greater vancouver regional district utilities … · 5.6 award of contract resulting from rfp no....

November 9, 2016

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, November 10, 2016 9:00 am

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

R E V I S E D A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 November 10, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 10, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 13, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Water Wagon Program & Water Restrictions Communications 2016 Update

Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Wagon Program & Water Restrictions Communications 2016 Update” dated September 30, 2016.

5.2 Regional Water Conservation Campaign 2016 Update Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Regional Water Conservation Campaign 2016 Update”, dated September 30, 2016.

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

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda November 10, 2016 Agenda of 4

5.3 Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Update Designated Speakers: Inder Singh and Nermine Tawfik That the GVWD Board: a) Receive for information the report titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Review

‐ Update”, dated November 2, 2016; and b) Direct staff to consult on the proposed changes to the Water Shortage Response

Plan.

5.4 Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve ‐ Public Consultation Program Update Designated Speaker: Mike Mayers That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve ‐ Public Consultation Program Update”, dated November 3, 2016.

5.5 Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

5.10 GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review

Designated Speaker: Dean Rear That the Utilities Committee: a) Receive for information the report titled “GVS&DD Development Cost Charge

Program Review”, dated November 4, 2016; and b) Forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for

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

5.11 Managers’ Report

Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Simon So That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated October 27, 2016.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for November 10, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following:

(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of November 10, 2016.

Added


Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) – North Vancouver CityBecker, John (VC) – Pitt Meadows Cameron, Craig – West Vancouver Clay, Mike – Port Moody Fox, Charlie – Langley Township

Harper, Bill – New WestminsterHicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Jordan, Colleen ‐ Burnaby McDonald, Bruce – Delta Speirs, Craig – Maple Ridge

Stevenson, Tim – VancouverSteves, Harold ‐ Richmond Woods, Dave – Surrey

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, October 13, 2016 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 13, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody (arrived at 9:13 a.m.) Councillor Charlie Fox, Langley Township Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Bruce McDonald, Delta (arrived at 9:17 a.m.) Councillor Craig Speirs, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:01 a.m.) Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond Councillor Dave Woods, Surrey MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair, Mayor John Becker, Pitt Meadows Councillor Bill Harper, New Westminster Councillor Craig Cameron, West Vancouver STAFF PRESENT: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Agata Kosinski, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 13, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED

UC - 4


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 September 15, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held September 15, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee vary the order of the agenda to consider Item 3.1 later in the meeting.

CARRIED

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2017 Budget and Work Plans – Water Services

Report dated October 5, 2016 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, presenting the “2017 Water Services Budget and Work Plans” for consideration by the Utilities Committee.

9:01 a.m. Councillor Stevenson arrived at the meeting.

Members were provided with a presentation on the “2017 Budget and Work Plans”, highlighting budget expenditures, operations, budget overview, and capital program.

9:13 a.m. Mayor Clay arrived at the meeting.

Discussion ensued regarding water metering, asset management planning, energy recovery and generation, and contribution to capital.

9:17 a.m. Councillor McDonald arrived at the meeting.

Presentation material titled “2017 Water Services Budget and Work Plans” is retained with the October 13, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee endorse the 2017 Water Services Budget and Work Plans as presented in the report “2017 Budget and Work Plans – Water Services”

UC - 5


dated October 5, 2016 and forward them to the Board Budget Workshop on October 21, 2016 for consideration.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee consider Item 3.1 Peter Steblin, Board Chair, and David Marshall, Board Director, of Canadian Water Network regarding the Canadian Water Network Municipal Consortium, at this point in the meeting.

CARRIED

3.1 Peter Steblin, Board Chair, and David Marshall, Board Director, of Canadian Water Network regarding the Canadian Water Network Municipal Consortium Peter Steblin, Board Chair, Canadian Water Network (CWN), informed the Committee of the history of Canadian Water Network, highlighted some of the research projects and informed of the benefits of joining the organization. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee refer the request to join the Canadian Water Network Municipal Consortium to staff and direct staff to report back with a recommendation.

CARRIED

The order of the agenda resumes with item 5.2 before the committee.

5.2 2017 Budget and Work Plans – Liquid Waste Services On‐table report dated October 11, 2016 from Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, presenting 2017 Budget and Work Plans for Liquid Waste Services.

Members were provided with a presentation on the 2017 Budget and Work Plans for Liquid Waste Services highlighting budget expenditures, operations, and capital program. In response to questions, members were informed about: the cost of the Lions Gate and Iona wastewater treatment plant projects, and the need for a longer term financial plan. Presentation material titled “2017 Budget and Work Plans for Liquid Waste Services” is retained with the October 13, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda.

UC - 6


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee endorse the 2017 Liquid Waste Services Budget and Work Plans as presented in the report “2017 Budget and Work Plans – Liquid Waste Services” dated October 11, 2016 and forward them to the Board Budget Workshop on October 21, 2016 for consideration.

CARRIED Councillor Speirs absent at the vote.

5.3 Summer 2016 Water Supply Performance

Report dated October 3, 2016 from Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, and Marilyn Towill, Acting Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services, providing the Committee with a preliminary review of water use and water supply system performance during summer 2016.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Summer 2016 Water Supply Performance”, dated October 3, 2016.

CARRIED Councillor Speirs absent at the vote.

5.4 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16‐119: Construction of Clayton

Reservoir ‐ Phase 1 Report dated October 4, 2016 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising the GVWD Board of the results of Tender No. 16‐119, Construction of Clayton Reservoir ‐ Phase 1 and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $16,390,750 (exclusive of taxes) to Giffels Westpro Constructors Inc. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $16,390,750 (exclusive of taxes) to

Giffels Westpro Constructors Inc. resulting from Tender No. 16‐119 for construction of Clayton Reservoir ‐ Phase 1; and

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

5.5 Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16‐145: Coquitlam Intake No. 2 –

Project Definition Report dated September 28, 2016 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services and Goran Oljaca, Director, Engineering and Construction, Water Services, advising the GVWD Board of the results of RFP No. 16‐145: Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – Project Definition, and recommending an award of the contract, provided that the required capital project budget increase has received GVWD Board approval, to CH2M Hill Canada Limited for an amount up to $5,457,726.

UC - 7


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract for an amount up to $5,457,726 (exclusive of taxes) to

CH2M Hill Canada Limited resulting from RFP No. 16‐145 for Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – Project Definition, provided that the required capital project budget increase has received GVWD Board approval; and


5.6 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16‐029: Sperling Pump Station

Upgrading Project Report dated September 30, 2016 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising the GVS&DD Board of the results of Tender No. 16‐029: Sperling Pump Station Upgrading Project and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $6,720,000 (exclusive of taxes) to NAC Constructors Ltd.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $6,720,000 (exclusive of taxes) to NAC

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


5.7 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to August 31, 2016

Report dated September 29, 2016 from Frank Huber, Director, Major Projects, Management Systems and Utility Services, Water Services, and Mark Ferguson, Director, Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services, providing the status of the utilities capital expenditures to August 31, 2016. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to August 31, 2016”, dated September 29, 2016.

CARRIED

5.8 Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment – 20030 8th Avenue – Township of Langley Report dated September 27, 2016 from Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, responding to a request from the Township of Langley for the GVS&DD Board to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) to include 20030 8th Avenue (Lot 5, Sec. 2, Township 7, NWD, Plan NWP33264) in the Township of Langley.

UC - 8


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the property located at 20030 8th Avenue in the Township of Langley as shown on District Drawing SA‐2376 Sheet 89.

CARRIED

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

Drainage District Cost Apportionment Amending Bylaw No. 301, 2016”; and b) pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Cost Apportionment Amending Bylaw No. 301, 2016”. CARRIED

5.10 Managers’ Report

Report dated September 23, 2016 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, and Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, updating the Utilities Committee on the Committee’s 2016 Work Plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated September 23, 2016.

CARRIED

6 INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented.

7 OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

8 BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9 RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for October 13, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90(1)(e),(g), and 90 (2)(b) as follows:

UC - 9


“90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if

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

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; 90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being

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

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

CARRIED

10 ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adjourn its regular meeting of October 13, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 10:27 a.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Agata Kosinski, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 19647916 FINAL

UC - 10

5.1

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: September 30, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Water Wagon Program & Water Restrictions Communications 2016 Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Wagon Program & Water Restrictions Communications 2016 Update” dated September 30, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide an update of Metro Vancouver’s 2016 engagement activities with the Water Wagon and Tap Water Team and water restrictions communications. BACKGROUND The Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan includes direction to ensure water resources are conserved and efficiently used throughout the region: “In partnership with members, develop and implement communication, public awareness and social marketing campaigns that promote efficient and appropriate use of drinking water” and “expand on the success of the Tap Water Campaign.” 2016 WATER CONSERVATION COMMUNICATIONS There are three primary components to the 2016 water conservation communications. First is the use of the Water Wagon and Tap Water Team to engage citizens at summer events across the region. Second is the communication of region‐wide lawn sprinkling regulations (part of the Water Shortage Response Plan). The final component is a regional communications campaign to increase awareness of the need for outdoor and indoor water conservation. More detail on this communications campaign is provided in the September 30th report titled Regional Water Conservation Campaign 2016 Update. Water Wagon & Tap Water Team Update This was the sixth summer of operations for the Water Wagon and its associated Tap Water Team – a key element of Metro Vancouver’s water conservation communications. The Tap Water Team attended 31 different events (55 event days) with 13 GVWD Members. The full event list is available as Attachment 1. The team engaged 3,542 people (adults, children) in in‐depth conversations. The Water Wagon delivered 27,693 refills at the dispensers and 5,644 at the fountain, for a total of 33,337 servings.

UC - 11

Tap Water Outreach: Six‐year Comparison

Metrics 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Events 16 19 28 30 27 31

Event days 26 25 38 51 47 55

Dispenser (water bottle) refills & fountain use

6,616 8,574 18,188 34,731 31,535 33,337

In‐depth conversations 1,600 1,800 3,950 5,733 4,022 3,542

GVWD municipalities visited 9 12 11 9 8 13

The number of unique events, event days and represented GVWD Members were all increases from previous years of the program. The decrease in in‐depth conversations with event attendees in 2016 was associated with reduced public concern over escalated water restrictions and reservoir levels; these topics represented many of the interactions in 2013‐2015. Several events had low attendance and use of the Water Wagon in early and late summer due to rain; despite this, the Water Wagon served the second‐highest amount of water in the program’s history, exceeding 2015 when weather was significantly warmer and drier. In 2016, outreach messaging focused on: encouraging outdoor and indoor water conservation to support related Metro Vancouver water campaigns; promoting tap water and use of re‐usable water bottles; and increasing the confidence and appreciation (perceived value) of our tap water. While this messaging is consistent with previous years, new efforts were introduced in 2016 to strengthen impact. Creative elements from the water conservation campaign were integrated with the outreach display at the Water Wagon, increasing campaign exposure and providing consistent messaging (Attachment 2). The conservation campaign website was promoted by the Tap Water Team at events as a resource for additional water conservation information. Coinciding with the Water Wagon season, the lawn sprinkling regulations were in effect from May 15 to October 15. Materials supporting the regulations were distributed by the Tap Water Team, who also explained the rationale and impact of the regulations to residents. Promotion of re‐usable water bottles increased in 2016, with new graphics applied to the Water Wagon that directed participants to refill bottles. Messaging encouraging attendees to bring re‐usable bottles to events was posted to Metro Vancouver’s social media accounts and provided to municipal communications staff to post in advance of Water Wagon events. Outreach staff training was expanded in 2016 and supplemented throughout the season. This enabled the Tap Water Team to educate the public on a wider range of topics related to Metro Vancouver’s water source, treatment, and transmission, thereby increasing residents’ confidence and appreciation for the quality of regional tap water. These interactions were also a great opportunity to promote Metro Vancouver’s watershed tours. Lawn Sprinkling Communications Update In 2016, Metro Vancouver worked closely with Members to provide up‐to‐date and useful outreach materials and key messages in support of conservation efforts in accordance with the Water Shortage Response Plan.

UC - 12

Continued from previous years, several key messages were used throughout the summer. Residents were encouraged to be “waterwise” – a positive way to reinforce the social norm that conserving water is the right thing to do. The phrase “an hour a week is all you need for a healthy lawn” was also used as a primary instructional message for lawn sprinkling. As with previous campaigns, messaging was provided to members for input and all materials were shared. Because the sprinkling regulations came into effect two weeks earlier in 2016 (May 15), key communications/collateral materials were made available for use May 1. This included updated web content and social media messaging, PSAs, postcards for both residential (in 5 languages) and commercial addresses, hose tags and magnets for residents, information for landscaping associations, and artwork for posters and other media. Stickers were also produced to modify existing materials that displayed the regulation dates from previous years. Metro Vancouver placed ads in community newspapers in early May and a media bulletin was distributed on Friday, May 13. Community papers included translations into Chinese and Punjabi where appropriate. An online guide was also developed to promote low‐water lawn care, in support of the sprinkling regulations, and was reviewed and contributed to by regional lawn care and landscaping organizations.

Please see Attachment 3 for examples of the 2016 sprinkling regulations artwork, including a bookmark, postcard, and poster available for print and online information, as well as newspaper ads and online lawn‐care content.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Water Wagon and Tap Water Team program budget is $75,000. The lawn sprinkling communications budget is $20,000. These costs are included in the Communications Program of the 2016 Water Services budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION An important component of Metro Vancouver’s Board Strategic Plan includes communication and outreach initiatives to ensure water resources are conserved and efficiently used throughout the region. The Water Wagon and Tap Water team continue to provide significant opportunities for outreach and resident engagement on water quality and conservation. 2016 saw an increase in the number of events, event days, and represented member municipalities. When staffed by the Tap Water Team, the Water Wagon is an effective tool for conversations ranging from water conservation to water quality and the safety of our water. As in previous years, Metro Vancouver communicated the lawn sprinkling regulations via advertisements across the region, social media, a media release, and through shared hose tags, magnets and postcards. The sprinkling regulations were also supported by a new online guide to low‐water lawn care.

UC - 13

Attachments and References: 1. Metro Vancouver Water Wagon Event Schedule 2016 2. Examples of Conservation Campaign Integration, Water Bottle Messaging and Interaction 3. Lawn Sprinkling Communications Materials 4. News release: 2016 Lawn Sprinkling Restrictions Take Effect this Weekend, issued May 13, 2016

UC - 14

1. Metro Vancouver Water Wagon Event Schedule 2016

Date Event Name Municipality Event Days

May 21 to May 22 Rocky Point Park Port Moody 2

May 28 MEC Bikefest North Vancouver North Vancouver District

1

May 29 Dunbar Salmonberry Day Fair Vancouver 1

June 4 Hats Off Day Burnaby 1

June 11 Delta Works Yard Open House Delta 1

June 12 Italian Days Vancouver 1

June 18 to June 19 Vancouver Dragon Boat Festival Vancouver 2

June 21 National Aboriginal Day at Trout Lake Vancouver 1

June 22 Port Coquitlam City Barbeque Port Coquitlam 1

June 25 Welcome New Immigrants BBQ New Westminster 1

July 1 Canada Day Coquitlam 1

July 2 to July 3 Port Moody Firefighters Breakfast Port Moody 2

July 7 to July 8 Provincial Soccer Championship Burnaby 2

July 9 to July 10 Carnaval del Sol Vancouver 2

July 15 Poco Grand Prix Port Coquitlam 1

July 16 Cascadia Masters Rowing Championship

Burnaby 1

July 17 Edmonds City Fair Classic Car Show and Street Festival

Burnaby 1

July 21 Mayor’s Croquet Tournament Port Coquitlam 1

July 23 to July 24 Fusion Festival Surrey 2

July 30 to July 31 Powell Street Festival Vancouver 2

August 6 to August 7 Richmond Maritime Festival Richmond 2

August 13 to August 14 Slide the City & Car Free Day North Vancouver City

2

August 20 to September 5

PNE Eco Alley Vancouver 15

September 6 Imagine UBC Electoral Area A 1

September 10 Burnaby Public Library 60th Anniversary Burnaby 1

September 11 Coho Walk North Vancouver District

1

September 17 GETI Fest Maple Ridge 1

September 18 DTES Pow Wow and Cultural Celebration

Vancouver 1

September 22 to September 23

55+BC Games Dragon Boat Port Moody 2

September 24 Riverfest New Westminster New Westminster 1

September 25 World Rivers Day Burnaby 1

Total Event Days 2016: 55

UC - 15

2. Examples of Conservation Campaign Integration, Water Bottle Messaging and Interaction

Integration of conservation campaign elements with outreach display

Integration of conservation campaign with outreach materials.

Incorporation of refillable water bottle in Water Wagon graphics.

Example of social media messaging promoting use of refillable water bottles at events.

UC - 16

Line‐up for Water Wagon at PNE event.

Interaction with Water Wagon and Tap Water Team.

UC - 17

3. Lawn Sprinkling Communications Materials

Advertisement distributed in community papers, or used as poster for a municipal kiosk.

Front of a postcard‐sized reminder for residential addresses.

Front of a postcard‐sized reminder for non‐residential addresses.

UC - 18

Front of a bookmark reminder distributed at public events and as an education tool.

Back of a bookmark reminder distributed at public events and as an education tool.

Example of social media messaging to support sprinkling regulations.

Hose tag and magnet.

UC - 19

Example of online lawn‐care content to support sprinkling regulations.

UC - 20

5.2

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: September 30, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Regional Water Conservation Campaign 2016 Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Regional Water Conservation Campaign 2016 Update”, dated September 30, 2016.

PURPOSE To update the Committee and Board on the 2016 regional water conservation campaign, supported in part by the Water Sustainability Innovation Fund. Per the policy associated with the Sustainability Innovation Fund, this report provides an update on the status of the water conservation and research project. BACKGROUND The regional water conservation campaign supports goals and strategies in both the Drinking Water Management Plan (DWMP) and the 2015‐2018 Board Strategic Plan. Goal 2 of the DWMP is: Ensure the Sustainable Use of Water Resources, with supporting strategy 2.1.1: Deliver education programs promoting behaviour change and sustainable use of water. The Board Strategic Plan includes: Expand public awareness of the quality of Metro Vancouver drinking water and the importance of conserving it; while strategy 3.2 states: Promote water conservation through public education campaigns and other tools. The main component of the 2016 regional water conservation campaign is supported by funding granted through the Water Sustainability Innovation Fund and the Water Services Communications Program. Also contributing to the objectives of the water conservation campaign is the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon and the sprinkling regulations education materials, referenced in a separate report. The Board last received an update on the campaign May 19, 2016, prior to the summer launch. 2016 REGIONAL WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN The regional water conservation campaign launched June 21, 2016, with the objective of expanding public awareness of Metro Vancouver’s drinking water, where it comes from, and the importance of using it wisely. The campaign encourages year‐round reduction in personal consumption, both indoors and outdoors. With the new sprinkling regulations starting May 15, 2016, both media and public attention to water conservation was generated in May, largely due to the revised start of the sprinkling regulations and the warm dry spring weather.

UC - 21

The campaign, developed in collaboration with Members, is built around two phases, allowing a focus on outdoor activities for the summer months, and then indoor activities for fall and winter. The foundation of the campaign message is exemplified through a brand icon: We Love Water. For the outdoor phase there were two creative concepts based on lawn watering (Don’t Judge A Healthy Lawn By Its Colour); and car washing (Use a Little Less. Care a Little More.). For the indoor phase there have been four creative concepts developed based on tooth brushing (Start Another Healthy Habit. Turn off the Tap.); washing laundry (Save Loads of Water. One Load at a Time.); dishwashing (Save Water. One Full Load at a Time.); and showering (Shorter Songs Save Water.). All of the campaign advertising drives people to a stand‐alone website: www.welovewater.ca which in addition to featuring tips to conserve, will also pull photos from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram that show how residents love water by not wasting it – using #welovewaterMV and #waterwise. The campaign was built on robust, researched, current information from reputable sources. All facts and data are confirmed, and available to other organizations for paraphrasing and inclusion in their water conservation messages, campaigns, or promotions. Outdoor Campaign The outdoor campaign was in market June 21 through September 11. In addition to paid and earned coverage through Metro Vancouver, materials were shared with and used by Members. The campaign was designed to encourage social interaction and sharing, to reach a broad audience online, generate conversation, and normalize water conservation. The direct media buy included:

Television ‐ promotional opportunity with Global TV, where the water conservation campaign is featured adjacent to the weather report, through a PSA featuring meteorologist Christie Gordon

Radio‐ Peak and JR, CKNW, RoundHouse Radio

Print – Black Press and Glacier media (community papers)

Digital ‐ YouTube, Facebook, Google Display and Twitter Metro Vancouver also generated materials for use in facilities, parks kiosks, transit shelters, banners and similar. Examples include:

Posters for kiosks and Member facility display boards

Display materials at public events, including Metro Vancouver’s Water Wagon (55 events)

Transit shelters where Members have placement rights or pre‐purchased spaces

Window clings for facility windows

Related outreach resources were also updated with input and alignment with the campaign contents. Examples include messaging in watershed tours, K‐12 programming, and Metro Vancouver web resources, including the development of waterwise lawn maintenance content, and alignment in the waterwise portion of the 2016‐launched Grow Green sustainable gardening website. There were also significant opportunities to share campaign information through Members’ webpages, Facebook and Twitter feeds. Metrics to date Post campaign survey of the recognition and retention of the outdoor campaign was surveyed in October, and results will be available on‐table at the Utilities Committee meeting.

UC - 22

A portion of the pre‐campaign survey in February 2016 also benchmarked public attitudes to our drinking water, value statements that inspired water conservation, and attitudes towards browning lawns in public and private spaces. These benchmarked attitudes will be re‐surveyed every 2 to 3 years, with the anticipation that high level attitudes towards our water can shift over time. These high level attitudes are not expected to shift over just one campaign in market over a season. Indoor Campaign The second phase of the 2016 water conservation campaign focusses on indoor water use and launched October 17. Indoor water use is an expansion from previous Metro Vancouver water conservation elements, which largely focused on the seasonal outdoor use. Current research indicates that the opportunity to reduce water use indoors is to focus on human behaviors. To use showerhead technology as an example, it may be more effective to prompt residents to take shorter showers rather than to recommend installing low‐flow shower heads, because the lower‐flow shower heads are already installed. This is largely due to the fact that water conservation opportunities encompassing building codes have been in place long enough to see a majority of homes are either built or renovated with modern standards when it comes to lower water using technologies. The opportunity is to encourage waterwise behaviours to accompany the waterwise technology. With this advice, the campaign elements for indoor water use focuses on common water use behaviors, specifically those identified as greater opportunities by current research:

1. Turning off the tap when brushing teeth (ask: two minutes twice a day as per the Canadian Dental Association’s recommendations on toothbrushing)

2. Taking shorter showers (ask: two minutes less each shower) 3. Full loads of laundry (ask: fill laundry machine to the top of the door) 4. Full loads in the dishwasher (ask: fill the dishwasher before pushing start)

Additional indoor water savings tips are included in the website welovewater.ca which all advertising will be directed to. The media buy for the indoor campaign is smaller than the outdoor campaign, but creative and robust, including:

Television ‐ promotional opportunity with Global TV

Digital ‐ YouTube, Facebook, Google Display and Twitter

Posters, TV and digital screen space in private gyms All materials including online content, images, print items, social media recommendations and videos are available to members. As with all campaigns Metro Vancouver invites requests to adapt, adjust and where possible, print materials. Looking ahead As part of the Sustainable Innovation Funding (SIF) process, a final report on the overall impact of the campaign, will be provided to the Board in spring 2017. In the meantime, a comprehensive assessment of the summer and fall/ winter phases will be done, and content will be adjusted as feedback and online analytics are available.

UC - 23

The strength of this, and any campaign, is strong content, but also in the sheer number of times consumers/residents interact with the messaging. The more consistent Metro Vancouver, in collaboration with its Members can be in positioning, phrasing and providing images on water conservation, the stronger the message and habit of using our drinking water wisely becomes. Over the next number of Metro Vancouver will continue to promote and evolve the Water Conservation Campaign. The content has been designed with longevity in mind and Members continue to play a crucial role in expanding the water conservation message. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The water conservation research and campaign budget for 2016 is $340,000 funded from the Water Services Communications Program. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver and its Members have long undertaken water conservation initiatives targeting various audiences. However, the Drinking Water Management Plan and the Board Strategic Plan both state the importance of additional public engagement to further encourage water conservation. The provision of Water Sustainability Innovation Funding in 2016 has allowed Metro Vancouver, in collaboration with its Members, to develop a research‐based and audience‐tested campaign that will set the frame for a multi‐year awareness and behavior change campaign. The campaign was developed as two phases, allowing a focus on outdoor activities for the summer months, and then indoor activities for fall and winter. The foundation of the campaign message is exemplified through a brand icon: We Love Water. The high‐level strategy of the campaign is to engage residents by illustrating the need for conservation, the personal changes they could make, and demonstrating the real effect of their actions. The project is driven by a long‐term view of the region’s water needs, the need to conserve water and reduce per‐capita water consumption. The campaign will be supported by continued messaging and direct engagement with the public through the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon sprinkling regulations communications materials. Attachments 1. Sample of the summer outdoor campaign artwork June 2016 (lawn watering and car wash) 2. Sample of the campaign as adjusted for local government use June 2016 (bus shelter) 3. Fall/ winter indoor campaign artwork

UC - 24

1. Sample of the summer outdoor campaign artwork June 2016 (lawn watering and car wash)

Campaign artwork for lawn watering.

Campaign artwork for car washing.

UC - 25

2. Sample of the campaign as adjusted for local government use June 2016 (bus shelter)

Campaign artwork adjusted for transit shelter advertising.

UC - 26

3. Fall/ winter indoor campaign artwork

Indoor conservation campaign artworks – turning off tap

Indoor conservation campaign artworks ‐ shower

UC - 27

Indoor conservation campaign artworks – full loads of laundry

Indoor conservation campaign artworks – full dishwasher loads

UC - 28

5.3

To: Utilities Committee From: Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services Nermine Tawfik, Acting Program Manager, Public Involvement, Water Services Date: November 2, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board: a) Receive for information the report titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Update”,

dated November 2, 2016; and b) Direct staff to consult on the proposed changes to the Water Shortage Response Plan.

PURPOSE To update the Committee and Board on the status of the Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) Review and obtain authorization to consult on the proposed changes. BACKGROUND The WSRP was developed in 1993, and updated in 2004 and 2011, to manage demand for drinking water, and to conserve limited water supplies during the dry summer months when water consumption increases significantly due to outdoor use. The WSRP is also intended to manage demand during periods of drought, or in times of emergency, when limited supplies of water are available. At its meeting of November 27, 2015, after the dry, hot summer, the Board approved a process to review and update the 2011 Plan and adopted the following resolution:

That the GVWD Board: a) Approve the Water Shortage Response Plan Review Process outlined in the report titled

“Water Shortage Response Plan Review Process”, dated November 5, 2015; and b) Authorize amending the activation period for Stage 1 of the Water Shortage Response

Plan from June 1 – September 30 to May 15 – October 15. As presented in November 2015, the Plan review and update process included two phases. Phase 1 involved the amendment, ahead of the 2016 summer season, of specific elements within the Plan to address key implementation concerns raised by local governments, businesses, and the public during the summer of 2015. Phase 2 included a comprehensive technical review and stakeholder consultation program to produce an updated Plan for Board consideration in spring 2017.

UC - 29

At its February 26, 2016 meeting, following completion of the Phase 1 review, the Board adopted the following resolution:

That the GVWD Board authorize amending the Water Shortage Response Plan as follows: i. Amend Stage 2 to allow water to be used by commercial cleaning services for aesthetic

cleaning; and ii. Amend Stage 3 to allow previously issued local government exemption permits to water

new lawns or for treatment to control the European Chafer Beetle to remain valid.

Following the Board’s authorization to amend the Plan in February 2016, Metro Vancouver has conducted a comprehensive technical review of the Plan guided by lessons from the implementation of the Plan during the summer of 2015, feedback received from the public consultation in the fall of 2015, input from local government staff, and the Board Strategic Plan. The technical review included:

A review of other jurisdictions including neighbouring BC local governments, other North American cities, and international jurisdictions with experience implementing similar drought/water shortage response plans;

A review and assessment of the effectiveness of Stages 1, 2, and 3 watering restrictions in reducing water use and estimating water use reductions for the new proposed changes; and

A workshop for Local Government and Metro Vancouver staff to review the project findings and provide advice for revising the Plan.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN Table 1 details the proposed amendments to the WSRP for each stage. Table 1‐ Proposed Amendments to the WSRP

WSRP Stage

Activity Current (2016)

Proposed Amendment

Stage 1 Activation period for Stage 1

May 15 to October 15 May 1 ‐ October 15

Lawn watering Three mornings per week Two mornings per week

Watering of flowers, planters, shrubs and trees (using a sprinkler)

No restrictions Restrict to morning lawn watering hours, any day.

Watering by hand is allowed any time on any day. This restriction does not apply to vegetables.

Watering of school yards, sports and sand‐based playing fields

No restrictions Restrict to 7:00 pm ‐ 9:00 am, any day.

UC - 30

WSRP Stage

Activity Current (2016)

Proposed Amendment

Stage 2 Watering of flowers, planters, shrubs and trees (using a sprinkler)

No restrictions Restrict to morning lawn watering hours, any day.

Watering by hand is allowed any time on any day. This restriction does not apply to vegetables.


Water minimally to maintain areas for use

Restrict to 7:00 pm ‐ 9:00 am, 4 days/week, unless operating under an approved local government water management plan.

Watering golf courses Golf courses may water greens and tee areas normally; fairways may only be watered once weekly. Where applicable, signage indicating the use of non‐GVWD water will be encouraged

Allow an alternative fairway watering schedule if operating under an approved local government water management plan.

Stage 3 Commercial car washing

No restrictions Restrict to automatic systems that recirculate water, or high‐pressure wand facilities.

Topping up or filling of hotel, residential strata, and private club pools and hot tubs, with a valid Operating Permit under the BC Pool Regulation

Prohibited Allow the topping up or filling of hotel, residential strata, and private club pools and hot tubs, with a valid Operating Permit under the BC Pool Regulation.


Water minimally to maintain areas for use

Restrict to 7:00 pm ‐ 9:00 am, 3 days/week, unless operating under an approved local government water management plan.

Watering golf courses Golf courses may water greens and tee areas at minimum levels required to maintain areas in usable condition; fairways may not be watered

Allow golf courses to achieve comparable Stage 3 water savings if operating under an approved local government water management plan.

UC - 31

Rationale for Proposed Amendments to the WSRP • Amend the activation period for Stage 1 from May 15 ‐ October 15 to May 1 ‐ October 15

Changing the start date of Stage 1 restrictions from May 15 to May 1 aligns the activation period to that of most neighbouring BC jurisdictions and should help promote water conservation and help reduce water use during unusually dry and hot summers.

• Reduce lawn watering opportunities from three mornings per week to two mornings per week in Stage 1 One of the key priorities in the Board Strategic Plan is to “Consider stricter lawn sprinkling regulations” in order to promote water conservation in the region. Currently the plan provides opportunities to water lawns on three mornings per week for a total of fifteen hours. Healthy lawns need only one hour of watering per week. However, many lawns are frequently overwatered, for example, when in‐ground automated sprinkling systems are set to water on all three allowable days, regardless if lawns need it or not. The purpose of this proposed change is to reduce inefficient watering practices and the unnecessary waste of high quality treated drinking water, especially as the prevalence of automated sprinkling systems increase. This proposed change is also consistent with several other neighbouring BC jurisdictions.

• Restrict watering of flowers, planters, shrubs and trees (using a sprinkler) to WSRP prescribed lawn watering hours on any day, in Stages 1 and 2 This proposed restriction eliminates mid‐day sprinkling, when a portion of the water is lost to evaporation, to reduce water wastage. It is also consistent with lawn watering restrictions, which simplifies communication and education, and allows for more efficient monitoring and enforcement. This also avoids any ambiguity as to whether sprinkling is permitted, or not, for mixed landscape lots. Under this component of the Plan, hand watering options remain unchanged.

• Restricting school yard, sports and sand‐based playing field (sports field) watering to 7:00 pm – 9:00 am in Stages 1, 2 and 3, unless operating under an approved local government water management plan. Sports fields are a public amenity that need to be maintained to remain playable through the summer and in the fall, when the fields are more heavily used again, and to prevent the loss of a public asset. Currently, sports fields can be watered at any time of the day under Stages 1, 2 and 3. This proposed change reduces inefficient watering practices by preventing mid‐day watering when a portion of the water is lost to evaporation. Preventing watering during the warmer periods of the day is also consistent with lawn watering restrictions and promotes public sector leadership since most of those fields are owned and operated by local governments. The proposed restriction still allows plenty of opportunity to water fields that require more watering such as sand‐based and artificial turf fields, while not wasting water. It is also proposed that, in Stages 2 and 3, where jurisdictions allow water management plans, operators be allowed to develop a performance‐based water management plan specific to their site, rather than meeting the general restrictions on water use in the regional WSRP. Water management plans allow operators a flexible and effective mechanism to manage their irrigation demands without negatively impacting the playing condition of the sports field. Water management plans also allow local governments to monitor and benchmark water use

UC - 32

performance and to work with sports field operators on improving their skills, knowledge, and techniques for efficient irrigation.

• Restrict commercial car washing to automatic systems that recirculate water, or high‐pressure wand facilities in Stage 3 Research shows that water used to wash a vehicle in a well maintained commercial car wash that recirculates water or a high pressure wand facility is substantially lower than in other types of car washes. This highlights the importance of technological advances and good maintenance practices in achieving greater water efficiencies. This proposed restriction would signal to businesses the importance of water efficiency and good business practices. Additionally, it is not publicly acceptable that an inefficient commercial car wash be operating when the region is experiencing a water shortage. This Plan aims to reduce business disruptions, but at this Stage, it is appropriate for car washing businesses to be conserving water similar to other businesses and residents that are restricted from using water for aesthetic cleaning activities in Stage 3. Several neighbouring BC jurisdictions have similar restrictions on commercial car washes at this Stage.

• Allow Golf Courses Operating under a Local Government Approved Water Management Plan an Exemption from the Regional WSRP Watering Restrictions in Stages 2 and 3 Currently a few local governments are allowing golf courses to operate under a performance‐based water management plan. Water management plans are generally binding agreements with the local government, that establish a baseline water demand for the specific golf course under Stage 1, with targeted reductions in demand to be achieved in Stages 2 and 3. Feedback from the golf course sector indicated that uniform irrigation is essential to maintain turf quality. Research also showed that golf course operators manage irrigation intensively to maintain turf quality, and to reduce water use and costs. Water management plans provide golf course operators with a flexible and effective mechanism to manage their irrigation demands without negatively impacting business. They also allow local governments to monitor and benchmark water use performance and to work with golf course operators on improving their skills, knowledge, and techniques for efficient turf irrigation.

• Allow the Topping up or Filling of Hotel, Residential Strata, and Private Club Pools and Hot Tubs, with a Valid Operating Permit under the BC Pool Regulation, in Stage 3 Generally, Hotel, Residential strata, and Private Club Pools and Hot Tubs, require a valid Operating Permit under the BC Pool Regulation pursuant to the BC Public Health Act to operate. Generally, these pools and hot tubs are used by many people in the region and are essential for water safety education, physical therapy, recreation and heat relief during unusually hot summers. The benefits of allowing these pools and hot tubs (found in hotels, residential strata, private clubs, etc.) to operate at this stage outweigh the small increase in seasonal water demand.

Proposed General Clarifications to the WSRP General clarifications to the Water Shortage Response Plan will include a section on year‐round prohibitions to discourage water wastage and a provision exempting local governments from any of the restrictions in the WSRP for the purposes of protecting public health and safety.

UC - 33

CONSULTATION PROGRAM The purpose of the consultation program is to receive feedback from GVWD members, the public, and the private sector on the proposed changes to the Plan. The consultation is planned from December 2016 to February 2017 and will include workshops, public dialogues, and an online survey. Following a feedback review period, final adjustments will then be made to the Plan.

A report to the Committee and Board to adopt a revised WSRP is planned for spring 2017. This report will summarize the results of the consultation process and recommend a revised WSRP for Board adoption. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVWD Board:

a) Receive for information the report titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Update”, dated November 2, 2016; and

b) Direct staff to consult on the proposed changes to the Water Shortage Response Plan.

2. That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Review ‐ Update”, dated November 2, 2016 and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, staff will proceed with consultation on the proposed changes to the Water Shortage Response Plan as outlined in this report. The budget and staff resources to support the consultation program and complete the WSRP review process are included in the 2016 and 2017 Water Services budgets under the Utility Policy & Planning and Public Involvement programs. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Several changes are proposed to Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Water Shortage Response Plan reflecting a year‐long review process that involved a consultation in the fall of 2015, a comprehensive technical review of the Plan in 2016 and continual feedback from local government staff. As directed in the Board Strategic Plan, this review of the Plan included consideration of stricter lawn sprinkling regulations in order to promote water conservation. If the Board approves Alternative 1, staff will proceed to consult on the proposed changes to the Plan in the December 2016 to February 2017 period and report back to the Board on the consultation results in spring 2017 along with a request to authorize appropriate changes to the Plan.

19106208

UC - 34

5.4

To: Utilities Committee From: Mike Mayers, Acting Director, Watershed/Environmental Management & Quality

Control, Water Services Date: November 3, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve ‐ Public Consultation Program Update

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve ‐ Public Consultation Program Update”, dated November 3, 2016.

PURPOSE To update the Committee on the recent Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve public event and to provide information on the future strategies for public engagement. BACKGROUND Management of the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve (LSCR) is guided by Metro Vancouver’s Board Strategic Plan (2015), Drinking Water Management Plan (2011), and LSCR Management Plan (2002). The Board Strategic Plan includes engagement strategies that “develop relationships and engage with the broad range of stakeholders involved in pursuing a livable and sustainable region” and supports public education to “communicate the links between Metro Vancouver’s services and the region’s quality of life” including the provision of clean, safe drinking water and access to natural spaces. The Drinking Water Management Plan includes an action to deliver education programs promoting behavior change by means of sustainability education resources and watershed field trips. The Plan also highlights that public access in the LSCR provides opportunities for recreational activities, outdoor experiences, and programs to foster environmental stewardship. The LSCR Management Plan encourages a high level of public involvement in management of the LSCR as a water reserve, in conjunction with its recreation, education, and environmental values. Specifically, the management plan “encourages public involvement in ongoing decision‐making, program delivery, management and monitoring activities” and “supports recreational and educational activities with regional interest that depend on the unique landscapes and features of the LSCR and encourage their experience, appreciation, and stewardship.” The LSCR Public Consultation Program provides users of the LSCR and stewardship groups with the opportunity to engage with staff on initiatives in the reserve. Recent high profile projects in the LSCR, such as the response to the December 2014 Seymour River rockslide and the interest in maintaining trail connections across the Seymour River, have reinforced the necessity of an annual information forum for stakeholders.

UC - 35

2016 LSCR ANNUAL CONSULTATION EVENT The first of these meetings was hosted by Watershed Management and Public Involvement staff on September 24, 2016. The goal of this and future events is to encourage community involvement and maintain trust among stakeholders by providing transparent and consistent messages about past, current, and upcoming work in the LSCR. The event was held at the Sportsplex Gym at Capilano University in the District of North Vancouver. In total, 65 community members attended the event. The event was a drop‐in “fair‐booth” style, which allowed guests to concentrate their time on issues and topics of greatest personal relevance. Each booth was facilitated by a subject matter expert which provided participants the opportunity to ask questions and receive personalized in‐depth responses to their comments or concerns. Stations provided information on the LSCR’s role as a water reserve, current and future projects, and strategies for a new crossing of the Seymour River and trail connections. Participants were asked to provide feedback on the Trail Strategic Plan, opportunities for stewardship programs, and their ideas around a replacement for the former Learning Lodge. Updates on the Seymour River Rockslide Mitigation Strategy were facilitated by the Seymour Salmonid Society. Participant Feedback ‐ Summary Public feedback was received in several ways, including the engagement activities at some stations, notes from Metro Vancouver staff on questions, issues and concerns raised during the event; and from completed event passports. Overall, feedback on the event was very positive. The majority of participants found the format, the information provided, and the opportunities for input “very useful”. The participants were pleased with the event topics and the knowledgeable staff that attended. The majority of participant interactions occurred around the new Seymour River crossing, trail connections and current and future projects. There was also a number of comments on how Metro Vancouver could further collaboration and involvement with local stewardship groups such as the North Shore Mountain Bike Association, North Shore Hikers and stream keepers. STRATEGY FOR FUTURE LSCR PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT Going forward, staff will employ the following engagement strategies:

Engagement Strategy Objective

Annual Public events

To provide recreation users and the general public the opportunity to learn about and provide feedback on recently completed work in the LSCR as well as short and long term future plans

Stakeholder meetings

To provide LSCR users, special interest groups, associations and agencies the opportunity to learn about recently completed improvements and work in the LSCR as well as short and long term future plans

Biannual LSCR E‐newsletter

To provide general project information, engagement opportunities, communication resource materials and contact information

Signage in the LSCR

To provide general project information, engagement opportunities and contact information

Local newspaper advertisements To invite people to public events, stakeholder meetings and provide notice of upcoming projects

UC - 36

Metro Vancouver’s webpage To provide general project information, engagement opportunities, communication resource materials and contact information and provide notice of upcoming projects

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The LSCR Annual Consultation Event and other engagement initiatives are included in the Watersheds and Environmental Management Program budget. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The first Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve (LSCR) Annual Consultation Event was held on September 24, 2016 with the objective of working closely with the community to ensure concerns and interests are heard and considered. Guests received updates on facility improvements in the LSCR, listened to developments on the Trail Strategic Plan, discussed stewardship opportunities, and expressed ideas, experiences, and feedback on current and future projects within the reserve. Over the coming months, staff will review the feedback provided and determine next steps in the process while continuing to develop and deliver opportunities for public engagement with stakeholders in the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve. 19613328

UC - 37

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Date: October 28, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program – 2016 Regional Wipes Campaign

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

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

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

shortened whiteboard video shown in movie theatres

pink port‐a‐potty with wipes messaging at community events around the region

online advertising, new online “toilet training” quiz and series of humorous video tips

social media engagement through Twitter, Facebook and blogs

signage in Shoppers Drug Mart stores across the region

5.5

UC - 38

In July 2016, the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association awarded Metro Vancouver the Utility Excellence Award, under the “Community Outreach – Large Utility” category for its wipes outreach. Collaboration with Member Municipalities The campaign received support from member municipalities who were involved through the campaign’s planning stage. Members posted campaign materials in washrooms in their municipal facilities, hosted the pink port‐a‐potty at events and disseminated materials through their social media channels. Over 1200 posters were placed in municipal facilities by ten Members, while additional Members supported the campaign through their social media channels. Pink port‐a‐potties with wipes messaging attended 21 events in 13 municipalities, with a total of 147 port‐a‐potties deployed during the campaign. Evaluation To assess the campaign’s effectiveness, Metro Vancouver conducted a post‐campaign survey (Attachment 2) and has been tracking the number of wipes entering the Baynes Road pump station in Pitt Meadows. Metro Vancouver has also been monitoring social media activity, website traffic and earned media. An online regional survey of 1472 women was conducted from June 22 to July 13, 2016. The results were generally positive and showed that:

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

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

The majority of people (48%) who saw messaging about disposing of wipes recalled, without prompting, the primary message to not flush wipes. In addition, 41% remembered related messages about clogging, sewer systems, wipes not breaking down, and putting wipes in the garbage.

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

Plans are underway to develop a regional campaign in 2017 focusing on other unflushables (dental floss, hair, feminine hygiene products, etc.) subject to Board approval of the 2017 Liquid Waste Services Budget. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

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

UC - 39

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

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

19597803

UC - 40

Sample of Campaign Artwork and Advertising Materials

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

Attachment 1

UC - 41

Washroom decal for posting on sanitary receptacle

UC - 42

Social media post on local government website

Wipes messaging in Shoppers Drug Mart store UC - 43

Mirror cling in cinema washroom

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

19823501UC - 44

Regional Wipes Campaign

A SURVEY OF METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

July 2016

ATTACHMENT 2

UC - 45

Table of Contents

Introduction 03

Sampling 04

Observations 05

Executive Summary 06

Research Findings 12

Where Should We Dispose of Waste? 13

Where Do We Dispose of Waste? 23

Wipes Usage 33

Wipes Disposal 49

Wipes Advertising 65

Demographic Profile 84

2UC - 46

Overview

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

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

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

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

Introduction

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

4UC - 47

The table below displays the areas sampled for this study.

Sampling

Areas Sampled Sample size Margin of error

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

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

154 +/- 7.9

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

301 +/- 5.7

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

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

Total1,472

Equates to 950n/a

+/- 3.2

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

4UC - 48

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

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

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

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

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

5UC - 49

Summary

6UC - 50

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

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

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

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

7UC - 51

Executive Summary (cont’d)

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

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

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

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

8UC - 52

Executive Summary (cont’d)

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

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

These findings are relatively consistent among all subgroups of interest.

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

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

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

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

9UC - 53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10UC - 54

Executive Summary cont’d

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

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

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

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

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

11UC - 55

Research Findings

12UC - 56

Where Should We Dispose of Waste?

13UC - 57

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

Base: Total.

27%

11%

4%

3%

Tampons

Face tissues

Wipes

Dental floss

What should we dispose of into the drain?

14UC - 58


Base: Total.

88%

5%

2%

<1%

<1%

0%

6%

Garbage

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Toilet

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of dental floss?

15UC - 59

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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


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

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

Don’t Know 4% 4% 5% 7% 4% 4%

Where should we dispose of dental floss?


Base: Total.

16UC - 60


Base: Total.

52%

34%

11%

<1%

<1%

0%

3%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of face tissues?

17UC - 61

Central North West North East South West South East Total

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


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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 4% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Where should we dispose of face tissues?


Base: Total.

18UC - 62


Base: Total.

65%

27%

2%

0%

<1%

<1%

5%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of tampons?

19UC - 63


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

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


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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5%

Where should we dispose of tampons?


Base: Total.

20UC - 64


Base: Total.

84%

6%

4%

0%

<1%

<1%

5%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where should we dispose of wipes?

21UC - 65

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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


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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 6% 4% 3% 4% 5% 5%

Where should we dispose of wipes?


Base: Total.

22UC - 66

Where Do We Dispose of Waste?

23UC - 67


Base: Total.

28%

13%

5%

4%

Tampons

Face tissues

Wipes

Dental floss

What do we say we dispose of into the drain?

24UC - 68

B2. How do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

91%

4%

2%

<1%

<1%

0%

1%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of dental floss?

25UC - 69

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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


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


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

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

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

Don’t Know 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%

Where do we dispose of dental floss?


Base: Total.

26UC - 70


Base: Total.

63%

22%

13%

<1%

<1%

0%

0%

Garbage


Toilet


Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of face tissues?

27UC - 71


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


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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 1% 1% 0% 1% <1% <1%

Where do we dispose of face tissues?


Base: Total.

28UC - 72


Base: Total.

54%

28%

1%

<1%

<1%

10%

7%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

Where do we dispose of tampons?

29UC - 73


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

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


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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 7% 6% 10% 8% 5% 7%

Where do we dispose of tampons?


Base: Total.

30UC - 74


Base: Total.

Where do we dispose of wipes?

81%

5%

3%

<1%

1%

6%

4%

Garbage

Toilet



Other

Don't use

Don’t Know

31UC - 75

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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


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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 81% 75% 84% 83% 82% 81%

Where do we dispose of wipes?


Base: Total.

32UC - 76

Wipes Usage

33UC - 77

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

Base: Total.

Do we use wipes?

Yes, 70%

No, 30%

34UC - 78

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

Base: Total.

70%

72%

72%

70%

69%

67%

Overall usage

South East

North East

Central

South West

North West

Do we use wipes?

35UC - 79

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

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

Base: Wipes users.

71%

62%

45%

40%

35%

Wipes for kitchen and bathroomcleaning

Wipes for makeup removal

Personal hygiene wipes foradults

Baby wipes

Other types of wipes

36UC - 80


Base: Used wipes in past month.

14%

6%

7%

5%

7%

59%

1%

Several times a day (over thepast month)

Once a day (over the pastmonth)

Several times a week (over thepast month)

Once a week (over the pastmonth)

Less often (over the past month)

Not at all (over the past month)

Don't know

How often do we use baby wipes?

37UC - 81

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

Several times a day (over the past month)

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

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

Several times a week (over the past month)

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

Once a week (over the past month)

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

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

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

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

How often do we use baby wipes?



38UC - 82



6%

10%

8%

6%

15%

53%

2%







Don't know

How often do we use personal hygiene wipes?

39UC - 83

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


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



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


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



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

How often do we use personal hygiene wipes?



40UC - 84



7%

9%

15%

19%

20%

29%

<1%







Don't know

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

41UC - 85

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


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



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


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



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

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



42UC - 86



5%

22%

12%

7%

16%

38%

<1%







Don't know

How often do we use wipes for makeup removal?

43UC - 87

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


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



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


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



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

How often do we use wipes for makeup removal?



44UC - 88



4%

6%

6%

7%

11%

55%

11%







Don't know

How often do we use other types of wipes?

45UC - 89

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total


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



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


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



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

How often do we use other types of wipes?



46UC - 90

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


64%

20%

7%

8%

1%

Bathroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

Other (please specify):

Don't know

Where do we use wipes?

47UC - 91

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

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

Where do we use wipes?

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


48UC - 92

Wipes Disposal

49UC - 93


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

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

Base: Total.

Do we dispose of wipes into the drain?

Yes, 13%

No, 87%

50UC - 94


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


Base: Total.

13%

15%

13%

12%

12%

10%

Overall awareness

South East

North West

Central

South West

North East

Do we dispose of wipes into the drain?

51UC - 95

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

Base: Use baby wipes.

90%

7%

2%

1%

1%

Garbage

Toilet

Recycling

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of baby wipes?

52UC - 96

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1%

How do we dispose of baby wipes?


Base: Use baby wipes.

53UC - 97


Base: Use personal hygiene wipes.

77%

20%

2%

0%

1%

Garbage

Toilet

Recycling

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of personal hygiene wipes?

54UC - 98

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

How do we dispose of personal hygiene wipes?


Base: Use personal hygiene wipes.

55UC - 99


Base: Use wipes for cleaning.

93%

4%

2%

1%

<1%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

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

56UC - 100

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% <1%

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


Base: Use wipes for cleaning.

57UC - 101


Base: Use wipes for makeup removal.

94%

3%

2%

<1%

<1%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of wipes for makeup removal?

58UC - 102

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

How do we dispose of wipes for makeup removal?


Base: Use wipes for makeup removal.

59UC - 103


Base: Use other types of wipes.

86%

4%

2%

1%

8%

Garbage

Recycling

Toilet

Elsewhere

Don’t Know

How do we dispose of other types of wipes?

60UC - 104

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know 8% 2% 6% 4% 12% 8%

How do we dispose of other types of wipes?


Base: Use other types of wipes.

61UC - 105

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

Base: Wipes users.

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

7%

5%

13%

9%

76%

3%

More often

Less often

About the same

Don’t know

A lot | A little

62UC - 106

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

Base: Wipes users .

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

Dispose into the garbage more often (total) 13%

Understand wipes belong in garbage 8%

Recall ads/communication about proper disposal 2%

Other 3%

Dispose into the garbage less often (total) 9%

Use less often 4%

Recycle instead 1%

Other 4%

63UC - 107

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t know 4% 4% 2% 5% 1% 3%

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

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

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

Base: Wipes users.

64UC - 108

Wipes Advertising

65UC - 109

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

Base: Total.

Have we seen advertising about disposing of wipes?

Yes, 19%

No, 81%

66UC - 110

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

Base: Total.

19%

27%

20%

20%

19%

17%

Overall awareness

North West

North East

South West

Central

South East

Have we seen advertising about disposing of wipes?

67UC - 111

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

Base: Saw or heard wipes advertising.

What was the advertisement’s message?

48%

22%

10%

9%

7%

2%

5%

18%

Don't flush the wipes in the toilet

They clog pipes / Sewer systems

They don’t break down in water

They should be thrown in the garbage

Ad was about disposal of wipes

Advertisement states that wipes areflushable

Others

Don't know

68UC - 112

What was the advertisement about?

North East

North West

South East

South West Central Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


69UC - 113

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


Who sponsored the advertisement?

13%

10%

10%

3%

1%

1%

<1%

9%

54%

Metro Vancouver

City of Vancouver

Local Govt orMunicipality

Pampers

Huggies

City of Surrey

City of Pitt Meadows

Others

Don't know

70UC - 114

Who sponsored the advertisement?

North East

North West

South East

South West Central Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


71UC - 115

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


Do we remember the “Adult Toilet Training” campaign?

Yes, 24%

No, 76%

72UC - 116

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


24%

30%

30%

24%

23%

19%

Overall awareness

South East

South West

North West

North East

Central

Do we remember the “Adult Toilet Training” campaign?

73UC - 117

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

Base: Total.

Do we recall seeing these advertisements?

Yes, 18%

No, 82%

74UC - 118

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

Base: Total.

18%

22%

20%

19%

18%

15%

Overall awareness

North West

South East

South West

North East

Central

Do we remember these advertisements?

75UC - 119

D6. Where did you see or hear this advertising?

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

Base: Aware of advertising.

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

38%

6%

8%

4%

6%

2

64%

25%

23%

21%

15%

13%

12%

12%

9%

Posters in public washrooms /restrooms

Movie theatre

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Otherwebsites/internet/online/google

Community and public events

Newspaper / Magazines

Online news article or blog post

YouTube

Drug store

Total unaided Total aided

76UC - 120

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

Other websites/internet/ online/google

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED

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

Base: Aware of advertising.

77UC - 121

D8. Did you learn anything from these advertisements?

Base: Total.

Did we learn something from the advertisements?

Yes, 64%

No, 37%

78UC - 122

D8. Did you learn anything from these advertisements?

Base: Total.

64%

64%

64%

61%

61%

55%

Overall

South East

Central

South West

North West

North East

Did we learn something from the advertisements? YES SUMMARY

79UC - 123


Base: Total.

93%

2%

1%

3%

Garbage

Toilet or drain

Elsewhere

Don't know

How would we dispose of wipes after seeing the advertisement?

80UC - 124

Central North West

North East

South West

South East Total

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

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

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

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



Base: Total.

81UC - 125


Base: Total.

93%

2%

1%

3%

Garbage

Toilet or drain

Elsewhere

Don't know


82UC - 126

What do we think about the advertisement?

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

Base: Total.

68%

53%

27%

26%

21%

32%

35%

31%

3%

7%

6%

4%

4%

9%

11%

27%

33%

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

The ads are easy for me tounderstand

The ads provide usefulinformation

The ads are memorable

The ads are fun and playful

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

83UC - 127

Demographic Profile

84UC - 128

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Dispose of wipes into toilet

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

Demographic profile

Demographics Overall

Dispose of wipes into

toilet

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Age

18-34 28% 28% ▲37%

35-44 19% ▲22% ▲23%

45-64 34% 32% 31%

65+ 18% 18% ▼9%

Residents in household

1 24% ▲31% 24%

2 37% ▼33% 35%

3 or more 38% 36% 41%

85UC - 129

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Dispose of wipes into toilet

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

Demographic profile cont’d

Demographics Overall

Dispose of wipes into

toilet

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Type of home

Detached house 39% 39% 38%

Apartment/Condo 39% ▲43% 41%

Townhouse 15% 15% 15%

Semi-detached 4% ▼2% 3%

Other 4% 5% 3%

Region

North East 13% ▼10% 13%

North West 8% 8% 10%

South East 25% ▲31% ▲29%

South West 13% 12% 14%

Central 41% 41% ▼34%

86UC - 130

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

UC - 131

metro vancouver

5.6

To: Utilities Committee From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management

Financial Services Department Date: October 26, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16‐083: Consulting Engineering Services

for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

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

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


PURPOSE This report is to advise the GVS&DD Board of the results of RFP No. 16‐083: Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (NLWWTP) project, and to recommend award of a contract for Phase 1 ‐ Project Definition and Staging in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill Canada Limited. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the GVS&DD Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 284, 2014 and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy, procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board of Directors. This report is being brought forward to the Utilities Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVS&DD Board to award a contract for consulting engineering services to be undertaken for the NLWWTP expansion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To address the long‐term regional growth projections in the Fraser Sewerage Area, a comprehensive servicing and facility planning study was recently completed. The study recommended expansion of NLWWTP to accommodate diversion of flows from the Cities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge which are currently serviced by the Annacis Island Waste Water Treatment Plant. This new servicing plan is projected to yield approximately $280 million in savings in servicing costs over the next 30 years. The East Fraser Servicing and Treatment project, with an estimated cost of $800 million over the next 10 years, is a significant undertaking which will entail flow diversion from Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to the NLWWTP. To facilitate the flow diversion will require expansion of the NLWWTP and outfall, a new pump station in Maple Ridge, a new river crossing and sewer overflow storage facility.

UC - 132

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

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

Under RFP No. 16‐083, the consultant will complete a project definition report for the NLWWTP expansion and the new conveyance system. Project Definition is required to define the scope of work including an indicative design, staging plan, project schedule and cost estimates for the new works in order to provide all relevant information necessary to form the basis to advance the project to the design phase. The RFP also included scope for some design work and the overall project management; however, this work is not being included at this time. As a result of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 15‐209 that was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver’s and BC Bid web sites, four experienced firms were shortlisted and invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 16‐083). The RFP closed on May 26, 2016 and all four firms responded. Prices are summarized below:

Proponent Proposed Cost (exclusive of taxes)

CH2M Hill Canada Limited $6,283,193

CDM Smith Canada ULC $8,069,590

AECOM $5,910,703

Stantec Consulting Ltd. $5,445,085

The technical component of the proposals was evaluated by staff from Liquid Waste Services and the financial component was evaluated by staff from the Purchasing Division. The proposal from CH2M Hill Canada Limited obtained the highest overall score. Following identification of CH2M Hill Canada Limited as the highest ranked proponent, negotiations were initiated to determine the actual cost of the services. The base proposal of $6,283,193 was increased to $6,675,530 to include the new pump station as part of the scope for project definition. The pump station will deliver flows equivalent to about 90% of the expanded treatment plant capacity so it is important that it be included in the project definition work to ensure compatibility. The proposed hours have been reviewed and deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Metro Vancouver negotiation team. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

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

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

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

UC - 133

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approve Alternative 1, a contract will be awarded to CH2M Hill Canada Limited in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes) to complete the Project Definition and Staging work. This amount is within the budget allocated for the project. The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1 but staff will need further direction in relation to the project. Alternative 2 will result in a delay to the project schedule that may impact the ability to accommodate increased sewage flows resulting from growth in the East Fraser Sewerage Area. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION A Request for Proposal was issued for Consulting Engineering Services for Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. CH2M Hill Canada Limited was identified as the highest ranked proponent and the cost is within the budget allocated for the project. Based on the evaluation of the proposals, it is recommended that the GVS&DD Board authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to award and execute a contract to CH2M Hill Canada Limited in the amount of $6,675,530 (exclusive of taxes). Attachment: East Fraser Sewerage Area Servicing and Treatment Plan (19749101). 19049613

UC - 134

Outfall

Pump Station

River Crossing

Northwest LangleyWastewater Treatment Plant

SSO Storage Tank

Katzie Pump Station

N

East Fraser Servicing and TreatmentAttachment

UC - 135

5.7

To: Utilities Committee From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management Financial Services Department Date: October 18, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Award of Contract Extension for Utility Residuals Hauling Services

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) A contract amendment in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) to the current

contractor, Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for utility residuals hauling services; and b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

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

UC - 136

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

Page 2 of 2

Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s biosolids hauling needs, standards and expectations as shown in their annual performance evaluations, and are in agreement with up to a 3 year contract extension. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

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

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

staff to report back to the GVS&DD Board with options for an alternate course of action. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approve Alternative 1, a contract amendment will be made to Arrow Transportation Systems Inc., for a three‐year contract extension, in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) for utility residuals hauling services work. This will result in a contract with Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. in the overall value of $26,800,000 for these services. This amount is within the respective Liquid Waste Services and Water Services operating budgets allocated for this work. The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1 but staff will need further direction in relation to the project. Continuous removal of biosolids and drinking water treatment residuals from Metro Vancouver’s treatment plants is critical for the operation of these facilities, as there is no operational storage capacity available at any of the sites. A delay associated with Alternative 2 will significantly impact the ability of the wastewater treatment plants and the Seymour‐ Capilano Filtration Plant to operate and require temporary on‐site storage of biosolids and residuals, which will create odour issues and could lead to rewetting of the material, resulting in higher hauling costs when the material is removed. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2012 a contract in the amount of $16,000,000 was awarded to Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. for utility residuals hauling services for a five year term with a possible three‐year extension. The contract was awarded as a result of an RFP and the successful contractor has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s biosolids and drinking water treatment residuals hauling needs, standards and expectations. It is recommended that the GVS&DD Board authorize an amendment to the contract with Arrow Transportation Systems Inc. in the amount of $10,800,000 (exclusive of taxes) for total contract value of $26,800,000 for utility residuals hauling services and to authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation. 19744775

UC - 137

To: Utilities Committee From: Ray Robb, Division Manager, Environmental Regulation and Enforcement,

Legal and Legislative Services Department Date: October 5, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw – Staff

Appointment

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

PURPOSE To update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act (the Act) and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Bylaw). BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Regulatory Program supports the goals of the Liquid Waste Management Plan through regulation of the discharge of non‐domestic wastes to the region’s sanitary sewer systems. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 delegates authority to Board‐designated Officers to advance liquid waste management goals. Municipal Sewage Control Officers may enter property, inspect works, and obtain records and other information to promote compliance with the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Liquid Waste Management bylaws. A recent change in Metro Vancouver environmental regulatory staff has resulted in a need to update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. In accordance with Section 29 of the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Control Officers must be appointed by the Board. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver

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

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

5.8

UC - 138

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications for expenditures as the new Metro Vancouver appointment is a recent hire filling a recently vacated position. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Recent changes in staff have resulted in a need to update staff appointments under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. Staff recommend that the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 adopt alternative 1. 19608247

UC - 139

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

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

Management Plan

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

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

5.9

UC - 140

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

Page 2 of 3

grills and major drainage pipes. The GVS&DD manages this major infrastructure on behalf of the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam, while the remaining minor drainage infrastructure in the drainage area including most pipes, catch basins and smaller waterways remain the responsibility of the municipalities. Objectives The overall objective of the plan is to gradually improve the health of the watershed and prevent further degradation resulting from new development. The key objectives of this ISMP are to:

manage runoff to reduce erosion in the ravines;

implement measures to improve water quality;

enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat, including identification of long term strategies for stream daylighting;

identify opportunities for and recommend the use of green infrastructure;

provide improvements in aesthetics/livability;

address flood risks; and,

address impacts of impervious surfaces and runoff through on‐site rainfall management. GVS&DD Action Items Key actions specific to the GVS&DD are: maintain flow conveyance capacity within the channels and piping system and improve conveyance and reduce high flows to the ravines, conduct a study to determine if the existing debris basins are adequate, and upgrade the existing hydrometric monitoring stations with real time on‐line telemetry. Examples of collaborative actions for the GVS&DD and the Cities of Port Moody and Coquitlam include:

pursue channel conveyance and stability improvements;

seek potential daylighting opportunities for the pipe system within Port Moody;

improve fish access by creating new habitat, pools and riffles;

add spawning gravel to creeks;

assess and upgrade inadequate hydraulic structures as they near the end of their serviceable life and capacity;

employ bio‐engineering measures where appropriate to reduce erosion and improve habitat; and,

coordinate O&M practices between the municipalities and Metro Vancouver. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board adopt the objectives and GVS&DD actions as identified in the Port

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

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

UC - 141

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

Page 3 of 3

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

Chines 2. Map of Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area 18497800

UC - 142

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/Utilities/UC-Nov_10_2016-Item_5.9_Ref.pdf

Burrard Inlet

City of Coquitlam

City of Port Moody

City of Burnaby

®

0 240 480 720120Meters

PORT MOODY -COQUITLAM

DRAINAGE AREA

Attachment 2

UC - 143

19835775

To: Utilities Committee From: Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer Date: November 4, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Program Review

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

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

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

PURPOSE To present and receive comments from the Utilities Committee on the development cost charge (DCC) program policy framework, rate adjustments and the transition plan for implementation of the program amendments for purposes of consultation with the Province and community stakeholders. BACKGROUND In 1997, a DCC Program was implemented in the Liquid Waste function of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD). The purpose of the implementation of the DCC Bylaw was to ensure that new development in the region would fund the cost of the liquid waste infrastructure expansion required to service that development. The DCC Program is separated into four sewer areas: Vancouver, Lulu Island, North Shore and Fraser. While the policy aspects of the program are consistent across the function, each sewer area has a separate unique fee structure based on the requirements of that sewer area. At the inception of the program in 1997, rates were set based on development plans of member municipalities and the necessary infrastructure expansion required to service that development. The DCC rates have not been updated since inception despite the influx of significant development, the increasing need for system expansion and the increasing cost of infrastructure. A review of the program was commenced in 2014 and this report is part of that review process. DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES REVIEW PROCESS The DCC review process commenced with the development of a model to calculate required rates. A DCC Review Committee comprising both Metro Vancouver and municipal staff within the disciplines of planning, engineering and finance held its first meeting November 26, 2015. The review process includes the following steps:

5.10

UC -143- 1

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

Page 2 of 6

Step Timeframe

1. DCC Committee ‐ Review of current program November 2015 – July 2016

2. Policy framework consultation with Regional Administrator’s Advisory Committee (RAAC)

November 2015 – July 2016

3. DCC Committee ‐ Rate calculation and review draft rates November 2015 – July 2016

4. DCC Committee ‐ Transition implementation plan November 2015 – July 2016

5. Rate and transition consultation with regional advisory committees: administrators, engineers, planning staff and finance staff

September – October 2016

6. Consultation with Utilities Committee and GVS&DD Board December 2016 – March 2017

7. Consultation with Province December 2016 – March 2017

8. Community Stakeholder consultation December 2016 – March 2017

9. Board approval – Updated DCC Bylaw March – April 2017

This report will address step 6 of the process through a review with the Utilities Committee, Intergovernment and Finance Committee and GVS&DD Board of the underlying policy framework, the draft DCC rates and the proposed transition plan for implementation of the amended program prior to commencing the broader consultation with the Province and community stakeholders. DCC POLICY FRAMEWORK The DCC policy framework includes land use categories, units for charging DCC’s, DCC waivers and assist factors. These were all discussed by the DCC Review Committee and the Committee’s conclusions were endorsed by RAAC. Land Use Categories. The existing DCC Bylaw charges DCC’s based on four separate land use categories: single‐family dwelling, townhouse, apartment and non‐residential. The DCC Review Committee discussed the following options around the land use categories on which DCC’s will be charged.

1. Single‐family detached rate , townhouse rate, apartment rate and non‐residential rate 2. Residential rate and non‐residential rate 3. Single‐family detached rate, multi‐family rate and non‐residential rate

After some discussion, the Committee concluded that maintaining the existing categories is appropriate noting that the current categories are administratively efficient and appropriate for the region. The definitions of the land use categories are proposed to remain as follows: Single‐family ‐ a detached building or structure that contains one principal dwelling

unit and may contain one smaller dwelling unit. Townhouse ‐ a dwelling unit in a building or structure that contains or may

contain four or more dwelling units, whereby each dwelling unit has a direct exterior entrance.

UC -143- 2


Page 3 of 6

Apartment ‐ a dwelling unit in a building or structure that consists or may consist

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

Non‐residential ‐ any building or structure or any portion of any building or structure

that is not an Apartment dwelling unit, Residential dwelling unit or Townhouse dwelling unit.

Units for charging DCC’s. After concluding the land use categories on which to base DCC’s, the committee then discussed whether the DCC should be charged on a per unit or on a floor‐area basis. Under the existing bylaw a DCC for a residential development is per unit while a DCC for a non‐residential development is per square meter. The discussion focused on the premise of equity while maintaining the objective that DCC’s should be charged based on the overall impact to the liquid waste system. The municipalities believe that the three residential categories are effective in determining the impact on the system while the size of the dwelling under each of the residential categories did not materially change that impact. In other words, while there are exceptions, there is little correlation between the size of the dwelling and number of residents or system impact. The committee concluded that maintaining the existing approach of charging DCC’s per unit for residential and on a floor‐area basis for non‐residential is appropriate. In addition to the reasoning outlined above, while many municipalities collect residential DCC’s on a floor area basis, the method of determining that floor area often differs. As a result, charging the regional DCC on a per unit basis for residential allows for the simplest and most consistent application. DCC Waivers. The existing DCC Bylaw includes a waiver for the development of affordable housing which is consistent with the Region’s Affordable Housing Strategy. In addition, DCC’s are not payable on one secondary suite or laneway house as part of a single‐family dwelling. These waivers were added in an attempt to encourage the development of affordable housing in the region. A commitment was made to the Board that the waivers for affordable housing would continue to be part of the DCC Bylaw and that, as part of this review, the definitions and criteria would be updated to clearly define this desired development. Assist Factors. The assist factor is the portion of the growth project that is funded from the sewer user fees (levy) rather than DCC’s. Increasing the assist factor shifts more of the cost of system expansion (growth) from DCC’s to the sewer levy. The existing DCC Bylaw included a 1% assist factor which is the minimum assist factor allowed under legislation. The committee was in favour of maintaining the minimum assist factor of 1% thus supporting the concept that development should pay for the costs of system expansion to meet the demands of population growth.

UC -143- 3


Page 4 of 6

DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES As noted above, DCC rates established by sewer area are per unit for residential and per square foot for non‐residential. Existing DCC Rates – Fund 99% Principal only on growth related long‐term debt The existing DCC rates, in effect since 1997, are as follows:

Sewer Area Single‐Family Townhouse Apartment Non‐Residential

Vancouver $ 944 $ 826 $ 590 $0.443 sq ft

Lulu Island $1,077 $ 942 $ 673 $0.505 sq ft

North Shore $1,291 $1,129 $ 807 $0.605 sq ft

Fraser $1,731 $1,515 $1,082 $0.811 sq ft

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

30 Year ‐ Fund 99% Principal only on growth related long‐term debt

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


Vancouver $1,824 $1,629 $1,079 $0.93 sq ft

Lulu Island $2,234 $1,933 $1,401 $1.06 sq ft

North Shore $2,525 $2,280 $1,555 $1.32 sq ft

Fraser $5,451 $4,715 $3,546 $2.68 sq ft

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


Vancouver $2,205 $1,970 $1,305 $1.13 sq ft

Lulu Island $2,840 $2,458 $1,781 $1.35 sq ft

North Shore $3,219 $2,906 $1,982 $1.69 sq ft

Fraser $6,340 $5,484 $4,125 $3.12 sq ft

UC -143- 4


Page 5 of 6

Funding both principal and interest is consistent with how infrastructure projects are financed. These rates with interest included are on average 16% higher than if interest was not included. While the opinions of the DCC Review Committee and members of the various advisory committees were varied, many acknowledging that including interest is more consistent with funding the true cost and with the concept of development pays for growth. However, in the final analysis, the majority supported maintaining the existing approach of funding principal only given the financial impact of including interest in the DCC rates. TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In light of the significant increases in DCC rates, the DCC Review Committee undertook a discussion of possible transition measures that could be undertaken to mitigate the impact of these rate increases. The discussion was surrounding two primary alternative approaches: a reasonable notice period after which the new rates would become effective or a phase‐in period of 3 to 5 years. While the DCC Review Committee was generally supportive of a notice period with subsequent implementation, the consensus was, however, since the rate increases are significant, in order to lessen the impact, a phase‐in period approach was appropriate. The Committee recommended a 3 year phase‐in due to concerns that a longer period would result in insufficient DCC revenue to fund the required infrastructure projects. This approach was also supported by the advisory committees. CONSULTATION PROCESS The consultation process to date has involved feedback from the regional advisory committees of administrators, engineers, planning and finance. Good feedback was received and there was general support for the policy framework, proposed DCC rates and the transition plan. With this report, the proposed amendments to the DCC Program will be reviewed with the Metro Vancouver standing committees and with the GVS&DD Board prior to engaging in the broader consultation with community stakeholders over the next three months. The next steps in the consultation process will include consultation with the Province, meetings with affected stakeholders including the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, regional Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce, and the initiation of a broad public consultation and engagement process. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Utilities Committee:

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

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

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

UC -143- 5


Page 6 of 6

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

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

Maintain waivers where development includes affordable housing

Maintain the assist factor at the minimum 1%

Update DCC rates for funding of 99% of the principal component of long‐term debt on growth related infrastructure

Phase in the rate increases over a 3 years period

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

UC -143- 6

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager ‐ Water Services

Simon So, General Manager – Liquid Waste Services Date: October 27, 2016 Meeting Date: November 10, 2016 Subject: Managers’ Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated October 27, 2016.

1. Cleveland Dam Drum Gate Recoating Project – Tim Jervis

The Cleveland Dam Drum Gate Recoating Project, which commenced in mid‐August 2016, is approximately 50% complete and was scheduled for completion by the end of October 2016. A series of three strong weather systems between October 12–16, one of which developed from the remnants of Typhoon Songda, resulted in extreme weather conditions in the Capilano Watershed during this period. Rainfall totals in Capilano, which continued after the storms passed through, ranged from 217‐387 mm over a 6‐day period, with lakehead inflows exceeding 400 m3/sec. These conditions triggered activation of the project’s storm management protocol which required the contractor to demobilize all materials, labour and equipment from the spillway and reactivate the drum gate for full operational service.

The remaining work has been postponed for completion in summer/fall 2017 based on a detailed review of the contractor’s completion schedule and the long range weather forecast. The Capilano Reservoir, which had been drawn down to facilitate the maintenance work, is being refilled, in stages, to normal winter operating levels.

2. 2016 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project Update – Simon So Metro Vancouver is working with the City of Richmond to raise awareness of grease issues and increase use of proper disposal methods among residents and businesses, with the long term goal of reducing the amount of grease in the regional and municipal wastewater systems. Materials have been developed around the “Grease Clogs Pipes” concept, with the call to action to “Wipe it. Green bin it.” The concept shows a frying pan filled with grease, with one of four emojis drawn into the grease to evoke the emotion/expression that can result from clogged pipes. Baselines have been established through a survey of residents and grease measurement in four areas of the city. The pilot project launched on October 3rd and will run until November 14th. Tactics have been developed for both English and Chinese audiences, with campaign elements that include: online and print advertising, social media, in‐person outreach and an open house event at the Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. For commercial kitchens, a survey and focus groups are being conducted to better understand by‐law barriers and to develop tools to support best grease management practices. This project is funded by the 2016 Liquid Waste Sustainable Innovation Fund. The findings from the pilot project will be used to inform a regional grease campaign for the fall of 2017.

5.11

UC - 144

3. Utilities Committee ‐ 2016 Work Plan – Tim Jervis/Simon So Attached is the updated 2016 Work Plan indicating the status of the Committee’s key priorities together with the quarter that each priority is expected to be considered by the Committee. Attachment: 1. Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

UC - 145

Attachment 1 Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

Priorities

1st Quarter Status

2016 Committee Priorities and Work Plan Complete

2016 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Phase 1 Amendments Complete Seymour River Rockslide Update Complete Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station Commissioning Complete Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Hospitals and Health Care Facilities using Pollution Prevention Plans

Complete

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

2nd Quarter

Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign including Water Wagon Complete Water Supply Forecast and Consumption Update for Summer 2016 Complete Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete GVWD Quality Control Annual Report for 2015 Complete GVWD & Municipal Water Demand by Sector Complete Seismic Resiliency of GVWD & GVS&DD Infrastructure Complete Long Term Water Supply Strategy In Progress Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve Public Consultation Update Complete

Seymour Salmonid Society ‐2015 Annual Report Complete

Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant Complete

Water Source Supply Model and WSRP Stage Activation Process Complete

Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories using Pollution Prevention Plans

Complete

Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharge of Food Waste from Food Service Establishments

In Progress

2015 Wipes Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Pitt Meadows): Pilot Results and 2016 Regional Campaign

Complete

2015 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Surrey): Pilot Results Complete

Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for Port Moody – Coquitlam Drainage Area Complete

Iona Island WWTP Secondary Upgrade – Project Initiation Complete

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

UC - 146

3rd Quarter Status

Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds Complete Joint Water Use Plan Update In Progress EOCP Policy Changes and Public Health and Environmental Risk Management Plans In Progress Metro Vancouver Water Wagon Outreach Program Complete

Requests for Access to Coquitlam Watershed Complete

Capilano Main No. 9 Construction Complete

Climate Change Projections Complete

East Fraser Sewerage Area Servicing Complete

Region‐wide Baseline for On‐site Stormwater Management Consultation Findings and Recommendations

In Progress

GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report 2015 Complete Liquid Waste Services Environmental Management and Monitoring Initiatives In Progress Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

4th Quarter

Summer 2016 Water Supply Performance Complete 2017 Budget – Water & Liquid Waste Complete Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete

Water Wagon Program & Water Restrictions Communications 2016 Update Complete

Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign Update Complete

Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – Project Definition Update Complete Water Shortage Response Plan Review ‐ Phase 2 Amendments Complete Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel Commissioning In Progress

Comprehensive Regional Water System Plan Update In Progress

Regional Assessment of Residential Water Metering In Progress

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update In Progress

2016 Regional Wipes Behaviour Change Campaign: Update Complete

2016 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Richmond): Update and Regional Campaign

Complete

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete

Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

UC - 147

greater vancouver regional district utilities … · 5.6 award of contract resulting from rfp no....

Documents