Cap

Contributions

Surplus -$ -$ -$ -$

Distribution System

Upgrades 0 (99,161) 0 (54,487) 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 184,093$ 84,932$ 84,932$ 30,445$ 30,445$

The current uncommitted reserve and deferred revenue account balances for the South Pender Harbour Water Service are as follows: Operating Reserve $182,986 Rate Stabilization 183,036 Capital Reserve 184,093 Development Cost Charges 130,378 Total $680,493

14

Account Code Account Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Expenditures

022366200 Administrative Services - 26,346 17,670 17,935 18,204 022366220 Salaries & Wages - 114,580 58,149 59,022 59,907 022366225 Benefits - 30,937 15,700 15,936 16,175 022366227 WCB - 3,437 1,744 1,771 1,797 022366235 Training & Development - 1,000 1,015 1,030 1,046 022366254 Chemicals - 25,000 25,375 25,756 26,142 022366257 Clothing/Laundering - 300 305 309 314 022366266 Deliveries/Transportation - 1,000 1,015 1,030 1,046 022366305 Safety Equipment - 1,500 1,523 1,545 1,569 022366314 Telephone & Alarm - 2,500 2,538 2,576 2,614 022366372 Insurance - Property - 5,800 5,887 5,975 6,065 022366378 Lab Analysis - 1,000 1,015 1,030 1,046 022366400 Contracted Svcs Bldg/Land - 2,000 2,030 2,060 2,091 022366402 Materials - Engineered Structures - 5,000 5,075 5,151 5,228 022366409 Hydro - 23,000 23,345 23,695 24,051 022366412 Janitorial/Cleaning Supplies - 500 508 515 523 022366450 Small Tools/Equipment - 1,500 1,523 1,545 1,569 022366458 Fuel/Lubricants Vehicle - 500 508 515 523

- 245,900 164,924 167,397 169,908

*an annual inflationary increase of 1.5% has been applied to salaries and wages and operating costs beginning in 2014*administrative services are calculated at 12% of the total expenditures*salaries and wages are based on an additional 1.75 FTE in 2013 and 1.0 FTE thereafter

South Pender Harbour Water Treatment PlantEstimated Operating Budget

App

endi

x 1

15

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\381-394 Waste Water Plants R2 final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Corporate & Administrative Service Committee (R2) February 13, 2012


RE: WASTE WATER PLANTS [381-394] 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Waste Water Plants [381-394] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package report be received for information.


• Maximum 1.5% increase to net operating approved in Round 1 for the following functions:

o [384] Jolly Roger - $65 o [385] Secret Cove - $91 o [391] Curran Road - $93 o [392] Roberts Creek Co-housing - $95 o [393] Lilly Lake Village - $62

• Approved in Round 1 - Surpluses and/or deficits be transferred to/from reserves as

required for all functions. o [393] Lily Lake Village which was mistakenly omitted from the Round 1 report.

The 2012 Round 2 budget includes seven waste water functions that require additional revenue and/or reductions to the operating budget in order to balance. As such, the following decision packages (values may change slightly based on final support services allocations) are being presented for consideration by the Committee:

1. [381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant - $324 Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget 2. [383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant – $50 Frontage Charge Rate Increase 3. [384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant – $890 Contribution from Operating Reserves 4. [385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant – $324 Contribution from Operating Reserves 5. [389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant – $50 User Fee Rate Increase and $327

Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget 6. [390] Merrill Cresent Waste Water Plant – $407 Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget 7. [392] Roberts Creek Co-housing Waste Water Plant – $45 User Fee Rate Increase

Given the value of the adjustments presented in the decision packages and the common theme amongst them, sections relating to the Financial Sustainability Policy, Strategic Plan and the

16

Annex D

Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Waste Water Plants [381-394] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package Page 2 of 8

‘We Envision’ document have been removed in favour of a general summary in the discussion section of this report. In addition to the decision packages listed above, the Painted Boat Community Sewage Treatment System Service Establishing Bylaw No. 1080, 2011 was adopted by the Board on December 8, 2011. An amendment to Bylaw No. 428 is required to incorporate user fee rates for this facility. The following decision package recommending applicable rates is presented for consideration:

8. [394] Painted Boat Waste Water Plant – User Fee Rates DISCUSSION The decision packages presented in this report are related to the ongoing operations of the waste water plants in question. As such there is little to no relation to the Strategic Plan or the ‘We Envision’ document other than what already exists. All of the decision packages do however relate to the Financial Sustainability Policy, specifically section 4.2.2 which states that fees and charges will be reviewed annually and adjusted where appropriate. Criteria used to determine if a rate adjustment was appropriate included comparison of the preliminary 2012 operating budget to prior years actual operating expenditures, operating reserve balances, historical rate increases and current rates for comparable facilities operated by the SCRD. 2011 PROJECTED YEAR-END SURPLUS/DEFICIT

Projected Year-end Surplus / (Deficit)

Lily Lake Village [393] - $4,044

Reason(s) for: Lily Lake Village incurred lower than expected maintenance costs and higher than expected revenues. Options: (Select as appropriate) _ X_ Transfer to Operating Reserves __ __ Transfer to Rate Stabilization _____ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. __) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

17



[381] Greaves Road Waste Water Plant - $324 Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget

Rating: -1


$324 reduction to line item 03-2-381-450 – Repairs & Maintenance

Funding Source(s) Reduction in line item 03-1-381-146 – Required Revenue



Last Fee Schedule Review February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: Reduction to 2012 operating budget is supported by historical actual values. 2. Proposed Enhancement

[383] Sunnyside Waste Water Plant – $50 Frontage Charge Rate Increase

Rating: +1

2012 Financial Implications: $550 increase in land charges

Funding Source(s)

$414 - Reduction in line item 03-1-383-146 – Required Revenue $136 – Contribution to Operating Reserves


$50 annual increase in frontage charges per parcel

Last Fee Schedule Review February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: Operating reserves have been drawn down to less than $100 necessitating a rate increase to fund required revenue and contributions to operating reserves.

• There are 8 users and 11 fronting properties in the service area. • The current frontage charge rate for this service is $0, reduced from $50 in 2005. • The current user rate is $100 with the last increase of $25 implemented in 2008.

18


3. Proposed Enhancement

[384] Jolly Roger Waste Water Plant – $890 Contribution from Operating Reserves

Rating: +1


$890 transfer from operating reserves

Funding Source(s)

$890 - Reduction in line item 03-1-383-146 – Required Revenue




February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: Based on the function’s operating reserve balance of $9,789 and the actual operating expenditures in prior years, a transfer from operating reserves to fund required revenue in the 2012 budget is recommended. 4. Proposed Enhancement

[385] Secret Cove Waste Water Plant – $324 Contribution from Operating Reserves

Rating: +1


$324 transfer from operating reserves

Funding Source(s)





February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: Based on the function’s operating reserve balance of $7,782 and the actual operating expenditures in prior years, a transfer from operating reserves to fund required revenue in the 2012 budget is recommended.

19



[389] Canoe Road Waste Water Plant – $50 User Fee Rate Increase and $327 Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget

Rating: +1 / -1


$150 increase in user fee revenue $327 reduction to line item 03-2-381-450 – Repairs & Maintenance

Funding Source(s)



$50 annual increase in user fees per user


February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: The current operating reserve balance for this function is $2,636. Although adequate given the operating budget for this function, it is not recommended that this be drawn down to fund the required revenue. As such, a rate increase to fund a portion of required revenue is recommended along with a decrease to the 2012 operating budget which is supported by prior year actual amounts.

• There are 3 users and 10 fronting properties in the service area. • The current frontage charge rate for this service is $100 • The current user rate for this service is $75 • The last rate increase was implemented in 2003


[390] Merrill Cresent Waste Water Plant – $407 Reduction to 2012 Operating Budget

Rating: -1


$407 reduction to line item 03-2-381-450 – Repairs & Maintenance

Funding Source(s)

Reduction in line item 03-1-381-146 – Required Revenue




February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: A reduction to 2012 operating budget is supported by historical actual values.

20



[392] Roberts Creek Co-housing Waste Water Plant – User Fee Rate Increase

Rating: +1


$1,395 Increase in user fee revenue

Funding Source(s)

$68 - Reduction in line item 03-1-381-146 – Required Revenue $1,327 – Contribution to Operating Reserves


$45 annual increase in user fees per user.


February 2012

Rationale / Service Impacts: Operating reserves have been drawn down to less than $100 necessitating a rate increase to fund required revenue and contributions to operating reserves.

• There are 31 users and 31 fronting properties in the service area. • The current frontage charge rate for this service is $100. • The current user rate for this service is $330. • Rates have not changed since the service was established in 2004


[394] Painted Boat Waste Water Plant – User Fee Rates

Rating: +1


Based on the values presented in the 2012 Roudn 2 budget: $3,460 increase in user fee revenue

Funding Source(s)

$3,400 - reduction in line item 03-1-394-001 – Land Charges $60 – Increased Contribution to Operating Reserves


Annual user fees set as follows: $430 – each strata unit $1,830 –restaurant $900 – spa


February 2012

21


Rationale / Service Impacts: The proposed budget used as the basis for the petition for service and service establishing bylaw was input as the base budget for this function. The original figures remain unchanged for 2012 Round 2. The proposed annual user fee and land charge revenue of $16,430 is derived based on the following annual user rates:

• Land Charges, 34 parcels @ $100 per parcel • User Fees, condominiums: 31 users @ $300 per user • User Fees, strata amenities: 4 users @ $300 per user • User Fees, restaurant: 1 user @ $1,730 per user • User Fees, spa: 1 user @ $800 per user

A review of the legal plan associated with this property identifies 32 strata units, all of which are occupied. The restaurant and spa are part of the common property owned by the strata and thus there is no basis to apply a land charge to these users. As such, it is recommended that the proposed user rates for the restaurant and spa be increased by $100 and that the user rate for each strata unit be calculated by dividing the balance of the revenue required by the number of strata units: ($16,430-2,730)/32=$428.125. Rounding this rate up to $430 creates an additional $60 in revenue for contribution to operating reserves. There is no need to implement a land charge as the development is fully occupied. The ‘future financial implications’ section of this decision package contains a summary of proposed rates. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN (OR LONGER IF APPLICABLE) Other than specific one-time items and interest, there have been no contributions to any waste water plant capital reserve accounts since 2005. Langdale, Merrill Crescent and Lily Lake Village currently have no capital reserves. In recent years, year-end surpluses have been transferred to operating reserves to provide adequate funding for unplanned maintenance and repairs that may not qualify as a capital project or purchase. Staff has identified the need to establish targeted operating reserve balances based on the risk factors and operating conditions inherent to each waste water plant. The Utilities Division is in the process of implementing an asset management program that will assess current infrastructure to determine estimated renewal dates and costs for individual components. Once complete, the data will form the basis of a detailed capital reserve plan for each waste water plant to fund future infrastructure renewal. Currently, there is no timeline in place for implementing this program with respect to the waste water plants.

22


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$

Contributions

Surplus -$ -$ -$ -$

Building 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$ 550,017$

Consolidated Opening

Balance - Capital Reserves

23

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\320 Regional Street Lighting R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: January 25, 2012

TO: Corporate & Administrative Service Committee R2 – February 13, 2012

FROM: Brian K. Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities

RE: Regional Lighting #320, 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the R2 2012 Budget Decision Package report be received for information for Regional Lighting #320.

Background Following is a summary of the Round 1 2012 Budget meeting recommendations:

• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating- Max Dollar Amount: $354- Amount taken: $0. – Approved in R1

• DP#1- Light Fixture Replacement - $10,000 Rejected in R1

2011 Projected Year-end Surplus/Deficit Projected Year-end Surplus / (Deficit)

($4,775)

Reason(s) for: In 2011 the Board approved costs associated with the inventory of street lights of $5,252, which was not captured in the budget. Options: (Select as appropriate) _ __ Transfer to Reserves ____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization ____ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. _) ____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

24

Annex E

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\345 Ports R2.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: Ports #345, 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the R2 2012 Budget Decision Package report be received for information for Ports #345.


• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating- Max Dollar Amount: $977- Amount taken: ($6,825). – Approved in R1

• DP#1 - Major Repairs funded from reserves - $90,000 Approved in R1. • DP#2 – Transfer from Other Professional Fees to Operating Reserve - $6,500 for future major dock inspections Approved in R1.

• DP#3 – Maintenance Boat - $35,000 in capital and $5,500 in operating costs – deferred to 2013 in R1.

• DP #4 – Dock User Fees – refer to PWAC for review and deferred to 2013 in R1. AND THAT staff provide information on Salaries, Line Item 01-2-345-220 in terms of the Building Maintenance, Function 313 budget transfer; • DP #5 – Travel Costs – Direction at R1 was to submit a decision package for the proposed increase in travel costs. The increase is from the R1 budget of $4,000 to $16,800.

2011 Projected Year-end Surplus/Deficit Projected Year-end (Deficit) $ (28,646) Reason(s) for: Due to the allocation of the 2010 deficit from Building Maintenance #313 of $35,907. Options: (Select as appropriate)

____ Transfer to Reserves _____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization __ __ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No.) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

25

Annex F

Corporate & Administrative Services Committee 2012 R2 Decision Package Report Page 2

Building Maintenance Budget Transfer The 2012 Ports budget reflects the transfer of operating expenses from the #313 Building Maintenance function that has been deleted. The salaries portion of these costs reflects a reduction in staffing from 2.0 FTE’s to 1.3 FTE’s that will include one full time staff member and 0.3 allocation of salary costs to allow use of on-call staff as needed. Costs related to vehicle lease fees, insurance, maintenance and fuel will be allocated to departments based on their actual use of the staff. In 2012 that use is limited to: Hours Transit 89 Ports 1,484 (905 for capital repairs) Fleet 40 Field Road 390 Gibsons Library 40 Water Works 160 Total 2,203 Other departments have not indicated a requirement for the use of the building maintenance staff in their work programs. The total hours convert to 1.31 FTE’s. 5. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction

Increase Travel Expenses to $16,800

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


Increase of $12,800 in Travel budget

Funding Source(s)

Property taxation


Becomes part of base budget for future years.


These funds will allow staff to visit the docks periodically for inspections and minor maintenance. These site visits are designed to address maintenance issues in a timely manner and to reduce long term maintenance costs.


No


Yes insofar as this project contributes to Transportation objective of increasing infrastructure to support transportation diversity.

Last Fee Schedule Review (if applicable)

Rationale / Service Impacts: Travel costs in 2011 amounted to $5,111. At the Round 1 budget review the Committee directed staff to submit a decision package outlining proposed changes to the travel expense budget (Line Item #345-320). Staff have reviewed the minimum needs of the function and have the following cost summary:

26


Purpose Hours Cost ($175/Hr.) Quarterly Inspections (7 island docks) 32 5,600 Minor maintenance 64 11,200 Total 96 $16,800 The quarterly inspection travel costs involve use of the water taxi to visit each of the 7 docks in one day over a period of eight hours. Four inspections per year will require 32 hours of water taxi time. The minor maintenance travel is based on staff experience but would allow staff to be transported to and from one dock with costs for two hours of water taxi service. A total of 32 such visits would average to four or five visits per dock over the year.

Five-Year Reserve Plan

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening Balance in Reserve - Cap 366,381 241,881 240,881 235,381 208,381

Contributions Surplus 6,500 56,500 56,500 63,000 66,500

Less: Major Repairs -90,000 -51,000 -49,000 -77,000 -60,000

Less: Gambier Float Repairs -41,000 -6,500 -13,000 -13,000 -13,000

Closing Balance in Reserve 241,881 240,881 235,381 208,381 201,881

27

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\312 Fleet R2 final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT




RE: Fleet Services #312, 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the R2 2012 Budget Decision Package report be received for information for Fleet Services #312.


• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating- Max Dollar Amount: $8,594 - Amount taken: $0. – Approved in R1.

• Decision Package 1 - Increase to the base budget for Recoveries-SCRD Fuel -

$80,000 Approved in R1.

• Package 2 - $30,000, Increase to base budget and 0.5 Full-time Equivalent increase. Deferred to Round 2 with staff to provide additional information on which functions would be impacted and by how much.

• Package 3 - $15,000, Increase in internal charge-out rate to $73.00 for a Capital Reserve for equipment. Deferred to Round 2 with staff to provide additional information on the impact to other functions..

• Package 4 - $3,800, Purchase of a Loaner Vehicle - $3,800 Approved in R1.

• AND THAT staff provide an updated year-end Surplus/Deficit figure for Round 2;


$6,600

Reason(s) for: Higher recoveries on fuel costs through 5% mark-up to internal departments and an overall increase in maintenance revenues over budget. Options: (Select as appropriate)

28

Annex G

Corporate & Administrative Services Committee Fleet Services [312] Page 2

_X__ Transfer to Reserves _____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization _____ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. __) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

2012 R1 Decision Packages (in priority order)


/ Project / Reduction

Increase in Mechanics of 0.5 FTE – cost of $21,600 in salary only as the staff member affected already has benefits.

Rating:

+2 Enhancement


$21,600 representing salary only from April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (731 hours). Based on billing a total of 600 hours (recognizing leaves, etc.) to internal departments at the current rate of $70.00 per hour, this translates into approximately $42,000 in fleet revenues for 2012.

Funding Source(s)

Internal charges to departments.


Will become part of base budget with increased salary costs for a full year of $28,800. A full year of billings to other departments would provide $56,000 in fleet revenues.


Yes, the Fleet division is internally funded and staffing is based on demand for service. Overtime for 2011 totalled 133 hours or $5,100. The impact of not having sufficient staff levels would be an increase in overtime given that fleet safety standards must be maintained and vehicles are required to maintain many of the SCRD services. When there is no mechanic on site there are delays responding to transit vehicle issues that can impact on service. This occurs most often when staff are on leave.


No


Contributes to the delivery of transit services so would help to realize the objectives related to Transportation.


The charge out rate increased from $64.00 to $70.00 per hour in 2009.

29


Rationale / Service Impacts: Mechanic FTE’s were last increased in 2006 when staffing went from 2.7 to the current level of 3.0. The 3.0 FTE’s includes 2 full-time mechanics and 1 part-time (0.5 FTE). There is also a Fleet Supervisor whose time is split between mechanic work and administration. The proposal to increase staffing to 3.5 FTE’s is based on:

• A 50% increase in the number of SCRD vehicles since 2006 • A 7.5% increase in transit service kilometers since 2006. • The overtime and use of part-time staff to do priority repairs.

Since 2006 the number of vehicles requiring maintenance has risen from 62 to 91 or an increase of almost 50%. In 2006 the transit system operated an estimated 694,000 annual kilometers of which 615,000 was operated on the conventional service. In 2012 the status quo service will see the operation of 735,000 kilometers with 657,000 of conventional service. The increase since 2006 will total 52,000 kilometers with the addition of the proposed improvements in transit service for 2012. The total proposed kilometers for 2012 of 746,000 represents an increase of 7.5% over the 2006 figure. Service kilometers not only generate the need for additional preventative but also unforeseen maintenance especially with older equipment. BC Transit has provided estimated ratios of vehicles per mechanic for the larger transit systems that vary from 6.0 vehicles per mechanic to 10 as shown below:

These ratios are very dependent on the types of buses at each site, the number of service hours, kilometers of service, the type of work done and the overall size of the fleet. In the case of the SCRD we operate about 50% more kilometers per bus than most systems so our ratio of vehicles per mechanic has to be lower. If we exclude Victoria given its size and use an average of the other systems of 8.8 buses per mechanic ratio then our 10 buses would require 1.1 mechanics if we operated similar kilometers per year. However our annual kilometers per bus are approximately 150% of the average use among these systems. Therefore rather than 1.1 mechanics we really require 1.6 mechanics for the buses. We also have the 91 other SCRD vehicles that Fleet maintains which we estimate requires an additional 2.0 mechanics for a total of 3.6 FTE’s. In 2011 there was a total of 133 hours of overtime in the Fleet division. In addition the part-time mechanic was paid the equivalent of 1,220 hours including all leaves. The additional 225 hours worked over the 975 hours allocated in the budget was in response to priority maintenance that would have otherwise been scheduled at overtime rates. This typically occurs when full time

Business Unit # Buses km/bus/year Staff bus/mech

ratio

VICTORIA 277 56,000 41 6.7

CENTRAL FRASER VALLEY 61 50,746 6 10.2

KAMLOOPS 58 55,165 7 8.3

KELOWNA/CENTRAL OKANAGAN 96 56,520 10 9.6

NANAIMO 56 52,879 6 9.3

PRINCE GEORGE 27 56,368 4 6.8

30


staff are on leave. In 2011 the Fleet department was able to keep salary costs within budget even with this overage because of staff unpaid leaves and a delay in replacing one staff member who left the SCRD. A summary of the hours that would be accommodated under the proposed staffing is as follows: Annual Hours Requirements: Actual part-time mechanic work hours 1,220 Projected reduction of Fleet overtime hours 30 Requirements based on transit service expansion (7.5% increase) 287 Total Requirements 1,537 Less current budgeted hours (0.5 mechanic) 975 Sub-total 562 Plus leaves, non-billable hours, etc. 213 Additional staffing requirement 762 Estimated annual billable hours per FTE (budget less leave 1,524 and statutory holidays and assuming 95% productivity) Minimum FTE needed 0.5 FTE Based on the 2012 vehicle maintenance budgets for the departments, the distribution of the additional $42,000 in billings would be as follows:

2012 2012 Function Budget % Allocation Transit $437,000 65.2 14,300 Parks 25,000 3.7 1,600 Water 90,000 13.4 5,600 Pender Water 11,000 1.6 700 Recycling 22,000 3.3 1,400 Roberts Creek Fire 12,000 1.8 800 Halfmoon Bay Fire 13,000 1.9 800 GACC 9,000 1.3 600 Sechelt Arena 10,000 1.5 600 Other 41,000 6.1 2,600 Total $670,000 100.0% $42,000


Project / Reduction

Capital Reserve - equipment

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


$15,000

31


Funding Source(s)

Internal charges. Requires an increase in the charge out rate from $70.00 to $73.00 per hour.


Build up a capital reserve in the amount of $45,000 over the next 3 years with an increase in the charge out rate to $73.00 per hour.


Addresses the potential for a significant cost in the event of a major failure requiring replacement of one of the hoists.


No.


The in ground hoist is the only one that can lift the full size buses so the loss of that unit would impact our ability to deliver service which is a value under the Transportation objectives in the “We Envision” document.


Rationale / Service Impacts: Fleet services has assets that include an in ground hoist with replacement cost of $65,000 as well as a drive-on hoist with replacement of $35,000. These hoists are required to allow maintenance of buses and other large vehicles. The cost of replacing one of these assets in a single budget year would have a major impact on the fleet financials. A reserve is proposed that will allow for the eventual replacement of these assets hopefully as a planned replacement but could be used as a contingency if there is an unanticipated failure. The 2012 base budgets by department that would contribute to this cost as shown below:

2012 Function Budget % Allocation Transit $437,000 65.2% 9,800 Parks 25,000 3.7 600 Water 90,000 13.4 2,000 Pender Water 11,000 1.6 200 Recycling 22,000 3.3 500 Roberts Creek Fire 12,000 1.8 300 Halfmoon Bay Fire 13,000 1.9 300 GACC 9,000 1.3 200 Sechelt Arena 10,000 1.5 200 Other 41,000 6.1 900 Total $670,000 100.0% $15,000 The other allocation of 5.9% or $900 is spread across departments with an allocation of less than 1% or $150.

32


Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (or longer if applicable)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening Balance in

Reserve - Cap 9,100 22,100 37,100 52,100 52,100

Contributions Surplus 15,000 15,000 15,000

Building

Other 2,000

Closing Balance in

Reserve 22,100 37,100 52,100 52,100 52,100

33

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\310 Transit final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT



FROM: Brian K. Sagman

RE: Transit, 310, 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the R2 2012 Budget Decision Package report be received for information for Transit, 310.


• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating- Max Dollar Amount: $13,490 - Amount taken: ($2,708) – Approved in R1.

• Decision Package 1 - $53,000, Increase to base budget for Fuel/Lubricants –

Vehicle, Line Item 01-2-310-458 Approved in R1.

• Decision Package 2 - $3,200, Operating reserve for service expansion, Deferred to Round 2 with staff to provide more detail on the net SCRD cost and the increase to the full-time equivalent.

• Decision Package 3 - $80,000, Operating reserve for vehicle lease fees, Deferred to Round 2 with staff to provide financial options on how the program could be implemented.

• Package 4 - $14,000, Increase to base budget for the Free Transit Ticket

Program – Approved at R1.

• Package 5 - $8,000 Annual Post-secondary Student Pass, Deferred to Round 3 with staff to provide more detailed information on the implementation of a one-year pilot project.

A decision package concerning benchmarking by BC Transit has not been included as there is no cost associated with that exercise. 2011 Projected Year-end Surplus/Deficit Projected Year-end Surplus / (Deficit)

$99,800

Reason(s) for: Higher than anticipated funding from BC Transit due to negotiation of the Annual Operating Agreement to reflect actual costs in addition to lower than projected maintenance costs. These surpluses will off-set to some extent by higher fuel costs in 2011. Additional funding from BC Transit may be applied retroactively in 2011 based on a current review of service hour calculations that has been instigated by SCRD staff.

34

Annex H



Options: (Select as appropriate) ____ Transfer to Reserves ____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization __X_ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. 2 and 3) ____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

2012 R2 Decision Packages (in priority order) Definition of Mandatory Projects involve: Safety; 2) Imminent Asset Failure; and/or 3) Regulatory Compliance Issues 2. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Operating reserve – service expansion

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


The impacts on the 2012 budget will be dependent on the amount of expansion that is incorporated in the BC Transit budget. Based on discussions to date staff anticipate an increase of 1,250 hours annually that will translate into 400 hours in 2012 assuming a September implementation. Based on those assumptions the financial impacts in 2012 and for a full year will be as follows: 2012 Annual Costs: Salaries/benefits $14,000 $43,700 Fuel 6,000 17,400 Maintenance 8,200 25,000 Administration 3,000 9,000 Other 1,000 3,000 Total Cost $32,200 $98,100 Funding: BC Transit (46.7%) $15,000 $45,800 SCRD (53.31%): Fares $14,000 $42,000 Surplus/taxation 3,200 10,300 17,200 52,300 Total Funding $32,200 $98,100

In addition to the costs, there would be a requirement for an increase in staffing of 0.64 FTE’s for transit drivers. Staff have also included a decision package in the #312 Fleet Services budget in regards to an increase of 0.5 FTE’s in mechanics, in part, to address the additional maintenance requirements from this service increase.

35



Funding Source(s)

2011 surplus funding of $3,200.


Increased funding from property taxation in the amount of $10,300 annually.


Yes, by providing an operating reserve, funding will be in place to respond to the opportunity to increase service in 2012 without putting the transit budget in a deficit position.


An objective identified in the Strategic Plan is the completion of the Integrated Transportation Study that recommended an increase in transit service between Sechelt and Langdale.


Making transit a more viable alternative to private cars by providing more consistent ½ hour service will contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last Fee Schedule Review (provide details)

May 2010 increase in monthly pass rates of 9% to $60.00 for adults and $38.00 for concession.

Rationale / Service Impacts: In 2006, BC Transit completed the Transit Business Plan that focused on improvements to service frequency between Sechelt and Langdale. The proposed operating reserve would allow the SCRD to have funding in place to signify support for and to respond to service expansion initiatives from BC Transit. This expansion is based on moving towards consistent ½ hour service between Langdale and Sechelt. Depending upon the final service design, this improvement should allow for a local bus and an express bus (via Highway #101 and the bypass) to connect to every ferry at Langdale based on the winter schedule. In the summer when there are additional sailings this design may have to be restructured. 3. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Operating reserve – vehicle lease fees

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


Surplus funding of $80,000

Funding Source(s)

Year end surplus


Funding in the amount of $25,000 from taxation in 2013 and beyond to address projected increases in costs related to bus lease fees.


Yes this reserve will help to off-set the forecast increases in lease fees as older buses are retired and replaced by buses that have higher amortized costs.


No.

36



How does this relate to the

core values expressed in the “We Envision” document?

The replacement of existing 13.3 meter buses could provide the opportunity to substitute smaller buses that have lower fuel consumption. Although the SCRD will have the opportunity to provide input to BC Transit concerning the replacement of the old low floor buses, the provincial fleet plan will to a great extent define the options for replacement vehicles.


May 2010 increase in monthly pass rates of 9% to $60.00 for adults and $38.00 for concession.

Rationale / Service Impacts: Staff recommend this contingency fund in order to address anticipated increases in vehicle and equipment costs beginning in 2012 that will be included in the Annual Operating Agreement (AOA) with BC Transit. The SCRD’s share of lease costs for vehicles and equipment by fiscal year are forecast as follows: SCRD Lease Costs Increase

2011/12 actual $218,800 ------ 2012/13 300,700 $82,000 2013/14 321,300 $21,000

In 2011/12 the lease fees were reduced when BC Transit allocated $38,000 in Public Transit Infrastructure Program funds (PTIP) to reduce the SCRD’s costs on a one time basis. A share of the overall lease fees is included in the SCRD’s financial obligation under the AOA. They are paid on a monthly basis through the invoice from BC Transit. Five-Year Operating Reserve Plan

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening Balance in Reserve - Cap 0 16,600 21,600 46,600 21,600

Contributions Surplus 99,800 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Reserve -Bus costs -80,000 -20,000 -50,000

Service increase -3,200

Closing Balance in Reserve 16,600 21,600 46,600 21,600 46,600

37

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\350-353 Reg Solid Waste R2 final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 21, 2011

TO: Corporate & Administrative Service Committee (R2) February 13, 2012

FROM: Dion Whyte, Manager of Sustainable Services

RE: REGIONAL SOLID WASTE, 350-353, 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the R2 2012 Budget Decision Package report be received for information for Regional Solid Waste, 350-353.


• Maximum 1.5% Increase to Net Operating o Regional Solid Waste [350], Max Dollar Amount: $2,005 - Amount taken:

($3,102). – Approved in R1 o Pender Harbour Solid Waste [351], Max Dollar Amount: $3,519 – Amount

taken: $3,519. – Approved in R1 o Sechelt Solid Waste [352], Max Dollar Amount: $10,426 – Amount taken:

($3,519). – Approved in R1 o Regional Recycling [353], Max Dollar Amount: $4,119 – Amount taken: $0. –

Approved in R1 • Year-end surplus projected for Sechelt Landfill be transferred to the Sechelt Landfill

closure reserve • DP #1 Sechelt Landfill Closure Phase 1: Approved in R1 • DP #2 Landfill Environmental Monitoring Program – Field Meter Purchase:

Approved in R1 • DP #3 Landfill Asbestos Exposure Program and Material Disposal: Referred to

R2 for discussion • DP #4 Implement New Recycling Services in Gibsons Area: Referred to R2 for

discussion

• DP #5 GRIPS Contract Cost Increases: Approved in R1. • DP #6 New Staff Position – Zero Waste Coordinator: Referred to R2 for

discussion pending results of special staffing meeting • DP #7 Pender Harbour Resource Recovery & Transfer Facility Design &

Business Plan: Referred to R2 for discussion pending results of special staffing meeting and with updated costs to reflect a preliminary capital costing prior to moving to detailed design and community consultation

• DP #8 Pender Harbour Transfer Facility Construction: Referred to R2 with comparison of costs with previous estimates

• DP #9 Vehicle Purchase for Sustainable Services/Solid Waste: Referred to R2 for discussion pending report on SCRD vehicles from Transportation & Fleet Services prior to R2 (this decision package has been removed at the CAO’s request)

• DP #10 Business Plan for Gibsons Area Resource Recovery and Transfer Facility: Referred to R2 for discussion pending results of special staffing meeting and eliminating funding option #3 (Feasibility).

• DP #11 Landfill Closure Reserve Contributions: Approved in R1

38

Annex I

Regional Solid Waste [350-353] R2 2012 Page 2

• DP #12 Illegal Dumping Program – Islands Dump Site Inventory and Community Dump Site Cleanup Event: Approved in R1

• DP #13 Landfill Tipping Fee Increase: Approved in R1 • DP #14 “Styrofoam” Collection and Recycling: Approved in R1 • DP #15 Construction & Demolition Resource Recovery Guide: Referred to R2

for discussion with costs of contracted services removed and with funding from 2012 eco fee revenues

• DP #16 Backyard Composting Campaign: Referred to R2 for discussion with costs of contracted services removed and with funding from 2012 eco fee revenues

• DP #17 Reuse and Repair Centre Promotions: Referred to R2 for discussion with costs of contracted services removed and with funding from 2012 eco fee revenues

• DP #18 Solid Waste Services Benchmarking Program: Decision made in R1 to not continue participation in this program.

In addition, the following decision package was requested by recommendation at the February 2, 2012 Infrastructure Services Committee:

• Costs and funding options for holding two facilitated workshops to discuss service levels and funding models for selected solid waste services (included as DP #19).


$114,432 surplus at landfills (tipping fee funded functions) ($ 20,864) deficit in regional solid waste and recycling (tax funded functions)

Reasons for: Tip Fee Funded Functions (Landfills): Total YE Surplus = $114,432 351 Pender Harbour Landfill

• Estimated YE deficit: $286,190 ($1,110 greater than budgeted) 352 Sechelt Landfill

• Estimated YE surplus: $400,622 ($115,542 greater than budgeted) Tax Funded Functions (Regional Solid Waste & Regional Recycling): Total YE Deficit = $20,864 350 Regional Solid Waste

• Surplus of $26,015 (reduced expenditures to offset early projections of deficit in 353) 353 Regional Recycling

• Estimated operating expenses to YE: $12,400 over budget due to transportation & vehicle maintenance and increased costs for materials processing observed during first 3 quarters (does not include costs of temporary recycling contract in Gibsons)

• Impact of temporary recycling depot contract in Gibsons: $34,500

Options: (Select as appropriate)

39


_X__ Transfer to Reserves ($90,000 to landfill closure reserve, $24,432 to establish new landfill operating reserve)

_____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization _____ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. __) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

2012 R2 Decision Packages 3. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction

Landfill Asbestos Exposure Program and Material Disposal

Rating: (State if Project Mandatory)

Mandatory - #1 Safety


Unknown at this time. Recommended that SCRD create a new landfill operating reserve using a portion of the 2011 year end landfill surplus (see above). The reserve could be used to fund costs associated with this initiative once known or be retained for other operating purposes in future years.

Funding Source(s)

Tipping Fees


Unknown at this time


Yes. Cost of existing services.


No.


Health & Social Well Being: Supports protection of SCRD employees, contractors and residents from risks associated with airborne asbestos exposure.

Environmental Responsibility: Protect our environment by minimizing our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.


(if applicable)

n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: The SCRD accepts gypsum at both the Sechelt and Pender Harbour landfills. All drywall collected is taken to New West Gypsum in Vancouver for recycling. Worksafe BC has recently imposed an Asbestos Exposure and Control Program at New West Gypsum. Drywall in homes build prior to 1984 may contain asbestos fibres in the jointing and mudding material. The SCRD has been informed that drywall dating prior to 1984 will not be accepted at New West Gypsum without results from a certified lab.

40


The SCRD is in the research stage of developing an Asbestos Exposure Program and collecting information for residents and contractors to ensure the safety of SCRD staff, promote safe handling of asbestos containing gypsum and to comply with the new screening requirements at New West Gypsum. Staff is awaiting a number of quotes and further information on options for handling this material. It is recommended that this information be brought forward as a report to a committee meeting prior to R3 if possible. Should the information needed to make a final decision on this issue prior to approval of the budget (i.e. operational and financial implications), funds could be drawn from the recommended operating reserve at a later date to cover any associated costs.


Project / Reduction

Implement New Recycling Services in Gibsons Area

Rating:

+2 Enhancement


Minimum estimate of $103,500 (based on additional 9 months at current service levels and monthly cost of services provided by Gibsons Recycling Depot). Actual financial implications will depend on level of service desired (e.g. waste transfer, new recycling programs) and bids received.

Funding Source(s)

Regional taxation


Minimum estimate of $138,000 + 2.5% annual inflation (based on 12 months at current service levels and monthly cost of services provided by Gibsons Recycling Depot). Actual future financial implications will depend on level of service desired and bids received.


Yes. Minimum estimated cost represents cost of maintaining existing services currently being provided in Gibsons Area. Service demands created by a growing community (e.g. waste transfer in Gibsons Area) would further increase service levels and costs.


Yes. Strategic Plan includes the objective of enhancing and improving recycling in all areas. New SWMP recommends a one-stop-drop RRF with waste transfer capacity in the Gibsons Area to service south coast residents.


Zero Waste: Supports implementation of SCRD’s SWMP. Enhanced recycling depots will expand the range of materials that can be recycled and improve convenience for residents thereby supporting increased participation in recycling and reuse. Educational components will promote a culture of waste reduction in the community. Economy & Jobs: Facilities will create jobs in private sector (operating contracts) and feedstock for local cottage industries that produce value added products from waste materials.

41


Land Use: Site located in the Gibsons Area in proximity to other services is consistent with sustainable land use principles and promotes complete, healthy and low emissions community development.


Rationale / Service Impacts: SCRD stopped providing in-house recycling services on September 31, 2011 and awarded a temporary contract to Gibsons Recycling Depot (GRD) for provision of recycling services in the Gibsons Area. The current contract with GRD provides for recycling of household recyclables and batteries only, although other services are provided without by GRD at its facility without funding support from SCRD. The temporary contract expires on March 31, 2012 and SCRD must arrange for continuation of public recycling services beyond this date. The SWMP recommends a one-stop-drop service for recycling, reuse and 3Rs education in the Gibsons Area including a waste transfer component. Proceeding with this service model will require business planning to develop revenue and cost projections and funding options (Decision Package #9), RFP and contract development and staff resources to manage these processes and supervise contracted services. This approach is contingent on approval of the Zero Waste Coordinator position (Decision Package #6). Alternatively, the SCRD may elect maintain current service levels (i.e. contract for depot based recycling of household recyclables only) or consider re-instating in-house recycling depot services provided a new location can be secured.


Project / Reduction

New staff position: Zero Waste Coordinator (0.6 FTE net increase to HR Plan)

Rating:

+2 Enhancement


$53,000 assuming position starts April 1, 2012 (based on $31/hr or $56,500/yr plus 26% benefits)

• Offsetting reduction of 0.4 FTE (relief coverage) at landfills and in regional recycling (net increase of 0.6 FTE to HR plan)

• Will require furniture modifications, computer, phone, cell phone and vehicle access.

• Can be accommodated within existing shared office space with the Environmental Technician.

Funding Source(s)

To be funded in 2012 from prior year surplus (65% or $34,450) and eco fee revenues (35% or $18,550)



$71,100 ($31/hr or $56,500/yr plus 26% benefits)


42


• Funded in future years from regional taxation and user fees (65%) and eco fees (35%)


Yes. Position is needed to move forward with new services identified in the SWMP, address service demands created by a growing community, manage demand for waste disposal services and achieve efficiencies in waste reduction and recycling services.


Strategic Plan three year objectives include reducing tonnage of solid waste disposed in landfills by 5% per capita per year and enhance and improve recycling in all areas. 2010/2011 targets include implementation of newly adopted SWMP, implement one-stop-drop resource recovery facility in Pender Harbour, and other recycling services. Implementation of initiatives in new SWMP will not move forward without a dedicated staff position to lead implementation.


Zero Waste: Supports implementation of SCRD’s SWMP and builds capacity to achieve aggressive waste diversion targets (19% increase over 5 years). Climate & Energy: Enhanced waste diversion will reduce GHG emissions generated from waste going to landfills. In 2007, solid waste emissions currently represent approximately 7% of GHG emissions within the region.


Rationale / Service Impacts: The Zero Waste Coordinator would be a full time position (net increase of 0.6 FTE after offsetting reduction of 0.4 FTE in relief coverage at landfills and in regional recycling) and the primary staff resource dedicated to the implementation of the Zero Waste Management Plan. They would assume tactical responsibility for developing, implementing and monitoring initiatives identified in the Zero Waste Management Plan. The position would be technical in nature and focus on new services, regulations and stewardship programs. The position would be generally responsible for:

• Business casing, developing, implementing and evaluating new programs, services and regulations identified in the Zero Waste Management Plan, including:

o Resource recovery facilities (Gibsons, Sechelt ?, Pender Harbour) o New product stewardship agreements o Curbside recycling collection pilot o Curbside food scraps collection pilot o Every-other-week garbage collection o Pay-as-you-throw garbage collection o Organic waste processing contract o Waste stream monitoring and reporting bylaw o Minimum recycling requirements for construction & demolition projects o Differential permit fees to promote deconstruction over demolition o Material bans for recyclable materials o Illegal dumping program enhancements o Community Swap Day pilot program o Green waste composting and collection options

43


• Coordinate educational initiatives and associated contracted services for programs identified in the Zero Waste Management Plan, including:

o Backyard composting campaign o Community based social marketing strategies for waste reduction and reuse o Residential, business and construction & demolition waste reduction programs

• Supervising new contracted services (e.g. resource recovery facilities, organics processing, curbside recycling & food scraps)

• Administering zero waste program budgets • Securing grant funding to support implementation of the Zero Waste Management Plan • Coordinating communications regarding zero waste initiatives • Implementing and evaluating an in-house zero waste program at all SCRD facilities • Acting as a resource to the Manager of Sustainable Services, the PMAC and the SCRD

Board on zero waste initiatives. The creation of the Zero Waste Coordinator position would allow the Solid Waste Management Coordinator to focus on supervising existing solid waste operations and on coordinating major capital initiatives like the Sechelt Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Stage B closure of the Sechelt Landfill, Pender Harbour Landfill closure and transfer station construction. The position will also relieve the Manager of Sustainable Services from many technical and front-line duties associated with new zero waste initiatives and will significantly increase the Manager’s ability to:

• address the Board’s requests and issues; • set clear goals and objectives for the Division and allocate available resources to

maximize the potential for success; • advocate for the adoption of sustainable policies, practices and procedures across the

organization and support departments and the organization to adopt sustainable practices;

• respond to community concerns and improve community involvement in the planning and development of infrastructure improvements;

• develop and maintain strategic long range plans to ensure the work of the Division remains responsive to customers’ needs and the SCRD’s Strategic Plan;

• develop shorter range tactical plans and business processes to ensure that programs and services are adequately resourced and delivered to meet customer expectations;

• manage the design and construction of Capital Improvement projects; • effectively manage the Sustainable Services budgeting process and providing increased

levels of accountability; • establish and maintain a performance management system to monitor and report on

progress achieved towards established goals. • provide increased cross-departmental assistance; and • provide improved leadership and direction to staff.

The above scope of work assumes that Regional Sustainability (136) Decision Package #2 is approved and the Zero Waste Coordinator would assume responsibility for coordinating all education & outreach initiatives identified in the Zero Waste Management Plan.

7. Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Pender Harbour Resource Recovery & Transfer Facility Design & Business Plan

Rating:

+2 Enhancement

44



$45,000 Optional: An additional $3000 is required for a community consultation component comprised of a community survey delivered through unaddressed mail and one community meeting.

Funding Source(s)

$45,000 broken down as follows: $6,628 appropriated surplus (unspent design budget carried forward from 2011) $24,000 (zero waste implementation budget) $14,372 Tipping fees

Optional $3000 funded from tipping fees Future Financial

Implications:

Project will provide estimated capital construction costs, projected operating costs and revenues, and identify funding options.


Yes. Large scale projects should be broken down to 2 stages beginning with design. Capital projects need to consider impacts on future resources and full cost disclosure (business plan).


Yes. One of the 2010/2011 targets identified in the Strategic Plan is to “Have a one-stop resource recovery and waste transfer facility in Pender Harbour”.


Zero Waste: Supports implementation of SCRD’s SWMP. Enhanced recycling depots will expand the range of materials that can be recycled and improve convenience for residents thereby supporting increased participation in recycling and reuse. Educational components will promote a culture of waste reduction in the community. Economy & Jobs: Facilities will create jobs in private sector (operating contracts) and feedstock for local cottage industries that produce value added products from waste materials. Land Use: Pender Landfill location may not be co-located with existing services and may result in increased vehicle trips, fuel consumption and emissions. On the other hand, majority of future development potential in Area A is in the communities accessed by Garden Bay Road which passes by the Pender Landfill site.


n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: Pender Harbour Landfill is nearing final capacity (revised estimated closure year is 2013). The SCRD Board, following extensive consultation with the Pender Harbour community, has resolved to convert the Pender Harbour Landfill to a transfer station once it reaches final capacity such that service levels for waste disposal would remain similar to what they are today except that garbage would be transferred to the regional landfill in Sechelt for burial. In keeping with the goal of zero waste, and in order to minimize the amount of garbage being transferred to Sechelt Landfill, the Board has further directed that staff develop plans for a one-stop-drop resource recovery facility in Pender Harbour with the intention of developing a facility prior to final closure of the landfill.

45


A conceptual design for the Pender Harbour Resource Recovery Facility (PHRRF) was developed by a group of local stakeholders in 2010. The conceptual design was used to inform the SCRD’s newly adopted Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The conceptual design recommends that SCRD construct and retain ownership of capital works associated with the facility and contract with the private and/or not-for-profit sectors for operation of recycling and materials recovery services. Three potential locations were identified: Pender Harbour Landfill; New Corner Site (on SCRD’s License of Occupation located near corner of Garden Bay Road and Pender Landfill road); and Madeira Park area (site undetermined). As part of the SWMP public consultation process, residents in Pender Harbour were asked to provide feedback on the PHRRF conceptual plan and potential locations. Of the 85 residents who completed surveys, 55 (65%) indicated their preferred location was the Pender Harbour Landfill. Given the limited amount of site life remaining at the Pender Harbour landfill, it is recommended that the design and construction of both the PHRRF and transfer facility proceed together. As a number of factors related to costs and funding remain uncertain, it is further recommended that a business plan for the development and operation of the facility be developed prior to proceeding with the capital works. A budget of $45,000 is recommended to complete the business plan, geotechnical assessment, detailed engineering and design work and preparation of construction tender package(s). Of this, an estimated $15,000 will go towards the design and tendering of the transfer facility component and should be funded from tipping fees, with the balance funded from funds carried over from 2011. Terms of reference for the consultant would require updated capital cost estimates for review by the SCRD Board before proceeding with detailed engineering and design work. An optional cost of $3000 is could be considered to hold one public meeting and conduct a community survey (direct unaddressed mail) to solicit feedback on the proposed facility, location and costs. With the exception of the business plan development, engineering and design work would not proceed until the results of service level and funding discussions are known. Currently, the Sustainable Services Division lacks capacity to undertake this initiative and proceeding is contingent on approval of the Zero Waste Coordinator position (Decision Package #6). 8. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction

Pender Harbour Transfer Facility Construction

Rating:

+2 Enhancement


$330,000 capital cost (based on consultant’s estimated cost of $300,000 in 2008 plus annual inflation at 2.5%)

• Approximately $72,500 annual debt payments based on 5 year term at current posted rate

• Approximately $41,300 annual debt payments based on 10 year term at current posted rate

Funding Source(s)

Debt financing with repayment funded by tipping fee revenues.


Debt and operating costs to be offset by reduced landfill operating costs. Financial implications will vary depending on debt financing option selected, for example:

• Approximately $72,500 annual debt payments based on 5 year term @ current posted rate

• Small increase in annual operating costs ($5,000 - $10,000/yr) until debt repaid (5 year term)

46


• Decrease in annual operating costs ($20,000 - $25,000) until debt repaid (10 year term)

• Approximately $60,000 - $70,000 in savings relative to current landfill operating costs after debt repaid

Is this consistent with the

Financial Sustainability Policy?

Yes. Cost of maintaining service levels.


Yes. The Zero Waste priority identified in the Strategic Plan includes establishment of a resource recover and waste transfer facility in Pender Harbour.


Zero Waste: Supports implementation of SCRD’s SWMP. Economy & Jobs: Conversion of the Pender Landfill to a waste transfer station will reduce the need for some contracted services (landfill maintenance) and create the need for new services (waste hauling).


Rationale / Service Impacts: Pender Harbour Landfill is nearing final capacity. It is currently estimated that the site will need to close in 2013. The SCRD Board has resolved to convert the existing Pender Harbour Landfill to a waste transfer station once it reaches capacity such that services would continue to be provided at the current site but waste would be hauled to the regional Sechelt Landfill for burial. The Board has further indicated it would like to establish a full service, on-stop-drop resource recovery facility in the Pender Harbour area to minimize the amount of waste requiring disposal. These services have been incorporated into the newly adopted Zero Waste Management Plan. To ensure continuation of waste disposal services to residents and businesses of Area A, it is recommended that SCRD proceed with construction of a waste transfer facility at the Pender Harbour Landfill site in 2012 as the first phase of developing a full service, one-stop-drop resource recovery facility. This initiative is contingent on completing detailed engineering and design work for the waste transfer facility proposed in Decision Package #7) This work should proceed regardless of whether or not the Board supports moving ahead with establishment of the resource recovery facility. It is recommended that discussion on moving forward with construction of the resource recovery facility component be deferred pending a decision on the hiring of a Zero Waste Coordinator (Decision Package #6) and completion of the business plan and detailed design work (Decision Package #7). Costs are identified above. Capital costs are the same as estimated by Sperling Hansen and as presented to the Pender Harbour community in 2009/2010 ($300,000), with the exception that a 2.5% annual inflation rate has been applied to reflect the time value of money. Annual operating costs and resulting savings once initial capital debt has been repaid is similar to what was previously projected and reported to the Pender Harbour community ($70,000 annual savings projected at that time). Work would not proceed until the results of service level and funding discussions are known.

47



Project / Reduction

Business Plan for Gibsons and Sechelt Area Resource Recovery Facilities

Rating:

+2 Enhancement


$40,000

Funding Source(s)

Option 1: Regional taxation Option 2: 50% regional taxation and 50% prior year surplus for zero waste implementation


None (one time project)


Yes. New services or major enhancements require full cost disclosure to determine future financial and resource impacts (e.g. business casing/planning).


Yes. Strategic Plan includes the objective of enhancing and improving recycling in all areas. New SWMP recommends a one-stop-drop RRF with waste transfer capacity in the Gibsons Area to service south coast residents.


Same as for Decision Package #4


Rationale / Service Impacts: Current recycling services are being provided in Gibsons under temporary contract which expires March 31, 2011, and in Sechelt by SCRD and SIGD staff using the existing Haul-All system at the Tsain-Ko mall. The newly adopted SWMP recommends establishment of a one-stop-drop resource recovery and waste transfer facility in Gibsons Area (serving Town of Gibsons, Area E, Area F and parts of Area D) and a one-stop-drop resource recovery facility in the Sechelt Area (serving the District of Sechelt, SIGD, Area B and parts of Area D). Implementation this service as recommended in the SWMP requires development of a comprehensive business plan to:

• Determine service levels and criteria for facility • Determine operating and capital (if any) costs • Estimate revenues • Identify financial impacts on other SCRD solid waste management facilities, operating

budgets and fees • Develop options for service delivery and funding

Results would provide guidance on future costs and funding models, and would support informed decision making regarding implementation of enhanced recycling and waste transfer services in the Gibsons and Sechelt Areas, future Requests for Proposals for enhanced recycling services these areas (or alternative process) and future engineering and design of waste transfer infrastructure to service Gibsons Area residents.

48


Proceeding with this initiative is contingent on approval of the Zero Waste Coordinator position (Decision Package #6). The scope of this initiative will need to be adjusted based on results of the service levels and funding workshop with staff and elected officials (to be scheduled). 15. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Construction and Demolition Resource Recovery Guide

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


$4,500 broken down as follows: • $2000 contracted design & layout services* • $2500 for advertising and promotions of

completed guide • Assumes approximately 16-18 days of (~ $3,500)

staff time to conduct research, survey local C&D companies, and solicit feedback from C&D companies on draft guide before finalizing

*Due to limited internal capacity to do this work for larger publications. Alternatively this work could be assigned to the Communications Officer but would be addressed in priority sequence (i.e. timelines subject to competing priorities).

Funding Source(s)

2012 eco fee revenues


These one-time project development fees are for 2012. Depending on the uptake of the practices contained in the guide, and depending on the growth in the construction industry in the coming years, education and outreach with the building community may require additional resources as part of base budget to ensure that the issue of construction and demolition waste reduction gets adequate, region-wide attention and action.


Yes. Complements existing services, seeks to manage service demands created by a growing community and building sector. Use of prior year surplus for one time project.


Yes. The strategic plan states ‘adopt and begin implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The development of a construction and demolition recovery guide is a recommended action within the newly adopted SWMP.


ZERO WASTE: Recovery of building materials that can be used again in future projects or developments is part of the region’s environmental responsibility. LEARNING & LEADING: By nurturing the recovery and reuse of construction and demolition materials, we are challenging conventional approaches that would see these items sent as waste to landfills, instead we are fostering a culture of creativity, innovation and learning.

49


LOCAL ECONOMY & JOBS: Projects like this may also be a part of spurring our economic vitality, as we strive to make the Coast more self sufficient and resilient to changing and uncertain economic conditions. CLIMATE & ENERGY: Construction and demolition materials diverted from landfills also avoids any GHG’s association with their decomposition in landfills. GHG’s are also avoided by reusing materials as less extraction, processing and transportation is required to bring new building materials to the Sunshine Coast.


n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: The Construction and Demolition (C&D) Resource Recovery Guide is an education and outreach tool to be used with the development, construction, and demolition industry, as well as the general public, to reduce the amount of material sent to landfills that could be repurposed, resold or used again. A variety of other municipalities and regional districts have construction and demolition guides that would serve as references/templates for this work. There are 5 main steps are anticipated in the development and promotion of this tool: conduct a web/literature review, local industry research and partnership development for promotions, develop the text, meet with construction and demolition community for review, apply graphic design. Once finalized, the tool will be promoted collaboratively in print and online via the municipalities, SIGD, the SCRD, the CCBA, individual builders’ websites, building supply stores, habitat for humanity and other reuse stores. The construction and demolition sector accounts for an estimated 30% of the waste generated in the region. This initiative supports the following associated initiatives recommended in the SCRD’s newly adopted SWMP:

• New material disposal bans

• Minimum waste diversion rates for construction & demolition projects

• Financial incentives to promote deconstruction over demolition

Projected costs assume that the Public Education & Outreach Coordinator conducts research, develops content for the guide, and conducts outreach with the C&D community, and are therefore subject to decisions made regarding Decision Package #2 for the Regional Sustainability function (136). A budget for graphic design, advertising, printing and distribution is also included. Alternatively, research and content drafting could be contracted out. This would increase the project cost to $8,000.

50


16. Proposed Enhancement / Project / Reduction

Backyard Composting Campaign

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


$7,000

Funding Source(s)

2012 eco fee revenues


One year will not be enough for this type of program to be successful. If this project is to succeed, equivalent funding for two subsequent years (2013 and 2014) should be considered.


Yes. Zero waste education programs funded from regional taxation or eco-fees as opposed to prior year surplus (one time projects only) or landfill tipping fees (go towards funding landfill operations and reserves)


The adoption and implementation of the SWMP is target in the SCRD’s 2010-2011 strategic plan. Eliminating organics from the waste stream is a key feature of the Zero Waste Management Plan. The SWMP includes a recommendation to promote backyard composting through education and training.


Environmental Responsibility: supports protection of “...our culture and the future of our environment by minimizing our contributions to the pollution of land, water and air.’ ZERO WASTE, CLIMATE & ENERGY: When treated as a waste material, organics are buried in the landfill and generate methane – a strong greenhouse gas. When treated as a resource, organics do not take up space in the landfill and as a result, methane is not created. FOOD SECURITY: Backyard composting allows kitchen and yard waste to be turned into new soil for backyard gardening.


n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: The development of an educational program to support increased backyard composting in the SCRD is a recommendation in the newly adopted Solid Waste Management Plan (or Zero Waste Management Plan). The program would consist of information materials, training opportunities for residents and the development of a compost demonstration site through collaboration with potential community partners. Specific tasks associated with this initiative include:

- Local Research to the barriers to backyard composting and how these can be managed (this might be different for different areas)

- Review of backyard composting campaigns in other similar rural areas - Develop campaign plan and materials

51


- Seek collaborators to leverage funds and/or in-kind contributions (e.g. demonstration site, skills and expertise)

- Run campaign to promote backyard composting - Plan and run compost training event or events for residents

Projected costs assume the Education and Outreach Coordinator conducts research, develops campaign plan and materials and coordinates training event(s) and establishment of a potential demonstration site, and are therefore subject to decisions made regarding Decision Package #2 for the Regional Sustainability function (136). It is assumed that graphic design and communications support will be provided in house. Majority of funds would cover advertisements and promotions and costs associated with one or more training events. It is assumed that hard costs associated with the establishment of a compost demonstration garden will be minor as sites already exist that could be leveraged for educational purposes. 17. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Reuse and Repair Centre Promotions

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


$ 2500

Funding Source(s)

Option 1: regional taxation Option 2: 2012 eco fee revenues


If approved, this program would become part of the SCRD’s regular education program and would result in a $2500 increase to base budget in future years.


Yes. Zero waste education programs funded from regional taxation or eco-fees as opposed to prior year surplus (one time projects only) or landfill tipping fees (go towards funding landfill operations and reserves)


Yes. The strategic plan states ‘adopt and begin implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan. Promotions of reuse and repair centres is a recommended initiative within the SWMP.


CORE VALUES - Reuse and repair centres uphold the values of Environmental Responsibility – they provide options to buying new and are one avenue towards consuming less. Local government promotion of reuse and repair centres also upholds the health and social well being values that demonstrate leading by example. LOCAL ECONOMY & JOBS – Reuse and repair centre promotions will benefit locals who are in the business of providing products or services that enable residents to purchase reused and repaired items.

52


CLIMATE & ENERGY - increased purchase of reused and repaired items means less new purchases are required overall. This means less extraction, less processing and less waste by-product from the production of new stuff ZERO WASTE – increased purchase of reused and repaired items means less volume of materials sent to landfill.


n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: Promotions of all reuse and repair facilities or businesses on the coast will help raise awareness of the products and services that are available in each community. The goal is to see an increase in the use of reuse and repair businesses. A campaign that raises awareness of these services and their benefits from a waste reduction perspective, and helps consumers recognize these businesses on the street, will bring attention and patronage to the businesses or service providers. Steps include:

- Inventory reuse and repair shops and services - Discuss/research awareness raising needs with service providers - Develop online, print and prompt campaign - Implement campaign through print and web media

The Education and Outreach Coordinator will develop and implement promotions. Therefore costs are subject to decisions made regarding Decision Package #2 for the Regional Sustainability function (136). It is assumed that graphic design and communications support will be provided by the SCRD’s Communications Officer. 19. Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction Two Facilitated Workshops to Discuss Service Levels and Funding Models

Rating:

+1 Enhancement


$ 5,150 (estimate) broken down as follows: $4,500 for facilitator’s fees (assumes 1 day for prep and reporting and ½ day meeting) $250 for venue rental $400 for snacks and beverages (or less depending on number of attendees)

Funding Source(s)

Option 1: regional taxation Option 2: contingency fund for Zero Waste Plan implementation


None (one-time expense)


Yes. Service reviews (non-statutory)

53



Not specifically. This process is part of moving forward with Zero Waste Management Plan implementation, which is identified as a key priority in the current Strategic Plan.


ZERO WASTE – agreement on service levels and funding models needed to move forward with initiatives identified in Zero Waste Management Plan, which in turn will support regional waste reduction targets.


n/a

Rationale / Service Impacts: On February 2, 2012, the Infrastructure Services Committee recommended a process for reviewing solid waste service levels, participating areas and potential funding models for selected programs and services (pending Board approval). As part of this process, the need to have at least two regional or sub-regional workshops was identified. Staff was directed to bring forward a decision package to R2 for budget to accommodate the cost of these workshops, including costs associated with an independent facilitator to run the workshops. The 2012 Financial Implications reported above assume 2 workshops are held. Actual costs will depend on the number of attendees and the venue selected. Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan (or longer if applicable) The following table summarizes reserve projections for both Sechelt and Pender landfill closure reserves:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening balance 2,495,781$ 1,455,781$ 880,781$ 975,781$ 1,070,781$

In Reserve - Cap

Contributions 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$

Surplus 65,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Building 0 0 0 0 0

Other (1,200,000) (670,000) 0 0 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 1,455,781$ 880,781$ 975,781$ 1,070,781$ 1,165,781$

Note that closure costs anticipated in future years are as follows:

• 2022: $1,870,000 (2010 dollars) or $2,400,000 (Future Value) • 2030: $3,775,000 (2010 dollars) or $5,700,000 (Future Value)

54

H:\FIN\Budget 2012\R2\R2 Final Dec Pkgs\520 Building R2 final.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 6th, 2012

TO: Corporate and Administrative Service Committee (R2), February 15th, 2012

FROM: Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager

RE: Building Division [520] - 2012 R2 BUDGET DECISION PACKAGE

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Chief Building Inspector’s report regarding Building Division Function [520] 2012 R2 Budget Decision Package be received for information.

Background A Following is a summary of the Round 1 2012 Budget meeting recommendations:

• Decision Packages for Function [520] Building Department were deferred to

Round 2 for further discussion with a request for more information. At the Corporate Services Committee R1 Budget meeting held January 20th, the following recommendations were made, excerpt as follows: Recommendation No. 31 Function 520 Building Inspection: The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommended that the decrease of $6,306 to the net operating base budget for Building Inspection, Function 520, be approved as presented in the 2012 R1 budget and outlined in the January 18, 2012 Building Inspection [520] 2012 R1 Budget Decision Package report; AND THAT the report be referred to the second round of budget discussions, amended to include a percentage of the taxation levied to a potential $150,000 tax increase; AND THAT the rate stabilization fund be transferred to surplus and subsequently used to offset the deficit; AND FURTHER THAT the budget for Building Inspection [520] be referred to the second round of budget meetings as amended.

Attachments:

1. Graph showing revenue and expenses with projections to 2013 2. Spreadsheet of comparable Regional Districts 3. Spreadsheet showing Municipal data

55

Annex J


2011 Year-end Surplus / (Deficit) Year-end Surplus / (Deficit)

$(25,600) deficit approximately

Reason(s) for: Reduced permit revenues as a result of construction market trends affecting the Sunshine Coast Regional District in 2011 have resulted in a lower than expected revenue line incomes for this function. There are no rate stabilization reserves remaining for this function as all previous years reserves have been allocated to offset expenses and minimise taxation. Options: (Select as appropriate) _____ Transfer to Reserves _____ Transfer to Rate Stabilization _____ Use for One-time Expenditure (Decision Package No. ___) _____ Repay Outstanding Debt (Leases) As per section 4.4 of the SCRD Financial Sustainability Policy.

Discussion:

The market conditions of 2009/2010 in the construction sector have finally caught up with the Sunshine Coast Regional District and is reflected in 2011 early spring permit volume activity being significantly less active than in previous years. While the budget expenses have been relatively stable year over year since 2008, revenues have dropped in 2011 resulting in staff projecting deficit for year ending 2011. Three things have assisted in the minimization of the projected deficit enabling this function’s year end expenses to be less than budgeted for 2011:

• We have experienced staff wage savings due to a long term disability of one Building Inspector with his income being covered by LTD insurance and not being expensed to the Building Department budget, ($80,000 including most benefits/burden). This position was not backfilled in anticipation of a lean year.

• We have had significant deferred permit income applied to this year’s revenues to help offset 2011 expenses as well, (St Mary’s Hospital permit deferred permit revenue of $50,000; $38,000 remains for 2012 for this phase).

• An increase in permit fees resulting in a net-10% increase effective August 1st 2011 was approved by the Board with a further net-5% increase for January 1st 2012. (Additional permit revenue for the second half 2011 is estimated at $10,000 with this increase in place.)

Although taxation of $50,000 formed part of the 2011 budget, it was less than asked for during the 2011 budget process. At this time it remains clear there will be a deficit of approximately $25,600 in this function after applying remaining rate stabilization funds.

56


Discussion on Taxation: The following table shows historical taxation in this function from 2000 through 2011. From 2000 to 2004, significant taxation amounts were allocated to meet budget requirements, largely staffing costs, for these years to undertake plan review and inspection services. Based on the 12 years of taxation history since 2000, a minimum taxation amount of $88,975 per year would have been required to stabilize the building inspection function, (through surplus years as well as deficit years),. Discussion on Taxation Table One:

Taxation year Taxation levied Taxation as a % of [520] budget 2000 215,128 % 46 2001 2002 2003 2004

246,021 51 242,337 42 171,803 25 42,411 -19 (surplus)

2005 0 -6 (surplus) 2006 0 -17 (surplus) 2007 0 -30 (surplus) 2008 0 -11 (surplus) 2009 2010

50,000 7 50,000 7

2011 Proposed taxation 2012 option one 2012 option two 2013 *

50,000 8 225,000 32.5 150,000 22.5 200,000 30

*Staff recommend annual taxation be set at the amount required to balance the future financial sustainability of the Building Function [520]. The 2012 taxation request, however, will be different this round as we must also make up for the projected deficit expected for 2011 and staff that was not paid out of budget for 2012 on top of requested taxation for the 2012 budget. Staff propose later in this report to increase taxation to $ 225,000 for 2012. A survey of some municipalities and several comparable regional districts has indicated that where Building Departments depend on supplemental taxation to meet budgetary needs, approximately 25 to 50 percent of revenue on average is raised through taxation as noted in the following table:

57


Local Government Comparables Table Two: Local Government Taxation as a

percentage of 2011 budget

Municipality Whitehorse Yukon

36% 50%

Port Coquitlam 35% Burnaby

5-10%

Regional Districts Squamish Lillooet RD

33%

Fraser Valley RD Nanaimo RD Okanagan Similkameen RD Thompson Nikola R.D. Cariboo R.D Bukley Nechako R.D. Central Kootenay R.D. East Kootenay R.D. Sunshine Coast R.D. Average Taxation model for Regional Districts = 41% Almost all cities and municipalities surveyed take Building Department funds from general revenue and do not carry deficits as a result.

80% 36% 33% 45% 25% 82% 47% 26% 7%

Please refer to spreadsheet entitled “Regional District Statistics-2011” as well as additional lower mainland data collected for the 2012 local government budget process, both attached. The Regional District spreadsheet summarizes construction volume, annual budget, taxation funding, permit fee revenues and staff levels for 2011. The City and Municipal spreadsheet looks at staffing levels and construction value among other items. Analysis of Spreadsheets: The data contained in the RD spreadsheet indicates regional districts that are roughly similar in permit volume, (with one exception where they are heavily subsidised at 82%). There would appear to be more clerical support services in the other regional districts than in the SCRD. The building inspection staffing level would also appear to be similar, as the SCRD Plan Check staff also double as Building Inspectors. Looking at the Municipal average model, it would appear that current staffing levels for the SCRD are comparable, however the geography in the SCRD remains unique to

58


lower mainland jurisdictions in that we are long and narrow, as well as having a number of islands where construction occurs. Our geography demands longer travel times between inspections normally requiring a higher number of staff to deliver the expected service. At the SCRD, it would appear that staff area able to meet the expectations of the client even though distances traveled are greater. The SCRD Building Division service delivery model is based on the Core MIA Building Bylaw, (provided as a guide to all local governments throughout the Province as the minimum standard to which inspections, as defined by the bylaw, should take place), wherein certain milestones of inspections have been adopted. These minimum standards have been set as the benchmark for those jurisdictions undertaking building inspection with a view that should these cornerstones of inspection be undertaken, a minimum of liability to the local government should result. The Building Division does not inspect buildings beyond what is set out in the current bylaw modeled after the MIA document. From a level of service perspective, the SCRD is providing only “core” inspections presently; therefore reducing the number of inspections per permit is not considered an option. Building Department Processes Audit:

The Building Department is currently considering going through an accreditation process to improve already good customer service with a view to identify any inefficiencies or conflicts with the goals of the Department regarding timeliness of permit issuance, high quality plan review and inspection as well as excellent customer service. This review is expected to be entirely funded through a risk management grant from MIA, (who support the process), applied over two budget cycles and is tentatively planned to begin in March 2012. The accreditation agency is IAS, (International Accreditation Service), a not for profit agency that accredits testing laboratories such as Warnock Hersey, certification agencies such as CSA and is internationally recognized in the USA, Canada, Europe and Japan. An accreditation presentation by IAS will take place at UBCM in fall of this year. The Province of BC is seriously looking at accreditation of Building Departments throughout BC to establish a standard of practice for all building departments. The SCRD Building Department may be one of the first in Canada to embark upon this accreditation process. 2012 R2 Decision Packages Option 1: (recommended by staff) Proposed Enhancement /

Project / Reduction

Increase taxation in the amount of $225,000 for 2012 The proposed increase will sustain current service delivery only and maintain existing staff levels.

Rating:

Core operations


Tax increase transferred to the taxpayer and result in a net tax increase of approximately $16.00 per dwelling based on the average 2011 BCAA assessed values and presumes no other tax increases from other sources.

59


Funding Source(s)

Taxation


Additional taxation from 2013 forward in the amount of the difference between revenue and operating expenses each year approaching the 12 year sustainable taxation model identified in the chart under “Discussion on Taxation” forming part of this report. (for example: a percentage of budget as proposed in option one)

Relation to Financial Sustainability Policy

Future financial sustainability of Yes: rate stabilization. Establish a base rate of taxation to reduce the high variability in year to year tax requisition needs.

Relation to Corporate Strategic Plan

This is not identified in the strategic plan directly however financial sustainability is part of the overall corporate strategic plan.

Sustainability/We Envision Relates to the safety, health and integrity of housing stock on the Sunshine Coast for present and future owners.


Building permit fees were increased in two stages—First phase effective August 2011 and Second phase effective January, 2012.

Rationale / Service Impacts: For 2012 service levels under Option One will be maintained. There are no additional projects or enhancements proposed for this function for 2012. The taxation proposed will sustain current service delivery only for the expected 2012 volume of permit activity, (similar to 2011), including the addressing of backlogged files. The current Building Division service delivery model as related above includes not only the issuance of permits and keeping of records, but the inspection process leading to occupancy of all buildings. Where permits may become aged for a number of reasons, follow up and successful completion of the permit process is necessary as part of the Building Department responsibilities. A number of additional services form part of the Building Department function such as building code and bylaw interpretation, materials and product advice, construction techniques, energy conservation and advice on bylaw compliance to list a few. There are approximately 635 aged building permits as of the end of 2011 requiring follow up. The number of aged permits has been reduced to 635, from 850 at the end of 2009 with present staff resources. A program for active follow up on aged permits since 2008 has been put in place for permits issued after 2008, however a large block of permit follow up is required for permits issued prior to 2008. The person hours estimated to deal with this block of work, (the 635 permits), is estimated to equate to one person-year of work. There are other incomplete aged permit files that have been microfilmed and closed as “Incomplete”. Recent legal opinions point to a need to review these files before concluding them as “Incomplete” as there are liabilities associated to the potential lack of basic life safety and health concerns not being addressed as these building are being occupied. While there are cautiously optimistic construction industry forecasts for 2012, the Building Division can focus on aged permits if building activity continues at its slow pace. As well, the remainder of the St. Mary’s hospital permit will be applied to the 2012 revenues, ($38,000) and the third phase of St. Mary’s expansion may occur in 2012.

60


Option 2: (not recommended by staff) Moved In Camera for further discussion.

Five-Year Capital Reserve Plan, (Vehicle Replacement)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Opening balance 16,244$ 28,244$ 16,244$ 34,244$ 12,244$

In Reserve - Cap

Contributions 12,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 12,000$ 18,000$

Surplus -$ -$ -$ -$

Building 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 -30,000 0 -34,000 0

Closing Balance

In Reserve 28,244$ 16,244$ 34,244$ 12,244$ 30,244$

Vehicle Replacement discussion: Staff recommend that the capital vehicle replacement program as set out in the table above be adopted including;

1. The schedule of replacement of vehicles, and, 2. The yearly contributions towards funding the vehicle replacement.

The contributions for 2012 have been reduced by 33% with a view that the current 2004 Tracker could run for one more year before its recommended replacement in 2013. If possible, a fuel efficient diesel or hybrid fuel vehicle would be considered as a first choice budget permitting. Summary of Decision Package Options for function [520], (Building Division):

1. (Recommended) Increase taxation in the amount of $225,000 for 2012. This amount is expected to cover the deficit beyond existing taxation of $50,000 for 2011, reconcile the full cost contingent of existing staff and establish a taxation base consistent with the model taxation base of approximately %33. The funding of operating expenses for this function in this manner is consistent with the financial sustainability model presented to the Board in 2009.

Respectfully submitted; Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager.

61

20

0

40

0

60

0

80

0

10

00

Ye

arly

tax

, rev

en

ue

an

d e

xp

en

ses fro

m 1

99

8 to

20

11

an

d p

roje

cted

to 2

01

3

pe

rmit

fee

s

rev

en

ue

s

exp

en

ses

Sta

ffing

19

90

-20

03

= 6

.6 F

TE

20

03

-20

09

= 7

.6 F

TE

20

09

-20

11

= 7

.0 F

TE

-40

0

-20

0 0

taxa

tion

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

62

Attachment 1

Ge

og

rph

ical

Are

a Size

Nu

mb

er O

f

Mu

nicip

al

Nu

mb

er

Of E

.A.'s

Po

pu

latio

n

Size

Avg

# o

f

BP

's pa

st 5

Yrs

Ave

rag

e

Co

nstru

ction

Va

lue

Ave

rag

e

An

nu

al

Bu

dg

et

Ave

rag

e

Ta

xatio

n

Fun

ds

Ave

rag

e

Pe

rmit

Fee

s

Fun

ds

MT

I

Re

ven

ue

# o

f N.O

.T.

Insp

/Da

y

Pe

ak

Insp

/Da

y

Low

Bld

g In

spP

lan

Ch

eck

CB

I/Ma

nC

lerk

R.D

.N.O

.7

87

,19

0 h

a4

57

73

01

48

5 6

7,9

80

,71

4.0

0

80

0,0

00

08

00

,00

0M

inim

al

20

- 25

/yr7

-10

1-4

4 FT

11

FT

Ca

ribo

o R

.D.

8,0

26

,20

0 h

a4

12

63

,00

01

13

04

7,5

00

,00

0.0

0

$1

.2 M

ill3

00

,00

09

00

,00

06

0-7

08

-10

4 - 6

4 FT

13

FT 2

PT

R.D

. of B

ukle

y-Ne

cha

ko7

,70

0,0

00

ha

87

38

,24

32

00

7,0

00

,00

02

83

,00

01

86

,00

04

0,0

00

1/yr

12

31

FT1

R.D

.of C

en

tral K

oo

ten

ay

2,3

00

,00

0 h

a6

11

58

,00

08

70

55

,82

7,2

53

.00

95

0,0

00

45

0,0

00

50

0,0

00

N/A

4-8

/mo

nth

10

24

FT1

3 FT

R. D

. of E

ast K

oo

ten

ay

2,8

24

,43

0 h

a6

65

5,4

85

84

28

0,4

30

,87

1.0

0

90

0,0

00

23

3,0

00

55

5,0

00

8 - 1

2/yr

12

55

FT1

1 FT

R. D

. of K

oo

ten

ay B

ou

nd

ary

80

9,6

00

ha

75

30

,74

26

21

66

,97

5,0

43

.00

8

50

,00

00

85

0,0

00

10

- 20

/yr5

- 10

1 -5

6 FT

12

FT/2

Ca

s

R. D

. of O

kan

ag

an

-Similka

me

en

1,0

40

,00

0 h

a6

87

7,1

77

41

13

9,4

11

,95

9.0

0

75

0,0

00

30

% is g

oa

l3

70

,10

02

55

25

FT2

FT

Sun

shin

e C

oa

st R.D

.4

0,0

00

ha

25

27

,75

94

30

60

,00

0,0

00

.00

75

0,0

00

50

,00

07

00

,00

0$

1,0

00

15

20

55

FT2

FT1

3 FT

Th

om

pso

n N

icola

R.D

.4

,52

7,9

00

ha

11

10

12

2,2

86

64

67

6,6

29

,85

9.0

0

$1

.1 M

ill5

00

,00

04

60

,00

05

02

01

05

FT1

1 FT

63

Attachment 2

Ra

nk

ed

by T

ota

l 20

11

Co

nstru

ctio

n V

alu

e p

er S

taff*

Revised: Jan. 27, 2012

20

10

20

11

Lo

cale

Pla

n C

he

ck

Bu

ildin

gP

lum

bin

gE

lec

trica

lC

leric

al

Po

pu

latio

nC

on

stru

ctio

nC

on

stru

ctio

n

Po

pu

latio

n

ran

kra

nk

Sta

ffIn

sp

ec

t Sta

ffIn

sp

ect S

taff

Ins

pect S

taff

Sta

ffV

alu

eva

lue

pe

r sta

ff*p

er s

taff*

1W

hite Rock

1.11.0

0.4n

/a0.4

18,755

75,354,360$

30,141,744$

750212

2N

ew W

estminster

2.04.0

2.0n/a

2.066,000

240,000,000

$ 30,000,000

$ 8250

23

Surrey

13.613.0

12.07.5

14.0472,000

1,216,269,000

$ 29,957,365

$ 11626

54

Burnaby

9.08.0

6.05.0

5.5223,000

615,529,091

$ 27,356,848

$ 9

91

1

85

West V

ancouver2.0

5.02.0

1.02.0

44,000

237,225,000$

26,358,333$

4889n

/an

/aY

VR

0.8

0.8

n/a

n/a

1.0

25

,00

0

61

,28

6,9

78

$

24

,51

4,7

91

$

100007

6V

ancouver29.0

21.019.0

16.025.0

613,000

1,682,498,665$

22,433,316$

817313

7D

elta 3.4

2.02.0

n/a2.0

103,000

156,000,000$

21,081,081$

1391918

8C

oquitlam7.0

6.07.0

0.06.0

128,000

393,582,701$

20,714,879$

67371

9R

ichmond

7.010.5

10.0n/a

3.0197,000

424,000,000

$ 20,682,927

$ 9

61

0

610

City of N

orth Van

2.82.1

1.81.6

3.351,000

149,882,124

$ 18,278,308

$ 6220

1111

Bow

en Island0.1

0.20.1

n/a

0.43,800

12,760,856

$ 18,229,794

$ 5429

2112

Pitt M

eadows

1.00.8

0.2

n/a

0.317,000

33,278,126

$ 16,233,232

$ 8293

1613

Maple R

idge4.0

3.02.0

2.03.0

76,418

147,405,000$

14,740,500$

7642n

/an

/aN

an

aim

o7

.03

.01

.0n

/a3

.08

7,5

00

1

88

,22

2,5

26

$

14

,47

8,6

56

$

67313

14Langley C

ity1.0

0.80.3

n/a

0.325,858

29,678,136

$ 14,477,140

$ 12614

1915

Township of Langley

7.06.0

n/a

n/a10.0

110,000

331,140,979$

14,397,434$

4783n

/an

/aC

hilliw

ack

2.0

2.1

0.9

n/a

2.8

82

,46

3

98

,10

0,0

00

$

14

,21

7,3

91

$

11

95

1

n/a

n/a

Ab

bo

ttsfo

rd5

.06

.03

.0n

/a7

.01

35

,00

0

25

5,5

57

,00

0$

1

4,1

97

,61

1$

7

50

0

n/a

n/a

UB

C **

1.5

0.5

1.0

n/a

0.5

19

,00

0

35

,00

0,0

00

$

14

,00

0,0

00

$

76

00

n/a

n/a

Ke

low

na

6.0

7.0

6.0

n/a

6.0

11

6,0

00

2

65

,00

0,0

00

$

13

,94

7,3

68

$

610517

16D

istrict of North V

an4.3

3.52.5

1.53.0

85,000

139,263,709$

12,894,788$

78702

717

Port M

oody0.8

0.80.8

n/a

1.034,000

32,000,000

$ 12,800,000

$ 1

36

00

n/a

n/a

Vic

toria

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

4.5

84

,00

0

11

9,0

96

,90

6$

1

1,3

42

,56

2$

8000

n/a

n/a

Su

nsh

ine

Co

ast R

D2

.02

.81

.2n

/a1

.02

8,0

00

6

0,0

00

,00

0$

1

0,3

44

,82

8$

4

82

8

23

18P

ort Coquitlam

2.03.0

2.0n

/a2.0

57,000

58,000,000$

8,285,714$

81

43

n/a

n/a

Mis

sio

n1

.52

.5n

/an

/a1

.03

5,0

00

3

8,9

02

,82

7$

7

,78

0,5

65

$

7000n

/an

/aU

. En

do

wm

en

t La

nd

s0

.80

.50

.3n

/a0

.24

,00

0

9,9

40

,99

3$

6

,62

7,3

29

$

26

67

2819

Anm

ore0.4

0.90.3

n/a

1.02,060

10,540,149

$ 4,582,673

$ 896

2920

Belcarra

0.10.2

0.2n

/a0.3

700

2,146,600$

3,577,667$

11679

21Lions B

ay0.2

0.20.0

n/a

0.11,385

1,350,000

$ 2,626,459

$ 2695

TO

TA

L127

12088

38112

2,944,939

7,119,011,726$

(average)T

ota

l 20

10

117118

9240

1142,896,804

6,949,073,211

$ 19,834,868

$ 8205

* not including Plum

bing or Electrical staff

64

Attachment 3

special corporate and administrative services …€¦ · h:\fin\budget 2012\r2\r2 final dec...

Documents