Meeting 3 of 6 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD ...€¦ · GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL...

July 3, 2015

Added

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGULAR BOARD MEETING Friday, July 3, 2015

9:00 A.M. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

Membership and Votes

R E V I S E D A G E N D A1

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. July 3, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda

That the GVRD Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 3, 2015 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. June 12, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held June 12, 2015 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

1. Karen Goodings, Director Electoral Area “B”, Peace River Regional District 2. Brad Sperling, Director, Electoral Area “C”, Peace River Regional District 3. Joe Foy, National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee 4. Rob Botterell, Associate Counsel, Lidstone & Company 5. Anders Kruus, Canadian Geothermal Energy Association 6. Wendy Holm, Bowen Island, B.C. 7. D. Lynn Chapman, Roberts Creek, B.C. 8. Mayor Gwen Johannson, District of Hudson’s Hope 9. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs 10. Dr. Elaine Golds, Education-Conservation Chair, Burke Mountain Naturalists

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

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

Meeting 3 of 6

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 1

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/membership/board-members/Pages/RD.aspx

GVRD Board Agenda June 3, 2015

Agenda of 3

E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1. CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.1 University of British Columbia – “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and

Climate Change Community Planning” Project That the GVRD Board approve continued funding for the project titled, “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning” in the amount of: a) $30,000 in 2015, contingent upon receiving confirmation that additional

partners have contributed funding as described in the report titled “University of British Columbia - Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning”, dated May 27, 2015; and

b) an additional $30,000 in 2016, contingent upon the confirmation of partner funding noted in (a) above and the submission of a progress report to the Climate Action Committee by June 2016 along with a review of project progress by Metro Vancouver staff with input from relevant municipal staff.

1.2 Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress in 2014

That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 4, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress in 2014”.

2. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS

2.1 Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy

That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy as presented in the report titled “Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy”, dated June 11, 2015.

2.2 Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy as amended in the report dated June 5, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”.

2.3 Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project

That the GVRD Board write a letter to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the construction and development of the Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.

3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORTS


GVRD Board Agenda June 3, 2015

Agenda of 3

3.1 Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report May 2015 That the GVRD Board receive for information the following reports from Metro Vancouver representatives to external organizations: a) Agricultural Advisory Committee Status Report b) Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report c) Experience the Fraser Project Update d) Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC – Activities

for the period of November 2014 – April 2015 e) Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period October 1, 2014 to May 31,

2015 as contained in the report dated June 3, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report May 2015”.

3.2 Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee June 2015

That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 22, 2015 titled Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee June 2015 containing summaries received from the following delegates: a) Matt Hulse, BC Campaign Director, Our Horizon

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

1. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.1 GVRD Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw 1221 That the GVRD Board: a) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District

Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”. b) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and

Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”. H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN I. OTHER BUSINESS J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item the basis must be included below.

L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the GVRD Board adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of July 3, 2015.


Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, June 12, 2015 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:21 a.m. on Friday, June 12, 2015 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Director John Becker, Pitt Meadows Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Karl Buhr, Lions Bay Director Mike Clay, Port Moody Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Charlie Fox, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Craig Hodge, Coquitlam Director Lois Jackson, Delta (arrived at 9:25 a.m.) Director Kerry Jang, Vancouver Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Alternate Director Vera LeFranc, Surrey for Bruce Hayne Alternate Director Michael Lewis, West Vancouver for Michael Smith Director Mary Martin, Surrey Director John McEwen, Anmore Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Maureen Nicholson, Bowen Island Alternate Director Angie Quaale, Langley Township for Bob Long Director Nicole Read, Maple Ridge Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Rudy Storteboom, Langley City Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Bryce Williams, Tsawwassen

Section B 1



MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Heather Deal, Vancouver STAFF PRESENT: Phil Trotzuk, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services Chris Plagnol, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer, Legal and Legislative

Services A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. June 12, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 12, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. May 15, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held May 15, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented. D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented. E. CONSENT AGENDA

At the request of Directors, the following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under Section F. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda: 2.1 2016 GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund Applications 4.1 BC Transportation and Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act

(Bill 2) – Overview and Analysis 3.1 Correspondence on a Regional Pilot Project to Prevent Illegal Fill Deposition



It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the June 12, 2015 GVRD Board Consent Agenda: 1.1 Electoral Area A Advisory Planning Commission Structure – Issues and Options 3.2 2015 Metro Vancouver Agriculture Awareness Grant Recommendations 5.1 Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – May 2015

CARRIED Director Jang absent at the vote.

The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

1.1 Electoral Area A Advisory Planning Commission Structure – Issues and Options

Report dated May 4, 2015 from Marcin Pachcinski, Division Manager, Electoral Area and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to review options related to the ongoing role and structure of the Electoral Area A Advisory Planning Commission (EAAAPC) including undertaking community engagement activities and advertising for EAAAPC members for the 2015‐17 term. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) direct staff to undertake community engagement activities with Electoral

Area A communities; and b) direct staff to proceed with advertising for Electoral Area A Advisory

Planning Commission members for the 2015‐17 term. Adopted on Consent

3.2 2015 Metro Vancouver Agriculture Awareness Grant Recommendations

Report dated April 30, 2015 from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider the allocation of $40,000 in Agriculture Awareness Grants to ten non‐profit organizations in 2015. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the allocation of the 2015 Metro Vancouver Agriculture Awareness Grants to the following eleven non‐profit organizations, as described in the report dated April 30, 2015, titled “2015 Metro Vancouver Agriculture Awareness Grant Recommendations”: a) BC Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation for the “Take a Bite of BC”

project for the amount of $5,000; b) BC Association of Farmers’ Markets for the “Farmers Appreciation Week” in

the amount of $4,034; c) BC Chicken Growers’ Association for the “Poultry in Motion Educational

Mini Barn” project for the amount of $5,000;



d) Centre for Sustainable Food Systems at UBC Farm for the “Local Agriculture for Public Institutions: Raising farm‐to‐institution awareness in Metro Vancouver” project for the amount of $2,966;

e) Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust for the “Day at the Farm” event for the amount of $3,000;

f) Earthwise Society for the “Tomato Festival” event in the amount of $2,500; g) Growing Chefs! Chefs for Children’s Urban Agriculture for the “Growing

Chefs! Classroom Gardening Program” for the amount of $4,000; h) Haney Farmers Market Society for the “The Market Goes to the Farm”

project for the amount of $500; i) Langley Environmental Partners Society for the “Langley Eats Local” project

for the amount of $5,000; j) North Shore Neighbourhood House for the “Strong Roots and Fresh Starts”

project for the amount of $5,000; and k) The Sharing Farm Society for the “7th Annual Garlic Festival” for the

amount of $3,000. Adopted on Consent

5.1 Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – May 2015

Report dated May 29, 2015 from Kelly Hardy, Office Supervisor, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services, providing the Board with information related to delegations received at Committee in May 2015. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated May 29, 2015 titled Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – May 2015 containing summaries received from the following delegates: a) Councillor Colleen Jordan, City of Burnaby.

Adopted on Consent F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

2.1 2016 GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund Applications Report dated April 29, 2015 from Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist, Planning, Policy and Environment, summarizing the staff evaluation of applications from the GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund (SIF), and seeking GVRD Board approval for allocation of SIF funds to five projects, some with multi‐year funding requests, totalling $130,000 in 2015, $430,000 in 2016, and $135,000 in 2017.

9:25 a.m. Director Jackson arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board approve the allocation of funding from the GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund to the following projects: a) Restoration of Degraded Areas within Burns Bog Ecological Conservation

Area: $80,000 in 2016 and $35,000 in 2017;



b) Roof to Creek Natural Drainage and Habitat Learning Landscape: $100,000 in 2016;

c) The Drive Smart Study: $100,000 in 2016; d) Strata Energy Advisor: $50,000 in 2015; $50,000 in 2016 and $100,000 in

2017; e) Metro Vancouver Grow Green: $40,000 in 2015 and $40,000 in 2016; and f) Home Energy Labelling Program Pilot: $40,000 in 2015 and $60,000 in 2016.

CARRIED

3.1 Correspondence on a Regional Pilot Project to Prevent Illegal Fill Deposition Report dated May 4, 2015 from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the Regional Planning Committee with the opportunity to review a draft letter to municipal members regarding illegal fill on agricultural land in response to the Committee’s request at its meeting of April 24, 2015. In response to a question, members were informed that Barnston Island will be included in the letter sent to member municipalities. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board send a letter to member municipalities requesting their participation in a regional pilot project to prevent illegal fill deposition, as described in the report dated May 4, 2015, titled, “Correspondence on a Regional Pilot Project to Prevent Illegal Fill Deposition”.

CARRIED

4.1 BC Transportation and Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act (Bill 2) – Overview and Analysis Report dated May 24, 2015 from Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an overview and analysis of the BC Transportation and Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act, a provincial law that came into force on May 21, 2015, and exploring the implications of the Act for TransLink assets, including those that were acquired in whole or in part using regional gas tax funds. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated May 24, 2015, titled “BC Transportation and Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act (Bill 2) – Overview and Analysis”.

CARRIED



G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

1.1 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the Township of Langley ‐ Latimer Report dated April 30, 2015 from Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider a proposed Type 3 minor amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) for two sites in the Latimer area as requested by the Township of Langley. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the Metro Vancouver 2040 amendment process for the Township

of Langley’s proposed amendments for the two Latimer sites; b) Give first and second readings to “Greater Vancouver Regional District

Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1222, 2015”; and c) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver

2040: Shaping our Future section 6.4.2. CARRIED

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

1. Direct Coal Transfer Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks Director Villeneuve provided the following Notice of Motion on June 1, 2015 for consideration at the June 12, 2015 GVRD Board meeting:

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board write to Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks indicating:

that Metro Vancouver continues its opposition to coal shipments from the Fraser River Estuary other than the existing Robert Banks coal port;

that member municipalities including the City of Richmond, the Corporation of Delta, the City of New Westminster and the City of Surrey have all expressed significant concerns with the proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility at Surrey Fraser Docks, and that their concerns still remain unresolved;

that member municipalities including the City of Richmond, the Corporation of Delta, the City of New Westminster and the City of Surrey have all expressed significant concerns with the proposed application amendment being contemplated by Fraser Surrey Docks;

that the preliminary consultation period on the proposed application amendment provided by Fraser Surrey Docks was inadequate;

that should Port Metro Vancouver receive the proposed application amendment, a further 3‐week consultation period as proposed by Port



Metro Vancouver is inadequate, and that Port Metro Vancouver should establish two consultation periods. o the first being a consultation period on the application in advance of

the various supporting studies being undertaken. This consultation period should for a minimum of 6‐weeks and include public information meetings within the communities potentially impacted by this amendment, namely the City of Richmond, the Corporation of Delta, the City of New Westminster and the City of Surrey; and

o the second being a consultation period following the completion of all of the various supporting studies being undertaken. This consultation period should for a minimum of 6‐weeks and include public information meetings within the communities potentially impacted by this amendment, namely the City of Richmond, the Corporation of Delta, the City of New Westminster and the City of Surrey; and

that the Human Health Risk Assessment be completed based on a Terms of Reference supported by the chief medical health officers of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority.

CARRIED

I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

No items presented. K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

No items presented. L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting)

No items presented. M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board conclude its regular meeting of June 12, 2015.

CARRIED (Time: 10:01 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

Greg Moore, Chair

11469188 FINAL


GVRD BOARD ON TABLE ITEMS SECTION C

Delegation requests re: GVRD Item 2.3: Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project

C 1 Karen Goodings, Director Electoral Area “B”, Peace River Regional District

Speaking on behalf of residents of Electoral Area “B”, Peace River Regional District

C 2 Brad Sperling, Director, Electoral Area “C”, Peace River Regional District

Speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of Electoral Area “C”, Peace River Regional District

C 3 Joe Foy, National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee

Speaking on behalf of the Wilderness Committee

C 4 Rob Botterell, Associate Counsel, Lidstone & Company

Speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of Peace Valley Landowner Association

C 5 Anders Kruus, Canadian Geothermal Energy Association

Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (delegated by the Chair of

the organization, Alison Thompson, who is unable to attend)

C 6 Wendy Holm, Bowen Island, B.C

Speaking on her own behalf as a Professional Agrologist

C 7 D. Lynn Chapman, Roberts Creek, BC

Resident of Roberts Creek, BC

C 8 Mayor Gwen Johannson, District of Hudson’s Hope

Speaking on behalf of the District of Hudson’s Hope

C 9 Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

Speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

C 10 Dr. Elaine Golds, Education‐Conservation Chair, Burke Mountain Naturalists

Speaking on behalf of Burke Mountain Naturalists, Coquitlam, BC

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 10-1

Karen Goodings – Speaking notes – July 3rd, 2015 meeting of the GVRD Board Good morning, thank you for allowing me an opportunity to speak to you about the concerns of the

Peace River Regional District (PRRD) electoral area “B” as it pertains to the need for an independent

review of both the costs and the need to build this 8.8 BILLION dollar project.

A Joint Environmental Assessment hearing was held to examine Site C. When the Joint Review Panel

(JRP) released their paper pertaining to Site C they made many recommendations. Three of those were

of particular interest to the residents of the Peace River Regional District as they spoke of the need for

an independent review to take place through the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC).

At the May 15th, 2014 meeting of the PRRD the regional district board unanimously resolved: “That a letter be forwarded to the Premier of BC requesting that the British Columbia Utilities Commission be involved in the Site C Clean Energy Project approval process, in keeping with several recommendations of the Site C Clean Energy Joint Review Panel and in the interest of open and transparent decision making.” At the June 26th, 2014 meeting the PRRD unanimously passed the following motion: “That the Regional District’s response to the JRP Secretariat reiterate the Regional District’s position that the Joint Review Panel recommendations be followed with respect to utilizing the BCUC process, including transparency and the ability for cross‐examination under oath.” In a letter dated September 15th 2014 Minister Bennett’s response clearly stated the provincial governments support to build Site C and that, as decision makers, they did not need any further examination. In our response to Minister Bennett, dated November 18th 2014, we made it clear, once again, that it is in the interest of taxpayers across the Province that the single largest debt to be undertaken by the province (should they choose to proceed) needs to be a decision based on proven cost analysis and proven need. We went on to say that “there is need for further research into energy efficient geothermal and wind energy.” The PRRD Board also stated that a one year moratorium would allow adequate time for the inquiry and public hearing to proceed. Then on April 8th 2015 the government passed Order‐In‐Council #148, which arbitrarily removed land in the Peace River Valley from the Agricultural Land reserve. These are the food producing lands that would be flooded by Site C and compare in growing capability to the Fraser Valley. When made aware of OIC #148, the PRRD Board submitted a late resolution to the North Central Local Government Association (NCLGA) to request the Province rescind OIC #148. The enactment clause stated:

GVRD Board Delegation C 1


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of BC be requested to rescind Order in Council #148 until there has been adequate public input and respect shown for the legal requirements required to apply for removal of lands from the ALR. The motion passed and is now forwarded to UBCM for further discussion. As the elected representative of Area “B” and as a long‐time resident of the Peace region of British Columbia I believe it is important to make sure that an independent review of the single most costly project ever proposed by the provincial government receives the appropriate scrutiny. I request that you pass the motion placed on your agenda today to write a letter requesting Premier Christy Clark place a moratorium on the construction and development of Site C Dam and that this project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consideration.


Metro Vancouver board resolution regarding Site C Dam project

Brad Sperling, Director Area C

Application to present

Agenda item end report 2.0 and 2.3

Delegation: Brad Sperling, Peace River regional district speaking on behalf on myself and Electoral

Area C

Contact: [email protected]

Interest and request: I represent the area that the Site C Dam is located in, but I’m not asking to speak

to the impacts or the concerns that this project has on our area. But rather the message that we will be

sending to future generations and governments if this project is allowed to proceed without due process

and consultation (BCUC, ALC). A process built over decades of government to protect the people,

resources, and future of this province. We need to ensure that these rights are safeguarded.



Date of submission ‐‐ July 3, 2015

By Joe Foy – National Campaign Director – Wilderness Committee, Cell tel: 604‐880‐2580 Office tel: 604‐

683‐8220 Email: [email protected]

The following is a short summary of my 5 minute submission that I propose to present at the Metro

Vancouver Board meeting on July 3, 2015

I will speak in support of the INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT – 2.3 Burrard

Thermal and Site C Dam Project ‐‐ motion “That Metro Vancouver write a letter to the Honourable

Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the construction and

development of Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed project be referred to the

British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.”

I represent the Wilderness Committee, a federally registered non‐profit environmental organization. We

were formed in 1980 and currently have over 60,000 members and supporters. Our head office is in

Vancouver with field offices in Victoria, Winnipeg and Toronto. Our mission is to protect Canada’s wild

nature.

The Wilderness Committee has been involved in many successful public education campaigns aiming to

protect wild nature, including regions with high biodiversity values and endangered wildlife populations.

Starting in 2008 we began to study the issue of private run of river hydro projects being proposed for

creeks and rivers all over BC.

During the course of our campaign to protect BC’s wild rivers, we discovered that BC already has access

to more than enough hydro power than it needs, and that the BC government’s policies to purchase

expensive private hydro‐power in long‐term contracts seemed destined to drown BC Hydro in a tsunami

of debt. As we understand it there are now in excess of $40 billion dollars of long term energy purchase

agreements signed with private power companies for electrical energy that BC can’t use and can only

sell at a loss.

One might wonder what the public watch‐dog, the BC Utilities Commission had to say about these

money‐losing private hydro‐power contracts. The answer is nothing. The BCUC was not allowed by

Victoria to review the private hydro‐power contracts to see if they are in the public interest. (They

aren’t).

Now the same thing is being done with the $8 billion and rising Site C Dam Project. Victoria is adamant –

Site C will not be reviewed by the BCUC. This is just plain wrong. Shame on us if we allow this ruination

of BC Hydro to continue.

The matter becomes even more urgent when the impact on the environment is taken into account. The

flooding of more than 100 kilometres of valley bottom lands – some of it prime agricultural land and the

loss of critical valley‐bottom wildlife habitat is a huge impact – and would be on any landscape. Imagine



flooding from Fort Langley out to Chilliwack and you get the idea. All of this for hydro‐power that BC

cannot use, because we already have more than enough at our disposal.

The impact of the Site C Dam on Treaty 8 tribal lands, that have been hit hard by previous dams as well

as the damage done by the oil and gas industry, would be devastating to the environment that the

people rely upon for food, shelter and spiritual purposes. Taking away the ability to access wildlife and

fish to feed the people is an assault on their basic human rights. If there were a prize for the most dis‐

honourable Canadian mega‐project currently being proposed – Site C would surely be a contender.

These are a summary of the reasons the Wilderness Committee is speaking in favour of the motion.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ROB BOTTERELL PRESENTATION TO GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD

Presenter

Rob Botterell, Lidstone & Company, on his own behalf and on behalf of Peace Valley Landowner Association.

Agenda Item and Report:

2. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT2.3 Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam ProjectThat the GVRD Board write a letter to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the construction and development of the Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.

Financial Implications

The decision on the biggest infrastructure project in BC history has financial implications for all of BC including Metro Vancouver and its taxpayers and ratepayers:

• McCullough Report says assumptions out of date and renewable portfolio with updatedassumptions could cut cost in half.

• Adopting a lower cost option will reduce the Site C electricity rate increase for Metro ratepayerswhich is on top of the 28% increase already announced.

• Adopting a lower cost option will increase the province’s “borrowing room” available to fundimportant Metro infrastructure projects that are not in the provincial borrowing forecast.

• It is not prudent to bet the farm on one solution.• A two year delay will save $200 million and allow time for further review.

May 26 Letter to Hon. Premier Christy Clark from Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA)

Urgent request to Premier Clark to delay the Summer 2015 start of Site C dam construction for at least 2 years to:

• save BC ratepayers $200 million dollars,• fully respect Site C-‐related court processes now underway,• allow time for BC Auditor General Carol Bellringer to consider a finance performance audit of

the Site C final investment decision process, and• address the very disturbing findings of respected energy economist Robert McCullough

regarding the Site C business case through an open, expert and independent review of the Site Cbusiness case with full procedural safeguards.

Contrary to BC Hydro statements, a 2 year delay will save ratepayers at least $200 million

BC Hydro’s own analysis shows that delaying the Site C project for 2 years will result in gross savings estimated at $317 million, whether or not Site C ultimately proceeds. This is because surplus Site C power must be exported at a loss until Site C’s full 5,100 GWh are needed. After adjusting for the present value of other costs of delay, the net savings to BC ratepayers of a 2-‐year delay will be approximately $200 million. A longer delay will very likely generate higher net savings to BC ratepayers.



Independent Expert Robert McCullough -‐ Site C Likely Twice the Cost of Alternative Portfolio Contrary to the statements of Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, Site C is likely twice the cost of other energy options1. In his May 25th, 2015 report, Mr. McCullough concludes:

While the cost and choice of options deserve further analysis, the simple conclusion is that Site C is more expensive – dramatically so – than the renewable/natural gas portfolios elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada. Our analysis indicates that the Site C portfolio may well be twice as costly as the renewable/natural gas portfolio adopted elsewhere. (emphasis added)

Moody’s -‐ BC Debt Burden High Compared to Aaa peers and Remains a Credit Negative2 If Site C proceeds instead of other less costly alternatives, the province will have much less borrowing room within its “credit limit” to support other key Metro Vancouver and other infrastructure projects. As Minister de Jong noted in a November 2014 interview with Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer:

“It (Site C) will likely crowd out many other projects”. Conclusion The final investment decision for the $8.8 billion Site C Project requires independent review. The Metro Board is an important voice on issues such as the Site C Dam. The interests of all taxpayers and ratepayers including those in Metro Vancouver will be impacted by Site C. As well, Metro’s interest in prudent provincial financial decisions and proper due diligence on major project decisions is engaged by Site C. For all of the reasons set out above, I urge you to approve the resolution on Site C.

June 28th, 2015

1 Importantly, BC Hydro has identified renewable/natural gas portfolios which make limited use of natural gas fired power generation to meet firm energy requirements and thereby comply with the Clean Energy Act. A 2 year delay will also allow time for further consideration of other viable firm capacity backup options, e.g., geothermal. 2 In March 2015, Moody’s reported that net provincial debt is estimated at $40.9 billion or 89.4% of revenues in 2014/2015 with planned capital spending of $18.6 billion for 2015/2016-2017/18. According to Moody’s, if the province’s net debt were to reach 95% of revenue, this would exert downward pressure on the Aaa rating.


Canadian Geothermal Energy Association -‐ P. O. Box 1462 St. M, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2L6 -‐ www.cangea.ca

CanGEA respectfully requests that the Metro Vancouver Board approve the resolution to write a letter to the Premier requesting a moratorium on the construction of Site C until the end of 2017.

The Site C Joint Review Panel (JRP):

The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, CanGEA, participated in the Joint Review Panel for the Site C Hydro project as an Interested Party. In December 2013, we provided oral testimony that was supported by a presentation given at the Fort St. John hearings.

The title of our presentation was deliberately chosen: “Geothermal Power, BC’s Hydro’s Inconvenient Truth”, as it became known to us that the resource option work on geothermal energy prepared by BC Hydro for its Integrated Resource Plan in favour of the Site C project, was presenting insufficient, out of date, and misleading data. This, at a time when a prior review of Site C by the BCUC had already directed BC Hydro to take a serious approach to investigating the geothermal alternative.

At the conclusion of the presentation, the Panel Chair, Harry Swain, directly asked BC Hydro what level of investment was being provided to investigating the geothermal energy option. BC Hydro’s Planning group responded that less than $100,000 had been directed towards this area. At the time, BC Hydro was in part referring to a jointly funded, along with Geoscience BC, mapping and resource estimate project that was underway with CanGEA but unfortunately not ready in time for the JRP’s consideration.

New Resource Option Data Not Considered by the Joint Review Panel:

As this geothermal information assembled by CanGEA was seen to be in the interests of the BC public in advance of a final investment decision by the Premier, CanGEA undertook to prepare, using publicly available data, a separate but similar project to the one BC Hydro and Geoscience BC initiated but did not publish. The British Columbia Geothermal Resource Estimate Maps were publicly released in late September 2014. They showed a plentiful hot sedimentary aquifer style geothermal resource in North East BC that was neither expensive to develop nor risky to find.

In fact, the natural gas companies have already largely delineated the resource and are in fact, in some cases, already producing the geothermal energy. What are lacking are the surface power generators to transform the hot produced fluid (natural gas and water) into an electrical energy form, geothermal power. Instead, this hot water geothermal resource is considered a waste and is disposed of.

The following information was not available to the Joint Review Panel:

1. In September 2013, the Ministry of Energy’s Senior Geologist, Geothermal Energy, published a studyin the peer-‐reviewed journal, Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, on the Clarke Lake Gas Field’s ability to “generate between 12 and 74 MW of electricity” from geothermal power projects. It should be noted that Clarke Lake is only one example of the hot sedimentary aquifers in the province.

2. Aforementioned British Columbia Geothermal Resource Estimate Maps, September 2014.

3. In November 2014, Geoscience BC issued an RFP to study the geothermal power prospects in BC.

4. In November of 2014, CanGEA published a report, “Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and CostEffective Alternative Site C”. This report laid out the 10 advantages that geothermal energy has over Site C, including having a lower capital investment requirement; ensuring lower province wide, future



Canadian Geothermal Energy Association -‐ P. O. Box 1462 St. M, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2L6 -‐ www.cangea.ca

transmission costs by building geothermal projects in areas that are in need of transmission upgrades or additional capacity, (this substantial benefit was not considered in the BC Hydro Site C assessment); more permanent jobs that would be distributed around the province, especially as a result of incorporating direct use of geothermal heat projects alongside power projects; significantly better environmental attributes; and the ability to build projects when the demand arose in the system, versus having one large hydro project come on-‐line.

5. In February 2015, CanGEA held a Technical Briefing and publicly shared the economics of producing power from BC’s low risk hot sedimentary aquifers. The lowest hanging fruit opportunities are projected to cost $56/MWh.

6. In June 2015, Geoscience BC issued an RFP to study the direct use of geothermal energy.

7. In June 2015, CanGEA held a workshop and shared the results of a capital modelling exercise that produced further economic information for 5 different MW sizes of plants, in 2 different geological settings (which BC has), for 3 different locations within the province. Projected power prices for 2 of the permitted and finance ready geothermal projects in the province are in the mid $70/MWh price range.

CanGEA is concerned that BC Hydro and the BC Government have not availed themselves of a fulsome debrief of newly completed studies and studies currently being prepared about the province’s geothermal energy resource. It is CanGEA’s wish to have this information openly reviewed in an independent and expert review of Site C options by the BCUC.

A Portfolio of Electricity Sources to Compare with Site C:

While CanGEA believes there is more than enough geothermal energy in the province to match the capacity and energy output of Site C, we are not advocating that geothermal energy be held up against Site C as a stand-‐alone option. We request instead, that geothermal power be optimized in a portfolio of renewable energy options, alongside expansions to existing large hydro projects and possibly natural gas power. In this scenario, only a limited amount of base-‐load geothermal energy would need to be developed in the province to present an alternative option to Site C.

More Permanent Jobs than Site C:

According to the US Department of Energy, when compared to large hydro projects in OECD countries, geothermal power projects generate 30% more manufacturing, construction, and installation jobs, and provide a 25% increase in operations and maintenance jobs. As a result, geothermal energy can be considered a sound choice with respect to job creation relative to the province's other primary means of electricity generation.

Conclusion:

Inclusion of information on the low environmental impact geothermal energy resource option, as a BCUC studied alternative to Site C, is a straightforward and achievable goal considering the recent work now available on projected economics of geothermal power, and the already de-‐risked hot sedimentary geothermal aquifer resource that has not just been identified, but is being produced today by the natural gas industry.


THE HOLM TEAM Agriculture Economics Journalism Trade Int’l Cooperation ________________________________________________________________________

292 Smuggler Cove Road, Bowen Island, B.C., Canada V0N 1G1 (604) 947-2893 (604) 417-2434 www.wendyholm.com [email protected]

Submission To The Metro Vancouver Board June 3, 2015

IN SUPPORT OF THE RESOLUTION REGARDING SITE C DAM PROJECT:

Together with colleague Eveline Wolterson (a soils Agrologist), I had the opportunity to provide expert testimony before the Joint Federal Provincial Panel on the implications of the proposed Site C dam for agriculture.

The Peace River Valley, with its highly productive alluvial soils and unique, class one climate for agriculture can produce the same range of crops as the Fraser Valley with, in many cases, higher yields due to long daylight in summer months.

This valley bottomland is extremely important to agriculture. The only area for large-scale horticulture expansion in the province, the soils to be flooded by the proposed Site C dam are capable of producing enough fresh vegetables to meet the nutritional requirements of more than 1 million people every year. In perpetuity.

BC imports over 55 % of the vegetables we consume that could be grown here. California, a major supplier of fresh vegetables to BC, is locked in unprecedented drought and is projected to “run out of water” within the year.

A recent study by Stats Canada showed fully ten percent of Canadian families with children are food insecure. This rises to one in four in single parent families. BC has the highest child poverty rate in Canada. In the northern part of our province, families already pay 3 to 4 times the price for a food basket compared with families in the Lower Mainland. Only fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables – the building blocks of human nutrition.

The fertile vegetable soils of the Peace River Valley are closer to Vancouver than California; substantially so for northern communities.

For so many reasons, the policy implications of this proposed project cry out for more rigorous review. The BC Utilities commission is the proper channel to begin that process.

I urge you to support this motion.



Executive Summary of Delegation by D Lynn Chapman July 3 2015.

I am not sure if the Board has reservations hearing from private citizens who are not Metro Vancouver residents. I would ask to be considered on the following grounds: I grew up in Vancouver near UBC so this is my “home town"; I have much of my immediate family (including a brand new grandson) living on the North Shore, Vancouver and Langley who will be impacted by this decision; I am a volunteer with PVEA, Peace Valley Environment Association, and am speaking with their blessing though not on their behalf. Additionally, I was involved with the Site C JRP process being one of very few private citizens from the South to speak to the Panel and was also a participant with Hydro’s last IRP process. !My comments follow: !‘Dereliction of Duty’: Chair of Site C Panel on B.C.’s Failure to Investigate Alternatives to Mega Dam !Of all people, Harry Swain, as Chair of the Joint Review Panel for Site C Dam had the best opportunity of anyone in the Province to fully consider the complexity and impacts of the proposed dam. It is unprecedented for a JRP Chair to speak out. One should take his comments seriously. [source] http://www.desmog.ca/2015/03/11/dereliction-duty-chair-site-c-panel-b-c-s-failure-investigate-alternatives-mega-dam !The Joint Review Panel said it clearly: "Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power, and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social, and other costs.” [source]: JRP Report p 308 http://www.ceaa-cee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/99173E.pdf

The case for building Site C Dam has not been made. This $8.9 Billion (minimum) project is much too costly for the citizens of British Columbia. It will create a massive public debt (a ratepayer funded "mortgage" on our future) for at least 70 years and lose an estimated $800 Million in its first several years of operation. It is also not clear when, if ever, it will break even. !Excerpt from the JRP Summary Statement "There are other economic considerations. The scale of the Project means that, if built on BC Hydro’s timetable, substantial financial losses would accrue for several years, accentuating the intergenerational pay-now, benefit-later effect. Energy conservation and end-user efficiencies have not been pressed as hard as possible in BC Hydro’s analyses. There are alternative sources of power available at similar or somewhat higher costs, notably geothermal power. These sources, being individually smaller than Site C, would allow supply to better follow demand, obviating most of the early-year losses of Site C. Beyond that, the policy constraints that the B.C. government has imposed on BC Hydro have made some other alternatives unavailable.” [source] from the JRP Summary Statement first page



http://www.desmog.ca/2015/03/11/dereliction-duty-chair-site-c-panel-b-c-s-failure-investigate-alternatives-mega-dam

http://www.ceaa-cee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/99173E.pdf

Executive Summary of Delegation by D Lynn Chapman July 3 2015.

Energy Policy and Alternatives: We need a better energy future for BC. New and emerging technologies mean there are better alternatives that are cheaper and that have a smaller footprint. The pace of change in energy provision in the next 25 years will be exponential. [source] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way-humans-get-electricity-is-about-to-change-forever Wise governments at all levels must recognize this reality and plan accordingly in the best interests of all citizens. !I believe it is time to re-envision BC Hydro, (perhaps as the BC Energy Corporation?) still as a crown corporation focussed on the public good. Hydro’s vision and empowering legislation no longer fits the times and economic environment of the society, and that it has failed to provide the best possible planning options for the public good. Today’s energy policy should include new, 3rd generation technology development as a core component but it does not. That in my view is a major reason we have the Site C Dam Proposal. Building Site C Dam is not an inspired or visionary solution to the energy problems we face in this province and we can do much better IF we are given that opportunity. !Lost Opportunity Costs: The lost opportunities costs of the Site C Dam derive in part from Hydro’s failure to identify, develop, support or incorporate in it’s planning, the potential for technological innovation. This is short term thinking.

Lost Opportunity? Developing carbon neutral technologies that could create the sustainable “green” economy and “green” jobs BC so desperately needs and without which we cannot prosper. This would be a far better use of our money.

Lost Opportunity?: The ability to more fully and accurately understand and account for what will be lost if the rich biodiversity of the Peace River Vally and its ecosystem services and functions are destroyed by Site C Dam.

The impacts of these lost opportunities are not confined to the people of the Peace River Valley. I and all other British Columbians will bear the costs whether we know it or not. Loss of prime agricultural land and it’s food security capability hurts us all now and into our increasingly uncertain future. Loss of the rich biodiversity of the Peace River Valley hurts life not just people. The incredible debt to build this unnecessary dam hurts us all for generations to come. Indeed the loss of the Peace River Valley to Site C Dam will hurt us all far, far beyond any possible benefits we might derive in the short term.

What BC citizens need is a thorough, transparent, public and independent review and assessment of the costs and benefits of Site C Dam and other alternative energy portfolios. While Government may insist BCUC will not be allowed to do such a review this does not abrogate its responsibility to conduct this or a similar review process.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way-humans-get-electricity-is-about-to-change-forever

SummaryofPresentationtoGreaterVancouverRegionalDistrictBoard(nottoexceed2pages)

July3,2015Speaker:GwenJohansson,Mayor,DistrictofHudson’sHopeAgendaitemtobeaddressed:2.IntergovernmentandFinanceCommitteeReport 2.3BurrardThermalandSiteCDamProject:ThattheGVRDBoardwritealettertotheHonourableChristyClark,PremierofBritishColumbia,requestingamoratoriumontheconstructionanddevelopmentoftheSiteCDamuntiltheendof2017,andthattheproposedprojectbereferredtotheBritishColumbiaUtilitiesCommissionforreviewandconsultation.Summaryof5minutePresentation:IwillspeakonbehalfoftheDistrictofHudson’sHope,locatedinnortheasternBC.Iwillspeakinfavorofresolution2.3SiteCDamProjectOverview:

At$8.8Billion,(upfrom$7.9billionestimatedduringtheSiteCJointReview),SiteCisthelargestpublicinfrastructureprojectinBChistory.

May,2014–TheEnvironmentalAssessmentFederal/ProvincialJointReviewPanelReportcalledforSiteCtobereferredtotheBCUtilitiesCommissionforfurtherreviewoftheneedfor,costof,andalternativestoSiteC.

October,2014–ProvinceissuedtheSiteCEnvironmentalAssessmentCertificatewithoutreferringtheprojecttotheBCUCashadbeenrecommendedbytheJointReviewPanel.

Fall,2014–7FirstNationandnon‐FirstNationcourtchallengeswerefiled December,2014–PremierClarkannouncedapprovalofSiteC. July,2015–Constructionexpectedtocommence.

Weneedopen,independent,andexpertreviewbytheBCUCwithfullproceduralsafeguards.

BCUtilitiesCommission(BCUC)wascreatedin1980bythegovernmentofPremierBillBennettfortheexpresspurposeofreviewinglargeprojectssuchasHydrodams.However,in2010,SiteCand10otherutility‐relatedprojectswerespecificallyremovedfromBCUCoversight.

Safeguardsandchecksandbalanceshavebeenremoved: SiteCexemptedfromscrutinyofBCUC SiteCexemptedfromreviewbyAgriculturalLandCommission BCHydroIntegratedResourcePlan(whichincludedSiteC),

exemptedfromBCUCscrutiny.TheonlyagencytoscrutinizeSiteCotherthantheproponent,(BCHydro),oritsshareholder,(theprovince)hasbeentheEnvironmentalAssessmentJointReview



Panelandtheysaidtheyhadneithertheinformation,timenorresourcestocommentontheaccuracyofthecostestimatesofSiteC.Theymade4recommendationsthatSiteCshouldbereferredtotheBCUCforfurtherexamination.BCUCReview:In2014aPanelwassetuptoreviewtheBCUC.Submissionsfromcustomergroupsandinterestedpartiesweresought.NonesuggestedthatBCHydroshouldbeunregulated.Infact,theAssoc.ofMajorPowerCustomerssaidthatalmostallthecurrentdifficultiesofBCHydro,itsshareholderanditscustomersarisefromthefactthatBCHydroisnotregulatedinamannercomparabletoanIOU[Investorownedutility]“…..allstemfromthefactthatBCHydrohaseffectivelyoperatedasanunregulatedmonopolythrough‘bypass’formanyyears.”http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EEC/Strategy/EEA/Documents/BCUC%20review%20AMPCR7.pdfP.8‐9

SupportforSiteCReview:Severalagencies,associationsandindividualshavecalledforfurtherindependentreviewofSiteC,including:

FederalProvincialJointReviewPanelwhichcarriedouttheEnvironmentalAssessmentofSiteC.

Provinciallocalgovernmentassociations:NorthCentralLocalGovernmentAssociation(NCLGA)andtheAssociationofVancouverIsland&CoastalCommunities(AVICC)unanimouslyendorsedresolutionstosupportreferraltotheBCUC.

approximately30individuallocalgovernmentsincludingthePRRD.SiteCisn’tjustanissuefor“upthere”(inthefarnorth).FivereasonsthattheLowerMainlandlocalgovernmentsshouldhaveconcernsaboutSiteC:

Electricityrateswillhavetoincreasetopayforit.Lowercostoptionsareavailable.

Borrowingof$8.8billionwillaffectcapacitytobuildothermajorprojects. BCHydro’salreadysizeabledebtwillincrease. Destructionofkeyfoodproducinglandwilloccuratatimewhenfood

securityconcernsarerising. Properproceduralapprovalprocesshavebeencircumvented.

InSummary:IbelieveitisinthebestinterestofallBritishColumbians,includingthoseintheGVRD,tosendSiteCtothebodythatwascreatedtoexaminesuchprojects.Iaskyoutopassthemotion2.3.



Metro Vancouver Board Meeting Speaking Summary: Burrard Thermal and Site C Project

Date of submission: July 3, 2015

By Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). Cell: 250‐490‐5314 Office: 604‐684‐0231 Email: [email protected] The following is a short summary of my 5 minute submission that I propose to present at the

Metro Vancouver Board meeting on July 3, 2015

I will speak in support of the INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT – 2.3

Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project ‐‐ motion “That Metro Vancouver write a letter to the

Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the

construction and development of Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed

project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.”

I am the elected President of the UBCIC an organization of Indigenous Nations in British Columbia, founded in 1969 and dedicated to promoting and supporting the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to affirm and defend Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights. The UBCIC has achieved recognition as a non‐governmental organization with special consultative status of the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations. The UBCIC represents over 108 Indigenous Nations, more than half of the Indigenous Nations in British Columbia and it is the goal of UBCIC to work with Indigenous Nations to exercise their inherent rights, to assert and implement their Title, Rights and Treaty Rights and to hold the Crown to its obligation to honour and respect those rights. The UBCIC is guided by the principle that Indigenous Peoples possess an inherent right and responsibility to care for and protect our lands and resources, to govern ourselves, and to enter into relationships with other Nations, guided by our laws and legal traditions. The proposed Site C dam, associated structures and required rights‐of ways run directly through the heart of the Treaty 8 First Nations territories. This project will have a devastating impact on the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights of Treaty 8 First Nations. The project will eliminate the Treaty 8 First Nation communities’ ability to continue their way of life and exercise their Treaty‐protected constitutional rights to hunt, fish, trap, harvest and carry out their practises on their land. As such Treaty 8 has launched court proceedings to defend their rights. UBCIC is extremely concerned that BC Hydro plans to start construction activities on Site C Dam, despite the fact that the court proceedings are still in motion and a decision on Site C proceeding has yet to be determined. UBCIC fully supports Treaty 8 First Nations application for judicial review stating Site C infringes on the treaty rights of the Treaty 8 First Nations and without Treaty 8 First Nations free, prior and informed consent. Treaty 8 First Nations have occupied the Peace River Valley and its tributaries, the Athabasca and Mackenzie watershed region since time immemorial and continue to occupy this land. Their heritage, sacred, spiritual and burial sites are found throughout this area. This project will have


2

many interconnected, immediate, long‐standing and cumulative impacts on these communities and families. The desecration and destruction of grave sites, destruction of habitats, disruption of fisheries migrations, elimination of significant ecosystems, obliteration of land and resources which surrounding communities rely upon, the proposed reservoirs will create a cumulative barrier to fish and wildlife, the project will release 147,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and will eradicate the land in which the Treaty 8 First Nations hold annual cultural camps to maintain their relationship with their heritage, territories and lands. The resources that the Treaty 8 First Nations draw from the land and waters in the area where the Dam and other structures will be situated (and associated roads and power transmission lines) will be sited cannot be understated. The area supports the traditional land‐based economy of the people and for the peoples and communities affected, we hope that this assessment of this project will not be one‐sided and imbalanced as often is the case in such reviews. In considering the economic impacts of this project, the UBCIC agrees the British Columbia Utilities Commission should review and consult on the development of Site C. The UBCIC would urge BCUC to not overlook the impact of this project on the land‐based traditional economies of Indigenous peoples which includes but is not limited to:

Traditional food sources gathered from the area where the Dam project and other structures is proposed to be built;

Medicines;

Trapping is an important part of the economy;

Game hunted may also be a source of other materials used for buckskin, drums, and other material items;

Plant materials can be used for baskets, utensils, clothing, etc The proposal for the Site C dam is in clear violation of the human rights of the Treaty 8 First Nations. Canada formally endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in November 2010. The Declaration sets out international standards for relationships between Nations states and Indigenous Peoples Treaty 8 First Nations have applied for judicial review of Ottawa’s decision to support the project, stating the proposed Site C project infringes on the treaty rights of the Treaty 8 First Nations. The Federal Appeal begins the week of July 20, 2015. The BC government and BC Hydro have ignored the requests of Treaty 8 First Nations to put construction on hold until the outcomes of the court proceedings are known. All citizens of BC should be deeply concerned; by denying the Treaty 8 First Nations their day in court, the government is making an outright statement that they are above democratic rights and the judicial system. If construction begins, it will be understood as a clear message that this government has absolutely no respect for the Treaty 8 First Nation people, and is blatantly disregarding constitutionally recognized Aboriginal Title, Rights, and Treaty Rights. Lastly, irresponsibly rushing ahead of the courts and denying the BCUC to review the project is an irresponsible and negligent use of tax dollars.


1

Summary to Metro Vancouver Board Meeting of Friday, July 3, 2015

From: Dr. Elaine Golds, Education-Conservation Chair (designated speaker)

Burke Mountain Naturalists

PO Box 52540, Coquitlam Centre\

Coquitlam, BC, V3B 7J4

Re: Item # 2.3: Resolution on Burrard Thermal and Site C

The Burke Mountain Naturalists are a group of approximately 250 members who reside mainly in the Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody areas of Metro Vancouver. For over 25 years, we have encouraged the Metro Vancouver Board to adopt sustainable practices and protect our natural environment. Some of the issues with which we have been involved over the years include the cessation of logging in Metro Vancouver’s drinking watersheds and the protection of Colony Farm Regional Park.

We have also regularly commented on BC Hydro’s Integrated Resource Electricity Plans. With regard to this, we have advocated for many years that the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant in Port Moody should not be shut down but, instead, should remain as an operating electricity generation plant in the lower mainland to meet periods of peak electricity demand during the winter and be available to provide emergency backup in the event of situations such as forest fires which could interfere with transmission from more remote areas of the province. In this regard, we thank the Metro Vancouver Board for their resolution recently passed to ask the provincial government to reconsider their decision to close Burrard Thermal.

In our view, a final decision about Burrard Thermal and the one to proceed with Site C should both be subject to review by the fully independent BC Utilities Commission.

With regard to Site C, we are quite dismayed by the provincial government’s decision to proceed with its construction despite the opposition of many First Nations and other citizens. There are many reasons to be concerned about this project including its exorbitant costs and the loss of vital agricultural lands.

Although its estimated cost is $8.8 billion, we feel the true cost is likely to exceed $10 billion. This is a phenomenally expensive project which will cause electricity rates to soar and could hamper the ability of the provincial government to undertake other major infrastructure projects. If one of the main purposes of Site C is to serve the LNG industry, this amounts to an unacceptable subsidy to a major fossil fuel industry. We are also very concerned about the loss of agricultural land. With southern BC now experiencing a major drought –which could be due to changes in weather patterns provoked by climate change - it becomes all the more imperative to protect significant agricultural land elsewhere in BC.

We strongly support the initiative to request a full review by BCUC.



To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Climate Action Committee Date: June 17, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: University of British Columbia ‐ “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate

Change Community Planning” Project

CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve continued funding for the project titled, “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning” in the amount of: a) $30,000 in 2015, contingent upon receiving confirmation that additional partners have

contributed funding as described in the report titled “University of British Columbia ‐ Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning”, dated May 27, 2015; and

b) an additional $30,000 in 2016, contingent upon the confirmation of partner funding noted in (a) above and the submission of a progress report to the Climate Action Committee by June 2016 along with a review of project progress by Metro Vancouver staff with input from relevant municipal staff.

At its June 17, 2015 meeting, the Climate Action Committee considered the attached report titled “University of British Columbia ‐ Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning Project”, dated May 27, 2015. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above. Attachment: “University of British Columbia ‐ Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning Project”, dated May 27, 2015 11533435

Section E 1.1


To: Climate Action Committee From: Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner

Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 27, 2015 Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 Subject: University of British Columbia ‐ “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate

Change Community Planning” Project

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) approve continued funding for the project titled, “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and

Climate Change Community Planning” in the amount of $30,000 in 2015; and b) conditionally approve an additional $30,000 in 2016, contingent upon the submission of a

progress report to the Climate Action Committee by June 2016 along with a review of project progress by Metro Vancouver staff with input from relevant municipal staff.

PURPOSE The report provides the Climate Action Committee and the GVRD Board the results of the first three years of the “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Planning” led by the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) at UBC. The report also describes the future directions of the project, and seeks GVRD Board authorization to continue grant funding for the project for a final two years. BACKGROUND At the March 13, 2015 Climate Action Committee meeting, Dr. Stephen Sheppard presented the results from the first three years and the potential future directions for the final two years of the project titled, Innovative Tools for Community Energy Planning (Attachment 1). Metro Vancouver has provided funding to the project in accordance with the following GVRD Board recommendation adopted on April 13, 2012:

That the GVRD Board: a. Approve funding for the project titled, “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and

Climate Change Community Planning” in the amount of $30,000 in 2012, with similar grants to be brought forward for consideration in the 2013 and 2014 budgets. Funding in each of 2013 and 2014 will be contingent upon the submission of an annual progress report to the Environment and Parks Committee and an annual review of project progress by Metro Vancouver staff.

b. Direct staff to report back on an additional two years of funding in 2015 and 2016, based on a staff evaluation of the deliverables in the first three years.

Policy context Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP) supports practical research that provides knowledge and strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Attachment


University of British Columbia ‐ “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning” Project

Climate Action Committee Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 Page 2 of 4

The IAQGGMP contains strategies to “assess the region’s low carbon energy (e.g., biomass, geothermal, etc.), waste heat recovery, and district energy opportunities and risks, and where appropriate work with municipalities to coordinate public and private investment in supporting infrastructure, raise public awareness and uptake of low carbon building and transportation options” and to work with academic institutions and other partners to “…enhance air quality and climate change research, formal education, and public outreach within the region”. The Innovative Tools project has resulted in a productive collaboration between local governments and an academic institution. As part of the project, several member municipalities have contributed case studies towards the development of the resources and tools. Other municipalities are currently using or have used the tools, resources, and approaches developed through this project for their own community energy planning initiatives. Results to Date 2012‐2014 As part of this project, the CALP team has produced the following deliverables to date:

a) Illustrated Guide to Community Energy: A simple attractive educational guide to community energy solutions and issues, for use by lay‐people and community engagement practitioners

b) Community Energy Explorer (beta version): Web‐interface using the latest multimedia and presentation software, providing easy access to community energy content and interactive graphics, including unique web‐mapping of regional renewable energy supplies and energy demand across Metro Vancouver. www.energyexplorer.ca

c) Annual Knowledge Exchange Symposia: Two well‐attended all‐day symposia/workshops for practitioners and NGOs, to foster awareness and feedback on the Community Energy Explorer (CEE), and enable a broader exchange of experience with community energy issues among municipalities.

d) Collaborative learning projects: Joint projects with staff and stakeholders from Richmond, Surrey, and West Vancouver on real‐world community energy projects, leading to case studies show‐cased in the CEE web platform

e) Outreach and engagement: numerous presentations, demonstrations, webinars, etc. on visual tools for community energy and climate change planning, involving practitioners, elected officials and stakeholders across Metro Vancouver.

Next Phase of the Project The next phase of the project will build on the successes to date. Municipal sustainability and energy managers have indicated that they see value in the tools that show how local projects contribute to regional goals. The next phase of the project will focus on the continued development of the Community Energy Explorer as a platform to demonstrate how local climate and energy planning and actions contribute to reaching regional and Provincial climate goals. The deliverables for the next phase of the project will include the development of additional local community energy case studies, using those local examples to generate regional energy and GHG reduction scenarios, and application of the Community Energy Explorer in on‐the‐ground engagement with the public and specific stakeholders in energy and emissions planning and project implementation.




The table provided as Attachment 2 presents a preliminary list of deliverables for the project. Dr. Sheppard and his team are also awaiting confirmation of funding from the Vancouver Foundation and the Real Estate Foundation. As such, the final list of deliverables will be contingent on the total level of funding obtained. Metro Vancouver staff with input from municipal staff will work with Dr. Sheppard and his team to develop a detailed work plan for the final two years of the project once funding is confirmed. Project budget The first three years of this project carried a budget of $283,000, provided by a variety of funding partners including Neptis Foundation ($70,000), GEOIDE NCE ($16,000), Vancouver Foundation ($30,000), Real Estate Foundation ($70,000), and Metro Vancouver ($90,000), as well as several municipalities in Metro Vancouver. There were also in‐kind contributions from several member municipalities and CALP estimated at $96,000.

Innovative Tools for Community Energy Planning Budget

2012 ‐ 2014 2015 ‐ 2016

Cash In‐kind Cash

GEOIDE NCE (2012) $16,000

Neptis Foundation (2012‐2013) $70,000

Richmond (2013‐2013) $20,000

Surrey (2012‐2013) $20,000

CALP, UBC (2012‐2013) $16,000

CIRS Decision Theatre, UBC (2012‐2013) $30,000

Metro Vancouver $90,000 $60,000

West Vancouver $7,000

QUEST (Quality Urban Energy Systems for Tomorrow)

$10,000

Vancouver Foundation (2011) $30,000 *(TBC) $80,000

Real Estate Foundation $70,000 *(TBC) $80,000

Sub‐Totals $283,000 $96,000 $220,000

Total Budget $599,000Note: *(TBC) – To be confirmed

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board:

a) approve continued funding for the project titled, “Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning” in the amount of $30,000 in 2015; and

b) conditionally approve an additional $30,000 in 2016, contingent upon the submission of a progress report to the Climate Action Committee by June 2016 along with a review of project progress by Metro Vancouver staff with input from relevant municipal staff.

2. That the GVRD Board receive this report for information and direct staff towards an alternate course of action.




FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is $30,000 allocated in the 2015 Climate Change program budget to support this project. Based on Committee and Board direction, an additional $30,000 could be proposed for the 2016 climate change program budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver has goals of reducing GHG emissions in our region by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The tools and resources developed in the first three years of the project have proven valuable for local governments in the region. Staff recommends Alternative 1, continued funding to support the further development of the Community Energy Explorer as Phase II of the project. The integration of community energy planning with land‐use, infrastructure, and general sustainability plans is foundational to meeting those targets. The further development of the Community Energy Explorer will provide tools, data, and other resources to assist local government staff engage key stakeholders on conversations on community energy solutions. Attachments (Doc. #11499768): 1. CALP Report to the Climate Action Committee on the “Innovative Tools for Community Energy

Planning” project – March 2015. 2. Preliminary List of Deliverables for the Innovative Tools Project – Table. 11443040


REPORT TO METRO VANCOUVER CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE

COLLABORATIVE FOR ADVANCED LANDSCAPE PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

26 MARCH 2015


GStanese

Text Box

Attachment 1

COLLABORATIVE FOR ADVANCED LANDSCAPE PLANNING PG 3

PURPOSE

To provide an update on the project titled ‘Innovative Tools for Enhanced Energy and Climate Change Community Planning’ by Dr. Stephen Sheppard from the Collaborative Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) at UBC to the Climate Action Committee.

This project supports local government planning staff and practitioners by mainstreaming visual media tools & know-how to conduct ‘climate change/community energy visioning’, in order to help Metro Vancouver communities meet carbon reduction targets & prepare for climate change. The aim is to enhance best practice in community planning processes and help bring the public on board, through:

Strengthening/expanding practitioner skills, resources, experience, and confidence in innovative tools and techniques for community engagement

Building energy literacy and interest/involvement of the public on critical energy and climate change issues at the community/neighbourhood scale

Developing a support-base among municipal council-members, key stakeholders, and decision-makers for best practice methods and policy change.



This report will describe the following project deliverables and outcomes to date (2012-2015): –

These deliverables (described next) have been made possible by leveraging Metro Vancouver’s support and networking closely with other funders, partners and associates – Real Estate Foundation (REFBC), Neptis Foundation, Community Energy Association (CEA), Climate Action Secretariat (CAS), Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), UBC, and various municipalities.

Illustrated Guide to Community Energy: A simple attractive educational guide to community energy solutions and issues, for use by the lay-people and community engagement practitioners

Community Energy Explorer (beta version): Web-interface using latest multimedia and presentation software, providing easy access to community energy content and interactive graphics, including unique web-mapping of regional renewable energy supplies across Metro Vancouver and energy demand

Annual Knowledge Exchange Symposia: Two well-attended all-day symposia/workshops for practitioners and NGOs, to foster awareness and feedback on the Community Energy Explorer (CEE), and enable a broader exchange of experience with community energy issues among municipalities.

Collaborative learning projects: Joint projects with staff and stakeholders from Richmond, Surrey, and West Vancouver on real-world community energy projects, leading to case studies show-cased in the CEE web platform

Outreach and engagement: numerous presentations, demonstrations, webinars etc. on visual tools for community energy and climate change planning, involving practitioners, elected officials and stakeholders across Metro Vancouver.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

PG 4


Illustrated Guide to Community Energy


The Illustrated Guide to Community Energy provides an attractive visual information package (as a hard-copy report or pdf file) which helps planners and other municipal staff improve communication to and engagement with the public and policy makers on community energy solutions, risks, and trade-offs. This Guide is a resource that can be used to build energy literacy and dispel misconceptions about unfamiliar ways of conserving and generating energy at the neighbourhood and community scale. The idea is that better informed public and policy-makers can support policy change for community energy solutions across Metro Vancouver.

The Guide includes: an introduction to community energy technologies and issues, the first comprehensive maps of regional-scale renewable energy resources ever compiled, and neighbourhood-level visualisation and information graphics. In order to ensure that the Guide is user-friendly for local government staff and the content is understandable by the public, the draft guide was reviewed by a number of committees and stakeholder groups. The Guide has been available free to the public for over a year, from the CEE and CALP websites.

PDF: http://web.forestry.ubc.ca/calp/CALP_CommunityEnergyGuide_highRes.pdf

The cover of the Illustrated Guide to Community Energy

PG 5



The Community Energy Explorer is an online, expanded version of the Illustrated Guide (previously known as the Interactive Web-Interface for Sustainable Energy (iWISE). The idea to create a dynamic online resource came from participants in our stakeholder engagement workshops on the hard-copy Guide; they strongly recommended developing an interactive version, giving policy makers, municipal staff and members of the interested public access to digital visualization, communication and data tools and resources that can assist in community planning. A primary purpose is to provide better tools for municipal staff to engage and inform residents in vital discussions on local energy projects. These tools help municipalities engage the public in understanding the implications of low carbon energy projects (e.g., district energy, solar thermal, biomass, etc.) for their own neighbourhoods and communities.

The Community Energy Explorer (http://www.energyexplorer.ca/) builds on the earlier project content to deliver a highly visual, engaging, & interactive web-interface (see sample images below). In its current beta-version, it provides easy-to-understand information explaining key concepts and messages on community and renewable energy, with the ability to zoom into, explore, and query mapping on potential renewable energy supply as well as home energy demand, across the Metro Vancouver region. CEE is a one of-a-kind resource on community energy for non-experts: it provides clear & compelling graphics, maps, animation, video clips, and other visualizations that will help broaden and deepen community engagement and social learning on critical issues related to community energy and planning. To date, the CEE beta version has the following resources available:

Interactive maps of regional renewable energy resources

identifying opportunities for public and private investment in low carbon energy opportunities (e.g. solar thermal, waste heat recovery, biomass, etc.), comprehensive information that has never before been provided across the region

1)

Community Energy Explorer

PG 6



Interactive map of estimated household energy demand

zoomable data on modelled energy use for single family residential neighbourhoods

Screen capture of regional renewable energy resource map: Biomass potential (previous) and Wind potential (above)

Screen capture of interactive map of Estitamted household energy demand. http://www.energyexplorer.ca/home-energy

http://energyexplorer.ca (click on the ‘explore renewable energy maps’ icon on the homepage & select category).

2)

PG 7



Neighbourhood-level visualizations and information graphics

realistic visualizations of low carbon, resilient neighbourhoods and local-level energy projects, that residents and other stakeholders can quickly understand and relate to;

simple animations, videos and dynamic diagrams that explain the pros and cons of various energy solutions

warehouse of images on community energy for free use by practitioners and the public

3)

PG 8



CALP has worked closely with energy researchers, web designers and energy planners to build on existing data sources and develop this content for the website. In February 2015, CALP conducted a beta-test survey of the CEE (beta-version), with practitioners who have provided in-depth and valuable feedback on the usability & implementation of the CEE web-tool. Review of the beta test survey shows strong consensus on the usefulness of the energy mapping and local case studies in CEE as a resource for building energy literacy with several suggestions on where improvements and extensions are needed (see Impacts Section below for summary of results).

Blog with supporting technical information

Contextual information on how the new energy information and mapping was created (based on Rory Tooke’s doctoral research), and to track the website development process

Link to the Illustrated Guide to Community Energy (pdf version)

Certain aspects of the CEE are still incomplete or in preliminary form, e.g. the energy landscape animation which will provide a more intuitive and user-driven alternative to accessing information. Planned improvements of the CEE include:

interface improvements to simplify access to maps and back-up technical information mapping of sewage heat recovery

more compelling narrative information and visualization on GHG emissions/implications and economic benefits of community energy

neighbourhood-level toolkit for community engagement more community case studies

4)

5)

PG 9



CALP, in partnership with Metro Vancouver, has successfully organized two full-day Symposia that offered a forum to share knowledge on various low carbon energy projects among local governments and other regional stakeholders. These invited partners, funders and representatives from all Metro Vancouver municipalities and enabled a dialogue on policies, planning, innovations, implementation, best practices and stakeholder engagement on community energy.

Community Energy Innovations: Knowledge Exchange Symposium on June 4, 2013 at the BC Hydro Decision Theatre, UBC

The objective of this event was to bring together local stakeholders with a direct interest in community energy for a day-long symposium addressing some of the current topics and issues surrounding local energy planning and management initiatives. A total of 59 participants registered for the event. One of the major successes of the Symposium was the attendance of representatives from all major Metro Vancouver member municipalities. In addition, the Symposium had representation from Provincial Government, Metro Vancouver, utilities, academia, NGOs and private firms.

The Symposium consisted of an entire day split into fundamental topics each of which included initial presentations or showcases followed by a panel discussion and a more general dialogue / interaction with all attendees. Feedback and notes were collected during each session. The final session covered policy, which led to the proposal of a collaborative initiative between attendee organizations to draft a letter of recommendation to the Provincial Government for amendments to Provincial legislation that would grant greater authority to local governments to initiate energy strategies.

1)

Annual Knowledge Exchange Symposia

PG 10



Community Energy Symposium: Turning Good Ideas into Real World Solutions on September 11, 2014 at Anvil Centre in New Westminster, BC

This event was organized in partnership with QUEST (Quality Urban Energy Systems for Tomorrow) to foster a dialogue between local governments, developers and utilities staff on community energy and innovative building energy policy. The exciting one-day event saw a total of 125 participants and included sessions on – integrating land-use plans with energy and emissions plans; building code and policy innovations; and how to engage the public on energy and emissions. CALP presented the CEE and had interactive stations (iPads on pedestals) to demo / introduce the CEE web-platform to the symposium participants. Some initial feedback on it implementation was also received and around 20 attendees signed-up to be beta-testers.

QUEST concluded the day with their Roundtable Session – “Community Energy Systems: Fostering a Dialogue between Developers and Local Governments” – to explore opportunities and barriers around community energy systems. It addressed critical issues like – How do community energy systems work? What are the ownership and operation models? How can developers and local governments mutually address barriers such as financing, legacy for building users, meeting building energy performance targets, and opportunity cost? And how can business relationships between developers, local governments, and others, be improved to advance smart energy communities in the lower mainland?

2)

PG 11



CALP has been working closely with the municipalities of Richmond, Surrey & most recently West Vancouver on Collaborative Learning Projects to develop community case-studies focused on real places and issues. CALP (with Support from Ron Kellett’s Elements Lab at UBC) has provided specialized technical support and advice to municipal staff, to produce new visualizations, energy modelling and mapping for decision support and community engagements. To date, these case studies include:

These case studies are displayed in the CEE in the form of visual stories or scenarios that may be replicable across the region.

Richmond urban centre redevelopment: illustrating how jobs, population, and density can be accommodated with net reductions in per capita & total carbon emissions, through improved building codes, rooftop solar energy, and district energy with renewables,

Surrey green field development: illustrating how row housing and small lot single family homes reduce energy use & GHGs relative to conventional single family homes.

West Vancouver Community Energy & Emissions Plan (CEEP): conducting modelling and visualization of iconic high-carbon building archetypes; devising feasible ways to reduce energy use and emissions that resonate with the community (in progress); and advising council’s Working Group on community engagement strategies.

Collaborative Learning Projects

PG 12



CALP has worked closely with energy and sustainability managers, city-planners, municipal engineers, consultants, NGOs, other research groups, communities, and the general public, in various outreach and engagement activities as spin-offs from the CEE development process. These have included numerous presentations and capacity building workshops on CEE and related visual media tools, to demonstrate & test best-practice visioning techniques, designed to leave a legacy of increased awareness and expertise for future community energy projects, such as –

Webinar jointly hosted by CALP & Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) for practitioners and energy managers, Vancouver

Presentations to the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee-Climate Protection Subcommitee (REAC-CPS)

Workshop at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ (CCPA) ‘Conversation on Climate Justice’ project (with 30 citizen leaders), Vancouver

Workshop at the Building Sustainable Communities Conference, Kelowna

Workshop at the Community Innovations Lab, Kamloops

Several public lectures and presentations, organized by PICS, UBC, and others.

Planned future presentations /meetings include –

Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC): April 10, 2015

Renewable Cities Forum: May 13-15, 2015

BC Hydro Community Energy and Emissions Modelling (CEEM) group: May, 2015

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

Outreach and Engagement

PG 13



The deliverables produced so far on this project have been used in the following ways (that have so far been documented):

The CEE has also been used in various educational settings, including:

By Surrey, Richmond and the North Shore municipalities, to engage their residents in discussions about a range of climate change issues, including the renewable energy potential in their communities. Surrey for example has used images from the Guide in its Community Climate Action Strategy.

The outcomes from this municipal work continue within planning processes such as CEEP implementation and climate change adaptation planning, e.g. Richmond conducted a follow-up energy modelling study from UBC for its city centre development plan, and West Vancouver is using the CEE renewable energy mapping for its CEEP analysis.

Renewable energy mapping from CEE is being used to support discussions with industrial partners in the Tilbury Eco-Industrial Network (Delta).

Images produced to date on the project have also been used in Metro Vancouver’s “The Sustainable Region” videos and numerous presentations, workshops, webinars and training sessions by other practitioners.

Undergraduate courses (e.g. CONS 210, FRST 490, APSC 232) and graduate courses (LARC 542, FRST 551), as a resource for class projects

Graduate research in Forestry on local energy sources

Delta high schools, as an information source supporting an educational climate change videogame.

CEA is planning to list CEE as a key reference source for enrollees in their Certificate in Community Energy Management.

Impact of the Project

PG 14



The recent beta test on the CEE, from 14 volunteer energy and community engagement practitioners/NGOs in the region, found that comments were generally very positive: 73% of participants felt that CEE was easy or very easy to use, and all felt that the graphics were either very useful (60%) or somewhat useful (40%). Comments included:

The most useful components of the CEE ranked by participants were the energy maps, renewable energy description section, and local case studies.

“By far the most visually appealing website on energy I have ever seen. Definitely helps you scroll through everything.”

“Excellent visual tool taking very complex information and making it accessible to a general audience”

10

7.5

5

2.5

9.1%

45.5% 45.5%

40.0% 40.0%

20.0% 20.0%

Val

ues

0Energy Maps

Not at all useful

Website Usefulness by Section

Not very useful Somewhat useful Very useful

EnergyAnimation

‘Energy inContext’ Section

‘Renewable Energy’ Section

‘Case Study’ Section

10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

PG 15



The priority areas needing more emphasis were economic implications of energy use and climate change, and impact of individual behaviour change on energy demand.

20.0%

40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Energy implications for climate change

Land use implications for energy demand

E�ect of transportation on energy demand

Impacts of individual behaviour on energy demand

Economic implications of energy use and climate change

E�ects on national and/or provincial policies on local energy issues

Information that Needs More Emphasis

7.5

5

2.5

Val

ues

0

70.0% 70.0%

PG 16

“The maps are one of the greatest assets, but not intuitive to find. The content was great though, and I look forward to sharing this with teams I’m working with”

“The energy maps were impressive in terms of making GIS data accessible, but there is probably not enough legend/contextual information to make this action fully understandable.”

There were several recommendations on how the CEE could be strengthened and used to further efforts on energy planning & outreach; for example,

A beta test summary report documenting results will be provided to Metro Vancouver staff in the next few weeks.



Specific ways in which practitioners and attendees of the 2014 Symposium have envisioned using the CEE (along with other tools) include:

Supporting community engagement and planning for OCPs, CEEP implementation, and neighborhood plans.

Specific applications for use of CEE in-practice, e.g. in training sessions (Lighthouse), local planning activities (North Vancouver), and engagement (Cool Neighbourhoods).

In combination with other tools, such as NRCAN staff suggestion identifying “synergy between TaNDM (spatial GHG data from utility records in BC) and the Community Energy Explorer, if sample TaNDM data could be available for selected communities – it would be a concrete demonstration of making measured building energy information available in the context of an education/outreach mapping and visualization tool”.

This feedback indicates that the CEE platform, once complete, would provide valuable information and tools for informing both non-experts and the decision makers about community energy, and thus assisting member municipalities and the region in reaching their greenhouse gas reduction goals. Also, CEE would support initiatives for reducing dependency on non-local energy sources, and for attaining other regional energy and sustainable development objectives.

In particular, the existing and planned CEE tools would support objectives such as Strategy 3.2 and Action 3.2.3. in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP), e.g. in assessing the low carbon energy potential for the region and identifying opportunities for local governments to support development of those opportunities. The engagement and visioning tools can also help staff link regional growth objectives outlined in the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) to community energy planning in municipalities and neighbourhoods. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to work closely with the CALP team to ensure the transferability of the tools to municipalities throughout the region.

PG 17



Broader lessons have been learned from feedback on the project and discussions with partners and government staff, with implications for next steps over the following two years. We recognized the importance of partnering more substantively for future funding, planning, hosting, publicity, roll-out and embedding of CEE in-practice e.g. – with Metro Vancouver & Community Energy Association (CEA). There exists some sensitivity around certain energy issues such as forest biomass harvesting as a regional energy source, micro-hydro, and biomass district energy plants, indicating the need for further stakeholder discussion and a possible support role for CEE, given careful consideration of communicating messages and using citizen focus groups to test outcomes, as was done with the Illustrated Guide. A recent meeting with the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) to review the CEE web tools, suggested expansion of the platform to permit citizen input. Clearly, there is also significant potential of CEE as an educational tool in schools, universities, and continuing education.

Since February 2015, Metro Vancouver staff has worked with Dr. Sheppard and the CALP team to refine the priorities and deliverables for the next 2 years’ activities. Metro Vancouver staff has provided feedback that helps ensure the proposed deliverables continue to align with the needs of Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities. In addition, Dr. Sheppard also received feedback from the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee Climate Protection Subcommittee (REAC-CPS) on the remaining 2 years of the project.

A new proposal for continued partnering with Metro Vancouver has been submitted to the Real Estate Foundation of BC to extend and complete the CEE web-tool, apply it to building community capacity on local energy and climate change issues, and establish a generic template for use by communities across BC. New partners and collaborators are being sought. This will effectively complete and launch the Community Energy Explorer web-tool, although opportunities for ongoing development may remain.

The proposed tasks and possible ideas for further enhancement and extension of CEE are listed in the following table, in rough order of chronology and certainty, pending further discussions and partner funding decisions. This list will be refined and narrowed down through consultation with regional and local government staff, including a ‘brainstorming session” to be held in in the next few weeks.

Next Steps (2015-2016)

PG 18



Implement highest priority CEE improvements based on beta phase feedback

Additional local case-studies to the CEE website

Neighbourhood Toolkit on Climate Action

Hosting / launch / support plan

Design ‘enter-your-own-data’ capability (Citizen Science)

Training/capacity-building

Support Climate Action Advisors

E.g. functional interface improvements/bug fixes; additional renewable resources (e.g. sewage heat); more depth on land use/ density/energy/GHG trade-offs; visualizing GHGs and local economic benefits (in partnership with CEA); mapping improvements (e.g. linking demand map to supply maps, aggregating renewable capacities by municipal or neighbourhood boundaries, Regional Climate Action Map, etc.)

Year 1: West Vancouver: develop an online illustrated narrative on key building archetypes (with modelled scenarios) that resonate with the community, from current CEEP project.

Year 2: Develop 1 additional case study, or incorporate pre-existing case studies from leading edge consultants/ municipalities

Develop online ‘Neighbourhood Toolkit for Climate Action’ from current prototype to a simple hands-on, block-level visual toolkit, to engage residents in local climate change solutions

Year 1 planning & Year 2 implementation with partners

Year 1: Brainstorming and scoping on needed functionalities of a platform for residents/organizations/NGO’s to enter their own energy consumption data’

Year 2: Preliminary work/ design/ prototyping of user input interface

Partnering with CAS and/or other organizations for capacity building/practitioner training/collaborative projects with Community Energy Managers, planners, consultants, etc. on using tools/ processes (around CEEP implementation); deliver CEE user workshop at Knowledge Transfer Symposium

Explore CEE applications to support advisors for Strata Councils and businesses

OBJECTIVES PLANNED ACTIVITIES

PG 20


Attachment 2

Table: Preliminary List of Deliverables for the Innovative Tools Project

Objectives Activities Timeframe Deliverables

1. Implementhighest priority improvements to CEE, to improve usability and broaden its applications to fill key gaps, based on beta test feedback

- Functional improvements / bug fixes; - Additional renewable resources (e.g., sewage heat recovery); - More in-depth content on land use / density / energy / GHG trade-offs; - Visualizing local economic benefits; - Mapping improvements for users (e.g., linking demand map to supply maps, aggregating energy supplies by municipal or neighbourhood boundaries, GHG mapping, linking to Metro Vancouver ‘Climate Action’ map); -Adding more links to complementary online material, e.g., new PICS summary recommendations on energy literacy; - Review by expert & non-expert groups.

Year 1 - Fully functional expanded version of CEE, with enhanced user experience and usability

2. AddNeighbourhood Toolkit for Climate Action

- Develop ‘Neighbourhood Toolkit for Climate Action’ as an online resource, building on current prototype of a DIY, block-level visual toolkit, to stimulate discussion & build awareness of climate change issues at block scale, with a focus on engaging residents in developing practical energy solutions (e.g., retrofitting and solar energy) collectively; -Test with participants from a sample block / neighbourhood, e.g., Evergreen’s Project Green Bloc or Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative’s (CCPA) Good Life, Green Life team.

Year 1 – 2 - New module within CEE, providing guidance to neighbourhood groups

3. Training /capacity-building

- Partnering with Climate ActionSecretariat (CAS), Community Energy Association (CEA), and/or other organizations for capacity building / practitioner training / collaborative projects with Community Energy Managers, planners, consultants, etc. on using tools / processes (around Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) implementation); deliver CEE user workshop at Knowledge Transfer Symposium; - Apply CEE and other visual learning tools to BC Mayors Climate Leadership Council, Community Energy Planning: Getting to Implementation in Canada!, and in training materials for Certificate in Community Energy Management

Year 1 - Presentation materials, guidance with focus on building support for implementation


http://communityenergy.bc.ca/bcmclc/

http://communityenergy.bc.ca/bcmclc/

http://gettingtoimplementation.ca/



http://www.communityenergy.bc.ca/edu

http://www.communityenergy.bc.ca/edu

Preliminary List of Deliverables for the Innovative Tools Project Page 2 of 2

Objectives Activities Timeframe Deliverables

4. Provide a‘template’ for similar web platforms in other regions of BC

- Document CEE as a template by producing a ‘developer guide’ with basic structure and guidance on developing a similar web-tool, enabling communities beyond Metro Vancouver to generate their own content and mapping using their respective data on renewable energy supplies, demand, etc. - The guide will be designed primarily for users at regional districts or larger BC cities, though other users may also find it useful. It will: identify existing CEE content that is generally applicable; describe how non-transferable data was created, as a guide to re-creating local data, at 2 different skill levels with assumed data sources; and provide tips on website assembly. - Create a separate ‘Tab’ on the website for the guide, making it easy to access and download.

Year 2 - A developer guide available online on how to replicate CEE in other regions, with tips on basic website development, reusable content, & mapping methods.

5. Add local case-studies to the CEE website

- Develop an online illustrated narrative on key building archetypes in West Vancouver for effective public engagement in their Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP). - Develop 1 additional case study (subject to further funding) such as University Neighbourhood Association (UNA), which has expressed interest in working with CALP.

Year 1

Year 2

- New case studies included in CEE

6. Develophosting / launch / support plan

- Planning & implementation with partners (e.g., Metro Vancouver) for CEE launch, publicity, hosting & ongoing maintenance.

Year 2 - Publically accessible CEE platform via partner organizations

7. Explore ‘userdata-entry’ (citizen science) capabilities on CEE

- Brainstorming & scoping with partners on needed functions for a platform for residents / organizations / NGO’s to enter their own energy consumption data. - Preliminary design / prototyping of user input interface in pilot neighbourhood.

Year 1

Year 2

- Work-plan for prototype implementation - Prototype interface for user-generated data


GStanese

Text Box

11499768

To: Climate Action Committee From: Conor Reynolds, Senior Project Engineer Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner

Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: June 4, 2015 Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress in 2014

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 4, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress in 2014”.

PURPOSE To inform the GVRD Board of Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions 2014 report submitted to the Province under the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) and Metro Vancouver’s progress toward being carbon neutral in 2014. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s corporate carbon footprint is reported each year to the Province under the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP). This program arose from the BC Climate Action Charter, and is more generally referred to as the Carbon Neutral Local Government program. The program requires Charter signatories to annually report their climate actions, measure their carbon footprint, take action to reduce their carbon footprint, and work towards balancing that footprint with emissions reductions from projects outside of the corporate scope. Local Governments who fulfill these requirements are eligible to receive a refund of their carbon tax paid on direct fuel purchases. As described to the Committee during its orientation session in February 2015, the collective corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities are a relatively minor contributor to total GHG emissions in the region. Nevertheless, many local governments aspire to carbon neutrality as a way to get their “own house in order”, and demonstrate leadership to the broader community in taking climate action. METRO VANCOUVER’S CARBON FOOTPRINT The scope of activities included in Metro Vancouver’s corporate carbon footprint is limited to “Traditional Services”, which includes the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with energy use in Metro Vancouver’s buildings, fleet, facilities and some contracted services. Metro Vancouver’s carbon footprint reported under this program does not include emissions from the final disposal of solid waste (i.e., landfills and waste‐to‐energy) since this function is outside of the scope designated by the Provincial government as being part of a local government’s corporate carbon footprint. Instead, GHG emissions from the final disposal of solid waste are reported under separate Provincial and Federal GHG legislation.

Section E 1.2


Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress in 2014 Climate Action Committee Meeting Date: June 17, 2015

Page 2 of 4

For the 2014 reporting year, Metro Vancouver’s initial corporate carbon footprint (before offsets or credits) was 6,224 tonnes CO2e (carbon dioxide‐equivalent), of which approximately 10% was from fuel use by contracted services. The decrease from the 2013 footprint (7,367 tonnes CO2e) was largely due to a provincially mandated change in BC Hydro’s GHG intensity factor, which decreased from 14 to 10 tonnes CO2e/GWh. Natural gas purchases in 2014 were similar to 2013, while fleet fuel use was reduced by approximately 6%. Also of note is that the Board adopted a Corporate Energy Management Policy in 2014. Implementation of this policy, which mandates continuous improvement in energy performance within Metro Vancouver facilities, began in 2014. Metro Vancouver’s provision of core services in water, liquid waste and solid waste to a growing regional population tends to increase corporate energy use, so the policy is essential to ensure that energy – and corresponding GHG emissions – is measured and managed effectively. GHG REDUCTIONS AND CARBON CREDITS Metro Vancouver is making progress towards its carbon neutral goals not only by tackling energy‐related emissions, but also by identifying GHG emission reductions outside its traditional services scope. In 2014, Metro Vancouver secured GHG reduction credits (the non‐market equivalent to “carbon offsets” in the Carbon Neutral Local Government Framework) from two solid‐waste related GHG reduction projects that balanced 85% of its footprint. Both were landfill gas capture optimization projects: one at the closed Coquitlam Landfill (carbon credits = 354 tonnes CO2e) and the other at Vancouver Landfill (Metro Vancouver’s share of carbon credits = 4,936 tonnes CO2e). The application of these credits reduced our footprint from 6,224 tonnes to 934 tonnes CO2e for 2014. In total, the Vancouver Landfill project generated 135,660 tonnes of verified GHG credits in 2014. The City of Vancouver transferred a total of 44,767 tonnes CO2e (33% of total verified credits) to Metro Vancouver, which were subsequently shared with member municipalities according to a methodology developed and agreed to through the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee. Metro Vancouver staff have also been assisting its member municipalities with the calculation and reporting of carbon credits from their municipal organics diversion programs. In 2014, municipal organics diversion programs resulted in a total of approximately 35,000 tonnes of carbon credits for the member municipalities, which is over 50% higher than in 2013 due to the expansion in municipal organics collection programs. Metro Vancouver is also assisting its member municipalities in implementing various region‐wide community projects related to building energy and clean vehicle technologies. As a direct consequence of the carbon credits from organics diversion programs plus the allocation of carbon credits from the Vancouver Landfill Gas Capture Optimization project, most municipalities in the region are better than 80% toward carbon neutrality. A number of municipalities have been able to achieve carbon neutrality for the 2014 reporting year through carbon offset credits from a variety of sources, including the landfill gas and organics diversion projects, and in some cases additional projects being pursued independently.



Page 3 of 4

REGIONAL PROGRESS It is important to emphasize that corporate emissions are a small fraction of total community and industrial emissions. Thus, while progress towards local government carbon neutrality demonstrates leadership and GHG reduction credit projects reduce regional emissions, additional actions by all levels of government will be required to meet community‐wide and Provincial GHG reduction targets. The figure on the right shows that an 8% decrease in total GHG emissions for the region is expected in 2015 compared to the 2007 levels. Yet without concerted additional action the region will not reach its targets of 33% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (from the 2007 baseline), and in fact emissions could increase in future years. The combined effect of municipal, provincial and federal GHG reduction policies and programs (e.g. Community Energy and Emissions Plans, the Provincial carbon tax and energy efficiency provisions in the building code, federal vehicle standards, etc.) in conjunction with regional policy and programs have contributed to this reduction, but will need to be scaled up to achieve the regional targets. Metro Vancouver is currently undertaking (or planning) a range of regional projects that, within the scope of the organization's authority and corporate reach, are designed to address regional emissions. These projects include:

Emotive, the electric vehicle driving experience;

Home Energy Labelling Pilot Program (HELPP);

an energy advisor program targeting stratas of multi‐unit residential buildings, and

the “Taking Action on GHG Emissions” (TAGGE) program for small and medium sized businesses.

In addition, the integrity of and adherence to the policies in the Regional Growth Strategy are essential for ensuring the continued development of compact and complete communities that create low carbon transportation and building energy options. In response to the discussion at the Board’s strategic planning session, and the anticipated emphasis on climate action within the next Board Strategic Plan, staff are initiating development of a regional climate action framework that encompasses corporate and regional GHG emission reduction targets and actions, as well as climate adaptation actions. This framework will necessarily include integration with provincial and municipal plans – including mitigation and adaptation, and corporate and community scopes. The link between GHGs and energy conservation and generation will also be recognized. Performance measurement and sharing of best practices will be a key element of this framework.



Page 4 of 4

ALTERNATIVES This report is provided for information only. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A critical component of the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) is the carbon tax rebate to local governments that have signed the BC Climate Action Charter, and which fulfill their reporting obligations. This rebate is equivalent to the carbon taxes they pay directly, which for Metro Vancouver is approximately $200,000 per year. Within Metro Vancouver, the annual rebate is used to directly support Metro Vancouver’s climate action and GHG mitigation projects, towards achieving the Charter goals of measuring and reporting GHG emissions, taking action to reduce GHG emissions, and creating complete, compact, energy efficient communities. Staff efforts undertaken in 2015 toward the creation of a broader regional climate action framework will be funded out of existing program budgets. Resources required to continue work in 2016 will be proposed for inclusion in 2016 budgets. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2014, Metro Vancouver made substantial progress towards its goal of being a carbon neutral organization, using over 5,000 tonnes of carbon credits from landfill gas capture projects to balance over 85% of its corporate carbon footprint, resulting in a net footprint of 934 tonnes for 2014. In spite of increased levels of service, the initial amount before offsets of 6,224 tonnes for 2014 is almost 15% less than in 2013. This progress has recently been reported to the Provincial government as part of the Carbon Neutral Local Government program. Overall, Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities are making strong progress towards carbon neutrality. Although many local governments aspire to carbon neutrality as a way to get their “own house in order”, and demonstrate leadership to the broader community in taking climate action, it is recognized that the collective corporate greenhouse gas emissions of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities is a relatively minor contributor to total GHG emissions in the region. Metro Vancouver and municipalities are implementing a wide range of not only corporate but also regional actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience. It is anticipated that there will be a strong emphasis on climate action within the upcoming Board Strategic Plan. In response, staff are initiating development of a regional climate action framework that encompasses corporate and regional GHG emission reduction targets and actions as well as climate adaptation actions; integrates with provincial and municipal plans; addresses energy conservation and generation; and includes performance measurement, outreach, and sharing of best practices. Attachment and Reference: Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Climate Actions and Carbon Neutral Progress: Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) Public Report, June 1, 2015 (Doc. #11472702). Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air‐quality/climate‐action/our‐operations/corporate‐action‐plan/Pages/default.aspx 11455749


Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Climate Actions

and Carbon Neutral Progress

Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) Public Report

June 1, 2015

PHOTO GOES HERE


GStanese

Text Box

Attachment

Metro Vancouver’s Climate Actions 2014 June 1, 2015

Page 2 of 31

General Information Regional District: Metro Vancouver (Greater Vancouver Regional District) Population 2,427,000 (2013) Regional Growth Strategy: “Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future” (adopted July 2011)

Report Preparation and Contact Information This report was prepared by the staff of the Air Quality and Climate Change Division of Metro Vancouver, with input from across the organization. Questions on the report should be directed to [email protected] or the Metro Vancouver Information Centre at 604-432-6200. Reported by: Roger Quan Director, Air Quality & Environment Planning, Policy and Environment Department [email protected] Contact us: Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org Cover photo shows aerial view of Burns Bog in Delta (credit: Loger Aure)


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.metrovancouver.org/


Page 3 of 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Information ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Report Preparation and Contact Information ............................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3

BROAD PLANNING......................................................................................................................................... 4

BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................................................... 10

ENERGY GENERATION ................................................................................................................................. 13

GREENSPACE ............................................................................................................................................... 16

SOLID WASTE .............................................................................................................................................. 18

TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................................... 20

WATER and WASTEWATER ......................................................................................................................... 24

OTHER CLIMATE ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 26

INNOVATION ............................................................................................................................................... 29

CORPORATE - Innovation ............................................................................................................................ 29

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Innovation ................................................................................................................ 30

CARBON NEUTRAL PROGRESS REPORTING ................................................................................................ 31



Page 4 of 31

BROAD PLANNING

Broad Planning refers to the high level, strategic planning that sets the stage for GHG reductions. Land use planning that focuses on Smart Growth principles (compact, complete, connected and centred) plays an especially important role in energy and GHG reduction. Plans that relate to a certain sector are included in that sector, e.g. transportation plans in the 'Transportation' sector.

Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)

As a regional government, Metro Vancouver has a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), rather than an Official Community Plan (OCP). Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future was adopted on July 29th, 2011, after being unanimously accepted by all local governments in the region. The RGS contains targets, policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions, as per the requirements under the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act. Strategy 3.3 is to “Encourage land use and transportation infrastructure that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality”. Metro Vancouver’s role is to implement the strategies and actions of the RGS, which contribute to regional targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050. Examples of strategies and actions contained in the RGS to address climate change include: efficient goods movement; green infrastructure; protected and managed natural areas; mixed use, transit-oriented communities; low-impact development; work and play close to home; protected farmland; increasing share of trips by transit, cycling and walking; green buildings; and focusing growth in urban centres and transit corridors. Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy is available here: www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-vancouver-2040

Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan

Metro Vancouver also adopted an Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan in 2011 with 5 strategies comprised of 37 actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These actions include: strategies to reduce short-lived climate forcers such as methane and black carbon; establishment of a regional climate action fund; support for small and medium enterprises to reduce their emissions; support for low carbon vehicle infrastructure; exploration of carbon sequestration opportunities; and raising public awareness of low carbon building and transportation options. Metro Vancouver's Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan is available here: www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/plans-reports/iaqggmp


http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-vancouver-2040

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/plans-reports/iaqggmp


Page 5 of 31

Response Please specify or comment

Since initially establishing OCP targets, policies, and actions for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as required by the Local Government Act, has your local government updated those targets, policies and actions?

Yes See description of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP), above.

Response

Does your local government use the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) to measure progress?

No; Metro Vancouver conducts and verifies its own detailed region‐wide emissions inventory every 5 years.

Has your local government established Development Permit Areas (DPAs) for climate action (i.e. energy conservation, water conservation and/or GHG emission reduction)?

No

CORPORATE - Broad Planning

Actions taken in 2014 Actions proposed for 2015

Feasibility Studies, Research, Analysis

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Tracking System: Metro Vancouver has implemented its new Energy and Greenhouse Gas Tracking System, the SoFi 5 web‐based platform from PE International. The new system has been configured to track and report Corporate energy and greenhouse gas emissions in a more efficient and timely manner, and increase our ability to identify opportunities for better energy management of facilities and services over the long term. Implementation of the software system was completed in June 2014, and it is now in regular use.

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Tracking System: Metro Vancouver will continue to improve its Energy and Greenhouse Gas Tracking System, adding more data and expanding its use within the organization.



Page 6 of 31

Feasibility Studies, Research, Analysis (cont.)

Capital project evaluation: Metro Vancouver has improved its methods for considering greenhouse gas emissions in its capital project evaluation process. For the purposes of comparing project alternatives at the feasibility stage and the prioritization stage, GHG emissions may be monetized. The actual quantity of GHG reductions or increases associated with a capital project is tracked. Once a particular method of tackling a problem has been decided upon, capital projects are ranked by priority based on a number of factors, including GHG emissions. Projects that reduce GHG emissions more than other projects (all else being equal) will be assigned a higher priority.

Plans, Policies, Regulations

Corporate Energy Management Policy: Metro Vancouver's Corporate Energy Management Policy was adopted by its Board of Directors in July 2014. The Policy commits Metro Vancouver to continuously improving energy performance in its operations, and to continuously improving the efficiency with which it produces, generates and recovers energy. The Policy is derived from the first three strategies in the 2010 Corporate Climate Action Plan that aim to reduce the corporate carbon footprint: (1) Reduce energy consumption; (2) Switch to renewable energy; and (3) Maximize energy recovery.

Corporate Climate Change Standard: Metro Vancouver’s Corporate Climate Change Standard (CCCS), related to corporate climate adaptation strategies, will continue to be developed. CCCS is likely to be reviewed by member municipalities of the Region, and could support their own local standards.

Policy Implementation

Corporate Energy Management Policy: Implementation of the Corporate Energy Management Policy began shortly after it was adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board in July 2014. The Policy will establish a strategic planning process for achieving targets using triple bottom line analysis.

Corporate Energy Management Policy: Implementation of Metro Vancouver's Corporate Energy Management Policy will continue in 2015.



Page 7 of 31

Funding Sustainability Innovation Funds: Metro Vancouver has been accumulating balances in four Sustainability Innovation Funds – one for broader regional district functions as well as one for each of the utilities (liquid waste, water and solid waste). In 2015, the GVRD, Liquid Waste and Water funds will be accessed to support innovative projects and initiatives that will make measurable contributions to the region’s sustainability.

Only proposals from within the corporation are eligible though in the case of the GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund, member municipality involvement is encouraged. The themes for the initial round of funding from the GVRD fund will focus on decreasing regional greenhouse gas emissions and/or increasing awareness of nature and natural systems. The scope of applicability for proposals for the Liquid Waste and Water funds is broad, from innovations in technology, practices, to promotion of behavioural change and research that will advance sustainability objectives of these utilities.

Project proposals will be based on a triple-bottom line analysis and must demonstrate alignment with the Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan. A standing committee of the Board, the Climate Action Committee, will review the project proposals and make recommendations on which projects should be funded to the appropriate Metro Vancouver Board.



Page 8 of 31

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Broad Planning



Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs): In 2014, Metro Vancouver gathered analytics and conducted planning work in collaboration with TransLink and member municipalities on metrics and indicators to use in monitoring the effectiveness of the Centres and FTDAs Growth Management Tools.

Climate Adaptation: In 2014 Metro Vancouver contracted a consultant to conduct a scan and gap analysis of climate change adaptation initiatives that member municipalities have undertaken. Concurrently, Metro Vancouver staff began an internal scan and gap analysis of corporate climate change adaptation initiatives.

Urban Centres and FDTAs: In 2015 Metro Vancouver will conduct an intensive review of Regional Growth Strategy implementation through an analysis of the Centres and FTDAs growth management tools. Metro Vancouver staff will work with external agencies and key stakeholders in implementation and member municipalities in order to review the effectiveness of current growth management tools used in coordinating growth in the region.

Climate Adaptation: In 2015 Metro Vancouver will continue and finalize both the external and internal scans and gap analyses. The results of these processes will be used to coordinate Metro Vancouver’s role in climate change adaptation in the region, as well as coordinate Metro Vancouver’s corporate initiatives.


Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan: Conducted a progress review of the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and released a Progress Report (available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/plans-reports/iaqggmp)





Page 9 of 31

Community Education, Engagement

Metro Vancouver e-Library of Sustainability Initiatives: This e-Library will be a web portal to explore innovative sustainability solutions being implemented around our region. Initiatives will be those undertaken by municipalities or Metro Vancouver itself; they could pertain to water, waste management, urban planning & transportation, green spaces, energy & climate, and/or community & culture. Residing on www.metrovancouver.org, the e-library will feature a map-based interface for browsing projects, and will also allow users to search by tags pertaining to project type or by municipality.

Committees, Staffing

Climate Change Workshop: Held a workshop on climate change for the members of two of Metro Vancouver's committees: the Intergovernmental & Administration Committee and the Environment & Parks Committee (February 2014).

Climate Action Committee: The Climate Action Committee was formed in January 2015, and is the new standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, bylaws, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to the Air Quality & Climate Change service, as well as the Environmental Planning function within Regional Planning.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/


Page 10 of 31

BUILDINGS

Low-carbon buildings use the minimum amount of energy needed to provide comfort and safety for their inhabitants, and tap into renewable energy sources for heating, cooling and power. These buildings can save money, especially viewed over the long term.

Variable Response

Does your local government have green building/construction policies, plans or programs?

Yes

CORPORATE – Buildings


Physical Improvements, Construction

Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation:

- Replaced over 100 domestic hot water tanks with higher efficiency models

- Replaced one natural gas furnace with a high efficiency model

- Replaced 3 large boilers (above 500,000 btu/h) with higher efficiency models

- Continued replacement of incandescent light fixtures with LED lighting


- Implement BC Hydro’s Energy Conservation Assistance Program (ECAP) across portfolio, to manage and reduce tenant demand for electricity, building heating and hot water.

- Water heating: replace 1 large boiler (above 700,000 Btu/h) and approximately 4 smaller boilers (70,000 Btu/hr)

- Space Heating: replace 2 additional furnaces with high efficiency models, and potentially more units depending on availability of funding.

- Lighting: convert all common area rooms to occupancy sensor lighting controls; target underground parkade lighting for upgrade to higher efficient fixtures and sensors.

- Other actions: replace all laundry equipment (~400 units) with higher efficient models, and develop phase-out plan for 24 gas fireplaces



Page 11 of 31

Physical Improvements, Construction (cont.)

Other Metro Vancouver Facilities:

- Lake City Operations Centre lighting upgrade: complete replacement of metal halide lighting with T8 fluorescent lamps.

- Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant parking lot lighting: upgrade parking lot lighting from metal halide to LED.

Other Metro Vancouver Facilities:

- Head Office heat pump replacement: upgrade approximately 24 heat pump units on two floors at Head Office.

- Upgrade selected exterior lighting at Head Office and Kathleen buildings to LED.


Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation: Developed an energy benchmark analysis of Metro Vancouver’s Housing portfolio. In addition, business models were developed and evaluated for replacing old boilers with new high efficiency units.


- Develop standard annual reporting for energy conservation, and benchmark energy consumption across the housing portfolio and target select sites for further energy reduction measures.

- Budgeting: prepare 10 year capital budget for energy reduction measures & window replacement.


Corporate Energy Policy: Metro Vancouver's Corporate Energy Policy commits to continuous improvement in energy performance, which includes building energy.

COMMUNITY-WIDE – Buildings



Home Energy Labelling Strategic Planning: Collaborated with Pembina Institute and RedBird Communications to develop a Marketing and Communications Plan for Home Energy Labelling outreach, as well as a Home Energy Labelling Strategic Plan.

Home Energy Labelling Pilot: Develop and implement a home energy labelling pilot program. The aim of this project is to encourage voluntary disclosure of home energy efficiency ratings on new residential single‐family and low‐rise multi‐family homes through piloting a project with the aim of labelling and publicly disclosing 300 homes within a year.



Page 12 of 31


Innovative Tools for Community Energy Planning: Metro Vancouver continued support for the Innovative Tools for Community Energy Planning managed by UBC’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP). The purpose of the project is to develop tools to enable community energy solutions. Building on the Illustrated Guide to Community Energy, CALP has developed the Beta version of the Community Energy Explorer (www.energyexplorer.ca) which provides regional specific information and maps describing renewable energy, energy demand, and basic concepts of community energy. The CALP team is also working closely with the District of West Vancouver to use visualization and modelling tools in the development of their CEEP.

Community Energy Innovations: Knowledge Exchange Symposium. Co-organized with Quality Urban Energy Systems for Tomorrow (QUEST) and CALP, this event was attended by 100 representatives from member municipalities, Provincial government, utilities, academia, and the development industry. The Symposium included presentations on the new energy requirements in the BC Building Code, linkages between land-use and community energy planning, and a discussion forum on district energy between developers and local governments. A summary of proceedings can be found here: http://www.questcanada.org/

Innovative Tools for Community Energy Planning: Plan and implement the final two years of the Project by building on the Community Energy Explorer platform and the Community Energy and Emissions Plan pilot in the District of West Vancouver.


http://www.energyexplorer.ca/

http://www.questcanada.org/


Page 13 of 31

ENERGY GENERATION

A transition to renewable or low-emission energy sources for heating, cooling and power supports large, long-term GHG emissions reductions. Renewable energy including waste heat recovery (e.g. from biogas and biomass), geo-exchange, micro hydroelectric, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic, heat pumps, tidal, wave, and wind energy can be implemented at different scales, e.g. in individual homes, or integrated across neighbourhoods through district energy or co-generation systems.

Variable Response

Has your local government undertaken district energy projects in 2014? No

Has your local government undertaken renewable energy projects 2014? Yes

Are you aware of the integrated resource recovery (IRR) guidance page on the BC Climate Action Toolkit? (http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/tool/integrated-resource-recovery-irr)

Yes

CORPORATE - Energy Generation



Iona Island waste water treatment plant flared biogas utilization: Modifications were made to the plant’s electrical system and cogeneration control system to allow the currently flared biogas to be fed into engines, to generate additional electricity for the plant’s use. In addition to the new electrical equipment installed at Iona, a connection to BC Hydro power feeders is necessary.

Iona Island waste water treatment plant flared biogas utilization: All the equipment has been installed and is ready to be connected in 2015. However, since connection requires shutting down the power feeders (one at a time), dry weather is needed to lessen the influent load on the plant. Once the connection is completed, it will be possible to supply the cogeneration engines with additional biogas (Spring 2015).



Page 14 of 31


Electricity Generation:

- Refined costs in evaluating electricity generation using organic rankine cycle technology at Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

- Completed business case for an electricity generating turbine at the new Barnston Maple Ridge Pump Station, with potential to sell hydroelectricity to BC Hydro.

- Completed business case for an electricity generating turbine in the new Angus Drive Main Pressure-Reducing Valve Chamber, with potential to sell hydroelectricity to BC Hydro.

Effluent heat recovery:

- Completed a business case for effluent heat recovery opportunities at the new Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. Selected a nearby district energy system owner to enter into further discussions for the potential development of energy recovery infrastructure and purchase of effluent heat.

- Completed a business case for effluent heat recovery opportunities for Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project explored the capacity and economic feasibility of providing nearby Vancouver International Airport with heat extracted from Iona Island WWTP effluent.

- Completed a business case for effluent heat recovery opportunities at the Lulu Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. Final Report issued July 2014

Electricity Generation: Continue to evaluate the electricity generation potential of upcoming capital projects within the water transmission system.

Effluent heat recovery:

- Refine the conceptual design and financial model for effluent heat recovery at Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant.

- Refine Richmond energy loads and conduct more detailed analysis and conceptual design of potential district energy pipework and routing from the Lulu Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant facility.



Page 15 of 31


Co‐digestion: Completed second round of trials for co‐digesting materials for energy recovery at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

District Heating: Renewed a project to study the feasibility of connecting the Waste to Energy Facility in Burnaby (WTEF) to a district heating system that would provide space heating and hot water to existing and proposed developments. Such a system would replace natural gas as a fuel in these developments; it would also more efficiently exploit energy compared to the existing turbo-generator at the WTEF (which generates electricity to sell to BC Hydro).

Co‐digestion: Begin pilot testing of regular operation of co‐digestion facility for energy recovery at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

District Heating: Complete a pre-feasibility study for a potential WTEF district heating system.


Sewer Heat Policy: Completed the final long‐term Sewer Heat Policy framework and received Board approval.

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Energy Generation


Community Education, Engagement See Community Energy Explorer discussion above.



Page 16 of 31

GREENSPACE Greenspace refers to parks and greenways, boulevards, community forests, urban agriculture, riparian areas, gardens, recreation/school sites, and other green spaces, such as remediated brownfield/ contaminated sites. Greenspaces support climate change mitigation (reducing emissions by absorbing and sequestering GHG) and adaptation (providing shade, cooling, deflecting strong wind, and improving air quality). Please note that the 'Greenspace' sector only has a community-wide actions section.

Variable Response

Does your local government have urban forest policies, plans or programs? Yes

COMMUNITY-WIDE – Greenspace



Ecological Restoration: MV played a large role in a multi-partner project to enhance the Seymour Estuary. Work included restoring stream and nearshore habitat, by adding boulders and large woody debris, and planting the riparian area.

Designed and implemented a roughly 200 square metre Eco-Hedge at the Annacis Research Centre to provide screening between the Research Centre and Wastewater Treatment facility. The Eco-Hedge increases site biodiversity and uses largely native species to support local pollinators.

Ecological Restoration: Further restoration of the Seymour River Estuary is currently underway and includes: additional habitat complexing (addition of boulders & large woody debris) to increase juvenile rearing habitat, inter-tidal, riparian and terrestrial planting, and invasive plant removal.


Ecosystem Health and Carbon: Investigated opportunities to protect and restore forests, wetlands and peatland to sequester more carbon and realize co‐benefits of conserving valuable and sensitive ecosystems. Two studies were completed related to Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area: 1) Quantifying summertime greenhouse gases fluxes from soils in various stages of ecological recovery; and, 2) Peatland Ecological Restoration Best Practices for Potential Application in Disturbed Areas of Burns Bog.

Ecosystem Health and Carbon: Metro Vancouver will continue to manage the Burns Bog Conservancy Area to promote ecological recovery and will explore opportunities to actively restore degraded areas within it. Restoration efforts are expected to result in the return of carbon sequestration and methane oxidation rates associated with intact bogs, which could decrease regional greenhouse gas emissions. A design will be prepared for a multi-year experimental program that will test restoration



Page 17 of 31


Regional pollinators: In collaboration with Simon Fraser University, synthesized primary and secondary research on the state of regional pollinator populations and evaluated the impact of managed honeybees on wild pollinator populations. These findings included recommendations for supporting wild pollinator populations.

approaches on small subplots prior to any large scale application. Additional carbon flux measurements are also planned in support of this restoration initiative.

Regional pollinators: In 2015, recommendations to support wild pollinator populations will be assessed and the potential benefits of further Metro Vancouver policy and land management guidelines evaluated.


Ecosystem valuation: Held a workshop on Ecosystem Valuation for staff from Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, UBC, SFU, BCIT and others to learn how to incorporate ecosystem services valuations into decision making.

Ecosystem valuation: Pilot projects are being developed to help raise awareness of how and when to use ecosystem services valuations and to develop a consistent methodology and associated tools.

Committees, Staffing

The Regional Parks Committee was formed in January 2015, and is the new standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to the Regional Parks service.



Page 18 of 31

SOLID WASTE

Reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering and managing the disposal of the residual solid waste minimizes environmental impacts and supports sustainable environmental management, greenhouse gas reductions, and improved air and water quality.

Variable Response

Does your local government have construction and demolition waste reduction policies, plans or programs?

Yes

Does your local government have organics reduction/diversion policies, plans or programs?

Yes

CORPORATE - Solid Waste



Coquitlam Landfill: Operation and continued optimization of the upgraded landfill gas (LFG) collection system at the north side of the closed Coquitlam landfill (owned by Metro Vancouver) to maximize LFG recovery and reduce methane emissions.

Coquitlam Landfill: Design work for expanding the LFG collection system to the south side of the Coquitlam Landfill is ongoing.


Coquitlam Landfill: Verification of 2013 GHG reductions and calculation of GHG reduction credits (256 tonnes of CO2e).

New Waste-to-Energy Capacity (NWTEC): Continued to move forward the procurement process to increase Metro Vancouver’s capacity for disposing of solid waste using waste-to-energy. The increased waste-to-energy capacity would divert waste from landfills, which produce significantly more GHGs than waste-to-energy. In addition, the energy created by the NWTEC could be used to generate electricity, be used in a district energy system, displace fossil fuels used in industrial processes, or provide energy for another use.

Coquitlam Landfill: Verify 2014 GHG reductions, and continue to explore options for beneficial use of landfill gas.

New Waste-to-Energy Capacity (NWTEC): Continue to assess options for developing new waste-to-energy capacity.



Page 19 of 31

Policy Implementation

Material recycling and reuse: Refined the material recycling and reuse requirements in demolition tender documents and applied them for the deconstruction of a building located on the site of a future transfer station expansion.

Material recycling and reuse: Continue application of recycling and reuse requirements in corporate demolition tender documents. Metro Vancouver will work with member municipalities to expand such purchasing policies in public works across the region.

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Solid Waste



Organics Diversion GHG Reduction Credits: Calculation of Organics Diversion Credits on behalf of local governments, in support of their carbon neutral goals. Total Green Communities GHG reduction credits for all eligible municipalities have been calculated to be approximately 22,500 tonnes CO2‐equivalent for the additional diversion undertaken in 2013 beyond the 2007 baseline.

Organics Diversion GHG Reduction Credits: Continue to support the regional municipalities by calculating their GHG reduction credits for additional organics diversion activities that occurred in 2014.


Regional Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans: Conducted stakeholder consultation to support the Regional Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans identified in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, which are designed to encourage additional organics diversion activities in the region. Because organics and clean wood are such a large portion of the region’s garbage, significant GHG reductions can be achieved when they are diverted from landfills.

Regional Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans: Implementation of the Regional Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans, effective January 2015. These local government “disposal bans” will take the form of a financial disincentive, which will be phased in during 2015, starting with an educational period. Organics and clean wood recycling opportunities for small loads are available at Metro Vancouver transfer stations.



Page 20 of 31


Love Food – Hate Waste campaign: With residents now separating food from their garbage at home and at work, many are realizing how much of that food could have been eaten. Metro Vancouver will launch a Love Food – Hate Waste campaign in May 2015, modelled on the successful UK campaign, which will provide practical steps for motivated residents to reduce their household avoidable food waste. Reducing avoidable food waste will reduce the GHGs related to transporting food scraps from residential collection bins to the region’s composting facilities as well as those related to landfilled organics.

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation actions that increase transportation system efficiency, emphasize the movement of people and goods, and give priority to more efficient modes, e.g. walking, cycling, ridesharing, and public transit, can contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and more livable communities.

Variable Response

Does your local government have policies, plans or programs to support alternative modes and technologies of transportation (e.g. walking, cycling, transit, electric vehicles)

Yes

Does your local government have a transportation demand management (TDM) strategy? (http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/resource/transportation-demand-management-small-and-mid-sized-communities-toolkit)

No

Does your local government have policies, plans or programs to support local food production (thus reducing transportation emissions)?

Yes



Page 21 of 31

CORPORATE – Transportation Actions taken in 2014 Actions proposed for 2015


Corporate Fleet: Purchased two new electric smart cars for Metro Vancouver’s Corporate Pool Vehicle Fleet. These replace two leased prototype electric smart cars, which were returned to vendor.

Corporate Fleet: Electric or Electric Hybrid Vehicles will be considered for replacement of Pool Car vehicles where appropriate.



Life cycle analysis tool: Developed an improved life cycle analysis tool for new vehicle purchases, to project future fuel costs and calculate the total fuel consumption over a 10 year time period. The purpose of this tool is to ensure that the impact on the environment from new vehicles is minimized.

Studied the feasibility of buying two new electric hybrid vehicles as replacements for two regular sedan cars.

Life cycle analysis tool: The fuel economy and the effect on environment will be one of the critical decision criteria in purchasing all new light duty vehicles.


Electric Vehicle Charging: Explored options for corporate policy to allow for employee and visitor charging of electric vehicles at more Metro Vancouver facilities.

Electric Vehicle Charging: Continue to explore options for potential EV charging locations, costs and long-term implications.

Explore potential for an EV on-street demonstration project at Head Office

Explore the integration of EV charging requirements in Metro Vancouver’s Green Buildings Policy

COMMUNITY-WIDE – Transportation



Local Bylaws for EV Charging: Worked with students at UBC to conduct a survey of local municipal bylaws and policies to support electric vehicle charging in multi-family residential buildings.

EV Owner Experiences with Stratas Survey: Work with students at UBC to conduct a survey of electric vehicle owner experience with obtaining charging infrastructure in multifamily strata buildings.



Page 22 of 31


Metro Vancouver Car Share Study: This study is the first comprehensive analysis of car sharing in the region. Evidence was gathered from car share providers and municipal staff about current practices, and from two online surveys of car share households and apartment households. The study also identifies issues and considerations for regional growth management and community planning. Municipal planners and engineers, and developers can all use the information to further their respective and shared objectives around sustainable transportation choices, housing and transportation affordability, and the environment.

Federal Gas Tax Transfer for Regional Transportation Projects: The GVRD Board endorsed TransLink’s application for federal gas tax funding under the final year of the initial federal gas tax agreement. The following projects were endorsed: 2016 and 2017 conventional bus replacement; Metrotown trolley overhead rectifier replacement; automated train control equipment replacement; Surrey Transit Centre CNG facility retrofit; buyout of the West Coast Express rail cars; additional funding for Compass Card bus upgrades; and additional funding for the Hamilton Transit Centre in Richmond.

Greater Vancouver Regional Fund: A new federal gas tax agreement was struck between the Federal Government, Provincial Government, and the Union of BC Municipalities. In this new agreement, the GVRD Board has approval authority over all TransLink application for federal gas tax funding (now called Greater Vancouver Regional Fund).

EV Charging in Strata Website: Develop website materials targeting property managers, residents, and strata councils in strata multifamily residential buildings on installing and managing electric vehicle charging stations.

Smartphone OBD app: Develop a pilot project to distribute 500-1,000 devices to track emission control equipment health, fuel consumption and trips in light duty vehicles in the Metro Vancouver region. These devices connect to the vehicle’s on-board diagnostic port (OBD) and use Smartphones to send information. This intent of the pilot is to determine effectiveness of this technology in reducing air emissions, greenhouse gases and collecting trip information

Greater Vancouver Regional fund: Metro Vancouver will develop a process to implement the Greater Vancouver Regional Fund to ensure funds are awarded to eligible regional transportation projects to be submitted by TransLink in 2015, and that support the objectives of the GVRD Board.



Page 23 of 31


Emotive Electric Vehicle Campaign: Implemented an electric vehicle outreach campaign in partnership with Plug‐In BC known as Emotive. [See: http://www.emotivebc.ca/]

Emotive: Continue to implement the Emotive campaign both online and at events throughout Metro Vancouver. Emotive is scheduled to deliver the Vancouver Auto Show’s “Green Ride n’ Drive” in 2015.


http://www.emotivebc.ca/


Page 24 of 31

WATER and WASTEWATER

Managing and reducing water consumption and wastewater is an important aspect of developing a sustainable built environment that supports healthy communities, protects ecological integrity, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Variable Response

Does your local government have water conservation policies, plans or programs? Yes

CORPORATE - Water and Wastewater



Annacis Island and Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plants lighting upgrade: Design/planning to replace older inefficient metal halide and high pressure sodium lighting with more energy efficient lighting.

Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant pumps upgrade: Parts are no longer available for the original variable frequency drives for the influent pumps and trickling filter pumps, so new efficient variable frequency drives (VFDs) have been installed in 2014 (and will continue through 2015).

Central Park Pump Station VFD: project planning for installation of a variable frequency drive in 2017.

Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant: upgrade eight additional ultra‐violet disinfection reactors with energy saving lamps and ballasts.

Upgrade lighting at Iona Island and Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plants from metal halide to LED.

Annacis Island and Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plants lighting upgrade: Construction/commissioning.

Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant pumps upgrade: Detailed design for influent and trickling filter pump VFD upgrades, for installation in 2016. Also, Stage 5 Trickling Filter Pump Station Feasibility Study.

Central Park Pump Station VFD: detailed design for installation of a variable frequency drive in 2017.

Pumping System Optimization Program: Scheduled to start in 2015.



Page 25 of 31


Micro bubblers for waste water treatment: About 40% of the energy used at a WWTP is to move air and a portion of that is to maintain high levels of dissolved oxygen in certain wastewater processes using bubble diffusers. By generating smaller bubble diameters than are presently used, it may be possible to reduce the required volume of air in various treatment processes, and reduce the size and power demand of the air blowers. A research initiative is underway to investigate the potential to implement micro and nano bubblers to improve treatment processes and increase energy efficiency.


Sewer Heat Policy: Completed the final long‐term Sewer Heat Policy framework and received Board approval (see Energy Generation section).

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Water and Wastewater



Biosolids Management: Examined the potential to use biosolids in landfill methane oxidation biofilters or biocovers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at unregulated landfills.

Biosolids Management: Metro Vancouver is exploring the potential to conduct a pilot study that would evaluate the effectiveness of a biofilter (containing Metro Vancouver biosolids) to oxidize methane emissions from a closed landfill. In addition to achieving greenhouse gas reductions, a goal of this study is collaboration with the Province on the development of a GHG reduction calculator that could be used by other local governments in BC who are considering biofilters or biocovers for unregulated landfills. Depending on the success of the pilot, there is the potential to expand to a full scale project for additional GHG reduction credits.



Page 26 of 31


Trenchless Technology: Metro Vancouver collaborated with an industry association and an independent consultant to develop a GHG reduction calculator for trenchless technology. Using trenchless approaches to pipe replacement instead of conventional open-cut trenching in municipal water and waste-water systems could enable local governments to claim GHG reduction credits.

Trenchless Technology: Complete the GHG reduction calculator, and collaborate with the Climate Action Secretariat to release an “Option 1” profile for local government use.

OTHER CLIMATE ACTIONS

This section includes other climate actions that could not be captured in the above sectors, including climate change adaptation actions.

Variable Response

Has your local government begun to integrate the impacts of a changing climate (adaptation) into its planning and operations?

Yes

Are you aware of the climate change adaptation guidance page on the BC Climate Action Toolkit? (http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/adaptation-challenges-and-opportunities)

Yes

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Other Climate Action



Staff are engaging in consultations with Environment Canada on proposed federal rules to control the import, manufacture, and sale of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in Canada. This consultation and eventual outputs are a key first step in exploring commercial refrigerant regulation.



Page 27 of 31


School & Youth Leadership Program – Climate change outreach, education & relationship building activities:

- Convened Metro Vancouver Youth-4-Action Sustainability Leadership events reaching high school youth leaders, school districts and other partners in sustainability education) actively involved in sustainability action projects – including climate action projects. Reached 1000+ high school youth via 15 unique Youth-4-Action events. Delivered Youth-4-Action Digital Story-telling Workshop (in collaboration with Pacific Cinematheque), and one of three student-produced videos targeted climate action at school. Held A Youth-4-Action Leadership Field Course, “Metro Vancouver Sustainability Toolbox 2014”.

- Convened Metro Vancouver Teacher Professional Development Workshops where strategies and resources to integrate sustainability topics, concepts and actions (including climate change and climate action) to the K-12 classroom were explored. More than 400 K-12 teachers were reached via 12 teacher workshops.

- Ongoing collaboration with Metro Vancouver School Districts in support of K-12 teacher leadership and youth leadership to advance sustainability objectives including climate action objectives in Metro Vancouver School Communities.

- Provided review and input to the BC Ministry of Education Curriculum regarding inclusion of Environmental Literacy and Sustainability content / concepts.

School & Youth Leadership Program: Continue to develop Metro Vancouver School & Youth Leadership programs and resources on topics of regional sustainability, such as energy and climate change. Continue to collaborate with Metro Vancouver School Districts in support of teacher leadership and youth leadership to advance sustainability objectives including climate action objectives in Metro Vancouver School Communities.



Page 28 of 31

Community Education, Engagement (cont.)

LiveSmart BC Small Business Program, Business Energy Advisor Walk-Through Assessments: With partial funding from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Metro Vancouver hired City Green Solutions Inc. to provide Business Energy Advisor (BEA) services to small and medium sized businesses in the Metro Vancouver region. The program included free walk-through energy assessments including custom energy reports and facilitated access to energy incentives offered by local energy utilities and qualified contractors. The program ran from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. 300 businesses received walk-through assessments resulting in over 80 upgrades saving between 430,000 – 890,000 kwh in electricity.

Caring for the Air Public Report: This report is an illustrated, plain‐language publication introduced by Metro Vancouver in 2012. This report includes articles and infographics on the potential impacts of climate change, actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and strategies needed to prepare for climate change in the region. The 2014 issue included information about greenhouse gas emission trends and patterns (per capita emissions versus per area emissions reporting) in the region, electric vehicles, active transportation, climate adaptation, refrigeration GHG emissions, and climate actions by local governments in the region. Download current and past issues of Caring for the Air at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/information-public/caring-for-the-air/Pages/default.aspx

Caring for the Air will be published annually. The 2015 issue will include updates on climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in the region.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/information-public/caring-for-the-air/Pages/default.aspx





Page 29 of 31

Community Education, Engagement (cont.)

Metro Vancouver Update: Starting in September 2014, Metro Vancouver began publishing a monthly public-friendly online newsletter called “Metro Vancouver Update”. Metro Vancouver Update includes news and information from around the region on a wide range of topics, and includes items related to energy and climate change. New issues of the Metro Vancouver Update are available here: http://www.metrovancouver.org/metroupdate. Archived copies can be accessed at the bottom of the page.

New Website: Metro Vancouver unveiled its new mobile-friendly website in January 2015. The enhanced climate change section of the website, which contain reports, information for the public, and program information, can be accessed here: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action. This section will be further enhanced in 2015.

INNOVATION

This section is intended to give your local government an opportunity to describe any energy and GHG emission reduction activities that have been undertaken over the past year(s) that your local government is particularly proud of and would like to share with other local governments.

CORPORATE - Innovation

Tools for Calculating Local Government GHG Reductions

Metro Vancouver has been collaborating with its member municipalities to identify innovative opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases in the community, and to develop profiles and calculator tools to quantify those reductions. This work is being conducted in close collaboration with the BC Climate Action Secretariat, and builds on previous successes related to organics diversion and avoided forest conversion profiles. Metro Vancouver is now working towards implementing additional promising community project profiles, including Trenchless Technology and the use of biosolids for control of fugitive methane at landfills.

Trenchless Technology: Metro Vancouver has been collaborating with an industry association and an independent consultant to develop a GHG reduction calculator for trenchless technology. Using trenchless approaches to pipe replacement instead of conventional open-cut trenching in municipal water and waste-water systems could enable local governments to claim GHG reduction credits. In 2015, Metro Vancouver intends to have the GHG reduction calculator third-party validated, and collaborate with the Climate Action Secretariat to release an “Option 1” profile for local government use.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/metroupdate

http://www.metrovancouver.org/metroupdate

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action


Page 30 of 31

Biofilters and Biocovers for Landfills: Metro Vancouver is exploring the potential to use biosolids in landfill methane oxidation biofilters or biocovers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at unregulated landfills. It is hoped that a pilot study can be undertaken that will evaluate the effectiveness of a biofilter (containing Metro Vancouver biosolids) to oxidize methane emissions from a closed landfill in BC. Lessons learned from the pilot will feed into a proposed GHG reduction calculator that could be used by other local governments in BC who are considering biofilters or biocovers for unregulated landfills. Working in collaboration with the Provincial Government, there is the potential for this calculator to also be released as an “Option 1” profile.

COMMUNITY-WIDE - Innovation

Emotive – Electric Vehicle Campaign 2014

In the summer of 2014, in partnership with Plug In BC, Metro Vancouver launched Emotive: the electric vehicle experience. Emotive, which started in June 2014 and will run through to at least the end of 2015, is a campaign aimed to raise awareness about plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) in BC. The campaign is delivered through a website (www.emotivebc.ca) and a Facebook (facebook.com/emotivebc) page that provides information and access to resources on EVs.

With zero emissions at the tailpipe, and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, Metro Vancouver has many reasons to support the uptake of this technology. Although EVs such as the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and BMW i3 are now numbering almost 1,000 in the Lower Fraser Valley region and 1,400 across BC, awareness of them is still very low, with only half of Canadians reporting any knowledge of EVs. The Emotive campaign aims to change this.

Emotive is taking a unique approach to get people excited about EVs, focusing on the personal experience of driving and owning an EV, rather than on facts and figures or technical myth-busting (although we do a little of this too). Automakers have known for years that most car-buyers base their decisions on emotion rather than logic, so Emotive emphasizes the tactile experience of driving electric through:

Fun contests. A sweepstake was held on the Emotive Facebook page offering a two week EV test drive, ski passes and dining certificates to Grouse Mountain and a GoPro camera to capture the adventures.

EV Ambassadors. Emotive relies heavily on actual EV owners who volunteer at the Emotive tent at community events around the region to share their first-hand account of being an EV owner to the public. They are equipped with training, T-shirts, and other materials and then attend events around town, such as the TD Jazz Festival, the Richmond night markets and the Surrey Fusion Fest. Last year, Emotive participated at 9 events across the region, and more events are planned in 2015.

A Facebook Community (facebook.com/emotivebc): Already with over 1,800 “likes”, Emotive’s Facebook page delivers interesting articles on a daily basis about EVs and related topics, including announcements about Emotive contests and events. It’s also a place where the public can ask questions and connect with other people that are curious about EVs.

“Open-Source” Sharing: Emotive is available to any BC municipality that wants to deliver a public awareness campaign about EVs in their community. Plug In BC provides training, collateral and online promotions.


http://www.emotivebc.ca/


Page 31 of 31

CARBON NEUTRAL PROGRESS REPORTING

2014 Corporate GHG Emissions and Reductions

METRO VANCOUVER’S CORPORATE GHG EMISSIONS Tonnes CO2e

Corporate emissions from services delivered directly 5,518

Corporate emissions from contracted services 706

TOTAL Corporate GHG Emissions (rounded to the nearest tonne) 6,224

METRO VANCOUVER’S OPTION 2 GHG REDUCTION PROJECTS

Coquitlam Landfill Gas Collection System Upgrade Project 1 -354

Vancouver Landfill Gas Capture Optimization Project 2 -4,936

Offsets purchased for this reporting year (Option 3) 0

Balance of corporate emissions for this reporting year 934

Making Progress on Carbon Neutral Commitment

CARBON NEUTRAL STATUS Making Progress

Surplus offsets to be carried forward to 2015 0

1 For more information about the Coquitlam Landfill Gas Collection System Upgrade Project, please refer to the validated Project Plan and the 2014 Project Report, available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action/our-operations/capturing-landfill-gas/Pages/default.aspx 2 The City of Vancouver, Metro Vancouver and the Corporation of Delta have put in place a legal agreement to share the GHG reduction credits from the Vancouver Landfill Gas Capture Optimization Project. Metro Vancouver’s share of credits from the Vancouver Landfill Offsets Project have been allocated amongst Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities for use in the 2014 reporting year. For more information, please refer to the 2014 Vancouver Landfill Carbon Credits Allocation Report, available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action/our-operations/capturing-landfill-gas/Pages/default.aspx


http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/climate-action/our-operations/capturing-landfill-gas/Pages/default.aspx




GStanese

Text Box

11472702

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee From: Carol Mason, Commissioner/CAO Date: June 11, 2015 Meeting Date: June 18, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy as presented in the report titled “Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy”, dated June 11, 2015.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to bring forward the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy for consideration by the Board. The Policy is intended to articulate the principles by which Metro Vancouver (GVRD, GVWD, GVW&DD, MVHC) will participate, both at a national and at an international level, in events that either promote Metro Vancouver in a leadership role or that provide opportunity for engagement and continuous improvement in the advancement of organizational goals. BACKGROUND For a number of years, Metro Vancouver has maintained an engagement program that facilitates the advancement of its goals and objectives on a national and international level. Most recently, in July 2010 the Board endorsed a series of recommendations that supported the international engagement program for the 2010/2011 budget year. Key themes that were incorporated into those recommendations are summarized below:

(1) Achieve goals that advance knowledge and skills that directly benefit the Metro Vancouver region, influence global action, and provide assistance where capacity exists;

(2) Pursue objectives that promote innovation and best practices in areas directly related to Metro Vancouver initiatives;

(3) Participate in international local government organizations that advance an agenda of collective local government action.

This report incorporates the 2010/2011 themes into a Board Policy for the purpose of providing overall guidance and direction on the development of the annual national and international engagement program and to inform in the development of the annual standing committee work plan and events program.

Section E 2.1


Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 18, 2015

Page 2 of 2

INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY The Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy builds upon Metro Vancouver’s reputation and recognition as a global leader in its delivery of services to the population of the region. International recognition has included hosting delegations and receiving invitations to speak on wide variety of subjects including regional governance, land use planning, air quality, regional parks, and affordable housing. In addition, as one of the largest utilities in North America, Metro Vancouver is frequently cited and consulted on its initiatives and achievements in the delivery of drinking water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management. To further Metro Vancouver’s role as a leader in the delivery of complex regional services and utilities to a large metropolitan area, and to enhance its interest in learning from the experiences of other organizations, a program has been developed that facilitates engagement with communities and organizations from around the world. This program will enable Metro Vancouver to provide a strong advocacy role on its policy initiatives at both a national and at an international level and would take advantage of opportunities for Metro Vancouver to enhance cultural and economic exchange. The program builds upon the strategic priorities identified in the Board Strategic Plan and encompasses all aspects of the organization. The attached Policy highlights four key components that define the leadership and engagement program. These program components are defined as follows:

International Organization Memberships

International Study Tours

International Engagement & Education

North American Engagement & Education As the policy sets out, on an annual basis the Standing Committee designated with the authority to oversee the general government budget will review the engagement program to ensure that the program falls within the overall budget for the service and to ensure that it aligns with the goals and objectives of Metro Vancouver. In accordance with the Board Remuneration Bylaw, the Board Chair approves individual attendance at program events within the scope of the annual budget. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy as

presented in the report titled “Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy”, dated March 9, 2015.

2. That the Intergovernment and Finance Committee receive the report titled “Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy” for information and provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct budget implications associated with the approval of this Policy, as it is intended to provide guidance and direction on the consideration and selection of national and international engagement events and on the development of the annual work plan for individual Standing Committees within the scope of the general government program budget.


Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 18, 2015

Page 3 of 2

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION For a number of years, Metro Vancouver has maintained an engagement program that facilitates the advancement of its goals and objectives on a national and international level. Building upon this history is the development of a Board Policy that is intended to provide overall guidance and direction on the preparation of the annual national and international engagement program and to inform the development of the annual standing committee work plan and events program. It is recommend that the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy be approved as presented in alternative one. Attachment: Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy


Orbit Document # Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Page 1 of 2

METRO VANCOUVER LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT

Effective Date:

Approved By:

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy is to articulate the principles by which Metro Vancouver (GVRD, GVWD, GVW&DD, MVHC) will participate, at both a national and at an international level, in events that either promote Metro Vancouver in a leadership role or that provide opportunity for engagement and continuous improvement in the advancement of organizational goals. POLICY

Metro Vancouver is recognized as a global leader in its delivery of services to the population of the region. International recognition has included hosting delegations and receiving invitations to speak on wide variety of subjects including regional governance, land use planning, air quality, regional parks and affordable housing. In addition, as one of the largest utilities in North America, Metro Vancouver is frequently cited and consulted on its initiatives and achievements in the delivery of drinking water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management. To further Metro Vancouver’s role as a leader in the delivery of complex regional services and utilities to a large metropolitan area and to enhance its interest in learning from the experiences of other organizations, a program has been developed that facilitates engagement with communities and organizations from around the world. This program enables Metro Vancouver to provide a strong advocacy role on its policy initiatives at both a national and at an international level and also creates opportunities for Metro Vancouver to enhance cultural and economic exchange. The Leadership and Engagement program builds upon the strategic priorities identified in the Board Strategic Plan and encompasses all aspects of the organization. LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT

Four leadership and engagement components form the foundation of Metro Vancouver’s program for participation in North American and International events. Those program components are defined as follows:

International Organization Memberships

International Study Tours

International Engagement & Education

North American Engagement & Education International Organization Memberships Participation in major international local government organizations provides the opportunity for Metro Vancouver to take a leadership role in advancing its goals and initiatives at an international level. Specifically, maintaining a presence in leading international local government organizations

BOARD POLICY

Attachment


BOARD POLICY

Orbit Document # Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Page 2 of 2

presents the opportunity for Metro Vancouver to provide an advocacy role and to advance an agenda of collective local government action on:

Mitigating and responding to climate change

Advancing zero waste innovation

Promoting regional governance resiliency Local government organizations that are identified as important to pursuing these goals include ICLEI, UCLG and IRBC. Metro Vancouver will maintain its participation in these organizations and will review events on an annual basis to evaluate those events that are best aligned with the overall objectives of Metro Vancouver’s international leadership and engagement program. International Study Tours Participation in international study tours provides the opportunity for Metro Vancouver to obtain specific knowledge on best practices and technologies in other parts of the world on a broad range of topics. Study tour themes will be reviewed annually to identify those topics that fall within the annual work plan and that are focused on large organizational projects or initiatives of region wide significance. Study tours will be evaluated based on organizational priority and will be designed to maximize the benefit to both the organization as a whole and to the individual participant on the tour. International Engagement & Education Participation in international engagement and education provides the opportunity for Metro Vancouver to demonstrate leadership at international events and conferences on best practices and innovation while also giving Metro Vancouver the opportunity to learn from others on leading edge initiatives. Selection of international events will be reviewed annually and will be focused on themes that are most relevant to Metro Vancouver where there is an exceptional opportunity to learn from international experiences. North American Engagement & Education Participation in North American engagement and education is focused on Metro Vancouver standing committee initiatives and provides the opportunity for Committee members to participate directly in learning, interaction and engagement with other North American communities, organizations, local government officials, and international experts. It provides standing committee members with the chance to represent Metro Vancouver on a broader scale. Events under this category will be selected based on their relevance to the annual work plan of the individual Standing Committee. AUTHORIZATION

The annual budget for the Metro Vancouver leadership and engagement program is included within the general government service and is approved annually by the designated Standing Committee that has oversight of the general government budget. The Board Chair has authority for approving attendance in program events in accordance with the Board Remuneration Bylaw.


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Intergovernment and Finance Committee Date: June 18, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy

INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy as amended in the report dated June 5, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”.

At its June 18, 2015 meeting, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee considered the attached report titled “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”, dated, June 5, 2015. Members considered a reduction in the internal funding threshold for authorizing sponsorships from $10,000 to a maximum of $1,500 and suggested language be strengthened to reflect the Policy’s intent to support not‐for‐profit proposals rather than those with private or commercial interests. The Committee subsequently directed staff to amend the Policy accordingly, prior to being forwarded to the Board at its meeting of July 3, 2015, and passed the motion as presented in the report, as reflected above. Attachment: “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”, dated, June 5, 2015 (together with the Policy, as amended by the Intergovernment and Finance Committee on June 18, 2015)

11539592

Section E 2.2


To: Intergovernmental and Finance Committee From: Heather Schoemaker, Senior Director, External Relations Department Date: June 5, 2015 Meeting Date: June 18, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve the Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy as presented in the report dated June 5, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with a Metro Vancouver sponsorship policy for its consideration. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of November 30, 2012, the GVRD Board of Directors endorsed the following resolution directing staff to develop a policy that provides guidance on sponsorship requests:

…to develop a policy for Metro Vancouver to fund or support municipally hosted events that have a regional benefit and report back to the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee.

At its regular meeting of April 23, 2015, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee discussed the draft policy developed by staff, with comments focusing on:

…sponsorship acknowledgement, budgeting, evaluation criteria, and the need to ensure that sponsorships are function‐based or related to statutory functions, and the need to clearly identify in the policy that applications must be regionally‐ beneficial in terms of advancing regional goals and objectives.

The Committee referred the policy bask to staff for further revisions. The attached Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy (Attachment 1) responds to the Committee’s direction. METRO VANCOUVER SPONSORSHIP POLICY The Sponsorship Policy provides specific criteria for determining the circumstances under which Metro Vancouver sponsorship support, either direct or in‐kind, is appropriate for events and programs. Its intent is to facilitate Metro Vancouver support for events and programs that achieve the following broad objectives:

1. Clearly advance Metro Vancouver’s corporate goals and objectives; 2. Relate directly to one or more of Metro Vancouver’s statutory functions (Greater Vancouver

Regional District (GVRD), Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD), Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD), Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC);

3. Provide a clear, positive community benefit to the Metro Vancouver region overall.

Attachment


Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 18, 2015

Page 2 of 2

Specific changes that were made to the Sponsorship Policy in response to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee’s direction of April 23, 2015 include:

(1) More clearly defined and targeted policy objectives (see “Overview”); (2) The expansion of sponsorship categories that are considered to provide higher value to Metro

Vancouver to include those opportunities that have a “prominent connection to Metro Vancouver or member facilities” (see “Overview”);

(3) The addition of application timelines for all funding requests (i.e. both above and below $10,000 in total value – see “Application and Review Procedure”);

(4) An exception clause in the application and review procedure for funding requests greater than $10,000 that would give the Board discretion to consider applications made after the suggested 3‐month deadline (see “Application and Review Procedure”).

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board endorse the Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy as presented in the report

dated June 5 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy”. 2. That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 5 2015, titled “Metro

Vancouver Sponsorship Policy” and provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no immediate financial implications for Metro Vancouver related to the endorsement of a sponsorship policy. Currently, requests for sponsorship support are received intermittently but there are no clear guidelines on how to consider these requests. Under the proposed policy, individual sponsorship submissions will be considered in future on a case‐by‐case basis within existing departmental budgets. Funds allocated for sponsorship requests will be included in the individual department budgets for consideration by the appropriate standing committees at the time that the annual budgets are presented. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver is periodically presented with opportunities to build awareness of Metro Vancouver and the Metro Vancouver brand “Services and Solutions for a Livable Region” and to showcase specific Metro Vancouver projects, programs and initiatives and those of its members through sponsorship of local and regional events. However, at the current time, specific criteria do not exist to guide decision‐making with respect to external funding requests. The attached Sponsorship Policy is intended to provide clear guidelines as to the type of sponsorship opportunities that will be considered and how they will be given that consideration. The Sponsorship Policy as presented will address this gap; therefore, staff recommend that the Board endorse the Sponsorship Policy as presented in Alternative 1. Attachment: Metro Vancouver Sponsorship Policy


Sponsorship Policy Page 1 of 4

SPONSORSHIP POLICY Effective Date: July 1, 2015 Approved By:

PURPOSE

This policy provides specific criteria for determining the circumstances under which Metro Vancouver sponsorship support, either direct or in‐kind, is appropriate for events and programs being hosted by external organizations or by Metro Vancouver’s members. DEFINITIONS

“Metro Vancouver” refers to any of the four legal entities that comprise the organization: the GVRD, GVS&DD, GVWD, and MVHC. “Sponsorship” refers to the provision of cash or in‐kind contributions by Metro Vancouver in exchange for a defined set of benefits, such as logo placement, speaking opportunities by Metro Vancouver directors or senior staff, advertising in event publications or on event websites, etc., for any local or regional events. “In‐kind contributions” are specific contributions that Metro Vancouver may provide in lieu of a cash contribution to an event or program, including:

a) Goods, such as: supplies (printed promotional materials); use of Metro Vancouver facilities (waived fees for hosting events at Metro Vancouver venues/facilities); use of Metro Vancouver proprietary supplies or materials (e.g., water for event participants supplied via the Metro Vancouver water wagon) and food/catering;

b) Services, such as: staff support (assignment of Metro Vancouver staff to provide expert advice or professional services in support of the sponsored event or program, e.g., event web casting/live streaming, etc.).

POLICY

Overview Metro Vancouver is periodically presented with opportunities to build awareness of Metro Vancouver and the Metro Vancouver brand “Services and Solutions for a Livable Region” and to showcase specific Metro Vancouver projects, programs and initiatives and those of its members through sponsorship of local and regional events. This policy is intended to provide clear guidelines as to what sort of sponsorship opportunities will be considered and how they will be given consideration.

Attachment

BOARD POLICYBOARD POLICY


BOARD POLICY


Overall, Metro Vancouver seeks to support events and programs that achieve all of the following broad objectives:

1. Clearly advance Metro Vancouver’s corporate goals and objectives; 2. Relate directly to one or more of Metro Vancouver’s statutory functions (Greater Vancouver

Regional District (GVRD), Greater Vancouver Sewerage &Drainage District (GVS&DD), Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD, Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC);

3. Provide a clear, positive community benefit to the Metro Vancouver region overall. This policy applies to all sponsorship proposals regardless of their cost or the type of contribution (i.e., cash or any in‐kind contributions), although a separate review procedure has been put in place for sponsorships with a total value of more than $1,500. In addition to the eligibility criteria set out below, sponsorship opportunities that promote Metro Vancouver’s brand, projects, programs and initiatives will be considered as providing higher value to Metro Vancouver, as will sponsorship opportunities that involve or promote four or more Metro Vancouver members or that have a prominent connection to Metro Vancouver or member facilities. This policy does not apply to grants or the provision of other forms of assistance. Eligibility Criteria To be considered, a sponsorship proposal must meet ALL of the following criteria:

(1) It must offer specific benefits to Metro Vancouver or its members and must clearly outline the specific roles and responsibilities of each party in a formal agreement.

(2) The event or program for which sponsorship is being sought must: a) Have an overall community objective and purpose that is consistent with Metro

Vancouver’s vision, mission and roles; b) Have operating guidelines and procedures that are consistent with Metro

Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework and Board Strategic Plan; c) Be organized and/or supported by a registered charitable organization or not‐for‐

profit entity. (3) Metro Vancouver must receive benefits having a fair value that is consistent with the cost of

the sponsorship to be provided. (4) Metro Vancouver must receive appropriate acknowledgement of its contribution to the event

or program being sponsored. Sponsorship opportunities that involve or promote four or more Metro Vancouver members will be considered as providing higher value to Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver will not consider any sponsorship proposals for events or programs that:

(1) Primarily promote a private or commercial interest; (2) Promote or support political or religious organizations; (3) Exclude or marginalize minority community groups; (4) Pose potential environmental hazards; (5) Involve the taking of unnecessary risks, or that put the general public at risk.


BOARD POLICY


Notwithstanding any of the criteria or procedures outlined in this policy, Metro Vancouver has no obligation to provide sponsorship and may, at its sole discretion, decline to sponsor any event or program for any reason, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(1) The stated purpose of the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought; (2) Metro Vancouver budgetary or financial considerations at the time of the sponsorship

request; (3) The projected reach of the event or program and its visibility in communities that make up

the Metro Vancouver region. Sponsorship Budgets The annual budgets for the Metro Vancouver sponsorship program are included within the individual department budgets and are considered annually by the designated Standing Committee that has oversight of those budgets. Final approval of sponsorship program budgets shall be through the applicable Board following review by the standing committee with responsibility for the general government budget. Application and Review Procedure 1. Funding Requests Greater than $1,500

Organizations seeking a sponsorship with a total value greater than $1,500 must submit their request to Metro Vancouver in writing at least three months in advance of the event/program for which sponsorship is being requested, and must provide the following details with respect to the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought:

a) The official name of the event or program; b) The date(s) and times(s) of the event or program, as applicable; c) A general description of the event or program, including its overall objective(s); d) The overall budget for the event or program and the total cash or cash equivalent amount

of sponsorship being sought; e) An accounting of how event organizers plan to allocate the cash or in‐kind contributions

provided by Metro Vancouver should the sponsorship application be approved; f) A listing of other stakeholders that will be approached to provide sponsorships for the

event or program; g) A listing of the specific benefits that will accrue to Metro Vancouver should it proceed

with the sponsorship being sought; h) A detailed description of how and to what degree Metro Vancouver’s members will be

involved in the event or program; i) A description of the anticipated outcomes of the event or program and how this will be

measured and reported. Notwithstanding the prescribed timeline outlined in the application process above, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors may, at its sole discretion, waive this requirement for sponsorship opportunities that meet the objectives of this policy and that meet the eligibility requirements described in Section 2.


BOARD POLICY


For proposals seeking sponsorship with a total value greater than $1,500, Metro Vancouver staff will prepare a Committee report for consideration by the appropriate standing committee (including a recommendation on the proposal), which will assess the proposal based on the criteria included in this policy. If endorsed by the standing committee, the report and attached sponsorship proposal will be forwarded to the relevant Metro Vancouver Board for its consideration.

2. Funding Requests For $1,500 or Less Organizations seeking a sponsorship with a total value of $1,500 or less must submit their request to Metro Vancouver in writing at least two months in advance of the event/program for which sponsorship is being requested, and must provide the following details with respect to the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought:

a) The official name of the event or program; b) The date(s) and times(s) of the event/program, as applicable; c) A general description of the event or program, including its overall objective(s); d) The overall budget for the event or program and the total cash or cash equivalent amount

of sponsorship being sought; e) A listing of the specific benefits that will accrue to Metro Vancouver should it proceed

with the sponsorship being sought. For proposals seeking sponsorship with a total value of $1,500 or less, the proposal will initially be assessed by the applicable Metro Vancouver department based on the criteria included in this policy and will be reviewed by the department General Manager/Senior Director and the CFO/GM of Financial Services in accordance with the approved sponsorship program budget. The sponsorship program request may either be approved or denied, or may be referred to the appropriate Metro Vancouver standing committee for further consideration.


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Intergovernment and Finance Committee Date: June 18, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project

INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board write a letter to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the construction and development of the Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.

At its June 18, 2015 meeting, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee considered the attached report titled “Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project”, dated, June 4, 2015. The Committee also heard from delegation Mayor Gwen Johannson, District of Hudson Hope, Rob Botterell, Lidstone and Company, and Robert MCullough, McCullough Research, expressing concerns related to the proposed Site C Dam Project. The Committee subsequently passed the recommendation in the report, as presented above, and requested that the Board Chair extend an invitation to BC Hydro and other appropriate authorities to present further information on the project to the GVRD Board at its meeting of July 3, 2015. Attachment: “Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project”, dated, June 4, 2015 11539574

Section E 2.3


11452411

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee From: Utilities Committee Date: June 4, 2015 Meeting Date: June 18, 2015 Subject: Burrard Thermal and Site C Dam Project

UTILITIES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board write a letter to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, requesting a moratorium on the construction and development of the Site C Dam until the end of 2017, and that the proposed project be referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for review and consultation.

At its May 28, 2015 meeting, the Utilities Committee considered the attached on‐table summary and correspondence distributed by a Committee member. The Committee subsequently referred the on‐table material and the recommendation as presented above to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for discussion. Attachments (Orbit 11456425): 1. Summary – Burrard Thermal, Energy Alternatives and Site C Dam Comparison. 2. Correspondence dated May 26, 2015 from the Peace Valley Landowner Association addressed

to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of BC, regarding fundamental flaws invalidating BC Hydro’s Site C Dam Business Case.

3. Correspondence dated January 29, 2015 from City of Richmond addressed to the Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of BC, regarding the Proposed Site C Dam Project.

Attachment


SUMMARY

1) Burrard Thermal, Energy Alternatives and site C Dam comparison:

Burrard Thermal presently operates as a peaking plant. If maintained it would continue as a peaking plant while other energy alternatives were developed and conservation practices reduced need. No estimates have been given for domestic power needs that would justify construction of the Site C dam.

Metro Vancouver Estimates: Site C Dam: 1,100 MW is designed to produce power for 450,000 homes , capable of 880,000 Burrard Thermal: 950 MW is used as a peaking plant, capable of powering 760,000 homes Existing Metro WTE: 20 MW producing power for 16,000 homes New Metro WTE: 30 MW producing power for 24,000 homes

CALP Community Energy Guide Estimates (Dr. Stephen Shepherd): Rooftop Solar potential power for 900,000 homes Local Run of River Hyedro: 7,500 homes Industrial Energy Recovery: 7,500 homes heat energy Livestock biogas: 17,000 homes Forest Biomass: 26,000 homes Wind: not calculated

Canadian Geothermal Energy Association: Borealis Lakelse/Terrace: 15 MW Borealis Valemount: 15 MW Tecto Energy South Meager Creek: 15 MW Additional geo thermal power plants can be built to meet demand 11 times as many jobs as Site C Lowest physical and environmental footprint

Richmond District Energy: 12,000 homes heat energy with plans to expand

2) Agricultural Value of Site C land: Site C neither clean nor green

ALR Land: 9,180 acres removed from ALR April 2015 Statutory Reserve Land: 24,620 acres (much as farmland previously removed from ALR) Total: 33,800 acres Class 1 & 2 alluvial soil not affected by drought Capable of producing food for 1 million people Capable of sequestering 52,000 tons of CO2/yr (3,500 lb/ac/yr for traditional organic agriculture – Rodale Institute; 5,000 lb/ac/yr for trees) Fishery and environmental loss substantial.

3) Business Case Flaws - attached


DDavis

Text Box

Attachment 1

PEACE VALlEYtandown.r aSsociation

Ss#2, SIte 12, Comp. 19, Fort $t Joli, British Columbia, Vii 4M7

Via E-Mail [email protected]

M4y 26th, 2015

The Honourable Christy ClarkPremier of Bnt;sh ColumbiaP 0 Box 9041 Stu Prov GovtVitoria B.C. V8W 9E1

Dear Premier c1ark

Re: Fundamental Flaws Invalidate BC Hydro’s Site C Dam Business Case

I am writing to urgently request that you delay the Summer 2015. start of Site C dam constructionfor at least 2 years to:

o save BC ratepayers $200 million dollars,

• fully respect Site C-related cot processes now underway,

• allow time for BC Auditor General Carol Belfrmger to consider a finance performanceaudit of the Site C frnal investment decisionprocess, and

• address the very disturbing findings of respected energy economist Robert McCulloughregarding the Site C business case through an open,, expert and mdependent review of theSite C business case with full procedural safeguards.

Contrary to the statements ofEnergy and Mines litnister Bitt Bennett, Site C is likely doublethe cost ofother energy options

On December 16, 2014, you announced your govemmenCs approval of the Site C dam At $8 $billion, Site C is the largest public infrastructure project in BC history.

We ietained respected energy economist Robert McCullough to prepare an independent expertreview of Site C business case assumptions. In bus reports M, McCullough concludes:

While the cost and choice of options deserve futther analysis, the. simple conclusion isthat Site C is more expensive — dramatically so — than the renewable/natural gasportfolios elsewhere in the U S and Canada Our ana[ysi indicates that the Site Cportfolio may well be twice as costly as the renewable/natural gas portfolio adoptedelSøwhe.re. (emphasis added)


DDavis

Text Box

Attachment 2

BCHydro’sfinancial analysis is skewed tofavour Site C over alternatives

In the cover letter to his report, Mr. McCullough states:

In the course of our review we have found evidence from the. U.S. Bonneville PowerAdministration that suggests that British Columbia Hydro’s choice of a discount ratemay have differed from their usual practice Since this is the single most importantassumption many cost benefit study, a careful review of BC Hydro’s decision to use thisdiscountrate is in order. (emphasis added)

You and your Cabinet appear to have relied on incomplete, misleading or inaccurate advice fromthe staff of BC Hydro and the Ministry of Energy and Mines Otherwise how could Minister ofEnergy and Mines, Bill Bennett conclude that Site C is the least cost option for BC ratepayers, ashe did at the December 1 Site C technical briefmg:

WhatI’d like to say to start wjth is that what has driven inn as the Energy minister oVerthis last year and a half is what’s best for the ratepayer of British Cobimbia, how wecan acquire the powci that we need at the least cost possible, and the answer turnedóutto be the Site C project. (emphasis added)

Our serious concerns do nOt end there.

Contrary to BC Hydro statements, a 2 year delay wilt save ratepayers $200 mittioit

In January 2015, BC Hydro Commercial Manager of Site C, Michael Savidant, stated in anaffidavit that Site C will cost $175 million more if the start of project construction is delayed forone year. We conducted the attached review and found, using BC Hydro’s own analysis, that a2-year delay will save BC ratepayers approximately $200 million, whether or not Site Cultimately proceeds:

The $175 million cost of delay estimate contained in the Savidant Affidavit is incompleteand misleading. It is incomplete because it does not take inte account the sale ofsurplus Site C power at a loss until Site C’s full 5,100 GWh are needed If theconstruction of Site C is delayed 2 years, significant export losses will be avoidedThe Savidant estimate is misleading because it is a cash cost estimate rather than apresent value estimate Other BC Hydro cost estimates are routinely presented mpresent value temis to ensure comparability.

BC Bydro’s analysis shows thatilelaying the Site C project for 2 years will result in gresssavmgs estimated at $317 m:ilhon After adjusting for the present value of other costs ofdelay, the net savings to BC ratepayers of a 2-year detaywill be approximately $200milhon A longer delay will very likely generate higher net savings to BCi atepayers(emphasis added)

The Site Cfinal investment decision ignores critical new information on geothermal energy

In apparent reliance on BC Hydro and Ministry of Energy staff advice, Minister Bennettmdicated at the December 2014 technical br]efing that geothermal is not a viable option and thatidentification of the resource can be veryexpensive and risky. This is directly contradicted byinformation provided to the BC government by the Canadian Geothermal Association inNovember 2014 in its report entitled “Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost Effective

2


Alternative to Site C “. Please refer to the attached backgroundet for more information ongeothermal; there appears to he a tacit government moratorium on hot sedimentary aquifergeothermal hi Northeast BC.

contrary to finance Minister Mike de long’s stqtcrnent, Site C is a green project

Most recently in April 2015, Bloomberg News interviewed finance Minister Mike de Jong andthe Minister indicated Site C is a very large green project:

Finance Minister Mike de Jong said be discussed the possibility of raising money viagreen bonds for the [Site CJ project in meetings last week With fund managers in Boston,New York and Chicago.

“We obviously have a very large green project in Site C and We’re asking, ‘Is there anopportunity, what would that opportunity look like, and can you advance somethingalong those lines without. sacrificing liquidity’?’ “de long said. (emphasis added)

It is very imisleading, if not untrue, to suggest that largehydm projects such as Site C are greenproj ects for financing purposes We contacted Jacob Securities Inc ‘,provided their $VPResearch, lobli Mdflveen2 with the Bloomberg article and asked Mr. Mcllveen whether or notSite C is a green project. In the attached letter dated April . 8th,201• he stated unequ vocally:

Large hydro is not green and does not qualii’ for green credits. This is due to-the largereservoir and dam that damage the environment. (emphasis added)

Conclusion

Clearly, the final investment decision for this $8 S billion project contains fundamental flawsFor all of the above reasons, we askyou to act in the best interests of BC ratepayers and delaythe start of Site C construction until at least Summer 2017.

In the circumstances, I respectfully request a written response from you by June 5th, 2015.

Sincerely,

Ken BoonPresidentPeace Valley Landowner Association

Cc: Carol Beliringer C-PA, FCA, Auditor General for British Columbia

1 Jacob Securities inc. is an independent full-servIce investment bank providing underwriting and financial advisoryservices to companies in the power, infrastructure, technology, energy and mining sectors.2 John Mcl]veen has 30 years experience in debt markets private equity and public equity.

3


The Honourable Christy ClarkPremier of British ColumbiaOffice of the PremierP0 BOX 9041 $Th PROV GOVTVictoria, BC V$W 9E1

Dear Premier Clark:

Re: Proposed Site C Dam Project

Malcolm D. BrodieMayor

6911 No.3 RoadRichmond, BC V6Y 2C1

Telephone: 604-276-4123Fax No: 604-276-4332

www,richmond,ca

• This is to advise that at its Regular Council meeting held on Monday, January 26, 2015, Richmond CityCouncil adopted the following resolution:

That the City write a letter to the Province ofBC requesting a moratorbtm on theconstruction and development of Site C until the end of 2015, and that theproposed project be referred to the BC Utilities commission for review andconsultation.

if you require further information, please feel free to contact John Irving, Director,604.276.4140.

Yo.rp truly,

Malcolm D.$rodieMayor /

Engineering at

ichmond

City ofRichmond

January 29,2015

4493706


DDavis

Text Box

Attachment 3

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer, Board and Information Services Date: June 3, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report May 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the following reports from Metro Vancouver representatives to external organizations:

a) Agricultural Advisory Committee Status Report b) Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report c) Experience the Fraser Project Update d) Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC – Activities for the

period of November 2014 – April 2015 e) Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015

as contained in the report dated June 3, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report May 2015”.

PURPOSE To convey written summaries of the activities of external agencies to which the board has appointed representatives. BACKGROUND Each year the Board appoints representatives to various external organizations. Board Policy requires appointees to provide the Board semi‐annually (May and October), with written summaries of key current and planned activities of the external agency to which they have been appointed. Submissions outlining the recent activities of the various external agencies are attached for the Board’s information. Attachments and References: A. Agricultural Advisory Committee Status Report B. Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report C. Experience the Fraser Project Update D. Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC – Activities for the period

of November 2014 – April 2015 E. Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015

Section E 3.1


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Harold Steves Date: June, 2, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Agricultural Advisory Committee Status Report

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 2, 2015, titled “Agricultural Advisory Committee Status Report”.

PURPOSE To provide the Board with an update on the activities of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND Only one meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee was held, April 29, 2015. The Committee received a presentation from Mark Robbins on “Farm Property Tax Investigation”. The Committee received reports from staff on:

‐Metro Vancouver 2015 Agriculture priorities

‐Options to improve or replace Barnston Island Ferry

‐Update on solutions to illegal fill on agricultural land

‐Farm property Taxation results

‐Agricultue and Food System funding recipients

‐Update on Regional Food Action Plan The Committee endorsed staff recommendations for Metro Vancouver 2015 Agricultural Awareness Grants. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

ATTACHMENT A


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Councillor Ian Paton, Corporation of Delta – Delta Airpark Management Committee Date: June 1, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated, June 1, 2015 titled “Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report.”

PURPOSE To provide the Board with an update on the activities of the Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee. BACKGROUND Delta Heritage Airpark (DHAP) is owned by Metro Vancouver and operated by Recreational Aircraft Association (RAA) Chapter 85 by way of a License Agreement. The license Agreement defines a Management Committee membership comprising representatives from the Airpark neighbours, Province of BC, Non Profit organizations, RAA, Metro Vancouver staff, and staff from the Corporation of Delta. The Management Committee formulates operating rules governing the Airpark and advises Metro Vancouver on policy matters. The Committee meets a minimum two times a year. Highlights The Delta Heritage Airpark Committee first meeting of the year was held on May 12, 2015. It was attended by the president of the Recreational Aircraft Association (RAA), the chair of the Delta Airpark Committee, the chair of the Delta Airpark Operating Committee, one Corporation of Delta staff member, one member from the neighbourhood and two Metro Vancouver staff members. Highlights of the Delta Heritage Airpark meeting and follow‐up outcomes are:

the business of the Flight Monitoring group was reviewed with two incidents presented and reviewed. The DHAP Operating Committee Chair followed up on a previous incident; a failed takeoff, on August 23, 2014. He reported that the vintage aircraft repairs are nearing completion and the pilot plans to return to DHAP in the summer of 2015. The second incident occurred on or about April 28, 2015 regarding an aircraft that was not following flight procedures and flying too low over a neghbours property. After an investigation, the pilot acknowledged that he had miscalculated his approach and provided assurance that it would not reoccur;

the DHAP Budget including the reserve statement, the reserve fund forecast, operating and 10 year capital plan were approved unanimously;

ATTACHMENT B


Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report GVRD Board of Directors Meeting: June 12, 2015

Page 2 of 2

operating updates include; The DHAP Operating Committee Chair reviewed the recent and upcoming events in 2015; DHAP participated in the annual Celebrating Parks event, April 25, 2015;

every second Sunday of every month, the Recreational Aircraft Association, Delta Heritage Airpark Committee and the Boundary Bay Flying Club host a pancake breakfast to their members and the public;

the annual fly‐in is being organized by the Recreational Aircraft Association on June 27, 2015

a vintage airplane show will be held during the summer Annual Remembrance Day event on November 11, 2015;

other business – discussions regarding the DHAP license Agreement Renewal which expires July 31, 2015 for another five‐year term are nearing completion;

a verbal report was requested and provided on the status of the Embree House restoration; occupancy is planned for December 2015.

ALTERNATIVES This in an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides information on the current state of operating and financial activities at the Delta Heritage Airpark.


To: GVRD Board From: Director Heather Deal and Director Bob Long Date: June 1, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Experience the Fraser Project Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 1, 2015, titled “Experience the Fraser Project Update Report”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with an update on the Experience the Fraser (ETF) project and its’ Joint Political Steering Committee. DISCUSSION The Experience the Fraser Joint Political Steering Committee (PSC) is intended to comprise two elected members from each of Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional Districts, two provincial MLAs and one senior provincial staff liaison. Currently the PSC does not have appointed MLA members or a new provincial senior staff liaison to replace the retired Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Peter Walters. The primary liaison with the Province is rather through Mr. Lorne Mayancourt, Director of Outreach at BC Government Caucus. The last full Joint Political Steering Committee on April 11, 2014 led to the Board adoption of the Canyon to Coast Trail and Blueway Signage Guidelines and presentation of the draft ETF North Arm Concept Plan to affected municipalities in the study area in June 2014. The draft Concept Plan will be brought forward to the GVRD and FVRD Boards once it has endorsement from all of these municipalities ‐‐ Burnaby is pending. . An ETF delegation was invited to meet with the Province in Victoria on April 27, 2015 and made presentations to five MLAs and one Legislative Assistant. An ETF brief has been requested by the Province that can be distributed to all MLAs. In addition to context and progress to‐date on ETF other points covered included

opportunities for ETF to benefit from other provincial programs, like the Job Creation Program (Metro Vancouver received a labor crew and $95,000 in fall 2014 and an FVRD application is pending);

access to provincial technical and policy staff to advance ETF interests;

a possible role for Destination BC in marketing ETF and related tourism venues;

consideration of ETF vision and Concept Plan with design of provincial infrastructure

ongoing ETF overall partner development, planning and administration funding;

the ideas of a dedicated capital fund for local government projects in the ETF foundational program;

opportunities to engage First Nations; and

renewing provincial participation on the Joint Political Steering Committee.

Further dialogue on these topics is anticipated later this year led by Regional District PSC members.

ATTACHMENT C


Experience the Fraser Project Update Report Page 2 of 2

A progress and 2015 work plan report is being provided to the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Committee on June 18, 2015 and will be forwarded to the Board. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides an update on the status of the ETF Joint Political Steering Committee and other liaison with the Province of BC on this project. An upcoming Regional Parks Committee report with details of the progress and 2015 workplan for ETF will be provided to the GVRD Board.


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: M. Brodie, D. Corrigan, G. Moore, R. Walton, M. Clay, R. Louie, D. Mussatto, J.

Villeneuve, L. Jackson, R. Stewart Date: May 22, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC – Activities

for the period of November 2014 – April 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated May 22, 2015 titled “Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC – Activities for the period of November 2014 – April 2015”.

PURPOSE To report to the Board of Directors on the activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (“MFA”). CONTEXT The following is a summary of activities of the MFA for the six‐month period of November 2014 – April 2015. Trustee and Member Meetings During the reporting period, the MFA Board of Trustees attended three meetings. The MFA Members and Trustees attended the AGM on March 26, 2015. The MFA Investment Advisory Committee, comprising all Trustees, held one meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to receive reports and analysis from our pooled investment fund manager, Phillips, Hager & North (PH&N). The Annual General Meeting of Members was held on March 26, 2015. Malcolm Brodie was elected as the Chair of the MFA. Derek Corrigan, Greg Moore and Richard Walton were re‐elected as Trustees. Al Richmond (Cariboo Regional District) was elected Vice‐Chair. Joe Stanhope (Nanaimo Regional District) was re‐elected; new Trustees are Susan Brice (Capital Regional District), Rob Gay (East Kootenay Regional District), Ron Toyota (Central Kootenay Regional District) and Sharon Gaetz (Fraser Valley Regional District). Trustees are elected annually. The Financial Forum was held prior to the AGM and speakers were Dr. Lynda Gagné, PhD Economics (UBC), Assistant Professor, Public Administration, Community Development, Luc Vallée, Ph.D. Chief Strategist, Laurentian Bank Securities, Kevin De Sousa, CFA, Vice President, Fixed Income, Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management, and Mark Hadden, Managing Director, Group Head, Scotiabank Government Finance.

ATTACHMENT D


The MFA Executive presented an orientation session on the MFA to Members and Trustees on March 25. MFA Credit Ratings Our annual review and presentations with our three credit rating agencies were held at the MFA Head Office in Victoria on April 28 and 29, and May 1. Chair Malcolm Brodie, Vice‐Chair Al Richmond attended with Robin Stringer, CAO, Graham Egan, Director of Finance, Shelley Hahn, Director of Business Services, and Renata Hale, Manager of Strategic Initiatives. Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer, provided a presentation for Metro Vancouver. The MFA ratings have been affirmed by the three agencies – AAA, Outlook Stable. Our Commercial Paper program was rated the highest rating “A‐1 (high)” by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. 2014 Financial Results Contributions to the MFA Retention Fund were a record $6.7 million. The three sources of recurring income include Operating Income, $2.3 million (positive to budget by $201,000), Short‐term debt Fund, $2.7 million and interest on the Retention Fund of $1.1 million. A gain on the sale of the former Head Office contributed $603,000. The Retention Fund balance of $40.2 million at the end of 2014 is not restricted and is available for operating activities, debt obligations and additional distributions to clients as approved by the Authority. Financing On November 19th, 2014, the MFA re‐opened the June 2, 2019 debenture, raising a further $180 million with a yield of 1.932% with a tight spread to Ontario of 1.5 basis points. Spring Issue – An historical low rate of interest The MFA re‐opened the October 14, 2024 debenture, adding $165 million – now at $300 million outstanding. The yield of 2.22% is the lowest rate the MFA has ever achieved on a 10‐year debenture issue. This funded the requests for financing that were approved at the AGM. One measure of our success is how we perform against the “benchmark” Ontario and Canada bonds; to this end, we have seen the MFA rates continue to come closer to these rates over the past several years.

Our short‐term borrowing program maintains a running balance of $500 million in Commercial Paper outstanding. This program provides interim financing for capital projects during construction. The current offered rate is 1.49%. The MFA continues to achieve lower interest rates when compared to all other municipal participants in the bond market across Canada. This reflects our triple A credit ratings and the strong local governments throughout BC. We are able to re‐lend to all our members at the same low rate, regardless of the size of each community we serve in BC.


Pooled Investment Funds The 2014 results for the three managed funds are all positive relative to the benchmark indexes. These are Money Market Fund, 1.09 % (Index 0.74 %), Intermediate Fund, 1.28% (Index 0.79%) and Bond Fund, 3.15 % (Index 2.86%). The total pooled funds at year end was $2.185 billion (2013, $2.147 billion), with the Money Market Fund at $1.236 billion ($1.189 billion), the Intermediate Fund at $0.329 billion ($0.341 billion) and the Bond Fund at $0.620 billion ($0.616 billion). Community Support The Len Traboulay Education Fund provides an annual contribution of $60,000 for the education of elected officials and employees in local government. $30,000 is contributed to the Local Government Leadership Academy and $30,000 is available for the education of employees in local government. The Government Finance Officers’ Association receives an annual contribution up to $3,000 towards their “Bootcamp” program. MFA employees take an active role in presenting at this four day session. The MFA contributes up to $12,000 ($12,000 in 2014) for the James R. Craven Fund to provide support to students travelling from rural areas for the Municipal Administrators Training Institute Level I. The MFA contributed a further $63,000 for annual conferences of UBCM, LGMA and GFOA as well the chapter and area association meetings for elected officials and officers in local government. MFA employees are requested, from time to time, to instruct or facilitate at these events. The MFA employees and Trustees continue to support, present and ‘teach’ at several seminars, workshops and conferences throughout the province on the MFA. MFA Management and Employees The MFA balance sheet exceeds $7.7 billion at the end of 2014 and is managed by a team of eight. At the end of 2014, the MFA finances 1,959 long‐term loans, through 28 regional districts and three other entities. Short‐term loans of $329.1 million are for 221 requests and 594 lease arrangements. 2015 Opportunity Review and Strategic Plan During 2015, we will continue to preserve our core while building towards a future that includes continuous improvement and to create greater value for taxpayers in British Columbia. We are committed to the delivery of outstanding performance within our mandate. At this time, we have identified three groupings for the review – organizational capacity, operational excellence and financial management.

MFA Semi‐Annual Meeting 2015 The MFA Semi‐Annual Members meeting will be held September 22nd in conjunction with the Annual UBCM Conference, in Vancouver from 4:00 ‐ 5:00 p.m. Robin Stringer, CAO Retirement Robin Stringer will retire on September 30, 2016. The Board of Trustees will be recruiting in the summer of 2015, with the expectation that a transition plan will be in place by this fall.


To: GVRD Board From: Director Craig Hodge Date: May 31, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period October 1, 2014 to May 31,

2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated May 31, 2015, titled “Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with an update on the Pacific Parklands Foundation activities and highlights for the period October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015. BACKGROUND Formed in 2000, Pacific Parklands Foundation is a registered charity with a mission to support Metro Vancouver Parks to conserve, preserve and enhance the Metro Vancouver regional parks system for today and for future generations. The Foundation raises funds to help bridge the gap between government funding and the need for special projects and programs in our regional parks. An independent Board of volunteer Directors meet four times per year to oversee the management and operation of Pacific Parklands Foundation. Since 2007, Pacific Parklands Foundation has received an annual operating grant of $175,000 from Metro Vancouver. These funds are used to hire a full time staff person and 3‐4 contractors annually. In addition, the Foundation ensures that it remains both a society and registered charity in good standing. Its fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30 and each year the Foundation’s financial statements are audited. Pacific Parklands Foundation strives to provide a strong “return of investment” to Metro Vancouver and through its grant is able to ensure that 100% of all donations received are directed to the projects and programs it supports. HIGHLIGHTS 1. A new Executive Director was hired in February, 2015. His name is Joe Hargitt and his

background is fund raising for the new Ronald McDonald House BC and Variety ‐ The Children’s Charity.

2. The Annual General Meeting was held on April 16, 2015 and the audited financial statements for the 2103/14 fiscal year were unanimously received and approved.

3. It was unanimously carried to appoint Craig Hodge, Councilor, City of Coquitlam, to serve as the non‐voting representative on the Board of Directors of Pacific Parklands Foundation for 2015.

4. The Board approved the Annual Report for 2013/14. 5. The Kanaka Creek Watershed Stewardship Centre Project (Phase 2) has met the financial goal

and this campaign has been successfully completed. Tenders are out and construction should begin this summer.

ATTACHMENT E


6. A grant program is being created from the interest generated from the George Ross bequest. The proposed name is the “George Ross Legacy Stewardship Program,” to be administered by PPF.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Pacific Parklands Foundation continues to deliver on its mission under the direction of the previous (but newly re‐elected board). Some possible capital projects are being reviewed and finalists will be presented to the Board for approval. Pacific Parklands Foundation is working closely with the Parks Management Group under the direction of Mitch Sokalski, Director of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Parks Division. The board gave approval to the Executive Committee to find a facilitator to begin a strategic review process. Further information on the activities of the Pacific Parklands Foundation can be found at www.pacificparklands.com or by contacting their Executive Director, Joe Hargitt at 604.451.6168 or at [email protected] Attachment and Reference: 2013/14 Annual Report: http://www.pacificparklands.com/AAFiles/AnnualReports/PPF2014.pdf


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Kelly Hardy, Office Supervisor, Board & Information Services, Legal and Legislative

Services Date: June 22, 2015 Meeting Date: July 3, 2015 Subject: Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee June 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 22, 2015 titled Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee June 2015 containing summaries received from the following delegates: a) Matt Hulse, BC Campaign Director, Our Horizon

PURPOSE This report is provided in response to Board direction to keep the Board informed of delegation activities at Committee by providing information related to delegations at Committee. Attached are summaries of the delegates to the following committees: Climate Action Committee

a) Matt Hulse, BC Campaign Director, Our Horizon

The Climate Action Committee heard the delegation on climate change and air pollution warning labels on gasoline pumps and received the delegation executive summary. The Committee subsequently directed staff to report back to a future Climate Action Committee meeting on jurisdictional and other issues raised at the meeting.

11451439

Section E 3.2


ATTACHMENT A


11033725

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee From: Chris Plagnol, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer Date: March 9, 2015 Meeting Date: June 18, 2015 Subject: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration

Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee

Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”. b) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration

Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to propose amendments to the Board and Committee Remuneration Bylaw related to attendance at events outlined in the leadership and engagement program. BACKGROUND The current Remuneration Bylaw includes provisions which set out the approval approach for attendance at events that fall within the leadership and engagement program. A review of the Bylaw provisions and the current process for the Committee and Board Chair to approve events has highlighted some opportunities that can be considered to simplify the process and to address annual timing issues for the way in which attendance at events is authorized. AUTHORIZATION PROCESS Currently, the bylaw provision sets out the following authorization process in Schedule C of the Remuneration Bylaw 1057:

9. except as set out in sections 10 and 11 below, courses, conventions, seminars, workshops and conferences (“Events”) where: a) the Event falls within the mandate of a select or standing committee or

subcommittee (“committee”); b) there are sufficient funds in the budget allocated to the committee for Events to

pay the remuneration; c) the committee has passed a resolution supporting remuneration for attendance

and identifying the recommended attendee(s); and d) the Board chair authorizes the remuneration for the recommended attendee(s).

10. Events attended by Board chair, Board vice chair and electoral area director where there are sufficient funds within the Board approved budget for Events.

Section G 1.1


Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015 Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 18, 2015

Page 2 of 3

11. Where remuneration for attendance at Events will exceed a board approved budget, a request for remuneration for attendance at an Event must be made to the board and the board may pass a resolution authorizing remuneration for attendance at an Event.

In practice, the process (as outlined in section 9 above) is problematic: first, some standing committees meet infrequently which delays the approval process (particularly for events that are early in the term); second, identifying and recommending by way of resolution a specific attendee is sometimes premature and often not possible during the meeting itself. To remedy this situation, some housekeeping language is proposed to the Remuneration Bylaw. Since most events relate to long‐standing memberships in organizations or to annual conferences in which elected officials regularly participate, the list of events is well understood. While there is some variation in the events, this list forms the basis of the annual budget that is adopted each Fall. Because the events budget is included in the general government service, it is appropriate that the standing committee that has oversight of the general government budget authorizes the list of events early in the new year and forwards the names of attendees, if known, to the Board Chair for approval. In 2015, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee has responsibility for this oversight of the general government budget. Individual standing committees are still responsible for identifying specific events within their terms of reference for recommendation to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for approval and to the Board Chair for individual participant authorization. Proposed Bylaw Amendments To simplify the remuneration process and provide flexibility where timing constraints exist, a bylaw amendment is required in Schedule C of the Remuneration Bylaw 1057. The proposed changes are as follows: Section 7. In section 7, define the term “event” as courses and similar education or research activities, conventions, seminars, workshops and conferences. Section 9. In section 9, replace the existing text with the following:

except as set out in sections 10 and 11 below, Events within the scope of the Board approved budget for Events, which have been approved by a resolution passed by the standing committee that has oversight of the general government budget, and where the attendance and associated remuneration has been authorized by the Board chair.

Sections 10 & 11. In section 10, fix a coordinating conjunction to clarify the meaning of the phrase. Sections 11 would not change and will continue to provide for Board involvement if the budget requires additional funds.


Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015 Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: June 18, 2015

Page 3 of 3

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board:

a) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”.

b) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”.

2. That the Intergovernment and Finance Committee receive for information the report titled

“Board Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications with respect to the proposed change to the Remuneration Bylaw. The remuneration associated with attendance at events is accommodated within the 2015 general government budget and was approved by the Board in October 2014. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Remuneration Bylaw sets out the approval approach for attendance at events that fall within the leadership and engagement program. Since the budget associated with this program is included in the general government service, it is appropriate that the Intergovernment and Finance Committee authorizes the list of events, and forwards the names of attendees to the Board Chair for approval. This approach will simplify the remuneration process. For this reason, it is recommended that the Board amend the Remuneration Bylaw as proposed in alternative one. Attachment: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending

Bylaw Number 1221, 2015


GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NUMBER 1221, 2015

A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Board and Committee

Remuneration Bylaw Number 1057, 2007 WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District has adopted "Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Board and Committee Remuneration Bylaw Number 1057, 2007"; and

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District wishes to amend "Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Board and Committee Remuneration Bylaw Number 1057, 2007";

NOW THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. "Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Board and Committee Remuneration Bylaw Number 1057, 2007" is hereby amended as follows:

a) In Schedule C (Qualifying Meetings), in section 7, by striking the phrase: “meetings of other outside organizations (excluding courses, conventions, seminars, workshops and conferences)”, and replacing it with the following phrase: “meetings of other outside organizations (excluding courses and similar education or research activities, conventions, seminars, workshops and conferences (“Events”))”.

b) In Schedule C (Qualifying Meetings) by striking section 9 in its entirety and replacing it with the following phrase:

“9. except as set out in sections 10 and 11 below, Events within the scope of the Board approved budget for Events, which have been approved by a resolution passed by the standing committee that has oversight of the general government budget, and where the attendance and associated remuneration has been authorized by the Board chair.”

c) In Schedule C (Qualifying Meetings), in section 10, by striking the term “and”, and replacing it with the term “or”.

2. This bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015”.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _____ of _________________, 2015. PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _____ of _________________, 2015.

______________________________________ Greg Moore, Chair

______________________________________

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committee Remuneration Amending Bylaw Number 1221, 2015 Page 1 of 1

Attachment


Meeting 3 of 6 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD ...€¦ · GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting 3 of 6 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD ...€¦ · GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL...