INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, April 2, 2015 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda REPORTS 2. Manager Transit and Fleet Proposed BC Ferry Schedule Changes (Voting B, D, E, F, Sechelt, SIGD, Gibsons) 3. Sustainability and Education Coordinator Water Conservation Program Overview and 2014 Annual Report (Voting A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) 4. Manager Utility Services and General Manager Infrastructure Services Middlepoint Water Supply Update (Voting A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) 5. Environmental Technician Update on AJB Logging in the Chapman Creek Watershed (Voting A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) 6. Administrative Assistant Monthly Report for March (Voting All Directors) 7. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes of March 2, 2015 (Voting All Directors) Annex A pp 1 3 Annex B pp 4 8 Annex C pp 9 22 Annex D pp Annex E pp Annex F pp COMMUNICATIONS 8. Metro Vancouver, Regarding Update on Metro Vancouver s Response to the Minister s Rejection of Bylaw 280, dated March 3, Coast Waste Management Association Regarding Restructuring within Environmental Standards Branch Annex G pp Annex H p 35

2

3 Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda Thursday, April 2, 2015 Page 2 of 2 IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with section 90(1) (a), (e), (j) and (k) of the Community Charter Personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality, the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service... ADJOURNMENT

4

5 Annex A SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 25, 2015 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee April 2, 2015 FROM: Rob Williams, Manager of Transit & Fleet RE: PROPOSED BC FERRY SCHEDULE CHANGES RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Transit and Fleet s report titled Proposed BC Ferry Schedule Changes be received for information; AND THAT the Chair write a letter to BC Ferries reaffirming the need to align the ferry schedule with the Transit schedule in a more timely manner. BACKGROUND This report is provided to inform the Board of pending BC Ferry schedule changes that may have negative impacts to the May/June Transit schedule. At the March 1, 2015, SCRD Transportation Advisory Committee meeting it was noted by Mr. Barry Cavens of the Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC) that BC Ferries is soliciting input on an alternative option regarding the required 40 eliminated ferry sailings for route #3 Langdale Horseshoe Bay, as mandated by the Province. More specifically, that previous schedule changes put in place for the shoulder seasons (April-June and September to October 2014) as well as the current off-peak schedule running between October and May that saw a reduction of Sunday sailings from 8 roundtrips to 7 would be revised with the 40 cancelled sailings spread over both Saturday and Sunday. In addition to looking for input on whether to spread the cancelled trips out over both Saturday s and Sunday s between October and May, BC Ferries were also looking for feedback on what specific trips should be cancelled each day, AM or PM sailings. It was noted that this change has been prompted due to overloads and issues with on-time performance that have been experienced with the current eliminated 40 sailings all occurring on Sunday s. An was received on March 9, 2015 from Mr. Cavens outlining that the FAC had provided a response to BC Ferries regarding the proposed changes. In summary, the FAC provided the following recommendations to BC Ferries: 1. That BC Ferries not proceed at this time with wider public consultation regarding the proposed changes and that the FAC will work with BC Ferries over the next few months on possible options to be implemented after the peak summer season. This would include research on ferry customer usage; and 2. That BC Ferries consider restoring the 8 sailing Sunday schedule starting the May long weekend, May 15, 2015 considering this is the start of the spring/summer travel season. N:\Transportation & Transit Services\8770 Transportation Reports & Statistics\ Transportation Reports, Statistics, Studies\Transit Reports\2015-April 2-BCF Changes.docx 1

6 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 2 of 3 Regarding BC Ferry schedule Changes DISCUSSION An was sent from staff to Mr. Cavens and copied to Chair Nohr on March 3, 2015 outlining that staff and BC Transit were currently finalizing May transit schedules and would need confirmation immediately of any additional May ferry schedule changes in order to accommodate such changes. It was noted that spreading the eliminated trips over Saturday s and Sundays could be problematic for transit scheduling. Specifically, that if the cancelled sailings were scheduled on sporadic weekends we could have buses travelling to Langdale without a ferry connection considering our daily schedules are set for the duration of a schedule timeframe. This could result in inefficiencies considering there is limited value traveling to Langdale without a connecting ferry. Further, this would be frustrating for transit and ferry riders as they would have to pay close attention to the ferry schedule to know what weekends the eliminated trips fall on. Staff and BC Transit contacted BC Ferries about the proposed changes requesting confirmation on implementation timelines. Unfortunately confirmation of further May ferry schedule changes had not been received from BC Ferries by the BC Transit schedule print deadline and therefore the May transit schedule is based on the current 7 Sunday sailing ferry schedule. If BC Ferries does revert back to the 8 sailing Sunday schedule starting on the May long weekend there will be transit-ferry connection issues. The AM ferry departure connections are the primary concern. The tables below outline the full impact on SCRD transit if BC Ferries implements an 8 sailing Sunday ferry schedule. In the event this does occur posters will be posted on the buses and at main bus shelters notifying riders of the Sunday AM connection issue, a website alert will also be posted. Outbound Travel SCRD Transit Arrive at Langdale Route #1 Route #90 Express Langdale- Langdale-Sechelt Sechelt Depart Langdale BC Ferries Min Wait - - 6:20 am - 8:27 am - 8:25 am 2 min late 8:27 am 9:09 &10:24 am 10:25 am 76 & 1 min 11:10 am 10:24 am & 12:34 pm 12:35 pm 131 or 1 min 1:22 pm 2:25 pm 2:45 pm 20 min 3:15 pm 4:30 pm 4:50 pm 20 min 5:27 pm 6:30 pm 6:50 pm 20 min 7:38 pm 8:25 pm 8:45 pm 20 min N:\Transportation & Transit Services\8770 Transportation Reports & Statistics\ Transportation Reports, Statistics, Studies\Transit Reports\2015-April 2-BCF Changes.docx 2

7 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 3 of 3 Regarding BC Ferry schedule Changes Inbound Travel Depart Horseshoe Bay BC Ferries Arrive Langdale Route #1 Langdale- Sechelt SCRD Transit Depart Langdale Route #90 Express Langdale-Sechelt Min Wait 7:20 am 8:00 am 8:30 am 9:15 am 30 min 9:25 am 10:05 am 10:56 am 11:13 am 51 min 11:30 am 12:10 pm 12:35 pm 1:35 pm 25 min 1:35 pm 2:15 pm 2:30 pm 3:30 pm 15 min 3:50 pm 4:30 pm 4:45 pm 6:45 pm 15 min 5:50 pm 6:30 pm 7:40 pm 6:45 pm 15 min 7:50 pm 8:30 pm 9:35 pm 8:50 pm 20 min 9:45 pm 10:25 pm 11:20 pm 10:45 pm 20 min N:\Transportation & Transit Services\8770 Transportation Reports & Statistics\ Transportation Reports, Statistics, Studies\Transit Reports\2015-April 2-BCF Changes.docx 3

8

9 Annex B SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 2015 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee, April 2, 2015 FROM: RE: Julie Clark, Sustainability & Education Coordinator WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND 2014 ANNUAL REPORT RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Sustainability and Education Coordinator s report entitled Water Conservation Program Overview and 2014 Annual Report be received for information. BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the water conservation program as per the following resolution that was adopted at the March 12, 2015 Regular Board Meeting: 124 / 15 Recommendation No. 8 That a report on the Water Conservation Program be provided to the April Infrastructure Services Committee meeting for discussion. The water conservation education and outreach program is critical to managing the demand for water especially in the drought-prone summer months. This program is responsible for all outreach with the public to manage water use behavior from April to October. Its content is developed based on the goals of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, water usage trends observed by technical staff, and communications needs determined by observing trends across submissions to local papers, social media, complaint reports and patrol observations. The program consists of a combination of proactive (education) and reactive (enforcement) work with citizens in order to reduce water use, especially summer outdoor water use. The Sustainability and Education Coordinator develops the program and oversees the implementation with assistance from the Utility management team and field staff. The water conservation program represents 0.25 FTE of the Sustainability and Education Coordinator s workload. The majority of the implementation is carried out by a temporary, 0.33 FTE Summer Water Conservation Assistant, often filled by a student during the summer term: May to September. The activities of the water conservation program are grouped into two major categories: activities that take place during May to September, and activities that take place year round APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report 4

10 May to September Training - Training of water conservation assistant Education & Outreach In 2014 the Drought Management Plan was updated. As a result, the main messages of the 2014 water conservation campaigns were: - Get to know and follow the new watering times - Install a rain sensor on your irrigation system, now required - The time for new lawns is spring (before end of June), not summer (July October) - Permits for extra watering of new lawns are available for stage 1, $35 - Farmers can be exempt from watering restrictions if: they use low flow drip irrigation or have a water meter. The SCRD will install a water meter free of charge. Staff use these main messages to reach out to specific audiences and general audiences: Specific Audience: - Specific one on one outreach with known high water users, or those who work with the public in these areas (irrigation system installers, landscapers, property maintenance companies, garden supply stores, hardware stores, parks, fields, repeat overwatering customers) - Poster campaign on community bulletin boards and in local garden supply / hardware stores o General Audience: In 2014, three poster campaigns were run with the themes of: new water restrictions, new rain sensor requirements, permits for extra watering of new lawns - Staff booths at major events and festivals. o 6 festivals were attended in 2014, resulting in direct contact with 310 individuals and exposure to 8600 people. - Children s summer camp workshop o In 2014, one workshop was provided to 30 summer day-camp children and their leaders - Drinking Water Week Tours of Water Treatment Plant(s) o In 2014, 200+ students and teachers toured through Chapman Water Treatment Plant Sales and management of permits - Permits for Extra Watering (for establishing new lawns), stage 1 only o 19 Permits were sold in 2014 (first year of operation). Outdoor Water Use Patrols 2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report 5

11 The purpose of patrols is to have a presence in the SCRD s water service area to educate about water conservation and outdoor water use restrictions, as well as to enforce bylaws 422 and 638 using the Bylaw Enforcement Notification (BEN) ticket system. Education and awareness is always the first approach with citizens who are being investigated for overwatering complaints, especially during stages 1 and 2. A warning letter is issued no later than one week after overwatering is confirmed as a gentle reminder for citizens. Tickets are issued after repeat overwatering is confirmed. - Investigation of citizen-complaints re overuse of outdoor water. o 78 complaints were received in Warning Letters o In 2014, 35 warning letters were issued based on observed over watering during patrols or investigated complaints. - BEN Tickets o In 2014, no tickets were issued Communications - Communications planning and implementation for specific projects o 2014 direct mail to all water users (12,000 households and businesses) re changes to outdoor water use restrictions o 2014 hand out for farmers involved with farm water research (pilot) project (see more details below) & new exemptions o 2014 direct mail to all households in North and South Pender Harbour re new water treatment plant - Detailed communications plans, and respective tools are in place for each of the Drought Management Plan stages - Ensure timely implementation of all public communications related to current water use stages and changes to water use stages - These communications are done in collaboration with the three municipalities as we have all agreed to use the same restrictions for ease of citizens. Year Round Rebate Program Management - Toilet rebate program (up to $200 rebate per toilet for up to 2 low flow toilets per households who are SCRD water customers) o 84 of applications received, 104 of toilets installed as of October 16, Final 2014 numbers are being tabulated. Communications - SCRD Website resources development and maintenance - Annual utility bill additional communications development, production, mailout - Brochures or booklets on specific topics (water wise gardening, agricultural water use exemptions) Education & Outreach 2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report 6

12 - Event/festival attendance as requested, or as opportune, usually Earth Day (April), and Banff Film Festival (Nov) - Annual development of new outreach themes, target audience(s), outreach planning Data Analysis / Research Each year the SCRD analyzes a series of data sets to determine our overall water consumption for the year. In 2008 the SCRD set the target of reducing overall water consumption in the region by 33% by 2020 (relative to 2008 levels). The progress toward the target is measured by the Average Day Demand of water use over the course of a year. Since 2008, consumption has dropped 6.5%. For context, it is also helpful to look at the trends in water use during the months of April through September which, on average have higher consumption than the rest of the year. Both of these measures are examined across all SCRD water systems. SCRD water conservation efforts are at their height in July and August, particularly focused on customers in the Chapman (regional) water system. It is helpful to look specifically at the consumption data for this system. Note that consumption for July and August (on average) nearly doubles from the Average Day Demand. Avg Day Demand (ALL SCRD) Avg Sum. Dem. (apr-sept) (All SCRD) Avg Sum. (Jul-Aug) (Chapman only) LCD 688 LCD unavailable LCD 692 LCD 933 LCD LCD 660 LCD 1022 LCD LCD 605 LCD 865 LCD LCD 619 LCD 913 LCD LCD 612 LCD 930 LCD LCD 647 LCD 895 LCD Average Day Demand appears to rise and fall with an overall reduction of 6.5% from 2008 to 2014 Consumption from April to September overall appears to rise and fall with an overall reduction of 5.9% Consumption in July and August appears to be decreasing, with an overall reduction of 4.1% Water consumption and the impacts of conservation efforts can be further understood with analysis that includes temperature and precipitation. This analysis is beyond the scope of the conservation program but has been recently undertaken as a graduate research project, specifically focusing on Chapman watershed. Additional research in 2014 included two small projects which were piloted to observe the trends in water usage in 2 groups of water users: known high water users (with water meters), and a sample of farm properties. Each of these projects were undertaken with a mind to learn about 2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report 7

13 the details of water usage, and where needed and possible, work with individual customers to put conservation measures in place. - The high water user analysis is a data set that allows the SCRD to look at the trends of water usage over time (back to 2005), and by season, for each of the known high water users with water meters (for example: fields, parks, other public properties, commercial properties). - Farm water research project (pilot project in Area E in 2014, in Sechelt for 2015) was created to learn about farm property water use. Most farms in the region to date have not been metered and hence we have very little information about their actual water use. As the region pushes forward with the two important goals of water conservation and increased food production, and does so during the climate change impacts of droughtprone summer months, it is increasingly important to understand this sector s current and future water needs. The farm water research project installed water meters at farm properties (identified in the Agricultural Area Plan Phase 1) in area E. This was done free of charge to the property owners and with the promise to: 1) share data (annually) with property owners if desired, and 2) not charge a metered rate for a minimum of one year. A note on water metering and the link to proactive education, outreach and communications: - The communities that have water meters are able to look at usage trends by neighbourhood and community and adapt or tailor their proactive and reactive water conservation strategies according to specific data (currently only SCRD commercial water users have regular reads of water meters. Soon North and South Pender Harbour will have this ability. Town of Gibsons is also metered) - At this point in time we know that summer water use nearly doubles during the hottest, driest months, which leads us to the assumption that outdoor water use is a main target area for conservation. We expect that there are nuances to this general trend that will be learned once regional water meters are installed and read and that our specific audiences and messaging may shift as a result. Future Efforts From 2014 onward, the water conservation program has worked specifically to refine its messaging and target audiences. Our team has observed an increase in community awareness / concern regarding the summer water use following the drought of 2012; we are building on this social capital. We expect that overall consumption (and summer consumption) will continue to be reduced as our team applies our best data and further develops trusting relationships in the community. In our team will include a temporary year-round staff person. We expect that this addition of resources to our team will also improve awareness and reduce consumption in advance of the installation of water meters APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report 8

14

15 Annex C SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 16, 2015 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee April 2, 2015 FROM: RE: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services MIDDLEPOINT WATER SUPPLY UPDATE RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Utility Services and General Manager, Infrastructure Services Report dated March 16, 2015 titled Middlepoint Water Supply Update be received for information. BACKGROUND A report on Middlepoint Water Supply dated February 25, 2015, was received by the Infrastructure Services Committee for consideration at the March 5, 2015, meeting (Attachment AA), leading to the following resolution that was adopted the March 12, 2015, regular Board meeting: 124/15 Recommendation No. 6 Middlepoint Water Extension THAT the Manager Utility Services and General Manager Infrastructure Services report dated February 25, 2015 titled Middlepoint Water Supply Update be received; AND THAT the discussion of the Middlepoint Water Supply Project be deferred pending further Board review of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. Links to the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan and Area A Water Master Plan (2011) were provided to Board Directors by on March 6, DISCUSSION The content and recommendation from the February 25, 2015, staff report concerning Middlepoint water supply expansion remain current and unchanged. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-11 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx 9

16 Attachment AA SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2015 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee March 5, 2015 FROM: RE: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services MIDDLEPOINT WATER SUPPLY UPDATE RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Utility Services and General Manager, Infrastructure Services Report dated February 25, 2015 titled Middlepoint Water Supply Update be received. AND THAT the Middlepoint Water Supply project be considered during the next update of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. BACKGROUND In October 2007 there was a petition request received by the SCRD to supply Regional water to the Lower Middlepoint area (49 parcels from Mercer Road to Iska Road). Subsequent to that request, some preliminary engineering and costing were completed and two staff reports (see Attachment A ) were presented at the September and October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meetings with a recommendation to present the report to the Lower Middlepoint residents. At the regular Board meeting of September 10, 2009, the following resolution was adopted: 377/09 Recommendation No. 21 Lower Middle Point Water Supply THAT the staff report entitled Lower Middle Point Water Supply be received; AND THAT staff present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project; AND THAT a copy of this report be sent to Nicholas Simons for his information; AND FURTHER THAT discussion on this matter be deferred to the October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-05 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx 10

17 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Water Supply Update Page 2 of 2 At the regular Board meeting of November 12, 2009, the following resolution was adopted: 457/09 Recommendation No.7 Middlepoint Watermain Extension - Funding THAT the Manager of Utility Services and General Manager of Corporate Services report entitled Middlepoint Watermain Extension - Funding be received; AND THAT staff be directed to present this second report regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension to the Lower Middlepoint community; AND THAT the funding options presented in this report form the basis for a Board Policy related to funding water service extensions; AND FURTHER THAT staff clarify in their presentation that the community must choose only one of the presented options. The report s findings were presented at an Open House at Coopers Green Hall on March 13, 2010 where 16 residents attended (see Attachment B ). Staff outlined the area under consideration for Regional water service and the cost recovery options available to the residents for the $2.4 million (2009 dollars) project. Staff outlined the next step in the process being provision of a formal petition for service that would be produced by Regional District staff and circulated by the proponents to the residents. Staff advised the property owners to discuss the information amongst themselves and advise the SCRD of their preferred cost recovery option and confirm their desire to move to formal petition. No further response has been received from the property owners concerning the petition. DISCUSSION Correspondence has recently been received from two residents of the Middlepoint area requesting that the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) again consider the provision of water supply to this area. The original request for water supply to the Middlepoint area was for approximately 25% of the overall subject area with an estimated cost of $2.4 million. The recent letters are requesting water supply for the entire general area which is between the Regional Water System and the South Pender Water System. A preliminary cost estimate for this extended service is between $10 and $15 million, subject to detailed engineering design. This project is not identified in the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan (CRWP). Over $36 million of projects are identified in the CRWP to service the needs of the entire region over the next 25 years. If the Middlepoint watermain extension initiative is a priority, it is recommended that the Board consider this project during the next update of the CRWP. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-05 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx 11

18 Attachment A SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 2009 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee, September 3, 2009 FROM: Chuck Steemers, Engineering Tech., Infrastructure Services RE: Lower Middle Point Water Supply RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the staff report entitled Lower Middle Point Water Supply be received by the Infrastructure Services Committee for information. AND THAT Infrastructure Services staff be directed to present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project. BACKGROUND At the regular Board meeting of November 8, 2007, the following Board resolution (546/07) was adopted; Recommendation No. 13 Lower Middlepoint Area Water Supply THAT the letters from Director Rees, and the letter from Lori S. Pickering dated October 22, 2007 regarding the petitions associated with Ms. Pickering s Access to Drinking Water Petition and Map, be received; AND THAT staff have the package of information put in the infrastructure system to service Donnelly Road as soon as possible; AND THAT a feasibility study be completed prior to applying for grant funding for the extension; on the understanding that if the project does not proceed, costs for the feasibility study will be funded from gas tax revenues for Areas A and B. 12

19 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION Infrastructure staff has proceeded with conducting the feasibility study to supply Chapman water to the Lower Middle Point area and have developed options for funding this project. Middle point area residents representing 37 of 49 properties that would benefit from the proposed water main extension signed a petition to have Sunshine Coast Regional District water service extended to their area. The issue driving this request was the lack of safe potable water. The Middle Point area has little surface water, shallow soils with bedrock at or near the surface for much of the area. Most properties have wells drilled into the bedrock that have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic that require residents to install expensive in-house treatment systems, buy bulk water or use the contaminated water increasing the risk of serious health problems. Proposed Extension Based on a hydraulic review of the proposed water main extension for the Middle Point Area, it was determined that a 250mm main line and a balancing reservoir would be required to provide for adequate fire flows and peak hourly flows. The water main extension will consist of a 250 ductile iron water main extending from the existing 250mm water main at the North end of Mercer Road on Highway 101 to Iska Road with 200mm water distribution mains branching into Donnelly Drive and Iska Road. A total of 4.3 Kilometers of piping will be required for this project and a 100,000 gallon reservoir is required and would likely be located on Iska Road, east of the Highway with a top elevation of 92.5m to match the existing Secret Cove reservoir. The extension will be able to serve 49 existing parcels along the proposed water main route. A sketch of the proposed water main and properties to be served is attached in Appendix A. Cost Recovery In 2004, the Board approved framework for a policy to extend water servicing to new areas. Based on this policy framework, the Board adopted a recommendation to recover costs for the Mercer Road water main extension financed by the SCRD through an amendment in the Sunshine Coast Regional District Revised Water Rates and Regulation Bylaw No. 422 to include a separate schedule for collecting an additional connection fee for the properties benefitting from a water main extension. The fee is collected when the property owner applies for a water service connection or a subdivision is created that requires connections. This method has a specified time period for cost recovery and the costs per connection were based on an estimate of the existing and future potential parcels that could be connected to the water system over this specific time period. The proposed Middlepoint water main extension could be funded following the same framework as the Mercer Road extension. Based on experience from the Mercer Road Project, staff recommends that the time period for repayment of the project be over a twenty year period. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc 13

20 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 3 of 4 The following connections are expected over the twenty year period.. Number of existing parcels that could be serviced by the water main extension. 41 parcels are built on Based on current zoning and elevation limitations, the estimated number of new parcels that could be created by subdivision and be serviced in the future by the proposed water main extension Total Number of Parcels that would potentially be served by the proposed water main extension Estimated number of parcels connected to the water system over a twenty year period * Total number of parcels * Based on approximately 2% annual growth. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS It is anticipated there will be full recovery of the costs over a twenty year period with annual interest charges added to the unit water connection fee to offset the financial costs of carrying the project costs. The cost per parcel would be calculated by dividing the estimated existing and potential new lots that would connected to the water system by the total costs of the water main extension. The Sunshine Coast Regional District has two options for financing this project, which is with or without a government grant. The total estimated cost of this project is $2,400,000. Using the above formula, the following estimated unit fees would need to be charged for full recovery. In either option, the property owner would also be required to pay the standard fee for installing a water service connection as well as the Unit Connection Fee. Option 1 No Government Grant Total Estimated Cost $2,400,000 Total number of potential connections 73 (Over a twenty year period) Unit Connection fee = Total cost divided by 73 = $32,900 Option 2 With a Government Grant providing funding for 2/3 rd s of the project. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc 14

21 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 4 of 4 Total Estimated Cost $2,400,000 Total Estimated Cost less Grant $800,000 Total number of potential connections 73 (Over a twenty year period) Unit Connection fee = Total cost divided by73 = $10,960 Financial costs of carrying the debt have not been included in the above estimates. Summary The Lower Middle Point Water Supply project would be self financed with cost recovery by existing properties and future subdivision of Lands. The project would be funded initially by the SCRD through the SCRD Regional Water Service Function however it will require significant resources if constructed and the cost of carrying the financial burden for Option 1 will be significant for the Regional Water Budget. There are no guarantees that costs will be recovered in the 20 year period for either option. Recommendation Option Two be utilized as the cost recovery option for funding the Lower Middle Point Water extension, making the project subject to receiving a 2/3 rd government grant. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc 15

22 SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 2009 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee November 5, 2009 FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services Joan Merrick, General Manager of Corporate Services RE: MIDDLE POINT WATER MAIN EXTENSION - FUNDING RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Utility Services report dated October 26, 2009, entitled Middle Point Water Main Extension - Funding be received. AND THAT Infrastructure Services staff be directed to also present this second report to the Lower Middle Point community. AND THAT the funding options presented in this report form the basis for a Board Policy related to funding service extensions. BACKGROUND The following resolution was adopted by the Board at its regular meeting held September 10, 2009 (377/09 No.21) THAT the staff report entitled Lower Middle Point Water Supply be received; AND THAT staff present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project; AND THAT a copy of this report be sent to Nicholas Simons for his information; AND FURTHER THAT discussion on this matter be deferred to the October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Mercer Road Water Main Extension Summary As a background to funding options to be presented in the report, this summary is provided for the Mercer Road water main extension project which was constructed in late 2005 at a total cost of $940,949, and was partially offset by a grant of $577,454. Based on a report from February 2006 the board approved a repayment option that would allow the property owners to pay a fee as they connect to the system. It was originally projected that 36 current properties plus an additional 100 newly developed properties (within 10 years) would connect to the system. The connection fee $ was based on the total internally funded cost, $363,495, divided by 136 total connections. The connection fee is indexed at 4.75% annually and will continue until N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc 16

23 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension Page 2 of 3 the full recovery is made. To date only 51 properties have connected ($134,697) leaving $228,798 plus interest as the balance still to be recovered. DISCUSSION MIDDLE POINT WATER MAIN EXTENSION Finance staff was requested by Infrastructure staff to review this project as it relates to funding options for the Lower Middle Point water main extension project. As outlined in the previous staff report, Lower Middle Point Water Supply; September 2, 2009, the extension would include 4.3 km of piping and a 100,000 gallon reservoir. There are 49 existing parcels along the proposed water main route; potential subdivision could over time (20+ years) create up to 53 additional parcels. The total cost is estimated to be $2,400,000. If 2/3 rd grant funding was received, then the recoverable amount could be reduced to $800,000. However, grants are not guaranteed and it is likely that any grant received for this project would reduce the chance of receiving a grant for other water projects currently in water capital plan. Staff are proposing three options for this potential project. Staff does not advocate a similar arrangement to the Mercer Road project for three reasons: 1. The costs are significantly higher 2. The Regional District would be required to borrow (except under option 1)for this project and would need to undertake a public approval process 3. The Mercer Road project has shown that the recovery is unpredictable The advantage of the following proposed methods of recovery is that the Regional District would not be required to provide internal financing for the project and would be assured of 100% recovery on the project within a reasonable time period. In addition, the parcel tax would be the most equitable as it would apply to both improved and unimproved lots equally. The parcel tax would also be reduced as more parcel are created through subdivision. Option 1: Full payment in advance The 49 parcels would have to agree to pay a proportionate share of the cost prior to the Regional District agreeing to undertake the project (This could be based on development potential). Option 2: Create a new service and finance for 20 years Under this option the property owners would need to petition the Regional District for a new service. In order to establish a new service approval from 50% plus one is required based on both assessed value and number of parcels. Once the service is established the RD could then borrow the funds to construct the water main. The debt costs would be recovered by way of a parcel tax applied to each of the 49 parcels plus any additional parcels created through subdivision. The properties in the new service would also become part of function 370 Regional Water for which they would also be assessed the regular user fees and parcel taxes. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc 17

24 Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension Page 3 of 3 Option 3: Combined Method Under this method the property owners would pay a combination of Option 1, 50% and Option 2, 50%. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: With out Grant With 2/3rd Grant Option 1 pay up front * $ 48,980 $ 16,327 Option 2 annual parcel tax ** $ 6,231 $ 2,077 Option 3 pay up front * $ 24,490 $ 8,163 annual parcel tax** $ 3,115 $ 1,038 Based on: Cost $ 2,400,000 $800,000 Annual debt costs $ 305,297 $ 101,766 * based on 49 parcels ** to be adjusted downward as more parcels are created N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\ Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc 18

25 Attachment B SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT PUBLIC MEETING MIDDLEPOINT WATERMAIN EXTENSION MARCH 13, 2010 PRESENT: Chair Director Area B G.Nohr Director Area A E.Graham Manager of Utility Services D.Crosby Manager of Corporate Services J.Merrick Planner II A.Allen Recording Secretary J. Alford PUBLIC: 16 CALL TO ORDER 1:02 p.m Director Nohr opened the meeting by making introductions and welcoming the public. 1. Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services addressed the public with regards to the proposed Middlepoint watermain extension project. Dave has been contacted by property owners in the Middlepoint area requesting that the SCRD investigate the viability of constructing a watermain extension to the Middlepoint residents. At this time the properties in question are receiving water from private wells. Should the extension go ahead, the water supply would come from the Chapman Creek water system (Regional water service) and would be provided by running a 250mm (10 ) watermain along the highway to a proposed reservoir site. A new reservoir would also need to be constructed as part of this project. Staff have completed a preliminary investigation of the proposed area and confirm that cost estimate to complete this project would be in the region of $1,400,000 for the watermains. Approximately $250,000 to construct a new reservoir and $122,000 for water to feed the reservoir. Approximately 30% of the total costs would be contingency engineering fees. Total estimated cost for the project is $2,400,000. Also, you must take into account the other associated costs : Annual parcel tax for proposed new service estimated at $4,000 per year Cost to bring waterline from SCRD connection onto property to dwelling this cost would differ with each property but you could be looking at possibly $20,000 19

26 Annual user fee SCRD annual water user fee for 2010 is $ Installation of pressure system (only applicable to parcels east of the highway) The proposed extension would service all properties along the highway on the water side (maps were provided to show the properties that could be included). It is possible that the properties on the east side could be serviced but this service could not cover new subdivisions. Properties in question could possibly install a pressure system to pump the water up the hill, but would need each lot individually assessed by an engineer to determine. 2. Andrew Allen, Planner II addressed the public from a planning perspective. He explained the existing zoning and bylaws in the affected areas which fall under both electoral areas A and B. Andrew advised that if this watermain extension goes through, this could lead to property owners in this area applying for subdivisions. The property owners in Electoral Area A would also be in a position to request re-zoning as the OCP supports 4,000 square metre parcels in waterfront areas, and amendments to the bylaw which could allow for much smaller subdivision lots than are existing. The parcel sizes for subdivision purposes are different in both electoral areas providing for different density provisions. 3. Joan Merrick, Manager of Corporate Services addressed the financial details of this proposed new service. Joan advised that to proceed with this watermain extension legislation states that support would be required from a minimum of 50% of property owners, and minimum 50% of assessed property values. The next step of the property owners is to decide if they wish to petition the SCRD to request that this service be implemented. The petition question will be drafted by the SCRD and provided to the proponents for distribution (Lori Pickering). If the petition is successful and the estimated costs of construction is $2,400,000 there are two options for funding this project: a. Pay up front approximately $49,000 as a one time payment from each property owner in the proposed service area b. Borrow the SCRD would borrow the $2,400,000 on behalf of the property owners and the property owners would re-pay this loan to the SCRD (would need to establish a new parcel tax) at a rate of approximately $4,000 annually for up to 20 years (this rate could be reduced depending on future subdivisions of the affected lots) Joan also advised that the costs payable by the property owners could be significantly reduced if the SCRD were to be successful with a grant application for this project. 2/3 of the costs could possibly be received from grant funding. Joan stated clearly that there is no guarantee that we would be successful in a grant application for this project and that there are higher priorities set by the Board for grant applications at this time. Ie; metering, North Pender water treatment plant and expansion of the Chapman Creek water treatment plant. The floor was opened for questions as follows: 20

27 Could the new service not be serviced by the existing reservoir? No. A new reservoir is needed to fulfill this project. The new reservoir would be smaller than the existing reservoir located in Secret Cove If the extension were to go ahead, would property owners existing lines be damaged during construction? Existing lines should not be affected. Any existing lines would be checked out before construction starts. If anything was damaged, the SCRD would immediately repair the damage Where would the proposed waterline run? The line would run along the highway where the existing bike path currently runs. The SCRD would ensure that the bike path is returned to its existing state after the line is installed If this project was to go ahead, what is the expected timeline until completion? We would expect the project to be completed within a year What about fire protection? Where would you install fire hydrants? The standard is that a fire hydrant in installed at the entrance of each road (where possible) and then fire hydrants would be installed every 150m What if the majority want the service but I do not wish to be part of it, can I opt out? No. Legislation states that if you are included in the service area and front the water system then you would have to pay. There is not an option to opt out on an individual basis What if I choose not to connect to the SCRD waterline? You will still have to pay the associated costs for this watermain extension. Should you still wish not to hook up to the line, you will not be charged the annual user fee (approx $ for 2010) I don t think most of the property owners would even consider going forward with this project unless we knew we got the grant funding, can we go ahead and apply for the grant and then decide? The funding is only offered to shovel ready projects. We would need to establish the service and then apply for the grant funding. We cannot guarantee or speculate whether we would be successful. If we were successful on the grant application, this could reduce the annual parcel tax (pay back) to approximately $1,300 per year which is much more palatable. Although we have based these estimations on the existing 49 parcels that would benefit from this new service, these costs could also be reduced by future subdivisions. Ie; should one, or more, of the benefitting parcels decide to subdivide, then the new parcels would be factored into the repayment scheme. Any parcel benefitting from the new service (during the 20 year payback period) would have to pay You say that there are already high priority projects on the burner for grant funding. Why should those be higher priority than our? 21

28 The Board decides which projects are high priority and give staff direction. These are existing/ongoing projects that the Board has given clear direction to staff are high priority and the Board has directed staff to apply for the grant funding What is the life expectancy of the new waterline? With the materials that we use for our waterlines we would estimate the life expectancy to be around years We have arsenic in our wells. Why would this not be made a priority for grant funding? Staff cannot answer that question. We do not know how the provincial and federal government decide which projects are prioritized for receiving funding. But, we do know that they appear to be very conscious of funding water conservations projects. Also we do not know if the funding money is distributed somewhat by receiving area, ie; a significant amount of funding has already been provided to Pender Harbour area, in the area of 6 7 million dollars What if we pay for this service now and then the SCRD joins this service to the Pender water system? Something like that could be 20 years off. It s just so far into the future that we really couldn t comment on this eventuality at this time. Also for the long term we would look at all lakes in the Pender area to ensure that we utilize them effectively Could we help swing the grant by saying that we would subsidize the water use by using our private wells also? We always like to encourage that you use private well water for things like irrigation etc, but this would not help the cause for grant funding. You would also have to use 2 separate lines which is just more expense Dave Crosby advised all present that he feels that enough preliminary work has been done on this project to be classed as shovel ready, therefore the SCRD could apply for grant funding should the property owners advise us that they want to proceed with the project. The SCRD could have the petition question drafted and forwarded to the proponents for circulation within about a month. Staff advises that the interested property owners discuss their options further and advise the SCRD of their wishes. ADJOURNED: 2:10 P.M 22

29 Annex D SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: March 24, 2015 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee April 2, 2015 FROM: Monte Staats, Environmental Technician RE: UPDATE ON AJB LOGGING IN THE CHAPMAN CREEK WATERSHED RECOMMENDATION THAT the staff report entitled Update on AJB Logging in the Chapman Creek Watershed be received for information; BACKGROUND Following the initial staff report on the harvesting activity on AJB Investments (subsidiary of Surespan) private managed forest lands property in the Chapman Creek Watershed, dated October 28, 2014, staff have been providing monthly written or verbal updates on the logging activity and future harvesting plans. DISCUSSION AJB s Harvesting Activities AJB s harvesting activities on block CH1 (west side of Chapman Creek watershed) appear to remain suspended. Since January, 2015, there has been no evidence of any activity at the harvesting area. AJB s 2015 Harvesting Plans Staff have contacted AJB on numerous occasions but have not received any information on AJB s planned harvesting activities for As per the Private Managed Forest Lands Act, AJB is not required to provide the SCRD with their harvesting plans. Managed Forest Council The Managed Forest Council (MFC), who regulates private managed forest lands under the Private Managed Forest Lands Act, is still in the process of conducting their investigation into the SCRD s and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities concerns regarding the condition and lack of maintenance to AJB s erosion and sediment control measures at their harvesting area. In a related matter, Staff have requested that the MFC present to a future ISC meeting regarding the MFC s regulatory role on private managed forest land. The MFC has responded and indicated their preference to present remotely via the web, but have yet to commit to a specific Infrastructure Services Committee date. N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5282 Watershed - Chapman Creek\ General\ AJB logging update.docx 23