April 5, 2018

METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, April 12, 2018

9:00 am 28th Floor Committee Room, 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 12, 2018 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 12, 2018 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 March 8, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held March 8, 2018 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Rick and Makai Genovese regarding application for sewer connection for 2179 124

Street, Surrey

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Designated Speakers: Inder Singh and Marilyn Towill That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated April 3, 2018, titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018”.

5.2 2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation Campaign Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated March 9, 2018, titled “2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation Campaign”.

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

Utilities Committee

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda April 12, 2018

Agenda Page 2 of 3

5.3 Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan Designated Speaker: Inder Singh That the GVWD Board endorse the region-wide guide for enforcement of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan as presented in the report dated March 19, 2018, titled “Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan”.

5.4 Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 18-023: Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel Designated Speakers: Roy Moulder and Goran Oljaca That the GVWD Board authorize: a) award of a contract in the amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes) to Mott

MacDonald Canada Ltd. for Phase A, Preliminary Design, resulting from RFP No. 18-023, Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel; and

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

5.5 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2017 Designated Speakers: Frank Huber and Mark Ferguson

That the GVWD and GVS&DD Boards receive for information the report dated March 20, 2018, titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2017”.

5.6 2017 GVWD Annual Quality Control Annual Report Designated Speaker: Rosanna Yau That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated March 15, 2018, titled “2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report.”

5.7 Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review

Designated Speaker: Linda Parkinson That the GVS&DD Board endorse initiating a review of the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw and approve initiating public engagement on the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review, as presented in the report dated March 29, 2018, titled “Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review”.

5.8 2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign – Update Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated March 8, 2018, titled “2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign – Update”.

Utilities Committee

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda April 12, 2018

Agenda Page 3 of 3

5.9 Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 17-020: Construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless Designated Speakers: Roy Moulder and Colin Meldrum That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award of a contract for an amount of up to $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes) to

Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-020 for the Construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section – Trenchless; and

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

5.10 Award of a Contract Resulting from RFP No. 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank Designated Speakers: Roy Moulder and Paul Wilting That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award of a contract in the amount of up to $7,587,515 (exclusive of taxes) to

Stantec Consulting Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-496 for Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank; and

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

5.11 Managers’ Report Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Peter Navratil That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated April 3, 2018.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Public Engagement Policy

6.2 CBC News Video - “Time to 'Warrior Up': Canadian Teen Tells UN Water Needs Same Protection as Humans”

7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 12, 2018.

Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) –North Vancouver City Jordan, Colleen (VC) – Burnaby Becker, John – Pitt Meadows Clay, Mike – Port Moody Fox, Charlie – Langley Township

Gambioli, Nora –West Vancouver Hicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Johnstone, Patrick – New Westminster McDonald, Bruce – Delta Speirs, Craig – Maple Ridge

Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver Steves, Harold – Richmond Woods, Dave – Surrey

Utilities Committee

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, March 8, 2018 Page 1 of 4

METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 8, 2018 in the 28th Floor Committee Room, 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Vice Chair, Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Mayor John Becker, Pitt Meadows (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody Councillor Charlie Fox, Langley Township Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Bruce McDonald, Delta Councillor Craig Speirs, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond Councillor Dave Woods, Surrey MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Patrick Johnstone, New Westminster STAFF PRESENT: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Peter Navratil, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Genevieve Lanz, Legislative Services Coordinator, Board and Information Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 March 8, 2018 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 8, 2018 as circulated.

CARRIED

Utilities Committee

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, March 8, 2018 Page 2 of 4

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 February 8, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 8, 2018 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Provincial Approval of the Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour Watersheds Report dated February 13, 2018 from Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services, informing the GVWD Board of the provincial approval of the Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour watersheds and the granting of conditional water licences for the proposed Capilano and Seymour hydropower projects. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated February 13, 2018, titled “Provincial Approval of the Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour Watersheds”.

CARRIED

5.2 Seymour Salmonid Society - 2017 Annual Report Report dated February 8, 2018 from Mike Mayers, Division Manager, Watershed Operations and Protection, Water Services, providing the GVWD Board with the Seymour Salmonid Society’s 2017 annual report.

9:08 a.m. Mayor Becker arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated February 8, 2018, titled “Seymour Salmonid Society – 2017 Annual Report”.

CARRIED

Utilities Committee

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, March 8, 2018 Page 3 of 4

5.3 Award of Phase B, Detailed Design Engineering Services for the Kennedy Newton Main and Annacis Main No. 5 South Report dated February 16, 2018 from Roy Moulder, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services and Goran Olijaca, Director, Engineering and Construction, Water Services, seeking GVWD Board authorization for award of Phase B, Detailed Design Engineering Services, in the amount up to $2,599,258 (exclusive of taxes) to the Phase A project consultant, CH2M Hill Canada Limited, for the Kennedy Newton Main and Annacis Main No. 5 South. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board authorize: a) award of Phase B, Detailed Design Engineering Services, in the amount up to

$2,599,258 (exclusive of taxes) to the Phase A project consultant, CH2M Hill Canada Limited, for the Kennedy Newton Main and Annacis Main No. 5 South; and

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

5.4 Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Update

Report dated February 6, 2018 from Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, updating the GVS&DD Board on the Project Definition Phase for the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. In response to questions, members were informed of the anticipated timeline for the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant project, the capacity to manage the future splitting of the combined sewer system, and the potential site issues. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated February 6, 2018 titled “Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Project Definition Update”.

CARRIED

5.5 Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 18-021: Installation of Front Street Sewer Upgrade Report dated February 27, 2018 from Roy Moulder, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services and Colin Meldrum, Division Manager, Collection Systems, Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services, advising the GVS&DD Board of the results of RFP No. 18-021: Installation of Front Street Sewer Upgrade, and seeking authorization to award the contract to JJM Construction Ltd. in the amount of up to $7,358,377 (exclusive of taxes), and increase the budget for the Sapperton Forcemain Pump Station Connections construction to $9,000,000.

Utilities Committee

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, March 8, 2018 Page 4 of 4

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award of a contract for an amount up to $7,358,377 (exclusive of taxes) to JJM

Construction Ltd., resulting from RFP No. 18-021: Installation of Front Street Sewer Upgrade;

b) increase the budget for the Sapperton Forcemain Pump Station Connections Construction to $9,000,000; and

c) the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. CARRIED

5.6 Managers’ Report

Report dated February 26, 2018 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services and Peter Navratil, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, updating the Committee on the status of the 2018 Work Plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated February 26, 2018.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

Members were requested to notify the Committee Chair if interested in attending the American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2018 annual conference and exposition.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

No items presented. 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee conclude its regular meeting of March 8, 2018.

CARRIED (Time: 9:28 a.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Genevieve Lanz, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Legislative Services Coordinator 24768901 FINAL

Utilities Committee

Page 1 of 2  

SUMMARY of PRESENTATION by; Rick and Makai Genovese. Resident Homeowners of 2179 124 Street Surrey since 2006.  Regarding; 

1. Denial of sewer main connection renewal to Metro Vancouver GVS&DD (Metro Van) 750 diameter sewer main fronting our property along 124 St. Surrey, per Metro Van and COS letter for File: SE‐02‐02‐OPC dated March 01, 2018.  

And; 2. City of Surrey (COS) demanding that we extend the City of Surrey 200mm sewer main the length of our property 

frontage along 124 St. at our sole cost.  Content to be Presented; We will present Power Point and PDF documents as follows; 

1. Marked up snapshot of Cosmos Geomap showing Utilities connections along 124 St. in Surrey/Ocean Park between 21A Ave. and 24 Ave. emphasizing precedence of sewer connection renewals to same Metro Van sewer main for 4 recent new builds (within 5 years or less) within the same of closer proximity to a City of Surrey arterial sewer main as our home; 

NOTE; These Metro Van sewer main renewals where approved regardless of them being within a similar, “Reasonable” proximity to a City of Surrey arterial sewer main and unlike the demand imposed on us these new builds where not denied renewal and issued a demanded to extends the City of Surrey arterial main? 

Address Building Permit  Occupancy Permit  Connected to sanitary sewer owned by… 

#  Issue Date  #  Issue Date  Metro Vancouver  City Asbuilt Date 

2260  124 St  15‐037618  Jan 22/16  15‐037618  Jun 16/17  X     June 2016 

2285  124 St  14‐048425   Jan 30/15   14‐048425  Feb 05/16   X  October 2015 

2324  124 St  15‐015134  May 14/15 15‐015134  Mar 30/17 X     April 2015 

2345  124 St  15‐038831  Feb 19/16  15‐038831  Feb 16/17  X     March 2016 

12390  24 Ave  12‐029461  May 3/13  12‐029461  Aug 22/14  X     March 2013 

   2. Marked up snapshot of Cosmos Geomap showing Utilities connection options for our lot, 2179 124 St. and 2189 

124 St. adjacent to our North lot line which are the only 2 lots left in our immediate vicinity with no City of Surrey arterial main fronting them but that both have City of Surrey mains in close enough proximity that no extensions should be required. It was stated that the premise for the COS demanding that we extend the 200mm COS arterial main at the lot line of 2169 and 2179 on 124 St. was so that our extension accommodates the future new build of 2189 as they will be required to also extend and connect to the same 200mm COS arterial main.  Our presentation will show why the extension of the COS arterial main is not necessary, as follows; a. 2189 124 St. 

This property has 2 options for connecting to existing City of Surrey arterial mains. i. Connect North East across 124 St to 22 Ave. COS arterial main. ii. Connect West to end of COS arterial main catch basin on 22 Ave. between 12376 and 12377 22 Ave.   

b. 2179 124 St. Based on the above facts we are hereby requesting that our property be permitted to connect directly into the COS Catch Basin which is proposed to be constructed (by 2189 Building Permit Bond) at our south property line on 124 St.  As there is no need to extend this COS 200mm main further north to service 2189 or other lots (2189 has 2 options as noted above for being serviced into COS arterial mains) we should be allowed to connect directly to the catch basin as was approved for 12376 and 12377 22 Ave. 

 It is our hope that this approval will be voted on and granted in principle at this Committee Meeting.  

Page 2 of 2 

3. In the event that there is an adherence to the Metro Van renewal denial and COS extension demand we willfurther present precedence for other new builds not being denied Metro Van connection renewal and not beingrequired to extend a COS Main at their expense but rather Metro Van approving renewal of their connectionsregardless of their being in similar and or closer proximity to a COS main than our property is.

a. 2260, 124 St.This new build received occupancy June 16, 2017.Renewed connection to Metro Van main regardless of the COS arterial main “extending onto it’s frontage”on 124 St. No requirement to extend the COS Main, or even to connect to it?While directly across the street at 2285 they where denied renewal to Metro Van main but not required toextend the COS Main to their north property line to accommodate the “Future” extension required when2295 builds to get it off the Metro Van main? Which is the rationale for the extension demand we received.

b. 2345, 124 St.This new build received occupancy February 16, 2017.Renewed connection to Metro Van main regardless of the COS arterial main being similar distance north ofit’s north property line as the distance we’re being asked to extend the COS Main along our lot frontage.This property was not required to extend the COS Main? Why are we?Again this extension not being demanded removes the opportunity for 2332, 2335 and 2325 to disconnectfrom the Metro Van main and connect to a COS arterial main.As was explained to us these demands to extend COS mains are imposed on ALL NEW BUILDS in reasonableproximity to a COS Main?

c. 2324, 124 St.This new build received occupancy March 30, 2017.Renewed connection to Metro Van main with no demand to construct a COS arterial extension at their solecost to connect to the COS main 2 lots north as we where told we would have been required to do.It was specifically stated that if the main fronting 2169 was not constructed before we requested ourbuilding permit that we would have been required to post 2 bonds and construct the COS Main at our solescost for 2 lot lengths and wait for a late comer’s fee to be paid back when 2169 decided to build.Based on 2324 and 2345 precedence this was an unfair and unreasonable demand.

d. 12390, 24 Ave.This new build received occupancy August 22, 2014.Renewed connection to Metro Van main regardless of close proximity to COS main which is diagonallylocated directly across 124 St.No requirement to extend the COS main which could have begun the process of removing residential linesform the Metro Van main progressively west along 124 St. which is the rationale proposed to us for denyingour renewal to the metro Van Main and demanding we construct a COS Main.

Based on the 4 cases above it’s clear that the stated “mandate to remove residential lines from Metro Van mains” is not being deployed systematically or fairly and that we have been unfairly singled out. 

Further to our request if our connection to the new COS sewer main Catch Basin at our south property line is denied and the demand to construct a COS sewer main across our lot frontage continues we will be elevating our case to the Board of Directors for the City of Surrey to request a special budget be approved for the construction of the COS main so that we can connect to an existing main just as has been the case for all other recent new builds as noted above in the precedence presented. 

In Closing we are asking that we be offered the same opportunity to connect to an existing COS main or to have our Metro Van connection renewed in the same manner as the rest of the recent new builds along 124 St. without being unfairly burdened with the cost of constructing a COS Main and ideally that we be approved to connect to the COS sewer main catch basin to be constructed on our south property line fronting our property on 124 St. 

We look forward to presenting our case and the committee meeting and if you have any questions prior to the meeting feel free to contact us on 604‐603‐0929 or by email at  . 

Sincerely, Rick and Makai Genovese. 

FOI S.22 Personal Information

To: Utilities Committee From: Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services

Marilyn Towill, Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services Date: April 3, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated April 3, 2018, titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018”. PURPOSE To provide the Committee and Board with the annual update on the current water supply and water consumption situation in advance of the approaching summer peak demand period. BACKGROUND As per the Committee’s 2018 Work Plan, and those of previous years, water supply and water consumption status reports are brought forward to the Committee and Board each spring. These reports are developed based on the current source water supply situation and trends in water use and reflect current plans for operating the source lakes and water system this summer and fall. Current Source Water Supply Situation Snowpack Snowpack measurements are routinely conducted at sample sites across the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam watersheds. The late March 2018 survey results indicate that the depth and water equivalent of the current snow pack is 121 percent and 124 percent of the historical average, respectively, for this time of year. These survey results indicate reasonable likelihood of above average spring runoff from snowmelt. While snowpack is important, it should be noted that our region’s water supply is not solely dependent on snowpack. Overall precipitation in the form of rainfall contributes to the water levels in the three primary reservoirs that serve Metro Vancouver. Stored Water - Source Lakes a) Capilano Lake

Capilano Lake is 100 percent full. Early refill of Capilano Lake to full pool elevation was required to facilitate monitoring related to the Cleveland Dam E2 Shaft Replacement project. The lake will remain at or near full pool until the end of snow melt and the start of the summer draw down.

5.1

Utilities Committee

Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 6

b) Seymour Lake Seymour Lake is currently being managed under the spring operating protocol with the lake currently at 83 percent of full summer storage capacity. It is expected that the lake will be at 100 percent of full summer storage capacity by early June.

c) Coquitlam Lake

Coquitlam Lake is controlled by B.C. Hydro within criteria established by agreement with the GVWD. It is anticipated that BC Hydro will have Coquitlam Lake sufficiently full to provide for adequate regional summer water supply and the necessary allocation for fisheries flows in the Coquitlam River.

d) Alpine Lakes The GVWD’s three alpine lakes, Palisade, Burwell and Loch Lomond, which are used as reserves for Capilano and Seymour Lakes during the late summer period, are all expected to be at 100 percent of capacity by early summer.

Trends in Water Consumption/Use This section discusses trends in water consumption/use, as well as some of the factors affecting water use. Figure 1 shows water use in the region in litres per capita per day for the years 1993 to 2017. This is total water use in the region inclusive of all water users.

Figure 1 – Peak Day and Average Day Per Capita Water Use in the Region

Utilities Committee

Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 6

The upper (red) line in Figure 1 is the peak day water use, or the highest day of water use for the year. The peak day usage occurs on a hot and dry summer day when many people in the region are watering their lawns. Peak day water use, and to a lesser extent average day water use, vary depending on summer weather conditions, being higher in years with hot, dry summers such as 2003 and 2009, and lower in years with cool and wet summers such as 2011 and 2013.

The Board established a target for reduction in peak day per capita water use of 1 percent per year, compared to 2010 levels. Since 2010, peak day per capita water use has declined by an average of about 2 percent per year, exceeding the Board’s target. Lawn watering regulations have long been used by the GVWD and local governments to reduce peak demands on the regional and municipal water systems, respectively. These restrictions help to:

• Manage overall water use throughout the summer to conserve water storage in the source lakes;

• Reduce peak water demands; and, • Reduce pumping and other operational costs and allow deferral of costly new water supply

infrastructure. In 2011, to help reduce peak hour and peak day demands, the Board revised the Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) to spread lawn watering over seven days of the week and restrict permitted times for lawn watering to morning hours only. Following the unprecedented hot and dry summer of 2015, the Board approved further revisions to the WSRP in November 2015 and February 2016, that included an earlier start (May 15) and later end date (October 15) to the Stage 1 restrictions that are automatically implemented every summer. To further promote summer water conservation, in June 2017, the Board approved a new Drinking Water Conservation Plan (formerly titled the Water Shortage Response Plan) that included implementation of Stage 1 restrictions on May 1 and reduced lawn watering opportunities, for residential and non-residential properties, from three mornings a week to two mornings a week. The lower (black) line in Figure 1 is the average day per capita water use over the year. Since 2010, average day per capita water use has been trending downward by about 1.7 percent per year. During the winter, outdoor water use is minimal and overall water use is insensitive to weather conditions. Figure 2 shows winter per capita water use between January 1993 and December 2017. The rate of decline in winter per capita water use accelerated after the implementation of the Drinking Water Management Plan (DWMP) in 2005 and municipal water conservation actions such as the requirement for low flow toilets in new construction.

Utilities Committee

Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 4 of 6

Figure 2 – Winter Per Capita Water Use in the Region (inclusive of all users)

Figure 3 shows service population and total water use in billions of litres per day. Although per capita water use continues to decline, total water use in billion litres per year is forecast to increase when the rate of population growth begins to exceed the per capita water use reductions.

Figure 3 – Population Growth and Water Use

Utilities Committee

Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 5 of 6

System Operations Outlook for Summer 2018 Source Lake Capacity Water usage patterns will be monitored and adjustments made to withdrawals from each of the three main sources, and within the transmission system, to meet the regional water demand through the summer and fall. Additional withdrawals from Coquitlam Lake have been secured from BC Hydro for 2018. The three alpine lakes will also be utilized within their refillable storage limits, as required. Planned maintenance of the Cleveland Dam training walls and spillway this summer will require greater source use from Capilano Reservoir in early summer to achieve the lake level required to execute the project. Meeting Peak Day Demands As the region continues to grow, meeting peak day demands requires additional infrastructure to convey water throughout the transmission system. Summer peak day and peak hour demands challenge the transmission system to meet service levels in parts of the region. The most significant peak day demand occurred in summer 2009. The demand conditions experienced during the hot summer weather in July 2009 stretched the ability of the regional transmission system to meet minimum target service levels, most notably in the southern and eastern parts of the region. These areas are both geographically furthest from the sources and are experiencing the fastest growth in population. It should be noted that peak day demands are not spread equally across the region, but tend to be higher where less residential density exists and lower where densification is occurring and there are fewer lawns and gardens. The recent completion of the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station and the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel have contributed to additional transmission capacity to meet summer peak demands in both the eastern and southern municipalities. New infrastructure projects such as the Clayton Reservoir and the South Delta Main No. 1 Replacement (Phases 1 and 2) will be completed this spring, in time to benefit the regional transmission system in summer 2018. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS During the hotter and drier summer months, the demand for water increases significantly over that in the winter, putting additional stress on the water supply system. Metro Vancouver’s wholesale peak summer water rate is 25 percent higher compared to the off-peak period. This seasonal pricing reflects the cost of building larger infrastructure and higher operating costs such as increased pumping to meet peak summer demands. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION With the existing snowpack at above average levels, it is expected that source lake storage will be sufficient to ensure adequate water supply for the 2018 summer season. Overall precipitation in the form of rainfall also contributes to the water levels in the three source lakes. Although the region’s population continues to grow, overall water demand has remained relatively steady over the past several years. However, overall consumption is forecast to increase gradually in

Utilities Committee

Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2018 Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 6 of 6

the coming years as the effect of the rate of population growth on water demands exceeds the per capita water use reductions. To promote water conservation, the Board approved a new Drinking Water Conservation Plan for implementation between May 1 and October 15. Stage 1 restrictions on outdoor watering are expected to help manage water demands during the peak season. In extreme drought or unusually high demand for water, Metro Vancouver has the ability to implement higher stages of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan, if necessary. Recent system improvements such as the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station and the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel have increased the capacity of the transmission system to meet peak summer demands. Additionally, the commissioning of Clayton Reservoir and South Delta Main No. 1 Replacement (Phases 1 and 2) this spring, will further improve transmission system capacity. 24699001

Utilities Committee

5.2

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Division Manager Corporate Communications, External Relations Date: March 9, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: 2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation

Campaign RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated March 9, 2018, titled “2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation Campaign”. PURPOSE To update the Committee and Board on regional communications to support the 2018 watering regulations and the regional water conservation campaign. BACKGROUND There are three components to the 2018 water conservation communications. First is communication of the region-wide watering regulations. Second is a regional communications campaign, now in its third year, to increase awareness of the need for residential water conservation. The final component is the use of the Water Wagon and Tap Water Team to promote conservation messaging by engaging citizens at summer events across the region. This report provides an overview of the 2018 watering regulations communications and regional water conservation campaign, as identified in the 2018 Utilities Committee Work Plan. 2018 WATERING REGULATIONS COMMUNICATIONS In June 2017, the GVWD Board approved the updated Water Shortage Response Plan, now named the Drinking Water Conservation Plan (DWCP). The DWCP includes new restrictions to manage the use of drinking water during periods of high demand, which largely impact the watering of lawns and landscapes. The new regulations require expanded public communications in 2018, to notify residents of the changes. Metro Vancouver collaborated with Members to determine the most effective messaging and methods for consistently communicating the regional watering regulations to residents and businesses. As a result, Metro Vancouver will undertake the following activities to create awareness:

• Create and distribute communications materials to support Members’ education and enforcement programs, including translated materials;

• Notify public of regulations via newspaper advertising prior to the May 1 activation date; • Notify landscape and irrigation associations of regulations, and provide them with

communications materials, including a new brochure on automatic irrigation, for distribution to their members;

Utilities Committee

2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation Campaign Utilities Committee Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 3

• Advertise via radio to notify residents of regulations activation and changes; • Advertise via targeted social media and online display and video, in advance and during

activation dates; and • Issue a media release and conduct interviews.

Examples of communications materials to support the regional watering regulations are included in Attachment 1. REGIONAL WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS The regional ‘We Love Water’ conservation campaign will continue to encourage mindful and responsible use of drinking water, and increased awareness and pride for Metro Vancouver’s water system. Based on research and insights from the 2017 campaign, the campaign will be sequenced to emphasize water system awareness from mid-April to June, before transitioning to outdoor water conservation from June through September. By first teaching residents about where their drinking water comes from, and the amount of work it takes to reach their taps, they will better understand the importance of using less water around their homes. Campaign components in 2018 will include the following tactics to generate awareness and encourage conservation:

• Television broadcast partnership with Global BC, featuring commercials, features and sponsored weather updates by media personalities, as well as branded online content;

• Radio broadcast partnership featuring sponsored weather updates and dry weather alerts; • Full-page newspaper advertising; • Targeted social media advertising; and • Online banner, video and search engine advertising targeting users’ interests (e.g., gardening,

lawns, car washing), as well as weather forecast-activated advertising. An updated creative concept will be introduced to link the water system and conservation themes within a unified theme. Examples of the creative concept are included in Attachment 2. All materials will be shared with Members for display and distribution through localized opportunities. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2018 watering regulations communications and regional water conservation campaign have a total budget of $270,000. These costs are included in the 2018 Water Services Communications Program Budget managed by External Relations.

Utilities Committee

2018 Watering Regulations Communications and Regional Water Conservation Campaign Utilities Committee Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 3

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION An important component of Metro Vancouver’s Board Strategic Plan includes communication and engagement initiatives to ensure water resources are conserved and efficiently used throughout the region. 2018 will see the launch and implementation of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan and new restrictions to manage the use of drinking water during period of high demand, which largely impact the watering of lawns and landscapes. As a result, promotional activities to create awareness for the updated watering regulations have expanded, to notify residents of the changes. Metro Vancouver will communicate the watering regulations prior to the May 1 activation date via advertising across the region and media engagement, and through a range of items distributed to Members for public education and enforcement. In its third year, the regional water conservation campaign will continue to build on the successes of previous years, with a focus on encouraging household conservation and increasing public awareness of Metro Vancouver’s water system. The campaign will enter market in mid-April, with an emphasis on water resource education, before shifting to a conservation message in the warmer and drier summer months. An ongoing priority is a campaign that is research based, reflects best practices across North America with localized adjustments and is in alignment with and useful to Members working directly with residents. Attachments 1. 2018 Watering Regulations Communications Materials 2. 2018 ‘We Love Water’ Draft Creative Concept 24826765

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT 1

2018 Watering Regulations Communications Materials

Residential education and enforcement prompts

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT 1

Non-residential education and enforcement prompts

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT 1

Social media imagery examples

Watering regulations exemption signage example

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT 2

2018 ‘We Love Water’ Draft Creative Concept

Water ‘source to tap’ draft creative concept

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT 2

‘It’s all drinking water’ conservation-focused draft creative concept. Additional treatments address cleaning a deck with a hose and car washing.

Utilities Committee

5.3

To: Utilities Committee From: Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services Date: March 19, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water

Conservation Plan RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board endorse the region-wide guide for enforcement of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan as presented in the report dated March 19, 2018, titled “Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan”. PURPOSE To seek endorsement from the Committee and Board of the region-wide guide for enforcement of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan (DWCP). BACKGROUND At its meeting of June 23, 2017, the Board adopted the following resolution:

That the GVWD Board: a) approve the revised Drinking Water Conservation Plan (formerly titled the Water

Shortage Response Plan), to take effect on November 1, 2017, as presented in the report dated June 7, 2017, titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Review”; and

b) approve the Drinking Water Conservation Plan Policy, as presented in the report. One of the next steps noted in the June 2017 report, was a request by the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC) to “consider coordinating consistent regulation, enforcement, and fines within the region”. This Guide is being brought forward to help promote a more consistent implementation of the DWCP across the region. While enforcement of water restrictions resides with individual local governments through bylaws, a collaborative approach between Metro Vancouver and local governments would help achieve the following:

• Encourage year-round water conservation; • Foster regional collaboration on communication and education; and, • Suggest best practices for enforcement and fines.

PROPOSED REGION-WIDE GUIDE Region-wide water use statistics and observations by local government staff indicate that in recent years, there has been good compliance with the lawn watering restrictions. Data from this region, and elsewhere, highlights the relationship between improved public awareness and compliance. The benefits of clear and consistent communication of water use restrictions is well supported by

Utilities Committee

Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 3

experience in this region and best practice research of other jurisdictions such as the City of Abbotsford, Sunshine Coast Regional District and Capital Regional District. The DWCP working group, which includes local government staff, developed a Guide for enforcement of the Plan that consists of the following five components:

1. Enforcement through Education: Encourages compliance with local government regulations and prioritizes the distribution of regionally consistent education materials. Focus is on the annual start of the Stage 1 restrictions.

2. Monitoring: Suggests best practice level of resourcing to monitor compliance with Stage 1 restrictions and subsequent stages when implemented.

3. Warnings, Ticketing and Fines: Suggests best practices that will help establish a more consistent fine structure within the region.

4. Exemption Permits: Provides guidance on exemption permits for new lawns and application of nematodes for the treatment of the European Chafer Beetle infestation.

5. Performance Metrics: Helps local governments evaluate their education and enforcement programs and track regional progress to establish more consistent enforcement of the DWCP restrictions.

REGIONAL ENGINEERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REAC) AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAAC) COMMENTS REAC and RAAC considered and endorsed the Guide at their meetings on March 2 and 15, 2018, respectively. Committee members provided the following comments on the Guide:

• support for more consistency in fines across the region; • support for fines progressively escalating as the stages of the DWCP increase; • suggested target fines seem reasonable; • a request to clarify the Guide to note that local government staff have the discretion to issue

warnings, or tickets, as appropriate to the situation. The attached Guide for enforcement of the DWCP (Attachment 1) incorporates the input from REAC and RAAC. If the Guide is adopted by the Board, the Guide would be provided to local governments as suggested best practices for enforcement of the DWCP restrictions in the region. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVWD Board endorse the region-wide guide for enforcement of the Drinking Water

Conservation Plan as presented in the report dated March 19, 2018, titled “Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan”.

2. That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated March 19, 2018, titled “Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan” and provide alternate direction to staff.

Utilities Committee

Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro Vancouver costs and resources to implement the Metro Vancouver components of the Guide are included in the approved 2018 GVWD Budget and 5-year Financial Plan. In some cases, to bring their programs up to the suggested best practice levels, additional local government resources may be needed and should be considered, as appropriate, in the implementation of 2018 programs and in the development of future programs and budgets. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report and the proposed Guide responds to a RAAC request to coordinate consistent Drinking Water Conservation Plan related enforcement and fines within the region. While the responsibility for enforcement of water restrictions resides with local governments through bylaws, the proposed Guide helps to:

• Foster regional collaboration on communication and education and encourage year-round water conservation;

• Suggest best practices for enforcement and fines; and, • Facilitate ongoing collaboration through the REAC Water Sub-committee, the Regional Water

Conservation Coordinators, and Local Government Communications staff. The recommended Guide has been developed through consultation with local government staff and endorsed by both REAC and RAAC at their meetings on March 2 and 15, 2018, respectively. If Alternative 1 is approved by the Board, the Guide would be provided to local governments as suggested best practices for enforcement of the DWCP restrictions in the region. Attachment: 1. Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan,

dated March 19, 2018 (24902935) 2. Summary of Local Government Water Shortage Response Plan (now Drinking Water Conservation

Plan) Bylaw Fines as of November 30, 2017 24903936

Utilities Committee

P a g e 1 | 3

Attachment 1

Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan March 19, 2018

The Region-wide Guide for Enforcement of Metro Vancouver’s Drinking Water Conservation Plan (DWCP) is intended to serve as a guideline for local governments to use along with their broader water conservation programs. While the Guide is intended to be relevant region-wide, variations in local governments and their respective bylaws may necessitate some local governments to implement appropriate alternatives. Implementation of the Guide may require a phased-in approach.

Objectives of the Guide:

• Encourage year-round water conservation; • Foster regional collaboration on water conservation communication and education; and • Suggest best practices for enforcement and fines.

The Guide consists of best practices which can be used as a guideline by local governments. The Guide consists of the following five components:

1. Enforcement through Education, to provide a baseline level of enforcement of Stage 1 water use restrictions.

2. Monitoring, to provide a baseline level of monitoring of infractions of Stage 1 water use restrictions.

3. Warnings, Ticketing and Fines, to provide a baseline level of warnings, ticketing and fines. 4. Exemption Permits, to provide guidance on exemption permits for new lawns and application

of nematodes for the treatment of European Chafer Beetle infestation. 5. Performance Metrics, to help local governments evaluate their education and enforcement

programs and track regional progress toward more consistent enforcement of the DWCP restrictions.

1. Enforcement through Education 1.1 To encourage compliance with local government regulations, prioritize distribution of regionally consistent education materials. Metro Vancouver produces communications materials to publicize the DWCP restrictions, including prompts to notify and remind residents about allowed watering times, as well as waterwise lawn care information.

In addition to publicizing the restrictions, Metro Vancouver delivers year-round regional water conservation programming to encourage responsible use of drinking water. This broader messaging, when shared by local governments, helps reinforce public awareness and appreciation for water conservation, and thereby compliance with the local government regulations.

Utilities Committee

Orbit 24902935 P a g e 2 | 3

For years when significant amendments are made to the DWCP, or during a drought year, Metro Vancouver is to collaborate with local governments to develop updated promotional materials and methods to communicate.

1.2 Local governments to advertise their regulations by using local media and other promotional channels, using regionally consistent messaging and imagery. Advertisement templates and promotional collateral is provided by Metro Vancouver for use by local governments.

Advertising of the regulations by local governments will supplement Metro Vancouver’s advertising, which will include promotion of the annual start date of the Stage 1 restrictions. Local governments to advertise at least two times during the DWCP activation period from May 1 to October 15, in a cool and/or wet year and more frequently in a hot and dry year.

2. Monitoring 2.1 Local governments to transition to a best practices level of resourcing during the DWCP activation period from May 1 to October 15 to provide DWCP education, compliance monitoring and enforcement.

2.2 In addition to responding to complaints of non-compliance, in Stage 1 of the DWCP, best practices suggest local governments undertake some active patrols/surveillance to monitor compliance during hot dry periods, particularly in the June to August period during late morning hours and evening hours, when watering lawns is not allowed.

2.3 Best practices suggest progressively increasing compliance monitoring efforts when the DWCP escalates beyond Stage 1, or during drought years. Compliance monitoring may include periods such as evenings and weekends when residents and businesses might expect a lower level of surveillance.

3. Warnings, Ticketing and Fines 3.1 Best practices suggest adopting a baseline fine structure to ensure that respective enforcement and penalties for violations of the water restrictions increase with each successive stage of the DWCP to reflect the severity of the situation requiring the activation of an advanced stage, with the discretion to issue warnings, or tickets, as appropriate.

Utilities Committee

Orbit 24902935 P a g e 3 | 3

Baseline for DWCP Related Local Government Bylaw Fines Restriction Stage Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Range of Fines, as of November 30, 2017

$75 - $250 $100 - $500 $200 - $700 $250 - $1,000

Suggested Target Fine

$100 $200 $300 $400 and up

4. Exemption Permits 4.1 Best practices suggest issuing exemption permits for the application of nematodes for the treatment of European Chafer Beetle infestation only with proof of purchase of nematodes. Permits to be valid for 21 days and watering to be allowed only during the morning lawn watering hours. Any further exemption is granted only for the first day of a nematode treatment where watering may occur at any time.

4.2 Best practices suggest issuing exemption permits for new lawns, only with proof of purchase for lawn seed or sod. Permits to be valid for 21 days and watering be allowed only during the morning lawn watering hours (excluding playing fields). Use of consistent signage encouraged for communicating exemptions.

5. Performance Metrics 5.1 To foster continued collaboration between Metro Vancouver and local governments, local governments to share the following information every year on their communications and enforcement of the DWCP:

• Advertising, including financial resources allocated; • Number of staff allocated; • Number of monitoring hours; • Number of warnings issued; and • Number of tickets issued and fines collected.

Utilities Committee

24643050

Summary of Local Government Water Shortage Response Plan (now Drinking Water Conservation Plan) Bylaw Fines as of November 30, 2017

Fines for Violation of Water Restriction Bylaws LOCAL GOVERNMENT Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Burnaby $150 $250 $350 $500

Coquitlam $75 $150 $300 $500

Delta $150 $250 $400 $500

Langley City $75 $100 $200 $300

Langley Township $100 $200 $300 $400

Maple Ridge $250 $500 $700 $1,000

New Westminster $100 $200 $500 $1,000

North Vancouver City $100 $200 $300 $400

North Vancouver District

$100 $200 $300 $400

Pitt Meadows $100 $200 $500 $1000

Port Coquitlam $75 $100 $200 $300

Port Moody $75 $100 $200 $300

Richmond $100 $200 $500 $1,000

Surrey $200 $250 $250 $300

Vancouver $250 $250 $250 $250

West Vancouver $100 $200 $400 $500

Range of Fines, as of November 30, 2017

$75 - $250 $100 - $500 $200 - $700 $250 - $1,000

Suggested Target Fine $100 $200 $300 $400 and up

Attachment 2

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee

From: Roy Moulder, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services Goran Oljaca, Director, Engineering and Construction, Water Services Date: April 4, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 18-023: Consulting Engineering Services for

Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board authorize: a) award of a contract in the amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes) to Mott MacDonald Canada

Ltd. for Phase A, Preliminary Design, resulting from RFP No. 18-023, Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel; and

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

PURPOSE This report is to advise the GVWD Board of the results of RFP No. 18-023, Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel and to recommend award of the contract for Phase A, Preliminary Design in the amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes) to Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. Board approval to award subsequent phases of work will be sought at a later date. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the GVWD Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 247, 2014 (Bylaw) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (Policy), procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board of Directors. Further, the Policy states that contracting authority for multi-phase contracts is determined based on the anticipated total value of the services to be provided over all phases. This report is being brought forward to the Utilities Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVWD Board to award a contract for consulting engineering services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel, which represents a total amount of $16,619,681 for all project phases. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As shown on Attachment 1, Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel comprises approximately 1.4 km of 2.6 m diameter pipe that will be installed in a tunnel deep underneath Stanley Park. This section of water main connects the South Shaft of the First Narrows Tunnel with Capilano Mains No. 4 and 5 through valve chambers at Chilco and Alberni Streets in the City of Vancouver. The project will replace an aging section of Capilano Main No. 4 which suffered a significant leak in August 2016, and is nearing the end of its service life. It will also improve geotechnical and seismic resiliency at the South Shaft, improve hydraulic efficiency at the Chilco Street connection, and provide additional transmission capacity for long term growth.

5.4

Utilities Committee

Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 18-023: Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel

Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 3

As a result of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ No. 17-333) that was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver’s and BC Bid websites, four experienced firms were invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 18-023) for the Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel project. The RFP closed on February 22, 2018 and all four firms responded. Prices of the four proposals are summarized below (exclusive of taxes).

Proponent

Phase A: Preliminary

Design

Phase B: Detailed Design

Phase C: Construction

Services Total Cost Rank

Mott MacDonald $3,806,636 $4,443,049 $8,369,996 $16,619,681 1 Hatch $3,260,567 $2,033,275 $7,409,615 $12,703,457 2 McMillen Jacobs $4,975,135 $4,076,647 $10,649,261 $19,701,043 3 AECOM $4,785,052 $3,702,142 $10,755,333 $19,242,527 4

The submissions were evaluated based on a maximum of 65 points for the technical components and 35 points for the commercial considerations. When both the technical and commercial evaluations were combined for each proponent, Mott MacDonald’s proposal ranked highest overall and is considered to provide the best value to the Corporation. Following the proposal evaluation and issuance of a recommendation to negotiate with the highest ranked proponent for Phase A, a meeting was held with Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. to confirm the scope of work, allocation of resources, project schedule, deliverables, and availability of certain staff members. Based on the outcome of this meeting, Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. confirmed their cost submitted for Phase A - Preliminary Design is adequate to complete the requested scope of work.

It is intended that Phase A be awarded at this time and Phases B and C be awarded following subsequent negotiations, subject to satisfactory performance and completion of the work under Phase A, and after further authorization from the Board. Mott MacDonald’s proposal identified an accurate number of required technical drawings and associated hours considered appropriate for the complexity of this project.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVWD Board authorize:

a) award of a contract in the amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes) to Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. for Phase A, Preliminary Design, resulting from RFP No. 18-023, Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel; and

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

2. That the GVWD Board terminate RFP No. 18-023, Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel, and direct staff to report back to the GVWD Board with options for an alternate course of action.

Utilities Committee

Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 18-023: Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel

Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVWD Board approves Alternative 1, a contract will be awarded to Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. in an amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes), to complete Phase A of the project. This amount is within the budget allocated for the project. The proposal submitted by Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. is the highest ranked and contemplates additional phases of the work with an overall estimated contract value of $16,619,681 (exclusive of taxes and escalation). It is expected that subsequent phases of the work will be awarded to Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. subject to satisfactory completion of Phase A at which time the total cost and details of the subsequent phases of the work will be finalized. Award of further phases will require Board approval pursuant to the provisions of the Policy. The GVWD 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 delays to the project schedule that will impact the development of alternative measures to address reliability issues of the aging existing infrastructure. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION A Request for Proposal was issued for Consulting Engineering Services for Capilano Main No. 5 - Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel, and Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. was identified as offering the highest overall ranked proposal. Based on the evaluation of all responses it is recommended that the GVWD Board authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to award and execute a contract to Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd. in the amount up to $3,806,636 (exclusive of taxes). Authorization from the Board to award subsequent phases of work will be sought at a later date. Attachment:

1. Stanley Park Water Supply Tunnel - Proposed Route Option (Doc. #23936096) 24799873

Utilities Committee

Utilities Committee

5.5

To: Utilities Committee From: Frank Huber, Director - Major Projects, Management Systems & Utility Services,

Water Services Mark Ferguson, Director - Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 20, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2017 RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD and GVS&DD Boards receive for information the report dated March 20, 2018, titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2017”. PURPOSE To report on the status of the utilities capital expenditures. Utilities capital projects are typically multi-year in nature; therefore, this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion. BACKGROUND The Capital Expenditure reporting process as approved by the Board provides for regular status reports on capital expenditures with interim reports sent to the Utilities, Zero Waste, and Performance and Audit Committees in June/July and October/November, and a final year-end report to the Committees and Board in April of each year. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2017 and is included in the Committee’s 2018 Work Plan. STATUS OF UTILITIES CAPITAL EXPENDITURES The capital projects are separated into two types: “Ongoing” and “Completed”. Narrative information is provided describing key aspects of specific projects and each project is presented in the context of Total Projected Project Costs to Completion as compared to the Total Approved Budget. Appendix A contains summary financial information on “Ongoing Projects” and “Completed Projects”. The information presented is for Total Projected Completion which will generally cover multiple years. Capital project budgets typically include a minimum contingency of 10%. Individual project financial information is included as follows: Schedule 1 – Water, and Schedule 2 – Sewerage and Drainage (Liquid Waste). Appendix B provides narrative information for specific projects. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

Utilities Committee

Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2017 Utilities Committee Meeting: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 2

24809780

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Capital expenditures are funded internally (pay as you go) and through debt charges. As capital expenditures are incurred, short term financing is secured and converted twice per year to long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority. If capital expenditures are less than budgeted for the year, the savings in debt charges create a surplus which may go against future capital expenditures via the Contribution to Capital Program to reduce borrowing. Ongoing Capital Projects: The Water District is projecting to spend $33.6 million (3.9%) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 1. The Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) is projecting to spend $33.1 million (1.7%) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 2. It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required. Completed Capital Projects: These are projects that have been completed during 2017, some of which may extend over multiple years. Overall the Water District and Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) projects in this category are underspent by $4.9 million (6.8%) and $5.5 million (22.9%) respectively. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The capital expenditure reporting process approved by the Board provides for interim reports to Committees in June/July and October/November, and a final year-end report to the Committees and Board in April of each year. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2017. Both Districts (Water and Sewerage & Drainage) are projecting to be under spent for both ongoing and completed capital projects to December 31, 2017. It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required. Economic Impact While a significant investment in infrastructure for the GVWD and GVS&DD, the projects identified in Schedules 1 and 2 represent approximately 5,700 person years of employment and, over their life (development and construction), make up about $500 million of the Gross Domestic Product of the region. Attachments Appendix A: Capital Expenditure Summary Information as at December 31, 2017 Schedule 1: Water District Capital Expenditures Schedule 2: Sewerage & Drainage District (Liquid Waste) Capital Expenditures Appendix B: Capital Project Status Information, December 31, 2017

Utilities Committee

24811058

APPENDIX A

Capital Expenditure Summary Information as of December 31, 2017

Ongoing Projects Total Projected Expenditures to

Completion ACE/ Total Budget Projected Variance

Water $837,050,000 $870,629,822 $33,579,822

Liquid Waste $1,946,667,377 $1,979,816,377 $33,149,000

Total Ongoing Projects: $2,783,717,377 $2,850,446,199 $66,728,822

Completed Projects Total Actual Expenditures ACE/ Total Budget Variance

Water $67,690,818 $72,610,000 $4,919,182

Liquid Waste $18,449,832 $23,928,000 $5,478,168

Total Completed Projects: $86,140,650 $96,538,000 $10,397,350

Utilities Committee

Schedule 1

5.5 Schedule 1 / 2017 December Summary Page 1 of 4 4/6/2018

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

ProgramProject ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

On-going Grand Totals 553,636,814 837,050,000 870,629,822 33,579,822 Completed Grand Totals 67,690,818 67,690,818 72,610,000 4,919,182

ON-GOING PROJECTS

Infrastructure Growth CapA0036 Maple Ridge Main Stage II Maple Ridge 19,071,874 19,209,000 19,580,000 371,000 (b) 99% 2018 YA0140 Coquitlam Intake No 2 Coquitlam 2,115,037 7,230,000 7,230,000 - 33% 2019 YA0164 Burnaby Mtn PS 2 Pre Design Burnaby 242,082 250,000 300,000 50,000 (d) 99% 2018 YA0203 Seymour Main No 5 North PreDes District of North Vancouver 853,880 855,000 1,000,000 145,000 (d) 99% 2018 N Geotechnical investigation delays.A0214 Port Mann Mn No 2 North Design Coquitlam 1,545,481 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 99% 2018 YA0218 Kennedy Newton Main Pre Design Surrey 698,021 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 75% 2018 N Route selection delays.A0219 Coquitlam Main 4 Cape Horn Pre Coquitlam 547,467 725,000 1,000,000 275,000 (d) 70% 2018 YA0226 Angus Drive Main Construction Vancouver 25,692,402 27,000,000 28,000,000 1,000,000 (d) 99% 2018 YA0241 Hellings Tank No 2 - Pre Des Delta 789,811 800,000 800,000 - 99% 2018 YA0254 Port Mann Main No 2 N Constr Coquitlam 26,737,098 28,100,000 28,100,000 - 95% 2018 N Project delayed due to unforeseen ground

conditions.A0262 SDM1 12th to 28th Ave Constr Delta 19,563,873 20,350,000 20,350,000 - (i)(j) 96% 2018 N Miscellaneous construction delays.A0263 Hellings Tank No 2 Det Des Delta 62,901 2,200,000 2,200,000 - 3% 2019 YA0265 Fleetwood Res Detailed Design Surrey 2,563,293 2,700,000 2,700,000 - 99% 2018 YA0272 Port Mann Main 2 S Prebuild Surrey 1,571,252 1,700,000 2,000,000 300,000 (d) 99% 2018 YA0276 Annacis Tunnel Prelim.Design New Westminster 6,643,043 7,000,000 8,000,000 1,000,000 (d) 97% 2018 YA0277 Annacis Tunnel Detailed Design New Westminster 4,859,421 26,000,000 28,000,000 2,000,000 (d) 30% 2019 YA0286 COQ4 Central Pre Design Coquitlam 1,024,501 1,670,000 1,670,000 - 70% 2018 YA0287 Port Mann Main 2 South Design Surrey 1,198,904 2,300,000 2,300,000 - 75% 2018 YA0290 COQ4 South Pre Design Coquitlam 401,582 1,130,000 1,350,000 220,000 (d) 70% 2018 YA0322 Whalley Main Detailed Design Surrey 782,051 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 65% 2018 YA0325 Jericho Res No 1 Detail Design Township of Langley 2,318,377 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 77% 2018 N Design delays.A0330 Fleetwood Res Construction Surrey 118,745 32,500,000 32,500,000 - 0% 2019 N Permitting and property acquisition delays.A0331 Hellings Tank No 2 Prop Pur Surrey 1,695 1,802,000 2,200,000 398,000 (d) 15% 2018 N Property purchase delays.A0346 Newton PS No 2 Pre Design Surrey 131,761 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 11% 2018 YA0347 Annacis Main No 5 S Pre Design Surrey 327,558 750,000 750,000 - 75% 2018 YA0348 Annacis Main No 5 S Det.Design Surrey - 2,850,000 2,850,000 - 0% 2019 YA0349 Kennedy Newton Main Det.Design Surrey 28,640 7,500,000 7,500,000 - 1% 2019 N Route selection delays.A0351 Jericho Res No 1 Construction Township of Langley 139 31,600,000 31,600,000 - (g) 0% 2019 N Scope change during detailed design.A0373 Annacis Main No 5 (N) Predes New Westminster - 600,000 600,000 - 0% 2018 YA0379 Haney Main No 4 West Predes Port Coquitlam - 1,900,000 1,900,000 - 0% 2019 Y

119,890,888 236,721,000 242,480,000 5,759,000 Infrastructure Maintenance Cap

A0002 Des and Cons Remed E2 Shaft P1 District of North Vancouver 1,419,618 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 95% 2018 YA0075 Phase 2Rem Cons E2 Drain CI Da District of North Vancouver 806,637 850,000 850,000 - 95% 2018 YA0134 Douglas Road Main 2 Stage 1 Burnaby 10,511,429 12,500,000 12,500,000 - 99% 2018 YA0146 Douglas Rd Main 2 Stage II Burnaby 10,355,481 11,000,000 11,000,000 - 99% 2018 YA0170 DRM2 13th Ave Section Pipes Burnaby 13,526,346 14,500,000 16,000,000 1,500,000 (a) 90% 2018 N Tie-ins being coordinated with Burnaby.A0181 DRM2 Kincaid Section Des Const Burnaby 9,687,182 12,300,000 12,300,000 - 80% 2020 N Delayed crossover chamber construction.A0182 DRM2 Delta Sect Des Construt Burnaby 15,078,209 16,600,000 16,600,000 - 95% 2018 N Construction delays.A0207 DRM2 Still Creek Design Burnaby 865,102 4,400,000 4,400,000 - 30% 2020 N Property acquisition delays.A0212 Annacis 3 Scour Construction Regional 309,636 316,000 814,000 498,000 (a)(h) 99% 2018 N Permitting delays.A0235 SCFP Storage Building District of North Vancouver 2,435,218 2,467,000 2,400,000 (67,000) (e) 99% 2018 YA0236 Westburnco 1 Trsfmr MCC Repl New Westminster 515,028 942,000 942,000 - 55% 2018 N Station shutdown date revised. A0244 Central Park WPS Starters Burnaby 468,987 2,100,000 2,100,000 - 22% 2019 N Delays due to scope change.A0250 Douglas Rd Main 2 Van Heights Burnaby 290,595 480,000 480,000 - 65% 2018 N Delayed geotechnical investigation.A0252 Cleveland Dam Drumgate Resurf District of North Vancouver 2,182,539 2,400,000 2,635,000 235,000 (d) 95% 2018 YA0273 Lynn Valley Main Replacement District of North Vancouver 42,819 600,000 600,000 - 10% 2028 N Deferred to 2028.A0274 37 Ave Main Replace Pre Des Vancouver 52,383 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 10% 2028 N Deferred to 2028.A0281 SCFP Concrete Coatings Design District of North Vancouver 45,398 250,000 250,000 - 20% 2018 N Investigation delays.A0299 CD Bridge Girder Recoat Constr District of North Vancouver 368,468 420,000 525,000 105,000 (f) 99% 2018 YA0304 SCFP Filter Underdrain Const District of North Vancouver 297,428 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 7% 2021 YA0314 Fisherman's Tr Bridge Design District of North Vancouver 234,248 250,000 250,000 - 99% 2018 YA0315 E2 Shaft Ph 3 Prod Well Constr District of North Vancouver 5,572,561 12,000,000 12,000,000 - (m) 55% 2019 N Drilling delays due to challenging ground.A0316 Cap Main No 5 Predesign Vancouver 461,886 550,000 550,000 - 85% 2018 Y

Total Project

Utilities Committee

Schedule 1

5.5 Schedule 1 / 2017 December Summary Page 2 of 4 4/6/2018

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

ProgramProject ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Project

A0319 Central Park Mn Patt 10 Pdsgn Burnaby 322,964 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 18% 2018 N Delayed due to project scope review.A0327 LIDM Scour Protection Design Delta 17,308 250,000 250,000 - 7% 2018 YA0337 Sasamat Res Joint Upgrades Des UEL 31,114 42,000 75,000 33,000 (l) 95% 2018 YA0338 SFD Buttr Anch Bridge Rep Cons District of North Vancouver 668,598 1,320,000 1,320,000 - 51% 2018 YA0339 CLD Spillway Concrete Rep Cons District of North Vancouver 30,277 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2% 2018 N Deferred to accommodate Cleveland Dam Drum

Gate Project.A0341 Cleveland Dam HBV Rehab Pdsgn District of North Vancouver 13,770 100,000 100,000 - 14% 2018 YA0342 Fishermans Trail Bridge Const District of North Vancouver 314,469 2,300,000 2,300,000 - 14% 2018 N Deferred to Spring 2018.A0350 SCFP Concrete Coatings Const District of North Vancouver 34,071 6,250,000 6,250,000 - 1% 2019 N Delays due to operational requirements.A0352 Rechlor Kiosks Repair Constr Regional 40,604 500,000 500,000 - 8% 2018 YA0353 Rechlor Station Upgrades PD Regional - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2018 N Design delays.A0355 Riverside Dr Wall Stairs Const District of North Vancouver 9,600 375,000 375,000 - 3% 2018 YA0356 Central Park PS Seismic Upgrde Burnaby 44,600 3,700,000 3,700,000 - 1% 2020 N Delays due to rezoning requirement.A0359 LIDM Scour Protect Ph1 Const Delta 969,997 1,750,000 1,750,000 - 55% 2020 YA0362 LVM PRV Chamber Upgrade District of North Vancouver 943,300 3,300,000 3,300,000 - 29% 2018 YA0366 PMM1 Fraser R Crossing Removal Surrey 65,585 500,000 500,000 - 13% 2018 YA0367 DRM2 Van Heights Det Design Burnaby 148,849 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 10% 2018 Y

79,182,305 129,462,000 131,766,000 2,304,000 Infrastructure Resilience Cap

A0162 P Mann Water Supply Tunnel Con Surrey 220,497,621 224,000,000 239,000,000 15,000,000 (d) 99% 2018 N Shaft construction and tunnelling delays.A0188 Seymour Falls Dam ADAS Ph II District of North Vancouver 289,579 300,000 300,000 - 99% 2018 N Commissioning delays.A0193 Braid St Main No 2 Design New Westminster 468,319 500,000 500,000 - 99% 2018 N Deferred to accommodate Queensborough Main

replacement.A0223 Convert to Blk Sodium Hypochi Coquitlam 6,190,405 7,883,000 8,300,000 417,000 (a)(d) 75% 2018 N Construction delays.A0225 Capilano Main No9 Prebuild District of North Vancouver 5,632,393 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 99% 2018 YA0231 Second Narrows Tunnel Det Dsgn Burnaby 11,519,314 14,370,000 15,000,000 630,000 (d) 95% 2018 YA0238 Coquitlam Gatehouse Coquitlam 1,563,812 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 99% 2018 N Differing site conditions.A0239 Coquitlam Multi-Storage Coquitlam 1,179,770 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 99% 2018 N Differing site conditions.A0261 Cap 9 North Construction District of North Vancouver 27,507,895 29,000,000 29,000,000 - 99% 2018 N Construction delays.A0267 CWTP Enhancements Design Coquitlam 156,155 191,000 200,000 9,000 90% 2018 YA0268 CWTP Enhancements Construct Coquitlam 1,547,805 1,817,000 2,300,000 483,000 (d) 90% 2018 YA0270 Coq Intake Tower Seismic Upg Coquitlam 160,205 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 35% 2018 YA0278 MacKay Creek Detailed Design District of North Vancouver 850,759 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 95% 2018 YA0279 Cambie Rich Crossing Des Ph 1 Richmond 207,254 250,000 250,000 - 98% 2018 YA0280 Haney Main Crossing Des Ph 1 Port Coquitlam 201,596 250,000 250,000 - 98% 2018 YA0284 Westburnco Pwr Reliability PD New Westminster 177,924 237,000 350,000 113,000 (h) 75% 2018 YA0285 Reservoir Iso Valve Auto Des Regional 290,268 700,000 700,000 - 41% 2018 YA0288 CRWPS Backup Power Pre Design District of North Vancouver 496,612 500,000 500,000 - 99% 2018 N Additional options considered.A0289 CRWPS Backup Power Design District of North Vancouver 26,842 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 1% 2019 N Site selection delays.A0291 Clayton Reservoir Ph1 Constru Surrey 11,424,248 25,000,000 30,000,000 5,000,000 (f) 50% 2018 N Misc. construction delays.A0293 SE2 Joint Improvement Construc District of North Vancouver 108,909 775,000 775,000 - 14% 2018 N Coordinating with other projects.A0294 Sunnyside Res No 1 Upg Pre Des Surrey 103,222 250,000 250,000 - 65% 2018 YA0296 Cap Res Boat Wharf Det Design District of North Vancouver 42,010 54,000 100,000 46,000 (l) 99% 2018 YA0297 Seymour Falls Boat Wharf Desig District of North Vancouver 60,865 76,000 100,000 24,000 (d) 99% 2018 YA0300 CLDPH Seism Upgrde Detail Dsgn District of North Vancouver 229,117 240,000 300,000 60,000 (d) 90% 2018 YA0301 Emergency Power Strategy Regional - 400,000 400,000 - 0% 2019 N Coordinating with Comprehensive Regional Water

System Plan.A0306 Braid Street Main No 2 Const New Westminster 3,356,031 7,800,000 7,800,000 - 50% 2018 N Deferred to accommodate Queensborough Main

replacement.A0307 Westburnco PS BU Power PreDes New Westminster 372,442 500,000 500,000 - 74% 2018 YA0308 BMRPS Back up Power PreDes Pitt Meadows - 500,000 500,000 - 0% 2019 N To follow after Cap B/U Power Detailed design.A0309 BMRPS BU Power Detailed Design Pitt Meadows - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0% 2020 N To follow after Cap B/U Power Detailed design.A0311 SCFP UPS Reconfig Design District of North Vancouver 101,459 200,000 200,000 - 51% 2018 YA0324 2nd Narrows Tunnel Site Prep District of North Vancouver 2,233,512 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 75% 2018 YA0326 SDM3 12th to PebbleHill PreDes Delta 18,063 400,000 400,000 - 5% 2018 N Project scope under review.A0332 Sunnyside Res No 1 Upg Det Des Surrey 15,490 300,000 300,000 - 5% 2018 YA0333 Sunnyside Res Seis Upg Det Des Surrey 189,498 600,000 600,000 - 32% 2018 YA0334 Bby Mtn Res Seismic Upgd Const Burnaby 2,941,455 4,786,000 5,000,000 214,000 (f) 90% 2018 YA0335 CLDPH Seis Upgd Const District of North Vancouver 195,046 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 8% 2018 N Permitting delays.A0336 CHPS Seis Upgr Detailed Des Coquitlam 137,041 200,000 300,000 100,000 (f) 70% 2018 YA0340 Bby Mtn Tank Upgd Prelim Desgn Burnaby 32,437 400,000 400,000 - 8% 2018 N Project scope under review.

Utilities Committee

Schedule 1

5.5 Schedule 1 / 2017 December Summary Page 3 of 4 4/6/2018

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

ProgramProject ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Project

A0343 Cap Mid Debris Boom Des Const District of North Vancouver 3,200 750,000 750,000 - 1% 2018 N Deferred to accommodate Cleveland Dam Drum Gate Project.

A0344 Sey Lk Debris Boom Des Const District of North Vancouver 12,867 800,000 800,000 - 2% 2018 YA0345 Capilano Res Boat Wharf Const District of North Vancouver - 750,000 750,000 - 0% 2018 N Deferred to accommodate Cleveland Dam Drum

Gate Project.A0354 Rechlor Sites Backup Pwr PD Regional - 500,000 500,000 - 0% 2018 YA0358 SCFP UPS Reconfig Construction District of North Vancouver 381 1,070,000 1,070,000 - 0% 2019 YA0363 Seymour Main No 5 North DetDes District of North Vancouver 88,291 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 1% 2021 YA0369 Mackay Creek Construction District of North Vancouver 25,368 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 0% 2019 N Design delays.

300,655,477 361,249,000 383,345,000 22,096,000 Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

A0161 Capilano Power Feasibil Study District of North Vancouver 218,368 250,000 250,000 - 87% 2018 N Coordinating with Joint Water Use Plan.A0175 Water Optimization Auto Instru Regional 1,984,496 9,540,000 9,540,000 - 20% 2020 N Procurement delays.A0183 Coq Comm Improvements Design Coquitlam 4,662 150,000 150,000 - 3% 2018 N Design on hold pending SCADA migration to MTIII

A0224 CLD Seismic StabilityAssessmet District of North Vancouver 23,694 350,000 350,000 - 7% 2018 N Negotiation with preferred proponent in progress.A0234 Tilbury Valve Chamber Delta 964,303 3,900,000 3,900,000 - 35% 2018 N Delay in land acquisition.A0245 SCFP - Hydraulic Power Units District of North Vancouver 692,252 700,000 700,000 - 99% 2018 N Delay in assembly and testing.A0255 Queensborough Ewen Rpl Design New Westminster 815,716 820,000 900,000 80,000 (d) 99% 2018 N Design revisions.A0257 SDM1 28th to 34B Ave Design Delta 894,472 950,000 950,000 - 95% 2018 N Alignment revisions.A0258 SDM1 28th to 34B Ave Const Delta 129,068 12,300,000 12,300,000 - 1% 2019 N Property acquisition and permitting delays.A0282 Coq Comm Improvement Constr Coquitlam 118,639 1,650,000 1,650,000 - 7% 2019 N On hold pending design completion after SCADA

migration to MTIIIA0283 Burwell Apl Res Valve Imp Des District of North Vancouver 96,126 150,000 150,000 - 64% 2018 YA0303 CWTP Ozone Upgrade Design Coquitlam 64,974 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 6% 2018 YA0310 Queesborough Ewen Rpl Cons P1/P2 New Westminster 8,394,550 9,100,000 9,100,000 - 90% 2018 N Construction delays.A0312 CDEA Additional GV Pump Wells District of North Vancouver 64,251 750,000 750,000 - 10% 2018 YA0313 SDM 28th Ave Crossover Design Delta 363,644 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 36% 2018 YA0317 Water Meter Upgrade Det Design Regional 311,996 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 20% 2021 YA0318 Haney Main No 2 Viv Ch Upg Dsg Maple Ridge 91,185 300,000 300,000 - 30% 2018 YA0320 Sap Main No1 Line Valve Dsgn New Westminster 137,391 220,000 450,000 230,000 (n) 65% 2018 YA0328 SFD Turbine Upgrade Proj Des District of North Vancouver 9,731 100,000 100,000 - 10% 2018 YA0357 LSCR Learn Lodge Det Design District of North Vancouver 1,390 400,000 400,000 - 1% 2018 YA0360 LCOC Metal Shop Det Design Burnaby 35,103 120,000 120,000 - 29% 2018 N Project scope under review.A0361 CWTP Ozone Upgrade Cons Coquitlam - 11,000,000 11,000,000 - 0% 2019 N Delays due to operational requirements.A0364 Water Meter Upgrades Construct Regional 22,398 10,100,000 10,100,000 - 0% 2021 N Procurement delays.A0365 Haney Main No 2 Vlv Ch Upg Con Maple Ridge - 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 0% 2018 YA0368 Burwell Lake Valve Imp Const District of North Vancouver - 500,000 500,000 - 0% 2019 Y

15,438,408 68,450,000 68,760,000 310,000 Infrastructure Boundary Main 5 Cap

A0149 Boundary Rd Main No 5 Phase 3 Regional 35,958,816 36,500,000 39,000,000 2,500,000 (d) 99% 2018 Y35,958,816 36,500,000 39,000,000 2,500,000

Infrastructure Relocation CapA8000 South Fraser Perimeter Rd Regional 298,285 300,000 554,079 254,079 (d) 99% 2018 N Permits to be issued by MOTI for land tenureA8001 Hwy 1 Widen and PM Bridge Twin Regional 1,738,930 1,740,000 2,024,743 284,743 (d) 99% 2018 N Permits to be issued by MOTI for land tenureA8008 Evergreen Line Regional 122,589 128,000 200,000 72,000 (d) 99% 2018 N Statutory rights of way remain outstanding

2,159,803 2,168,000 2,778,822 610,822 Infrastructure Opportunity Prgm Cap

A0191 Barnston MR PS Energy Generatn Pitt Meadows 351,117 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 14% 2030 N Awaiting Provincial water licence. Received notice that BC Hydro is not accepting any more applications through the Standing Offer for Power program.

351,117 2,500,000 2,500,000 -

Total On-going Projects 553,636,814 837,050,000 870,629,822 33,579,822

Utilities Committee

Schedule 1

5.5 Schedule 1 / 2017 December Summary Page 4 of 4 4/6/2018

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

ProgramProject ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Project

COMPLETED PROJECTS

Infrastructure Growth CapA0171 Barnston Maple Ridge PS Pitt Meadows 46,782,174 46,782,174 46,500,000 (282,174) (c)(k) 100%

A0215 Port Mann Mn No 2 South PreDes Surrey 359,056 359,056 500,000 140,944 (d) 100%

A0251 Newton Pumping Improvements Surrey 249,796 249,796 250,000 204 100%

A0321 Whalley Main Predesign Surrey 171,649 171,649 600,000 428,351 (d)(o) 100%

47,562,676 47,562,676 47,850,000 287,324 Infrastructure Maintenance Cap

A0211 E2 Shaft Phase 3 Test Wells District of North Vancouver 4,413,000 4,413,000 4,500,000 87,000 (d) 100%

A0217 SSU Serpentine Riv Xing Rehab Surrey 314,780 314,780 480,000 165,220 (d) 100%

A0259 SCFP CW Roof Imp Phase 2 District of North Vancouver 784,986 784,986 800,000 15,014 100%

A0260 SCFP CW Cols Remediation Const District of North Vancouver 1,553,652 1,553,652 2,000,000 446,348 (f) 100%

A0275 LCOC Building Envelope Repair Burnaby 1,791,607 1,791,607 1,800,000 8,393 100%

A0298 SFD Buttr Anch Bridge Repr Des District of North Vancouver 98,883 98,883 180,000 81,117 (f) 100%

A0305 CD Bridge Girder Recoat Design District of North Vancouver 68,197 68,197 100,000 31,803 (d)(h) 100%

A0329 Rechlor Kiosks Repair Design Regional 45,887 45,887 100,000 54,113 (l) 100%

9,070,991 9,070,991 9,960,000 889,009 Infrastructure Resilience Cap

A0209 Mackay Creek Mitigation PreDes District of North Vancouver 995,340 995,340 1,000,000 4,660 100%

A0233 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Des District of North Vancouver 400,778 400,778 500,000 99,222 (d) 100%

A0246 Clayton Reservoir Design Surrey 2,185,808 2,185,808 2,700,000 514,192 (l) 100%

A0248 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Cons District of North Vancouver 1,243,318 1,243,318 1,500,000 256,682 (f) 100%

A0292 SE2 Joint Improvement Design District of North Vancouver 51,462 51,462 50,000 (1,462) 100%

A0295 Bby Mtn Res Seismic Upgrd Desi Burnaby 284,094 284,094 300,000 15,906 100%

A0302 SCFP Site Entrance Imprv Const District of North Vancouver 231,009 231,009 500,000 268,991 (f) 100%

5,391,809 5,391,809 6,550,000 1,158,191 Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

A0195 CDEA GV series well upgrade District of North Vancouver 749,771 749,771 750,000 229 100%

A0232 Lynn Valley Watr Reservoir Des District of North Vancouver 1,364,354 1,364,354 1,500,000 135,646 (d) 100%

A0266 Lynn Valley Wrt Stor Res Const District of North Vancouver 3,551,217 3,551,217 6,000,000 2,448,783 (a)(d) 100%

5,665,342 5,665,342 8,250,000 2,584,658

Total Completed Projects 67,690,818 67,690,818 72,610,000 4,919,182

Notes:(a) Competitive construction market resulted in a positive variance.(b) GVWD share - 59.80%: Maple Ridge share - 40.20%.(c) GVWD share - 39.18%: District of Maple Ridge share - 14.09%, City of Langley share 4.91%, Township of Langley share 41.82%.(d) Full contingency not required.(e) Additional electrical requirements.(f) Construction costs lower than estimated.(g) City of Surrey share - 33.72%, Township of Langley share - 66.28%(h) Reduction in scope.(i) GVWD share - 25%: TFN share - 75%.(j) South Delta Main No. 1 - Phase 1 & 2 Design and Construction.(k) Additional cost due to equipment procurement delays.(l) Design cost lower than estimated.

(m) ACE is for 3 drains in 2017 and up to 3 additional drains in 2018, if required.(n) Design efficiencies achieved. (o) Efficiencies were gained by combining the preliminary design with PMM2 (South).

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 1 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

On-going Grand Totals 573,916,260 1,946,667,377 1,979,816,377 33,149,000 Completed Grand Totals 18,449,832 18,449,832 23,928,000 5,478,168

ON-GOING PROJECTS

SD Infrastructure Growth

Z0049 NLWWTP Phase 1 T2 Design Township of Langley 8,825,395 8,826,000 9,000,000 174,000 (2) 98% 2018 YZ0050 NLWWTP Ph1 T2 Construction Township of Langley 44,005,976 45,300,000 55,300,000 10,000,000 (2) 98% 2018 YZ0053 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgd Equip West Vancouver 1,296,569 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 99% 2018 YZ0056 AIWWTP Outfall Surge Design Delta 2,507,293 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 36% 2018 YZ0057 ANI Outfall Design Outfall Delta 13,890,959 14,000,000 14,000,000 - 99% 2020 YZ0058 LIWWTP Digestor No 3 PreDesign Richmond 12,484 600,000 600,000 - 2% 2018 N Project restarted in August.Z0059 NWLWWTP Options Concept Design Township of Langley 2,220,665 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 44% 2018 YZ0064 NLWWTP Ground Improv Ph A Township of Langley 293,002 24,000,000 24,000,000 - 1% 2020 YZ0065 ANI Outfall Const Property Acq Delta 19,989,004 36,000,000 36,000,000 - 56% 2020 YZ0066 ANI Outfall Surge Construction Delta 12,537 22,000,000 22,000,000 - 0% 2022 YG0043 NSI Port Mann Twinning Surrey 10,039,635 13,100,000 20,600,000 7,500,000 (6) 49% 2018 N East Fraser Servicing Project has

eliminated the need for this projectG0046 N Nicomekl Trk Sewer No 2 Cons City of Langley 6,881,427 6,882,000 14,000,000 7,118,000 (1)(2) 99% 2018 YG0049 SSI K George Section Constr Surrey 29,786,011 30,000,000 30,000,000 - - 99% 2018 YG0050 Katzie Pump Upgrade - Design Maple Ridge 168,762 200,000 200,000 - (4)(6) 84% 2018 N East Fraser Servicing Project has

eliminated the need for this projectG0055 NSI 104 Avenue Extension Surrey 4,814,721 6,800,000 6,800,000 71% 2018 N Project on hold pending remainder of

railway negotiations.G0060 Maple Ridge FM Design Surrey 72,437 1,400,000 1,400,000 (6) 5% 2018 N East Fraser Servicing Project has

eliminated the need for this projectG0061 NSI Roebuck Design Surrey 814,231 4,300,000 4,300,000 (6) 19% 2018 N East Fraser Servicing Project has

eliminated the need for this projectG0062 Sperling PS Increase Pump Cap Burnaby 1,088,737 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 36% 2018 YG0065 Bby Lk Int N Sperling Sect Con Burnaby 5,721,255 5,766,000 6,500,000 734,000 (1)(2) 99% 2018 YG0066 Langley Pump Station Surrey 52,589 100,000 100,000 - 53% 2019 N Re-evaluating flow to the station G0069 Marshend PS - Concept Design Burnaby 11,097 125,000 125,000 - 9% 2018 YG0073 Bby Lk N Int Philips Sect Burnaby 1,314,490 3,200,000 3,200,000 - 41% 2018 YG0074 Langley PS Pre Design Surrey 94,291 300,000 300,000 - 31% 2019 N Re-evaluating flow to the station G0075 Marshend PS Pre design Burnaby 220,348 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 22% 2019 YG0076 Queensborough Pumb Stat Desg New Westminster 196,731 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 13% 2019 N Re-evaluating flow to the station G0077 Sapperton FM Connections New Westminster 507,193 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 51% 2018 YG0078 North Road Trunk Swr Twinning Coquitlam 523,951 664,000 664,000 - 79% 2018 YG0079 SSI KGH OCF and Grit Chamber Surrey 2,767,999 13,500,000 13,500,000 - 40% 2019 YG0080 SSI Johnston Rd Pre Build Surrey 13,791,552 18,000,000 18,000,000 - 77% 2018 YG0081 Sap PS Equip and Construction New Westminster 23,438,058 76,400,000 76,400,000 - 31% 2019 YG0082 SSI Johnston Rd Detail Design Surrey 2,553,232 6,600,000 6,600,000 - 39% 2018 N Project delayed due to protracted

property acquisition process.G0083 Port Moody PS Predesign Port Moody 298,856 600,000 600,000 - 50% 2018 YG0084 Hastings Sanitary Tk Swr Desgn Burnaby 479,557 1,304,000 1,304,000 - 37% 2020 YG0085 Golden Ears Xing Prel Design Maple Ridge 500 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 0% 2018 YG0086 Golden Ears PS Prel Design Maple Ridge 314,409 900,000 900,000 - 35% 2018 YG0087 NSI Flow Management PreDesign Surrey 199,644 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 8% 2021 YG0088 North Road Trk Swr Phase 2 Des Coquitlam 95,323 938,000 938,000 - 10% 2022 YG0089 Hastings San Tk Swr No2 Design Burnaby 922,684 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 18% 2020 YG0090 Hastings Cassiar Intk Cnt Dsgn Vancouver 51,127 100,000 100,000 - 51% 2018 YG0091 Collingwood Trunk Sewer Const Vancouver 187,603 3,590,000 5,090,000 1,500,000 (2) 4% 2018 YG0092 Albert St Sewer Pre Design Port Moody 203,976 250,000 250,000 - 82% 2018 YG0093 NSI Flow Management Property Surrey 2,670,302 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 89% 2021 YG0094 Cloverdale PS Prelim Design Surrey 1,097 700,000 700,000 - 1% 2019 YG0096 N Van Interc Lynn Siphon Desgn District of North Vanc - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2018 Y

Total Projects

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 2 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Projects

G0097 N Van Interc Lynn Siphon Const District of North Vanc 5,617 3,300,000 3,300,000 - 0% 2018 Y203,343,329 381,345,000 408,371,000 27,026,000

SD Infrastructure Maint Cap

X0009 AIWWTP CCT ISO Gates Delta 510,254 1,000,000 1,000,000 - (3) 99% 2018 YX0013 LNG Control & Inst Replacement West Vancouver 89,319 300,000 300,000 - 30% 2020 YX0014 AIWWTP CDAC Comp Replacement Delta 829,045 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 55% 2019 YX0016 IIWWTP Constr and Inst Replmt Richmond 822,717 2,750,000 2,750,000 - 30% 2019 YX0019 AIWWTP Clarifier Corr Ph 2 Delta 3,666,973 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 37% 2022 YX0025 IIWWTP Cogen Ctrls Repl Design Richmond 111,365 470,000 470,000 - 24% 2019 YX0026 Iona Solids-Construction Richmond 23,097,115 26,000,000 26,000,000 - 98% 2018 YX0028 NLWWTP 25Kv Sub Repl Des P2 Township of Langley 319,316 650,000 650,000 - (4) 49% 2018 N Delay due to coordination with East

Fraser Servicing Study for NLWWTP Expansion

X0029 AIWWTP Galleries CDAC Design Delta - 395,000 395,000 - 0% 2021 YX0032 NLWWTP CDAC Upgrade Design Township of Langley 288,205 650,000 650,000 - 44% 2018 YX0033 NLWWTP CDAC Upgrade Constructn Township of Langley 60,114 850,000 850,000 - 7% 2019 YX0034 AIWWTP Clarifr Corrosn P2 Cons Delta 3,036,737 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 25% 2020 YX0035 IIWWTP Sed Tank Eff Gates Cons Richmond 473,984 530,000 1,000,000 470,000 (2) 99% 2018 YX0037 IIWWTP Thickener 1 Refurb Richmond 1,984,879 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 99% 2018 YX0043 IIWWTP Water Supply Pre Design Richmond 78,874 600,000 600,000 - 13% 2020 N Schedule adjusted to match project

partner (YVR)X0048 LIWWTP RSP Isolation Gates Richmond 351,927 352,000 600,000 248,000 (1) 99% 2018 YX0049 AIWWTP SCL Flow Balance Const Delta 152,764 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 8% 2022 YX0050 AIWWTP SCL Flow Ctrl Const 1 Delta 356,338 500,000 500,000 - 71% 2022 YX0051 AIWWTP Galleries CDAC Constr Delta - 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 0% 2021 YX0052 IIWWTP Maint and Admin HVAC Richmond 69,489 550,000 550,000 - 13% 2018 YX0053 IIWWTP Sed Weir Trough Const Richmond 1,377,073 1,550,000 1,550,000 - 89% 2018 YX0055 VSA IIWWTP MCC PWR Dist Ph 2 Richmond 595,233 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 60% 2018 YX0056 AIWWTP Stn Bat Repl Ph1 Con Delta 328,083 549,000 549,000 - 60% 2018 YX0058 IIWWTP Cogen Ctrls Repl Const Richmond - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0% 2019 YX0066 LIWWTP Fibre Optic Network Richmond - 120,000 120,000 - 0% 2018 YX0067 AIWWTP Fibre Optic Network Delta - 350,000 350,000 - 0% 2019 YX0069 LIWWTP CDAC Upgr Detail Des Richmond 46,942 120,000 120,000 - 39% 2019 YN0046 Cost Alloc Billing Network Regional 4,982,831 5,230,000 5,230,000 - (7) 95% 2018 N Delay in CSA certification of proposed

metering instrumentation.N0296 Gleneagles PS 2 5 Rehab Design West Vancouver 294,768 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 35% 2020 N Re-evaluating project scope due to

new population projections.N0318 FSA Sewer Repair Regional 1,520,614 2,000,000 2,000,000 - (7) 76% 2018 YN0325 Gleneagles PS 1 Rehab West Vancouver 427,965 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 36% 2020 N Re-evaluating project scope due to

new population projections.N0336 IIWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement Richmond 1,339,742 1,375,000 1,375,000 - 97% 2018 YN0337 LGWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement West Vancouver 752,727 830,000 830,000 - 91% 2018 YN0350 NW Interceptor Grit Chamber New Westminster 210,017 250,000 250,000 - 84% 2019 YN0358 AIWWTP Clarifier Corrosion Rep Delta 1,820,618 1,946,000 1,946,000 - 99% 2022 YN0360 IIWWTP HVAC upgrade Richmond 2,010,469 2,029,000 2,095,000 66,000 (2) 99% 2018 YN0361 Marshend PS Rehab Construction Burnaby 713,109 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 10% 2020 N Rehabilitation work to coincide with

capacity upgrade.N0365 AIWWTP MCC Replacement Delta 473,941 2,844,000 2,844,000 - 17% 2021 YN0368 AIWWTP Gas Compressor Repl Delta 589,973 590,000 800,000 210,000 (3) 99% 2018 YN0378 LGWWTP Gas Condensate Removal West Vancouver 1,286,247 1,287,000 1,300,000 13,000 (2) 99% 2018 YN0383 AIWWTP GrvtyThckner DAFRepa Delta 1,758,513 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 88% 2020 YN0384 Iona MCC pwr dist ass rep 2010 Richmond 633,246 953,000 953,000 - 66% 2018 YN0387 Iona Solids Handling Design Richmond 4,408,292 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 99% 2018 YN0394 NSI Scour Construction Regional 378,315 455,000 995,000 540,000 (3) 38% 2018 YN0395 Gilbert Trunk Swr 2 Ph 1 Con Richmond 18,328,476 19,306,000 21,000,000 1,694,000 (1) 87% 2018 Y

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 3 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Projects

N0396 Iona MCC Pwr Dist Ass Rep Fut Richmond 1,131,008 1,965,000 1,965,000 - 58% 2018 YN0400 IIWWTP Dig 4 Roof Replacement Richmond 1,368,520 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 91% 2020 YN0409 AIWWTP SCL Flow Balance Design Delta 400,348 450,000 450,000 - 89% 2018 YN0411 Gilbert Trunk Swr No2 Ph2 Richmond 3,414,891 3,700,000 3,700,000 - 92% 2018 YN0424 IIWWTP Sed Tank Effluent Gates Richmond 186,319 200,000 200,000 - 99% 2018 YN0426 Iona Grit System Upgrade Const Richmond 7,028,042 8,100,000 8,100,000 - 87% 2018 YN0427 NW Intercept Columbia Sect Des New Westminster 379,092 702,000 702,000 - 54% 2020 N Will proceed with remainder of the

work following completion of Sapperton PS & the Front St. sewer main - McNeely Chamber connection.

N0430 Gilbert Trunk Sewer Ph2 Const Richmond 5,567,889 17,700,000 17,700,000 - 31% 2019 YN0436 NW Intercept Columbia Sect Con New Westminster 506,913 4,680,000 4,680,000 - 11% 2020 N Will proceed with remainder of the

work following completion of Sapperton PS.

N0438 Royal Ave PS Detailed Design New Westminster 312,718 430,000 430,000 - 73% 2018 YN0439 Baynes PS VFD Detailed Design Pitt Meadows 308,609 325,000 325,000 - 95% 2018 YN0444 Cloverdale VFD Repl Constructi Surrey 642,278 668,000 800,000 132,000 (1) 80% 2018 YN0446 Westridge PS 1 and 2 Predesign Burnaby 29,448 240,000 240,000 - 12% 2018 YN0448 LIWWTP PWD Replacement Richmond 119,290 600,000 600,000 - 20% 2018 YN0449 Gleneagles FM Ph 2 Design West Vancouver 158,299 750,000 750,000 - 23% 2021 N Project on hold pending on decisions

on pump stations capacities and pipe sizes.

N0452 Glbrt Trnk Swr No 2 Ph3 Desgn Richmond 578,859 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 58% 2018 YN0453 Glbrt Trnk Swr No 2 Ph4 Desgn Richmond - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% 2018 YN0454 Cres Beach FM1 Pre Design Surrey 303,689 500,000 500,000 - 61% 2018 YN0457 Godlen Ears SSO Storage PreDes Maple Ridge 251,404 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 25% 2018 N Site selection process longer than

expected.N0458 Golden Ears SSO Storage Design Maple Ridge 385,365 10,500,000 10,500,000 - 4% 2019 YN0459 Baynes PS VFD Construction Pitt Meadows 457,119 800,000 900,000 100,000 (1) 51% 2018 YN0460 Westridge PS1&2 Detail Design Burnaby - 560,000 560,000 - 0% 2019 YN0461 Westridge FM- Prelim Design Burnaby 100,056 550,000 550,000 - 18% 2018 YN0462 NWI Annacis Sec 2 Pre Design Delta 31,057 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 3% 2019 YN0465 Royal Ave PS Construction New Westminster 126,524 3,450,000 3,450,000 - 4% 2019 YN0466 NSI Rehab Repl Ph 1 Det Dsgn Surrey 42,830 750,000 750,000 - 6% 2021 YZ0060 IIWWTP Digest 4 Roof Mix Const Richmond 6,693,998 10,300,000 10,300,000 - 65% 2021 Y

111,101,176 199,801,000 203,274,000 3,473,000 SD Infrastructure Resilience Cap

X0008 LIWWTP Ammonia Removal ConcDes Richmond 196,508 200,000 200,000 - 98% 2018 YX0017 AIWWTP Ammonia Removal PreDes Delta 201,498 600,000 600,000 - 34% 2020 YX0027 AIWWTP Cogen Prepurchase Delta 10,299,357 30,000,000 30,000,000 - 34% 2019 N Equipment supply is delayed due to

design issuesX0044 IIWWTP Degester Gas Pipe Move Richmond 171,478 780,000 780,000 - 22% 2019 YX0057 AIWWTP Cogen Backup Power Cons Delta 5,239,230 34,600,000 34,600,000 - 18% 2019 YX0062 ANI Automate inf Gates Const Delta 350,125 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 12% 2020 YN0056 FSA Easement Acquisition Progr Regional 1,074,775 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 72% n/a YN0331 Highbury Siphon Repair Const Vancouver 10,350,163 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 90% 2018 N Work will be postponed to 2018 low

flow summer season.N0349 Highbury Overflow Facility Vancouver 19,795 110,000 110,000 - 18% n/a N Project scope under review. N0373 8th & Balaclava Data Collect'n Vancouver 98,449 100,000 100,000 - (7) 98% 2018 N Delayed due to instrumentation

sourcing / certifications.N0386 AWWTP S Cogen Floor Rehab Des Delta 41,056 250,000 250,000 - 25% n/a N Project scope under review, likely to be

cancelled.

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 4 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Projects

N0388 Highbury Air Mgt Facilities Vancouver 1,555,987 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 14% 2019 N Project was delayed due to hurdles on facility location approvals and other municipal permits.

N0389 NW CSO Gates Design New Westminster 33,746 825,000 825,000 - 4% 2020 N Project definition and scoping under review.

N0413 AIWWTP Cogen Backup Power Des Delta 7,987,312 9,000,000 9,000,000 - 89% 2019 N Final design report to be submitted once OEM shop drawing received

N0419 Sewer Seismic Upgrades Regional 455,891 500,000 500,000 - 91% 2018 YN0433 SSI Delta Odour Control Study Delta 301,765 650,000 650,000 - 46% 2018 YN0434 Ocean Park TS Rehab Design Surrey 66,216 403,000 403,000 - 16% 2019 N Project on hold pending subdivision

application approval by Surrey.N0435 Gleneagles FM Repl Constr West Vancouver 1,978,015 2,150,000 2,150,000 - 99% 2018 YN0440 VSA Emergency Power Pre Design Vancouver 288,914 400,000 400,000 - 72% 2019 YN0441 VSA Emergency Power Detail Des Vancouver 674,595 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 45% 2019 YN0442 VSA Emergency Power Const Ph 1 Vancouver 81,207 9,300,000 9,300,000 - 1% 2020 YN0445 FSA Sewer Seismic Upgrades Dsn Regional 15,410 400,000 400,000 - 4% 2020 YN0447 AIWWTP PST Wway Col Remed Con Delta 439,973 2,800,000 2,800,000 - 16% 2020 YN0450 AIWWTP Auto Infl Gates Predes Delta 192,670 200,000 200,000 - 99% 2018 YN0451 AIWWTP Auto Infl Gates Design Delta 395,619 500,000 500,000 - 79% 2018 Y

42,509,755 118,768,000 118,768,000 - SD Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

X0012 IIWWTP Redund 12KV Fdr-Design Richmond 167,770 220,000 220,000 - 76% 2018 YX0021 NLWWTP SBS Storage-Design Township of Langley 79 250,000 250,000 - 0% n/a N Project scope under review pending

results of pilot study. X0024 All WWTP PQM Network Predesign Regional - 30,000 30,000 - 0% 2018 YX0030 AIWWTP Protect Relay Purchase Delta 593,705 595,000 595,000 - 99% 2018 YX0036 IIWWTP Grit Chan Eff Gates Con Richmond 822,806 917,000 1,610,000 693,000 (2) 51% 2018 YX0038 All WWTP PQM Detail Design Regional 32,457 140,000 140,000 - 23% 2018 YX0039 All WWTP PQM Prepurchase Regional - 500,000 500,000 - 0% 2019 YX0041 IIWWTP Redund 12kV Fdr Const Richmond - 630,000 630,000 - 0% 2019 YX0042 IIWTP Biosolids Dewater PreDgn Richmond 238,822 800,000 800,000 - 30% 2020 YX0045 NLWWTP Disinfection System Township of Langley - 250,000 250,000 - 0% n/a n/a Project on hold.X0046 AIWWTP Protection Relay Constr Delta 206,976 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 8% 2019 YX0059 NLWWTP Outfall Concept Design Township of Langley 27 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2018 YX0063 IIWWTPBiosolids Dewater DesCon Richmond 8 5,500,000 5,500,000 - 0% 2021 YX0064 ALL WWTP PQM Construction Regional 5,330 2,200,000 2,200,000 - 0% 2020 YX0068 Chromatography Spectrometer Regional 6 985,000 985,000 - 0% 2018 YN0023 VSA Statutory Right of Way Vancouver 434,618 670,000 670,000 - (7) 65% 2020 YN0065 NW Sewer overflow Oper Impr New Westminster 1,225,475 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 99% 2018 N Project completion deffered due to staff

turnover.N0344 Cloverdale SSO Treatment Surrey 16,023 150,000 150,000 - 11% 2018 N Project scope under review.N0367 Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewr 2 City of Langley 5,626,696 7,500,000 8,100,000 600,000 (1)(2) 80% 2018 YN0372 FSA Wastewater Meter Upgrades Regional 284,349 600,000 600,000 - (7) 47% 2018 N Project scope revision.N0401 Sperling PS Upgrade Constructt Burnaby 4,693,286 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 67% 2018 YN0402 NSSA Wastewater Meter Upgrades Regional 46,104 300,000 300,000 - (7) 15% 2018 N Project scope revision.N0403 VSA-Wastewater Meter Upgrades Vancouver 289,642 300,000 300,000 - (7) 97% 2018 YN0404 LISA-Waterwater Meter Upgrades Richmond 75,524 300,000 300,000 - 25% 2018 YN0410 AIWWTP Secondary Bypass Design Delta 410,477 450,000 450,000 - 91% 2018 YN0417 LIWWTP Second Incomer Feeder Richmond 248,111 250,000 250,000 - 99% 2018 YN0420 LGWWTP Sludge Thickener No.2 West Vancouver 3,246,567 3,380,000 3,380,000 - 99% 2018 YN0429 SSI Delta Section Rehab Design Delta 164,982 172,000 185,000 13,000 (3) 99% 2018 YN0432 8th Ave Interceptor Air Mngmt Vancouver 223,506 500,000 500,000 - 45% 2018 YN0437 SSI ND Section Rehabiltation Delta 1,473,501 1,500,000 2,600,000 1,100,000 (1)(2) 99% 2018 N Work completed in summer 2017N0455 SSI Inf Ctrl RnR Gate Design Delta 13,554 135,000 135,000 - 10% 2018 YN0456 Big Bend Gates Pre Design Richmond 36,406 180,000 180,000 - 20% 2018 Y

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 5 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Projects

N0464 VSA Wastewater Meter Upgrades Regional - 150,000 150,000 - 0% 2018 YZ0061 LIWWTP Pwr Reliability Pre Des Surrey 218,675 300,000 300,000 - 73% 2018 YZ0063 AIWWTP Secondary Bypass Constr Delta 881,476 1,275,000 1,275,000 - 69% 2018 YZ0067 LIWWTP Pwr Reliability Det Des Surrey 357 900,000 900,000 - 0% 2018 N Project delayed to complete a due

diligence and value engineering review.

21,677,317 43,129,000 45,535,000 2,406,000 SD Infrastruct Relocation Cap

N8000 South Fraser Perimeter Rd Regional 317,806 318,562 333,562 15,000 (3) 99% 2018 YN8001 Hwy 1 Widen and PM Bridge Twin Regional 5,594,863 5,595,815 5,714,815 119,000 (3) 99% 2018 Y

5,912,669 5,914,377 6,048,377 134,000 SD Infr Sec Treat Upgrade Cap

X0001 VSA IONA WWTP Upgrade Design Richmond 2,758,681 16,500,000 16,500,000 - (5) 17% 2019 YX0002 LGS Program PM Decommissioning District of North Vanco 22,526,404 49,300,000 49,300,000 - (5) 46% 2022 YX0065 LGSWWTP Conveyance Dsgn Cnstrc District of North Vanco 1,209,254 670,700,000 670,700,000 - (5) 1% 2022 Y

26,494,339 736,500,000 736,500,000 - SD Infr Opportunity Prgm Cap

X0010 AIWWTP IPS VFD Replacements Delta 871,232 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 90% 2018 YX0011 AIWWTP TF VFD Replacements Delta 869,624 870,000 870,000 - 99% 2018 YX0040 LIWWTP Biogas Clean up Richmond 912,071 10,400,000 10,400,000 - 9% 2020 N Predesign longer than anticipated X0060 AIWWTP TF VFD Replacement Con Delta 991,160 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 99% 2018 YX0061 AIWWTP IPS VFD Replacement Con Delta 913,052 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 95% 2018 YN0380 VSA IIWWTP flared Biogas util Richmond 488,074 490,000 600,000 110,000 (2) 99% 2018 YN0407 Evergreen LRTP Impacts Regional 567,109 750,000 750,000 - (3) 99% 2018 YN0463 NSI PM Odour Corr Cont PreDes Surrey 20,003 100,000 100,000 - 20% 2018 Y

5,632,325 15,710,000 15,820,000 110,000 SD Infr Annacis Stg 5 Exp Cap

Z0048 Annacis Stage 5 Phase 1 Delta 134,087,587 243,500,000 243,500,000 - 55% 2021 YZ0051 AIWWTP Stg 5 Ph 2 Pre Design Delta 4,881,103 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 98% 2021 YZ0055 ANI Stage 5 Ph 2 Detail Design Delta 3,223,963 17,000,000 17,000,000 - 19% 2020 YZ0062 ANI Stg 5 Exp Ph 2a Construction Delta 15,052,697 180,000,000 180,000,000 - 8% 2026 Y

157,245,350 445,500,000 445,500,000 -

Total On-going Projects 573,916,260 1,946,667,377 1,979,816,377 33,149,000

COMPLETED PROJECTS

SD Infrastructure GrowthG0041 Sapperton Pump Station Design New Westminster 5,549,445 5,549,445 5,600,000 50,555 (2) 100%

G0063 Katzie PS Genset Design Maple Ridge 1,400 1,400 500,000 498,600 (4)(6) 100%

G0064 Katzie PS Design Phase II Maple Ridge - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 (4)(6) 100%

G0067 SSI Johnston Rd Section Surrey 783,774 783,774 800,000 16,226 100%

G0071 Hastings Sanitary TkSwr PreDes Burnaby 299,224 299,224 300,000 776 100%

G0072 Collingwood Trunk Sewer Design Vancouver 324,950 324,950 325,000 50 100%

6,958,792 6,958,792 9,525,000 2,566,208 SD Infrastructure Maint Cap

X0047 AIWWTP Stn Batt Repl Des Ph1 Delta 250,580 250,580 251,000 420 100%

X0054 IIWWTP Sed Tough Repl Det Des Richmond 49,991 49,991 50,000 9 100%

N0345 Katzie SSO Treatment Maple Ridge 649,560 649,560 650,000 440 100%

N0366 IIWWTP 12kv Feeder Replacement Richmond 897,048 897,048 897,000 (48) 100%

Utilities Committee

Schedule 2

5.5 Schedule 2 / 2017 December Summary Page 6 of 6 4/6/2018

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2017

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

rogram Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

Total Projects

N0376 Iona Jetty North Slope Repair Richmond 4,717,664 4,717,664 5,000,000 282,336 (3) 100%

N0377 Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning Richmond 1,997,478 1,997,478 2,000,000 2,522 100%

N0397 LG WWTP Bar Screen Replacement West Vancouver 646,728 646,728 690,000 43,272 (2) 100%

N0398 AIWWTP WSS Line Replacement Delta 666,003 666,003 885,000 218,997 (2) 100%

N0421 Royal Ave PS - Predesign New Westminster 269,988 269,988 270,000 12 100%

N0443 Cloverdale VFD Repl Design Surrey 167,962 167,962 170,000 2,038 100%

10,313,002 10,313,002 10,863,000 549,998 - -

SD Infrastructure Resilience Cap

X0015 LIWWTP PE Bypass Gates Design Richmond 149,797 149,797 150,000 203 100%

X0031 LIWWTP Bypass Gate Constructn Richmond 299,744 299,744 300,000 256 100%

N0348 NLWWTP Outfall Township of Langley 115,834 115,834 1,500,000 1,384,166 (4)(6) 100%

565,375 565,375 1,950,000 1,384,625

SD Infrastructure Upgrade CapN0425 IIWWTP Grit Effluent Gates Des Richmond 223,725 223,725 230,000 6,275 100%

X0022 AIWWTP Protection Relay Design Delta 157,060 157,060 160,000 2,940 100%

380,786 380,786 390,000 9,214

SD Infr Opportunity Prgm CapN0347 Sapperton Pump Stn Sewer Heat New Westminster - - 200,000 200,000 (6) 100%

N0381 LSA IRR Study Regional 231,877 231,877 1,000,000 768,123 (3) 100%

231,877 231,877 1,200,000 968,123

Total Completed Projects 18,449,832 18,449,832 23,928,000 5,478,168

Notes:(1) Project will be completed under budget - savings due to competitive pricing.(2) Full contingency not required.(3) Reduction in scope.(4) Board endorsed East Fraser Servicing Study, work will now proceed in 2017.(5) Separate quarterly status reports for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Upgrade project are being provided to the Utilities Committee and Board.(6) Project cancelled.(7) Funds will be spent if/when opportunity arises.

Utilities Committee

APPENDIX B

Capital Project Status Information December 31, 2017

1. GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT (Water Services)

Major GVWD capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Infrastructure Growth Program

• Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – A new intake, transmission tunnel and treatment facilities are proposed at the Coquitlam Reservoir to increase the supply and transmission capacity from this source. Options for the intake, conveyance and treatment facilities are being assessed under the project definition work. The Project Definition Report is anticipated to be complete by mid-2019.

• Port Mann Main No. 2 (North) – This 2.5 km long, 1.5 m diameter steel water main will twin

the existing Port Mann Main to meet growing water demand south of the Fraser River. Construction of the new main between the Cape Horn Pump Station and Reservoir near Mariner Way and the new Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel is nearing completion. All contract piping has been installed and hydro testing is scheduled in early 2018. Tie-ins are planned to commence in March 2018.

• Port Mann Main No.2 (South) – This 3.5 km long, 1.5 m diameter steel main will twin the existing Port Mann Main between the south shaft of the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel and the Whalley Reservoir in the City of Surrey. The project is required to meet growing water demand south of the Fraser River. Detailed design of the project is 75% complete with the installation tender planned for late 2018.

• Fleetwood Reservoir – Phase 1 of the Fleetwood Reservoir project includes a 13.6 ML

reservoir, chamber, piping, access building and associated work located at Meagan Ann MacDougall Park in the City of Surrey. Detailed design was completed in 2017.

• South Delta Main No. 1 Replacement – Phase 1 and 2 -This project comprises replacement

of the existing water main with a new main on 52nd Street from 12th Avenue to 28th Avenue. Pipe installation has been completed and cleaning, disinfection and system tie-ins are to be completed by Spring 2018.

Utilities Committee

• Annacis Water Supply Tunnel – A 2.3 km long, 4.5 m diameter water supply tunnel is required under the Fraser River to meet growing water demand south of the Fraser and to provide increased system resiliency. Detailed design was awarded to Hatch Corporation and work began in mid-2017. Geotechnical drilling is now complete. Property acquisition for the shaft sites in New Westminster and Surrey continues. Demolition of an old building on the north shaft site is underway.

• Capilano Main No. 5 (Stanley Park Section) – This 1.4 km long steel water main will replace

the existing Capilano Main No 4 through Stanley Park to meet growing water demand and provide increased system resiliency. The public engagement on the conceptual tunnel design was conducted between September and November 2017. Park Board approval to commence design on the project has been secured and the Request for Proposals for preliminary and detailed design engineering services is planned to be issued in early 2018.

• Jericho Reservoir – Phase 1 of the Jericho Reservoir project includes a 20.6 ML reservoir,

chambers, piping and associated work located in the Township of Langley. Detailed design is 77% complete. Preparation of the tender documents for construction is underway.

• Annacis Main No. 5 (South) - This project comprises approximately 3.0 km of 1.8 m diameter steel pipe connecting the Kennedy Reservoir to the south shaft of the Annacis Water Supply Tunnel in the City of Surrey. The preliminary design is nearing completion with detailed design commencing in early 2018.

• Kennedy Newton Main - This project comprises approximately 9.0 km of 1.8 m diameter steel pipe connecting the Kennedy Reservoir to the Newton Reservoir in the City of Surrey. The preliminary design is nearing completion with detailed design commencing in early 2018.

• Whalley Main - This 2.5 km long, 1.5 m diameter steel main will twin the existing Whalley Clayton main between the Whalley Reservoir and the Whalley Kennedy Link Main at 96th Ave in the City of Surrey. Detailed design of the project is 65% complete with the construction tender planned for late 2018.

ii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• Douglas Road Main No. 2 – Still Creek Section - This project comprises approximately 2.5 km

of 1.5 m diameter steel pipe with trenchless crossings of Highway 1, Still Creek and the BNSF rail line. The water main alignment has been finalized. Preliminary design is anticipated to be complete in mid-2018.

• Douglas Road Main No. 2 – Vancouver Heights Section - This project comprises approximately 2.0 km of 1.5 m diameter steel pipe connecting the Vancouver Heights Reservoir to the Douglas Road Main No. 2 pre-build section at Beta Ave and Albert Street in the City of Burnaby. The project is currently in detailed design and construction is planned to start in early 2019.

Utilities Committee

• Fisherman’s Trail Bridge Crossing Project – Detailed design for the Suspension Bridge, Temporary Bridge, and Canyon Creek Bridge was completed by Associated Engineering in May 2017. The three bridges were re-tendered as a single procurement package in December 2017. Construction is scheduled for summer/fall of 2018.

• E2 Shaft Replacement – The E2 Shaft, which has controlled ground water pressures in the East

Abutment of Cleveland Dam since the 1950’s is nearing the end of its service life and needs to be replaced by a system of horizontal drains. Up to six (6) production drains may be required. A contract to drill three (3) production drains was awarded to Jensen Drilling and is now complete. The completed drains are being monitored and evaluated to determine if additional drains are required.

• Cleveland Dam - Spillway Concrete Repairs Construction - The Cleveland Dam spillway allows the

discharge from Capilano Lake, and the training walls on either side of the spillway direct and confine the flow of water. As part of the ongoing maintenance program for the Cleveland Dam, the spillway training walls and a section on the spillway will be repaired. Repairs include the application of a cementitious coating on the training walls and minor resurfacing on the spillway.

iii) Infrastructure Resilience Program

• Port Mann Main No. 1 Marine Crossing Removal – A Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel permitting requirement of Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, was to remove the existing marine crossing from the river bed. Golder Associates have been contracted to undertake a feasibility assessment.

• Braid Street Main No. 2 – This project consists of 2 km of 600mm diameter ductile iron pipe

that will replace the existing Braid Street Main in the City of New Westminster. Construction commenced in fall 2017 and is anticipated to be complete in early 2018. Tie-ins are planned for fall 2018.

• Coquitlam Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion – This project comprises the conversion of the existing gaseous chlorine storage, feed, and injection systems with a new liquid sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system. The existing system has been decommissioned and removed and the new feed system is in service using the temporary tanks. Remaining work includes the permanent feed system piping, tanks and restoration, and is scheduled for completion in 2nd quarter 2018.

• Second Narrows Water Supply Tunnel – A 1.1 km long, 6 m diameter water supply tunnel is

required under Burrard Inlet, between North Vancouver and Burnaby, to increase the reliability of supply in the event of a major seismic event and provide additional long term supply capacity. Detailed design is now substantially complete. Permitting and land acquisition discussions continue with District of North Vancouver and City of Burnaby. The procurement process for construction is underway. A Request for Qualifications was issued in early December.

Utilities Committee

• Burnaby Mountain Reservoir Seismic Upgrade – This project involves seismically upgrading the existing reservoir to comply with the latest code requirements. The construction includes perimeter wall thickening, shear walls and access improvements. Construction started on May 2017 and is scheduled to complete in March 2018.

• Mackay Creek Debris Flow Mitigation – Detailed design for this project was awarded to BGC

Engineering Inc. Detailed design is now substantially complete and construction procurement is underway, with the issuing of a Request for Qualifications. Tree clearing has been completed at the site.

• Marine Crossings – Phase 1 Conceptual Design - In the fall of 2015 an assignment was awarded for Phase 1 conceptual design for two new marine water supply crossings; Cambie-Richmond crossing of the north arm of the Fraser River between Vancouver and Richmond and the Haney Main crossing of the Pitt River between Port Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows. The draft conceptual design report review is complete and comments have been provided to the consultant team.

• Clayton Reservoir – This project includes a new 22.5 ML reservoir located at 72nd Avenue and

190th Street in Surrey that will increase the storage capacity, meet current seismic standards and replace the existing Clayton Tank. Construction is well underway with completion anticipated by summer 2018.

iv) Infrastructure Upgrade Program • Queensborough Main - Ewen Ave Replacement – This project consists of replacing the

existing Queensborough Main No. 1 with 2 km of new 600mm diameter ductile iron pipe. Phases 1 and 2 of the work are substantially complete with tie-ins to the existing system anticipated to be completed in Spring 2018.

• South Delta Main No. 1 Replacement- Phase 3 – This project consists of replacement of the

existing South Delta Main No. 1 on 53rd Street from 28th Avenue to 34B Avenue, and on 28th Avenue between 52nd Street and 53rd Street. Phase 3 consists of approximately 1.6 km of 900 mm diameter welded steel pipe, a crossover valve chamber at the intersection of 28th Avenue and 53rd Street, and a crossing of the BC Rail tracks at Deltaport Way. Phase 3 construction is scheduled to commence in mid-2018.

• Coquitlam Ozone Upgrade – This project consists of replacing the PLCs for the ozone destruct

units and upgrading the ozone generators. Equipment procurement documents are being prepared and equipment fabrication is anticipated to commence in Summer 2018.

Utilities Committee

2. GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE & DRAINAGE DISTRICT (Liquid Waste Services)

Major GVS&DD liquid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Infrastructure Growth Program

• FSA – Burnaby Lake North Interceptor – Construction of the twinning of the Sperling

Section including final repaving was complete in 2016. Preliminary design of Phase 2 (Sperling to Phillips Ave) and Phase 3 (Phillips to Piper Ave) and stakeholder engagement are underway. Alignment alternatives within Burnaby Lake Park and a tunneling option under Winston Street were investigated. An assessment of alignment alternatives was completed including traffic, environmental and business disruption impacts and constructability challenges and a recommendation to select Winston Street Tunneling as a preferred option was made. Preliminary design of the preferred alignment will be finalized in early 2018, to be followed by detailed design.

• FSA – South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section – Construction of the twinning of Phase 1 started in March 2017 and includes installation of approximately 625m of 3m diameter corrosion resistant concrete sewer pipe. Phase 1 is scheduled to be complete by mid-2018. Phase 2 comprises of tunnel and open cut sections. Tunnel section construction is scheduled to start in the summer of 2018. Detailed design of the open cut section is underway and is scheduled to be complete in 2018, to be followed by construction in 2019.

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Outfall – This project involves implementing solutions for the transient/surge impacts that may occur in the wastewater collection and treatment plant influent system in the event of a power outage, and increasing the capacity of the outfall to support growth. Detailed design of a new 4.2m diameter outfall is complete. The tunnel will be constructed at a depth of approximately 40 m, and convey treated effluent approximately 1 km from the AIWWTP to the Fraser River where it will discharge from a 2.5 m (id), 250 m long diffuser manifold buried in the river bed. The application to the Port of Vancouver for the Project Environmental Review has been submitted, and the Stage 2 Environmental Impact Assessment, including diffuser design/dilution modelling reports, will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment shortly. Construction is scheduled to start in 2019 and be completed in 2022.

ii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• LSA – Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning - Construction of Phase 1 is complete. Design work for Phases 2, 3 and 4 (from Hollybridge Road to the Lulu Island WWTP) is 90% complete. Staff and the City of Richmond analyzed timing of adjacent City works, and developed a project schedule with Phase 2 construction starting in mid-2018, followed by Phases 3 and 4 in 2019.

• VSA – Iona Island WWTP Solids Handling Upgrade – This project involves improving the existing grit removal and sludge screening systems, increasing sludge thickening capacity, and improving the digester mixing systems. Refurbishment of the existing sludge thickener was initiated in October 2015 and was completed on schedule by April 2016 and is back in full operation. The new Screening, Degritting and Thickening facility is commissioned and in operation. The Digester Mixing Upgrade contract started in November 2015, and is expected

Utilities Committee

to be complete in 2020. Digester No. 2 upgrades are complete and the digester is back in service. The contractor is currently working on Digester No. 4.

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Secondary Clarifier Corrosion Repair – This project involves

replacing 12 secondary clarifier mechanisms that have been damaged by corrosion and are at the end of their useful life. This project also includes the installation of 12 new influent flow balancing gates, and replacement of 3 existing secondary bypass gates. Six mechanisms have now been replaced and work to replace one more unit is scheduled for the summer of 2018. A contract is being prepared for the remainder of the units, scheduled to be issued in late 2018 for construction work in 2020-2022 timeframe, in co-ordination with the Stage 5 Expansion construction.

iii) Infrastructure Risk Management Program

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Cogeneration System – Detailed design and construction tender documents were completed in the summer of 2017. Four (4) pre-qualified construction tender bids were received and the lowest bidder was selected and approved by the GVS&DD Board in the fall of 2017. Their scope includes removal of the existing cogens and installation of the new cogens and stand-by diesel generators (SDG’s), the supply and installation of new or modified electrical and air handling systems as well as ground improvements and structural upgrades to the existing cogen building. Project completion is anticipated to be in the fall of 2019.

iv) Infrastructure Upgrade Program

• FSA – Sapperton Pump Station – FSA – Sapperton Pump Station – Construction is well underway following contract award in September 2016. Work is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2019. As of December 31 the work is approximately 35% complete, with the below grade concrete structure nearing the surface.

• FSA – Sperling Pump Station - The Sperling Pump Station Upgrading Project provides for a

totally refurbished and expanded pump station by upgrading the existing aging and under capacity facility. NAC Constructors Ltd. is the successful tenderer and started construction in February 2017. Various chambers and a micro-piling system for the new building have been constructed. The main station bypass system is being completed for final testing, so that upgrading work on the main Sperling pump station can commence. The project is expected to be complete towards the middle of 2018.

• VSA – Iona Island WWTP Temporary Biosolids Dewatering Facility – Decommissioning of the

existing digested sludge lagoons and biosolids land drying area must occur prior to the construction of the new secondary treatment plant. A temporary mechanical dewatering facility will be needed to dewater on-going plant production of biosolids so that they can be hauled away for disposal. A feasibility study by Black & Veatch recommended centrifuge technology and a design-build (D-B) methodology to expedite schedule since the facility must be up and running no later than December 2020. An Owner’s Engineer (OE) was retained in October 2017 to assist MV prepare the indicative design and the D-B RFQ/RFP/ Agreement documents. The OE will also support MV during the detailed design and construction phases to ensure the D-B contractor complies with the specifications in the D-B Agreement. An RFQ

Utilities Committee

to seek pre-qualified D-B bidders is planned for January 2018 followed by the D-B RFP package in April 2018 with an anticipated award date in February 2019 following GVS&DD Board approval in January 2019. The target facility completion date is December 2020.

v) Annacis Stage 5 Expansion Program • FSA- Annacis Island WWTP Stage 5 Expansion Phase 1 – This work involves expansion of

treatment process units including primary sedimentation tanks, secondary clarifiers, solid contact tanks and odour control facilities. The $253 million construction contract has been executed between Metro Vancouver and Graham and AECON Joint Venture in April 2017. Construction of the Phase 1 main contract is 15% completed and the anticipated substantial completion date is May 19, 2021. Construction of the three-story CDAC and Laboratory Building under a separate contract with Kenaidan is complete.

24613555

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee From: Rosanna Yau, Superintendent - Water Services Laboratories Date: March 15, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: 2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated March 15, 2018 titled “2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report”. PURPOSE To provide the Board with a summary of the 2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report. BACKGROUND Each year Metro Vancouver is required, under the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Regulation (DWPR), to produce an annual report on drinking water quality. The annual report is also a requirement of the Drinking Water Management Plan. The annual report provides the key results and findings associated with Metro Vancouver’s program of continuous monitoring and assessment of drinking water quality in the region. The report also provides an assessment of drinking water quality relative to the existing drinking water standards and guidelines and highlights any unusual occurrences. Monitoring results for local government members are also discussed in the annual report where relevant. In accordance with Section 11 of the DWPR, the annual report will be sent to the Chief Medical Health Officers of the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health Authorities. Additionally, the annual report will be made accessible to the public through public libraries in the region, including Metro Vancouver’s library and Information Centre, and will be posted on Metro Vancouver’s website. This report is being brought forward at this time in order to enable Metro Vancouver, and its local government members, to meet the reporting timeline stipulated in the DWPR. WATER QUALITY/TREATMENT HIGHLIGHTS A summary of the main items relevant to water quality during 2017 follows: a) Source Water Quality

i) In 2017, the turbidity levels of the delivered water easily met the requirements of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ).

5.6

Utilities Committee

2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 3

ii) The Capilano supply was in service for the entire year. Heavy rainfall events in late November resulted in Capilano source water turbidity peaking at 5.1 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Even with the higher turbidity, the delivered filtered Capilano water was less than 0.1 NTU for the entire year.

iii) The Seymour supply was in service for the entire year, except for one week in late

November when heavy rainfall events resulted in the source water turbidity peaking at over 100 NTU. The Seymour source was removed from service on November 24, 2017 and returned on December 1, 2017. The delivered filtered Seymour water was less than 0.1 NTU for the entire year. With the exception of the November and December turbidity events, source water turbidity entering the SCFP was generally less than 1 NTU.

iv) The Coquitlam supply was in service for the entire year. The turbidity of the unfiltered

Coquitlam source water was greater than 1 NTU for 19 days in 2017, but did not exceed 5 NTU throughout the year.

v) The microbiological quality of the three source waters was excellent in 2017. All three sources easily met the bacteriological requirements outlined in the GCDWQ.

vi) Results of the analyses of the source water for herbicides, pesticides, volatile organic compounds and radionuclides were all found to be below the recommended limits for these substances as listed in the GCDWQ.

b) Water Treatment

i) The Seymour-Capilano Twin Tunnels enabled the Capilano source water to be treated at the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (SCFP) and subsequently returned to the Capilano transmission system throughout the entire year.

ii) The SCFP provided full filtration and the plant performance, as measured by the quality of the delivered water, was excellent in 2017. The daily average turbidity of water leaving the clearwells to enter the GVWD transmission system was less than 0.08 NTU.

Turbidity levels for individual filters met the turbidity requirements of the GCDWQ

except for four minor excursions in November 2017. Filtration consistently removed iron, colour and organics from Capilano and

Seymour source water. Levels of total aluminum in filtered water were consistently below the GCDWQ

operational guideline value of 0.2 mg/L for direct filtration plants using aluminum-based coagulants. The maximum value for 2017 was 0.06 mg/L.

iii) UV treatment is the primary disinfectant along with ozone pre-treatment and chlorine

disinfection for water originating from the Coquitlam source, resulting in water treatment meeting requirements as specified in the GVWD’s operating permit.

Utilities Committee

2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 3

iv) The secondary disinfection stations within the distribution system boosted chlorine levels as required.

c) Distribution System Water Quality

i) Bacteriological water quality in the GVWD transmission mains and in-system storage reservoirs was excellent in 2017. Of approximately 8,000 regional samples collected for testing in 2017, none were positive for E.coli.

ii) Bacteriological water quality in the distribution systems of the member jurisdictions was excellent in 2017. Of approximately 20,000 municipal samples collected for testing in 2017, a high percentage (99.8%) were free of total coliforms, which was similar to 2016 (99.8%). In 2017, no E. coli was detected.

iii) The running average levels of the trihalomethane group of chlorine disinfection by-products detected in the delivered water in the GVWD and municipal systems were well below the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) specified in the GCDWQ. The running average levels for the haloacetic acid group of chlorine disinfection by-products in the GVWD system were below the Canadian Guideline MAC.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The GVWD Water Quality Annual Report is included within the annual operating budget for the Drinking Water Quality Control Program. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As outlined by the 2017 GVWD Water Quality Annual Report, Metro Vancouver’s water quality monitoring program continues to fulfill its role in confirming that the multiple protection barriers for drinking water that the GVWD has in place including watershed protection, water treatment and ongoing operation of the water system to maintain water quality, are working effectively and that the drinking water provided by the GVWD to its customers met or exceeded water quality standards and guidelines in 2017. 24670133

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee From: Linda Parkinson, Program Manager, Source Control, Policy, Planning & Analysis,

Liquid Waste Services Date: March 29, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review RECOMMENDATIONS That the GVS&DD Board endorse initiating a review of the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw and approve initiating public engagement on the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review, as presented in the report dated March 29, 2018, titled “Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review”. PURPOSE To seek endorsement from the GVS&DD Board to review the GVS&DD Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw No. 268, 2012 and initiate public engagement on the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review. BACKGROUND As Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) are a major issue for the wastewater system, the five year plan for the Source Control Program includes the need to review and update the GVS&DD Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw No. 268, 2012. This report outlines the need to review the existing bylaw, the proposed scope of the review and the planned stakeholder engagement process. Review of the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Metro Vancouver is authorized to manage its liquid waste through the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) approved by the Province. A primary source control strategy identified in the ILWRMP is to “review and enhance sewer use bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source”. An action identified in the Board Strategic Plan 2015-2018 is to partner with members to reduce contaminant loadings through stronger and expanded monitoring programs and source controls. The discharge of FOG to the sewer causes major issues for the wastewater system. FOG build-up on pipes and equipment results in: • Increased maintenance – increases operation and maintenance costs, and activities such as the

flushing of lines also uses resources such as energy and water; • Reduced flow capacity – which can potentially contribute to sanitary sewer overflows, resulting

in monetary costs and posing risks to human health and the environment. The regional cost estimate (2016) for managing FOG in the wastewater system is $2.7 million annually. Municipal costs are estimated at $1.4M and Metro Vancouver costs at $1.25M.

5.7

Utilities Committee

Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 5

Food sector establishments are a major source of FOG. At this commercial level, the most sustainable methods of managing FOG is to (a) minimize FOG entering the wastewater system through implementation of best practices such as wiping greasy plates into the green bin and (b) segregate and manage the remaining FOG at source, which is achieved through the use of a properly sized and properly maintained Grease Interceptor. Not only does this prevent FOG entering the wastewater network but it preserves the FOG in a relatively non-contaminated form and allows the material to be collected and treated to extract its energy content through anaerobic digestion and other technologies (the ‘highest and best use’). The Code of Practice for Wastewater Management at Food Sector Establishments was adopted by the GVS&DD Board in 2000. In September 2012, the GVS&DD Board adopted GVS&DD Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw No. 268, 2012 (the “Grease Interceptor Bylaw”). The Grease Interceptor Bylaw requires that wastewater discharged by a food sector establishment must contain less than 300 mg/L of Total Oil and Grease. In order to meet this discharge limit, the Grease Interceptor Bylaw outlines requirements on the sizing and maintenance of a Grease Interceptor and requirements on what fixtures need to be attached to the Grease Interceptor. The Grease Interceptor Bylaw has been in place for over five years. There is a need to update language and provide clarity, particularly in Part 4 – Grease Interceptor Standards, as well as to review and provide clarity on the fixtures that must be connected to a Grease Interceptor. There is also a need to review the Grease Interceptor sizing methodology and potentially incorporate the sizing methodology within the Grease Interceptor Bylaw (it currently exists as a separately referenced Policy). Commercial Food Grinders and Similar Technologies In 2015, the GVS&DD Board endorsed “the development of regulatory options to regulate the use of food grinders and similar technologies by the commercial sector that would increase loadings to the wastewater treatment plants”. The Grease Interceptor Bylaw currently requires that food grinders, potato peelers and similar equipment used in the preparation of food must be connected to a solids interceptor that is connected to a grease interceptor. There are no specific conditions relating to commercial scale “digesters” and other similar technologies. The use of food grinders, food digesters and similar technologies produce a high volume of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) which can have significant negative impacts on the regional sewer system and the wastewater treatment plants, in particular the Iona and Lions Gate primary treatment plants. Staff are reviewing regulatory options to address commercial food grinders and similar technologies as part of this review of the Grease Interceptor Bylaw. SCOPE OF PROPOSED BYLAW REVIEW The intent of reviewing the bylaw is to: 1. Make administrative changes and clarify language 2. Review the technical requirements of the bylaw with respect to Grease Interceptors, i.e. to

review: • What fixtures must be connected to a Grease Interceptor

Utilities Committee

Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 5

• What fixtures must not be connected to a Grease Interceptor • The sizing methodology for a Grease Interceptor

3. Review regulatory options to address commercial food grinders, “digesters” and similar technologies

4. Introduce fees in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and a cost-recovery principle 5. Improve understanding of the bylaw requirements and improve/enhance educational tools. ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Metro Vancouver is committed to engaging with those stakeholders that have the potential to be impacted by changes to the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw. Metro Vancouver will provide a variety of forums, listed below, to learn about stakeholders’ issues and interests related to the bylaw. This information will inform the bylaw review and be reported back at the end of the process along with staff recommendations for proposed changes. Metro Vancouver follows the International Association for Public Participation principles in its engagement processes. Scope of the Engagement Metro Vancouver will seek input on: • Clarity of current requirements and of any proposed changes • Impact of regulatory requirements on commercial food grinders, “digesters” and similar

technologies • Timing • Fees • Educational tools Stakeholders There are a wide range of stakeholders with the potential to be impacted by changes to the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw. They include: • Restaurants • Grease interceptor maintenance providers • Delicatessens • Grease interceptor manufacturers • Fast-food outlets • BC food associations • Food trucks • BC chef associations • Cafeterias • Local business associations • Hospitals • Food suppliers • Pubs • Plumbers

• Municipalities (incl. engineering, building permits) • Health authorities

Engagement Methods and Timing A full engagement plan will be developed that is anticipated to include the following engagement activities: Activity Purpose Timing

Metro Vancouver website Provide up to date information about the engagement process

Ongoing beginning spring 2018

Utilities Committee

Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 4 of 5

Activity Purpose Timing

Letter/Email notification and updates

Provide notification that engagement is beginning, provide information on opportunities to engage, deliver updates on what we heard

Spring 2018 – winter 2018

Working group Provide an opportunity for in-depth regular discussions with key stakeholders

Spring 2018 – winter 2018 (quarterly meetings)

Multi-lingual focus groups Provide an opportunity for education and engagement for those stakeholders that are not comfortable conversing in English

Summer 2018

Online surveys Provide a quick and easy option for stakeholders who wish to participate remotely

Fall / winter 2018

Site visits/interviews Provide an opportunity for in-person education and engagement during visits from Regulation and Enforcement staff

Fall / winter 2018

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board endorse initiating a review of the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw

and approve initiating public engagement on the Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review, as presented in the report dated March 29, 2018, titled “Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review”.

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive the report for information and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As this is the start of the public engagement process for this bylaw review, there are no specific financial implications identified at this time. Cost for public engagement is included in the 2018 GVS&DD budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The discharge of FOG to the wastewater system is a major issue for Metro Vancouver and our municipal members, with 2016 costs to manage the issue estimated at $2.7 million regionally. The Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw is a key tool in managing the discharge of FOG from food service establishments. There is a need to review the bylaw in order to clarify language, review technical requirements and engage with the sector to find solutions to reduce the amount of FOG entering the wastewater system. In 2015, the GVS&DD Board endorsed “the development of regulatory options to regulate the use of food grinders and similar technologies by the commercial sector that would increase loadings to the

Utilities Committee

Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw Review Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 5 of 5

wastewater treatment plants”. Staff are reviewing regulatory options to address commercial food grinders and similar technologies as part of this review of the Grease Interceptor Bylaw. Staff recommend Alternative 1, with public engagement to commence in the spring of 2018. 24827035

Utilities Committee

5.8

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Date: March 8, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: 2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign - Update RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated March 8, 2018, titled “2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign – Update”. PURPOSE To update the Committee and Board on the upcoming regional campaign to reduce the flushing of wipes, medications and other materials, which will take place in the spring and summer of 2018. BACKGROUND The flushing of wipes and other materials into the wastewater system can result in clogs, damage to equipment and sewage overflows. Some items, like medications, are difficult for the wastewater treatment system to fully remove and may end up in the aquatic environment. Metro Vancouver began talking to the public about this issue in the 2015 “Never Flush Wipes” pilot project in Pitt Meadows, which became a regional campaign in 2016. In 2017, this work was expanded into the regional “Unflushables” campaign, which focused on seven priority items that should not be flushed. This report provides an overview of the 2018 Unflushables campaign plans, as identified in the 2018 Utilities Committee Work Plan. 2018 REGIONAL UNFLUSHABLES CAMPAIGN The 2018 regional Unflushables campaign will continue to address the same priority items as the 2017 campaign: wipes, paper towels, dental floss, hair, tampons and applicators, condoms and medications. The main elements of the campaign will take place from April 9 to the end of June, with some outreach at public events continuing through the summer. Campaign Approach The pilot project and previous regional campaigns have provided a good indication of how best to discuss the difficult topic of private bathroom habits. The 2018 campaign will continue the approaches proven to be successful in previous campaigns, including:

• light and humorous tone that avoids finger pointing • messaging in relevant places for this topic, such as public washrooms • engaging with the public at related events, such as public works festivals

The target audience for the campaign will include both men and women. The campaign’s media buy will be slightly skewed towards women, as the main purchasers and users of many of the unflushable items.

Utilities Committee

2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign - Update Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 3

Creative Materials and Campaign Elements The campaign will continue to use the creative materials developed for the 2017 campaign, with some modifications to allow individual items to be highlighted and to target different items to men or women. This includes tailored washrooms posters (i.e. posters showing tampons will be placed in women’s washrooms only) and a new series of unflushables “mug shots” which profile each item and describe their worst offence in a humourous way. The earlier campaigns that focused exclusively on women had higher recall rates than the 2017 campaign, where the audience was expanded to both men and women. Tailoring the creative to isolate products most relevant to men and women will allow the campaign to be more targeted and relevant. Campaign elements include:

• posters in men’s and women’s washrooms in cinemas, restobars and fitness facilities; • advertising through radio, digital and social media channels (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter,

Instagram); • movie theatre pre-show interactive game (played through movie-goers’ smart phones); • outreach at public events with an interactive wastewater display and representatives

engaging the public with skill testing questions to earn toilet paper with campaign messaging; and

• videos and campaign website. Metro Vancouver will use a range of indicators to measure the effectiveness of the campaign, including media coverage, social media uptake and a post-campaign survey. Collaboration with Members Campaign details and creative materials will be shared with members’ communication staff and the REAC Liquid Waste Sub-Committee prior to the campaign’s launch. Opportunities to be part of the campaign include placing posters in washrooms in municipal facilities, sharing the campaign on social media, hosting outreach teams at community events. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The budget for the regional Unflushables outreach program is $200,000. These costs are included in the 2018 Liquid Waste Communications Program Budget managed by the External Relations Department. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The flushing of wipes and other objects causes problems for the regional and municipal sewer systems and can result in clogs, damage to equipment, sewage overflows and environmental impacts. A regional Unflushables campaign will be launched April 9, 2018 and will run for eight weeks, with some outreach continuing through the summer. The 2018 campaign will continue to address the same priority items as the 2017 campaign: wipes, paper towels, dental floss, hair, tampons and

Utilities Committee

2018 Regional Unflushables Campaign - Update Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 3

applicators, condoms and medications. The campaign will engage many elements from the 2017 Unflushables campaign, including the same creative materials, posters in washrooms and outreach engagement at public events. Creative materials are being adjusted to make them more targeted to men and women, which will include tailored washrooms posters and a series of “mug shots” featuring individual Unflushables characters. A highlight for 2018 is a movie theatre pre-show interactive game (played through movie-goers’ smart phones). Creative materials and collateral will be shared with members so they can support the campaign through their own channels, such as municipal facilities and social media. Attachment Sample of Campaign Artwork and Advertising Materials References 1. Unflushables campaign web page 24783411

Utilities Committee

ATTACHMENT

Sample of Campaign Artwork and Advertising Materials

, including, but not limited guide will

Video: Don't Flush Us – Medications

Washroom poster

Unflushables group - social media image

Individual Unflushables characters – social media image

Flyer for outreach events

Community events

Campaign toilet paper

Don't Flush Us – Medications (video)

Utilities Committee

5.9

To: Utilities Committee From: Roy Moulder, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services Colin Meldrum, Division Manager, Collection Systems, Project Delivery, Liquid Waste

Services Date: March 26, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 17-020: Construction of South Surrey

Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award of a contract for an amount of up to $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes) to Ward & Burke

Microtunnelling Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-020 for the Construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section – Trenchless; and

b) the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. PURPOSE This report is to advise the GVS&DD Board of the results of RFP No. 17-020: Construction South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless, and to recommend award of the contract in an amount of $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes) to Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the GVS&DD Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 284, 2014 (Bylaw) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (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 construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The South Surrey Interceptor (SSI) is a major sewer facility that services the southern areas of the Fraser Sewerage Area, including the Cities of Surrey, Delta, White Rock, Langley and the Township of Langley. Significant growth in the tributary areas since its installation in 1971 has necessitated twinning of approximately 10 kilometres of the SSI. To date, approximately 8.5 km of the sewer has been twinned. The last section, the Johnston Road Section, is currently under construction. This proposed contract is the third of four major installation contracts expected to be let for the completion of the SSI Twinning program. It initially consisted of the design and construction of two 3,050 mm nominal diameter sanitary sewer pipeline runs totaling 423 m to be installed by tunnel or trenchless methods.

Utilities Committee

Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 17-020: South Surrey Interceptor Johnson Road Section – Trenchless Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 2

A Request for Proposal (RFP No. 17-020) was issued on December 20, 2017 and was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver and BC Bid websites. The RFP closed on February 20, 2018 and two (2) firms submitted their proposals, however one proposal was deemed non-compliant. Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd. submitted the only compliant proposal at a base price of $12,351,600 (exclusive of taxes). They also included a value added option to install an additional 350 m long section of sewer linking the two tunnel sections by means of additional tunneling. This would allow us to avoid crossing 152nd Street by open cut methods. That road closure would have a significant impact on both local and regional traffic, and the proposed tunneling will likely eliminate the road closure. There is still the risk that unforeseen circumstances may require either a full or partial road closure. Ward and Burke’s price for this item was negotiated at a value of $7,367,400, for a total contract value of $19,720,600. Based upon the design work to date, and the traffic management conditions negotiated with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the City of Surrey, as well as the low cost of the additional tunneling, this option is approximately equivalent or slightly less than the cost of open cut construction. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

a) award of a contract for an amount of up to $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes) to Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-020 for the Construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section – Trenchless; and

b) the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. 2. That the GVS&DD Board terminate RFP No. 17-020: Construction of South Surrey Interceptor

Johnston Road Section - Trenchless 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 approves Alternative 1, a contract will be awarded to the highest ranked proposal, Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd., in the amount of $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes). This is within the allocated budget for this project. The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1; however, staff will need further direction in relation to the project. Alternative 2 will prevent the project from being completed on the present infrastructure timeline. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION RFP No. 17-020 was issued for the construction of the South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless. Ward & Burke Microtunnelling Ltd. was the only compliant proposal. It is recommended that the Board authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to award and execute a contract with them in the amount of $19,720,600 (exclusive of taxes). The Construction of South Surrey Interceptor Johnston Road Section - Trenchless is a critical connection required to enhance sewer capacity in the City of Surrey. 24507288

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee From: Roy Moulder, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services

Paul Wilting, Project Manager, Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Projects, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 26, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Award of a Contract Resulting from RFP No. 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award of a contract in the amount of up to $7,587,515 (exclusive of taxes) to Stantec Consulting

Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-496 for Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank; and

b) the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. PURPOSE This report is to advise the GVS&DD Board of the results of RFP No. 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank, and to recommend award of the contract in the amount of up to $7,587,515 to Stantec Consulting Ltd. ("Stantec"). BACKGROUND Pursuant to the GVS&DD Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 284, 2014 (“Bylaw”) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (“Policy”), procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board of Directors. Further, the Policy states that contracting authority for multi-phase contracts is determined based on the anticipated total value of the services to be provided over all phases. This report is being brought forward to the Utilities Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVS&DD Board to award a contract for the design, and construction management services of the Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Tank. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Projects is a program that will move all the sewage generated in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, across the Fraser River to an upgraded Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant (NLWWTP). Currently, these two areas are pumped, via Katzie Pump Station, approximately 25 km to Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. The program includes the following.

Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects Cost Pump Station and Storage Tank $75 M Forcemain and River Crossing $75 M Treatment Plant Expansion $750 M Outfall $150 M Total (2017 $) $1,050 M

5.10

Utilities Committee

Award of a Contract Resulting from RFP 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 2 of 3

Construction of the various components will be phased over the next eight years to avoid site conflicts. One of the first projects that must be completed, is the design and construction of the Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Storage Tank. The North Surrey/Maple Ridge interceptor systems have had a chronic sanitary sewer overflow issue, which is getting worse as the area develops. Hydraulic modelling indicates that a new pump station and SS0 tank to store peak flows, will reduce or eliminate SSO's. During heavy rain when the sewer capacity is exceeded the pump station will pump the excess sewage into the tank. As soon as capacity in the downstream system is available, sewage will flow from the tank to Katzie pump station and be pumped to the Annacis Island WWTP for treatment. The pump station will also be designed so it can convey wastewater flows from Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge to the new Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant and replace the existing Katzie Pump Station. The new pump station and storage tank will be located at the north end of the Golden Ears Bridge, immediately south of the existing Katzie Pump Station (See attachment “Golden Ears Pump Station and Storage Tank Location Plan”). As a result of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 17-128 that was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver’s and BC Bid websites, three (3) experienced firms were invited to respond to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 17-496, for the detailed design and construction management services for the Golden Ears Pump station and SSO tank. The RFP closed on January 28th, 2018 and all three (3) firms submitted proposals as follows:

Proponent Total Cost (exclusive of taxes)

Rank

AECOM $7,522,672 3 Stantec $7,587,515 1 CH2M $7,933,718 2

Evaluation of the proposals was based on the selection criteria identified in the RFP. The technical component of the proposals was evaluated by staff from Liquid Waste Services Department and the financial component was evaluated by staff from Purchasing and Risk Management Division, Financial Services Department. Stantec was identified as the highest ranked proponent. Their proposal demonstrated a good understanding of the project scope and key issues. They also presented a schedule that aligns with our internal objectives with an appropriate balance of resources. Stantec’s proposed cost was broken down as follows:

Phase Cost A Prelim. Design Revalidation $221,630 B Detailed Design Services $4,125,445 C Tendering Services $560,850 D Construction Services $2,151,095 E Post Constr. Services $528,495

Total $7,587,515 Following the proposal evaluation, a meeting was held with Stantec to confirm the scope of work, allocation of resources, project schedule and deliverables for only the preliminary design revalidation and detailed design services (Phase A&B). Based on the outcome of the meeting, Stantec confirmed

Utilities Committee

Award of a Contract Resulting from RFP 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank Utilities Committee Regular Meeting Date: April 12, 2018

Page 3 of 3

the cost of $4,197,472 after negotiation, for the preliminary design revalidation and detailed design is adequate. Award of the subsequent phases will follow pending the successful completion of Phases A and B, and successful negotiations for those phases. The approved budget for design is $14M. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board authorize:

a) award of a contract in the amount of up to $7,587,515 (exclusive of taxes) to Stantec Consulting Ltd. resulting from RFP No. 17-496 for Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank; and

a) the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

2. That the GVS&DD Board terminate RFP No. 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank, 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 approves Alternative 1, a contract will be awarded to Stantec Consulting Ltd. in the amount of up to $7,587,515 (exclusive of taxes). This amount is within the budget allocated for the project. Stantec will be directed to commence work on Phase A - Preliminary Design Revalidation and Phase B - Detailed Design only. It is expected that subsequent phases of the work will be awarded to Stantec subject to satisfactory completion of the preliminary design revalidation and detailed design at which time the phase cost and details of the phase of the work will be finalized. The GVS&DD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1 but staff would need further direction in relation to the project. Alternative 2 will result in a delay to the project schedule and is anticipated to add additional costs to the overall project. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION A Request for Proposal (RFP No. 17-496) was issued for engineering services for the design and construction of Golden Ears Pump Station and Storage Tank. Stantec Consulting Ltd. was identified as offering the highest overall ranked proposal and cost is within the budget allocated for this project. Based on the evaluation of the proposals in response to RFP No. 17-496: Golden Ears Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Tank, it is recommended that the GVS&DD Board authorize the award of a contract to Stantec in the amount of up to $7,587,515 (exclusive of taxes) and to start work on Phase A - Preliminary Design Revalidation and Phase B - Detailed Design at this time. Attachment “Golden Ears Pump Station and Storage Tank Location Plan”, dated February 28, 2018. 24769868

Utilities Committee

Golden Ears Pump Station and Storage Tank Location PlanMarch 1, 2018

Property Line

Attachment

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager - Water Services Peter Navratil, General Manager - Liquid Waste Services

Date: April 3, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Managers’ Report RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated April 3, 2018.

1. Coquitlam Intake No. 2 Workshop – Tim Jervis

Staff are planning a Special Meeting of the Utilities Committee in late May/early June to discuss project definition for the Coquitlam Intake No. 2 project. This special meeting will workshop key components of the project including the intake, conveyance infrastructure, and treatment options.

2. Utilities Committee 2018 Work Plan – Tim Jervis/Peter Navratil Attached is the updated 2018 Work Plan indicating the status of the Committee’s key priorities together with the quarter that each is expected to be considered by the Committee.

Attachments: 1. Utilities Committee 2018 Work Plan

5.11

Utilities Committee

Attachment 1 Utilities Committee 2018 Work Plan Priorities

1st Quarter Status 2018 Committee Priorities and Work Plan Complete 2018 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete Joint Water Use Plan for Capilano and Seymour Watersheds Complete Watershed Education Program Update Complete Seymour Salmonid Society 2017 Annual Report Complete Iona Island Secondary WWTP Project Definition Quarterly Update Complete Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete Utility Policies (as applicable) Complete

2nd Quarter 2017 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report In Progress 2018 Water Wagon Schedule In Progress Lawn Watering Regulations Communication & Regional Water Conservation Campaign In Progress Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures In Progress Comprehensive Regional Water System Plan In Progress Regional Assessment of Residential Water Metering In Progress Water Supply Forecast & Consumption Update Summer 2018 In Progress LSCR Public Consultation Annual Update In Progress Coquitlam Intake No. 2 Project Definition Update In Progress Reservoir Limnology Program In Progress Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Definition Quarterly Update In Progress Proposed Food Sector Grease Interceptor Bylaw In Progress Proposed Fermentation Operations Bylaw Amendment In Progress Pollution Prevention Plans for Hospitals In Progress Regional Grease Campaign Results Pending Unflushables Regional Campaign – Update In Progress Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) In Progress Utility Policies (as applicable) In Progress

Utilities Committee

3rd Quarter Status Environmental Management System Update – Water & Liquid Waste In Progress Regional We Love Water Conservation Campaign Update Pending Energy and GHG Management in the Utilities Pending Water Treatment Plant UV Revalidation Pending GVWD Development Cost Charge Program Pending 2017 GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report Pending Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Definition Report Pending Biosolids Drying Facility Feasibility Study and Market Assessment Pending Unflushables Regional Campaign Results Pending Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending Utility Policies (as applicable) Pending

4th Quarter

2019 Budgets & 5 Year Work Plan - Water & Liquid Waste Pending Summer 2018 Water Supply Performance Pending 2018 Water Wagon Results Pending Lawn Watering Regulations Communication & Regional Water Conservation Campaign Results Pending Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending Watershed Fisheries Initiatives Annual Update Pending Iona Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Definition Quarterly Update Pending Pollution Prevention Plans for Laboratories Pending Proposed Sewer Use Bylaw Amendments (Trucked Liquid Waste) Pending Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending Utility Policies (as applicable) Pending

Utilities Committee

To: Utilities Committee Date: March 27, 2018 Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: Public Engagement Policy The attached Public Engagement Policy report is presented here to the Utilities Committee committee for its information. At its meeting of March 23, 2018, the MVRD, GVS&DD, GVWD and MVHC Boards approved the Public Engagement Policy. The policy aims to improve public engagement processes and create consistency across all Metro Vancouver functions by outlining Metro Vancouver’s approach for the planning, implementation and reporting of engagement processes. The Public Engagement Flow Chart outlines the process for public engagement at Metro Vancouver. The Public Engagement Policy describes the organization’s guiding principles, the levels in which engagement is undertaken, and the roles and responsibilities of the Board and staff. The Public Engagement Guide is a resource for staff to assist in scoping engagement initiatives and preparing engagement strategies for the public. Standing Committees that oversee public engagement processes can expect to see more consistent reporting from staff in both seeking authorization for engagement processes and reporting back on engagement results. Attachment Report dated March 7, 2018, titled “Public Engagement Policy” (Doc #24569931) 24973930

6.1

Utilities Committee

24569931

To: Finance and Intergovernment Committee From: Vanessa Anthony, Program Manager, Public Involvement, Water Services;

Megan Gerryts, Corporate Projects Coordinator, Legal and Legislative Services; and Andrea Winkler, Program Manager, Public Involvement, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 7, 2018 Meeting Date: March 16, 2018 Subject: Public Engagement Policy RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD/GVS&DD/GVWD/MVHC Board approve the Public Engagement Policy as presented in the report dated March 7, 2018, titled “Public Engagement Policy.” PURPOSE To present the Public Engagement Policy for consideration and approval. BACKGROUND Public engagement across Metro Vancouver can take on a wide variety of forms depending on the potential impact and complexity of a project or initiative. In order to improve engagement processes and create consistency across all Metro Vancouver functions, staff have developed a Public Engagement Policy that outlines Metro Vancouver’s approach for the planning and implementation of engagement processes. The proposed policy is aligned with the Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan which emphasizes the importance of being accountable, transparent and responsive in order to maintain an effective federation. Metro Vancouver regularly engages with the public and key stakeholders to gather information to influence decision-making. This report presents for Committee and Board consideration a proposed Public Engagement Policy to ensure that Metro Vancouver is consistent and effective in its public engagement activities (Attachment 1). An accompanying Public Engagement Flow Chart and Public Engagement Guide are also included with this report which are intended to assist staff in the administration and application of the proposed Policy (Attachments 2 & 3). PROPOSED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT POLICY The Public Engagement Policy as drafted outlines Metro Vancouver’s approach to public engagement by describing the organization’s guiding principles, the levels in which engagement is undertaken, and the roles and responsibilities of the Board and staff. The Public Engagement Flow Chart and Guide describe the process for undertaking responsible public engagement in accordance with the guiding principles. Increasingly, municipalities are defining their engagement practices in policy and including an accompanying Guide for staff. There are many benefits to having engagement practices defined in

ATTACHMENT

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Policy Finance and Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: March 16, 2018

Page 2 of 4

policy, including ensuring that engagement initiatives are reflective of organizational values and that the principles that guide engagement are properly articulated and are agreed upon at the Board level. Guiding Principles The proposed Policy articulates five guiding principles that direct Metro Vancouver’s engagement processes. These guiding principles are based on industry best practices and seek to set a standard of excellence in carrying out engagement processes. 1. Accountability – Metro Vancouver upholds the commitments it makes to the public and

demonstrates that the results and outcomes of the engagement processes are consistent with the approved plans for engagement.

2. Inclusiveness – Metro Vancouver makes its best efforts to reach, involve and hear from those who are impacted. Plain language will be used in all engagement materials.

3. Transparency – Metro Vancouver provides clear and timely information, and endeavours to ensure decision processes, procedures, and constraints are understood.

4. Commitment – Metro Vancouver, within its ability and work plans, allocates sufficient resources for effective engagement.

5. Responsiveness – Metro Vancouver seeks to understand and be receptive to the public’s input. Spectrum of Engagement The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum of engagement is a widely used tool amongst municipalities. Metro Vancouver has been using the spectrum for many years to help identify the public’s role in the decision-making process. The adapted spectrum described in the policy outlines three engagement levels: Consult, Involve and Collaborate. Each of these levels corresponds to the level of influence the public has in the decision-making process. The Policy directs staff to use the “Engage Assessment” in the Public Engagement Guide (Attachment 3, p. 12) to determine if their project or initiative requires engagement. If engagement is required, the assessment will help staff determine which level of engagement is the most appropriate based on the potential impact and complexity of the project or initiative. Roles and Responsibilities The Policy outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors in making decisions informed by public input. Three criteria are articulated in the Policy and Guide to determine if reporting to Standing Committees and the Board is required. In general, engagement reports will be sent to Committee when a project or initiative fulfills all of the following three criteria:

• The Board will be making the ultimate decision/providing the final approval regarding the project or initiative;

• The project or initiative has the potential to impact the public and/or stakeholders; and, • There are decisions within the project or initiative that will be open to input from the public.

These criteria have been developed in order to ensure that the Board has the opportunity to review the scope of the engagement process before engagement is initiated on projects where they provide

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Policy Finance and Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: March 16, 2018

Page 3 of 4

final approval. Additionally, these criteria ensure that engagement is meaningful, since engagement is only initiated if decisions within the project or initiative are open to input from the public. Staff are responsible for following the process described in the Public Engagement Guide. The Public Engagement Flow Chart (Attachment 2) articulates when Board reporting should take place, if required. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE The Public Engagement Guide is intended to support the proposed Public Engagement Policy by directing staff in scoping engagement processes and preparing engagement strategies for the public. The engagement process established in the Public Engagement Flow Chart and detailed in the Guide is supported by tools and worksheets. The Guide is intended for use by Metro Vancouver staff and can be used by any member of staff regardless of their engagement expertise. OTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES As noted in the Public Engagement Guide, the Policy and Guide are not intended to apply to First Nation engagement which is prescribed in separate processes and primarily relevant to construction projects. In addition, Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Regulation and Enforcement Division has separate notification processes that are connected to the issuance of permits and licenses. To assist in ensuring that the public is fully informed on various Metro Vancouver initiatives, a variety of online tools and information is available to support public engagement. Specific initiatives are frequently featured on the website and the Performance Monitoring Dashboard has been developed and is maintained to provide up-to-date information across all functions within Metro Vancouver. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the MVRD/GVS&DD/GVWD/MVHC Board approve the Public Engagement Policy as

presented in the report dated March 7, 2018, titled “Public Engagement Policy.”

2. That the Finance and Intergovernment Committee receive for information the report dated March 7, 2018, titled “Public Engagement Policy” and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves alternative one, the Public Engagement Policy will provide direction to staff in undertaking public engagement processes. The Policy is expected to improve processes and is not anticipated to result in increased costs for engagement. Any budgetary impacts resulting from this Policy will be included in the budget approval process under the corresponding function and division. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Board Strategic Plan emphasizes the importance of being accountable, transparent and responsive in order to maintain an effective federation. The proposed Public Engagement Policy aims to improve public engagement processes and create consistency across all Metro Vancouver functions by outlining Metro Vancouver’s approach for the planning and implementation of engagement processes. The Policy and accompanying Flow Chart and Guide provide direction on carrying out engagement processes consistently and responsibly. Staff recommend approving alternative one.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Policy Finance and Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: March 16, 2018

Page 4 of 4

Attachments 1. Public Engagement Policy (Doc #21634159) 2. Public Engagement Flow Chart (Doc #24713815) 3. Public Engagement Guide (Doc #23559349) 24569931

Utilities Committee

21634159 Public Engagement Policy Page 1 of 3

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Effective Date: March 23, 2018 Approved By: MVRD/GVS&DD/GVWD/MVHC Boards PURPOSE

To outline Metro Vancouver’s approach for the development and implementation of engagement processes to achieve the following:

• Effective engagement processes that are clear, consistent, and carried out responsibly; • Opportunities for public input to influence decision-making; • Strong relationships with the communities that Metro Vancouver serves; and, • Board decisions that are informed by input from the public.

This Policy applies to all public engagement initiatives with the exception of First Nation engagement, which is prescribed in separate processes. This Policy does not apply to the Statutory Notification Process. DEFINITIONS

“Engagement” means purposeful dialogue between Metro Vancouver, member jurisdictions, residents, businesses and special interest groups to gather information to influence decision-making. “Engagement Spectrum” means a spectrum that helps to provide -clarity on terminology, process, level of promise and expectation for engagement. “Engagement Support” means the group responsible for assisting the project manager in scoping the engagement process, and preparing and executing the engagement strategy. The group may consist of staff from External Relations, Public Involvement or external consultants depending on the department structure. “International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)” means an international association that promotes the practice of public participation. IAP2 has set out core values and a spectrum of participation to create a common understanding of the engagement practice. “Plain Language” means clear, concise communication designed so the audience can easily understand the message. “Public” means a broad grouping of residents and/or businesses and/or special interest groups. “Stakeholder” means any member of the public interested in or potentially impacted by a project or initiative.

BOARD POLICY

ATTACHMENT 1

Utilities Committee

BOARD POLICY

21634159 Public Engagement Policy Page 2 of 3

POLICY

As articulated in the Board Strategic Plan, Metro Vancouver is committed to informing, educating, and engaging the public in decision-making and providing the public with opportunities to influence decisions that impact their lives. This Policy sets out the guiding principles and procedures for ensuring that all engagement initiatives are carried out consistently and responsibly. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Accountability – Metro Vancouver upholds the commitments it makes to the public and demonstrates that the results and outcomes of the engagement processes are consistent with the approved plans for engagement. Inclusiveness – Metro Vancouver makes its best efforts to reach, involve and hear from those who are impacted. Plain language will be used in all engagement materials. Transparency – Metro Vancouver provides clear and timely information, and endeavours to ensure decision processes, procedures, and constraints are understood. Commitment – Metro Vancouver, within its ability and work plans, allocates sufficient resources for effective engagement. Responsiveness – Metro Vancouver seeks to understand and be receptive to the public’s input. SPECTRUM OF ENGAGEMENT

Metro Vancouver applies an adapted International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Engagement Spectrum to help identify the public’s role in the decision-making process, and to clearly lay out the corresponding level of engagement with examples of appropriate techniques. Metro Vancouver will use the “Engage Assessment” as found in the Public Engagement Guide to determine the appropriate level of engagement required for each initiative. The different levels of engagement correspond to the level of influence the public has in the decision making process and the level of ownership Metro Vancouver has over the decision-making process and end decision. Consult The consult level of engagement consists of raising awareness, sharing information about projects, and providing opportunities for feedback. The commitment to the public is to keep them informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. Decisions are made by the authorized decision-maker with input from the public or relevant stakeholders.

Utilities Committee

BOARD POLICY

21634159 Public Engagement Policy Page 3 of 3

Involve The involve level of engagement consists of involving the public to make sure that concerns and aspirations are considered and understood. The commitment to the public is to work with them to ensure concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. Decisions are made by the authorized decision-maker after involving the public to explore possible alternatives to an issue or opportunity at hand. Collaborate The collaborate level of engagement consists of collaborating with the public in each aspect of decision-making. The commitment to the public is to look to them for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate their advice and decisions to the maximum extent possible. Decisions are made by authorized decision-makers after Metro Vancouver and the public have worked together to explore possible alternatives to an issue or decision and prioritize the preferred solution(s). ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Metro Vancouver Board of Directors is responsible for authorizing engagement processes and hearing public input reported to them through Standing Committee and Board reports, and making decisions informed by public input. Not all engagement processes will require reports to Standing Committees and the Board. In general, engagement reports will be sent to Committee when a project or initiative fulfills all of the following three criteria:

• The Board will be making the ultimate decision/providing the final approval regarding the project or initiative;

• The project or initiative has the potential to impact the public and/or stakeholders; and,

• There are decisions within the project or initiative that will be open to input from the public. Metro Vancouver staff are responsible for adhering to the Public Engagement Guide and for carrying out engagement initiatives in accordance with the guiding principles. Staff will prepare reports to Standing Committees and the Boards that are informed by research, data, and analytical tools in addition to input from the public that is representative of the breadth of input received. The Public Engagement Flow Chart shows the engagement process including the role of the Board.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Flow Chart Engagement support will carry out the following steps in coordination with the project team:

24713815

Engage Assessment Determine whether or not engagement is needed

Project Planning Develop engagement plan with scope, participants, budget, timelines, roles and responsibilities

Engagement Implement engagement plan

Communicate Results Report back to participants and decision makers on what was asked, what was heard, and how feedback was used

Evaluate Engagement Process Evaluate the engagement process based on the engagement objectives

Engagement authorization report to the Board, as required

Engagement results report to the Board, as required

ATTACHMENT 2

Utilities Committee

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

March 2018

ATTACHMENT 3

23559349

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 WHAT IS ENGAGEMENT? .................................................................................................... 3

1.2 ENGAGEMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 6

1.3 WORKING WITH STANDING COMMITEES AND THE BOARD ............................................... 6

2. IS ENGAGEMENT NEEDED? ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSESSMENT TOOL ...................................................................... 7

2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ...................................................................... 8

3. ENGAGEMENT TOOLS AND WORKSHEETS ...................................................................................... 11

A. ASSESS – ENGAGE ASSESSMENT TOOL ............................................................................. 12

B. PLAN – SCOPING PROJECTS & STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................ 18

C. CONNECT – ENGAGEMENT METHODS ............................................................................. 22

D. REPORT BACK .................................................................................................................... 24

E. EVALUATE – PROCESS EVALUATION ................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX A REPORTS SEEKING AUTHORIZATION ................................................................ 28

APPENDIX B REPORTS DESCRIBING RESULTS ........................................................................ 32

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

3

The Metro Vancouver Public Engagement Guide supports Metro Vancouver’s Public Engagement Policy and provides more detail on the process described in the Public Engagement Flow Chart. The Guide is intended to direct staff in scoping engagement processes and preparing engagement strategies for the public. This Guide does not apply to First Nation engagement, which is prescribed in separate processes. The process described in the Public Engagement Policy and Guide does not apply to Metro Vancouver’s Statutory Notification Process.

1. INTRODUCTION

Metro Vancouver is committed to informing, educating, and engaging the public about decisions that impact their lives and livelihoods. Meaningful engagement allows us to make better quality decisions and improve our relationships with residents, businesses, special interest groups, and municipalities. The purpose of this Public Engagement Guide is to help Metro Vancouver employees across all departments deepen their understanding of engagement and ensure the consistent delivery of and reporting out on engagement processes at Metro Vancouver. It is designed to help you determine when to seek public input, what methods to use, and how to know if the process was a success. This Guide will help clarify key terms and best practices in engagement, as well as introduce you to the guiding principles that direct Metro Vancouver’s engagement efforts. It will take you through the steps of designing, implementing, and evaluating your engagement efforts and offers practical tools and resources to incorporate into your projects. The Guide also includes an interactive assessment tool. This tool will help you decide whether engagement is needed for your project and what level of engagement is required. It is designed to support you in scoping projects, selecting engagement methods, and navigating approval steps. The Guide is not meant to be a substitute for working with an engagement support team. Your engagement support will work with you to develop and implement the engagement process.

1.1 WHAT IS ENGAGEMENT? Engagement is based on the premise that people have the right to participate in decision-making processes that affect them on the individual or community level. The Metro Vancouver Public Engagement Policy defines engagement as:

“Purposeful dialogue between Metro Vancouver, member jurisdictions, residents, businesses, and special interest groups to gather information to influence decision-making.”

For efficiency, throughout this Guide and in the Policy these groups are collectively referred to as ‘the public.’

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

4

Engagement presents participants with opportunities to learn about Metro Vancouver projects, contribute feedback, inform decision-making, and be informed of the outcomes. The purpose of engagement is not to make everyone happy with the outcome. Instead, a successful process means that participants can live with an outcome, because they understand that the engagement process was defensible, with an appropriate level of engagement delivered in a timely and logical way. When engagement is done well, benefits can include:

• Reducing risk by understanding impacts and issues ahead of time by engaging early, potentially negative impacts on the community can be addressed early, which can save money, time and relationships in the long run.

• Create better projects and plans with local knowledge: Communities and interest groups have

local knowledge and possibly different ways of viewing issues. Metro Vancouver benefits from the diverse viewpoints and new ideas raised through engagement to make better quality and responsive decisions.

• Develop champions in the community who can end up becoming ambassadors for the project if

they feel community issues have been listened and responded to. These champions help establish credibility and trust within the community.

• Help elected officials make good decisions by engaging with the right people and groups, asking

clear questions and reporting back on what we heard, elected officials are able to make informed decisions with a better understanding of the community’s perspectives on an issue.

Metro Vancouver offers an array of engagement activities, ranging from information sessions to collaborating on solutions. Metro Vancouver has adapted the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation1 to provide a clear framework on the public’s role in the decision-making process and the most suitable engagement techniques and tools to match the level. This spectrum is internationally recognized and used by municipalities across North American and internationally. It provides a common framework and language for assessing and determining the appropriate level of engagement.

1 IAP2 is an international member association which seeks to promote and improve the practice of public participation or community engagement, incorporating individuals, governments, institutions and other entities that affect the public interest throughout the world.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

5

IAP2 Spectrum

Pu

blic

Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Goal

To obtain public feedback on analysis, issues, alternatives and decision.

To work with the public to make sure that concerns and aspirations are considered and understood.

To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision-making.

Prom

ise to

th

e Pu

blic

We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

Exam

ple

tech

niqu

es • Public Comments

• Focus Groups • Surveys • Public Meetings

• Workshops • Deliberative Polling

• Citizen Advocacy Committees

• Consensus-Building • Participatory Decision

Making A more detailed description of the Consult through Collaborate levels, and appropriate tools to use at each level is included in “C. CONNECT - Engagement Methods” (p 22).

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

6

1.2 ENGAGEMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES Metro Vancouver’s engagement processes are guided by the following five principles:

• Accountability – Metro Vancouver upholds the commitments it makes to the public and demonstrates that the results and outcomes of the engagement processes are consistent with the approved plans for engagement.

• Inclusiveness – Metro Vancouver makes its best efforts to reach, involve, and hear from those

who are impacted. Plain language will be used in all engagement materials. • Transparency – Metro Vancouver provides clear and timely information, and endeavours to

ensure decision processes, procedures, and constraints are understood. • Commitment – Metro Vancouver, within its ability and work plans, allocates sufficient resources

for effective engagement. • Responsiveness – Metro Vancouver seeks to understand and be receptive to the public’s input.

Keeping the public and the Board of Directors informed about Metro Vancouver’s engagement processes is essential for ensuring that engagement processes are carried out responsibly and in accordance with these guiding principles.

1.3 WORKING WITH STANDING COMMITEES AND THE BOARD For the Board of Directors to make effective decisions, they need to be supplied with well written reports that are informed by research, data, and analytical tools in addition to input from the public. For further information on the practices for Board and Standing Committee processes and agenda management refer to the Standing Committee Agenda Management Policy. For specific direction on writing engagement reports, please refer to Appendices A and B.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

7

2. IS ENGAGEMENT NEEDED?

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSESSMENT TOOL Not every Metro Vancouver project or decision is going to require engagement. Generally, the more complex and/or impactful the issue or project, the greater the need for public engagement. The required level of engagement will vary for each project, depending on the scale of impact and complexity. The Metro Vancouver Engage Assessment (see p 12) was created to help Metro Vancouver staff determine:

• If the initiative requires engagement; • What an appropriate level of engagement is based on how input from the public will be used; • What an appropriate scope of engagement is based on the impact and complexity of the initiative; • Whether Board authorization and reporting is required prior to proceeding with the engagement

process; and, • The appropriate internal and external resources to use throughout the engagement process.

Some examples of Metro Vancouver projects that typically have an impact on the public:

• Plans, Policies, Programs, and Regulations, such as the Regional Growth Strategy, air quality and climate change plans, the Grease Interceptor Bylaw, Emissions Regulations, or Pollution Prevention Plans Regulation.

• Service Provision, such as drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management; regional parks and affordable housing services.

This guide refers to your engagement process as “your project,” understanding that it could be a program, project, regulation, plan, service, or something else.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

8

2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS The following process establishes a clear and consistent approach for Metro Vancouver staff to follow. The engagement process helps us to define a process, avoid role confusion, set out achievable and logical steps, and deliver on our commitment to the Guiding Principles. This overview describes the five steps of an engagement process, cross-referencing to worksheets to support you at each step. The next section of this guide contains the worksheets. Please note that the process will be iterative – you will design a process, identify participants, and brainstorm engagement activities before engagement begins, but ongoing reporting and evaluation may require you to update these materials throughout the process.

The Engage Assessment (p 12) is intended to help you determine whether your project will benefit from engagement. This tool will clarify: If engagement is required and why, the level of engagement required, roles and responsibilities and engagement steps.

Once the Engage Assessment is completed, the engagement support can develop an engagement plan. The engagement plan is a critical tool to create a shared understanding with your team and consultant(s) on engagement scope, stakeholders, budget, timelines, roles and responsibilities. This is also the step where you prepare the materials that are needed to share information with your audience. Tool: PLAN - Scoping Projects and Stakeholders Worksheet (p 18).

You are now ready to implement your engagement plan. Successful engagement events depend on providing sufficient notice about when and where engagement is taking place to ensure good turn-out at the event. The events are an opportunity to connect with our audience(s) in an honest, open, and meaningful manner. Tool: CONNECT - Engagement Methods (p 22).

Metro Vancouver’s commitment to accountability and transparency is demonstrated when you communicate the results of our engagement efforts back to participants and decision makers in a timely and accessible manner and explain how feedback was used. Tool: REPORT BACK - Engagement Summary Worksheet (p 24).

After connecting with participants and reporting back on their input, the next step is to evaluate whether the engagement process is still working. Building an evaluation into the engagement process helps ensure that Metro Vancouver resources are being used efficiently and effectively. Tool: EVALUATE – Process Evaluation Worksheet (p 26).

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

9

This diagram shows an example Metro Vancouver engagement process against these five steps. This example project is to develop a new bylaw.

Project Engagement Lead: Jane Chan Overall Engagement Level: Consult Engagement Objectives: • To explain the issues that Metro Vancouver is trying to address through a new bylaw • To learn about how the proposed bylaw would impact stakeholders • To ensure the bylaw can be implemented effectively Stakeholders: Special interest groups, industry associations, enforcement officers, municipal representatives, general public Timeline: accounts for scoping, Board authorization, engagement on proposed requirements (Phase 1), bylaw development, engagement on finalizing requirements (Phase 2), Board approval Materials: Webpage, Key Messages, FAQs, Notification Letters, Interview, site visit and workshop guides

Engagement Activities: • Key Informant Interviews • Site Visits • Stakeholder workshops • Newsletter update

Engagement report summarizing the engagement activities and findings delivered to the technical leads of the project for first review, and if deemed appropriate, added as an attachment to Committee and Board report.

Engagement evaluation takes place through debrief with the project teams on an ongoing basis.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

10

2.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILTIES The following diagram shows typical roles and responsibilities for projects.

* Engagement Support may consist of staff from External Relations, Public Involvement, or external consultants, depending on the department structure.

General Manager / DirectorResponsible for strategic decisions

Project ManagerResponsible for on-time, on-budget delivery

of the project that integrates an engagement process.

Engagement Support *Responsible for assisting the Project Manager in scoping the engagement

process and preparing and executing the engagement strategy.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

11

3. ENGAGEMENT TOOLS AND WORKSHEETS

This section of the guide contains the Engage Assessment Tool and a series of worksheets and tip sheets designed to help you make strategic decisions throughout the five-step engagement process. Please print out and use these worksheets. Going through the strategic thinking steps in the worksheets will prepare you for writing an engagement plan for your project. Please seek the advice of your engagement support if you cannot answer a question. The tools and worksheets include:

A. ASSESS – Engage Assessment Tool: An interactive worksheet to determine whether engagement is needed and what level of engagement is appropriate for your project. It has three parts: Do you need engagement? Do you need Board approval? What level of engagement is appropriate?

B. PLAN – Scoping Projects and Stakeholders Worksheet: This worksheet has two parts. The first

will help you clarify what decision is being made, how engagement will influence the decision, and what contextual issues may affect the decision and people’s perceptions of it. The second will help you understand the participants who need to be involved in your process.

C. CONNECT – Engagement Methods: This resource offers examples of tools and techniques that

you may want to use in your engagement processes.

D. REPORT BACK – Engagement Summary Worksheet: This resource outlines how to approach the Engagement Summary.

E. EVALUATE – Process Evaluation Worksheet: This resource provides strategic questions to

consider when designing an engagement process, so that you have the tools to evaluate the process at key points.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

12

A. ASSESS – ENGAGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Part 1 IS ENGAGEMENT NEEDED?

Please use this tool to test whether your project needs engagement, and if engagement is required, what level of engagement is appropriate.

Section 1. Project Definition

What is the project? Please describe:

What is the desired outcome of the project? (e.g. a new policy or regulation, new infrastructure, changes to an existing service; etc.) Please describe:

What decisions have already been made? Please describe:

If you answered “yes” to one or more of the above questions (in green), engagement is required for your

project. Please fill out Section 3 then continue to Part 2.

If engagement is not required, you may still be required to inform the public about your project. Please coordinate with your engagement support to develop a communications and outreach strategy.

Section 2. Engagement Requirement

Are there decisions within the project or initiative that will be open to input from the public?

Yes – if yes, what do you want public input on?

No – If decisions are not open to input, engagement is not appropriate for your project. To be genuine and meaningful, engagement projects must ask questions where input can influence the outcome.

Is there a legislative, regulatory, Ministry, and/or Statutory requirement for engagement for this project?

Yes No

Does the project or initiative have the potential to impact the public?

Yes No

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

13

Section 3. Board authorization and reporting

Are there decisions within the project or initiative that will be open to input from the public?

Yes No

Does the project or initiative have the potential to impact the public and/or key stakeholders?

Yes No

Is the Board the ultimate decision maker/providing the final approval regarding the specific project or initiative?

Yes No

If you answered “yes” to ALL of the questions above (in green), Board reporting is required for your

project and you must seek Board authorization for initiation of an engagement process. Please refer to Appendices A and B for more specific guidance on report writing.

Sign off on this Engage Assessment Tool varies department by department. Please confirm your specific requirements with your manager.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

14

A. ASSESS – ENGAGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Part 2 WHAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT IS NEEDED?

Each project has factors that affect what level of engagement is required. The appropriate level depends on a careful analysis of your project’s impact and complexity.

Level of Impact

Assessing the level of impact means looking at who will be affected by the decisions made and how deeply the impact will be felt. For example, is the impact limited to a select few stakeholders or is it region wide? Will the resulting decision impact people’s quality of life or their business operations? Answer the following questions to help determine likely “level of impact” of your project. You may have to take your “best guess” at this time.

IMPACT (real or perceived)

ASSIGN 0 POINTS For each checked box

ASSIGN 1 POINT For each checked box

ASSIGN 2 POINTS For each checked box

ASSIGN 3 POINTS For each checked box

Is the project controversial or unpopular?

Not Applicable The public are not likely to be concerned.

Some issues are anticipated.

Many issues. At least one significant group that is opposed.

Will the decision have financial impacts?

Not Applicable Somewhat likely, with a negligible or indirect impact.

More likely, with a potentially moderate direct impact.

Very likely, with potentially high direct impact.

Will the project or decision significantly affect health and safety?

Not Applicable Somewhat likely, with a negligible or indirect impact.

More likely, with a potentially moderate direct impact.

Very likely, with potentially high direct impact.

Will the project or decision affect the environment?

Not Applicable Low, temporary, and/or local effect.

High, temporary local or regional effect.

High, long-term local or regional effect.

Will the project or decision affect quality of life? (e.g. noise, odour, views, congestion, access, change in land use)

Not Applicable Low, temporary, and/or local effect.

High, temporary local or regional effect.

High, long-term, local or regional effect.

SUM CHECKED BOXES Multiply the results

X 0 points X 1 points X 2 points X 3 points

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

15

If your total points are between: 0 to 5 points: Your Impact Number is 1 6 to 9 points: Your Impact Number is 2 10 to 15 points: Your Impact Number is 3

Total points: __________ Impact Number: __________

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

16

Level of Complexity

Assessing the level of complexity looks at how unique or challenging the initiative is. For example, does the project have a variety of phases or components? Are there likely to be opposing public opinions about the issue or project? Answer the following questions to help determine likely “level of complexity” of your project. You may have to take your “best guess” at this time.

COMPLEXITY

ASSIGN 0 POINTS For each checked box

ASSIGN 1 POINT For each checked box

ASSIGN 2 POINTS For each checked box

ASSIGN 3 POINTS For each checked box

How divergent is public opinion on your project?

Not Applicable Little disagreement or positions can be easily managed.

There will be a few competing positions, but they can be managed with some effort.

Competing positions by multiple groups or more than a few different strongly held positions.

What is the likely level of public understanding of the issue or project?

Not Applicable Relatively simple issue and / or strong level of public understanding.

Moderately complex issue and / or limited level of public understanding.

Highly complex issue and / or low public understanding.

Have we done something like this before?

Not Applicable Standard / routine.

Unique or pilot project.

Precedent-setting or brand new.

How long will this project take?

Not Applicable Less than a year.

One to three years.

Three years or more, or on-going.

SUM CHECKED BOXES Multiply the results

X 0 points X 1 points X 2 points X 3 points

If your total points are between: 0 to 4 points: Your Complexity Letter is A 5 to 8 points: Your Complexity Letter is B 8 to 12 points: Your Complexity Letter is C

Total points: __________ Complexity Letter: __________

Combine your Impact Number with your Complexity Letter and find the corresponding box on the next page.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

17

LEVE

L O

F C

OM

PLEX

ITY

Use your Impact Number and Complexity Letter in the table below to locate where on the Engagement Spectrum your project falls.

1C: Low impact, high complexity

2C: Medium impact, high complexity

3C: High impact, high complexity

Spectrum: Consult to Involve

Spectrum: Consult to Involve

Spectrum: Collaborate

1B: Low impact, medium complexity

2B: Medium impact, medium complexity

3B: High impact, medium complexity

Spectrum: Consult

Spectrum: Consult

Spectrum: Involve to Collaborate

1A: Low impact, low complexity

2A: Medium impact, low complexity

3A: High impact, low complexity

Spectrum: Consult

Spectrum: Consult

Spectrum: Involve

LEVEL OF IMPACT

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

18

B. PLAN – SCOPING PROJECTS & STAKEHOLDERS

Part 1 SCOPING PROJECTS WORKSHEET

Please use this worksheet to clarify what you will be engaging on. In most Board authorized engagement processes, issues will be explored and researched, people will be asked input on options and ideas, and then a staff recommendation to the Board for a decision (Appendix B) will be made.

B1. What decision is being made? Please be as specific as possible. Examples include: “Choosing the location of a new park or facility”, “introducing a new bylaw or regulation,” or “construction of new pipes and a pump station.”

B2. What is the context for this decision? Describe the history of this project or issue. What are the main opportunities? What areas will be most contentious? What past or planned future activities/policies are relevant and could affect this project? What legislative direction is there for this project? What technical constraints exist? Why is this engagement process happening now?

B3. What is the role of engagement? Please describe how engagement will impact the final decision being made. Over the course of your engagement project, your “ask” will vary depending on the project needs. Do you want to: Raise awareness? Identify potential issues, conflicts, or project benefits? Change attitudes or beliefs? Build support for a project? Build trust? Gain local insight and ideas? Evaluate options? Evaluate a program, policy, or service? Build support for implementation? Something else? How do those “asks” change by stakeholder or change over time?

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

19

B4. What is “off the table” for engagement? Please describe topics, issues, or decisions that are not open to engagement. This is important in order to manage the expectations of participants and explain where their feedback will have the most effect. Are there any other non-negotiables or constraints?

B5. What factors are driving your engagement timeline? Please describe any requirements, commitments, or realities that are driving the timeline for your engagement project. How have you considered engagement needs around school holidays, elections, or other times of year that are not appropriate for engagement?

B6. What does success look like? If the engagement process is successful, what will result from your process? For example, success may be: homeowners affected by the construction of a new reservoir will understand why the project is needed and will accept the construction impacts, even though they are directly affected. Or, a new policy or regulation is adopted that has strong support for implementation.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

20

B. PLAN – SCOPING PROJECTS & STAKEHOLDERS

Part 2 UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHEET

This worksheet will help you understand who to involve in your process. The various participants will have different information, logistical, and other engagement needs.

B7. Who is most affected by and interested in your project? Identify individuals and groups who are most interested in and most affected by the process. Who is not likely to participate, but would add value if they did? Please describe specific geographic, age, gender, economic, businesses, or other groups who need to be represented.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

21

The Public Engagement Policy defines ‘Public’ as “a broad grouping of residents and/or businesses and/or special interest groups”. Any member of the public interested in or potentially impacted by the project is considered a stakeholder. Possible stakeholders could include:

• individuals; • public interest groups (ethnic community associations, stewardship societies); • specific demographic groups (youth, seniors); • marginalized and hard-to-reach populations and/or their representative groups; • industry associations and individual industries; • scientific, professional, educational, and voluntary associations; • school boards; and • other jurisdictions, levels of governments and their agencies, such as public health agencies.

The following table shows an example plan for stakeholder engagement.

Name Sector How to reach Potential Barrier(s)? Local Homeowners

Individuals One-on-one meetings, phone calls, mail-drop flyers, neighbourhood signs, Community Liaison Officer contacts

Working around their availability, explaining “what’s in it for them” to participate.

Assisted Living Facility

Seniors Make a presentation during lunch at the facility

Account for people with vision or hearing impairment in presentation.

Trucking Representative

Industry Associations

Breakfast stakeholder meeting; present at existing Board meeting; phone calls; webinar

May require plenty of advance time to schedule a meeting.

Immigrant Services Organization

Public Interest Group

Set up introductory meeting to explain project and organization’s role; keep organization updated and request they share materials with member groups.

May require translated materials and translation facilitators at events.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

22

C. CONNECT – ENGAGEMENT METHODS

Part 1 ENGAGEMENT PLANNING TIPS & CONSIDERATIONS

This resource offers examples of tools and techniques that you may want to use in your engagement process. They are sorted into the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum levels to show which tools support informing stakeholders versus which tools better support a dialogue with stakeholders. Consult

At this level, communication becomes a two-way exchange. When you consult, you raise awareness, share information about your project, and provide opportunities for feedback. Your goal is to gather feedback to inform your decisions, and you are not necessarily committing to using all the feedback. Your commitment to the public is to keep them informed, listen to and acknowledge their ideas, and “close the loop” on how input influenced the decision being made. This level of engagement is appropriate when technical solutions are clear and routine. Example “consult” tools include:

• Open Houses: display boards, exhibits, unstructured discussions or conversations. • Town Hall / Public Meetings: Information sessions, Question and Answer sessions. • Survey: telephone/online/intercept survey or research poll that is demographically

representative. • Questionnaire: Hard copy paper or online questionnaire that participants opt-in to take (not

necessarily demographically representative). • Email or Mail: Input link on website to receive letters. • Small Sessions: Interviews, One-on-One meetings, moderated small discussions or focus groups. • Experts: Panel presentations, Moderated discussion after a presentation.

Involve

The involve level adds iteration to the engagement process; at this level you are committing to demonstrating that you understand public concerns and have considered them. Over multiple stages, you need to show what you heard in the process, how that input was used and was not used (and why), and what the next step is. At each step, there is an opportunity to go deeper with participants to explore past their positions on issues and better understand the personal values that drive their decision-making. At this level you do commit to developing and gathering input on options/alternatives that reflect public input from a previous engagement step. This level of engagement is appropriate when there is no clear solution to an issue.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

23

Example “involve” tools include:

• Workshops: Interactive working sessions, small group brainstorming, World Café, and other small group, dialog-based engagement methods.

• Charrettes: An intensive structured design-first workshops that bring in designers, engineers, planners, and other cross-disciplinary experts to design options and alternatives with stakeholders over the course of one to five days.

Collaborate

When you collaborate, you commit to partnering with the public on each aspect of decision-making. This can include designing the engagement process with the public to ensure that it will be effective. At the collaboration level, you commit to incorporating advice and recommendations to the maximum extent possible. This level of engagement is appropriate when the scope and definition of the issue is unclear, meaning that there is also no clear solution.

• Consensus Building and Participatory Decision Making: inclusion of consensus-building facilitation techniques into groups, meetings, panels, and workshops.

• Advisory Committee or Task Force: Ongoing engagement of stakeholders through an advisory committee that has some authority over the design of the engagement process, definition of deliverables, and oversight of deliverables and the process.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

24

D. REPORT BACK TO STAKEHOLDERS

Part 1 WORKSHEET

This resource outlines how to approach the engagement summary and report back. Information about reporting to Boards and Committees is included in Appendices A and B. Closing the loop with participants is a fundamental part of any engagement process. This lets people know you are listening, that their time was well-spent, and their input is being used to influence decisions. While specific reporting requirements will vary depending on the type of project, an engagement summary report should:

• Describe the activities before, during, and after the engagement process; • Identify how the process contributed to the project; • Provide a summary of key ideas and priorities that emerged including, themes, and trends in the

data; and • Explain how feedback was incorporated.

If you are reporting out to a Metro Vancouver Board through a Committee, once the Committee agenda package is posted online, advise stakeholders of the meeting date, location, time, provide a link to the agenda package, and information on how to sign-up as a speaker. For issues that have a high degree of stakeholder interest, you may also consider advising stakeholders when the Board agenda package is published including the same information plus the time by which speakers must submit delegation requests. D1. How has the feedback from participants been incorporated into the project?

D2. Who needs to know the outcome and decisions of this engagement process?

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

25

D3. How will the findings from the engagement process be shared and in what format? (e.g. online, electronic or printed report, detailed or summary document).

D4. What findings will be presented? Are there any findings that are potentially controversial or newsworthy? How well is the decision being made aligning with public input? What hasn’t been addressed and why? Are there any ways to simplify the report-back so that key findings stand out?

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

26

E. EVALUATE – PROCESS EVALUATION

WORKSHEET

This resource provides strategic questions to consider when designing an engagement process, so that you have the tools to evaluate the process at key points. Evaluation helps ensure that our projects are efficient and effective. It also provides us the opportunity to try new things, learn from mistakes, and improve our engagement practices as individuals and as an organization. At the beginning of your process, you should discuss with your team what success looks like. Then, develop some evaluation metrics so that you can check in during and after the process to see if you are on track. Evaluation typically happens at four key points:

• At process design: ensure that the results you wish to achieve can be observed and measured. • At each event and input opportunity: include a feedback form for attendees and make time for

a quick debrief with staff at the end of the event. • At the end of each engagement phase: Conduct a formal evaluation across the team (including

Project Managers, event and support staff, communications and decision makers). Take note of challenges and update your plan accordingly for the next phase of engagement.

• At the end of the project: Conduct a formal evaluation across the team (including Project Managers, event and support staff, communications and decision makers). Save helpful resources and processes in a central location, so that you have templates, checklists, and other materials ready for your next engagement project.

The list of questions below can be used to evaluate your process: E1. How did public input affect the decision being made?

What feedback was incorporated and why? What feedback was not incorporated and why? How did you communicate this to participants?

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

27

E2. What were the original goals for the engagement? Did the team achieve what it set out to do? This is easy to answer when you take a moment early on to ensure that the results you wish to achieve can be observed and measured.

E3. Were all affected staff, stakeholders, and members of the public reached? If not, why? Did participants receive a report back on how their input was used?

E4. Were the engagement tools and approaches effective? How does your data demonstrate this?

E5. Were participants satisfied with the process?

How does your data demonstrate this?

E6. Were the key issues addressed?

What issues or challenges emerged and how could they have been prevented?

E7. Were the Metro Vancouver Engagement Principles demonstrated in each step of the process?

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

28

Appendix A Reports Seeking Authorization

This section is intended to give direction on producing reports for Committee and Board consideration that seek authorization to proceed with an engagement process.

A.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The aim of these types of reports is to inform elected officials of relevant information related to the project or initiative and receive approval to proceed with the engagement process in the way described in the report. Generally, reports seeking authorization to proceed with an engagement process will outline the key issues surrounding the project or initiative, explain why engagement is necessary, describe how input from the public will be used, and define the proposed scope (e.g., timeframe) and methods of the engagement process. The tools and worksheets contained in this guide will assist you in developing this information. This type of report does not necessarily need to be a standalone report, but could be part of a larger overall report. For example, a report seeking authorization to proceed with engagement on amendments to an existing bylaw would also describe the history of the bylaw, why amendments are necessary, and describe possible amendment options. This report can also be used in communications to those being engaged.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

29

A.2 REPORT SEEKING AUTHORIZATION GUIDE For more direction on putting together a committee report, refer to the Guidelines on Report Writing Format. Include the following information in your committee report seeking authorization to proceed with an engagement process. Insert these sections into the Report Template. RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD/MVHC/GVWD/GVS&DD Board approve the scope of the proposed <Name of Project or Initiative> and authorize staff to proceed with the engagement process as presented in the report dated Month Day, Year, titled “<Name of Project or Initiative> – Public Engagement Process”. PURPOSE To seek approval of the scope of the <Name of Project or Initiative> and to receive authorization to begin engagement on the project/initiative. BACKGROUND • Outline why this project or initiative is being brought forward now (e.g. board motion, committee

work plan, Board Strategic Plan), some examples are included below • Briefly summarize relevant background information on the project or initiative, such as how the

project or initiative arose, when a plan/Bylaw or strategy first came into effect, the changes being proposed and why they are needed etc.

• End this section: “This report presents the scope of the <Name of Project or Initiative> for approval, along with a proposed engagement process that allows stakeholders to provide input on the <project or initiative>.

At the November 25, 2016 meeting of the GVS&DD Board, the following motion was passed:

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

Initiating consultation on potential regulatory mechanisms to reduce emissions from indoor residential wood burning was identified as a priority action in the Climate Action Committee’s 2017 work plan. The Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan directs staff to “identify the key threats to the region’s air quality and their sources, and pursue appropriate means for reducing or eliminating identified threats.”

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

30

<NAME OF PROJECT OR INITIATIVE> • Describe the project or initiative in as much detail as is necessary • Give relevant background information e.g. describe current practices, the changes that are being

proposed and why they are needed • Subheadings may be required if certain issue areas need to be explained further ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Metro Vancouver is committed to engaging with stakeholders that have the potential to be impacted by <project or initiative> and approaches engagement in a manner that incorporates feedback from stakeholders into project plans where possible. Metro Vancouver will provide a variety of forums, listed below, to learn about stakeholders’ interests and concerns related to the <project or initiative>. This information will inform the <project or initiative> and be reported back at the end of the process along with staff recommendations. Scope of the Engagement Metro Vancouver will be seeking input on the following aspects of the <project or initiative>

• Bullet the areas you are seeking input on or describe in paragraph format (e.g. bylaw requirements, parkland uses, building design and impacts on a neighbourhood etc.). Be as specific as possible.

Stakeholders Staff have identified the following stakeholders who may be impacted by, or have an interest in, the project or initiative.

• Use a bulleted list for when stakeholders consist of specific groups or use a paragraph format to describe more broadly the groups that will be engaged

Methods and Timing In order to engage with the identified stakeholders, the following methods are being proposed as part of the engagement strategy:

Method Purpose Timing

Insert detail Insert detail Insert detail

Insert detail Insert detail Insert detail

The methods included below are provided as an example:

Metro Vancouver website Provide up to date information about the engagement process

Ongoing beginning Spring 2018

Letter/Email notification and updates

Provide notification that engagement is beginning, provide information on

Spring 2018 Summer 2018 Fall 2018

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

31

Method Purpose Timing

opportunities to engage, deliver updates on what we heard

Winter 2018

Working group Provide an opportunity for in-depth regular discussions with key stakeholders

Spring 2018 – Winter 2018 (quarterly meetings)

Multi-lingual focus groups Provide an opportunity for education and engagement for those stakeholders that are not comfortable conversing in English

Summer 2018

Online survey Provide a quick and easy option for stakeholder who wish to participate remotely

Fall / Winter 2018

Site visits/interviews Provide an opportunity for in-person education and engagement during visits

Fall / Winter 2018

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • Begin: “If the Board/Committee approves alternative one…” • Identify whether the alternative is included in the budget, and under which function, division or

program budget • Where applicable, reference the function that will be financially impacted by the alternative • Where applicable, reference the household impact • Separate the cost of the project/initiative from the cost of carrying out the engagement process • If alternative two is to provide alternate direction to staff, indicate that further analysis may be

required to determine the resulting financial impacts SUMMARY / CONCLUSION • Repeat the purpose of the report, including why the report is coming forward now • Summarize the main points of the report in the context of the alternatives • End by recommending alternative one Attachments Appropriate attachments include discussion papers or other relevant background information.

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

32

Appendix B Reports Describing Results

This section is intended to give direction on producing reports for Committee and Board consideration that report back on the results of an engagement process.

B.1 REPORT PURPOSE Primarily, reports that describe the results of an engagement process should give elected officials an accurate summation of what was heard from the public. Generally, reports of this nature need to do three things:

• Describe the engagement process that was undertaken, including what was asked; • Outline what was heard, using sufficient detail; and, • Describe how this input will affect the project or initiative going forward.

Depending on what was heard from the public, the report may confirm the existing direction of the initiative proposed by staff; recommend minor or major changes to the initiative; or recommend further engagement with a redefined scope. In each of these instances it is important to communicate the rationale for the recommendation being made to committee. “Issues/Response Tables” or “Issues/Communication Trackers” can be a useful attachment for giving Board and Committee members a sense of the breadth of feedback that was received and how Metro Vancouver staff are responding to the issues, comments or questions that are raised by the public. An example issues response table is included below.

Figure 1: Issues response table for Preliminary Consultation on a Residential Wood Smoke Regulation for Metro Vancouver

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

33

B.2 REPORT DESCRIBING RESULTS GUIDE Include the following information in your committee report describing the results of an engagement process. Insert these sections into the Report Template. RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD/MVHC/GVWD/GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated Month Day, Year, titled “<Project Name/Initiative> – Public Engagement Results.

• Or another recommendation if authorization from Board/Committee is required for next steps for the project or initiative.

PURPOSE To communicate the results of the public engagement on <Name of Project or Initiative>.

BACKGROUND At the <date> meeting of the MVRD/MVHC/GVWD/GVS&DD Board, the following motion was passed:

That the MVRD/MVHC/GVWD/GVS&DD Board approve the scope of the proposed <Name of Project or Initiative> and authorize staff to proceed with the engagement process as presented in the report dated Month Day, Year, titled “Report Title”.

The engagement process has now concluded and this report communicates the engagement results.

• Include any other additional relevant background information on the project or initiative ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK • List the engagement methods, the engagement period, stakeholders, and the approximate

number of participants • Summarize the feedback received (could be in bullet point) • Describe how the input received will influence the project or initiative <ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT TOPICS AS NEEDED> • If a particular topic needs to be elaborated on, use additional sections of the report to go

deeper into the issues that were identified and possible responses to concerns raised FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • If the report is not just to be received for information, begin: "If the Board/Committee

approves alternative one..." • Identify whether the alternative is included in the budget, and under which function,

division or program budget • If a direction is proposed for the project or initiative as a result of the engagement

process, identify any changes to fees or operating costs that may arise, and the impact that may have on the public or other stakeholders

Utilities Committee

Public Engagement Guide: A Guide for Metro Vancouver Staff

34

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION • Repeat the purpose and summarize the main points of the report. Attachments Appropriate attachments include issues response tables, a summary of engagement activities, or consultant’s reports.

Utilities Committee